Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP here. I think that you are missing the point. It is about the relationship, not the actual act. So in terms of is listening to a spouse the same as having sex with them, no because the acts and the energy required is different. What I am trying to say, and what I think a lot of spouses who are not having sex because they don't feel up to it for whatever reason don't really understand, is that sex is not just getting off. It is bonding, it is a connection, it is a validation of love for one another.

So in that regard I would say it is the same as the man not listening to his wife. Because in the scenario I listed about the hard day, the husband is saying I know this is important to you, as your husband I know that you need me to and value me listening and being supportive for you, but I am choosing not to. The reason sexless marriages hurt is not that I am not physically getting off, but I am sharing with you something that is important to me and you are saying that you don't value me enough to do it. The same as if the husband does not choose to provide emotional support. Or pick a grander event for the comparison if needed. For example picking up an in law at the hospital 3 hours away at 4:00 in the morning after someone passed away becuase your wife or anyone else in the family simply could not manage doing it. I sure as hell did not want to do that but I love my wife and respect her so I did. Does that make her "entitled" to expect that I will stand up and take care of her when she needs?

I think you are missing the point. The actual act you are asking your wife to perform is so intimate and personal and feels so violative when done against one's will and interest that it in no way compares to "listening to your spouse" or "driving three hours at 4 am to pick up a relative after someone passed away".

Also, FWIW, there are many ways to bond, have a connection or validate love for one another. Sex is not the only way.

Do you really have no idea why your wife has only had sex with you 3 times in the last 2 years? If not, then you really have a problem that is way bigger than not getting sex.

FWIW, whatever the reason there's not been any sex, you might decide that that is not the way you want to live your life. Just like your wife can decide that she doesn't want to have sex, you can decide that you do want to have sex with someone and either ask for an open marriage or a divorce.

[Anonymous]

^[phone]

[Anonymous]

Is this a troll sock puppeting? I can't imagine there are multiple women who feel like a man wanting to have regular sex with his wife (his sex partner!) is being entitled.

You've also been straight up ignoring the numerous women (myself included) who disagree with you and who feel the same way about their husbands.

If having sex with your spouse when you're not totally feeling it feels like rape you have SERIOUS relationship problems. And I agree that usually sex problems = relationship problems but Jesus pp. Americans are word enough about sex to begin with, let's not stigmatize the COMPLETELY NORMAL desire for regular sexual contact between healthy spouses.

[Anonymous]

I see the footprint of sites like Jezebel and XOJane all over the OP's thought process.

Their M.O. is to take a reasonable male position, and then exaggerate into a grotesque straw man position that no men, other than a few fringe outliers, would recognize -- but then falsely present it as standard issue male thought. Now we have an entire generation of 18-29 year old women whose views of men resemble Donald Trump's view of Muslims.

It's made for effective clickbait for few years, but people are getting wise to it, and those websites are on the decline for a reason (even without the assist from Hulk Hogan).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lve it when my DH throws me up agains the wall and f**ks my brains out!

You're a normal woman.

You don't belong here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy here: When I married my wife I went in with the mindset that I was committed to meeting her needs over the long term. We've talked openly about our needs and some of hers include:
- Me talking to her every day without being distracted
- Being fiscally responsible and earning a good living
- Helping around the house: I pick up, do dishes, clean the kitchen, make the bed, put away laundry, do the grocery shopping, etc
- Being a good parent: I do homework every night, participate in cubscouts, do stuff with the kid every day.

I'm 45 and stay very fit (avid cyclist, gym guy) when I started having ED issuses I went and saw my doc and went through a series of embarassing conversations plus tests.

I'm naturally disinterested in doing most of the items above and I wouldn't do them if it wasn't something she needed. If she were to get to a point where she was unwilling to meet my needs just because some article on Jezebel resonated with her that wouldn't work for me. That's not a mature or realistic or sustainable view of a relationship.

How about exhaustion, depression, anxiety, cancer, ..... really... you think people are not having sex because of a Jezebel article?

I doubt you talk EVERY DAY without distraction or if you only had time for 3 time a week now that you have kids I doubt you wife would emotionally abuse you.

