# Is it cheating if?



## Looking4Solution (Jun 14, 2011)

If you aren't getting it at home is it still cheating to get it elsewhere? I mean at this time the vows have been broken anyway so is it still considered cheating?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

No, not at all. And it's not murder if the person gave you the side eye right before you shot them.


----------



## Looking4Solution (Jun 14, 2011)

I feel as if it is too by church standards but wanted to see what others thought. But at the same time the only reasons to not cheat are love, vows, marriage.

She no longer loves me
Vows are broken 
Marriage is over its just I won't leave till I'm sure I leave her financially stable. Bills caught up etc.

Not sure how its cheating under these circumstances.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

It is still considered cheating. Anything you are *intentionally HIDING* from your spouse that involves sexual contact, I would consider cheating. Although my heart goes out to anyone who is living in a "sexless marraige" or near sexless and have tried till blue in the face & blue in the balls to overcome, I very much sympathize and feel for such spouses. 

I feel many well intentioned good people can fall into the arms of another if the "perfect storm" comes along, even people who think they couldn't. I have read such stories on here. 

But ultimately it is BEST to divorce and live an honest and moral life before our friends, family and especially our children. We want to be able to look ourselves in the mirror every day, and be an example others look up too. 

I think this would be a good book to explore - to get your life where it NEEDS to be, to stay and forsake this new lover or to Leave your marraige-divorce, make it final, if no hope is left. Amazon.com: When Good People Have Affairs: Inside the Hearts & Minds of People in Two Relationships (9780312563448): Mira Kirshenbaum: Books 

Anywhere in the middle -hiding/cheating/lying/faking/taking on 2 identities to remain in a marraige, this will never bring "peace", you are only prolonging misery to yourself and your spouse, the ultimate betrayal. 

WHY DO YOU STAY - this is the question? You said so little in your opening post - Have you tried talking to your spouse about your needs?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Looking4Solution said:


> I feel as if it is too by church standards but wanted to see what others thought. But at the same time the only reasons to not cheat are love, vows, marriage.
> 
> She no longer loves me
> Vows are broken
> ...


Sounds nice of you, so does she know you have a lover and what brought about her *not* loving you ? This affair ? 

Did you rip her heart out or did she rip yours ?


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

If I give away something that's yours, that you value, I have cheated and commited a theft. If I give away something that technically belongs to you but that you have abandoned on the side of the road as garbage for the past 10 years, how is that cheating? Who is the victim? For me, it would depend on how long I had been pushed away and why. If my wife were in a coma and unable to be a wife, it would be cheating. If my wife were ill or temporarily unavailable and simply unable to be a wife, it would be cheating. If, however, she was available but unwilling for years on end. She has already divorced me by her consistent refusal. I am morally divorced, by default. The marriage would not be to a person but to a meaningless piece of paper and any claim she has to my body is purely technical. My claim to her body is apparently void, why should she expect a claim over mine? I can't cheat against a piece of paper. She would have divorced herself and would have no right to expect that I even come home or speak to her. I wouldn't have given anything away that she valued.


----------



## 827Aug (Apr 27, 2008)

Unless you and your wife have agreed to an open marriage, it is cheating. If you aren't happy in the marriage and can't work things out, get a divorce. Fewer people get hurt that way.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

As someone who has cheated in that situation... Yes it is cheating. Don't do it. Wait till you're separated at least, preferably divorced. Even if it's an "in house" separation but she says it's ok to see someone else. Good luck on that, though...

Basically, I wish I would have left my marriage with my morals intact. To not have dread the question from future prospective partners.

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Prometheus Pyrphoros (Jun 16, 2011)

Yes it is. This is not the solution to the problem, only an escalation of. Another way must be found.

--
Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

WhiteRabbit said:


> it is cheating until that ink is dry on the separation/divorce paperwork....in my humble opinion and probably several others.


:iagree::iagree:

I agree even as I understand why someone wants a pass in frustration.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Looking4Solution said:


> If you aren't getting it at home is it still cheating to get it elsewhere? I mean at this time the vows have been broken anyway so is it still considered cheating?


