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: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.

[Anonymous]

Why is it always the most stupid people who say, "full stop"? What idiot got that phrase going and spread it to their idiot minions?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

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.

But you said "marriage is more than sex." So sex is important enough to you that you'd divorce over it, but it's selfish if your husband wants to stay married to you but also fullfil his sexual needs. So which is it?

Everyone gets to decide for themselves what they will and won't accept in a marriage. I would be okay if my spouse decided to stop having sex with me, but I would not be okay with them have sex with someone else. That might not make sense to you, which is fine, because we're not married.

My spouse and I are actually on the same page about this so it's okay. Like we even discussed it before we got married. And we both get that we can't force the other one to accept something they don't want. So it's good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it always the most stupid people who say, "full stop"? What idiot got that phrase going and spread it to their idiot minions?

They think it makes them sound authoritative

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

But you said "marriage is more than sex." So sex is important enough to you that you'd divorce over it, but it's selfish if your husband wants to stay married to you but also fullfil his sexual needs. So which is it?

Everyone gets to decide for themselves what they will and won't accept in a marriage. I would be okay if my spouse decided to stop having sex with me, but I would not be okay with them have sex with someone else. That might not make sense to you, which is fine, because we're not married.

My spouse and I are actually on the same page about this so it's okay. Like we even discussed it before we got married. And we both get that we can't force the other one to accept something they don't want. So it's good.

lol....no one is talking about people "who are on the same page about this."

The question is for people who are miserable because their spouse decided that sex is off the table, yet, hypocritically, are not ok with their spouse opening up the marriage. In that case, divorce is the only option. Yet, you came here to say that there is more to marriage than sex. OK, so let your husband have sex since it's such an irrelevant and small thing in your marriage. You keep going in very illogical circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are not parallel actions.

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

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

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

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

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

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

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

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

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

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spousal rape, however, is very illegal.

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

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

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

But at-fault divorce only comes into play if only one party wants a divorce or if there is a big battle over alimony. Both of those circumstances are rare because divorce has been normalized (people are way less likely to fight a divorce these days), and because alimony is increasingly rare (and when granted, usually it's temporary).

Most of the time, sane people opt for no-fault divorce because it's faster and less expensive and usually less contentious (and thus easier on kids). Even in states where you can so for at-fault divorce, it's unlikely because you will lose more than you gain.

I never said it was common. However, in the scenario presented, where one spouse willfully denies the other spouse sex, that is grounds for an at-fault divorce. Is is easy to obtain? No. But can it be done? Absolutely.

In this scenario, presumably only one party wants the divorce. Presumably the person denying the partner the sex would like to remain married because they like the other features of the union, namely the financial security.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

So, as a woman who was in a sexless marriage because my xH didn’t want sex, I don’t think you get how that would be even more painful.

It was bad enough knowing he didn’t want sex with me. But divorcing me because he didn’t want sex would have made it clear:

1. He didn’t want sex with me
2. He didn’t value me enough to stick around without sex
3. He wanted to go have sex with other people

That would have hurt even worse. Maybe for you it wouldn’t have, but for a lot of people, it would be excruciatingly painful.

Not to mention, let’s say you’re the stereotypical heterosexual couple where the woman loses her drive but the man is the breadwinner. Now she’s leaving because she doesn’t want sex with you AND she’s taking half of “your” money/assets (not really yours, but I’m guessing most of the men who demand sex from their wives also see the money as theirs).

Him sticking around gave me time to grieve the relationship (we had other problems besides sexlessness, as most sexless marriages do) and make a choice from a position of power. It also allowed me the time to get all my ducks in a row.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it always the most stupid people who say, "full stop"? What idiot got that phrase going and spread it to their idiot minions?

They believe it carries authority or some shit like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are not parallel actions.

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

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

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

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

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

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

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

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

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

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

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

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

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

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

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

Np so if someone doesn't want sex with their spouse they aren't allowed to rape them.

If you are so unhappy, divorce

[Anonymous]

I have a friend whose husband “declared the marriage open.” They divorced within a year but before that happened, guess which spouse had a literal roster of FWB in their phone and which spouse had to use $$& sugar dating sites to reliably get a “date.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

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