Really, PP? This is the equivalent of the Hitler argument in debate. Yes, female libidos are fickle after marriage and after 40. No one said women are evil because of it, but to deny this is true and to say it's mostly due to things on the level of cancer -- rather than a lot of other things that can be addressed through hard work and caring -- is just a crap argument.

No. It is not the "Hitler" argument.... "In 2016, an estimated 1,685,210 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and 595,690 people will die from the disease"....

Of course "hard work and caring" is going to help, but so many men refuse to do the "hard work and caring"... they want sex, and they feel entitled to get it, now, even before the hard work is done to figure out what is going on.

Things also happen that affect libido or the amount of time we have to have sex... children, death of a family member (this will happen to all of us), children with special needs, hard pregnancy, too much shit to do and yes... cancer (you must be young if you think this is as likely as Hitler).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy here: When I married my wife I went in with the mindset that I was committed to meeting her needs over the long term. We've talked openly about our needs and some of hers include:
- Me talking to her every day without being distracted
- Being fiscally responsible and earning a good living
- Helping around the house: I pick up, do dishes, clean the kitchen, make the bed, put away laundry, do the grocery shopping, etc
- Being a good parent: I do homework every night, participate in cubscouts, do stuff with the kid every day.

I'm 45 and stay very fit (avid cyclist, gym guy) when I started having ED issuses I went and saw my doc and went through a series of embarassing conversations plus tests.

I'm naturally disinterested in doing most of the items above and I wouldn't do them if it wasn't something she needed. If she were to get to a point where she was unwilling to meet my needs just because some article on Jezebel resonated with her that wouldn't work for me. That's not a mature or realistic or sustainable view of a relationship.

How about exhaustion, depression, anxiety, cancer, ..... really... you think people are not having sex because of a Jezebel article?

I doubt you talk EVERY DAY without distraction or if you only had time for 3 time a week now that you have kids I doubt you wife would emotionally abuse you.

Really, PP? This is the equivalent of the Hitler argument in debate. Yes, female libidos are fickle after marriage and after 40. No one said women are evil because of it, but to deny this is true and to say it's mostly due to things on the level of cancer -- rather than a lot of other things that can be addressed through hard work and caring -- is just a crap argument.

No. It is not the "Hitler" argument.... "In 2016, an estimated 1,685,210 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and 595,690 people will die from the disease"....

Of course "hard work and caring" is going to help, but so many men refuse to do the "hard work and caring"... they want sex, and they feel entitled to get it, now, even before the hard work is done to figure out what is going on.

Things also happen that affect libido or the amount of time we have to have sex... children, death of a family member (this will happen to all of us), children with special needs, hard pregnancy, too much shit to do and yes... cancer (you must be young if you think this is as likely as Hitler).

Man here. Cancer survivor with heart disease. I have ED from the Cancer (I think), and the heart precludes the Viagra/Viagra like meds. Sex is pretty limited for me. Yet, my wife stays with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1 to the PP and OP. I find it very interesting how the comments on this thread reflect an ignorance of our history of sexual expectations in marriage and rape prosecution (or, non-prosecution, which may be more accurate).

From the early 1700s, English common law explicitly held that a husband could not be guilty of rape because in marriage a wife "hath given herself up to her husband, which she cannot retract." (from History of the Please of the Crown, 1736). For centuries afterward, English common law (and American) basically held that the wife had a duty to provide sex in the marriage and the husband could not be convicted of rape. Many of the PPs seem to be arguing something similar to this -- marriage is a contract that includes sex, although PPs vary as to how available the wife must be.

Not until the feminist movement's influence did states start criminalizing marital rape in the mid-1970s. North Carolina and Oklahoma were the last states to criminalize rape, and neither did so until 1993. Think about that. As little as 25 years ago, in some states a husband could not be prosecuted for having sex with his wife against her consent.

