If you don't want sex, then shouldn't YOU be the one to leave and divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

Of course, marriage is about more than sex. So if your DH said to you, "I love you and want to stay married, but sex is very important to me. Since you decided it's no longer something you want to do, I'm going to find someone to satisfy me sexually outside of our marriage." That would be totally ok with you, right?

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

I know I agree. So if it's about all of those wonderful things other than sex, than him having sex with someone else and coming home to you where you enjoy this wonderful life together, is not a big deal. It's just another thing to outsource, right?

You continue to avoid being accountable for what you actually want - which is for your logical arguments to result in your spouse saying, "YOU'RE RIGHT! It was me all along and that was WRONG! You don't deserve this! You may now have as much sex with me as you want!"

That's never going to happen. You people never understand this. The more you bring up these whiny desperate arguments, the less attractive you become. Get out of your own way. If you are unhappy in your marriage and your partner refuses to change, you are free to leave them. If your partner does not feel the need to leave you because of your behavior, that's on them. If there is major incompatibility between you and your partner, it would be better for everyone to end the relationship and move onto better matches.

Note: if what you need is for someone to commit to maintaining a constant sex life for the duration of a longterm relationship, what you need is immature and unrealistic. You can't have that. No one can. Get over it.

This is usually how loving, caring, sane people deal with their spouse. You yell at them to get over it when they tell you that something is not working for them. Super mature and guaranteed to have the spouse indeed "get over it."

I was responding to the person who said "there is more to marriage than sex." WHich of course there is. No one is disputing that. No one is even talking about spouses who are actively acknowledging that their libido is not as high as it once was and try to understand that the other spouse might have a libido that is intact. But if you approach your spouse with "get over it" and unilateraly decide that he or she is whiny and childish for having the exact same needs as they did a year ago or 10-20 years ago when you married them, you are undoubtly the chilish, selfish one.

You are not my spouse, though. You are a disingenuous incel on DCUM. I'm perfectly comfortable being as dismissive to you as you are to your poor spouse. This thread is predicated on the idea that any deviation from the amount of sex you want is "willfully denying" sex. That's insulting and dismissive and does not deserve to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

Of course, marriage is about more than sex. So if your DH said to you, "I love you and want to stay married, but sex is very important to me. Since you decided it's no longer something you want to do, I'm going to find someone to satisfy me sexually outside of our marriage." That would be totally ok with you, right?

Your marriage vows say 'forsake all others' at least mine did. Want sex with other people? Let's get divorced

Great. So marriage is truly all about sex, even for those who claim that they are happy to never have sex again. Glad we cleared that up.

You are whining and shutting down different perspectives on an anonymous forum about if sex is owed to you in your marriage. You also seem to think that not wanting to have sex with you is the same as wanting out of the marriage. Unfortunately, those are two different decisions and if this is how you behave at home, she deserves the peace divorce would provide.

You are obviously passionate about sex, but not integrity. Be upfront about your desires and that you believe you are entitled to whatever you want, whenever you want with whoever you choose. Your spouse may decide to divorce you and you can call them the bad guy all you want. Actually, you are doing that already to anyone that will listen to your drivel, me included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am happy with my spouse regarding his parenting. I am happy about his sense of humor and his kindness. I am unhappy about his laziness and low energy generally. What if I want satisfying sex enough to cheat but not to give up the good part? This is why these issues are much more complex than people make them out to be. In my case, I settle for a vibrator and have for years but I can see other partners making different choices.

+1. It is complicated. You can respect someone's parenting and general kindness and not be impressed by their investment in the romantic or emotional aspect of the marriage. It does not mean that you hate them. You just need more for sexual sparks.

To the bolded: cheating is never the answer. This is what adulthood is all about. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You make choices. You weigh pros and cons. And you cannot control others. If they want out when you don't want out, okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are two healthy adults with kids still living at home and neither wants to blow up the family but one spouse has decided unilaterally that they won't have sex any longer, that seems to be acceptable to DCUM. But it's not okay for their spouse to have a "just sex" fling that does not threaten the marriage and family. The consensus here is that rather than having a sex fling, you should just divorce and leave the marriage and that someone with integrity divorces rather than having a fling.