Not if you are honest. Honey, you are unwilling, so I suppose you don't mind.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

If I refuse to feed my dog for years but my neighbor actually does have a soul and feeds my dog, has my neighbor or my dog victimized me in some way? What, exactly, would I be the victim of? My dog's disloyalty? I quit being my dog's owner when I quit feeding him. Would it be more honorable for my dog to starve to death in place rather than see to his own survival? 
So, in the view of many of you, it isn't enough for a spouse to be emotionally and sexually starved by a cold, soulless waste of skin. They must also commit financial suicide and pay the soulless waste of skin a large reward for their own abuse. Wonderful. 
If, after years of refusing his wife sex, a man announces to her that he has discovered that he is gay and he will live the remainder of his life as a woman, would you all agree that it would be fair to expect the wife to either remain chaste or forced to divorce her husband, surrendering half of all her present and future possessions to reward him for his fraud and abuse? What is the difference? A sexless woman may as well be a lesbian, as the effect on her husband is the same. Why should the victimized spouse commit financial suicide to the favor or their defrauder? If a man beats his wife daily, should she have to agree to support him for the rest of his life before she can escape his abuse?


----------



## Boogsie (Aug 24, 2010)

Looking4Solution said:


> I feel as if it is too by church standards but wanted to see what others thought. But at the same time the only reasons to not cheat are love, vows, marriage.
> 
> She no longer loves me
> Vows are broken
> ...


*facepalm*

Why is the bold text above in anyway YOUR problem? You said your marriage is over. GET OUT. Do you think for an instant if the roles were reversed that your spouse would hang around making sure you financially able and all the bills were caught up?

Also, the situation described above would not be considered cheating in Pennsylvania. Although there is no "legal separation" in PA here is what is described as "separating for legal purposes".
_
"Separation for legal purposes means that one spouse conveys the intent to the other that he or she no longer desires to remain married. That intent may be conveyed in a number of ways including by filing a divorce complaint, by one spouse vacating the marital residence without an intent to return, or by informing the other spouse of the end of the marriage verbally, in writing, or by actions including cessation of marital relations and inhabiting a separate portion of the marital residence."_

So no, this,



> If you aren't getting it at home is it still cheating to get it elsewhere? I mean at this time the vows have been broken anyway so is it still considered cheating?


in Pennsylvania would not be considered cheating because your wife has shown through actions and words that your marriage is over and thus, you would for legal purposes, be separated.


----------



## Looking4Solution (Jun 14, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> Sounds nice of you, so does she know you have a lover and what brought about her *not* loving you ? This affair ?
> 
> Did you rip her heart out or did she rip yours ?



No affair going on. I never have and I doubt I could ever actually do it as I'm still in love with her.

She is the one that emotionally divorced me. But she won't come out and actually say why. She clams up whenever I try to talk to her about it.


----------



## Looking4Solution (Jun 14, 2011)

Boogsie said:


> *facepalm*
> 
> Why is the bold text above in anyway YOUR problem? You said your marriage is over. GET OUT. Do you think for an instant if the roles were reversed that your spouse would hang around making sure you financially able and all the bills were caught up?



Kids involved and she isn't working. I'm not going to leave and have her lose the home and have the kids end up living in a bad part of town.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Looking4Solution said:


> Kids involved and she isn't working. I'm not going to leave and have her lose the home and have the kids end up living in a bad part of town.


And you would be unwilling to take custody of the kids because...?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> If I give away something that's yours, that you value, I have cheated and commited a theft. If I give away something that technically belongs to you but that you have abandoned on the side of the road as garbage for the past 10 years, how is that cheating? Who is the victim? For me, it would depend on how long I had been pushed away and why. If my wife were in a coma and unable to be a wife, it would be cheating. If my wife were ill or temporarily unavailable and simply unable to be a wife, it would be cheating. If, however, she was available but unwilling for years on end. She has already divorced me by her consistent refusal. I am morally divorced, by default. The marriage would not be to a person but to a meaningless piece of paper and any claim she has to my body is purely technical. My claim to her body is apparently void, why should she expect a claim over mine? I can't cheat against a piece of paper. She would have divorced herself and would have no right to expect that I even come home or speak to her. I wouldn't have given anything away that she valued.


