Throwing husband a bone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then get a divorce. Why is this difficult? Only scumbags cheat.

There is the power disparity. Only scumbags cheat, but it's barely even objectionable to force your spouse to be sexless.

From this thread you can see that many do think that forcing your spouse to be sexless is objectionable. It is selfish, disrespectful and a sign of someone not committed to the marriage. But that doesn't make cheating any better.

Lots do, you're right. But there are also some who seem to think that sex comes last. If everything isn't just right in the marriage, some spouses seem to feel perfectly justified in checking out of the sex life. The other spouse can just masturbate, right?

If my spouse is checked out in every other area of our marriage, there shouldn't be an expectation that I'm checked in for sex.

Nice straw man. What if your spouse is doing well in lots of areas but you're pissed off about a couple. What's the status on sex in that situation? He's frozen out until you get compliance?

This is simple. There are things he's unhappy about, there are things I'm unhappy about. If he wants me to "throw him a bone" he'd better be willing to throw me a bone as well. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then get a divorce. Why is this difficult? Only scumbags cheat.

There is the power disparity. Only scumbags cheat, but it's barely even objectionable to force your spouse to be sexless.

From this thread you can see that many do think that forcing your spouse to be sexless is objectionable. It is selfish, disrespectful and a sign of someone not committed to the marriage. But that doesn't make cheating any better.

Lots do, you're right. But there are also some who seem to think that sex comes last. If everything isn't just right in the marriage, some spouses seem to feel perfectly justified in checking out of the sex life. The other spouse can just masturbate, right?

If my spouse is checked out in every other area of our marriage, there shouldn't be an expectation that I'm checked in for sex.

Nice straw man. What if your spouse is doing well in lots of areas but you're pissed off about a couple. What's the status on sex in that situation? He's frozen out until you get compliance?

This is simple. There are things he's unhappy about, there are things I'm unhappy about. If he wants me to "throw him a bone" he'd better be willing to throw me a bone as well. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

Because so many low drive spouses require that the stars be perfectly aligned before they can bring themselves to have sex. The high drive spouse is throwing graveyards full of bones, but they aren't recognized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a marriage, you aren't entitled to anything except fidelity. Which effectively means that, so long as the marriage lasts, the low drive spouse is empowered to compel chastity by the high drive spouse.

Hmm. There are hormonal and physical reasons why one partner might not have any desire. Also relationships that are fundamentally broken (e.g. abusive relationships) But I think if one spouse unilaterally decides that sex isn't important in the relationship, the other spouse is free to get their unimportant needs met elsewhere. And that the spouse for whom sex is unimportant has no right whatsoever to complain. The idea that *having* sex is unimportant but that *not having* sex is the only important thing in a long-term relationship is, frankly, ludicrous. You can't have it both ways.

Fidelity is for spouses who have sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ethical choices are there for a high drive spouse whose partner can't or on't meet his/her sexual needs? If you believe that sexual fidelity means sexual exclusivity, it is incumbent on you as a loving partner to meet your spouses need. If you don't believe this, then an open marriage is in order.

The same could be said of virtually any unmet need within marriage. Sex is of no greater or lesser importance than needs such as affection and emotional intimacy from a loving partner.

This depends entirely on who is in the marriage. For you, this might be the case. For others, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then get a divorce. Why is this difficult? Only scumbags cheat.

Objectively untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then get a divorce. Why is this difficult? Only scumbags cheat.

There is the power disparity. Only scumbags cheat, but it's barely even objectionable to force your spouse to be sexless.

From this thread you can see that many do think that forcing your spouse to be sexless is objectionable. It is selfish, disrespectful and a sign of someone not committed to the marriage. But that doesn't make cheating any better.

True. The obvious remedy is divorce. If for whatever reason that's not an option (e.g. kids, financial situation, etc...) then non-monogamy is a perfectly reasonable solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then get a divorce. Why is this difficult? Only scumbags cheat.

There is the power disparity. Only scumbags cheat, but it's barely even objectionable to force your spouse to be sexless.

From this thread you can see that many do think that forcing your spouse to be sexless is objectionable. It is selfish, disrespectful and a sign of someone not committed to the marriage. But that doesn't make cheating any better.

Lots do, you're right. But there are also some who seem to think that sex comes last. If everything isn't just right in the marriage, some spouses seem to feel perfectly justified in checking out of the sex life. The other spouse can just masturbate, right?

If my spouse is checked out in every other area of our marriage, there shouldn't be an expectation that I'm checked in for sex.

Nice straw man. What if your spouse is doing well in lots of areas but you're pissed off about a couple. What's the status on sex in that situation? He's frozen out until you get compliance?

This is simple. There are things he's unhappy about, there are things I'm unhappy about. If he wants me to "throw him a bone" he'd better be willing to throw me a bone as well. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

I don't subscribe to the all or none, aka domino effect to issues within my marriage. We prefer to handle each issue individually, like adults. I think it's silly to withhold sex because you are unhappy about dishes in the sink. Tit for tat doesn't work for us.

[Anonymous]

Tit for tat doesn't work for us.

Given most of these posts, it's no tit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then get a divorce. Why is this difficult? Only scumbags cheat.

There is the power disparity. Only scumbags cheat, but it's barely even objectionable to force your spouse to be sexless.

From this thread you can see that many do think that forcing your spouse to be sexless is objectionable. It is selfish, disrespectful and a sign of someone not committed to the marriage. But that doesn't make cheating any better.

Lots do, you're right. But there are also some who seem to think that sex comes last. If everything isn't just right in the marriage, some spouses seem to feel perfectly justified in checking out of the sex life. The other spouse can just masturbate, right?

If my spouse is checked out in every other area of our marriage, there shouldn't be an expectation that I'm checked in for sex.

Nice straw man. What if your spouse is doing well in lots of areas but you're pissed off about a couple. What's the status on sex in that situation? He's frozen out until you get compliance?

This is simple. There are things he's unhappy about, there are things I'm unhappy about. If he wants me to "throw him a bone" he'd better be willing to throw me a bone as well. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

I don't subscribe to the all or none, aka domino effect to issues within my marriage. We prefer to handle each issue individually, like adults. I think it's silly to withhold sex because you are unhappy about dishes in the sink. Tit for tat doesn't work for us.

It's not about tit for tat, it's about give and take. Both partners have to be willing to make changes where necessary, otherwise it becomes a recipe for resentment where one partner is simply taking advantage of the other. And this has nothing to do with washing dishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then get a divorce. Why is this difficult? Only scumbags cheat.

Because marriage is about more than sex.

True, to a point, but if my DH said he'd never have sex with me again and told me that I couldn't have sex with anyone else ever again, the marriage would be over. I have lots of friends. I have no lovers. I have DH. If he cuts me off, I have -- as a free human being -- a need for comforting that must be met. Sex is a drive like hunger. To expect it never to be met ever is beyond unrealistic. It's stupid.