Anyone divorce your spouse just because of lack of sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Married Male for over 30 yrs.

Some of you don't think I tried communicating a million times with my low libido wife !!!!!!!!!!

She doesn't put the blame on anything, never has. She has never once , ever, ever, told me why she won't have sex with me. Never once gave an explanation, just simply said no. End of story. No conversation about it AT. All. She agreed to go to a sex therapist with me years ago. First time there and the Therapists realized she needed some extra attention. She went one time solo and then refused to ever go back.


I come here to vent. Others come here to vent. Leave us poor SOBs alone and let us vent. Many of you have NO fricken idea how hard it is on us. Some of us need to vent or "whine" as you say. Many of us are not going to divorce our SO over lack of sex only. If there were other things going on, then yes, I would divorce her. Meanwhile, please let me vent.

Go jerk off and stop whining. It's so goddam unattractive, maybe that's why she won't fuck you.

Says somebody who doesn't like sex.

Whatever you have to say to rationalize...

Huh? You make no sense. Anybody who likes sex would never tell somebody whose spouse is rejecting them sexually to stop whining and go masturbate. Only people who don't like sex will think and sex between two people is unimportant.

Not the PP you are responding to but like, this entire exchange is stupid. I like sex but can think of scenarios where I would not be into it and if my DH threw a tantrum about it I would feel like he should stop whining and go take care of it himself. You can not want to have sex for a given period of time AND still like sex. Humans are complicated, which is why these conversations are so annoying and reductive. You make it JUST about sex when its almost always about more than sex.

I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

You are so obtuse. It isn't even worth my time responding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He made a decision that we would both be celibate. If I made a unilateral decision that I would bring other men into my sex life, it would be grounds for divorce. No one would question it. It's a horrible thing to do to your spouse, and so is refusing to give affection and love. It's downright abusive.

QFT. Very well put and succinct summation of the problem from the HD perspective. No doubt some LD spouse will come back with some bitter retort, but it's hard to argue that what you wrote isn't objectively true.

That PP you're quoting ended a relationship over it. That was the responsible thing to do if weren't compatible in that way. It also doesn't sound like they married that person but made sexual compatibility a priority BEFORE committing to a lifetime with someone.

Probably all true, but still mostly speculative on your part and does nothing to refute her point.

What is her point? That refusing affection to a spouse is abusive? I agree with that in some contexts. For example a marriage where one party is maliciously holding back affection to control the other party's actions. But if you marry someone who is less affectionate than you/wants less sex than you than it is abusive to hold them to standards you knew they were incapable of meeting. If you marry someone and are having relationship problems and this results in lower libido for your spouse and you tell them that their withholding of sex is the cause of all the problems (when in fact its just a symptom) than I would argue that maybe YOU are the abusive one.

Taking a long hard and honest look at sexual compatibility prior to marriage is just as important as discussing finances and whether you want children. And fostering an ongoing and healthy conversation about those aspects of your life and not letting resentment build is responsible stewardship of a relationship. The PP seems to have done that. You seem to want to say that if she had married the guy and then cheated on him then she would be in the right because he was abusive. In reality, he seems to have been himself, lower libido and not super comfortable discussing it. She realized they were incompatible and ended the relationship (with a child involved so couldn't have been an easy decision but she still made the right and responsible one). She didn't justify cheating.

Where the hell did you get that from? Your post is one long speculation about things that weren't actually said. Her point was very clear and succinct. You can ramble on all you want but you have yet to refute her actual point.

As for your point about "taking a long hard and honest look at sexual compatibility prior to marriage"; that all sounds great on paper, but hard to apply in the real world. I remember having no complaints about my sex life when my DW and I were dating. It wasn't until long after we'd been married that things got out of whack. I take ownership of my own role in that, but it doesn't change how hard it is and I'm not about to divorce her over it. If I'd read what you wrote back then I'd say that "hell, we fuck like rabbits now, what could possibly go wrong?" People change, marriages change, life happens. It doesn't change the basic truth that if you make unilateral decisions in a marriage that's your right as a free man or woman, but you should expect consequences for your actions. That applies to cheating and to starving your spouse of sex and/or affection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He made a decision that we would both be celibate. If I made a unilateral decision that I would bring other men into my sex life, it would be grounds for divorce. No one would question it. It's a horrible thing to do to your spouse, and so is refusing to give affection and love. It's downright abusive.

