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: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.

I literally posted the data and if you just do a Google search, you’ll find it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. No, it is not the same. Are you young? I just can’t figure out you people who think marriage is black and white. Marriage is a commitment including a commitment to stay in it, good and bad. Do I want my partner to cheat? Of course not. But if I wasn’t able or willing to have sex for a long period of time, and I knew he was struggling with it, I would not begrudge him a dalliance as long as our marriage and family remained his first priority… but dear lord, I don’t need to know about it.

That worked out so well for Bill and Melinda Gates. Or for Bill and Hillary Clinton 🙄.

If marriage is his first priority, he will have an honest conversation with you first because he knows the marriage is more important than the sex. And even if the marriage were to fail after that conversation, he knows that respect and relationship with his family is more important than the sex. But when sex is the first priority, one seeks sex first and then asks for forgiveness from everyone who is hurt in the thrill seeking But then it's never enough for people who make sex their first priority. They will make it their priority over the dignity of the presidency. They will make it their priority over the imorality of dealing with pedophiles. They will make it their priority over 5M dollar coaching contracts.

Cheaters are sex addicts.

You do realize we know nothing about these marriages, right? It obviously did work out for the Clintons as they’re still together and by any estimates, have had a full life together- good and bad- that is unimaginably rich (in the emotional and intellectual sense, not just $ but they have that too).

And gates- seems like it was Epstein that broke them up, not cheating. But again, we have no idea. And I’m not crying for Melinda gates either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. No, it is not the same. Are you young? I just can’t figure out you people who think marriage is black and white. Marriage is a commitment including a commitment to stay in it, good and bad. Do I want my partner to cheat? Of course not. But if I wasn’t able or willing to have sex for a long period of time, and I knew he was struggling with it, I would not begrudge him a dalliance as long as our marriage and family remained his first priority… but dear lord, I don’t need to know about it.

You wouldn’t begrudge him a dalliance? Nobody loyal and faithful thinks this way about their own values or their partner’s. If you are happy to be in a relationship where you either of you can fool around, marriage may not be for you.

You sound like an incel. Isn’t it time for school?

And a number of people up this thread seemed to agree with me. We understand long term marriage and relationships are complicated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

Agreed. The person denying sex to their spouse is a very horrible person if the marriage ends in divorce

[Anonymous]

^ especially when kids are involved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

If you believe this, you shouldn't have married for sex. If you married for children, masturbating will not kill you. You did when you were single. You would do it If your spouse were incapacitated. You can do If you have no idea what is going on with them that they don't enjoy sex anymore. But you choose to cheat because you married for sex and want to weaponize the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

If you believe this, you shouldn't have married for sex. If you married for children, masturbating will not kill you. You did when you were single. You would do it If your spouse were incapacitated. You can do If you have no idea what is going on with them that they don't enjoy sex anymore. But you choose to cheat because you married for sex and want to weaponize the children.

How dumb do you have to be to write something like this? No one makes a life long committment to another human being because they plan to be celibate in their marriage. OF COURSE, people get married because, among other things, they want to enjoy safe, fulfilling sex within their marriage. If you turn frigid years down the road and don't want to have sex anymore, open up your marriage or get divorced. You are the problem!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

If you believe this, you shouldn't have married for sex. If you married for children, masturbating will not kill you. You did when you were single. You would do it If your spouse were incapacitated. You can do If you have no idea what is going on with them that they don't enjoy sex anymore. But you choose to cheat because you married for sex and want to weaponize the children.

Np. People do marry for sex along with many other things like companionship, building a life together etc. if you and your spouse are okay with a celibate marriage then that’s perfectly fine as that’s your choice. But that choice cannot be forced upon others. According to your logic people should be okay when their spouses give them silent treatment everyday, since before marriage and even after marriage they had and have other people to talk to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

If you believe this, you shouldn't have married for sex. If you married for children, masturbating will not kill you. You did when you were single. You would do it If your spouse were incapacitated. You can do If you have no idea what is going on with them that they don't enjoy sex anymore. But you choose to cheat because you married for sex and want to weaponize the children.

