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:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But I’m sure he’s obligated to open his wallet for you, right ladies?

Most women who aren’t having sex can take care of themselves and don’t need the money that’s why they couldn’t care less

Feminism has destroyed civil society

No, it's destroyed mens' ability to keep women trapped in unsatisfactory marriages. Corrected it for ya

Divorce rate has gone up due to women’s
unhinged emotions

The divorce rate is at a 50-year low.

Making a statement like that means you live in a world not based in reality or are pulling numbers from an obscure island where repopulation is not occurring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter who decides, the marriage is over so, really, who gives F who "decides"??

In what sad world is a marriage only about sex?

Nobody said marriage is only about sex. However sex is part of marriage along with many other things.

PP said without sex "the marriage is over." That is simply wrong, and it does, in fact, make the whole marriage about sex, if that one thing must end it. Using an extreme to prove the point: Many married people can no longer have sex, phsyically -- lets say, full paralysis -- Is the marriage over? No. It was never part of any guarantee.

Why do people like you insist on bringing in examples of people who can't have sex when OP clearly states that this is about people who simply don't want to?

You can reference the OP if you’d like. It's really not rocket science. My spouse knows if I'm sick or dealing with something emotionally. We communicate about what is going on with each one of us personally. We support each other and encourage each other to take care of our health. I guess if there is a lack of trust and a lack of communication, there are bigger issues in the marriage other than “not having sex.”

It’s so amazing to me that so many people on this board have zero issues with bringing up their spouses weight and insisting they get healthy because “they have a duty to take care of themselves for the sake of the marriage,” but if the issue is hormonal or emotional then you’re the assh0le if you insist that your spouse sees a doctor and seek help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

He discovered some evidence of me cheating and chose not to confront me. How does this gray area fit into your analysis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

He discovered some evidence of me cheating and chose not to confront me. How does this gray area fit into your analysis?

You cheated. That's like saying you beat up your spouse, and they chose to ignore so it is a gray area. Nothing gray about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

He discovered some evidence of me cheating and chose not to confront me. How does this gray area fit into your analysis?

So you are sleeping with others with no discussion with your spouse about health, safety, birth control etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter who decides, the marriage is over so, really, who gives F who "decides"??

In what sad world is a marriage only about sex?

Nobody said marriage is only about sex. However sex is part of marriage along with many other things.

PP said without sex "the marriage is over." That is simply wrong, and it does, in fact, make the whole marriage about sex, if that one thing must end it. Using an extreme to prove the point: Many married people can no longer have sex, phsyically -- lets say, full paralysis -- Is the marriage over? No. It was never part of any guarantee.

Why do people like you insist on bringing in examples of people who can't have sex when OP clearly states that this is about people who simply don't want to?

You can reference the OP if you’d like. It's really not rocket science. My spouse knows if I'm sick or dealing with something emotionally. We communicate about what is going on with each one of us personally. We support each other and encourage each other to take care of our health. I guess if there is a lack of trust and a lack of communication, there are bigger issues in the marriage other than “not having sex.”

It’s so amazing to me that so many people on this board have zero issues with bringing up their spouses weight and insisting they get healthy because “they have a duty to take care of themselves for the sake of the marriage,” but if the issue is hormonal or emotional then you’re the assh0le if you insist that your spouse sees a doctor and seek help.

There is no thread here asking fat spouses to get thin or divorce since they " simply don't want to" lose weight. If the spouse is failing at the duty to stay thin and/or reasonably attractive, people encourage the other spouse to either offer support or leave. No different here. The spouse with the healthy libido can keep offering support or they can leave. But insisting that this particular failure is of the " simply don't want to" category is a little nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman here who has little desire after FT work, kids, stress and hormonal issues. My dh grumbles and if he cheated I wouldn’t want to know about it. Marriage is a long haul. I expect there will be times I have more desire and dh has less. Actually now he has ED issues at times. Would I divorce him over that? No way. Marriage is a long term partnership. People posting on here to divorce over this are trashy.

The bolded is trashy too.

Nope. It’s how the world used to work and I’m fine with it as long as it’s very rare and doesn’t interrupt my life. Marriage is not story book. Two people can’t be every single thing to each other for 50+ years. I’m grown up enough to understand that.

Interesting that you are grown up enough to accept what works for you as maturity but not grown enough to realize that what works for others is not trashy just because it does not work for you. Grow up some more.

Divorce is just wrong and yes, trashy unless there is chronic abuse. And sorry, not getting enough BJs is not ‘abuse’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter who decides, the marriage is over so, really, who gives F who "decides"??

In what sad world is a marriage only about sex?

Nobody said marriage is only about sex. However sex is part of marriage along with many other things.

PP said without sex "the marriage is over." That is simply wrong, and it does, in fact, make the whole marriage about sex, if that one thing must end it. Using an extreme to prove the point: Many married people can no longer have sex, phsyically -- lets say, full paralysis -- Is the marriage over? No. It was never part of any guarantee.

Why do people like you insist on bringing in examples of people who can't have sex when OP clearly states that this is about people who simply don't want to?

You can reference the OP if you’d like. It's really not rocket science. My spouse knows if I'm sick or dealing with something emotionally. We communicate about what is going on with each one of us personally. We support each other and encourage each other to take care of our health. I guess if there is a lack of trust and a lack of communication, there are bigger issues in the marriage other than “not having sex.”