QFT. Very well put and succinct summation of the problem from the HD perspective. No doubt some LD spouse will come back with some bitter retort, but it's hard to argue that what you wrote isn't objectively true.

That PP you're quoting ended a relationship over it. That was the responsible thing to do if weren't compatible in that way. It also doesn't sound like they married that person but made sexual compatibility a priority BEFORE committing to a lifetime with someone.

Probably all true, but still mostly speculative on your part and does nothing to refute her point.

What is her point? That refusing affection to a spouse is abusive? I agree with that in some contexts. For example a marriage where one party is maliciously holding back affection to control the other party's actions. But if you marry someone who is less affectionate than you/wants less sex than you than it is abusive to hold them to standards you knew they were incapable of meeting. If you marry someone and are having relationship problems and this results in lower libido for your spouse and you tell them that their withholding of sex is the cause of all the problems (when in fact its just a symptom) than I would argue that maybe YOU are the abusive one.

Taking a long hard and honest look at sexual compatibility prior to marriage is just as important as discussing finances and whether you want children. And fostering an ongoing and healthy conversation about those aspects of your life and not letting resentment build is responsible stewardship of a relationship. The PP seems to have done that. You seem to want to say that if she had married the guy and then cheated on him then she would be in the right because he was abusive. In reality, he seems to have been himself, lower libido and not super comfortable discussing it. She realized they were incompatible and ended the relationship (with a child involved so couldn't have been an easy decision but she still made the right and responsible one). She didn't justify cheating.

Where the hell did you get that from? Your post is one long speculation about things that weren't actually said. Her point was very clear and succinct. You can ramble on all you want but you have yet to refute her actual point.

As for your point about "taking a long hard and honest look at sexual compatibility prior to marriage"; that all sounds great on paper, but hard to apply in the real world. I remember having no complaints about my sex life when my DW and I were dating. It wasn't until long after we'd been married that things got out of whack. I take ownership of my own role in that, but it doesn't change how hard it is and I'm not about to divorce her over it. If I'd read what you wrote back then I'd say that "hell, we fuck like rabbits now, what could possibly go wrong?" People change, marriages change, life happens. It doesn't change the basic truth that if you make unilateral decisions in a marriage that's your right as a free man or woman, but you should expect consequences for your actions. That applies to cheating and to starving your spouse of sex and/or affection.

What do you think her point was? Because I basically agree with your lady two sentences. You seem to want to read everything I am writing as pro sex withholding

[Anonymous]

My last two sentences basically restate her point. If you agree with those, then we're apparently in violent agreement.

[Anonymous]

Not the PP you are responding to but like, this entire exchange is stupid. I like sex but can think of scenarios where I would not be into it and if my DH threw a tantrum about it I would feel like he should stop whining and go take care of it himself. You can not want to have sex for a given period of time AND still like sex. Humans are complicated, which is why these conversations are so annoying and reductive. You make it JUST about sex when its almost always about more than sex.

I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

I would recognize that sexual fulfillment is an essential part of life, and if I were no longer physically capable of providing sexual touch to my spouse I would freely grant my spouse permission to get it elsewhere. I wouldn't be so cruel as to make my spouse choose between celibacy and continuing marriage to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP you are responding to but like, this entire exchange is stupid. I like sex but can think of scenarios where I would not be into it and if my DH threw a tantrum about it I would feel like he should stop whining and go take care of it himself. You can not want to have sex for a given period of time AND still like sex. Humans are complicated, which is why these conversations are so annoying and reductive. You make it JUST about sex when its almost always about more than sex.

I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

I would recognize that sexual fulfillment is an essential part of life, and if I were no longer physically capable of providing sexual touch to my spouse I would freely grant my spouse permission to get it elsewhere. I wouldn't be so cruel as to make my spouse choose between celibacy and continuing marriage to me.

Whereas I think I'd find it bearable if my wife couldn't have sex. The difference between "can't" and "won't" is the rejection. The former is not a rejection by the person who is supposed to love you best in the world. The latter is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Married Male for over 30 yrs.