But why doesn't anybody say that the person who unilaterally decides they definitely never want sex again carry the burden of asking for the divorce? They've decided to change the terms of the marriage (no sex), so shouldn't it be on them to follow through with the natural consequence of refusing to have sex, which is that you no longer have a real marriage and therefore it's time to go your separate ways and you carry the burden of divorcing? (I am NOT referring to situations where it's six weeks after a c-section and your baby is in ICU, or where you're undergoing chemo or became paralyzed. I'm talking about the situation where one person just decides that sex isn't something they want or need any longer and their partner just has to accept that.)

Why is it okay to unilaterally change the marriage contract by refusing sex, but it's not okay to get sex from a third party that you never intend to leave your spouse for?

In both of these situations, one person is fundamentally changing the terms of the marriage. Why do we hold them to different standards?

The "just sex" fling is fine in these circumstances. Much better than harming kids with a divorce. Your proposition that divorce is "the natural consequence of refusing to have sex" is wrong, perhaps even absurd. Lots of people in sexless marriages, and they all work it out for themselves as best they can, with many enjoying sex outside of the marriage, and some just choosing to live without it because they don't find it that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

But as far as whose job it is to ask for the divorce? It's the job of the person who decides they want it. Not sure why you are confused about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are two healthy adults with kids still living at home and neither wants to blow up the family but one spouse has decided unilaterally that they won't have sex any longer, that seems to be acceptable to DCUM. But it's not okay for their spouse to have a "just sex" fling that does not threaten the marriage and family. The consensus here is that rather than having a sex fling, you should just divorce and leave the marriage and that someone with integrity divorces rather than having a fling.

But why doesn't anybody say that the person who unilaterally decides they definitely never want sex again carry the burden of asking for the divorce? They've decided to change the terms of the marriage (no sex), so shouldn't it be on them to follow through with the natural consequence of refusing to have sex, which is that you no longer have a real marriage and therefore it's time to go your separate ways and you carry the burden of divorcing? (I am NOT referring to situations where it's six weeks after a c-section and your baby is in ICU, or where you're undergoing chemo or became paralyzed. I'm talking about the situation where one person just decides that sex isn't something they want or need any longer and their partner just has to accept that.)

Why is it okay to unilaterally change the marriage contract by refusing sex, but it's not okay to get sex from a third party that you never intend to leave your spouse for?

In both of these situations, one person is fundamentally changing the terms of the marriage. Why do we hold them to different standards?

Wife here in sexless marriage. I completely agree with all of this. If DH asked for a divorce he would be doing me a favor at this point.

So ... just tell him you want a divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

You’re framing this like there are two equally sneaky contract violations happening:

Spouse A says, “I don’t want sex anymore.”
Spouse B says, “Cool, I’ll outsource it.”

And you’re asking why only #2 gets torched. Here’s why.

Refusing sex is about what someone does with their own body. Cheating is about what someone does with the **shared agreement** of the marriage.

No one is obligated to provide sex to keep their marriage valid. Full stop. Even in a perfectly healthy, boring, middle-class, carpool-driving life. You don’t get conjugal rights because you’re annoyed.

But you are obligated not to lie and sneak around if you agreed to monogamy.

Those are not parallel actions.

Now, if one spouse decides they don’t want sex ever again? That absolutely changes the marriage. It may be devastating. It may be unfair. It may mean the relationship can’t continue.

But the honest response to a deal-breaker is:
“I can’t live like this. We need to fix this, open this, or end this.”

Not:
“I’ll quietly violate the agreement and call it integrity.”

You’re also assuming that the person who doesn’t want sex has “broken” the contract and therefore must be the one to file. That’s not how this works. People’s libidos change. Bodies change. Trauma happens. Aging happens. Hormones shift. Desire is not a lifetime guarantee baked into the vows.

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

If sex is essential to you (totally valid), then you’re the one who decides it’s a deal-breaker and you leave. That’s not punishment. That’s agency.

