If you don't want sex, then shouldn't YOU be the one to leave and divorce?

[Anonymous]

"And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama."

Let's say this is true and we all agree. WTH does that person even want to remain married to someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations? The only reason (if kids are grown and flown) is to keep the financial spigot flowing. It sounds like most of these sex refusers are carrying tons of resentment and anger and they're merely tolerating their spouse and sticking around for reasons that have nothing to do with love and emotional partnership. Honor and cherish went out the window long ago. It's a fake marriage when you won't touch your spouse behind closed doors. So why not allow the spouse a hall pass? It costs you nothing since you clearly place zero value on your spouse's sexuality.

Just like adultery is grounds for someone not getting alimony in states like Virginia, maybe refusing to sleep with your spouse when there isn't a health problem should also bar you from getting a huge award from a judge when you divorce. It's usually the man who earns more and it's usually the wife who won't have sex. It really isn't fair that he's going to be stuck with years of paying alimony as the higher earner and lose half the assets if he divorces a woman who wants to live with him as if she were his sister and not his wife. Everyone saying that the spouse who doesn't like a sexless marriage should just divorce is forgetting that he is going to have his entire retirement plan turned upside down and that it's likely he's now too old (not enough working years left) to fully recover financially from this, especially if he has to plow money into alimony payments for the next several years. FWIW, I'm a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have a conflict over where we are going to live. I really want to leave our current city and move somewhere else. I have multiple reasons for this. He doesn't want to go. I can't make him.

It's frustrating, of course. I sometimes get upset with is immovability on this point, and I think his arguments for staying are weak. But I also recognize it's just part of who he is. Especially as he's gotten older, he doesn't like change. He used to be more adventurous and flexible, now he's more cautious and inflexible. It's frustrating but that is marriage sometimes, especially as you get older. In some ways we've grown closer together, but in this specific way we've grown further apart. It's something we're navigating.

If it ever got to the point where I just absolutely could not live here anymore, and he still wasn't willing to move, we could divorce. I'd really prefer not to, I want him to want to come with me. But if things really just got intolerable, I guess that's something we'd have to consider. I know he doesn't want to divorce either. But he also doesn't want to move. Ach, it's hard.

I guess I could propose for him a compromise, where I move away and he stays here. I couldn't afford a place elsewhere without selling our home here, but maybe I could find a man in another city who would be willing to buy a home with me. Not for sex, just for finances. Maybe a man who is in a similar situation to me -- loves his wife but wants to move and she just refuses. I could take half of the savings I have with my husband, and this guy could take half of the savings he has with his wife, and we could go in on a condo in Chicago or a little bungalow in Austin.

I mean, our spouses can't complain. We wouldn't be cheating on them -- it's totally non-sexual. And I really, really want to move. It's not fair for my husband to just refuse to move and then get mad when I find someone else willing to move instead, right?

If he were mad enough and thought this arrangement is a deal breaker, he would either compromise and move or he would divorce. You are not chained together in marriage. Whoever thinks the situation is untenable and a deal breaker should file for divorce. If neither dies, then presumably both still find more value in the marriage despite the issues.

[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 might want to brush up on today's laws before you spew some more BS.

I never said cheating is the way to deal with it. If that's the whole premise of your argument, you don't have much of one. I would absolutely divorce my DH if he decided unilaterally that sex is off the table. I didn't sign up for a lifetime of celibacy in my marriage. OF COURSE, sex is a natural and EXPECTED part of marriage.

Right. You would divorce. That’s what PP is saying. That’s a valid response to a disagreement over sex. Cheating or demanding that that the other person file are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

Another PP.

And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama.

So staying married to someone you despise is ethical?

Honoring your commitments is ethical, marriage was a commitment, so yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have a conflict over where we are going to live. I really want to leave our current city and move somewhere else. I have multiple reasons for this. He doesn't want to go. I can't make him.

It's frustrating, of course. I sometimes get upset with is immovability on this point, and I think his arguments for staying are weak. But I also recognize it's just part of who he is. Especially as he's gotten older, he doesn't like change. He used to be more adventurous and flexible, now he's more cautious and inflexible. It's frustrating but that is marriage sometimes, especially as you get older. In some ways we've grown closer together, but in this specific way we've grown further apart. It's something we're navigating.