Even today there are a handful of states that prosecute marital rape but do so in a way that is quite different from non-marital rape. For example, in Ohio, as late as 2014 (and still today, I think), Ohio rape statutes are divided in such a way that one part applies to non-marital partners and the other to marital partners. This separation means that force or threat of force are required to prove marital rape, whereas force or threat of force is not required for non-marital rape. Also, if a spouse has sex with a marital partner who lacks the capacity to consent to sex because of diminished capacity thru illness or diminished mental capacity or thru the fact of being drugged or drunk, that spouse cannot be prosecuted for rape. In the same situation, but between two unmarried partners, a rape prosecution could occur. So, the Brock Turner example is very apt. If Brock Turner did what he did in Ohio to his wife, instead of a stranger, the state would not be able to prosecute him for rape, even if his wife did not consent to sex.

Also, in the states in which marital rape prosecutions require threat or use of force, an entire range of coercive acts leaves unpunished what would normally be considered rape if between two strangers.

IMO, the entire history of non-prosecution of rape occurred in a cultural milieu in which women were expected to have sex with their partners whenever the partner wants. That cultural milieu still exists today. That's why we call it "rape culture".

What OP is contemplating is exactly this lacunae in the law and our culture -- that it is still OK to expect a married person to have to have sex with his/her spouse even when they don't want to-- which stands in stark contrast, especially to those under 30, to the newly evolving norm of getting explicit sexual consent (the "yes" movement) prior to sex.

For more info, consider reading....

http://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/ -- which says in part, "Being married doesn’t make any of the above [coercive] situations okay. Wives do not belong to their husbands. Sex is not a “right” that goes with marriage. It is not a wife’s duty. A woman does not give up her right to say yes or no the day she gets married. Sex should be based on respect, equality, consent, caring, and clear communication."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/marital-rape-is-semi-legal-in-8-states.html -- for more info about differential marital rape prosecutions.

I'm genuinely curious about the following after reading your first link. The author categorically states that an intoxicated spouse cannot give effective consent. I read that and I think of the hypothetical situation where spouses are celebrating their fifteenth wedding anniversary in an otherwise monogamous, committed and happy marriage. These spouses regularly and freely have consensual sex five times per week. They share two bottles of wine over dinner, and they both have the same exact BAC, which happens to be above the legal driving limit in their jurisdiction, but they are not blackout drunk. They head to up to their hotel room for a night of sex. Are you prepared to call both spouses rapists because neither could give effective consent due to intoxication?

[Anonymous]

"Entitled to sex" is such a loaded phrase that I simply can't agree to that inflammatory choice of wording.
I will state that I very much expect a regular sex life within my marriage.
And although there are alot of great things in our marriage besides sex, I will readily admit that I would not stay married if my wife decided to reject our sexlife, and refused to work on the issue.
I view regular sex as a legitimate and important relationship need, one that would be a total dealbreaker even if the marriage was otherwise good (although I really don't see how that is possible, yet I read this in alot of "sexless marriage" threads!)

Why does anybody feel entitled to a (faithful) marriage with little sex?

[Anonymous]

Welp....I'm a woman who was in a long term relationship with a man who had zero interest in sex with me. His excuse was depression and anxiety. I could count on my fingers how many times we had sex in the 2 years we were together. I wanted regular sex, he refused to have sex or do anything about his depression, and it really wrecked my self-esteem. I cried about it all the time and wondered what was so awful about me that a man who claimed to love me had zero interest in meeting my needs. Does that make me a rapist?

Interestingly, he was extremely paranoid about me cheating on him. Not sure why he cared what I did with my vagina, since he certainly wanted nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 to the PP and OP. I find it very interesting how the comments on this thread reflect an ignorance of our history of sexual expectations in marriage and rape prosecution (or, non-prosecution, which may be more accurate).

From the early 1700s, English common law explicitly held that a husband could not be guilty of rape because in marriage a wife "hath given herself up to her husband, which she cannot retract." (from History of the Please of the Crown, 1736). For centuries afterward, English common law (and American) basically held that the wife had a duty to provide sex in the marriage and the husband could not be convicted of rape. Many of the PPs seem to be arguing something similar to this -- marriage is a contract that includes sex, although PPs vary as to how available the wife must be.

Not until the feminist movement's influence did states start criminalizing marital rape in the mid-1970s. North Carolina and Oklahoma were the last states to criminalize rape, and neither did so until 1993. Think about that. As little as 25 years ago, in some states a husband could not be prosecuted for having sex with his wife against her consent.

