Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was responding to specific posts, on any of the however many threads that are active about this topic right now, that specifically say that people (usually wives) should have sex more often than they want to and put their partner's need to have sex over their desire not to do that. I cannot get past the coercive nature of this. I have been in this situation, and I often felt pressured or coerced. I do not ever want to feel that way again. There are also specific posts saying that sex is a thing that is "owed" - not that sex is a crucial part of a healthy marriage, but that it is a thing that is owed in a particular quantity, and that a spouse who is unwilling to provide the sex in the quantity required is being selfish. I cannot get past the manipulation there either. There are other ways to frame these ideas than the language of coercion and manipulation. Posters on this topic on DCUM today have chosen the language of coercion and manipulation willfully and repeatedly. I don't know if any of them are you or not.

To be honest- I think you're projecting a lot of your history on this. I think most people would agree that a low libido spouse shouldn't be coerced into having sex. I know that I don't want "obligation sex" or some half-hearted handy. I want passion and intimacy WITH my spouse. But when a low libido spouse refuses to be intimate and refuses to take any steps to improve the situation, they are effectively coercing their partner into a life of celibacy. I'm not sure how you can reconcile that one is fine and the other is coercive and manipulative. The only difference is that one scenario fits what YOU want.

I didn't say that one was fine at all. I don't think either is "fine." I do think that the coercion that involves someone putting their penis inside someone who does not really want that is worse than rejecting sex. I don't think it's got as much to do with my "history" as it does with my belief that the only person who gets to decide when I have sex is me. They are different things to me. You can agree with me or not. I'm not married to you, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unilateral decision of celibacy isn't a huge lie?

No. it's not hidden. a spouse cannot ignore having sex with you and deceive you that they're not having sex with you. You have a full information to make a decision about what's best for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the PPs who has issues with the "entitled to sex" posters. I do not at all disagree that sexual intimacy is a healthy and necessary component of a good marriage, or that it can be incredibly damaging psychologically and emotionally to be sexually rejected, especially over a long period of time, by the person who is supposed to love you.

<snippage>

As the PP says, there is a lot of middle ground between "never" and "constantly" having sex. When you start throwing in obligations, it turns the whole conversation transactional and coercive, and that's not okay with me.

I'm PP @10:47 and one of the people you quoted.

Here's my thing: I don't think anybody is "entitled" to sex-on-demand at any time from any particular person. But we are entitled to have passionate intimacy in our lives. If you don't want passionate intimacy with me, that's OK - it's absolutely your body and your right to say no, married or not - but that doesn't entitle you to force me to be celibate - your control over your body doesn't trump my control over mine. I remain free to go seek out the passionate intimacy I want with someone else - sure, maybe after a divorce.

The huge problem with that "middle ground" is that's the passive aggressive "duty sex" zone: Oh, honey, you can't complain about not getting sex...I lubed up and bent over the bed for you to use my body as a masturbation aid for fifteen minutes last week...we're not due for this week's appointment yet. I'm not actually verbally saying no, but I'm letting you know you touching me makes my skin crawl. Thanks but no thanks...I'd rather pay a hooker for fake sex. I really don't want to have sex you unless you actually want to have sex with me and are turned on by me. I'm a big boy and have moved beyond jacking off to playboy...I'd rather have real sex with a real person.

A couple of things:

1. I was responding to specific posts, on any of the however many threads that are active about this topic right now, that specifically say that people (usually wives) should have sex more often than they want to and put their partner's need to have sex over their desire not to do that. I cannot get past the coercive nature of this. I have been in this situation, and I often felt pressured or coerced. I do not ever want to feel that way again. There are also specific posts saying that sex is a thing that is "owed" - not that sex is a crucial part of a healthy marriage, but that it is a thing that is owed in a particular quantity, and that a spouse who is unwilling to provide the sex in the quantity required is being selfish. I cannot get past the manipulation there either. There are other ways to frame these ideas than the language of coercion and manipulation. Posters on this topic on DCUM today have chosen the language of coercion and manipulation willfully and repeatedly. I don't know if any of them are you or not.