Some of you don't think I tried communicating a million times with my low libido wife !!!!!!!!!!

She doesn't put the blame on anything, never has. She has never once , ever, ever, told me why she won't have sex with me. Never once gave an explanation, just simply said no. End of story. No conversation about it AT. All. She agreed to go to a sex therapist with me years ago. First time there and the Therapists realized she needed some extra attention. She went one time solo and then refused to ever go back.


I come here to vent. Others come here to vent. Leave us poor SOBs alone and let us vent. Many of you have NO fricken idea how hard it is on us. Some of us need to vent or "whine" as you say. Many of us are not going to divorce our SO over lack of sex only. If there were other things going on, then yes, I would divorce her. Meanwhile, please let me vent.

Go jerk off and stop whining. It's so goddam unattractive, maybe that's why she won't fuck you.

You're saying that the wife of the guy who didn't have sex for 5 years on the first page, likes sex? Very unlikely.

Says somebody who doesn't like sex.

Whatever you have to say to rationalize...

Huh? You make no sense. Anybody who likes sex would never tell somebody whose spouse is rejecting them sexually to stop whining and go masturbate. Only people who don't like sex will think and sex between two people is unimportant.

Not the PP you are responding to but like, this entire exchange is stupid. I like sex but can think of scenarios where I would not be into it and if my DH threw a tantrum about it I would feel like he should stop whining and go take care of it himself. You can not want to have sex for a given period of time AND still like sex. Humans are complicated, which is why these conversations are so annoying and reductive. You make it JUST about sex when its almost always about more than sex.

I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Married Male for over 30 yrs.

Some of you don't think I tried communicating a million times with my low libido wife !!!!!!!!!!

She doesn't put the blame on anything, never has. She has never once , ever, ever, told me why she won't have sex with me. Never once gave an explanation, just simply said no. End of story. No conversation about it AT. All. She agreed to go to a sex therapist with me years ago. First time there and the Therapists realized she needed some extra attention. She went one time solo and then refused to ever go back.


I come here to vent. Others come here to vent. Leave us poor SOBs alone and let us vent. Many of you have NO fricken idea how hard it is on us. Some of us need to vent or "whine" as you say. Many of us are not going to divorce our SO over lack of sex only. If there were other things going on, then yes, I would divorce her. Meanwhile, please let me vent.

Go jerk off and stop whining. It's so goddam unattractive, maybe that's why she won't fuck you.

You're saying that the wife of the guy who hasn't had sex in 5 years on the first page, likes sex? Very unlikely.

Says somebody who doesn't like sex.

Whatever you have to say to rationalize...

Huh? You make no sense. Anybody who likes sex would never tell somebody whose spouse is rejecting them sexually to stop whining and go masturbate. Only people who don't like sex will think and sex between two people is unimportant.

Not the PP you are responding to but like, this entire exchange is stupid. I like sex but can think of scenarios where I would not be into it and if my DH threw a tantrum about it I would feel like he should stop whining and go take care of it himself. You can not want to have sex for a given period of time AND still like sex. Humans are complicated, which is why these conversations are so annoying and reductive. You make it JUST about sex when its almost always about more than sex.

I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He made a decision that we would both be celibate. If I made a unilateral decision that I would bring other men into my sex life, it would be grounds for divorce. No one would question it. It's a horrible thing to do to your spouse, and so is refusing to give affection and love. It's downright abusive.

QFT. Very well put and succinct summation of the problem from the HD perspective. No doubt some LD spouse will come back with some bitter retort, but it's hard to argue that what you wrote isn't objectively true.

That PP you're quoting ended a relationship over it. That was the responsible thing to do if weren't compatible in that way. It also doesn't sound like they married that person but made sexual compatibility a priority BEFORE committing to a lifetime with someone.

Probably all true, but still mostly speculative on your part and does nothing to refute her point.

What is her point? That refusing affection to a spouse is abusive? I agree with that in some contexts. For example a marriage where one party is maliciously holding back affection to control the other party's actions. But if you marry someone who is less affectionate than you/wants less sex than you than it is abusive to hold them to standards you knew they were incapable of meeting. If you marry someone and are having relationship problems and this results in lower libido for your spouse and you tell them that their withholding of sex is the cause of all the problems (when in fact its just a symptom) than I would argue that maybe YOU are the abusive one.