Even today there are a handful of states that prosecute marital rape but do so in a way that is quite different from non-marital rape. For example, in Ohio, as late as 2014 (and still today, I think), Ohio rape statutes are divided in such a way that one part applies to non-marital partners and the other to marital partners. This separation means that force or threat of force are required to prove marital rape, whereas force or threat of force is not required for non-marital rape. Also, if a spouse has sex with a marital partner who lacks the capacity to consent to sex because of diminished capacity thru illness or diminished mental capacity or thru the fact of being drugged or drunk, that spouse cannot be prosecuted for rape. In the same situation, but between two unmarried partners, a rape prosecution could occur. So, the Brock Turner example is very apt. If Brock Turner did what he did in Ohio to his wife, instead of a stranger, the state would not be able to prosecute him for rape, even if his wife did not consent to sex.

Also, in the states in which marital rape prosecutions require threat or use of force, an entire range of coercive acts leaves unpunished what would normally be considered rape if between two strangers.

IMO, the entire history of non-prosecution of rape occurred in a cultural milieu in which women were expected to have sex with their partners whenever the partner wants. That cultural milieu still exists today. That's why we call it "rape culture".

What OP is contemplating is exactly this lacunae in the law and our culture -- that it is still OK to expect a married person to have to have sex with his/her spouse even when they don't want to-- which stands in stark contrast, especially to those under 30, to the newly evolving norm of getting explicit sexual consent (the "yes" movement) prior to sex.

For more info, consider reading....

http://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/ -- which says in part, "Being married doesn’t make any of the above [coercive] situations okay. Wives do not belong to their husbands. Sex is not a “right” that goes with marriage. It is not a wife’s duty. A woman does not give up her right to say yes or no the day she gets married. Sex should be based on respect, equality, consent, caring, and clear communication."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/marital-rape-is-semi-legal-in-8-states.html -- for more info about differential marital rape prosecutions.

I'm genuinely curious about the following after reading your first link. The author categorically states that an intoxicated spouse cannot give effective consent. I read that and I think of the hypothetical situation where spouses are celebrating their fifteenth wedding anniversary in an otherwise monogamous, committed and happy marriage. These spouses regularly and freely have consensual sex five times per week. They share two bottles of wine over dinner, and they both have the same exact BAC, which happens to be above the legal driving limit in their jurisdiction, but they are not blackout drunk. They head to up to their hotel room for a night of sex. Are you prepared to call both spouses rapists because neither could give effective consent due to intoxication?

I think there's a tendency to react to idiots who claim things like Brock Turner couldn't be sure he didn't have consent to go 180 degrees the other way and say that consent is always incredibly simple and clear cut. While I am all for shutting down rape apologists, consent isn't actually that simple in committed relationships. Under an overly reductionist approach to consent, sleeping with your spouse after a night of drinking is always rape, when everyone in a stable relationship knows it frequently is not. Similarly, waking up your husband with a BJ is virtually always rape, and I think 98% of husbands would disagree with that characterization. Trying to simplify and create bright lines also leads to a ton of paternalism, as we've seen in ample display on this thread when numerous women have said they don't consider occasional sex when they.'re not in the mood to be at all inappropriate and others have essentially explained, in a condescending manner, they they've failed to adequately deconstruct the history of marital relations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy here: When I married my wife I went in with the mindset that I was committed to meeting her needs over the long term. We've talked openly about our needs and some of hers include:
- Me talking to her every day without being distracted
- Being fiscally responsible and earning a good living
- Helping around the house: I pick up, do dishes, clean the kitchen, make the bed, put away laundry, do the grocery shopping, etc
- Being a good parent: I do homework every night, participate in cubscouts, do stuff with the kid every day.

I'm 45 and stay very fit (avid cyclist, gym guy) when I started having ED issuses I went and saw my doc and went through a series of embarassing conversations plus tests.

I'm naturally disinterested in doing most of the items above and I wouldn't do them if it wasn't something she needed. If she were to get to a point where she was unwilling to meet my needs just because some article on Jezebel resonated with her that wouldn't work for me. That's not a mature or realistic or sustainable view of a relationship.