And the “just sex fling that doesn’t threaten the marriage” line is classic DCUM magical thinking. Affairs absolutely threaten marriages. Secrets rot things from the inside. Even if you swear you’ll never leave.

If you want an open marriage? Negotiate one.
If you want monogamy with sex? Say so.
If you’re sexually incompatible? Divorce.

But the idea that someone “owes” you sex or else they should be the one to file is just resentment dressed up as logic.

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

Yes, they are. Normal people would reject what you say in bold.

Agree. There is something called the consummation of marriage for a reason.

If your entire argument rests on medieval property law and the word “consummation,” you might want to sit with that.

No one owes you lifetime sexual access. That's not what marriage is, full stop, and it disregards all of the very valid biological changes that happen as we all age that may impact someone's libido.
If sex is non-negotiable for you, you leave. You don’t outsource it in secret and call it moral high ground.

You're completely wrong, no matter how many times you use that idiotic phrase "full stop." You're morally wrong, ethically wrong, and legally wrong. What you're describing is literally grounds for at-fault divorce in every jurisdiction. It's called constructive desertion.

Is someone who isn't a lawyer playing on a lawyer on DCUM again?

There isn't even at-fault divorce in every jurisdiction, let alone constructive desertion as grounds for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

You’re framing this like there are two equally sneaky contract violations happening:

Spouse A says, “I don’t want sex anymore.”
Spouse B says, “Cool, I’ll outsource it.”

And you’re asking why only #2 gets torched. Here’s why.

Refusing sex is about what someone does with their own body. Cheating is about what someone does with the **shared agreement** of the marriage.

No one is obligated to provide sex to keep their marriage valid. Full stop. Even in a perfectly healthy, boring, middle-class, carpool-driving life. You don’t get conjugal rights because you’re annoyed.

But you are obligated not to lie and sneak around if you agreed to monogamy.

Those are not parallel actions.

Now, if one spouse decides they don’t want sex ever again? That absolutely changes the marriage. It may be devastating. It may be unfair. It may mean the relationship can’t continue.

But the honest response to a deal-breaker is:
“I can’t live like this. We need to fix this, open this, or end this.”

Not:
“I’ll quietly violate the agreement and call it integrity.”

You’re also assuming that the person who doesn’t want sex has “broken” the contract and therefore must be the one to file. That’s not how this works. People’s libidos change. Bodies change. Trauma happens. Aging happens. Hormones shift. Desire is not a lifetime guarantee baked into the vows.

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

If sex is essential to you (totally valid), then you’re the one who decides it’s a deal-breaker and you leave. That’s not punishment. That’s agency.

And the “just sex fling that doesn’t threaten the marriage” line is classic DCUM magical thinking. Affairs absolutely threaten marriages. Secrets rot things from the inside. Even if you swear you’ll never leave.

If you want an open marriage? Negotiate one.
If you want monogamy with sex? Say so.
If you’re sexually incompatible? Divorce.

But the idea that someone “owes” you sex or else they should be the one to file is just resentment dressed up as logic.

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

Yes, they are. Normal people would reject what you say in bold.

Agree. There is something called the consummation of marriage for a reason.

If your entire argument rests on medieval property law and the word “consummation,” you might want to sit with that.

No one owes you lifetime sexual access. That's not what marriage is, full stop, and it disregards all of the very valid biological changes that happen as we all age that may impact someone's libido.
If sex is non-negotiable for you, you leave. You don’t outsource it in secret and call it moral high ground.

You're completely wrong, no matter how many times you use that idiotic phrase "full stop." You're morally wrong, ethically wrong, and legally wrong. What you're describing is literally grounds for at-fault divorce in every jurisdiction. It's called constructive desertion.

First, all 50 states and DC have no fault divorce.

Also, there is a lot more to the old timey contructive desertion claim. Otherwise, you could claim it when a spouse has erectile disfunction, or vaginal atrophy, or paralysis, etc. So no, it's not immoral or illegal to have limited or no sexual access.

Spousal rape, however, is very illegal.