It’s so amazing to me that so many people on this board have zero issues with bringing up their spouses weight and insisting they get healthy because “they have a duty to take care of themselves for the sake of the marriage,” but if the issue is hormonal or emotional then you’re the assh0le if you insist that your spouse sees a doctor and seek help.

There is no thread here asking fat spouses to get thin or divorce since they " simply don't want to" lose weight. If the spouse is failing at the duty to stay thin and/or reasonably attractive, people encourage the other spouse to either offer support or leave. No different here. The spouse with the healthy libido can keep offering support or they can leave. But insisting that this particular failure is of the " simply don't want to" category is a little nuts.

Oh please!!!! That is disingenuous at best. Women and men on this site claim all the time that spouses have a duty to stay heathy and fit. However, claim that spouses have a duty to make sure the seek medical help if there is an issue with their libido and you get a way different answer. Either you have a spousal duty to take care of your health or your don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman here who has little desire after FT work, kids, stress and hormonal issues. My dh grumbles and if he cheated I wouldn’t want to know about it. Marriage is a long haul. I expect there will be times I have more desire and dh has less. Actually now he has ED issues at times. Would I divorce him over that? No way. Marriage is a long term partnership. People posting on here to divorce over this are trashy.

The bolded is trashy too.

Nope. It’s how the world used to work and I’m fine with it as long as it’s very rare and doesn’t interrupt my life. Marriage is not story book. Two people can’t be every single thing to each other for 50+ years. I’m grown up enough to understand that.

Interesting that you are grown up enough to accept what works for you as maturity but not grown enough to realize that what works for others is not trashy just because it does not work for you. Grow up some more.

Divorce is just wrong and yes, trashy unless there is chronic abuse. And sorry, not getting enough BJs is not ‘abuse’.

Exposing your spouse to STDs is abuse. So those unhappy with the sex or lack of it can 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: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.

NP - your argument makes zero sense.

There is way more to marriage than a physical relationship. Trust, love, honesty, safety, communication. All of those are destroyed with cheating.

If both partners agree to outsource it, great, enjoy. But if one unilaterally decides to go find another partner for intimacy it's not about the physical piece, it's about destroying trust, love, honesty, safety, and communication.

It's not cheating if you agree to it. The point is that you will not agree to it because you are selfish. The scenario I presented clearly asks for permission. So why is it that you won't agree to let your spouse fulfil his/her need since you unilaterally decided that sex is not something that you're willing to do.

Where does trust, honesty, love come into play when you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your husband?

Do any of you husbands on here even know why your wives don’t want to have sex with you? Why don’t you ask and then be willing to listen to what they have to say. And I’m a woman who doesn’t feel that way about her husband but I understand based on reading lots of posts on DCUM that some women no longer want to sleep with the man children they’re married to. I likely wouldn’t either if my husband acted like the idiots that are portrayed on here but luckily I didn’t marry a loser like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman here who has little desire after FT work, kids, stress and hormonal issues. My dh grumbles and if he cheated I wouldn’t want to know about it. Marriage is a long haul. I expect there will be times I have more desire and dh has less. Actually now he has ED issues at times. Would I divorce him over that? No way. Marriage is a long term partnership. People posting on here to divorce over this are trashy.

The bolded is trashy too.

Nope. It’s how the world used to work and I’m fine with it as long as it’s very rare and doesn’t interrupt my life. Marriage is not story book. Two people can’t be every single thing to each other for 50+ years. I’m grown up enough to understand that.

Interesting that you are grown up enough to accept what works for you as maturity but not grown enough to realize that what works for others is not trashy just because it does not work for you. Grow up some more.

Divorce is just wrong and yes, trashy unless there is chronic abuse. And sorry, not getting enough BJs is not ‘abuse’.

Exposing your spouse to STDs is abuse. So those unhappy with the sex or lack of it can divorce

Please there are plenty of ways not to expose anyone to STDs. Be a grownup. And besides, we are talking about spouses who don’t sleep together, right?

[Anonymous]

This thread is making me grateful that I don't have a super high sex drive (I think it's average for someone my age, late 40s, I still want sex but it doesn't rule my life and if I'm horny and my DH is too tired, which happens, I get over it) and DH isn't either.

It sounds like torture due all involved, like having a drug addiction.

[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: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.

NP - your argument makes zero sense.

There is way more to marriage than a physical relationship. Trust, love, honesty, safety, communication. All of those are destroyed with cheating.

If both partners agree to outsource it, great, enjoy. But if one unilaterally decides to go find another partner for intimacy it's not about the physical piece, it's about destroying trust, love, honesty, safety, and communication.

It's not cheating if you agree to it. The point is that you will not agree to it because you are selfish. The scenario I presented clearly asks for permission. So why is it that you won't agree to let your spouse fulfil his/her need since you unilaterally decided that sex is not something that you're willing to do.

Where does trust, honesty, love come into play when you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your husband?

Her unilaterally deciding not to have sex should tell you there is no trust there. And she is not giving you permission because of that missing trust.

When there is trust, safety, love, honesty, communication, she will give you that permission to find a partner for intimacy.