Why wouldn't you just get divorced in this case? If you're already 'morally divorced', then why bring another person in to it? Just divorce and move on!


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> If I refuse to feed my dog for years but my neighbor actually does have a soul and feeds my dog, has my neighbor or my dog victimized me in some way? What, exactly, would I be the victim of? My dog's disloyalty? I quit being my dog's owner when I quit feeding him. Would it be more honorable for my dog to starve to death in place rather than see to his own survival?
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Have you ever considered that this analogy, your outlook, might be why you aren't getting any? I am very sexual. But if I thought DH wanted me to FEED him, like a dog, I would be so turned off I would not even be able to fake it.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Enchantment said:


> Why wouldn't you just get divorced in this case? If you're already 'morally divorced', then why bring another person in to it? Just divorce and move on!


All kinds of reasons a man not wish to get a divorce. Maybe he doesn't want to commit financial suicide. Maybe he rather enjoys seeing his kids once in a while. Some people's religious views would prevent them from getting a divorce. In any case, if she has refused him for years, she has declared his sexuality to be none of her concern, so what he does with it is also none of her concern.


----------



## Looking4Solution (Jun 14, 2011)

Grayson said:


> And you would be unwilling to take custody of the kids because...?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It would kill her. I don't hate her I have no bad feelings towards her. But doesn't matter,we had the talk and it seems if she was into me I screwed it up long ago and she "can't" get the feelings back which means she was never IN love to begin with.


----------



## HelloooNurse (Apr 12, 2010)

I have no sympathy for you buddy. Get a divorce before you screw around: that is the general rule. And I mean a real divorce, not a "moral divorce".


----------



## Roooth (May 13, 2011)

:iagree:


HelloooNurse said:


> I have no sympathy for you buddy. Get a divorce before you screw around: that is the general rule. And I mean a real divorce, not a "moral divorce".


----------



## Twiceshy (Jun 24, 2011)

You should get the divorce first (or at least separation) if you dont you would at the very least be giving her "grounds" for divorce which might make her look more favorable in the eyes of the judge... infidelity makes an otherwise "decent" spouse look bad. Something to think about....


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

If your spouse has abdicated all interest and responsibility for your sexual and social needs, what business is it of his/her's what you do with your body or whom you do it with? On what authority do they dare claim any right or expectation to your faithfulness? Faithfulness to what? Rejection???? Exactly who would be the victim of the affair? He's not talking about giving away anything that she's interested in. So, him going over the wall for a little relief is a great crime but her forcing him into a life of celibacy is okie dokie?


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> On what authority do they dare claim any right or expectation to your faithfulness?


Hmmm... I guess the fact that there were originally some vows that were made at the beginning of that marriage - "forsaking all others"? If you truly take your vow seriously, that does not mean that you only fulfill your responsibilities as long as your spouse does. It really means you do so, despite what your spouse does. But, if all of that has been ripped asunder and it is totally irreconcilable, then please just divorce before bringing other part(ies) in to the situation.

btw, unbelievable, I had thought that you were a big propronent in upholding the vows of marriage? Maybe I got that wrong. :scratchhead:


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I am a huge proponent of upholding marriage vows but one person can't do that alone. There has to actually be a marriage to uphold. If your partner dies, you are released from your marriage vows. Likewise, if they just quit participating alltogether in the marriage, they cease being your spouse and become something more like a hostage taker. A hostage owes no loyalty to their kidnapper. Again, the hostage owes no ransom or reward to their kidnapper. Why reward your abuser by paying them alimony, surrendering your kids to them, buying them a house, etc? I can't steal from you that which you do not claim as your's. Whatever you toss in the trash is fair game for me to give to whomever I wish.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> I am a huge proponent of upholding marriage vows but one person can't do that alone. There has to actually be a marriage to uphold. If your partner dies, you are released from your marriage vows. Likewise, if they just quit participating alltogether in the marriage, they cease being your spouse and become something more like a hostage taker. A hostage owes no loyalty to their kidnapper. Again, the hostage owes no ransom or reward to their kidnapper. Why reward your abuser by paying them alimony, surrendering your kids to them, buying them a house, etc? I can't steal from you that which you do not claim as your's. Whatever you toss in the trash is fair game for me to give to whomever I wish.