If it ever got to the point where I just absolutely could not live here anymore, and he still wasn't willing to move, we could divorce. I'd really prefer not to, I want him to want to come with me. But if things really just got intolerable, I guess that's something we'd have to consider. I know he doesn't want to divorce either. But he also doesn't want to move. Ach, it's hard.

I guess I could propose for him a compromise, where I move away and he stays here. I couldn't afford a place elsewhere without selling our home here, but maybe I could find a man in another city who would be willing to buy a home with me. Not for sex, just for finances. Maybe a man who is in a similar situation to me -- loves his wife but wants to move and she just refuses. I could take half of the savings I have with my husband, and this guy could take half of the savings he has with his wife, and we could go in on a condo in Chicago or a little bungalow in Austin.

I mean, our spouses can't complain. We wouldn't be cheating on them -- it's totally non-sexual. And I really, really want to move. It's not fair for my husband to just refuse to move and then get mad when I find someone else willing to move instead, right?

If he were mad enough and thought this arrangement is a deal breaker, he would either compromise and move or he would divorce. You are not chained together in marriage. Whoever thinks the situation is untenable and a deal breaker should file for divorce. If neither dies, then presumably both still find more value in the marriage despite the issues.

PP here and I agree with you, that was the point of the hypothetical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama."

Let's say this is true and we all agree. WTH does that person even want to remain married to someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations? The only reason (if kids are grown and flown) is to keep the financial spigot flowing. It sounds like most of these sex refusers are carrying tons of resentment and anger and they're merely tolerating their spouse and sticking around for reasons that have nothing to do with love and emotional partnership. Honor and cherish went out the window long ago. It's a fake marriage when you won't touch your spouse behind closed doors. So why not allow the spouse a hall pass? It costs you nothing since you clearly place zero value on your spouse's sexuality.

Just like adultery is grounds for someone not getting alimony in states like Virginia, maybe refusing to sleep with your spouse when there isn't a health problem should also bar you from getting a huge award from a judge when you divorce. It's usually the man who earns more and it's usually the wife who won't have sex. It really isn't fair that he's going to be stuck with years of paying alimony as the higher earner and lose half the assets if he divorces a woman who wants to live with him as if she were his sister and not his wife. Everyone saying that the spouse who doesn't like a sexless marriage should just divorce is forgetting that he is going to have his entire retirement plan turned upside down and that it's likely he's now too old (not enough working years left) to fully recover financially from this, especially if he has to plow money into alimony payments for the next several years. FWIW, I'm a woman.

You mean their retirement plan right? Why did he marry a lower earning spouse if his retirement plan was so valuable that it would prevent him from divorcing when the marriage/ lack of sex is no longer worth it?

You are underestimating the power of women to adapt. If you give a woman oranges, she will make orange juice. If you give her lemons, she will make lemonade. She will be happy with either even though she preferred orange juice. She might be resentful for a while, but eventually she moves into acceptance. The way she sees the man will change. But it does not necessarily mean she hates him. It just...different. And this goes for relationships with friends as well. Unfortunately, different for a romantic relationship may mean less wet.

The magic in this is that women can reverse adapt too, if that makes sense. She does not forget how to make orange juice, so if you start giving her orange juice again, game on. And I have seen this happen to some relationships. In others the men sulk, and in others they leave. These are all valid options and outcomes. No one is chained to another human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

Another PP.

And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama.

So staying married to someone you despise is ethical?

Honoring your commitments is ethical, marriage was a commitment, so yes

You committed to "have and to hold" too. OR are you selectively forgetting that part?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

I know I agree. So if it's about all of those wonderful things other than sex, than him having sex with someone else and coming home to you where you enjoy this wonderful life together, is not a big deal. It's just another thing to outsource, right?

You continue to avoid being accountable for what you actually want - which is for your logical arguments to result in your spouse saying, "YOU'RE RIGHT! It was me all along and that was WRONG! You don't deserve this! You may now have as much sex with me as you want!"

That's never going to happen. You people never understand this. The more you bring up these whiny desperate arguments, the less attractive you become. Get out of your own way. If you are unhappy in your marriage and your partner refuses to change, you are free to leave them. If your partner does not feel the need to leave you because of your behavior, that's on them. If there is major incompatibility between you and your partner, it would be better for everyone to end the relationship and move onto better matches.