How dumb do you have to be to write something like this? No one makes a life long committment to another human being because they plan to be celibate in their marriage. OF COURSE, people get married because, among other things, they want to enjoy safe, fulfilling sex within their marriage. If you turn frigid years down the road and don't want to have sex anymore, open up your marriage or get divorced. You are the problem!

It doesn’t matter « who »the « problem » is, it doesn’t matter who is ethically right or wrong, if you personally feel that you need sex with another human, any human, not necessarily your spouse, then you need to be the one to file for divorce.

The government doesn’t care who is at fault and you shouldn’t either. Your kids will survive and probably do matter in an atmosphere of openness and honesty. And if it is splitting up the money that’s bothering you, well, that’s just part of moving on. You’ll be happier being able to freely live your life without deception, and so will your spouse.

No one cares whose fault a divorce is. People have their own worries and they don’t spend time thinking about you and your spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

If you believe this, you shouldn't have married for sex. If you married for children, masturbating will not kill you. You did when you were single. You would do it If your spouse were incapacitated. You can do If you have no idea what is going on with them that they don't enjoy sex anymore. But you choose to cheat because you married for sex and want to weaponize the children.

Np. People do marry for sex along with many other things like companionship, building a life together etc. if you and your spouse are okay with a celibate marriage then that’s perfectly fine as that’s your choice. But that choice cannot be forced upon others. According to your logic people should be okay when their spouses give them silent treatment everyday, since before marriage and even after marriage they had and have other people to talk to.

If you think celibacy is worse than lying and gaslighting your spouse, and exposing your spouse to risks of contracting STDs, which is what cheating entails, you are a sex addict. Celibacy is so much better than being a lying coward.

If you cannot be celibate, that is okay. Have a conversation with your spouse. Tell them you are going to be sleeping with others. Tell them you still want to be married, but you cannot do it without sex outside of it since they are no longer having sex with you. If they cannot agree to this, DIVORCE. Don't hide behind your kids while making their parent go crazy thinking they are imagining things. That is not love fir your kids-- that is narcissistic behavior.

[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: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.

NP. No, it is not the same. Are you young? I just can’t figure out you people who think marriage is black and white. Marriage is a commitment including a commitment to stay in it, good and bad. Do I want my partner to cheat? Of course not. But if I wasn’t able or willing to have sex for a long period of time, and I knew he was struggling with it, I would not begrudge him a dalliance as long as our marriage and family remained his first priority… but dear lord, I don’t need to know about it.

That worked out so well for Bill and Melinda Gates. Or for Bill and Hillary Clinton 🙄.

If marriage is his first priority, he will have an honest conversation with you first because he knows the marriage is more important than the sex. And even if the marriage were to fail after that conversation, he knows that respect and relationship with his family is more important than the sex. But when sex is the first priority, one seeks sex first and then asks for forgiveness from everyone who is hurt in the thrill seeking But then it's never enough for people who make sex their first priority. They will make it their priority over the dignity of the presidency. They will make it their priority over the imorality of dealing with pedophiles. They will make it their priority over 5M dollar coaching contracts.

Cheaters are sex addicts.

You do realize we know nothing about these marriages, right? It obviously did work out for the Clintons as they’re still together and by any estimates, have had a full life together- good and bad- that is unimaginably rich (in the emotional and intellectual sense, not just $ but they have that too).

And gates- seems like it was Epstein that broke them up, not cheating. But again, we have no idea. And I’m not crying for Melinda gates either.

Ewwww. Can we claim a marriage where a woman is physically abused could have worked because the woman did not leave? There is no much difference in the Clinton's case.

Sleeping with a young intern when you are almost 50 in the most important office in the country is nasty and predatory behavior.