Okay, I think I remember some posts you may have made previously about your first marriage and what you are currently going through with your wife now. I can understand why you have written your response.

One thing, though. That third-person who could get involved - they are a living, breathing human with thoughts, dreams, and emotions as well. Just because your spouse had the gall to throw your desires and heart to the trash, does not mean that you should do this to another third person. Make a clean break - no matter how hard. Don't perpetuate and perpetrate the same pain that you went through/are going through with your spouse on another.


----------



## xalenfairbanks (Jun 23, 2011)

you need to talk to your partner about not getting enough sex, and maybe why they don't want to have sex with you. They maybe dealing with something that you don't know about. But I agree with the post above, if you have to think about if it is cheating or not, then it's cheating.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Enchantment said:


> Okay, I think I remember some posts you may have made previously about your first marriage and what you are currently going through with your wife now. I can understand why you have written your response.
> 
> One thing, though. That third-person who could get involved - they are a living, breathing human with thoughts, dreams, and emotions as well. Just because your spouse had the gall to throw your desires and heart to the trash, does not mean that you should do this to another third person. Make a clean break - no matter how hard. Don't perpetuate and perpetrate the same pain that you went through/are going through with your spouse on another.


The OP didn't ask if having an affair against a withholder was the smartest or best move in the world. He didn't ask if it would be fair or nice to the third party. He asked if it was "cheating". I think it's not because there is no victim. As far as the 3d party goes, anyone who knowingly has sex with a married person sets themselves up for likely failure. It would be wrong to lie to the third party and pass oneself off as single. If, after being fully informed of the OP's married status, OW wants to jump his bones anyway, sheep exist to be shorn.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> The OP didn't ask if having an affair against a withholder was the smartest or best move in the world. He didn't ask if it would be fair or nice to the third party. He asked if it was "cheating". I think it's not because there is no victim. As far as the 3d party goes, anyone who knowingly has sex with a married person sets themselves up for likely failure. It would be wrong to lie to the third party and pass oneself off as single. If, after being fully informed of the OP's married status, OW wants to jump his bones anyway, sheep exist to be shorn.


@ unbelievable ~ We will have to agree to disagree on this point. In the case of cheating, I do not believe in nuances - it either is or it isn't, and I believe that it is.


----------



## devilzme (Jun 25, 2011)

mate not cheating at all - go for it! seriously have fun...


----------



## tjohnson (Mar 10, 2010)

It is cheating....period

Get a divorse and move on if it is not-reconsilable. 

Cheating on the side in my opinion is not OK. If you need to do this then you have a roomate and not a spouse. Work it out or get a new rommate and move on.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Getting a divorce or getting a new "roommate" sounds simple and easy until you toss in the bit about committing financial suicide or losing access to your kids. Why should the victim of abuse and neglect also set themselves up for financial exploitation and to lose their kids to some passionless zombie?


----------



## maaz3231 (May 27, 2011)

It's not cheating if you get permission.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> Getting a divorce or getting a new "roommate" sounds simple and easy until you toss in the bit about committing financial suicide or losing access to your kids. Why should the victim of abuse and neglect also set themselves up for financial exploitation and to lose their kids to some passionless zombie?


Moving on with a new life is very difficult, however it's still cheating.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

One who retires-in-place from the relationship doesn't deserve the courtesy of having their permission sought. They don't deserve honesty. They don't deserve fairness. They don't deserve to win primary custody of the kids and they don't deserve a financial windfall. Whatever treachery a chronic withholder gets from their spouse, they have earned.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> One who retires-in-place from the relationship doesn't deserve the courtesy of having their permission sought. They don't deserve honesty. They don't deserve fairness. They don't deserve to win primary custody of the kids and they don't deserve a financial windfall. Whatever treachery a chronic withholder gets from their spouse, they have earned.


