Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What year are you living in? The ladies have their own wallets. Most of us are "opening our wallets" to our husbands every day, weirdo.

I'm sorry you think of marriage as a transaction where the man pays with money and the woman pays with vagina access, but the rest of us are not broken in the way you are.

In addition, plenty of women are living in involuntary sexless marriages too.

Then GET DIVORCED. See above regarding having your own wallet. I don't understand this whole "involuntary sexless" thing. You have free will. Exercise it.

A lot of you are acting like your marriages just happened to you, and need to grow up.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What year are you living in? The ladies have their own wallets. Most of us are "opening our wallets" to our husbands every day, weirdo.

I'm sorry you think of marriage as a transaction where the man pays with money and the woman pays with vagina access, but the rest of us are not broken in the way you are.

In addition, plenty of women are living in involuntary sexless marriages too.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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

What year are you living in? The ladies have their own wallets. Most of us are "opening our wallets" to our husbands every day, weirdo.

I'm sorry you think of marriage as a transaction where the man pays with money and the woman pays with vagina access, but the rest of us are not broken in the way you are.

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is more than just sex.

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

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.

You can only consummate the marriage once. Nothing required after that.

Why do you consummate it? Because sex is expected in a marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are not parallel actions.

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

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

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

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

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

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

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

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

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

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spousal rape, however, is very illegal.

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's true. But the person who asks is often the fall guy for the marriage falling apart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wild post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are not parallel actions.

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

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

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

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

Marriage isn’t a sexual service subscription.

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

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

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

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

No one owes sex.
Everyone owes honesty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spousal rape, however, is very illegal.