# I'm under no obligation



## Rasclomalum (Mar 5, 2014)

One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun. Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights? There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding... nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?

EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

You have the right to have sex with anyone who willingly wants to have sex with you.

Is sex a human right? No, because every human can lead a long, healthy life without it. (Life is better with it, but it's not necessary.)

Food and water are human rights because no human can live long without these things.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun. Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights? There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding... nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?
> 
> EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.


I get you. I don't understand it. I don't understand the mind set. 

In a marriage/LTR that is romantic, it seems to me that the norm is for it to include sex. 

If I ever had wife (don't have one right not, thank god) or a GF tell me something like that. 

I would say, OK, cool. Nice knowing you, see ya...


----------



## Maxwedge 413 (Apr 16, 2014)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that *no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone*, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun. Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights? *There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding...* nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?
> 
> EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.


So, you're introducing yourself to a relationship forum by basically saying "Chicks should Put-out or Get-out"? "If she's my girl I have the right to do What I want, When I want"? Really? 

I would say that if your partner doesn't want to have sex with you then they Absolutely do not have to. And you Absolutely are entitled to be sad or bitter about it, or try to work it out, or dump her. Yes. 

But if you're saying she is actually obligated to perform with you, then you're talking from a marital- and date-rape mindset. 

Just dump her and find a new one.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> You have the right to have sex with anyone who willingly wants to have sex with you.
> 
> Is sex a human right? No, because every human can lead a long, healthy life without it. (Life is better with it, but it's not necessary.)
> 
> Food and water are human rights because no human can live long without these things.


Nor does its acquisition require the active consensual participation of another person.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

I would agree that no one is under any obligation to have sex in a marriage. No one is obligated to do anything at all in a marriage. But intimacy is one of the core attributes that most people expect in a marriage. If one person decides they are no longer going to be part of that, while they don't have to have sex, they should not be surprised that severely negative consequences happen.

It's the same with other core aspects of the marriage. For example, consider shared support of the household. No one is obligated to work or do chores, but there would be a severe hit to the marriage if one person decided they were not going to do any of that. If one person decides to stay home and play video games all day and night, that person can't expect the marriage to continue like before.

So while there is no obligation to have sex, there's also no obligation for the other person to stay married. The same goes for anything that people consider core attributes of marriage. If someone isn't holding up their end of what is generally considered marriage, then that person should understand and accept the consequences that brings.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun. Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights? There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding... nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?
> 
> EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.


I do agree with a lot of what you have said. If you are so selfish as to deny your spouse sex for long periods of time for no good reason then don't get married. Marriage is not just about us and our 'rights,' its about working on the marriage together, loving and respecting your spouse and doing what you can to make them happy. I do think that when you marry part of that marriage is fulfilling each others sexual needs. Obviously if their sexual desires are off the wall and you can't go along with them, or they want to bring in others, that's very different. If they are very demanding and controlling and forceful that wont make for a happy sex life either. Generally though in sex its giving as well as receiving, and for mutual benefit and to strengthen the marriage. 

People are so selfish these days though. Its all about me me me and my rights and what 'I' want.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

BluesPower said:


> I get you. I don't understand it. I don't understand the mind set.
> 
> In a marriage/LTR that is romantic, it seems to me that the norm is for it to include sex.
> 
> ...


Why? Do you feel back rubs are obligated?


----------



## SarcasticRed (Feb 21, 2018)

In a romantic relationship, the common agreement is that sex is part of the equation. As you can tell from this site, there are plenty of conflicts around sex and relationship. Ideally, you and your partner would have the same ideas about sex and there would be zero conflict in that area. 

However, no person is under an obligation to have sex with you...even if you are married, dating etc. Even if you feel like they "owe you". Even if you remembered their birthday or gave them a backrub. Even if you took out the trash and washed the dog. Even if you did those things expecting sex in return. They do not have to have sex with you and forcing them to have sex with you is called rape or sexual assault. Hopefully, you have provided an environment and relationship in which they choose to have sexual encounters with you and are able to. 

If your partner doesn't want to have sex with you, they don't have to. Simple as that. There is not a human right to orgasm. 

If you want to have sex with your partner and they don't want to, you are SOL. You are free to end the relationship (don't cheat...that is s****y behavior) and find someone who has a similar sex drive. If you are not married, it is legally very simple to leave. If you are married, it is legally harder but you can still leave as you are under no obligation to stay in a relationship that makes you unhappy.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up.


I have seen that sentiment brought up next to never except as a retort, often said in frustration, to the idea that having gotten married wife is obligated to put out regardless.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> Why? Do you feel back rubs are obligated?


Like everyone has said, no one has to do anything. 

However, if my girl needs a back rub, I am happy to do that. I do all those sorts of things. Cook for her, foot rub, back/neck rubs, my personal favorite---putting lotion all over her when she gets out of the shower, cooking, yada, yada, yada... I do those things because I like to make her feel special, almost always without being asked. 

But then, you know if a woman does not want to have sex with me, well, OK. That is fine, see you. 

If I am in a romantic relationship, I expect for her to want to have sex with me, and if she does not feel that way then we are not together. 

I am not talking about, "I don't feel well", I am talking about not wanting to have sex often. 

I am not a man to beg for sex, it is degrading, if she is not interested, plenty more are. I would just find one that was compatible if the one that I am with is not. 

This whole dynamic of dead bedroom marriages and relationships, I just cannot wrap my head around it. 

I think in a relationship, you should want to meet your partners needs, all of them. 

It is what I try to do, and frankly, if someone is with me, I expect them to have the same mindset...


----------



## sunsetmist (Jul 12, 2018)

On a personal note:
As maxwedge413 said there is cause and effect relationship. Aside from the situations that include illness, other variables include religious beliefs, abuse issues, and personality disorders. Some folks have true problems when intimacy and sex are involved.

Seems to me like there is often a big reveal after marriage or after childbirth. Sex with my Ex was good before marriage, but it turns out that I was tarnished in HIS eyes for liking, really liking, sex and for participating with HIM before marriage. So as punishment HE FREQUENTLY withheld sex beginning about three weeks after marriage. (It was an extraordinarily LONG time before his hidden fondness for porn and strip clubs became evident to me.) Me trying to seduce or initiate only made him more resolute. He wanted a wife/servant to clean, bear his children, entertain, be a companion because in those days much of life involved parties of two. It was expected in his profession. How sad and painful for both of us.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

sunsetmist said:


> On a personal note:
> As maxwedge413 said there is cause and effect relationship. Aside from the situations that include illness, other variables include religious beliefs, abuse issues, and personality disorders. Some folks have true problems when intimacy and sex are involved.
> 
> Seems to me like there is often a big reveal after marriage or after childbirth. Sex with my Ex was good before marriage, but it turns out that I was tarnished in HIS eyes for liking, really liking, sex and for participating with HIM before marriage. So as punishment HE FREQUENTLY withheld sex beginning about three weeks after marriage. (It was an extraordinarily LONG time before his hidden fondness for porn and strip clubs became evident to me.) Me trying to seduce or initiate only made him more resolute. He wanted a wife/servant to clean, bear his children, entertain, be a companion because in those days much of life involved parties of two. It was expected in his profession. How sad and painful for both of us.


How long did it take you to figure it out, and divorce. 

And in general, why do people do this type of stuff. How sick is that. Be is a man or woman that "Changes" their mind or whatever about sex AFTER marriage. It happens a lot. 

WHY?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun.* Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights?* There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding... nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?
> 
> EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.


More and more men in serious relationships and in marriages. I wanted to add, any male who dates, as well.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

That sex is expected in a marriage is reasonable, unless discussed prior. 

Choose wisely….and if you can't do that, opt for MGTOW.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

BluesPower said:


> I get you. I don't understand it. I don't understand the mind set.
> 
> In a marriage/LTR that is romantic, it seems to me that the norm is for it to include sex.
> 
> ...


I agree that sex should be part of a marriage and/or other romantic relationship. But even in the best of relationships there are times when one or the other person does not want to have sex. And they have that right.

What is being suggested here is that if a person is in a relationship they can never say no. That's not acceptable.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> I do agree with a lot of what you have said. If you are so selfish as to deny your spouse sex for long periods of time for no good reason then don't get married. Marriage is not just about us and our 'rights,' its about working on the marriage together, loving and respecting your spouse and doing what you can to make them happy. I do think that when you marry part of that marriage is fulfilling each others sexual needs. Obviously if their sexual desires are off the wall and you can't go along with them, or they want to bring in others, that's very different. If they are very demanding and controlling and forceful that wont make for a happy sex life either. Generally though in sex its giving as well as receiving, and for mutual benefit and to strengthen the marriage.
> 
> People are so selfish these days though. Its all about me me me and my rights and what 'I' want.


The OP is not only talking about someone withhold sex for a long period of time. He's saying that if he wants sex, it's his right to force his wife to have sex against her will. That's a completely different thing. This is the basis of old law that said that a man can never rape his wife because any sex with her, even forced sex is not rape. He has 100% to demand sex at any time.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

OnTheFly said:


> That sex is expected in a marriage is reasonable, unless discussed prior.
> 
> Choose wisely….and if you can't do that, opt for MGTOW.


You don't need an unreasonable male support group to decide not to enter into situations that are untenable. You just need strength of character.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun. Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights? There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding... nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?
> 
> EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.


 @EleGirl. I guess I was thinking that he meant he has a right to cheat, if he can find someone willing. Maybe I'm so used to seeing how easy infidelity is for most folks, rape of a spouse is not something I think of first. 

I guess he won't be back to explain.


----------



## sunsetmist (Jul 12, 2018)

@BluesPower
Not to threadjack, but shortish answers:

^How long did it take you to figure it out, and divorce.
*****
TOO long. 18 years to truly understand how much, by then, he actually despised me. Divorced after 25 years, but took me some time to prepare. I saw marriage as covenant with God. Kids insisted I leave while I was still alive--he had become more unstable when not in public, but ok mostly around others.
He did (unknowingly) teach me to take care of myself as everything from car repair to trips home from the hospital were on me. Doing the 'love me' dance, I became a gourmet cook, gardener, entertainer, managing to obtain HIGHER education, being still pretty decent to look at too. Most valuable to me is that I have never discussed this outside of counseling and I surrounded myself in a web of almost isolationist protection because I knew I would have been vulnerable to outside seductions.

Well now, NOT so shortish.
*****

And in general, why do people do this type of stuff. How sick is that. Be is a man or woman that "Changes" their mind or whatever about sex AFTER marriage. It happens a lot.

WHY?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Any woman in a relationship with me is quite obligated to have sex with me but I'm under the same obligation.

Weird topic....


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

2ntnuf said:


> You don't need an unreasonable male support group to decide not to enter into situations that are untenable. You just need strength of character.


MGTOW isn't a male support group. It's a way of life.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

OnTheFly said:


> MGTOW isn't a male support group. It's a way of life.


I thought it was a support group for men who choose a way of life. I guess I was mistaken.