Well there are many reasons people don't have sex any more, and I think that if you do the above out of spite due to lack of sex then you become a far worse person then they ever were. Some people who have no drive do not understand what they are missing, and what they are robbing themselves and their spouse of. 

If you stoop to the levels above then I would call your behaviour worse because it's premeditated with intent to harm.

No matter what evils you think your spouse is doing you need to get a back bone and leave if they are treating you badly or you need to put your foot down and make clear what your expectations are and they then have the choice to carry on as they are and suffer the consequences or work with you to improve the situation.

I personally feel sex is very important to intimate relationships and if my needs were not being met I owe it to my OH to let him know and just how drastic things are, so he at least has the chance to work with me.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

They know how drastic things are, they don't care. They have already left the marriage, they just didn't have guts to file for divorce or murder their spouse outright. They elected to enslave their spouse and exploit them. They get what they get and if I'm on a jury hearing the case where the alleged "victim" emotionally and sexually abandoned their spouse for months or years at a time, the accused spouse gets a walk. The decision to leave or not leave isn't necessarily an indication of "backbone". I may not wish to leave my kids in the care of a souless, passionless, self-centered zombie. They may actually need and deserve a real human being for a parent.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> They know how drastic things are, they don't care. They have already left the marriage, they just didn't have guts to file for divorce or murder their spouse outright. They elected to enslave their spouse and exploit them. They get what they get and if I'm on a jury hearing the case where the alleged "victim" emotionally and sexually abandoned their spouse for months or years at a time, the accused spouse gets a walk. The decision to leave or not leave isn't necessarily an indication of "backbone". I may not wish to leave my kids in the care of a souless, passionless, self-centered zombie. They may actually need and deserve a real human being for a parent.


@ unbelievable - This is obviously a very passionate topic for you. That is all good. 

imho, if the scenario were such that the alleged "victim", as they are referred to here, were indeed that much of a monster to their spouse and children, I would hope that the spouse would make all undue haste to divorce immediately and seek full custody of their children. And I believe that no matter what the sex of the alleged "victim" is.

However, back to the original OP, I don't believe that they provided enough context of their relationship and its issues to be able to assume anything about what is going on.

I don't think I can be swayed to say that it's not cheating, but I do recognize that what would happen as a result of that cheating (whether to divorce, stay, or continue to stray) will be a very individual choice. If it were me, I would divorce. I recognize this may not be the option that all others would choose.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Someone who willfully cuts me off for months or longer positions themselves as my enemy and I owe them less than nothing. If I refused to support my wife emotionally, sexually, or financially, I would expect her to drop me like a bad habit or to cheat on me. There is no other logical response. How absolutely insane for someone to exploit and abuse another human being every day and then expect decent treatment in return. 
When pursued by a zombie who wishes to only consume you, you don't fret over their feelings. You do whatever is necessary to protect yourself.


----------



## TeaLeaves4 (Feb 19, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> One who retires-in-place from the relationship doesn't deserve the courtesy of having their permission sought. They don't deserve honesty. They don't deserve fairness. They don't deserve to win primary custody of the kids and they don't deserve a financial windfall. Whatever treachery a chronic withholder gets from their spouse, they have earned.


I would have to say I agree with your posts, except for the custody part. Just because someone checks out of a relationship doesn't make him/her an unfit parent. 

Custody should be joint, shared--- unless one parent is abusive or neglectful. Why would anyone hurt their kids by trying to exact revenge on a former spouse in the form of a custody agreement?


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Anyone so incredibly morally bankrupt as to take on the trappings of a loving spouse while neglecting the basic needs of their partner is unfit to even be considered a member of the human race. If he/she is serially indifferent to the needs of their mate, what use would they possibly be to attend to the needs of a child? They don't need to be allowed in the same zip code as real living creatures and no one should ever trust them to attend to any need other than their own. They are selfish, self-centered, soul-less, heartless, compassionless zombies. I wouldn't trust one to care for my goldfish.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I have always said that cheating is wrong. That if your marriage is that bad, then you should divorce, and then start another relationship. 

But Unbelievable makes some good points. I consider constant rejection for years on end to be a form of abuse.