All states still have at-fault divorce too, dipshit. No one is talking about spousal rape. And the premise of the conversation was willful denial of sex with the other spouse. That is absolutely grounds for divorce.

Is it hard to prove? Certainly. Just like adultery is hard to prove. But it is still grounds for divorce.

No-fault is just one method for divorce and makes divorce easier to obtain, but is hardly a default.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am happy with my spouse regarding his parenting. I am happy about his sense of humor and his kindness. I am unhappy about his laziness and low energy generally. What if I want satisfying sex enough to cheat but not to give up the good part? This is why these issues are much more complex than people make them out to be. In my case, I settle for a vibrator and have for years but I can see other partners making different choices.

I can get off with toys too but nothing beats the feeling of being desired by someone. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Sex is not a requirement in marriage. If you think it is a requirement, then leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

You’re framing this like there are two equally sneaky contract violations happening:

Spouse A says, “I don’t want sex anymore.”
Spouse B says, “Cool, I’ll outsource it.”

And you’re asking why only #2 gets torched. Here’s why.

Refusing sex is about what someone does with their own body. Cheating is about what someone does with the **shared agreement** of the marriage.

No one is obligated to provide sex to keep their marriage valid. Full stop. Even in a perfectly healthy, boring, middle-class, carpool-driving life. You don’t get conjugal rights because you’re annoyed.

But you are obligated not to lie and sneak around if you agreed to monogamy.

Those are not parallel actions.

Now, if one spouse decides they don’t want sex ever again? That absolutely changes the marriage. It may be devastating. It may be unfair. It may mean the relationship can’t continue.

But the honest response to a deal-breaker is:
“I can’t live like this. We need to fix this, open this, or end this.”

Not:
“I’ll quietly violate the agreement and call it integrity.”

You’re also assuming that the person who doesn’t want sex has “broken” the contract and therefore must be the one to file. That’s not how this works. People’s libidos change. Bodies change. Trauma happens. Aging happens. Hormones shift. Desire is not a lifetime guarantee baked into the vows.

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

If sex is essential to you (totally valid), then you’re the one who decides it’s a deal-breaker and you leave. That’s not punishment. That’s agency.

And the “just sex fling that doesn’t threaten the marriage” line is classic DCUM magical thinking. Affairs absolutely threaten marriages. Secrets rot things from the inside. Even if you swear you’ll never leave.

If you want an open marriage? Negotiate one.
If you want monogamy with sex? Say so.
If you’re sexually incompatible? Divorce.

But the idea that someone “owes” you sex or else they should be the one to file is just resentment dressed up as logic.

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

Yes, they are. Normal people would reject what you say in bold.

Agree. There is something called the consummation of marriage for a reason.

You can only consummate the marriage once. Nothing required after that.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

Of course, marriage is about more than sex. So if your DH said to you, "I love you and want to stay married, but sex is very important to me. Since you decided it's no longer something you want to do, I'm going to find someone to satisfy me sexually outside of our marriage." That would be totally ok with you, right?

I am not who you are responding to, but my answer would be "yes." If I am done, I could care less where you get it. (Woman here) In fact, I said this to my ex spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

You’re framing this like there are two equally sneaky contract violations happening:

Spouse A says, “I don’t want sex anymore.”
Spouse B says, “Cool, I’ll outsource it.”

And you’re asking why only #2 gets torched. Here’s why.

Refusing sex is about what someone does with their own body. Cheating is about what someone does with the **shared agreement** of the marriage.

No one is obligated to provide sex to keep their marriage valid. Full stop. Even in a perfectly healthy, boring, middle-class, carpool-driving life. You don’t get conjugal rights because you’re annoyed.

But you are obligated not to lie and sneak around if you agreed to monogamy.

Those are not parallel actions.

Now, if one spouse decides they don’t want sex ever again? That absolutely changes the marriage. It may be devastating. It may be unfair. It may mean the relationship can’t continue.

But the honest response to a deal-breaker is:
“I can’t live like this. We need to fix this, open this, or end this.”

Not:
“I’ll quietly violate the agreement and call it integrity.”

