# Do you condone cheating if a spouse willingly refuses sex?



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

I would like to just get the general board consensus one way or the other.

If one has a spouse who is chronically uninterested in sex, or uninterested in sex specifically with their spouse, and makes no attempts to please their spouse, do you believe that the spouse left behind has the "right" to explore sexual options with other parties outside the marriage?


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

Only if the uninterested spouse gives them permission directly. Even then, I'd be leery as that can cause just as many issues.

Frankly, I'd just divorce.


----------



## klarson27 (Apr 11, 2012)

Did you really ask this question??


----------



## Speed (Dec 9, 2011)

No.

The neglected does have the right to divorce though.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Not really a yes or no question. I don't condone "cheating". I do condone extra marital sex if one spouse refuses, but I only condone it with prior awareness. Not permission, awareness. Basically an ultimatum.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

Divorce is the answer to nearly all marital problems.
Cheating only creates a pseudo relationship where NOBODY is really happy with the results.


----------



## DDC (Jul 16, 2012)

jaquen said:


> I would like to just get the general board consensus one way or the other.
> 
> If one has a spouse who is chronically uninterested in sex, or uninterested in sex specifically with their spouse, and makes no attempts to please their spouse, do you believe that the spouse left behind has the "right" to explore sexual options with other parties outside the marriage?


No. You do not have the "right" to cheat on your partner. That's cowardly.

What you do have the "right" to do is get a divorce. That takes courage.

Then, in the future, work on yourself and make sure you and your future partner are sexually compatible before you get married again.

---

Most of the time when it's men not getting sex, it's because they aren't behaving like men and never did. All my partners have strived to please me, but then again, I would never dream of staying with - letting alone getting married to a person who would not. If you aren't a man who commands respect your wife won't have any for you and won't be attracted to you and won't want to have sex with you.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

When someone is unhappy in their relationship, they usually have four choices.

1. Do nothing, pretend everything is fine
2. Divorce/split up
3. Determine to work on the marriage
4. cheat

Number 3 is obviously preferred, but unless BOTH partners are willing to work at it, it's doomed to fail. In that case, number 2 is really the only fair option to everyone involved.

These are choices, not RIGHTS. No one has the right to destroy another human being the way cheating on them destroys them.


----------



## COguy (Dec 1, 2011)

No one at any time has the "right" to cheat. Cheating sucks.

If one person doesn't want sex, but consents to the other partner fulfilling that need outside the marriage, that would be acceptable. But honestly, I can't see that working in all but a few cases.

Not sure why you would WANT to stay in a marriage where one person wasn't being willing to meet the needs of their partner....


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

As someone who was in that exact situation (wife shutting down sex life, and I cheated), my answer is no, I wouldn't condone it. I'd understand the motivation, but it's not a solution. Just leave already.

To me, shutting down the sex life is breaking the "love and cherish" part of the wedding vows. But that doesn't change the fact that ending it before cheating is the right solution. My affairs didn't "fix" anything; they just served to show me how over our marriage was.

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mrs. T (Aug 5, 2011)

PBear said:


> As someone who was in that exact situation (wife shutting down sex life, and I cheated), my answer is no, I wouldn't condone it. I'd understand the motivation, but it's not a solution. Just leave already.
> 
> To me, shutting down the sex life is breaking the "love and cherish" part of the wedding vows. But that doesn't change the fact that *ending it before cheating is the right solution.* My affairs didn't "fix" anything; they just served to show me how over our marriage was.
> 
> ...


 Words of a wise man!


----------



## DawnD (Sep 23, 2009)

I am going with no. Even if it is discussed between you and your spouse, I believe you are potentially damaging any partners you may have. ( This doesn't apply to couples who are swingers, I know there are different rules and expectations there.


----------



## River1977 (Oct 25, 2010)

Why is it called cheating? If your spouse refuses to ever have sex, how is it that you're cheating? Marriage vows are taken as a promise to be true to each other, that you will only have sex with each other. So, if Spouse A removes sex from the marriage, why is it called cheating for the Spouse B to go have sex with someone else? It isn't for one person to decide a life-long sentence for the other person. Spouse A can decide for him/herself never to have sex again, but they have no right to decide that for Spouse B. I'm not saying it's automatic permission. It's something that should be discussed between both parties, or get a divorce. What I want to know is why it's call "cheating." In other words, how can Spouse B mess around on or cheat on Spouse A if Spouse A refuses to have sex? 

Trying to figure out how to ask the question, so I'll ask it another way:
If there is no sex in the marriage, how is a person cheating or being unfaithful?

Trying to figure another way to ask the same question:
I just think there should be another word for it because I don't see it as being the same as cheating. Cheating, to me, is going outside the marriage without reason. If Spouse A removes sex, then there is no aspect of sex in the marriage, so who is Spouse B cheating on or being unfaithful to? 