2. Yes, you can seek your sexual pleasure elsewhere in the name of body autonomy. I am entitled to decide that I do not want to be married to someone who has sex with other people, regardless of whether I am having sex with him as often or as enthusiastically as he would prefer.

3. The concept of being "entitled to passionate intimacy" is also hard for me to reconcile because "passionate intimacy" involves more than one person and I do not believe that anyone is entitled to the body of another. The language of entitlement (which is expressed often on this site in various ways) is problematic for me on a number of levels. You're not entitled to someone else's body. You're entitled to seek happiness in whatever manner pleases you, just like anyone else. If your search for happiness is not compatible with your spouse, I think it's best to divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was responding to specific posts, on any of the however many threads that are active about this topic right now, that specifically say that people (usually wives) should have sex more often than they want to and put their partner's need to have sex over their desire not to do that. I cannot get past the coercive nature of this. I have been in this situation, and I often felt pressured or coerced. I do not ever want to feel that way again. There are also specific posts saying that sex is a thing that is "owed" - not that sex is a crucial part of a healthy marriage, but that it is a thing that is owed in a particular quantity, and that a spouse who is unwilling to provide the sex in the quantity required is being selfish. I cannot get past the manipulation there either. There are other ways to frame these ideas than the language of coercion and manipulation. Posters on this topic on DCUM today have chosen the language of coercion and manipulation willfully and repeatedly. I don't know if any of them are you or not.

To be honest- I think you're projecting a lot of your history on this. I think most people would agree that a low libido spouse shouldn't be coerced into having sex. I know that I don't want "obligation sex" or some half-hearted handy. I want passion and intimacy WITH my spouse. But when a low libido spouse refuses to be intimate and refuses to take any steps to improve the situation, they are effectively coercing their partner into a life of celibacy. I'm not sure how you can reconcile that one is fine and the other is coercive and manipulative. The only difference is that one scenario fits what YOU want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was responding to specific posts, on any of the however many threads that are active about this topic right now, that specifically say that people (usually wives) should have sex more often than they want to and put their partner's need to have sex over their desire not to do that. I cannot get past the coercive nature of this. I have been in this situation, and I often felt pressured or coerced. I do not ever want to feel that way again. There are also specific posts saying that sex is a thing that is "owed" - not that sex is a crucial part of a healthy marriage, but that it is a thing that is owed in a particular quantity, and that a spouse who is unwilling to provide the sex in the quantity required is being selfish. I cannot get past the manipulation there either. There are other ways to frame these ideas than the language of coercion and manipulation. Posters on this topic on DCUM today have chosen the language of coercion and manipulation willfully and repeatedly. I don't know if any of them are you or not.

To be honest- I think you're projecting a lot of your history on this. I think most people would agree that a low libido spouse shouldn't be coerced into having sex. I know that I don't want "obligation sex" or some half-hearted handy. I want passion and intimacy WITH my spouse. But when a low libido spouse refuses to be intimate and refuses to take any steps to improve the situation, they are effectively coercing their partner into a life of celibacy. I'm not sure how you can reconcile that one is fine and the other is coercive and manipulative. The only difference is that one scenario fits what YOU want.

Anonymous wrote:
1. I was responding to specific posts, on any of the however many threads that are active about this topic right now, that specifically say that people (usually wives) should have sex more often than they want to and put their partner's need to have sex over their desire not to do that. I cannot get past the coercive nature of this. I have been in this situation, and I often felt pressured or coerced. I do not ever want to feel that way again. There are also specific posts saying that sex is a thing that is "owed" - not that sex is a crucial part of a healthy marriage, but that it is a thing that is owed in a particular quantity, and that a spouse who is unwilling to provide the sex in the quantity required is being selfish. I cannot get past the manipulation there either. There are other ways to frame these ideas than the language of coercion and manipulation. Posters on this topic on DCUM today have chosen the language of coercion and manipulation willfully and repeatedly. I don't know if any of them are you or not.