----------



## Maxwedge 413 (Apr 16, 2014)

Wow, I was wondering when the angry and undatable misogynist party would get here. MGTOW = "I am afraid of women, but super horney at the same time. Guess I'll just despise all women because they don't want me".


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Wow, I was wondering when the angry and undatable misogynist party would get here. MGTOW = "I am afraid of women, but super horney at the same time. Guess I'll just despise all women because they don't want me".



MGTOWs like hookers because they never say no, they always leave after and they are cheaper in the long run 😉


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Wives should submit to their husbands. It's in the Old Testament, between the animal sacrifices and parting of the seas I think. Seriously though...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think the word "obligation" is not well enough defined for this conversation. 

I suspect that almost everyone here agrees that anyone has the right to reject sex whenever they want, for any reason they want - anything else would be condoning rape.

At the same time I think most people will agree that if someone is not happy with their sex life they have a right to leave a relationship, subject to any appropriate laws on division of property etc. 


I believe that regular sex is assumed in a marriage unless agreed to otherwise beforehand, and someone who constantly rejects their partner without some reasonable cause, is not fulling their part of the marriage and is not holding to their vows. Same for anyone who does not do all that is generally expected in a marriage.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

EleGirl said:


> The OP is not only talking about someone withhold sex for a long period of time. He's saying that if he wants sex, it's his right to force his wife to have sex against her will. That's a completely different thing. This is the basis of old law that said that a man can never rape his wife because any sex with her, even forced sex is not rape. He has 100% to demand sex at any time.


I really don't thing that OP actually talked about sex on demand, or any type of rape. 

I read nothing about forcing anybody, it seems to me that it talked about the attitude of the denier.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

BluesPower said:


> I really don't thing that OP actually talked about sex on demand, or any type of rape.
> 
> I read nothing about forcing anybody, it seems to me that it talked about the attitude of the denier.


Of course, the OP never said anything about ''forced sex'' or ''rape'', it's just an easy way to straw man his argument.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I wonder about why people, seemingly often men, distill obligation/responsibility and the like to the area of sex . No one is obligated to do any damned thing within a relationship. Duh. Who would even want that?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder about why people, seemingly often men, distill obligation/responsibility and the like to the area of sex . No one is obligated to do any damned thing within a relationship. Duh. Who would even want that?


Because too many men delude themselves into thinking the things they do for their wives are obligatory.

This is the exact trap Anthony DeMello warned about when he discussed the three reasons we do things for others. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Wives should submit to their husbands. It's in the Old Testament, between the animal sacrifices and parting of the seas I think. Seriously though...


Actually its in the NT, and it doesn't mean that you should be raped. Man are told to love their wives as Christ loves the church, that is a tall order but would clearly not include any sort of forced sex.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

2ntnuf said:


> @EleGirl. I guess I was thinking that he meant he has a right to cheat, if he can find someone willing. Maybe I'm so used to seeing how easy infidelity is for most folks, rape of a spouse is not something I think of first.
> 
> I guess he won't be back to explain.


Looking back at the OP, it's not clear what he's saying. There is no mention of going outside the relationship for sex. The below quote is snippets from the OP showing his mention of 'relationship'.

I suppose that both of our interpretations of the OP are reasonable. Or maybe he was talking about both ideas. Who knows?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder about why people, seemingly often men, distill obligation/responsibility and the like to the area of sex . No one is obligated to do any damned thing within a relationship. Duh. Who would even want that?


Many people actually require it.

I am one and so is Mrs. Conan.

Sex isn't optional. Many other areas of our relationship are not options either.

There are areas in our marriage that are not obligations but sex, among other things, is absolutely a two way obligation that isn't open for wiggling out of.

Anyone dumb enough to make a conflict over these things won't be married, at least happily, for long.

This topic is so weird! Does **** like this really take place or is this discussion mostly hypothetical?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> Many people actually require it.
> 
> I am one and so is Mrs. Conan.
> 
> ...


If I'm tracking here, I think we all need to make a distinction between doing something purely out of obligation and out of desire.

Yes, in most marriages, not just yours, sex is a hard and fast requirement. The details of how much, how often, and what form it may take will vary, but almost everyone expects sex as part of any committed, long term relationship. So it is a non-negotiable obligation.

But for most, I would add, that merely fulfilling an obligation in a physical sense is woefully inadequate. Sex in a committed relationship is so much more than just physical. There are mental, emotional, and maybe even spiritual connections which are just as important, even more so to some people, than the pure physical component. 

I'm not sure if desire could be properly expressed as an "obligation," but I do think of it as a requirement. Without it, at least to me, the physical act is meaningless.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder about why people, seemingly often men, distill obligation/responsibility and the like to the area of sex . No one is obligated to do any damned thing within a relationship. Duh. Who would even want that?
> ...


What you are describing is not obligation, it is a mutually agreed upon consensual contract.

I have the same contract in my relationships. But not everyone does. As we can see by the many sexless relationships here. 

Those wives in sexless marriages are under no obligation and neither is yours. Your wife enthusiastically consents to have abundant sex with you because she wants to. If she changes her mind and removes her consent for abundant sex (or insert whatever descriptions you would use for what you require in a relationship), you are under no obligation to stay with her. 

Anyone staying in a sexless relationship is giving their consent to being sexless. Though they may feel this is coerced consent, and it usually is definitely not enthusiastic consent.

I do think we have an obligation to not cheat (just my opinion but not an absolute truth) and therefore, the only solutions to sexless scenarios are usually to either accept it (confirming your consent) or leave (confirming your lack of consent to remain sexless).


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Ok. Terms. I agree with both @Rocky Mountain Yeti and @Faithful Wife

I'm still taken by surprise at the lack of health in many marriages.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> Ok. Terms. I agree with both @Rocky Mountain Yeti and @Faithful Wife
> 
> I'm still taken by surprise at the lack of health in many marriages.


I think the relative lack of health in many marriages is sad, but I guess I'm not actually surprised by it. We humans are so naturally wrapped up in our own little perspectives, and we rarely communicate effectively and openly under even good circumstances, so I'm often surprised we even come together in the first place, let alone develop the ability to stay together in mutually beneficial pairings. 

When it comes to communication, or as is fashionable to say these days, emotional intelligence, "some people got it, some people don't." 

While we all sit around here and engage in these hypothetical discussions which can often amount to no more than mental masturbation, hopefully once in a while, a nugget comes through that helps one or more of us gain some understanding that moves us on the continuum away from the don't got it to the do got it.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Diana7 said:


> Actually its in the NT, and it doesn't mean that you should be raped. Man are told to love their wives as Christ loves the church, that is a tall order but would clearly not include any sort of forced sex.


Not talking about rape. Talking about giving your consent to sex without you being in mood or whatever. Likely, once it gets started, people get in the mood. You know I gather in marriage, we help each other out. I guess for some its easier to tear up families, than do a simple thing like have sex with your husband/wife a few times a month. Thats a shame.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Because too many men delude themselves into thinking the things they do for their wives are obligatory.
> 
> This is the exact trap Anthony DeMello warned about when he discussed the three reasons we do things for others.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I'm not familiar with this author, other than a quick wiki search. What would you recommend from him?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Awareness

You can likely get it used on eBay for under $5 shipped.

It is not a self help book, but rather the musings of a Jesuit priest in how to free yourself from the ties that bind. 

Despite him being Jesuit, much of what he teaches are principles from other religions. This caused quite an uproar in the church when he initially wrote it. 

It would be a good book for you, brother.

Do you remember when Conrad and others would reference #3's on this site?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Awareness
> 
> You can likely get it used on eBay for under $5 shipped.
> 
> ...


I think I came in toward the end of the Conrad days, and I think he was mostly in forums I didn't frequent. I'll search up the book at the library if nothing else. Thanks


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> What you are describing is not obligation, it is a mutually agreed upon consensual contract.
> 
> I have the same contract in my relationships. But not everyone does. As we can see by the many sexless relationships here.
> 
> ...


OK That's just wrong. A person may still be searched while not consenting to that search and there are important legal reasons not to consent. A person may be robbed without giving consent to be robbed. And yes even a person can be raped without giving consent. 

Or do you think that unenthusiastic, coerced sex is not rape?


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun. Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights? There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding... nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?
> 
> EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.


Everything we do in marriages and out is legal as long as it is voluntary. Being my husband's wife is voluntary on my part. I then have to volunteer to please him, I cook, I iron, I have sex with him. He looks after the garden, he loads and unloads the dishwasher, He puts the girls to bed. He has sex with me voluntarily. He talks to me nicely voluntarily. We do not do those things to each other because a piece of paper with both our names exists. We chose to do those things voluntarily. If one withdraws his/her service to the other, the other suffers. 

The other can also go out and look for someone willing to volunteer. what I do not get is a spouse who withdraws something, love, sex, holding hands, cuddles, etc and then still expects the other to be faithful to her/him. That is not right not fair, not proper. Should be discouraged.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> OK That's just wrong. A person may still be searched while not consenting to that search and there are important legal reasons not to consent. A person may be robbed without giving consent to be robbed. And yes even a person can be raped without giving consent.
> 
> Or do you think that unenthusiastic, coerced sex is not rape?


Wow, 
Lots of logical fallacy there starting with false analogy. If you are searched without consent, there is other legal grounds, like probable cause. No such parallel exists in sex.

Robbery is always non-consensual. If the property is given freely, it is not robbery. 

And "a person can be raped without giving consent." 
???
Rape is by its very definition, sex without consent. It's not a matter of "can," as that's the _only _way rape occurs: without consent.

Now with regard to coerced sex being rape, that one can be very grey. What type of coercion are we talking about here? If we're coercing at the point of a knife, that's certainly rape. If we say "either you have sex with me or I'm not going to show you affection," that's a nasty thing to do, but it's not rape as it does not take away your partners agency over her own body at all. She is fully free to continue to deny sex and, quite frankly, if her beau is of the type to play that card, she's probably better off kicking him to the curb anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> OK That's just wrong. A person may still be searched while not consenting to that search and there are important legal reasons not to consent. A person may be robbed without giving consent to be robbed. And yes even a person can be raped without giving consent.
> 
> Or do you think that unenthusiastic, coerced sex is not rape?


Two people get married. For the duration of their marriage, they are both consenting to be married. Being married is what shows your consent. You may not be happily married, but the fact that you are married means you are consenting to be married. (Not sure why this isn't clear already?)

If the marriage becomes sexless and the couple remain married, then they are both consenting to be in a sexless marriage, even the one who may want sex. Until one of them ends it, at that point they are no longer consenting. (Divorce is something that can happen to you without your consent, if your spouse files and you wanted to remained married).

Not sure what any of your other points were about. We don't get to give consent to a police search. We don't typically ever give consent to be robbed. And no one gives consent to rape, that's what makes it rape. I'm talking about 2 people who are consenting to be married, which has nothing to do with any of those others things.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think "Unenthusiastic" sex is completely different from rape. Rape implies a lack of consent, not a lack of enthusiasm or enjoyment. 

"Coerced" covers a lot of ground, some of that ground is rape. 