It's like saying a person is cheating on their spouse if they talk with other people about their sex life when their spouse won't talk with them about it.

Maybe that's a bad example. I keep trying because I fear I'm not making my point very well or asking the question in the correct context. I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong. I'm trying to say it should be called a different word.

Am I making any sense yet LOL?


----------



## Coffee Amore (Dec 15, 2011)

I suppose this question assumes that they've tried everything under the sun to discover why the spouse who no longer wants to have sex is feeling that way. Assuming that they've gone to doctors, therapists, had heart to heart talks, looked at their own behavior and its impact on the relationship and nothing has changed, I think the spouses need to renegotiate the marriage. 

When you get married where I did, you're asked to forsake all others which means your sexual options are limited as far as partners go. You both understand you can't have sex with other people while you're still married. That means going forward you have sex only with your spouse. The other side of this is each spouse is obligated to provide sex because after all the other spouse has agreed to remain sexually faithful only to them. We get married with the idea of sexual exclusivity with our spouses. Barring any abuse, disability or illness that makes sex impossible, I think it's cruel for one spouse to habitually deny the other spouse sex. Please note, I'm not talking about those days we all have where we're sick or too tired. I'm talking about folks who flat out refuse to have a sex life at all. Sex is part of the deal when one gets married unless you've both decided ahead of time that sex isn't exclusive to the marriage or your marriage is an asexual one. If you haven't agreed to take sex off the table, I can see why someone would leave the marriage because it's not what he or she expected when they got married. I can see how the partner who is constantly refused would feel unloved, unwanted, undesirable. That's dangerous for any marriage. If someone goes into marriage knowing they don't care about sex, they need to either not get married or get married to a like minded person who also doesn't care about sex.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

Take care of yourself.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

River1977 said:


> Why is it called cheating? If your spouse refuses to ever have sex, how is it that you're cheating? Marriage vows are taken as a promise to be true to each other, that you will only have sex with each other. So, if Spouse A removes sex from the marriage, why is it called cheating for the Spouse B to go have sex with someone else? It isn't for one person to decide a life-long sentence for the other person. Spouse A can decide for him/herself never to have sex again, but they have no right to decide that for Spouse B. I'm not saying it's automatic permission. It's something that should be discussed between both parties, or get a divorce. What I want to know is why it's call "cheating." In other words, how can Spouse B mess around on or cheat on Spouse A if Spouse A refuses to have sex?
> 
> Trying to figure out how to ask the question, so I'll ask it another way:
> If there is no sex in the marriage, how is a person cheating or being unfaithful?
> ...


Ok, so if one partner withholds sex, that's a reason, in your opinion. What about if one partner withholds emotional connection? Or withholds intimacy but not sex? Or is verbally abusive? Are those all reasons too?

To say that withholding sex has already broken the vows may be true, but vows can be broken in many, many ways, INCLUDING cheating. Two wrongs don't make a right. They really don't. Not to mention that by cheating instead of divorcing, you're just perpetuating the agony.


----------



## DawnD (Sep 23, 2009)

SprucHub said:


> You are making complete sense to me. Most people are saying that the aggreived spouse must seek a divorce. I do not see why. If one side repudiates an agreement, and it is understood that the agreement is unfixable, then the other side no longer owes the first party anything under the agreement. While the long term implication is that the relationship is heading for a divorce, if one party denies the other sex without clear good reason (e.g., medical) and the attendant affection that accompanies sex, the denier should expect that the other person will look elsewhere. If your job stopped paying you without firing you, they should assume you'll look for work elsewhere.


 So when a spouse withholds emotional needs, then its okay for the other to go out and get gang banged?


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

There is NEVER justification for cheating. The ONLY conceivable scenario, which wouldn't even technically be cheating, would be if someone held a gun to your head and told you that if you didn't screw this other woman they were going to rape your wife and kill your kids. That isn't cheating though, not in the spirit of what it means to cheat.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

SprucHub said:


> You are making complete sense to me. Most people are saying that the aggreived spouse must seek a divorce. I do not see why. If one side repudiates an agreement, and it is understood that the agreement is unfixable, then the other side no longer owes the first party anything under the agreement. While the long term implication is that the relationship is heading for a divorce, if one party denies the other sex without clear good reason (e.g., medical) and the attendant affection that accompanies sex, the denier should expect that the other person will look elsewhere. *If your job stopped paying you without firing you, they should assume you'll look for work elsewhere*.


Right, and if you find another job, you LEAVE the present one... in other words, DIVORCE the spouse, or renegotiate the marriage.


----------



## River1977 (Oct 25, 2010)

Hope1964 said:


> Ok, so if one partner withholds sex, that's a reason, in your opinion. What about if one partner withholds emotional connection? Or withholds intimacy but not sex? Or is verbally abusive? Are those all reasons too?
> 
> To say that withholding sex has already broken the vows may be true, but vows can be broken in many, many ways, INCLUDING cheating. Two wrongs don't make a right. They really don't. Not to mention that by cheating instead of divorcing, you're just perpetuating the agony.


