Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:If you are two healthy adults with kids still living at home and neither wants to blow up the family but one spouse has decided unilaterally that they won't have sex any longer, that seems to be acceptable to DCUM. But it's not okay for their spouse to have a "just sex" fling that does not threaten the marriage and family. The consensus here is that rather than having a sex fling, you should just divorce and leave the marriage and that someone with integrity divorces rather than having a fling.

But why doesn't anybody say that the person who unilaterally decides they definitely never want sex again carry the burden of asking for the divorce? They've decided to change the terms of the marriage (no sex), so shouldn't it be on them to follow through with the natural consequence of refusing to have sex, which is that you no longer have a real marriage and therefore it's time to go your separate ways and you carry the burden of divorcing? (I am NOT referring to situations where it's six weeks after a c-section and your baby is in ICU, or where you're undergoing chemo or became paralyzed. I'm talking about the situation where one person just decides that sex isn't something they want or need any longer and their partner just has to accept that.)

Why is it okay to unilaterally change the marriage contract by refusing sex, but it's not okay to get sex from a third party that you never intend to leave your spouse for?

In both of these situations, one person is fundamentally changing the terms of the marriage. Why do we hold them to different standards?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nearly half (45–50%) of women earn the same or more than their husbands, a threefold increase from 50 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter who decides, the marriage is over so, really, who gives F who "decides"??

In what sad world is a marriage only about sex?

Nobody said marriage is only about sex. However sex is part of marriage along with many other things.

PP said without sex "the marriage is over." That is simply wrong, and it does, in fact, make the whole marriage about sex, if that one thing must end it. Using an extreme to prove the point: Many married people can no longer have sex, phsyically -- lets say, full paralysis -- Is the marriage over? No. It was never part of any guarantee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But I’m sure he’s obligated to open his wallet for you, right ladies?

Most women who aren’t having sex can take care of themselves and don’t need the money that’s why they couldn’t care less

Feminism has destroyed civil society

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeez, wait until some of you get old. Does an 85 year old man get to leave his 85 year old wife high and dry with an at-fault divorce because she doesn’t want to sleep with him anymore?

God made teeth fall out at the same time lubrication dries up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

He discovered some evidence of me cheating and chose not to confront me. How does this gray area fit into your analysis?

You cheated. That's like saying you beat up your spouse, and they chose to ignore so it is a gray area. Nothing gray about that.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

He discovered some evidence of me cheating and chose not to confront me. How does this gray area fit into your analysis?

You cheated. That's like saying you beat up your spouse, and they chose to ignore so it is a gray area. Nothing gray about that.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

He discovered some evidence of me cheating and chose not to confront me. How does this gray area fit into your analysis?

You cheated. That's like saying you beat up your spouse, and they chose to ignore so it is a gray area. Nothing gray about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would force my spouse into therapy to figure out what we could do to have sex again. Choreplay? Romantic dates? Hormone replacement therapy?

I’m female and wouldn’t be okay with my dh not having sex with me. Once a week is bare minimum.

Good luck with that. How do you force someone into therapy? And they can go there and play with their thumbs if they don't care. The problems are usually far beyond lack of sex.

When you are in an otherwise healthy and thriving relationship and your spouse notices the difference in sexual appetite, you wouldn't have to force them into anything. They'd be communicating things they have tried because they are concerned that you are not getting what you need.

When you feel like you have to tell them to seek remedies even though they clearly know you are going without and have not bothered to bring it up, there is already a deeper issue than sex.

Exactly. So just talk to your wife and get divorced. Clearly there’s not a sense of love and respect in a relationship as described above.

What’s the point of staying married and cheating when you could just divorce and date as much as you like without having to lie about what you're doing?

1) Maintain the illusion of marriage and stable home for children/family/society
2) Avoid dividing up the net worth
3) The spouse wanting sex may be willing to stay in an otherwise close marriage if he or she can get sex elsewhere in a DADT situation.

So, this is dumb. If sex is that big a deal to you that you feel you need to cheat if you can’t have sex with your partner, then you should divide everything up so you can both live your lives separately. It is rude and insulting to your spouse to stay in a marriage where you are so unhappy you need to cheat just so you don’t have to “divide up your net worth.”

Come on, be an adult.

It's more complex than that. What if he doesn't want to split up either, say, while his very Catholic parents are still alive? What if he's happy that I do 75% of the household work, lazy enough that he's willing to look the other way while I have my needs met so long as I don't upset his apple cart?

If he is willing to look away, as in you have had the discussion and told him you are going to seek it elsewhere, that is not cheating. That is an open marriage.

If you are conveniently assuming he is willing to look away when you are not certain, that is cheating.

He discovered some evidence of me cheating and chose not to confront me. How does this gray area fit into your analysis?

Anonymous wrote:This thread is making me grateful that I don't have a super high sex drive (I think it's average for someone my age, late 40s, I still want sex but it doesn't rule my life and if I'm horny and my DH is too tired, which happens, I get over it) and DH isn't either.

It sounds like torture due all involved, like having a drug addiction.