Mr. Nail said:


> OK That's just wrong. A person may still be searched while not consenting to that search and there are important legal reasons not to consent. A person may be robbed without giving consent to be robbed. And yes even a person can be raped without giving consent.
> 
> Or do you think that unenthusiastic, coerced sex is not rape?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

EleGirl said:


> The OP is not only talking about someone withhold sex for a long period of time. He's saying that if he wants sex, it's his right to force his wife to have sex against her will. That's a completely different thing. This is the basis of old law that said that a man can never rape his wife because any sex with her, even forced sex is not rape. He has 100% to demand sex at any time.


Unless there are other posts I am missing, I have not seen where the OP said he is entitled to sex by force when he wants it. Has he actually said that? Because I too assumed he was talking about people who withhold for long periods of time. Could you be interpreting this incorrectly? I'm just asking because this is the second time I have seen recently where nefarious intent on the part of the man is automatically assumed.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Two people get married. For the duration of their marriage, they are both consenting to be married. Being married is what shows your consent. You may not be happily married, but the fact that you are married means you are consenting to be married. (Not sure why this isn't clear already?)
> 
> If the marriage becomes sexless and the couple remain married, then they are both consenting to be in a sexless marriage, even the one who may want sex. Until one of them ends it, at that point they are no longer consenting. (Divorce is something that can happen to you without your consent, if your spouse files and you wanted to remained married).
> 
> Not sure what any of your other points were about. We don't get to give consent to a police search. We don't typically ever give consent to be robbed. And no one gives consent to rape, that's what makes it rape. I'm talking about 2 people who are consenting to be married, which has nothing to do with any of those others things.


I think I understand what was being talked about though. As someone who was in a sexless married and was emotionally devastated by it, I admit the idea that "I consented" because I didn;t just leave sooner stings and sounds INCREDIBLY unempathetic. In fact, while I was in the midst of the pain, if someone had said, "Well, you're consenting so it must be okay or it's your own fault," I'd probably have punched them in the throat. It's called kicking someone when they are down.

I didn't "consent," I tried everything I could think of to be worthy of being wanted (because that was what it felt like). And since divorce is seen as some big awful unredeemable failure by a lot of peopl (especially if you are a Christian), I didn't think I COULD for a long time.

So yeah, someone telling me "I consented so stop whining" back then would have had a fat lip lol


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Hey if I'm married I fully expect to be used for sex. Excuse me, a sexual partner, or whatever is PC nowadays.

But seriously, unless clearly stated before a M, everyone knows they're going to have sex with their loving SO.

Get real.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> I think I understand what was being talked about though. As someone who was in a sexless married and was emotionally devastated by it, I admit the idea that "I consented" because I didn;t just leave sooner stings and sounds INCREDIBLY unempathetic. In fact, while I was in the midst of the pain, if someone had said, "Well, you're consenting so it must be okay or it's your own fault," I'd probably have punched them in the throat. It's called kicking someone when they are down.
> 
> I didn't "consent," I tried everything I could think of to be worthy of being wanted (because that was what it felt like). And since divorce is seen as some big awful unredeemable failure by a lot of peopl (especially if you are a Christian), I didn't think I COULD for a long time.
> 
> So yeah, someone telling me "I consented so stop whining" back then would have had a fat lip lol


I was in a sexless marriage as well. At that time, when I thought about my problem, what I really wanted was for someone to tell me the magic words that would make him change, so I could be happy.

Finally I learned, you can't change people. And I learned what I really needed to know: That if I was going to stay in the marriage, then I was consenting to the horrible parts of the marriage as much as the good. And that my only recourse was divorce. Like most people, I didn't really want to be divorced, I just wanted to be happily married. But the bottom line, like for most people, was that I couldn't change him.

It really isn't a good idea to try to change people, but we always do. Rather than making difficult choices, we want the other one to change. But that's not how it works. Not happy in your sexless marriage? Talk to them, go to counseling, try to fix things...and then when you realize it is not going to be fixed, you have 2 choices. Leave or stay. Staying means you're consenting to be in a sexless marriage. Leaving means you no longer consent to it. Even though that's not fun to hear when you are in the middle of it, it is still true. No one has a gun to anyone's head requiring them to remain married against their will. No matter how difficult of a decision it is, it is still a freely chosen decision for each of us, and as soon as you have your marriage license recorded in your state, from that point until the point you or the other file for divorce, your consent to be married is legally in tact.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

What I meant. . .
What I objected to . . . is this idea that because a person is in a certain situation is no proof in any way that they somehow consented to it. 
This is straight up victim blaming. I never consented to my situation. I am still in that situation because I can't get out of it. Divorce is not always the good solution to the 100% veto.


What I am saying is that many people are in bad situations that they did not consent to. And when they are in that situation they are most likely being victimized. The person holding them in that situation is in no way justified by their freedom not to . . . whatever.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> What I meant. . .
> What I objected to . . . is this idea that because a person is in a certain situation is no proof in any way that they somehow consented to it.
> This is straight up victim blaming. I never consented to my situation. I am still in that situation because I can't get out of it. Divorce is not always the good solution to the 100% veto.


The "situation" I referred to is MARRIAGE. If you are married, please explain to me how you are not consenting to be married?

I never said divorce was a good solution, I said it is the ONLY solution for anyone who no longer consents to be in a sexless marriage. You are still consenting to be married, and your marriage is sexless (I'm assuming, based on your posts), therefore you are consenting to a sexless marriage.

Let's take the case of adultery. Of course no one is going to willingly consent to their partner cheating on them, otherwise it would not be cheating it would be called an open marriage. Adultery is something that can happen to you without your consent. But marriage is not. So staying married to a cheater is consenting to being married to a cheater. You may not have consented to their cheating, but you are still consenting to be married to them, and they are a cheater.

How is this not clear? Consenting doesn't always mean you like or even want something. But remaining married is consent of remaining married, period.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Wow, you're just full of empathy in a desire to understand others aren't you? Never freaking mind!


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> What I meant. . .
> What I objected to . . . is this idea that because a person is in a certain situation is no proof in any way that they somehow consented to it.
> This is straight up victim blaming. I never consented to my situation. I am still in that situation because I can't get out of it. Divorce is not always the good solution to the 100% veto.


Just because it's not "the good solution" does not mean it's not one possible solution.

Remaining in a situation from which it is possible, even if difficult, to extricate ones self, is implied consent. You may not have consented for the relationship to become sexless, but by remaining in the relationship, you have, at least passively, given consent that the relationship be allowed to continue in that manner. 

Yes it sucks. Yes, you have two less than palatable choices. But that doesn't mean you're living in a nonconsensual relationship.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> Wow, you're just full of empathy in a desire to understand others aren't you? Never freaking mind!


Not sure where you're getting this. As I said, I've also been in a sexless marriage. For the duration of the marriage, I was consenting to be married. When I no longer consented to it, I filed for divorce. By "consent" I don't mean I verbally went around saying "YES, I want to be in a sexless marriage!!!" I did not *want* to be in a sexless marriage, but I was in one and that means I was consenting to be married. Eventually I did not consent to it anymore. I didn't *want* to be divorced either, I had wanted to be happily married. But there was no way for that to happen with my first husband.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Probably not a good idea to tell an abused woman that she is consenting to the abuse to because she hasn't left yet. Although I have heard people say it, and they cling like grim death to its validity.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> Probably not a good idea to tell an abused woman that she is consenting to the abuse to because she hasn't left yet. Although I have heard people say it, and they cling like grim death to its validity.


If she's in the relationship, then she's consenting to being in the relationship. And actually, this is the very thing which counselors use to help abused women understand that they actually have the power in their own hands to leave. 

I'm talking about the strict use of the word consent, which does not actually involve any "like" or "don't like". It is either "I consent" or "I don't".

People have the legal right to leave relationships and not consent to them any longer. That doesn't mean that if a person chooses to stay in an abusive or sexless relationship that I don't have empathy for them. I understand why staying, even though miserable, is sometimes the best option because I've been there.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Just so I understand this, as long as you are married, you are consenting to be married, And by extension consenting to everything that happens in your marriage. So if you're still married, everything that happens in your marriage is something you are consenting to, correct?


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I categorically refuse to consent to sexlessness. I don't care about your sophistry. 

To quote the twit at the abuse hotline "you need to understand consent better."

I demand the social standard of continuous, affirmative, Verbal consent. Implied consent is how we got in the mess we are in.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> Just so I understand this, as long as you are married, you are consenting to be married, And by extension consenting to everything that happens in your marriage. So if you're still married, everything that happens in your marriage is something you are consenting to, correct?


No.

If you're still married, you are consenting to be married.

If your marriage is sexless, then you are consenting to be in a sexless marriage as evident by the fact that you are remaining MARRIED. You can't take your consent away from being married unless you divorce.

Consenting to stay in a sexless marriage only means you are consenting to stay in a sexless marriage. It doesn't mean that you want or consent to not having sex, yet it IS a sexless marriage and the marriage itself is what you are consenting to, including all of it's conditions.

Please don't wrap my words around. I'm not saying anyone wants to be abused or sexless. I'm saying that by staying in the marriage, you are still consenting to the marriage and by extension, if it is a sexless or abusive marriage, that is the marriage you are consenting to.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

The bottom line is this… when someone share something painful, you don't just tritely tell them that they asked for it. It's called emotional intelligence. If you can't be compassionate than be quiet.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> I categorically refuse to consent to sexlessness. I don't care about your sophistry.
> 
> To quote the twit at the abuse hotline "you need to understand consent better."
> 
> I demand the social standard of continuous, affirmative, Verbal consent. Implied consent is how we got in the mess we are in.


I don't actually know your sitch. Are you in a sexless marriage? If so, what is the plan for your "refusing to consent to sexlessness"? As you know, you can't force anyone to have sex with you. So if she doesn't want a sex filled marriage, how are you going to get one?

At the end of your executed plan, if the marriage is still sexless, will you remain married?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> The bottom line is this… when someone share something painful, you don't just tritely tell them that they asked for it. It's called emotional intelligence. If you can't be compassionate than be quiet.


Except the original quote of mine that people are having an issue with was addressed to Conan Hub, who has a great marriage and sex life, and he also fully understood my post.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> I categorically refuse to consent to sexlessness. I don't care about your sophistry.
> 
> To quote the twit at the abuse hotline "you need to understand consent better."
> 
> I demand the social standard of continuous, affirmative, Verbal consent. Implied consent is how we got in the mess we are in.


If you truly "categorically refuse to consent to sexlessness" you would
1. Divorce or
2. Cheat

so long as you remain faithful in a sexless marriage, you are consenting to the sexlessness.

Please see also @faithfulwife recent posts on the topic. Hers as well as mine come from people who have been in sexless marriages. We both have the fortitude to look it in the eye and see it for what it is (was) as well as the strength to own our consent, for whatever duration it was allowed to continue. It's easy to deny this as it allows one to continue to be the victim and hold outside forces accountable for ones choices. But that _never_ overcomes, never leads to resolution, and denies ones self a critical part of ones own humanity.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

yes, Nonconsensually.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> If you truly "categorically refuse to consent to sexlessness" you would
> 1. Divorce or
> 2. Cheat
> 
> ...