Oh brother. Maybe I should not have asked the question. As hard as I tried and as many different ways as I tried to pose my question, I knew it was going to come to this. An argument.

Listen, I'm not trying to argue with anyone. 

I'm not trying to debate the logistics or anything.

I'm not trying to say if it's right or wrong based on the OP's question.

I'm only asking about the word. 

Here's an example of what I mean:

I love sweet potato pies. Many different people make them a little differently. Some are redder, some orangish colored. Some are sweeter than others. Some have more nutmeg added to them than others. Some are thick and firm. Some are a little fluffy. Either way, they all taste *basically* the same and have pretty much the same ingredients. The differences in color, taste, and consistency can be attributed to how much of each ingredient the baker uses - each baker's own recipe.

My daughter makes a very good sweet potato pie, but it is nothing like any other. Hers are a very dark red, almost brown, and tastes nothing like anyone elses sweet potato pie. The reason is that she adds clove to hers. It's a great pie but what I told her was, "This is nothing like sweet potato pie and therefore, you should come up with *a different name for it*." To me, if you offer someone sweet potato pie, there is a certain expectation they automatically associate. 

It's like you can't add chocolate swirls to vanilla ice cream and still call it vanilla ice cream. It has its own name because it is no longer vanilla ice cream.

Did I explain my question a little better by using unrelated analogies and anecdotes? I'm not trying to answer the OP's question or argue about cheating spouses. 

Based on his question, I'm wondering why cheating is still called cheating when there is no sex in the marriage.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

SprucHub said:


> You are right that the word sex is interchangable with other things that are just as fundamental to a marriage (respect, affection, support), but are misconstruing the assumptions.
> 
> The assumption is that the denial is unreasonable and communicated. That is, there is no medical reason that sex is off the table and after repeated talks the denier has indicated he/she is not willing to and will not ever be willing to work on that aspect of the relationship.
> 
> If one spouse denies the other emotional connection and has stated in no uncertain terms that he will continue this indefinitely, the other person does not need to take the formal steps of a divorce. Especially if the divorce would be disadvantageous. The first person is informally but clearly communicating he is unwilling to observe his marital commitments; why should the aggreived spouse need to do anything? He informally ended the marriage, why should she formally need to do so?


So we should be able to annul marriages instead of divorce? You're not making any sense. If you don't formally end the marriage, you're still married.

Why would anyone WANT to stay in a marriage with no sex?!?! Can anyone tell me that?


----------



## Ano (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't know how I would react being in that kind of situation, but not being it in, I say nope, never.

What if some kind of accident happened or some medical condition that prevented your spouse from sexual intercourse ever again. Does that mean you would cheat? I would hope not.

No matter how bad things are, separation before cheating.

Like others said, if your spouse okayed it...then that wouldn't be cheating anyway.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

River1977 said:


> Oh brother. Maybe I should not have asked the question. As hard as I tried and as many different ways as I tried to pose my question, I knew it was going to come to this. An argument.
> 
> Listen, I'm not trying to argue with anyone.
> 
> ...


OK, I get it. 

But you're talking semantics, basically. Cheating doesn't mean the same thing to every couple. Going outside the marriage for sex isn't cheating to some. You're saying there are 'degrees' of cheating, and that in the case of a sexless marriage, it can be somewhat excused, hence it should not be called 'cheating'. I do not agree.


----------



## badbane (Jun 9, 2012)

jaquen said:


> I would like to just get the general board consensus one way or the other.
> 
> If one has a spouse who is chronically uninterested in sex, or uninterested in sex specifically with their spouse, and makes no attempts to please their spouse, do you believe that the spouse left behind has the "right" to explore sexual options with other parties outside the marriage?


Person has the right to Divorce the other party. Hopefully shocking them into waking up and trying to fix their marriage. IF not Divorce that person and move on. Don't cheat it only makes things worse.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

SprucHub said:


> Yes!! If I say to my wife "please do not talk to me about your problems". And, I continue to do so for at least a year. And, when she asks when I will be available, I retort in a manner that makes clear that I mean it that I will never listen to her problems. In that scenario, my actions are unacceptible of a H and I should expect that she is seeking at least emotional satisfaction elsewhere.
> 
> In the sex scenario, it is even easier to say because of the lack of sex, the hurt person is not even putting the other at risk (spare me discussions of germs on toilet seats and towels).
> 
> If you break a deal, you have no right to anything from the other person under that deal. It is not that they have the right to do this or that, it is that the deal is broken.












I agree that people who withhold sex from their spouse should expect consequences. I just don't agree those consequences include being cheated on.