How about exhaustion, depression, anxiety, cancer, ..... really... you think people are not having sex because of a Jezebel article?

I doubt you talk EVERY DAY without distraction or if you only had time for 3 time a week now that you have kids I doubt you wife would emotionally abuse you.

Really, PP? This is the equivalent of the Hitler argument in debate. Yes, female libidos are fickle after marriage and after 40. No one said women are evil because of it, but to deny this is true and to say it's mostly due to things on the level of cancer -- rather than a lot of other things that can be addressed through hard work and caring -- is just a crap argument.

No. It is not the "Hitler" argument.... "In 2016, an estimated 1,685,210 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and 595,690 people will die from the disease"....

Of course "hard work and caring" is going to help, but so many men refuse to do the "hard work and caring"... they want sex, and they feel entitled to get it, now, even before the hard work is done to figure out what is going on.

Things also happen that affect libido or the amount of time we have to have sex... children, death of a family member (this will happen to all of us), children with special needs, hard pregnancy, too much shit to do and yes... cancer (you must be young if you think this is as likely as Hitler).

Man here. Cancer survivor with heart disease. I have ED from the Cancer (I think), and the heart precludes the Viagra/Viagra like meds. Sex is pretty limited for me. Yet, my wife stays with me.

thanks for sharing. I am 50 and many of my friends are all dealing with something that makes it not always possible to have an active sex life with their H (due to their H's medical issues) . None are thinking of divorce.

I wonder if we could say the same about the men. I also wonder if the men were as understanding when their sex lives were affected by children, exhaustion, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Entitled to sex" is such a loaded phrase that I simply can't agree to that inflammatory choice of wording.
I will state that I very much expect a regular sex life within my marriage.
And although there are alot of great things in our marriage besides sex, I will readily admit that I would not stay married if my wife decided to reject our sexlife, and refused to work on the issue.
I view regular sex as a legitimate and important relationship need, one that would be a total dealbreaker even if the marriage was otherwise good (although I really don't see how that is possible, yet I read this in alot of "sexless marriage" threads!)

Why does anybody feel entitled to a (faithful) marriage with little sex?

So if/when you get ED, your wife is welcome to have other sex partners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Entitled to sex" is such a loaded phrase that I simply can't agree to that inflammatory choice of wording.
I will state that I very much expect a regular sex life within my marriage.
And although there are alot of great things in our marriage besides sex, I will readily admit that I would not stay married if my wife decided to reject our sexlife, and refused to work on the issue.
I view regular sex as a legitimate and important relationship need, one that would be a total dealbreaker even if the marriage was otherwise good (although I really don't see how that is possible, yet I read this in alot of "sexless marriage" threads!)

Why does anybody feel entitled to a (faithful) marriage with little sex?

So if/when you get ED, your wife is welcome to have other sex partners?

I am not that previous poster, but yes, I like to believe that, if for some sustained period in my life, my wife wants substantially more sex than I can provide, that I will be mature enough and caring enough about her needs to encourage her to find it elsewhere if she desires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP here. I think that you are missing the point. It is about the relationship, not the actual act. So in terms of is listening to a spouse the same as having sex with them, no because the acts and the energy required is different. What I am trying to say, and what I think a lot of spouses who are not having sex because they don't feel up to it for whatever reason don't really understand, is that sex is not just getting off. It is bonding, it is a connection, it is a validation of love for one another.

So in that regard I would say it is the same as the man not listening to his wife. Because in the scenario I listed about the hard day, the husband is saying I know this is important to you, as your husband I know that you need me to and value me listening and being supportive for you, but I am choosing not to. The reason sexless marriages hurt is not that I am not physically getting off, but I am sharing with you something that is important to me and you are saying that you don't value me enough to do it. The same as if the husband does not choose to provide emotional support. Or pick a grander event for the comparison if needed. For example picking up an in law at the hospital 3 hours away at 4:00 in the morning after someone passed away becuase your wife or anyone else in the family simply could not manage doing it. I sure as hell did not want to do that but I love my wife and respect her so I did. Does that make her "entitled" to expect that I will stand up and take care of her when she needs?