Also....when I was in a sexless marriage, I never happened upon anyone who was able to explain to me that divorce was a real option. I never came upon any books or articles that helped me out with that. So like many young people who are married, divorce never even crossed my mind. All I was looking for was how to change him.

Therefore, since changing him was my only focus and divorce was never a consideration, I languished in my marriage, feeling like a victim, secretly hating him for keeping me "trapped" in this marriage and hating him even more for not changing to suit me.

It wasn't until I finally came across some articles and info that made it clear that staying in the marriage was a choice I was making that was not forced upon me. The light bulb went off. Divorce WAS an option, it was just going to come at a very high price. It took me several more years before I could actually make that choice, but at least I stopped feeling like a victim during that time. Every time things were depressing and bleak in my marriage, I just thought to myself "well, the only way out is divorce" which did help me a lot at that time. It meant there was ANY option that would guarantee I'd end my own sexlessness. Before then, I had searched for options (to change him) and found none and felt defeated every single day. After I realized divorce was an option, I spent time getting myself used to the idea that there was actually one guaranteed way out.

I really wish I had not ignored my only option sooner, so to me, posts like the ones I've made would have actually emboldened me and made me not feel like a victim anymore.

Whereas wishing to change him made me constantly feel like the victim.

In the end, I finally realized I was never a victim. I was just naive to what kinds of things can go wrong in marriage and to the fact that the only way out for me was divorce.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> yes, Nonconsensually.


How is it that you refuse to be in a sexless marriage if you are still in one? Aside from the word consent, you are in fact married.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

You are unable to comprehend this.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

So if I am consenting to be married, I am therefore consenting to everything that happens in my marriage. So if my husband decides to forcibly have sex with me tonight, or if my husband decides to punch me in the face tonight, since I am not divorced but am in fact married that means I consented and he cannot be accused of marital rape or abuse. Because if you are married, then you are consenting to everything in that marriage. Or that makes the criminal Justice system way different doesn't it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> So if I am consenting to be married, I am therefore consenting to everything that happens in my marriage. So if my husband decides to forcibly have sex with me tonight, or if my husband decides to punch me in the face tonight, since I am not divorced but am in fact married that means I consented and he cannot be accused of marital rape or abuse. Because if you are married, then you are consenting to everything in that marriage. Or that makes the criminal Justice system way different doesn't it.


Twist my words all you want. I'm not saying that, but have fun with it. I've made it clear what I mean and I know those who aren't trying to twist my words understand them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> You are unable to comprehend this.


We are talking about 2 different things. You are not able to hear what I'm really saying, but that's ok.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Mr. Nail said:
> 
> 
> > You are unable to comprehend this.
> ...


 You plainly said that if you are gonna sexless marriage you are consenting to a sexless marriage because you are married. That's exactly what you said. So what you said is that if it's happening to you while you're Married, then you're consenting. Several people have asked you to clarify and have disagreed with you. So I don't think it's that we are twisting. I think it's that you did not communicate it well, and then instead of setting it ride you dug in your heels because you needed to be right.


OK this post makes no sense because text to talk is stupid. I don't have the energy to fix it lol so just ignore it


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> You plainly said that if you are gonna sexless marriage you are consenting to a sexless marriage because you are married. That's exactly what you said. So what you said is that if it's happening to you while you're Married, then you're consenting. Several people have asked you to clarify and have disagreed with you. So I don't think it's that we are twisting. I think it's that you did not communicate it well, and then instead of setting it ride you dug in your heels because you needed to be right.


There's nothing to set right, and I have no reason to dig in my heels. I stated MY opinion, and we are always right about our own opinions.

Please see Rocky Mountain Yeti's post. Maybe he can explain it better than I can, since he is agreeing with me and saying the same things and isn't twisting my words to mean something else. Or perhaps go back and see all those who liked the posts of mine in this little back and forth and perhaps ask them to explain it to you? You are apparently not going to hear it from me no matter how many times I say it.

But for the record - - Yes, if you are in a sexless marriage, you are consenting to being in a sexless marriage, even though you may not like the sexlessness. 

Peace out.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Anyone who chooses to stay in a sexless marriage is choosing to be in a sexless marriage.

Choosing to stay is consent.

If someone doesn't consent to being in a sexless marriage they will end that sexless marriage.

We are all responsible for the choices we make.


----------



## manwithnoname (Feb 3, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> So if I am consenting to be married, I am therefore consenting to everything that happens in my marriage. So if my husband decides to forcibly have sex with me tonight, or if my husband decides to punch me in the face tonight, since I am not divorced but am in fact married that means I consented and he cannot be accused of marital rape or abuse. Because if you are married, then you are consenting to everything in that marriage. Or that makes the criminal Justice system way different doesn't it.


If you *remained* married to someone who did that, then you are consenting to that behavior. 

You like to make things difficult, not surprised many on here are frustrated with you.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I admit I was clarifying because someone very close to me was in an abusive marriage. Unfortunately, she did not leave the very very 1st time her husband hit her. I just wanted to make sure I was right in assuming that she consented to being hit every time after that 1st time since she didn't immediately divorce hearing it it's just not the narrative I'm used to hearing about things.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

manwithnoname said:


> If you *remained* married to someone who did that, then you are consenting to that behavior.


I would word it a bit differently. If your spouse rapes you and you remain married to them, then you are consenting to being married to a rapist. I wouldn't say you are consenting to the rape or the behavior, but you are consenting to the *marriage* and if the person raped you, then you are consenting to being *married to a rapist*.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> I admit I was clarifying because someone very close to me was in an abusive marriage. Unfortunately, she did not leave the very very 1st time her husband hit her. I just wanted to make sure I was right in assuming that she consented to being hit every time after that 1st time since she didn't immediately divorce hearing it it's just not the narrative I'm used to hearing about things.


She's not consenting to being hit, she's consenting to being in an abusive marriage. Or consenting to being married to an abuser.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

So I got to wondering, what exactly is required by marriage. I looked it up in my state of residence, I tried to look it up in the state I was married in but it was too hard. The law is pretty darn vague. It is way more concerned with who can get married that what marriage actually is. Apparently in my state there is no marriage obligation to live together, support each other, talk to each other, give back rubs, foot massages, or pedicures. In fact I couldn't find anything we have to do together except file taxes. I should have been married by a competent CPA. 

Sexual fidelity - nope
Calling if you are going to be home late - nope
Talking nice to MIL - nope

I can't believe the number of things I'm not obligated to do.

I'm not necessarily obligated to consent, I do have to be able to consent. Nothing about ongoing continuous consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> So I got to wondering, what exactly is required by marriage. I looked it up in my state of residence, I tried to look it up in the state I was married in but it was too hard. The law is pretty darn vague. It is way more concerned with who can get married that what marriage actually is. Apparently in my state there is no marriage obligation to live together, support each other, talk to each other, give back rubs, foot massages, or pedicures. In fact I couldn't find anything we have to do together except file taxes. I should have been married by a competent CPA.
> 
> Sexual fidelity - nope
> Calling if you are going to be home late - nope
> ...


In marriage, you only have to consent once, because the marriage license (legally binding contract) is what you've consented to. So if you are married, you have consented to your marriage, and whatever type of marriage that is.

Doesn't mean you like it or want it, as evidenced by the many unhappy marriages there are. But the fact remains, you are consenting to marriage for as long as you are married and unless you divorce, you are still consenting because you only have to consent once for the legally binding contract.


----------



## MichelleThoughts (Jun 24, 2018)

I think the obligation to provide sex goes hand in hand with the promise to be faithful. It is cruel to force one spouse into celibacy or a state of constantly-frustrated, anxious near-celibacy, because that person has made a promise to you. The promise goes both ways, in both directions. My husband has a higher sex drive than me but if he were to deny me all the time, I would be really unhappy! And I wouldn't want to cheat but I bet I would feel forced to consider it as an option in that difficult situation.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

All of going to say is if you are thinking about marriage as in terms of requirements then you are doing it wrong. Both spouses should be nurturing each other.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

sokillme said:


> All of going to say is if you are thinking about marriage as in terms of requirements then you are doing it wrong. Both spouses should be nurturing each other.


This this and this


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

sokillme said:


> All of going to say is if you are thinking about marriage as in terms of requirements then you are doing it wrong. Both spouses should be nurturing each other.


Both parties should do whatever they can to nurture the relationship, and they should do so out of love rather than obligation.

But all too often one realizes they have been busting their ass to do everything they know how to build and reinforce the bonds, but their partner has not. At that point it's only natural to think "I'm not being reciprocated here" and the marriage starts looking like an unbalanced ledger, which looks s lot like one party not meeting their obligations.

So while things should be done out of love rather than as contractual requirements, the fact remains that some things are required to sustain a marriage. Just because something should arise spontaneously rather than contractually doesn't keep it from being a requirement.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> This topic is so weird! Does **** like this really take place or is this discussion mostly hypothetical?


OMG! You have NO idea! Take a gander at Reddit's sub-forum DeadBedrooms. You could literally spend days reading about poor saps in sexless marriages. Some for a decade or more, believe it or not!



personofinterest said:


> Probably not a good idea to tell an abused woman that she is consenting to the abuse to because she hasn't left yet. Although I have heard people say it, and they cling like grim death to its validity.


 A close family member hits his GF. They've been together over 7 years now. He's been hitting her since a couple years in, that we know of. She's had offers of help from various other family members and myself. A safe place to stay and full support til she can get on her feet. She refuses to leave him. She's choosing to be a victim of abuse by staying in an abusive relationship. She's an adult in a free country. She has family (hers and ours) who would bend over backward to help her. She has options and this is what she chooses. At this point, she's absolutely consenting to the abuse.



Mr. Nail said:


> You are unable to comprehend this.


It's not hard to comprehend at all. 


con·sent
kənˈsent/Submit
noun
1. permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.


synonyms: agreement, assent, acceptance, approval, approbation; 

verb
1. give permission for something to happen.

synonyms: agree to, assent to, yield to, give in to, submit to; 

You consented (agreed) to marriage when you said the required words before an officiant. By refusing to legally divorce you are continuing to consent to the marriage. If the marriage is sexless, you are consenting (agreeing) to remain in a sexless marriage by remaining married under those conditions.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> OMG! You have NO idea! Take a gander at Reddit's sub-forum DeadBedrooms. You could literally spend days reading about poor saps in sexless marriages. Some for a decade or more, believe it or not!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have more patience than I do on this one. Agree BTW. I'm not sure how much sympathy I can summon for people who put up with or try to rationalize a sexless marriage.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

See, I save MY ire for the selfish spouse who withholds sex. 

I get what you are saying. I really do.

I guess I triggered because I felt like I was just told that the years of pain and trying to be "good enough" to be touched by husband were all my own fault since, hey, I consented.