Anonymous wrote:2. Yes, you can seek your sexual pleasure elsewhere in the name of body autonomy. I am entitled to decide that I do not want to be married to someone who has sex with other people, regardless of whether I am having sex with him as often or as enthusiastically as he would prefer.

Anonymous wrote:3. The concept of being "entitled to passionate intimacy" is also hard for me to reconcile because "passionate intimacy" involves more than one person and I do not believe that anyone is entitled to the body of another. The language of entitlement (which is expressed often on this site in various ways) is problematic for me on a number of levels. You're not entitled to someone else's body. You're entitled to seek happiness in whatever manner pleases you, just like anyone else. If your search for happiness is not compatible with your spouse, I think it's best to divorce.

Anonymous wrote:I was responding to specific posts, on any of the however many threads that are active about this topic right now, that specifically say that people (usually wives) should have sex more often than they want to and put their partner's need to have sex over their desire not to do that. I cannot get past the coercive nature of this. I have been in this situation, and I often felt pressured or coerced. I do not ever want to feel that way again. There are also specific posts saying that sex is a thing that is "owed" - not that sex is a crucial part of a healthy marriage, but that it is a thing that is owed in a particular quantity, and that a spouse who is unwilling to provide the sex in the quantity required is being selfish. I cannot get past the manipulation there either. There are other ways to frame these ideas than the language of coercion and manipulation. Posters on this topic on DCUM today have chosen the language of coercion and manipulation willfully and repeatedly. I don't know if any of them are you or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the PPs who has issues with the "entitled to sex" posters. I do not at all disagree that sexual intimacy is a healthy and necessary component of a good marriage, or that it can be incredibly damaging psychologically and emotionally to be sexually rejected, especially over a long period of time, by the person who is supposed to love you.

<snippage>

As the PP says, there is a lot of middle ground between "never" and "constantly" having sex. When you start throwing in obligations, it turns the whole conversation transactional and coercive, and that's not okay with me.

I'm PP @10:47 and one of the people you quoted.

Here's my thing: I don't think anybody is "entitled" to sex-on-demand at any time from any particular person. But we are entitled to have passionate intimacy in our lives. If you don't want passionate intimacy with me, that's OK - it's absolutely your body and your right to say no, married or not - but that doesn't entitle you to force me to be celibate - your control over your body doesn't trump my control over mine. I remain free to go seek out the passionate intimacy I want with someone else - sure, maybe after a divorce.

The huge problem with that "middle ground" is that's the passive aggressive "duty sex" zone: Oh, honey, you can't complain about not getting sex...I lubed up and bent over the bed for you to use my body as a masturbation aid for fifteen minutes last week...we're not due for this week's appointment yet. I'm not actually verbally saying no, but I'm letting you know you touching me makes my skin crawl. Thanks but no thanks...I'd rather pay a hooker for fake sex. I really don't want to have sex you unless you actually want to have sex with me and are turned on by me. I'm a big boy and have moved beyond jacking off to playboy...I'd rather have real sex with a real person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unilateral decision of celibacy isn't a huge lie?

No. it's not hidden. a spouse cannot ignore having sex with you and deceive you that they're not having sex with you. You have a full information to make a decision about what's best for you.

I disagree. Its pretty rare for the low libido spouse to say BEFORE marriage that after 10 years, they will lose all interest in physical intimacy. Very few higher libido spouses would agree to such an arrangement. At a minimum, its a bait-and-switch but my sexless marriage feels like a lie to me. What about her promises to change, the week of improvement followed by months of backsliding- that sure feels like empty promises and lies as well.