Note: if what you need is for someone to commit to maintaining a constant sex life for the duration of a longterm relationship, what you need is immature and unrealistic. You can't have that. No one can. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

Another PP.

And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama.

So staying married to someone you despise is ethical?

Honoring your commitments is ethical, marriage was a commitment, so yes

You committed to "have and to hold" too. OR are you selectively forgetting that part?

Your definition of hold is sophomoric

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

Another PP.

And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama.

So staying married to someone you despise is ethical?

Honoring your commitments is ethical, marriage was a commitment, so yes

You committed to "have and to hold" too. OR are you selectively forgetting that part?

I didn't commit to "have and hold my husband's penis." Just my husband. If you wanted the former, you should have been more specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama."

Let's say this is true and we all agree. WTH does that person even want to remain married to someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations? The only reason (if kids are grown and flown) is to keep the financial spigot flowing. It sounds like most of these sex refusers are carrying tons of resentment and anger and they're merely tolerating their spouse and sticking around for reasons that have nothing to do with love and emotional partnership. Honor and cherish went out the window long ago. It's a fake marriage when you won't touch your spouse behind closed doors. So why not allow the spouse a hall pass? It costs you nothing since you clearly place zero value on your spouse's sexuality.

Just like adultery is grounds for someone not getting alimony in states like Virginia, maybe refusing to sleep with your spouse when there isn't a health problem should also bar you from getting a huge award from a judge when you divorce. It's usually the man who earns more and it's usually the wife who won't have sex. It really isn't fair that he's going to be stuck with years of paying alimony as the higher earner and lose half the assets if he divorces a woman who wants to live with him as if she were his sister and not his wife. Everyone saying that the spouse who doesn't like a sexless marriage should just divorce is forgetting that he is going to have his entire retirement plan turned upside down and that it's likely he's now too old (not enough working years left) to fully recover financially from this, especially if he has to plow money into alimony payments for the next several years. FWIW, I'm a woman.

So you are concerned with reasons that have nothing to do with "love and emotional" partnership when sex is not being had, but you are not so concerned with it when sex is being had outside of the partnership. How do you think "love and emotional" partnership fare when one person is having sex outside the partnership.

Additionally, you are pretty much arguing that it is not okay for women to stay for financial reasons, but it is okay for men to not want to leave for financial reasons. . .. in this case both will be staying for financial reasons even though both have unmet needs. Sounds like a match made in heaven. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

Another PP.

And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama.

So staying married to someone you despise is ethical?

Honoring your commitments is ethical, marriage was a commitment, so yes

You committed to "have and to hold" too. OR are you selectively forgetting that part?

I didn't commit to "have and hold my husband's penis." Just my husband. If you wanted the former, you should have been more specific.

😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

I know I agree. So if it's about all of those wonderful things other than sex, than him having sex with someone else and coming home to you where you enjoy this wonderful life together, is not a big deal. It's just another thing to outsource, right?

You continue to avoid being accountable for what you actually want - which is for your logical arguments to result in your spouse saying, "YOU'RE RIGHT! It was me all along and that was WRONG! You don't deserve this! You may now have as much sex with me as you want!"

That's never going to happen. You people never understand this. The more you bring up these whiny desperate arguments, the less attractive you become. Get out of your own way. If you are unhappy in your marriage and your partner refuses to change, you are free to leave them. If your partner does not feel the need to leave you because of your behavior, that's on them. If there is major incompatibility between you and your partner, it would be better for everyone to end the relationship and move onto better matches.

Note: if what you need is for someone to commit to maintaining a constant sex life for the duration of a longterm relationship, what you need is immature and unrealistic. You can't have that. No one can. Get over it.

This is usually how loving, caring, sane people deal with their spouse. You yell at them to get over it when they tell you that something is not working for them. Super mature and guaranteed to have the spouse indeed "get over it."