Sometimes it stings to be completely invalidated.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Both parties should do whatever they can to nurture the relationship, and they should do so out of love rather than obligation.
> 
> *But all too often one realizes they have been busting their ass to do everything they know how to build and reinforce the bonds, but their partner has not. At that point it's only natural to think "I'm not being reciprocated here" and the marriage starts looking like an unbalanced ledger, which looks s lot like one party not meeting their obligations.*
> 
> So while things should be done out of love rather than as contractual requirements, the fact remains that some things are required to sustain a marriage. Just because something should arise spontaneously rather than contractually doesn't keep it from being a requirement.


I think often you also find that both parties are doing what they think they can to build and reinforce the bonds, but they're each doing it in a way that doesn't register with the other. Like they're throwing each other lifelines, but in the wrong direction. It ends up looking the same--each thinks they're the only person trying to sustain the marriage.


----------



## BarbedFenceRider (Mar 30, 2018)

For me....I just look back upon the earlier years. With lust and affection not being that difficult with my SO. So I use that as my gauge. Of course, things can take a backseat for a time, but if we are talking Reddit type deadbeadroom stuff....Yeah, Thats not loving relationship stuff.


I remember a family member of mine who went the same way. He noticed that the wife only "offered" herself occasionally and it was more appliance/furniture type utility. Not the loving connection between two partners. He called her out on it and simply said " You are not in love with me anymore." 

Her response was the eye opener concerning the relationship: "Of course, I love you! I cook for you every night don't I?" Seriously.

He told us later that the little lady at the 24 hour mexican food shop cooked for him as well....Did that mean...? lol Needless to say, he moved on.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Maybe this has already been addressed, but sex can be split into two categories: access and enthusiasm.

It's important because most people today are actually looking for enthusiasm, which is far more complicated than access. And completely understandable because it's a turn on when somebody wants you and a turn off when they just put up with you. 

But enthusiasm is relatively new along with the idea of marriage as a romantic partnership. Historically most men expected access and most women understood that was expected even if they refused. Marriage was a business arrangement, even if you had love for your spouse.

Porn has had a big impact on what people, men in particular, expect from sex. People want varying levels of desire and participation.

So is the question actually about whether sex is an obligation or whether enthusiasm is an obligation? 

I think the question should be about how much enthusiasm one is obligated to. Personally I'd rather take care of myself then deal with someone who isn't into me, but that's me. 

It's a tough issue.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> But for the record - - Yes, if you are in a sexless marriage, you are consenting to being in a sexless marriage, even though you may not like the sexlessness.


Consent is not the same as circumstance.

One can be in a sexless marriage without consenting to the sexlessness. Trying to save the marriage through counseling is one option, but it takes time to bear fruit. You yourself were married for years long after you had removed consent to be sexless, but needed time to fully realize your escape plan.

There are legitimate reason to remain in a situation to which you do not consent as a permanent state of affairs, but to which you are resigned to bear temporarily until it is fixed or you can remove yourself from it. 

Tolerating something in the short term is not the same as consenting, IMHO. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

sokillme said:


> All of going to say is if you are thinking about marriage as in terms of requirements then you are doing it wrong. Both spouses should be nurturing each other.


Marriage is about both.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

MJJEAN said:


> It's not hard to comprehend at all.
> 
> verb
> 1. give permission for something to happen.
> ...


The definition clearly states that permission has to be given. That is an action. It is not a default. Thanks.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> The definition clearly states that permission has to be given. That is an action. It is not a default. Thanks.


Staying in a sexless nominally sexual relationship is an action.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

personofinterest said:


> Probably not a good idea to tell an abused woman that she is consenting to the abuse to because she hasn't left yet. Although I have heard people say it, and they cling like grim death to its validity.


There is a difference between recognizing power and accepting fault and blame. Accepting that one can CHOOSE not to "consent" since this is the word of the thread IS power. I am not sure why you are focused on the fault and blame. I would go so far as to say that the person who is on the not sex part of a sexless marriage has their own issues and is likely no more "at fault". Life gets so much more clear when we stop caring whose fault stuff is, put on our big girl panties and act for what we want.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Consent is not the same as circumstance.
> 
> One can be in a sexless marriage without consenting to the sexlessness. Trying to save the marriage through counseling is one option, but it takes time to bear fruit. You yourself were married for years long after you had removed consent to be sexless, but needed time to fully realize your escape plan.
> 
> ...


Yes I tolerated it, didn’t like it, hated it in fact. Yet I was consenting to be married for as long as I was married. During some of that marriage, we were sexless. Therefore I was consenting (though not enjoying or wanting) to my sexless marriage until the day I was no longer married.

Consent does not require enthusiasm, enjoyment or anything else. Yes means yes. Or in this case, I do (plus your signature on required paperwork) means yes, I consent to be married until death or until one of us files.

Please explain how anyone is married without consenting to be married? If the marriage is full of sex, they are consenting to a sex filled marriage. If it is sexless they are consenting to a sexless marriage.

Instead of this making people feel like I’m saying they want to be sexless, it should make them feel like they actually have the power to remove themselves from sexlessness since their consent is required in order to be married. Removing your consent from being in a sexless marriage is the only way to end your own sexlessness. This is the same as saying you can’t change anyone and the only real options people have are to stay or leave. We tell new people in sexless marriages this all the time.

Yep, it’s the choice no one wants to make. But it’s still the only one. (This is assuming there is no chance of changing the sexlessness within the marriage, which is not always the case but usually is). The price of removing your consent to be married is very high and many people decide to endure the sexlessness rather than pay that price.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think this is an example of how complex "consent" can be. If she doesn't resist or try to avoid being hit is she "consenting"? I don't think anyone would call it that. 

Many people find themselves in situations that for various reasons - either external / practical, or internal / psychological - they are unable to leave. Abuse takes many forms, some physical and violent, some much more subtle. 

Does a woman with kids, and no job training really "consent" to having sex with her husband if he threatens to leave if he turns her down? Does a man "consent" to remaining in a sexless marriage if divorce results in a huge financial burden? 

I think there is a continuum from active positive interest in an activity, to engaging in an activity to avoid physical harm. No clear dividing line. 








Faithful Wife said:


> She's not consenting to being hit, she's consenting to being in an abusive marriage. Or consenting to being married to an abuser.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> See, I save MY ire for the selfish spouse who withholds sex.
> 
> I get what you are saying. I really do.
> 
> ...


I for one am so sorry for what you went through. And you know the church and current theology and its interpretation really causes some of these issues of sexless marriages and abusive marriage to continue. 

If you divorce you "disappoint god", or "you are a failure", or you are not good enough. 

This is not what the bible says, or even what pro marriage people should say or think. 

So that is one issue, and I am not getting into a pissing match with anyone about it. I have been there, I have lived some of that marriage stuff and the church's and church leaders thought on divorce. 

I am not condemning Christianity, I am saying that the interpretation from the standard to the outliers have issues and an untrained, inexperienced Christian that does not understand life falls pray and suffers. 

But it happens in non Christian marriages as well. Why people say in these situations in insane to me. 

I have never been in a sexless relationship but I have sure had some totally dysfunctional marriages that I stayed in too long. 

I just consoled a beautiful young woman (45) that was in a sexless/near sexless marriage. Her H was basically asexual, or super close to that. Plus he was terrible at sex. This woman was suffering for all the standard reasons, kids, lifestyle, and on and on. It was heartbreaking. 

Even my GF dealt with this early in life. Her husband has issues, and eventually he was screwing around and she just wanted to be made love to. What it did to her self esteem still breaks my heart. 

I am doing everything I can do to help her understand how beautiful, and sexual she is but it still took a while for her to get it, because of the damage done in the past. 

I assure you that her sexless issues were not her fault, AT ALL. But, she still suffered...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> The definition clearly states that permission has to be given. That is an action. It is not a default. Thanks.


If your spouse doesn’t want to have sex with you and you remain married to them, you are consenting to whatever their terms of marriage are. 

Staying married is permission. (ETA: To be more clear, the permission you are giving is that you ARE STILL MARRIED, it does not mean giving permission of each individual action. The action of being married already happened).

Giving that permission by staying married means you are allowing yourself to be treated that way. If you don’t like how you are treated and stay anyway, you may not be happy but you are giving your consent *to be married* each and every day you are legally married.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

uhtred said:


> I think this is an example of how complex "consent" can be. If she doesn't resist or try to avoid being hit is she "consenting"? I don't think anyone would call it that.
> 
> Many people find themselves in situations that for various reasons - either external / practical, or internal / psychological - they are unable to leave. Abuse takes many forms, some physical and violent, some much more subtle.
> 
> ...


Personally, I agree that a case could be made in a lot of marriages that one or both spouses are not mentally sound enough to consent to marriage. Abusive men specifically. But how that could ever be regulated I have no clue. 

Until then consent to marriage is available to nearly everyone of legal age.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> If your spouse doesn’t want to have sex with you and you remain married to them, you are consenting to whatever their terms of marriage are.
> 
> Staying married is permission.
> 
> Giving that permission by staying married means you are allowing yourself to be treated that way. If you don’t like how you are treated and stay anyway, you may not be happy.but you are giving your consent to be married each and every day you are legally married.


I am not sure what the fixation on consent and permission is. Where the rubber meets the road, the sexless person has no power to change the situation. It is rather pedantic to get fixated on "consent". To the degree that there is a time period for which one must remain married, I suppose they literally are "consenting". But what is the point of that focus?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure what the fixation on consent and permission is. Where the rubber meets the road, t*he sexless person has no power to change the situation. *It is rather pedantic to get fixated on "consent". To the degree that there is a time period for which one must remain married, I suppose they literally are "consenting". But what is the point of that focus?


Really?

End the relationship. That would change the situation. It's also completely within their power. It may not be a pleasant alternative, but it is possible, doable, within the sexless person's power, and most importantly, most definitely would change the situation. 

Making their current partner want/have more sex is just one way of changing the situation, and just because that may not be possible doesn't mean there aren't other ways of changing the situation. And that's what makes the usage of the word "consent" relevant here, pedantic or not. It helps accurately describe the (oh so hypothetical) situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure what the fixation on consent and permission is. Where the rubber meets the road, the sexless person has no power to change the situation. It is rather pedantic to get fixated on "consent". To the degree that there is a time period for which one must remain married, I suppose they literally are "consenting". But what is the point of that focus?


I'm not really sure. I made one post that included the word consent and a few people came down on me for it.

It really is just semantics.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Really?
> 
> End the relationship. That would change the situation. It's also completely within their power. It may not be a pleasant alternative, but it is possible, doable, within the sexless person's power, and most importantly, most definitely would change the situation.


When I said situation, I meant the sexlessness. If course, I agree with you.



> *Making their current partner* *want*/*have more sex* is just one way of changing the situation, and just because that may not be possible doesn't mean there aren't other ways of changing the situation.


Is it? Not sure.



> And that's what makes the usage of the word "consent" relevant here, pedantic or not. It helps accurately describe the (oh so hypothetical) situation.


I find it obfuscating. But there it is. Different strokes.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Really?
> 
> End the relationship. That would change the situation. It's also completely within their power. It may not be a pleasant alternative, but it is possible, doable, within the sexless person's power, and most importantly, most definitely would change the situation.