Gotta go home from work now, see you tomorrow


----------



## ScaredandUnsure (Nov 17, 2011)

SprucHub said:


> Thankfully I am not in this situation, but sure I can think of a clear example. I work long days and make a lot, but could never commit to picking up the kids from school or anything because I have a long commute (1 1/4 hrs each way) and my days often end late. My (amazing) wife (whom I love dearly) is a SAHM to our kids. She does not have the earning capacity that I have, but could certainly get a job.
> 
> If we divorced, I could not get custody because I could not be around during the day. So, I would lose the daily interaction with my children (I see them in the morning and check on them late at night), lose living with them, lose living in my house, lose most of my savings . . .
> 
> So, if my wife "ended" the marriage by saying she no longer would have sex (which is withholding emotionally much more than physically), my option would be (1) get a D and not live with my children, (2) live unloved, or (3) seek love somewhere else (again, the assumption is sex is and will be off the table, so working on the marriage is not an option - and I know more than one person this has happened to). Seeing as I have done nothing wrong in my hypothetical, I cannot see why I should be forced into option (1) or (2).


You forgot 4. Cheat, then get caught and most likely divorce and not live with your children.

Edit: I think once your spouse cuts off sex/emotional needs, and you both have a 100% honest understanding that the one cut off is given the okay to have sex/emotional needs met outside the marriage, I say "Hey, whatever floats your boat". I don't agree with cutting off any type need in a relationship, but I don't condone cheating either. I see both sides of the argument.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

As someone else said, two wrongs do not make a right. In the same way as it wouldn't be right for a betrayed spouse to physically abuse his spouse upon finding out about her affair (as an example).

It is very unfortunate that as a spouse who's been "cut off", your options are limited and undesirable. Trust me, all this went through my head. I finally (foolishly) thought that if I could have my sexual needs met, I could hang in the marriage until the kids were out of the house. But what I ended up finding out was that it wasn't just sex I was missing, but the intimacy that goes along with it. I lasted all of about a month before I determined that I needed to end the affairs and my marriage.

My advice is still "get out". An affair is a hollow shell of a relationship. And it will only serve to drive the wedge between the two spouses even deeper. Bite the bullet, get out and heal yourself, then find someone that really loves you. Lifes to short to do things half-assed. Full ass all the way!

C


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I did not have sex with my wife as much as she would have liked. She ended up cheating. It devastated me. We have signed the agreement and I am waiting for the court to send the paperwork back. Enough on that.
There was a problem waaayyy before this. I knew it. She knew it. I did not take responsibility for my problems. Still, we did not give the problem our best effort. I did see a doctor. I reeeallly did not know how to handle my problem. I did not like my lack of desire for her. I did not use porn as a substitute for her. I did not have desire for anyone and did not know why. I asked her to please help me and she would not. This was way before we got divorced. Maybe two years? So what's up with that? The counseling I went to with her was three times at the very end just to let me know that I messed up. I wasn't even sure at the time how or why I messed up or what was going on. No one has the "right" to cheat. We have a responsibility to our partner to be the best we can be. I know how I felt. There was no communication. I mean "open and honest" communication. That was the start of all of it, even before I had less desire for her. I tried to communicate. It ended up being one sided with me doing all the talking. Not having much to say, I started complaining about my problems. Bad To Worse. Hindsight is 20/20. I did not see it because I was not able to step back and look at my relationship. All that said, if you really love each other, you will do the best you can to make it right. Looking for and finding someone before leaving is the cowardly thing to do. What if you don't meet the right person? Just keep looking and cheating till you find the right man/woman? Hide more and more from your spouse? Talk it out. Get help. Doesn't work out? Leave. Split up. Do it under the guidance of a counselor. That way, hopefully, there is less damage to either of you and less trouble getting the divorce. So much more to say. Some other time, maybe. Forgot to say, do whatever it takes to stay together! Change with each other not in spite of each other. Do it together and make it a new fun experience. I am in no way implying that this should be done in the event of an abusive relationship. That is something else entirely.


----------



## DawnD (Sep 23, 2009)

SprucHub said:


> Yes!! If I say to my wife "please do not talk to me about your problems". And, I continue to do so for at least a year. And, when she asks when I will be available, I retort in a manner that makes clear that I mean it that I will never listen to her problems. In that scenario, my actions are unacceptible of a H and I should expect that she is seeking at least emotional satisfaction elsewhere.
> 
> In the sex scenario, it is even easier to say because of the lack of sex, the hurt person is not even putting the other at risk (spare me discussions of germs on toilet seats and towels).
> 
> If you break a deal, you have no right to anything from the other person under that deal. It is not that they have the right to do this or that, it is that the deal is broken.