I think you are missing the point. The actual act you are asking your wife to perform is so intimate and personal and feels so violative when done against one's will and interest that it in no way compares to "listening to your spouse" or "driving three hours at 4 am to pick up a relative after someone passed away".

Also, FWIW, there are many ways to bond, have a connection or validate love for one another. Sex is not the only way.

Do you really have no idea why your wife has only had sex with you 3 times in the last 2 years? If not, then you really have a problem that is way bigger than not getting sex.

FWIW, whatever the reason there's not been any sex, you might decide that that is not the way you want to live your life. Just like your wife can decide that she doesn't want to have sex, you can decide that you do want to have sex with someone and either ask for an open marriage or a divorce.

PP Here. I absolutely agree that if a woman does not want to have sex, there is no situation where it should happen. Having sex with my wife if she clearly did not want to do it would not be satisfying at all. If you are talking of a scenario where a woman says I have no desire to have sex and the husband says I don't care we are going to anyway and makes her do it when she doesn't want to then I agree with your stance. That said, the question you posed was "Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage?" not why do they feel "entitled" to have sex with their wives against their will in a marriage. Those are two extremely different statements.

Men feel "entitled" to sex in a marriage becuase that is a huge part of a marriage, and for right or wrong, a huge way in which the majority of men and many women connect to their marriage. The same way that a woman might connect from emotional support or cuddling or how the man interacts with the children etc. That was my point in making those comparisons, sex is our emotional support, our cuddling, our how you take care of the children. That is why it is such a crappy situation to be in as a spouse in a sexless marriage. The point is again that it is not the actual lack of sex, it is the act of a spouse saying I know that something is hurting you, I am the only person who can alleviate that discomfort, and I choose not to. That is the parallel to not listening to a hard day.

Of course there are other ways to bond, and that is great, but choosing not to engage with your spouse the way THEY feel most connected is the point of the issue. Assuming you are in a relationship or have been in the past: Choose however you feel most connected to your partner, and then they gradually stop doing it, you tell them that hurts and they say I know and don't change at all. Report back your feelings.

Do I know why we haven't had sex? Yes, because we are busy, she is tired, she puts her energy into work, into the kids etc. These are all valid points and I do not hold them against her, but she CHOOSES not to care about me and my needs at all. I am not trying to have sex all the time, in crazy positions or anything, so to say that you cannot muster the energy/desire to have sex every once in a while because you know it is important to how I feel about our relationship is really not valid. If I were important to her she would make some effort to prioritize it in one way or the other, she can prioritize other things. And I sure as hell make effort to prioritize things for her.

The main takeaway from your question "Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage?" is that it is a part of your marriage until one day it isn't, and there is nothing you can do about it. I think your last statement about leaving really solidifies where this situation really stands. You yourself just said either deal with it or leave......That is where spouses end up-just deal with an unsatisfying life of leave. That is incredibly selfish in a relationship. Period. No matter what the issue is -sex or something else. I think that many spouses denying sex think this way, I only care about my needs, one of which is not sex, so I am going to focus on them and hedge my bets that you won't leave me.

Typically the type of spouse that ends up in this situation is loyal, dedicated and very focused on their family etc. Spouses know this so they can be selfish because they have a high confidence level that the spouse won't leave them because they people with a strong set of values and honor their commitments. It is rarely if ever an assehole husband that ends up in a sexless marriage, because the spouse knows that he is.....well an assehole..... so he would dip out the door right away if the sex stopped. I have lots of faults so I am not saying I am perfect, or even a catch, but she knows how much I value our life, and more than anything else my children's happiness, so she is counting on me "just dealing with it". I would never do anything that could impact my children negatively for my own happiness, that is not the kind of person I am and she knows it. Am I willing to leave my life, impact my children's childhood and how they see relationships and the world because I am not getting laid-absolutely not. Is it ok that my wife-supposedly my partner in life-is asking me to make that choice? Absolutely not.

I love my wife, she is a great person and mother and we get along well and I don't think she is behaving this way out of purposeful malice. But it really hurts and is depressing as hell. I have just decided that I won't hurt other people to end my hurt, because I am not selfish and that is not what you do to people you love.