Taking a long hard and honest look at sexual compatibility prior to marriage is just as important as discussing finances and whether you want children. And fostering an ongoing and healthy conversation about those aspects of your life and not letting resentment build is responsible stewardship of a relationship. The PP seems to have done that. You seem to want to say that if she had married the guy and then cheated on him then she would be in the right because he was abusive. In reality, he seems to have been himself, lower libido and not super comfortable discussing it. She realized they were incompatible and ended the relationship (with a child involved so couldn't have been an easy decision but she still made the right and responsible one). She didn't justify cheating.

Where the hell did you get that from? Your post is one long speculation about things that weren't actually said. Her point was very clear and succinct. You can ramble on all you want but you have yet to refute her actual point.

As for your point about "taking a long hard and honest look at sexual compatibility prior to marriage"; that all sounds great on paper, but hard to apply in the real world. I remember having no complaints about my sex life when my DW and I were dating. It wasn't until long after we'd been married that things got out of whack. I take ownership of my own role in that, but it doesn't change how hard it is and I'm not about to divorce her over it. If I'd read what you wrote back then I'd say that "hell, we fuck like rabbits now, what could possibly go wrong?" People change, marriages change, life happens. It doesn't change the basic truth that if you make unilateral decisions in a marriage that's your right as a free man or woman, but you should expect consequences for your actions. That applies to cheating and to starving your spouse of sex and/or affection.

I'm the first quoted pp. I did not marry him, but that's because I don't see the point of legal marriage. We were together for many years, decided to have a child together and jointly bought a house. Separating our lives was just as difficult as it is for married people because we had to handle the legal steps separately. It wasn't like we dated for a while and decided to go our separate ways. We talked about sex before we took all of these very involved steps. He assured me that he wouldn't do what he did 7 years later. If he had been honest in the beginning, we wouldn't have gone as far down the road of commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

That different than choosing to deprive your spouse of affection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

That different than choosing to deprive your spouse of affection.

And once again what you all see as choosing to deprive you of affection is usually a deeper more complicated situation. Affection isn't always something a person can turn on and off like a faucet. When a relationship is healthy in all of its aspects, the affection comes naturally, when some part of the relationship is sick, the affection might suffer as a result.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where a spouse simply cruelly and randomly decides they are no longer interested in their spouse. Just simply that it seems more likely that there are a lot more relationships that could use some work then manipulative sociopathic spouses that suddenly decide that they want to hurt their SO. Its easier of course to write them off as the latter but it just seems more realistic that at least some of you are more in the former category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

That different than choosing to deprive your spouse of affection.

And once again what you all see as choosing to deprive you of affection is usually a deeper more complicated situation. Affection isn't always something a person can turn on and off like a faucet. When a relationship is healthy in all of its aspects, the affection comes naturally, when some part of the relationship is sick, the affection might suffer as a result.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where a spouse simply cruelly and randomly decides they are no longer interested in their spouse. Just simply that it seems more likely that there are a lot more relationships that could use some work then manipulative sociopathic spouses that suddenly decide that they want to hurt their SO. Its easier of course to write them off as the latter but it just seems more realistic that at least some of you are more in the former category.

i understand that, and that may be what happens some of the time. It is probably a first sign that there is a problem, unless you have a petty spouse who uses sex as a control tactic. Some people cheat when they're having relationship troubles. Some people yell and throw things when they feel like the relationship is slipping. None of those are reasonable ways to treat your spouse because you're angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

That different than choosing to deprive your spouse of affection.

And once again what you all see as choosing to deprive you of affection is usually a deeper more complicated situation. Affection isn't always something a person can turn on and off like a faucet. When a relationship is healthy in all of its aspects, the affection comes naturally, when some part of the relationship is sick, the affection might suffer as a result.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where a spouse simply cruelly and randomly decides they are no longer interested in their spouse. Just simply that it seems more likely that there are a lot more relationships that could use some work then manipulative sociopathic spouses that suddenly decide that they want to hurt their SO. Its easier of course to write them off as the latter but it just seems more realistic that at least some of you are more in the former category.

i understand that, and that may be what happens some of the time. It is probably a first sign that there is a problem, unless you have a petty spouse who uses sex as a control tactic. Some people cheat when they're having relationship troubles. Some people yell and throw things when they feel like the relationship is slipping. None of those are reasonable ways to treat your spouse because you're angry.