I agree with: "One who retires-in-place from the relationship doesn't deserve the courtesy of having their permission sought." At a certain point, you don't require their permission. 

But I do believe they deserve "honesty". Tell them you are going to cheat, tell them why (even though they know why). If they continue their ways knowing you will cheat, then it is no longer cheating.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> Anyone so incredibly morally bankrupt as to take on the trappings of a loving spouse while neglecting the basic needs of their partner is unfit to even be considered a member of the human race. If he/she is serially indifferent to the needs of their mate, what use would they possibly be to attend to the needs of a child? They don't need to be allowed in the same zip code as real living creatures and no one should ever trust them to attend to any need other than their own. They are selfish, self-centered, soul-less, heartless, compassionless zombies. I wouldn't trust one to care for my goldfish.


@ unbelievable ~

Not to stir the pot - well, maybe just a little bit. 

I am curious as to your opinion on the following: what if the "selfish, self-centered, soul-less, heartless, compassionless zombie" (great adjectives, btw) became that way because they themselves were perhaps first emotionally and/or physically abused as part of the relationship?

In otherwords, I believe that yes, there are some people whose hearts are black holes of depravity to begin with. But, I think that in most relationships, it is often a complicated dance between the two people - usually each of them not being able to fulfill the needs of the other and it begins to spiral and feed on itself.

Just curious. Anxiously awaiting your viewpoint on that.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

We have no evidence that such is the case. It certainly isn't in my case and I doubt that accounts for the 44% of married females who report having LD or the 12% of whave LD but admit they don't care. Assuming such was the case, however, she had the duty to split about the same time she realized she didn't love this guy and that she had no intention of fixing it. Sticking around, consuming the sweat of his brow while denying him even the very bare minimum of performance expected of a spouse, would identify her as a very sorry excuse for a human being. I believe we'd call that a parasite.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

And herein lies the problem. Dear Cheating Skank who repeatedly falls on random erections. I want you dead in a shallow grave with coyotes gnawing at your ass. But that's not going to happen, so we leave it to lawyers and courts to sort out. Ok maybe you're NOT a bad parent. Neither are ferrets and they only eat their young sometimes. But as a normal human wife, on a scale of 1 to Dachau, you suck. So go dance on whatever loser's nutsack you need to or whatever it is subhumanoids like you do and have a nice day, biatch. And oh, yeah I forgot, scream in a shower of molten aircraft steel in hell. 


I think that's the problem most people are confronted with. Can't live em, don't have an alligator to dispose of the body.


----------



## WhiteRabbit (May 11, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> Dear Cheating Skank who repeatedly falls on random erections. I want you dead in a shallow grave with coyotes gnawing at your ass. But that's not going to happen, so we leave it to lawyers and courts to sort out. Ok maybe you're NOT a bad parent. Neither are ferrets and they only eat their young sometimes. But as a normal human wife, on a scale of 1 to Dachau, you suck. So go dance on whatever loser's nutsack you need to or whatever it is subhumanoids like you do and have a nice day, biatch. And oh, yeah I forgot, scream in a shower of molten aircraft steel in hell.


has to be the most awesome thing i've ever read...
well...not EVER but it's pretty freaking awesome.


----------



## Riverside MFT (Oct 5, 2009)

A sexless marriage is usually not the problem, but only a symptom of greater problems within the realationship. Therefore, looking for sex outside of marriage will not solve the problem, only create more symptoms.
Looking4Solution, you say "She doesn't have sex with me," what does she say? 'He doesn't talk to me?' 'We don't do anything together?' The problem is that the relationship has been ignored for a number of years. Sex is not going to fix that. Talk to her. Ask her if she is happy or not in the relationship. Ask her if there are things you could do to be a better husband and then do them. Go to counseling if neeed.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> We have no evidence that such is the case. It certainly isn't in my case and I doubt that accounts for the 44% of married females who report having LD or the 12% of whave LD but admit they don't care. Assuming such was the case, however, she had the duty to split about the same time she realized she didn't love this guy and that she had no intention of fixing it. Sticking around, consuming the sweat of his brow while denying him even the very bare minimum of performance expected of a spouse, would identify her as a very sorry excuse for a human being. I believe we'd call that a parasite.