 So instead of deciding your spouse isn't the person for you and filing for divorce, you would rather they lie and cheat. That way they can make an even bigger mess of things to deal with. Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Divorce is a better option, IMO.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

jaquen said:


> I would like to just get the general board consensus one way or the other.
> 
> If one has a spouse who is chronically uninterested in sex, or uninterested in sex specifically with their spouse, and makes no attempts to please their spouse, do you believe that the spouse left behind has the "right" to explore sexual options with other parties outside the marriage?


I believe that whoever isn't happy should just end the marriage. Cheating isn't a solution for anything.


----------



## cjpa (Jul 17, 2012)

I wouldn't call it a "right," but if a spouse cuts off sex OR all emotional support, I couldn't blame someone for cheating. From what I often observe in relationships, however, it is a total lack of communication that leads to the cheating. IMO, if you make dam good attempts to talk with your spouse and to try to get him/her to work on the issues and s/he shows zero effort or interest in working together, as a couple, then you can't be blamed for seeking the affection elsewhere. Yes, it's still called cheating--you are MARRIED, but marriage is a 2-way street so if one way isn't willing to put in any effort, s/he should expect the worst. The more mature approach is to leave him/her 1st, but hey, we are human, we aren't perfect.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## deejov (Sep 24, 2011)

I'll throw my warped view on this into the ring.

If you are both done, there is no hope of saving it, and you don't intend to go BACK to sleeping with your spouse, and you fall for the temptation.. and have an exit affair and move on, then that's a situation I would kinda sorta think twice about.

But I wouldn't agree with getting some strange tail for awhile to "tide you over" until your SO comes back to life. AT least, not for me. That wouldn't work.


----------



## MWD (Jul 16, 2012)

badbane said:


> Person has the right to Divorce the other party. Hopefully shocking them into waking up and trying to fix their marriage. IF not Divorce that person and move on. Don't cheat it only makes things worse.


Manipulation is not right either. Threatening divorce to try and get what you want is not the right path. 

All this effort to cheat or divorce could better be placed on marital counseling and therapy. This effort could be better placed finding out what the problem is instead of running away or playing games. 

-MWD


----------



## bkaydezz (Jul 9, 2012)

No. i wouldnt even be in a relationship with someone if they chronically refused me.


----------



## Agast84 (Dec 26, 2011)

My spouse once told me that he is "You can have sex with any girl you want, but you will never touch me ever again. haha, goodnight." 
She had a bit too much to drink, this really hurt my feelings as we had not been intimate in about 6 months. Near the end she was saying it was medical, but she eventually old me she didn't love me anymore as well. I don't know all the exact reasons, but she often avoided the subject. It was often a touchy subject.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

No


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I personally have a big heart for those who are sexually refused....I feel it would be excrusiatingly depressing to live with. 

I could never cheat cause I am too honest and wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror .....I am against it terribly -because I hate dishonestly, hiding and lies .... BUT I wouldn't have any problem what so ever , in letting him know .....this ain't working for me, I am f'n miserable, my loins are on fire and I am thinking of other men, I didn't sigh up for this , and I will go where I am desired , cause life is too damn short. No, he'd know where I was headed LONG before I would fall into something. I am not one to conceal how I am feeling , even when the roots of something is just starting to sprout. 

I'm all for working together -but we'd have to meet each other half way. 

I can see WHY some fall into cheating, sorry, I happen to blame the refuser almost as much as the one who fell (in some cases)-- I know this is NOT correct thinking.....so don't blow your horn at me. I just feel the refuser *hugely* contributed to the problem... Pity sex is just as bad... anyone who can even stomach that -deserves a metal. I'd leave a marraige over that one too. 

The problem for most is the kids, loosing their house, the financial aspect ....but it is living a LIE, life in hiding....which generally will come crashing down - eventually. I can't imagine that lifestyle ever fullfilling...and integrity is lost, better to take a big hit --and move on with your life...find someone sexually compatible.


----------



## lonesomegra (Dec 11, 2011)

So if my wife says "go ahead and have sex with other people", this is not considered as cheating? If carried through it does become a broken wedding vow but does it also, somewhere down the line, form a basis for divorce? Her word against yours that she ever said it.


----------



## Havesomethingtosay (Nov 1, 2011)

I love everyone saying no. SO f'ing easy...... In every sexless relationship the partners are aware of it and it is discussed. If 100% sexless (or say less then 6X/yr) the LD partner almost always says "go take care or yourself" or words to that affect. 

The LD partner in the vast majority of cases want to be left alone.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

I, too, believe in the tenants of my marriage vows. In my situation, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence that my STBXW was cheating both before and after our separation, by engaging in both EA's and PA's.

While she must not have been paying full attention to them when they were said, I'm true to my wedding vows, as well as to the great institution of marriage, even to this very day. At least when I professed those vows before God, my church, my family, my friends, and my community, I meant them! And I will continue to abide by that promise and richly honor them up until such time that the ink is fastly dried on that divorce decree.