Why do you think Bill went to Epstein? He wanted more sex. He had cheated and it was not enough. Not crying for Melinda Gates or even Hillary Clinton for that matter. These are phenomenal women living their lives. It does not change the fact that they were married to nasty sex addicts who put sex above their everything( STD for Meinda? Ewww). That's not a valuable marriage. There is no point in pretending to be attracted to a predator. That part of their lives was ( for Melinda) and is ( for Hillary ) sad and pathetic, no matter how " rich" the rest is.

If these couples were actually open about the sexual needs of each other and opening about solutions, perhaps there could have been accountability, responsibility around an open marriage. But most of these types have a DADT and the addicted spouse keeps pushing the boundaries further and further until they get caught in predatory territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

But quitting sex isn’t ethical so why does the spouse who wants sex have to ethical in response?

Quitting sex is not unethical. It is someone choosing to respect their own feelings and physical comfort over their partners. That choice can be ethically made either way. Some people will prioritize their partners needs over their own, and that is generous but it's also self-denying. Other people will prioritize their needs over their partners. That is self-respecting but can also be harmful to their partner. There are also middle ground options people sometimes negotiate where sex is limited or there is no penetrative sex but sexual activity and intimacy still occurs. None of these choices is more ethical than the other. It's a tough choice and will depend a lot on the people, their relationship, their sexual history, their stage of life, etc.

Whereas cheating is always unethical. You can discuss it with your partner and see if you can open the marriage (or hall pass or whatever), or you can divorce. But lying to your spouse and breaking your vows is unethical. Choosing to stop having sex even though your partner would like to continue having sex is not unethical.

This is really not that different from the crises married couples sometimes face when one wants kids and the other does not, or when one wants to pursue money/prestige via work and the other wants to focus on family time and work-life balance. People will make choices for themselves, they will sometimes seek compromises, they will sometimes not be able to negotiate a solution that works for everyone and in those cases they may divorce. It only becomes unethical when people begin lying, manipulating, gaslighting, etc. If both people are honest and respectful, no ethics are breached even if one or both people are unhappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

If you believe this, you shouldn't have married for sex. If you married for children, masturbating will not kill you. You did when you were single. You would do it If your spouse were incapacitated. You can do If you have no idea what is going on with them that they don't enjoy sex anymore. But you choose to cheat because you married for sex and want to weaponize the children.

How dumb do you have to be to write something like this? No one makes a life long committment to another human being because they plan to be celibate in their marriage. OF COURSE, people get married because, among other things, they want to enjoy safe, fulfilling sex within their marriage. If you turn frigid years down the road and don't want to have sex anymore, open up your marriage or get divorced. You are the problem!

Why would the person who is comfortable with the status quo file for divorce? The person not getting their needs met should file for divorce. Why are you so afraid of filing for divorce but somehow not afraid enough to give up sex? What kind of mental dysfunction is this? We need a name for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter whether quitting sex is reasonable, justified, the other spouse’s fault, etc. Either way the ethical options available to you are the same. Live with it, open the marriage, or divorce.

Divorce is not ethical when there are children involved. It is highly unethical

If you believe this, you shouldn't have married for sex. If you married for children, masturbating will not kill you. You did when you were single. You would do it If your spouse were incapacitated. You can do If you have no idea what is going on with them that they don't enjoy sex anymore. But you choose to cheat because you married for sex and want to weaponize the children.

I have no idea what you’re going on about, but I’ll repeat - sex incompatibility alone is not a reason to divorce if kids are involved. People need to act like grown ups and suck up the pact they made when they married that they double and triple downed on when they brought in others. Sex is a physical need and also highly personal and invasive. If there is a disconnect for a time, figure it out. You will be married for 50 years. Figure it out! I’m female in perimenopause and in the ‘no sex’ camp right now and I believe 3 things can be true- I’ll try to put out more to make my dh happy. 2. He should masturbate more. And 3. If he stepped out briefly, ok so be it.

Marriage is a marathon. I’m not making decisions that affect my children, family etc over what is likely to be a short lived issue in the grand scheme of things.