The other option is to cheat. Thereby ending your consent to be faithful. Not a good option for most but it is an option. If you cheat but don't leave the marriage, then you've ended your personal sexlessness perhaps but you are still in a sexless marriage. For some, the sexless marriage then becomes tolerable.

Note: this still usually ends in divorce.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> The other option is to cheat. Thereby ending your consent to be faithful. Not a good option for most but it is an option. If you cheat but don't leave the marriage, then you've ended your personal sexlessness perhaps but you are still in a sexless marriage. For some, the sexless marriage then becomes tolerable.
> 
> Note: this still usually ends in divorce.


If you are in a sexless marriage and you've tried the getting in shape, personal improvement route and you still aren't getting any. Might be time to test the waters (not sleep with anyone) but make it known to your sexless partner that you have options and one day they could become reality. Point is not to hide your intentions. If that doesn't do anything, probably high time to pull the cord, cause they don't want you anymore...


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Please explain how anyone is married without consenting to be married? If the marriage is full of sex, they are consenting to a sex filled marriage. If it is sexless they are consenting to a sexless marriage.


The day you file for divorce, you are no longer consenting to the sexless marriage. Yet you are still married, and may be for some time until the divorce is finalized.

The day you drag your partner to a marriage counselor and say "fix this or I leave", you are no longer consenting to the sexless marriage. Either the sex returns, or you leave. The status quo is not acceptable - you do not consent to it's continuation. Yet you are still married until the sex returns or the divorce is final.

Removal of consent can happen long before the marriage is dissolved or repaired.

So my point, which is not just semantics, is that ending the marriage is not the only way to remove your consent to it, while being married does not automatically imply that you consent to it's sexlessness.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> If you are in a sexless marriage and you've tried the getting in shape, personal improvement route and you still aren't getting any. Might be time to test the waters (not sleep with anyone) but make it known to your sexless partner that you have options and one day they could become reality. Point is not to hide your intentions. If that doesn't do anything, probably high time to pull the cord, cause they don't want you anymore...


I can understand this thought process, but I feel like at the end of the day if you get anything at all it'll be access, not enthusiasm.

That can be worse than nothing.

Intimacy that's given under threat usually isn't real..... pulling the chord is probably a better option.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Cletus said:


> The day you file for divorce, you are no longer consenting to the sexless marriage. Yet you are still married, and may be for some time until the divorce is finalized.
> 
> The day you drag your partner to a marriage counselor and say "fix this or I leave", you are no longer consenting to the sexless marriage. Either the sex returns, or you leave. The status quo is not acceptable - you do not consent to it's continuation. Yet you are still married until the sex returns or the divorce is final.
> 
> ...


I think the scenario under discussion was people who stay in the sexless marriage voluntarily; i.e. haven't filed. I don't think anyone was referring to the sort of transition period you describe. I know I wasn't. Of course, if you've filed, that changes a great deal.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I think the scenario under discussion was people who stay in the sexless marriage voluntarily; i.e. haven't filed. I don't think anyone was referring to the sort of transition period you describe. I know I wasn't. Of course, if you've filed, that changes a great deal.


That's the least interesting of the "consent limbo" cases. I'm using way too many words to convey that trying to fix the problem within the marriage, or even going outside of it are also ways of expressing non consent.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Mr. Nail said:


> The definition clearly states that permission has to be given. That is an action. It is not a default. Thanks.


You've given your wife permission to deny you sex by staying in a sexless marriage with her. If you want to revoke permission, file for a divorce. Otherwise, by remaining married, you're accepting (assenting to, agreeing to, submitting to) the state of sexlessness. 


con·sent
kənˈsent/Submit
noun
1. permission for something to happen or *agreement* to do something.

synonyms:* agreement*, assent, *acceptance*, approval, approbation; 

verb
1. give permission for something to happen.
synonyms: *agree to*, *assent to*, *yield to*, *give in to*,* submit to*; More


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

In every other legal contract when one party is in breach the contract is void. But the trouble with this contract is that there are no terms to violate, no possible action that is a breech of contract. As living persons and not legal abstracts, we have some expectations, or mutually understood requirements for marriage. One of those requirements might be sexual and emotional fidelity. (love honor and cherish) Another aspect of that is often included under this expected umbrella is a regular healthy sex life. And of course there are others. The point being that when infidelity or sexual separation occurs many people (quite rightly) feel that the contract is breached and the marriage has become void. Now legally this is not the case but is marriage a legal institution, or are the legal aspects of marriage just a convenience for government bookkeeping? Legally sexual participation can not be required in any way. Because fictitiously sex is not part of a healthy lifestyle. Food and shelter are. And abandonment is a real and pressing problem.

But to return to the subject the unwillingly sexless party (or the betrayed spouse for that matter) feels that there is no "real" marriage in existence. The marriage is void because there are no participating members of the contract. Now the government and assorted wags can demand a formal dissolution of the marriage (for convenience of record keeping) But until the parties of the marriage again begin to participate in the union, there is no effective marriage. The paper sham that is the remains of the marriage is not their choice, but a matter foisted on them by government and society (assorted wags). Sexlessness continues. Legal obligation (to do nothing) continues. But the relationship dies. Living together, never interacting, rarely talking, and then only about the kids. Slowly frosting and freezing over as the years pass.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Lord it seems like every scenario has now been touched on, on this topic. 

Unless pre-agreed upon.....any SO entering a M should know there will be sex. Older and/or previously married folks are the more likely to communicate clearly on this and other topics so to potentially avoid this particular "unexpected" future problem (as much as is possible anyway).

Yes, one is obligated, to an extent, to be their SO's intimate partner. If they can't agree on a pattern that works for both, there will be problems, just to restate the obvious.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Law has given my wife, (and every other person on the planet) permission to deny me sex. It has nothing to do with my failure to divorce. Divorce will actually forbid me (religiously but not legally) from having sex with her. There is no possible way for any Man to revoke that permission. The state of sexlessness is not changed by either marriage or divorce, it is the act of me respecting the rights of others.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> The paper sham that is the remains of the marriage is not their choice, but a matter foisted on them by government and society (assorted wags).


Well, no. Marriage is never foisted upon anyone. Once you said I do, government doesn't care what you do next. You can stay whether you are happy or not, you can cheat, you can physically live somewhere else, you can wander off to another country and never come back. But at no time is the government foisting your marriage upon you. You entered a contract and the government is done with the transaction, paying zero attention to what you do next. Unless you file for divorce, the government will never have one moment of paying attention to your marriage. And after divorce, they won't pay attention to that either. These are choices people make, the government could care less if you make them or not.

What you said about the relationship dying is absolutely true. There are many marriages that have no actual relationship as their foundation. There are definitely sham marriages.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> Law has given my wife, (and every other person on the planet) permission to deny me sex. It has nothing to do with my failure to divorce. Divorce will actually forbid me (religiously but not legally) from having sex with her. There is no possible way for any Man to revoke that permission. The state of sexlessness is not changed by either marriage or divorce, it is the act of me respecting the rights of others.


You lost me with this one.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> Law has given my wife, (and every other person on the planet) permission to deny me sex. It has nothing to do with my failure to divorce. Divorce will actually forbid me (religiously but not legally) from having sex with her. There is no possible way for any Man to revoke that permission. The state of sexlessness is not changed by either marriage or divorce, it is the act of me respecting the rights of others.


Assuming you are actually somehow bound by this religious dogma of which you speak, the sexlessness of which you speak only applies to your wife. She may deny you, both in or out of marriage, either legally or religiously, but that only applies to the two of you. Not you and anybody else. 

And either way, you are not required to remain in that sexless marriage, so again, that sexlessness is just with her. 

You are not stuck in a sexless marriage as you can leave it if it doesn't suit you. 
You are not bound to sexlessness in general because you are free to find a partner who will have sex. 

The only thing you may be tied to forever, even within the confines of your dogma about not having sex with your divorced wife, is _not having sex with your wife. _ If you are hellbent on your frigid wife determining your sexual fate,_ that is still your decision. _ It conveniently frees you from your own responsibility for taking other action, but that's only denying yourself how own power.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I know that it really bothers you that I am not really very interested in "anybody else". I did spend several months contemplating that idea. The end result was a better understanding of myself. I am in no hurry to solve this problem. My lack of urgency does not equal consent to the current situation. Life and the cycles of aging will resolve this one way or another. If I am Hellbent on something it is self determination. One can chose not to exercise ones power without abdicating it. And Finally I have no "responsibility" to anyone to act on this.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

MJJEAN said:


> You've given your wife permission to deny you sex by staying in a sexless marriage with her. If you want to revoke permission, file for a divorce. Otherwise, by remaining married, you're accepting (assenting to, agreeing to, submitting to) the state of sexlessness.
> 
> 
> con·sent
> ...


 @MJJEAN you should research affirmative consent! "Yes means yes" is now the only appropriate time to understand that someone has actually given consent. 

The idea of affirmative consent works both for getting someone to agree to have sex and to get someone to agree to abstinence. Waiting for "no means no" in either scenario is problematic. 

My spouse consented to have sex because he/she never said no ≠ consent

My spouse consented to have sex because I asked and he/she said "yes" = consent

My spouse consented to abstinence in our marriage because he/she never filed for divorce ≠ consent

My spouse consented to abstinence in our marriage because I asked and he/she said "yes" = consent

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> I know that it really bothers you that I am not really very interested in "anybody else". I did spend several months contemplating that idea. The end result was a better understanding of myself. I am in no hurry to solve this problem. My lack of urgency does not equal consent to the current situation. Life and the cycles of aging will resolve this one way or another. If I am Hellbent on something it is self determination. One can chose not to exercise ones power without abdicating it. And Finally I have no "responsibility" to anyone to act on this.


*"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."*
*Freewill*, by Rush, lyrics by Neil Peart. 

That you are in no hurry to solve the problem affirms that you are willing to stay in the problem, at least for the time being. That is consent to continuing to live with the problem, at least for the time being. If you were truly hellbent on self determination, you'd stand up and own your decision to stay, at least so far. as well _as the consequences of that decision_, because you could have chosen otherwise.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

nice cherry pick


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

I think it’s best to differentiate between sexlessness and intimate partner violence. 

Divorcing someone who isn’t having sex with you can be financially disruptive but it is statistically very low risk - in terms of your physical security. 

In the US about 1,000 women a year are murdered by intimate partners. Often as they attempt to leave the relationship. The question of consent is less clear cut when you legitimately fear that your partner may kill you or your children if you attempt to end the relationship/marriage. 

This gets even murkier when you have children together as it prevents the at risk partner from moving away and not sharing their new location with their ex. 





Faithful Wife said:


> She's not consenting to being hit, she's consenting to being in an abusive marriage. Or consenting to being married to an abuser.


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> You have the right to have sex with anyone who willingly wants to have sex with you.
> 
> Is sex a human right? No, because every human can lead a long, healthy life without it. (Life is better with it, but it's not necessary.)
> 
> Food and water are human rights because no human can live long without these things.


Food and water are nesessities or needs Not sure they fall under rights.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

chillymorn69 said:


> Food and water are nesessities or needs Not sure they fall under rights.