Divorce is the only acceptable remedy in trying to find another heart who will love you for who you truly are, both psychologically and physically!


----------



## deejov (Sep 24, 2011)

Havesomethingtosay said:


> I love everyone saying no. SO f'ing easy...... In every sexless relationship the partners are aware of it and it is discussed. If 100% sexless (or say less then 6X/yr) the LD partner almost always says "go take care or yourself" or words to that affect.
> 
> The LD partner in the vast majority of cases want to be left alone.


And that I would understand. For me, though, it would mean never going back. If they are telling you NO in a way that is forever, I would take them up on it. But I wouldn't go back either. It would be the beginning of the end.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

SprucHub said:


> You are making complete sense to me. Most people are saying that the aggreived spouse must seek a divorce. I do not see why. If one side repudiates an agreement, and it is understood that the agreement is unfixable, then the other side no longer owes the first party anything under the agreement. While the long term implication is that the relationship is heading for a divorce, if one party denies the other sex without clear good reason (e.g., medical) and the attendant affection that accompanies sex, the denier should expect that the other person will look elsewhere. If your job stopped paying you without firing you, they should assume you'll look for work elsewhere.


hard to argue with this!

but I think its better to cut to the chase and just divorce. and alot of time when the unwilling spouce sees your serious about divorce they change there tune!


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

PBear said:


> As someone else said, two wrongs do not make a right. In the same way as it wouldn't be right for a betrayed spouse to physically abuse his spouse upon finding out about her affair (as an example).
> 
> It is very unfortunate that as a spouse who's been "cut off", your options are limited and undesirable. Trust me, all this went through my head. I finally (foolishly) thought that if I could have my sexual needs met, I could hang in the marriage until the kids were out of the house. But what I ended up finding out was that it wasn't just sex I was missing, but the intimacy that goes along with it. I lasted all of about a month before I determined that I needed to end the affairs and my marriage.
> 
> ...


thats the rub sometime it takes an affair to get to this point! and in your case you might very well still be in your loveless/sexless marriage if you didn't cheat and see what you were missing it opened your eyes so to speak.

cheating is wrong and we all know it! but the world is very seldom black and white.


----------



## 7737 (Feb 10, 2011)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if everything in life was so clear cut?

Thou shalt not steal. What about if you have no money and havent eaten for 4 days and steal a loaf of bread?

Thou shalt not commit murder. What if an axe weilding madman is about to attack your 9yr old daughter, you pull a gun out and shoot him dead?

Thou shalt honour thy mother and father. What if your father consistantly sexually abused you?

I also took marriage vows, including 'foresaking all others' etc. You are saying, in effect, that you will not have sex with anyone else but your spouse. Very honourable and right......Providing your spouse DOES have sex with you....she/he is foresaking sex with others, NOT with you.

What should a man (or indeed woman) do if they are providing all the love, support etc the other spouse needs, wants etc but his (or her) sexual needs are being totally ignored?

Getting a divorce is the final straw. Sometimes a man (or woman) getting only sexual relief outside the marriage can actually make everything else in the marriage work.

How many of you read the above 'commandments' and the alternative sceanrios and said..well, yeah I can understand someone stealing a loaf of bread etc.....

Thou shalt not commit adultery. What if you are 'hungry' and not being 'fed' at home?

Many will say 'Ah!!...divorce first'
Axe man about to attack your daughter...you pull your gun out and are about to fire....then you suddenly remember you havent got a gun licence. What do you do, go and apply for one or just pull the trigger and worry about any possible consequences later?

Not everything in life is 'black and white'.....there IS a grey area.


----------



## BeachGuy (Jul 6, 2011)

DDC said:


> No. You do not have the "right" to cheat on your partner. That's cowardly.
> 
> What you do have the "right" to do is get a divorce. That takes courage.
> 
> ...


One size does not fit all. I couldn't disagree with this answer more.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Coffee Amore said:


> I suppose this question assumes that they've tried everything under the sun to discover why the spouse who no longer wants to have sex is feeling that way. Assuming that they've gone to doctors, therapists, had heart to heart talks, looked at their own behavior and its impact on the relationship and nothing has changed, I think the spouses need to renegotiate the marriage.
> 
> When you get married where I did, you're asked to forsake all others which means your sexual options are limited as far as partners go. You both understand you can't have sex with other people while you're still married. That means going forward you have sex only with your spouse. The other side of this is each spouse is obligated to provide sex because after all the other spouse has agreed to remain sexually faithful only to them. We get married with the idea of sexual exclusivity with our spouses. Barring any abuse, disability or illness that makes sex impossible, I think it's cruel for one spouse to habitually deny the other spouse sex. Please note, I'm not talking about those days we all have where we're sick or too tired. I'm talking about folks who flat out refuse to have a sex life at all. Sex is part of the deal when one gets married unless you've both decided ahead of time that sex isn't exclusive to the marriage or your marriage is an asexual one. If you haven't agreed to take sex off the table, I can see why someone would leave the marriage because it's not what he or she expected when they got married. I can see how the partner who is constantly refused would feel unloved, unwanted, undesirable. That's dangerous for any marriage. If someone goes into marriage knowing they don't care about sex, they need to either not get married or get married to a like minded person who also doesn't care about sex.