I was responding to the person who said "there is more to marriage than sex." WHich of course there is. No one is disputing that. No one is even talking about spouses who are actively acknowledging that their libido is not as high as it once was and try to understand that the other spouse might have a libido that is intact. But if you approach your spouse with "get over it" and unilateraly decide that he or she is whiny and childish for having the exact same needs as they did a year ago or 10-20 years ago when you married them, you are undoubtly the chilish, selfish one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

If my spouse told me he wanted to have sex with people outside our marriage, I would tell him that wasn't okay with him, but if that's what he really wanted, then we could get divorced.

Look, if you are unhappy with your sex life in your marriage, you have three options:
(1) Divorce
(2) Discuss opening the marriage with your spouse, and do that if you both agree
(3) Accept it

These might fee like inadequate solutions, I get it. But those are really the only ethical options. Some of you seem to think there are additional options, but sorry, these just aren't ethical. These are:

(4) Cheat
(5) Somehow force your partner to have sex with you?? I never understand this.

The rest of us are never going to condone 4-5, sorry. 1-3 are all fine with me, do whatever makes the most sense for you.

Did you even read what I wrote? Asking your spouse to open up the marriage is one of your solutions, yet somehow, you'd divorce over it. Make it make sense.

What you described wasn't asking. It was dictating. If your spouse doesn't agree to it, you have to get divorced or accept the sexless marriage. You can't force your spouse to accept you sleeping with other people. That's not one of the options.

And what is it called if one spouse unilaterally decides to stop having sex?

Oh my god this has been explained multiple times.

The marriage vows don't include a vow to have sex with each other forever even if one person doesn't want to and it's physically painful or upsetting to them.

Marriage vows do generally include a provision to be faithful to one another.

So the person deciding not to have sex anymore is exercising normal agency over their body, but the person choosing to have sex with people outside the marriage without the consent of their spouse is cheating. Both acts might feel hurtful and might lead to divorce, but only one is unethical and a breach of marriage vows.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about expressing to your spouse, who decided unilaterally that sex is off the table, that sex is important to you and that you are not ok with never having sex again. There is something morally repugnant and very unethical about making that decision for someone else 20 years down the road and expecting them to just comply because sex is not important to you. No one is talking about forcing you to have sex. No normal human being wants to have sex with another person who is not into it. Just like you shouldn't be forced to have sex, a person in a normal, healthy marriage shouldn't be FORCED to be celibate by staying married to you.

FILE FOR DiVORCE. No one is forcing anyone to stay married. How can someone making a de cision not to have sex with you be making the decision for your body? They are making it for theirs. If you don't like it, you have the right to divorce them.

OMG you can't be this stupid. OF COURSE ONE CAN FILE FOR DIVORCE!!! See I can yell too.

The point is your hypocrisy. You said there is more to marriage than sex, but apparently, for you, there isn't if you are quick to divorce over your husband having sex with someone else.

You are arguing with multiple PPs. I think marriage is more than sex. But if someone ever suggested that I was forcing them to not have sex because I did not want to sleep with them, I'd tell them to go eff themselves.

If you expect them to stay married to you and not have sex with anyone else, you are absolutely forcing them. I guess you'd rather be divorced which is fine. Just don't tell me how there is more to marrige than sex, then.

Another new person you're arguing with here.

Marriage is absolutely more than sex. If you reduce my role in my marriage to intercourse only, we have a massive misalignment on values and relationship. It would stop being about sex the second you reduced me to a set of holes and would start being about respect. There is absolutely more to marriage than sex until YOU make it only about the sex that's happening. You did that. Your low drive spouse is apparently satisfied by the other things in the marriage. You are the one making it only about sex.

Another PP.

And it will be a mistake to assume that spouse who does not want sex is low drive. They may just be tired of dealing with someone who is not meeting other non-sexual expectations and decide that using a vibrator is less drama.

So staying married to someone you despise is ethical?

Honoring your commitments is ethical, marriage was a commitment, so yes

You committed to "have and to hold" too. OR are you selectively forgetting that part?

I didn't commit to "have and hold my husband's penis." Just my husband. If you wanted the former, you should have been more specific.

I didn't realize children entered this forum. Time to go do some school work.

[Anonymous]

I am happy with my spouse regarding his parenting. I am happy about his sense of humor and his kindness. I am unhappy about his laziness and low energy generally. What if I want satisfying sex enough to cheat but not to give up the good part? This is why these issues are much more complex than people make them out to be. In my case, I settle for a vibrator and have for years but I can see other partners making different choices.