What IS a "right"? So many conversations would just end if that were something we could determine.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Rasclomalum said:


> One thing that genuinely strikes me as odd is how often during these merry discussions about sex and relationships the statement that no one is under any obligation to have sex with anyone, and that no one has any right to have their sexual needs fulfilled, is brought up. Uhm, okay? To me, it seems like one of those things that, while it certainly is a perfectly ironclad statement, is also perfectly meaningless. I mean, you're in a sexless relationship, your partner clearly suffers, and your response is that sex is not a human right? Yeah, you sure sound like a lot of fun. Who the hell thinks about romantic relationships in terms of legal rights? There are no back rub regulations, no statutes concerning remembering someone's birthday, no ordinances with regards to hand-holding... nothing of value in a relationship is a right, so why even bring it up?
> 
> EDIT: I realize this might be OT. If so, delete the thread.



People bring up this "rights" stuff WAY too often. In both government and spiritual thought, "inalienable rights" are those which are not possible to physically remove from someone. In the USA, the "right to pursue happiness" for instance, is noted as inalienable. Even someone incarcerated for a crime can "pursue happiness" to the extent that it's possible to simply choose to be happy even without material possessions. Most governments choose to grant rights based on a society's notion of basic reasonable ethics, such as the right to work for income if one desires, or the right to retire at a certain age, or the right to have freedom from unreasonable government intervention.

IMO, the "rights" discussion becomes questionable when aphorisms are employed. The "right to heatlh care" bothers me a lot. Yes, I think everybody should have some kind of access to health care SERVICES, but the fact is that 99% of "health care" is personal decisions, personal actions, and personal choices. Therefore I prefer to think of health care as a personal responsibility and the only "rights" part of it is access to professionals who can give you advice and help you fix your mistakes.

Now, how about relationships?

A relationship is not based on rights. It's based on an agreement. If you enter into the kind of relationship, such as marriage, that normally involves regular sexual activity, then you have VOLUNTARILY subjected yourself to the OBLIGATION to carry out the agreement you entered into. You think you're under no obligation to provide the kinds of activities normally associated with being in a romantic relationship? Then why did you voluntarily agree to this relationship? If you don't want to participate in all the normal activities that are part of a long-term romantic relationship, then please do not enter into such relationships! It'll save a lot of emotional grief and court costs.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> What IS a "right"? So many conversations would just end if that were something we could determine.


Wikipedia has a very good explanation of them, in an article entitled "human rights". I read it, and it all made sense based on my lifetime of observations of how government and spiritual institutions discuss "rights", as well as some knowledge of US law. I'd say the maority of people, while not being able to put it into words, probably understand "rights" about the way they're discussed on the Wikpedia article.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

DustyDog said:


> Wikipedia has a very good explanation of them, in an article entitled "human rights". I read it, and it all made sense based on my lifetime of observations of how government and spiritual institutions discuss "rights", as well as some knowledge of US law. I'd say the maority of people, while not being able to put it into words, probably understand "rights" about the way they're discussed on the Wikpedia article.


I was being facetious.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure where you're getting this. As I said, I've also been in a sexless marriage. For the duration of the marriage, I was consenting to be married. When I no longer consented to it, I filed for divorce. By "consent" I don't mean I verbally went around saying "YES, I want to be in a sexless marriage!!!" I did not *want* to be in a sexless marriage, but I was in one and that means I was consenting to be married. Eventually I did not consent to it anymore. I didn't *want* to be divorced either, I had wanted to be happily married. But there was no way for that to happen with my first husband.


Sorry for the slightly off topic comment, but you seem like a very well spoken, kind, and passionate person. I'm sorry for the grief of first marriage and wonder how a man would not fight tooth and nail to keep you.
*pls note this is a general comment and would apply in many others circumstances ie I'm not trying to "hit on" FW.

FW's comments, to me are spot on and just struck a nerve, to comment on.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

No one should feel obligated to provide sexual access, and no one is obligated to show enthusiasm or have passion (besides, it's difficult to fake for long, IMO). However, consequences are likely. Their partner is under no obligation to stay in that relationship. I would even say that continuous denial nullifies any vows of fidelity, even while the marriage may still be legally intact. Circumstances may complicate disengaging/leaving, but each party has a choice, even if acting on it makes life difficult for a while. My choice would be to leave as soon as I feel that the situation cannot be fixed. I exercised that choice in my first marriage. I will do so again - and far more quickly - if similar circumstances arise. I sincerely doubt that will happen, though, as we've maintained continuous passion and enthusiasm for each other for over 18 years. Age and health issues may slow us down eventually, of course, but that's not denial or lack of caring for each other.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

This has nothing to do with "rights". This is simply expectations of a happy, fulfilling marriage. No one gets married thinking they are signing up for a monastic lifestyle or at best blackmail/bribery sex. That's not a marriage anymore, that is just roommates with a great deal of resentment. That ish needs changing and you should be proactive about it, because it never ends well.

Maybe when you are really old, then you take what you can get, but you may not even want it at that point.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> This has nothing to do with "rights". This is simply expectations of a happy, fulfilling marriage. No one gets married thinking they are signing up for a monastic lifestyle or at best blackmail/bribery sex. That's not a marriage anymore, that is just roommates with a great deal of resentment. That ish needs changing and you should be proactive about it, because it never ends well.
> 
> Maybe when you are really old, then you take what you can get, but you may not even want it at that point.


Exactly. Living in that kind of life is PAINFUL. So, ya know, COMPASSION is a nice, emotionally intelligent response.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure where you're getting this. As I said, I've also been in a sexless marriage. For the duration of the marriage, I was consenting to be married. When I no longer consented to it, I filed for divorce. By "consent" I don't mean I verbally went around saying "YES, I want to be in a sexless marriage!!!" I did not *want* to be in a sexless marriage, but I was in one and that means I was consenting to be married. Eventually I did not consent to it anymore. I didn't *want* to be divorced either, I had wanted to be happily married. But there was no way for that to happen with my first husband.
> ...


Aww, that’s sweet.

I got pregnant and married to my first husband at 19. We really should have never married but we thought we were doing the right thing. But we were really never compatible and things didn’t go well for us. We both struggled a lot. He didn’t fight tooth and nail for me because we both knew it was over by the time I left.

At the time I hoped he would fight for me, but he knew it would be hopeless. So after a short time I was just happy to be free (and find a good sex life, which I did).


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Maxwedge 413 said:


> So, you're introducing yourself to a relationship forum by basically saying "Chicks should Put-out or Get-out"? "If she's my girl I have the right to do What I want, When I want"? Really?
> 
> I would say that if your partner doesn't want to have sex with you then they Absolutely do not have to. And you Absolutely are entitled to be sad or bitter about it, or try to work it out, or dump her. Yes.
> 
> ...


Of course, I didn't see anything in the OP specifying any gender either way. Nor did I see anything about forcing sex on someone. So I have a feeling you have issues that you are all too happy to project on others.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

badsanta said:


> @MJJEAN you should research affirmative consent! "Yes means yes" is now the only appropriate time to understand that someone has actually given consent.
> 
> The idea of affirmative consent works both for getting someone to agree to have sex and to get someone to agree to abstinence. Waiting for "no means no" in either scenario is problematic.
> 
> ...



Staying in a sexless marriage is consenting to sexlessness. Each and every day @Mr. Nail doesn't file divorce papers and find a willing sexual partner he is consenting to sexlessness by virtue of his refusal to take action to end the sexlessness. He may have financial and religious reasons for not taking action, but the bottom line is that he is choosing to remain sexless by remaining married to a partner who doesn't have sex with him.


And, honestly, I affirmative sexual consent as understood and applied today dries my vag up so fast it's ridiculous.



Mr. Nail said:


> *Law has given my wife*, (and every other person on the planet) permission to deny me sex. It has nothing to do with my failure to divorce. Divorce will actually forbid me (religiously but not legally) from having sex with her. There is no possible way for any Man to revoke that permission. The state of sexlessness is not changed by either marriage or divorce, it is the act of me respecting the rights of others.


The law gives you the option of divorce whether or not your wife agrees to divorce. You have a legally and socially acceptable way to end your sexless marriage and seek out a willing sexual partner, but you choose to remain sexless. If that choice is motivated by your religious beliefs, fine, but it's still a choice.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I have a little trouble with the idea that there exists a socially acceptable way for this person to seek out a willing sex partner. But that is neither here nor there. your feelings about affirmative consent, and your ridiculous definition of consent, have nothing to do with the validity of my position. I refuted every point of your last restating of your Opinion, and you just repeated it again. Divorce worked for you. Great. The miracle of modern medication side effects has pretty much resolved my high libido problem. It worked for me. But it is a workaround, not a choice. Now if Mrs. Nail's thyroid trouble gets straightened around, or her hormone levels settle down and her libido rises, well it's likely to get messy.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> I have a little trouble with the idea that there exists a socially acceptable way for this person to seek out a willing sex partner. But that is neither here nor there. your feelings about affirmative consent, and your ridiculous definition of consent, have nothing to do with the validity of my position. I refuted every point of your last restating of your Opinion, and you just repeated it again. Divorce worked for you. Great. The miracle of modern medication side effects has pretty much resolved my high libido problem. It worked for me. But it is a workaround, not a choice. Now if Mrs. Nail's thyroid trouble gets straightened around, or her hormone levels settle down and her libido rises, well it's likely to get messy.


Nobody is suggesring there aren't circumstances that lead to your choices in life. They are simply pointing out that your choices in life are still yours to make regardless of circumstance.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Alright, just off the top of my head, today I choose to be taller.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Mr. Nail said:


> Alright, just off the top of my head, today I choose to be taller.


Height is something you have no control over. Whether or not you file for a divorce and go get laid is something you have control over. You just don't want to exercise that control.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> Mr. Nail said:
> 
> 
> > Alright, just off the top of my head, today I choose to be taller.
> ...


I’m so confused that this needs to be explained to anyone.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Hey if I'm married I fully expect to be used for sex. Excuse me, a sexual partner, or whatever is PC nowadays.
> 
> But seriously, unless clearly stated before a M, everyone knows they're going to have sex with their loving SO.
> 
> Get real.


Well, there's this thing called implied merchantability...

The warranty of*merchantabilityis*implied, unless expressly disclaimed by name, or the sale is identified with the phrase "as is" or "with all faults." To be "merchantable", the goods must reasonably conform to an ordinary buyer's expectations, i.e., they are what they say they are.

Too bad we don't look at marriage and its rules from this prespective.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

MJJEAN said:


> Height is something you have no control over. Whether or not you file for a divorce and go get laid is something you have control over. You just don't want to exercise that control.





Faithful Wife said:


> I’m so confused that this needs to be explained to anyone.


ah ha! we have got to the point where you can admit that there are things a person has no control of. Now if you can just stretch your minds to the point where you can see outside of the tiny world you live in, and realize that there are people who are different than you . . .