Yet again you've encapsulated my perspective on the matter perfectly.

:smthumbup:


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Nope.

Like the old saying goes - "two wrongs (no sex from one + cheating from the other) don't make a right."

If you can't resolve (the issue), then dissolve (the union).


----------



## MWD (Jul 16, 2012)

7737 said:


> Wouldn't it be wonderful if everything in life was so clear cut?
> 
> Thou shalt not steal. What about if you have no money and havent eaten for 4 days and steal a loaf of bread?
> 
> ...


What does commitment really mean if you are setting yourself up with a backdoor going in? People today go into marriage with the idea that if it does not work out, that they can just cash in their chips with a divorce and find another. Which is why people don't put a whole lot of thought into getting married any more. 

-MWD


----------



## In_The_Wind (Feb 17, 2012)

Why be married under those circumstances ?? Life is to short I feel to not be with a more compatable partner, medical issues are a different thing though I have not read the entire thread, however if everything else is ok we be with a partner that refuses to be intimate ?? I mean why be married you could get this by being single Just my opinion


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I can see WHY some fall into cheating, sorry, I happen to blame the refuser almost as much as the one who fell (in some cases)-- I know this is NOT correct thinking.....so don't blow your horn at me. I just feel the refuser *hugely* contributed to the problem... Pity sex is just as bad... anyone who can even stomach that -deserves a metal. I'd leave a marraige over that one too.


I agree, and will take it a step further. I do NOT believe what you posted above is incorrect thinking. I believe a spouse who willingly decides to end the sexual relationship with their spouse is equally as wrong as an adulterer. It is cruel, and epitomizes the notion of forsaking your spouse.

Do I believe you should cheat? No. You should leave (with the understanding that this idea is much easier said than done when you've built a life together). However I do sympathize with a person reaching out for comfort elsewhere when a cruel spouse has made a unilateral decision to end the sexual relationship, or diminish it so far that it might as well be considered over. If you leave you marriage sexually you have forsaken the right to have any involvement in the decision making of your spouse's sexual life. 

It's just best in the forsaken spouse's interest to try and seek an end to the marriage. But that opens up a whole can of worms because people stay in marriages for reasons that extend beyond sex. 

It's a tough, tough situation to be in.


----------



## keeper63 (Mar 22, 2012)

It seems to me that they key to this discussion is the definition of cheating. To me, this is what cheating means:

_Going outside of the marriage for emotional or sexual gratification without the knowledge or endorsement of the other party._

That said, I happen to think that when one party ceases to meet the needs of the other party, this is a breach of the marriage contract. The key question is what you do about it.

The wedding vows/marriage contract specifies exclusivity. That means that within that agreement, the two parties are only to seek emotional and sexual fulfillment from each other. One party refusing to meet the sexual needs of the other violates the contract as much as an affair would.

And to me, going out and having a covert emotional or sexual affair outside the marriage isn't justifiable under any circumstances. In some instances, if the party who is withholding agrees that the other may seek fulfillment outside the marriage, and clearly communicates this to the other party, then that is an acceptable work-around.

Really, the best solution in most instances is to try to work it out. If that fails, then the next best solution is generally divorce. As terrible as many folks on TAM have made divorce out to be, there are plenty of folks (I know some of them) who are MUCH happier now that they are divorced, and their kids seem to have fared pretty well, too.

Communication is the key, much as it is the key for just about any sort of successful relationship.


----------



## DawnD (Sep 23, 2009)

SprucHub said:


> Read my example of a situation where divorce is worse for the person being denied (post 29). In that case, the person is denied sex and could lose a significant portion of the time with his/her children. So a person gets sexually (and, therefore emotionally) rejected and as a bonus gets to lose seeing her children? My point is that the person that breaks the marriage vows (by purposefully denying a basic element of the relationship) is the person that should suffer as a consequence not the person living up to her vows.


I understand that, but why would you want to risk losing your children's respect and love just to get some strange, when you could end the marriage on good terms first and keep that?


----------



## HappyWife101709 (Jul 2, 2012)

I do not think they have the right to cheat ... but if it is agreed apon and discussed by both people in the marriage then it would be okay


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

Hope1964 said:


> So we should be able to annul marriages instead of divorce? You're not making any sense. If you don't formally end the marriage, you're still married.
> 
> Why would anyone WANT to stay in a marriage with no sex?!?! Can anyone tell me that?