I don't know about you but I would have no interest in having sex with my DH if he was angry with me or if he was unhappy in the relationship. Sex with someone who is just going through the motions is not enjoyable (to me at least). And equating being uninterested in sex (which in the scenarios I'm describing at least is a physiological thing not a malicious thing) with throwing things or cheating is, IMO, insane. Those are things a person can control! Now the sociopathic spouse that is holding back because her DH didn't buy her Tiffany's ring? Sure, I guess that could be the same category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

That different than choosing to deprive your spouse of affection.

And once again what you all see as choosing to deprive you of affection is usually a deeper more complicated situation. Affection isn't always something a person can turn on and off like a faucet. When a relationship is healthy in all of its aspects, the affection comes naturally, when some part of the relationship is sick, the affection might suffer as a result.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where a spouse simply cruelly and randomly decides they are no longer interested in their spouse. Just simply that it seems more likely that there are a lot more relationships that could use some work then manipulative sociopathic spouses that suddenly decide that they want to hurt their SO. Its easier of course to write them off as the latter but it just seems more realistic that at least some of you are more in the former category.

i understand that, and that may be what happens some of the time. It is probably a first sign that there is a problem, unless you have a petty spouse who uses sex as a control tactic. Some people cheat when they're having relationship troubles. Some people yell and throw things when they feel like the relationship is slipping. None of those are reasonable ways to treat your spouse because you're angry.

I don't know about you but I would have no interest in having sex with my DH if he was angry with me or if he was unhappy in the relationship. Sex with someone who is just going through the motions is not enjoyable (to me at least). And equating being uninterested in sex (which in the scenarios I'm describing at least is a physiological thing not a malicious thing) with throwing things or cheating is, IMO, insane. Those are things a person can control! Now the sociopathic spouse that is holding back because her DH didn't buy her Tiffany's ring? Sure, I guess that could be the same category.

You don't see withholding sex for years and aborting efforts to repair the situation as malicious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I continually wonder how you people would respond if you were paralyzed or something but your low libido spouse stood by you and loved and cared for you even though sex was no longer part of the equation. Or how you would handle it if it was reversed and they physically were just unable to provide that to you. Would you walk away because they couldn't put out enough?

That different than choosing to deprive your spouse of affection.

And once again what you all see as choosing to deprive you of affection is usually a deeper more complicated situation. Affection isn't always something a person can turn on and off like a faucet. When a relationship is healthy in all of its aspects, the affection comes naturally, when some part of the relationship is sick, the affection might suffer as a result.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where a spouse simply cruelly and randomly decides they are no longer interested in their spouse. Just simply that it seems more likely that there are a lot more relationships that could use some work then manipulative sociopathic spouses that suddenly decide that they want to hurt their SO. Its easier of course to write them off as the latter but it just seems more realistic that at least some of you are more in the former category.

i understand that, and that may be what happens some of the time. It is probably a first sign that there is a problem, unless you have a petty spouse who uses sex as a control tactic. Some people cheat when they're having relationship troubles. Some people yell and throw things when they feel like the relationship is slipping. None of those are reasonable ways to treat your spouse because you're angry.

I don't know about you but I would have no interest in having sex with my DH if he was angry with me or if he was unhappy in the relationship. Sex with someone who is just going through the motions is not enjoyable (to me at least). And equating being uninterested in sex (which in the scenarios I'm describing at least is a physiological thing not a malicious thing) with throwing things or cheating is, IMO, insane. Those are things a person can control! Now the sociopathic spouse that is holding back because her DH didn't buy her Tiffany's ring? Sure, I guess that could be the same category.

You don't see withholding sex for years and aborting efforts to repair the situation as malicious?

I think I'd need to hear the other side of the equation before determining malice or unhappiness in that case.