You’re also assuming that the person who doesn’t want sex has “broken” the contract and therefore must be the one to file. That’s not how this works. People’s libidos change. Bodies change. Trauma happens. Aging happens. Hormones shift. Desire is not a lifetime guarantee baked into the vows.

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

If sex is essential to you (totally valid), then you’re the one who decides it’s a deal-breaker and you leave. That’s not punishment. That’s agency.

And the “just sex fling that doesn’t threaten the marriage” line is classic DCUM magical thinking. Affairs absolutely threaten marriages. Secrets rot things from the inside. Even if you swear you’ll never leave.

If you want an open marriage? Negotiate one.
If you want monogamy with sex? Say so.
If you’re sexually incompatible? Divorce.

But the idea that someone “owes” you sex or else they should be the one to file is just resentment dressed up as logic.

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

Yes, they are. Normal people would reject what you say in bold.

Agree. There is something called the consummation of marriage for a reason.

You can only consummate the marriage once. Nothing required after that.

Lol that’s actually not true.

The terms are: “Wilt thou love her/him, comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others keep thee only unto her/him as long as ye both shall live?”

and “comfort” means have sex. marriage is a contract for exclusive sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

You’re framing this like there are two equally sneaky contract violations happening:

Spouse A says, “I don’t want sex anymore.”
Spouse B says, “Cool, I’ll outsource it.”

And you’re asking why only #2 gets torched. Here’s why.

Refusing sex is about what someone does with their own body. Cheating is about what someone does with the **shared agreement** of the marriage.

No one is obligated to provide sex to keep their marriage valid. Full stop. Even in a perfectly healthy, boring, middle-class, carpool-driving life. You don’t get conjugal rights because you’re annoyed.

But you are obligated not to lie and sneak around if you agreed to monogamy.

Those are not parallel actions.

Now, if one spouse decides they don’t want sex ever again? That absolutely changes the marriage. It may be devastating. It may be unfair. It may mean the relationship can’t continue.

But the honest response to a deal-breaker is:
“I can’t live like this. We need to fix this, open this, or end this.”

Not:
“I’ll quietly violate the agreement and call it integrity.”

You’re also assuming that the person who doesn’t want sex has “broken” the contract and therefore must be the one to file. That’s not how this works. People’s libidos change. Bodies change. Trauma happens. Aging happens. Hormones shift. Desire is not a lifetime guarantee baked into the vows.

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

If sex is essential to you (totally valid), then you’re the one who decides it’s a deal-breaker and you leave. That’s not punishment. That’s agency.

And the “just sex fling that doesn’t threaten the marriage” line is classic DCUM magical thinking. Affairs absolutely threaten marriages. Secrets rot things from the inside. Even if you swear you’ll never leave.

If you want an open marriage? Negotiate one.
If you want monogamy with sex? Say so.
If you’re sexually incompatible? Divorce.

But the idea that someone “owes” you sex or else they should be the one to file is just resentment dressed up as logic.

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

Yes, they are. Normal people would reject what you say in bold.

Agree. There is something called the consummation of marriage for a reason.

You can only consummate the marriage once. Nothing required after that.

Why do you consummate it? Because sex is expected in a marriage.

+1 you can get an annulment if you haven’t consummated the marriage because without doing so you aren’t married

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

You’re framing this like there are two equally sneaky contract violations happening:

Spouse A says, “I don’t want sex anymore.”
Spouse B says, “Cool, I’ll outsource it.”

And you’re asking why only #2 gets torched. Here’s why.

Refusing sex is about what someone does with their own body. Cheating is about what someone does with the **shared agreement** of the marriage.

No one is obligated to provide sex to keep their marriage valid. Full stop. Even in a perfectly healthy, boring, middle-class, carpool-driving life. You don’t get conjugal rights because you’re annoyed.

But you are obligated not to lie and sneak around if you agreed to monogamy.

Those are not parallel actions.

Now, if one spouse decides they don’t want sex ever again? That absolutely changes the marriage. It may be devastating. It may be unfair. It may mean the relationship can’t continue.

But the honest response to a deal-breaker is:
“I can’t live like this. We need to fix this, open this, or end this.”