As other posters have said, there are reasons, and legitimate ones. They are rare however, and divorce is a viable option in most cases. 



lonesomegra said:


> So if my wife says "go ahead and have sex with other people", this is not considered as cheating? If carried through it does become a broken wedding vow but does it also, somewhere down the line, form a basis for divorce? Her word against yours that she ever said it.


It isn't a broken weddning vow really. She has essentially agreed to modify the terms of the marriage by saying you can have sex with someone else. You in turn agree to this change by either agree with her or by having sex with someone else.

If you live in an at fault state, you may be wise to get this in writing first.

It's been a good thread to read through but, outside of rare cases where divorce would provide severe negative consequences, I still believe you should get divorced before you cheat. I could understand if your spouse was unable to provide sex or any other sexual release (say due to an illness like MS) but also wouldn't ok you to be with someone else, or if you were in a situation where leaving would be very detrimental financially/physically to your health (such as not having the money to afford your own place or being afraid of spousal abuse if you did try to leave). Outside of that though, jut get a divorce. It's all semantics to say one side broke the contract, meaning the otherside can too. There's no stipulation in a amarriage contract that if one party doesn't uphold their end, the other can do whatever to fix that. That's no stipulation as to the consequences of misdeeds in the marriage. 

Like I said, barring the above mentioned reasons (or types of reasons) if you are in a sexless marriage and hate it, get out. Don't cheat.

Btw, for those living in an at fault state, is lack of sex considered a reason for divorce? Additionally, if someone in a sexless marriage cheats, how does the court rule on his/her cheating behaviour? Is it deemed ok due to the lack of sex, or is it deemed wrong?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

jaquen said:


> I agree, and will take it a step further. I do NOT believe what you posted above is incorrect thinking. I believe a spouse who willingly decides to end the sexual relationship with their spouse is equally as wrong as an adulterer. It is cruel, and epitomizes the notion of forsaking your spouse.
> 
> Do I believe you should cheat? No. You should leave (with the understanding that this idea is much easier said than done when you've built a life together). However I do sympathize with a person reaching out for comfort elsewhere when a cruel spouse has made a unilateral decision to end the sexual relationship, or diminish it so far that it might as well be considered over. If you leave you marriage sexually you have forsaken the right to have any involvement in the decision making of your spouse's sexual life.
> 
> ...


I've been very blessed to have never been in this situation...just thinking about it - is enough for me -to get my feathers ruffled, I've read too many heartbreaking stories. If you want a river of tears, visit a sexless marraige forum... 

I also feel it would be even harder on those who have "Touch" at the top of their love languages, this would cause anyone to wither inside, feel totally unloved, even worthless if they had to deal with this. Thristing in a desert type thing. 

Cheating...going behind a spouse's back for any reason.... hiding, lying, covering, getting off with another ...will always be cheating. Cheating IS cheating IS cheating IS cheating ...no one could argue this is not "deception"....will always be wrong....and against integrity. 

But as you seem to understand Jaquen....I just don't feel the *refuser* is an innocent as a dove.....the poor hapless victim as some claim. Oh [email protected]#$%^&* If they knowingly are causing deep pain, while their higher drive spouse has done everything & anything to come their direction, to please them....lavishing their love languages....you get the picture....

Then I see the refuser as.... heartless, cold, callous, the epitomy of selfishness, cruel, conscience-less, unloving, uncaring, vindictive, spitting on the very marriage vows they spoke once upon a time. They dish it right in your face, over & over & over & over again...is this not "as cold as ice?" 

The resentment alone ought to make everyone in such a marraige BOLT for the divorce lawyer!! 

If they had any loving bone in thier body...they would release them , I'd see more LOVE in a spouse who allowed an "open marriage" over one who acted like this. 

For those who remain faithful in the midst of continual rejection....I feel their sacrifice is an ocean of emotional loneliness & isolation unto themselves.....a burden not meant for marriage....yet so very many walk this road of faithful sacrifice & hidden tears for the happiness and well being of their children. These children will never know the huge "*price*" they paid to be in thier lives, giving up their own happiness for them. 

Sex therapists consider less than 10 times a year... "sexless". 

Even in sickness & disease, there are other ways to give pleasure to your partner for love & ongoing emotional & physical bonding.... Such a book here ...  Let Me Count the Ways: Discovering Great Sex Without Intercourse : Books So unless one is in constant pain & dying, a quadriplegic or in a coma, this excuse doesn't work either.

Sex is the one thing we can't get outside the marriage- without severe judgement, even damning from God himself. 

Even for those of belief ...if you are Christian....



> (1 Corinthians 7:2-5) But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
> 
> Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. .


 The only problem I have with this is blaming Satan, that is far too easy, I think the refuser is to blame...this clearly leads to the temptation---- even scripture acknowledges that ! 

This so expresses what one gives up to stay with such a partner... 

This is What a Sexless Marriage Feels Like - And yet


----------