@ unbelievable ~

Ahh... interesting. You purport that she should leave him first ("had the duty to split about the same time she realized she didn't love this guy") instead of him having the duty to leave her first before he stepped out. What if she truly does love the guy? What if she truly does not understand his problem? And where the heck is his honor?

It is not uncommon for someone in a different situation to not understand another's viewpoint. That is true for both a HD or LD spouse. I don't think a HD spouse understands the dilemma of a LD spouse because they are not in that situation, and vice versa. I know that my H does not totally understand what I struggle with on a consistent basis. I don't always understand his issues either. But we TRY.

I'm not trying to needle you too much, but as a LD spouse (at least in comparison to the very HD spouse that I am married to), I just bristle at the assumption that there is a decision to *consciously* withhold in *all* cases by the LD spouse.

I believe that many LD spouses simply do not realize the dilemma to their spouse. They may also have issues with stepping up because they do not get their needs fulfilled by their spouse. Yah, you do understand that many of us women are more emotionally driven in our sexual responses?

The LD spouse is *not** always *a life-sucking, soul-less zombie. They may just be unenlightened, unfulfilled, being treated like dirt, or any number of things? Yes? I would not like to be seen as a life-sucking, soul-less zombie simply because I have a lower drive than my husband. 

Agree to understand each other's viewpoint and shake hands? Please? :toast:


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Riverside,

I've had that conversation ad nauseum. I seriously doubt anyone is so clueless as to not realize that emotionally starving their spouse isn't a great idea for a healthy marriage. Those who engage in this conduct over long periods of time just simply do not care. If they care even slightly, they care more about saving themselves from some perceived unpleasantness. They are just plain selfish. Either people have compassion for others or they don't. Either they value the feelings and needs of others or they don't. Either they fulfill their obligations or they don't. I think the primary problem is that some people who have positively no business entering into a marriage, never-the-less do so. If they were tattooed on the forehead with a huge "Z", innocent people could protect themselves.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Enchantment said:


> @ unbelievable ~
> 
> Ahh... interesting. You purport that she should leave him first ("had the duty to split about the same time she realized she didn't love this guy") instead of him having the duty to leave her first before he stepped out. What if she truly does love the guy? What if she truly does not understand his problem? And where the heck is his honor?
> 
> ...


One can't possibly love another human being while simultaneously withholding important needs. Selfishness is incompatible with love. Disrespect is incompatible with love. My love for my wife dictates that if I found myself unwilling to attend to her needs, I would leave, blow my brains out, or strongly encourage her to have her needs met elsewhere. I would rather give my kids to someone else than to watch them starve under my "care". If a mother willfully refuses to feed her starving infant, would any sane person consider her a loving mother? They would correctly summise that she either had a serious screw loose or that she was evil incarnate.


----------



## Riverside MFT (Oct 5, 2009)

unbelievable said:


> Riverside,
> 
> I've had that conversation ad nauseum. I seriously doubt anyone is so clueless as to not realize that emotionally starving their spouse isn't a great idea for a healthy marriage. Those who engage in this conduct over long periods of time just simply do not care. If they care even slightly, they care more about saving themselves from some perceived unpleasantness. They are just plain selfish. Either people have compassion for others or they don't. Either they value the feelings and needs of others or they don't. Either they fulfill their obligations or they don't. I think the primary problem is that some people who have positively no business entering into a marriage, never-the-less do so. If they were tattooed on the forehead with a huge "Z", innocent people could protect themselves.


Yes, I've also had this conversation multiple times, even in my counseling office. It is sometimes frustrating when people are so wrapped up in themselves that they forget about the other person in the relationship. Those who are completely selfish have no business being in a marriage or any kind of relationship at all.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> Riverside,
> 
> I've had that conversation ad nauseum. I seriously doubt anyone is so clueless as to not realize that emotionally starving their spouse isn't a great idea for a healthy marriage. Those who engage in this conduct over long periods of time just simply do not care. If they care even slightly, they care more about saving themselves from some perceived unpleasantness. They are just plain selfish. Either people have compassion for others or they don't. Either they value the feelings and needs of others or they don't. Either they fulfill their obligations or they don't. I think the primary problem is that some people who have positively no business entering into a marriage, never-the-less do so. If they were tattooed on the forehead with a huge "Z", innocent people could protect themselves.