You're making excuses for one spouse ignoring a key foundation to healthy relationship. It is selfish, cruel, and you won't change the minds of the men and women in similar situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, and I agree with the PP. Intimacy, including sexual intimacy, is an appropriate expectation in a marriage. When one spouse denies that intimacy to the other who desires it, it damages the marriage. I don't think any spouse should feel required to have sex when they don't want to, but a spouse who doesn't want sex and refuses to work toward better sexual intimacy should be cognizant of the fact that they are putting their own wants, preferences and needs ahead of their partner's. In marriage we make lots of choices and compromises, and we can choose to try to understand and balance our partner's needs with our own, or we can choose to put our own needs first. The latter choice - whether we're talking about sex, money, childcare, or whatever - will always lead to anger and resentment over the long term. So yes, you can choose to not have sex with your spouse because you don't want to. But don't kid yourself that it's reasonable to expect your spouse to accept and understand that choice.

Note, too, that in the above I said "balance". Neither spouse should expect that their libidos or desire for sexual intimacy will be perfectly matched all the time over the course of a marriage, or even any of the time. If your spouse desires sex daily and you desire it monthly, there's a compromise in there that is neither daily nor monthly.

Full disclosure: I am a woman who has been in a sexless marriage for many years. It is my husband who has refused to work toward healthy sexual intimacy, not me. It has been very damaging to both our marriage and to me personally.

DH here and I fully agree. The PP who said that one spouse shouldn't feel any obligation to have sex is just as selfish as the spouse who wants sex on demand. It is really difficult to explain how painful it is to have your spouse reject you repeatedly. And its not the kind of thing I can share openly either- its embarrassing and I'm ashamed at how dissatisfied I am with my marriage. We try so hard to make everything look great, people think we have such a great marriage. But its a lie.

I am one of the PPs who has issues with the "entitled to sex" posters. I do not at all disagree that sexual intimacy is a healthy and necessary component of a good marriage, or that it can be incredibly damaging psychologically and emotionally to be sexually rejected, especially over a long period of time, by the person who is supposed to love you.

I have issues with things like the suggestion that the spouse who does not want to have sex should just do it anyway and prioritize their partners' needs over their own and the idea that sex is an "obligation" or something that is "owed." I don't think it's ever okay to tell someone that they "should" have sex when they don't want to, whether that person is in a marriage like yours, PPs, or not. Is that the kind of example you want to set for your daughters, that they should allow access to their bodies out of obligation, even when they don't want to? Is that the kind of marriage you want, that your spouse feels that they owe you their body regardless of what want?

As the PP says, there is a lot of middle ground between "never" and "constantly" having sex. When you start throwing in obligations, it turns the whole conversation transactional and coercive, and that's not okay with me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unilateral decision of celibacy isn't a huge lie?

No. it's not hidden. a spouse cannot ignore having sex with you and deceive you that they're not having sex with you. You have a full information to make a decision about what's best for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Divorce is a more honest, respectful solution than cheating and blaming your spouse for it.

PP here. Respectfully disagree that divorce is the better way in all occasions. I also have an AP and our relationship allows sanity for me without getting divorced.

Your spouse deserved to make the decision for him or herself about whether they want to be married to someone who is sexually involved with someone else. Does your spouse know that you are having an affair? If not, you are taking away from your spouse the decision about whether or not he or she want to remain married to you and essentially deciding that your way is what is best for everyone.

If your spouse knows that you have an extramarital relationship and has decided that that's not a problem for them, it's a completely different story.

Agree. It takes away the vote of the spouse who isn't cheating - note i didn't say blameless. Not getting your needs met? You have a right to ask. you have a right to leave. You do not have a right to mislead your spouse. you do not have a right to withhold full disclosure. your spouse has a right to choose if they want to stay in a relationship where you've checked out and are investing your emotions in someone else. That's dirty, and it unnecessarily adds so much pain.

The unilateral decision of celibacy isn't a huge lie?