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Mr. Nail said:


> ah ha! we have got to the point where you can admit that there are things a person has no control of. No if you can just stretch tiyr minds to the point where you can see outside of the tiny world you live in, and realize that there are people who are different than you . . .


I do believe most here realize not everyone is the same in all facets......that said there are similarities in reactions and emotions as each person(s) encounter similar circumstances.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

There is a difference between having a good choice and a bad choice and having a situation where all the choices suck. But that doesn't mean there is no choice.

I think when ALL the choices have pretty huge downsides, it is much harder to make the choice. So we get stuck.

In my own sexless marriage, I was not WITHOUT choice. However, it didn;t mean that any choice was necessarily "good," and it most certainly did NOT absolve my withholding, selfish partner of responsibility.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> MJJEAN said:
> 
> 
> > Height is something you have no control over. Whether or not you file for a divorce and go get laid is something you have control over. You just don't want to exercise that control.
> ...


If there are people who are so different that they can choose to be taller, I want to meet them.

Mr. Nail, we do empathize with you. It’s just that we can empathize with your situation yet still know you have a choice. We know it’s a hard choice and that staying may be the lesser of two hard choices. But there’s still choices. I hope someday you have some kind of change that ends up with you being happier.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

personofinterest said:


> There is a difference between having a good choice and a bad choice and having a situation where all the choices suck. But that doesn't mean there is no choice.
> 
> I think when ALL the choices have pretty huge downsides, it is much harder to make the choice. So we get stuck.
> 
> In my own sexless marriage, I was not WITHOUT choice. However, it didn;t mean that any choice was necessarily "good," and *it most certainly did NOT absolve my withholding, selfish partner of responsibility*.


I struggle with this. All other things being good (assuming since the topic is withholding SEX) what would cause a person to do this? What would this look like from HIS PoV? I just don't want to so f-you? Most people don't act like that.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> I struggle with this. All other things being good (assuming since the topic is withholding SEX) what would cause a person to do this? What would this look like from HIS PoV? I just don't want to so f-you? Most people don't act like that.


He didn't really have a sex drive, he really didn't need it. It wasn't important to him. And by extension, that meant it wasn't important at all.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

To give you an analogy that you may be able to grasp, Would you say to a lesbian that She always has the "choice" to date men and that you are sure that will make her happy? My situation is similar to that. I choose (if you must insist on it) to remain in a sexually inadequate marriage. Because for me, the option is a Sexless divorce. I simply do not share the sexuality that allows me to rush into a sexual relationship. And quite frankly at my age, I have no patience for developing an adequate relationship. This is less likely to change than my height.

Also @NobodySpecial "I just don't want to so f-you?" is way more common than you think. We are in a world of Me First.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I do believe most here realize not everyone is the same in all facets......that said there are similarities in reactions and emotions as each person(s) encounter similar circumstances.


Did you just say: Everyone is different in some ways, but in this particular way everyone is exactly alike? It is my observation that emotional response is one of the greatest differences between people.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> Also @NobodySpecial "I just don't want to so f-you?" is way more common than you think. We are in a world of Me First.


So ok. People come here with problems about not getting sex very commonly. For ME, that is like ONE symptom among many, many. If someone is married to I just don't want to so f-you, just WHY? I mean talk about being pretty frickin simple.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> So ok. People come here with problems about not getting sex very commonly. For ME, that is like ONE symptom among many, many. If someone is married to I just don't want to so f-you, just WHY? I mean talk about being pretty frickin simple.


For me it had to do with misguided religiosity. But that is a whole OTHER story.

I DO think that sometimes people just neglect and jackass the libido out of their partner. Heck, I have a very high drive, and if I were married to some of the people I have encountered online it would be zero lol


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

you bring up a good point about cause and effect. Low sex drive is often a result of lacking relationship. Low sex drive is also a cause of lacking relationship. I just don't want to, is commonly followed by I'm not obligated to, which is reinforced by No person is obligated to, and Me to, Which frequently leads to What I want is what I get. Which instantly devolves to F-you. So you think why would any person stay for this. Well we agree that no person is obligated to. So the Idea of heaping divorce onto a person who is only insisting on their perfectly reasonable rights, seems somehow cruel. frickn' simple? Of course there are plenty who take the simple resolution and go their own way. Or Take the long way home. Just not this one.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> Of course there are plenty who take the simple resolution


LOL at thinking divorcing is simple.

If you don't want to be judged yourself, try not judging.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

personofinterest said:


> For me it had to do with misguided religiosity. But that is a whole OTHER story.
> 
> I DO think that sometimes people just neglect and jackass the libido out of their partner. Heck, I have a very high drive, and *if I were married to some of the people I have encountered online it would be zero* lol


Without a doubt!
I do wonder at times If I am just finishing the job by Jackassing (good word even if spell check doesn't recognize it) the desire out of my partner. Kind of like an exit affair. Pushing her to the edge


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> you bring up a good point about cause and effect. Low sex drive is often a result of lacking relationship. Low sex drive is also a cause of lacking relationship. I just don't want to, is commonly followed by I'm not obligated to, which is reinforced by No person is obligated to, and Me to, Which frequently leads to What I want is what I get. Which instantly devolves to F-you. So you think why would any person stay for this. Well we agree that no person is obligated to. So the Idea of heaping divorce onto a person who is only insisting on their perfectly reasonable rights, seems somehow cruel. frickn' simple? Of course there are plenty who take the simple resolution and go their own way. Or Take the long way home. Just not this one.


The only person who is being cruel to you is your wife. It is sad if you are saying that staying with your cruel wife is better than getting a divorce. Getting divorced does suck in so many ways, but for me (not saying for you) it would be far better than being in a sham marriage with someone who is blatantly cruel to me.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

personofinterest said:


> LOL at thinking divorcing is simple.
> 
> If you don't want to be judged yourself, try not judging.


You are of course right that there is nothing simple about divorce. A fair amount of the reason I reject that course. I think I was referring to men who refuse to engage in relationships with women thereby avoiding these complications (sexless relationships, not divorce). Of course the majority of them think that somehow this will lead to a better sex life, Which of course I simply can't agree with.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

But, is she truly cruel, or is she just insisting on her perfectly reasonable right, or (this is the big one) is she just in a situation, health wise, that she can do nothing to change?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> But, is she truly cruel, or is she just insisting on her perfectly reasonable right, or (this is the big one) is she just in a situation, health wise, that she can do nothing to change?


I don’t know because I don’t know the details of your situation.

Does she love you?


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Does she love me? Like many low drive, Also like many semi detached, also like many addicted, people she claims she loves me to the moon and back. The real question is could you scrape up enough evidence in the average month to prove the assertion? Would you believe that at this point it really doesn't matter to me? I mean if I have to go looking for proof, I'm likely digging in a dry well. 

Our situation: Long term first marriage. Declining health some hereditary, most worsened by poor lifestyle choices. over 50, no real sign that menopause is starting soon but some trouble with heat control. Incompatible work schedules. sleep together 3 times a week, but both of us get low quality sleep when we sleep together. Sex declined from 3-4 x per week, suddenly to 2x per week religiously. Which recently dropped to 1-2 x per month. I take an SSRI which has plummeted my sexual desire as well as my hunger for food. I can go a week or two without noticing the missing sex. I eat 1 real meal a day, usually at lunch.

Her reluctance to talk about sex has moved up to absolute refusal. Her method of initiating is 100% touch and assumption. Most initiations end at holding hands in bed. If her hand gets too hot, initiation is canceled. Sometimes I manage to speak her language of touches well enough to get a message across before she overheats. 

She is perfectly willing to talk with her women friends for as long as they need, but usually does whatever she can to avoid talking with me. Including reading 4 novels every week.

I would say we are more comfortable than in love


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Mr. Nail said:


> Does she love me? Like many low drive, Also like many semi detached, also like many addicted, people she claims she loves me to the moon and back. The real question is could you scrape up enough evidence in the average month to prove the assertion? Would you believe that at this point it really doesn't matter to me? I mean if I have to go looking for proof, I'm likely digging in a dry well.
> 
> Our situation: Long term first marriage. Declining health some hereditary, most worsened by poor lifestyle choices. over 50, no real sign that menopause is starting soon but some trouble with heat control. Incompatible work schedules. sleep together 3 times a week, but both of us get low quality sleep when we sleep together. * Sex declined from 3-4 x per week, suddenly to 2x per week religiously. Which recently dropped to 1-2 x per month. * I take an SSRI which has plummeted my sexual desire as well as my hunger for food. I can go a week or two without noticing the missing sex. I eat 1 real meal a day, usually at lunch.
> 
> ...


So you are not ACTUALLY in a sexless marriage.

Talk to me when it;s 2-3 times a YEAR and then years without....

Not to be insensitive, but yeah....not sexless.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Technically
But heading there quickly.
Technically we have had sex 10 times this year already. But if the current schedule continues We will be lucky to have 18 between last June and next June. If there is another drop in frequency we will be under 10 and then when I have undergone an entire year, then it will be time to do something about it? It has been recently discussed how long to wait before divorce due to sexlessness. Most of the answers were between 2 and 6 months. So in the last 2 months, 2 x. All I have to do is miss the next opportunity to be "Technically" sexless. 
So how bad does it have to be? I first contemplated divorce when it dropped to 2x/week with a stated preference for every other week. I sought advice. I thought it out. I contemplated the possible end results. It could be said that at that point I chose sexlessness, it has just taken 4 years to get there. It could be said that the entire process of contemplation actually initiated an emotional separation, that is now reaching it's logical conclusion. 

Technically I am currently operating at 8% of my natural desire, and roughly 50% of medicated desire. That's close enough for me.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> Technically I am currently operating at 8% of my natural desire, and roughly 50% of medicated desire. That's close enough for me.


You are looking at this the wrong way. Stop trying to increase the frequency to get up to 100% of current medicated desire. Increase the dosage of the meds so your medicated desire goes down to your actual frequency. Problem solved. ;->


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Mr. Nail said:


> Does she love me? Like many low drive, Also like many semi detached, also like many addicted, people she claims she loves me to the moon and back. The real question is could you scrape up enough evidence in the average month to prove the assertion? Would you believe that at this point it really doesn't matter to me? I mean if I have to go looking for proof, I'm likely digging in a dry well.
> 
> Our situation: Long term first marriage. Declining health some hereditary, most worsened by poor lifestyle choices. over 50, no real sign that menopause is starting soon but some trouble with heat control. Incompatible work schedules. sleep together 3 times a week, but both of us get low quality sleep when we sleep together. Sex declined from 3-4 x per week, suddenly to 2x per week religiously. Which recently dropped to 1-2 x per month. I take an SSRI which has plummeted my sexual desire as well as my hunger for food. I can go a week or two without noticing the missing sex. I eat 1 real meal a day, usually at lunch.
> 
> ...


Think about the things she gets from you, whatever it may be whether is money, chores, gifts, whatever it may be. Start tapering off. You aren't getting your wants met, so she doesn't get hers met. Whats the worse that could happen...she can't take away sex if she isn't letting you touch her in the first place. If it works atleast you will get some duty sex, which honestly if you aren't considering divorce, isn't so bad.


----------