@unbelievable ~

No, no - we can't put a big "Z" on them - that would be too much like Zorro. We need to just put a big zombie mask over their head, yah? Like in Scooby-Doo.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> One can't possibly love another human being while simultaneously withholding important needs. Selfishness is incompatible with love. Disrespect is incompatible with love. My love for my wife dictates that if I found myself unwilling to attend to her needs, I would leave, blow my brains out, or strongly encourage her to have her needs met elsewhere. I would rather give my kids to someone else than to watch them starve under my "care". If a mother willfully refuses to feed her starving infant, would any sane person consider her a loving mother? They would correctly summise that she either had a serious screw loose or that she was evil incarnate.


@ unbelievable ~
Your statements are very black and white. I live in a world that is populated by every color of the rainbow.

We are all selfish. After all, we are all born in to sin - no one, not even what we think is an innocent babe, is truly born innocent. Your post seems to suggest that therefore, none of us can really love, because we are ALL selfish. Only one man ever walked the earth that was selfless. He was the only one that could match up with your criteria.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Supporting your family is right. Feeding your kids is right. Being a deliberate deadbeat is wrong. Holding hostages or slaves is wrong. There is no ambiguity on these points in my mind. If my wife has a reasonable need and I know about it, it's my duty to fulfill it. What's complicated about that? "Can't" in my world means simply that even if offered a million dollars or threatened with instant horrific death, I am just physically unable to do X. (ie, I can't give birth.) Can't, doesn't mean I'd rather not, or I don't feel much like it, or I'll wait until the planets are in perfect allignment. Nobody blows powder sugar up my butt to beg me to keep my promises. God tells me that a man is to submit his body to his wife and vice versa. He didn't say "if you feel like it" or "as long as your partner is perfect." Doesn't matter if it's sometimes difficult to do. We get our instructions and we comply, trusting that He knows what he's talking about. I expect no commitment from my wife that I'm not willing to give, myself. As long as we're getting Biblical, in God's eyes, a man and a woman who couples in sex are considered to be married. Stands to reason if one refuses to couple in sex, they eventually become unmarried. Seems logical to me, anyway. A ring is a piece of metal. A marriage certificate is a piece of paper. A marriage is the consented coupling of two human beings and both have specific obligations to each other. We were created as sexual beings and nobody has the right to force a lifetime of celibacy upon another human. If you don't want to cut on people, don't be a surgeon. If you aren't willing to enter burning houses, don't be a firefighter. If you aren't willing to see to your partner's sexual needs, don't sign up to be a spouse. There is no "cant'" unless you're dead, paralyzed, or mentally incompetent. God doesn't tell us to do anything beyond our capabilities.


----------



## Stonewall (Jul 5, 2011)

unless this is a lifestyle that she agreed on then yes its cheating. A lot of ppl have agreements about that kind of activity it must must must be her will to. If not you probably need to move on with your life and allow her the same. Its the only way you are going to be happy in the end.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

If she has willfully cut me off for months or years on end, I wouldn't give two cents for her wishes nor should I. She would have forfeited any claim whatsoever to my body. How could she possibly have the audacity to believe she did??? If she wanted to split in a manner that didn't financially ruin me or deprive me of reasonable access to my kids, I'd happily help her pack.


----------



## Stonewall (Jul 5, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> If she has willfully cut me off for months or years on end, I wouldn't give two cents for her wishes nor should I. She would have forfeited any claim whatsoever to my body. How could she possibly have the audacity to believe she did??? If she wanted to split in a manner that didn't financially ruin me or deprive me of reasonable access to my kids, I'd happily help her pack.


So you are saying ya'll have spoken of splitting and she made clear she is going to try and take you to the cleaners? If I was that miserable I'd give her the best court fight I could and even if I had to start over financially, I would. Life is short make yourself happy while you have time.


----------