Not:
“I’ll quietly violate the agreement and call it integrity.”

You’re also assuming that the person who doesn’t want sex has “broken” the contract and therefore must be the one to file. That’s not how this works. People’s libidos change. Bodies change. Trauma happens. Aging happens. Hormones shift. Desire is not a lifetime guarantee baked into the vows.

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

If sex is essential to you (totally valid), then you’re the one who decides it’s a deal-breaker and you leave. That’s not punishment. That’s agency.

And the “just sex fling that doesn’t threaten the marriage” line is classic DCUM magical thinking. Affairs absolutely threaten marriages. Secrets rot things from the inside. Even if you swear you’ll never leave.

If you want an open marriage? Negotiate one.
If you want monogamy with sex? Say so.
If you’re sexually incompatible? Divorce.

But the idea that someone “owes” you sex or else they should be the one to file is just resentment dressed up as logic.

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

Yes, they are. Normal people would reject what you say in bold.

Agree. There is something called the consummation of marriage for a reason.

You can only consummate the marriage once. Nothing required after that.

Why do you consummate it? Because sex is expected in a marriage.

Was have sex forever whenever I want it in your vows?

It’s literally in the vows

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

You’re framing this like there are two equally sneaky contract violations happening:

Spouse A says, “I don’t want sex anymore.”
Spouse B says, “Cool, I’ll outsource it.”

And you’re asking why only #2 gets torched. Here’s why.

Refusing sex is about what someone does with their own body. Cheating is about what someone does with the **shared agreement** of the marriage.

No one is obligated to provide sex to keep their marriage valid. Full stop. Even in a perfectly healthy, boring, middle-class, carpool-driving life. You don’t get conjugal rights because you’re annoyed.

But you are obligated not to lie and sneak around if you agreed to monogamy.

Those are not parallel actions.

Now, if one spouse decides they don’t want sex ever again? That absolutely changes the marriage. It may be devastating. It may be unfair. It may mean the relationship can’t continue.

But the honest response to a deal-breaker is:
“I can’t live like this. We need to fix this, open this, or end this.”

Not:
“I’ll quietly violate the agreement and call it integrity.”

You’re also assuming that the person who doesn’t want sex has “broken” the contract and therefore must be the one to file. That’s not how this works. People’s libidos change. Bodies change. Trauma happens. Aging happens. Hormones shift. Desire is not a lifetime guarantee baked into the vows.

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

If sex is essential to you (totally valid), then you’re the one who decides it’s a deal-breaker and you leave. That’s not punishment. That’s agency.

And the “just sex fling that doesn’t threaten the marriage” line is classic DCUM magical thinking. Affairs absolutely threaten marriages. Secrets rot things from the inside. Even if you swear you’ll never leave.

If you want an open marriage? Negotiate one.
If you want monogamy with sex? Say so.
If you’re sexually incompatible? Divorce.

But the idea that someone “owes” you sex or else they should be the one to file is just resentment dressed up as logic.

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

Yes, they are. Normal people would reject what you say in bold.

Agree. There is something called the consummation of marriage for a reason.

If your entire argument rests on medieval property law and the word “consummation,” you might want to sit with that.

No one owes you lifetime sexual access. That's not what marriage is, full stop, and it disregards all of the very valid biological changes that happen as we all age that may impact someone's libido.
If sex is non-negotiable for you, you leave. You don’t outsource it in secret and call it moral high ground.

You're completely wrong, no matter how many times you use that idiotic phrase "full stop." You're morally wrong, ethically wrong, and legally wrong. What you're describing is literally grounds for at-fault divorce in every jurisdiction. It's called constructive desertion.

First, all 50 states and DC have no fault divorce.

Also, there is a lot more to the old timey contructive desertion claim. Otherwise, you could claim it when a spouse has erectile disfunction, or vaginal atrophy, or paralysis, etc. So no, it's not immoral or illegal to have limited or no sexual access.

Spousal rape, however, is very illegal.

Isn’t that what most of the people who stop having sex have? Something wrong with them that they refuse to talk to a doctor about.