Does a spouse who longer wants to have sex have a right to expect faithfullness?

[oldshirt]

I came across a post in Dan Savage's 'Savage Love" column about spouses (male and female) who no longer want to have a sexual relationship with their partner (who IS still interested). I thought he had a good response but I wanted to get your thoughts since this kind of thing comes up quite a bit here.

 

What are your thoughts? Do you think a spouse that has shown through word and/or deed that they no longer wish to have a sexual relationship with their partner - do they have a right to expect or to demand that their parter remain faithfull/exclusive to them?

 

Do you think they forfeit that their right to exclusivity when they no longer want to have sex and do not even try to meet their partner's needs?

 

This really isn't about cheating or the cheater or the frustrated partner per se. This is about the person who is no longer attracted to their partner and no longer wishes to have a sexual relationship with them. Do you think they have a right to expect/demand faithfullness and have a right to force involuntary celibacy on their partner or do they forfiet any claim to their partner's sexuality when they decide they don't want a sexual relationship anymore?

[Toodamnpragmatic]

Dan is great at cutting through the bull in most cases and here he was 100% right. If you have the link post it.

 

I know many refuse the notion on infidelity, but in these cases I certainly do not.

[oldshirt]

No I don't have the link at the moment but if I get the chance to do some digging around I may see if I can find it again.

 

I guess at the moment I don't want to bring his opinion on it into the discussion but rather I want to hear other people's thoughts on the matter.

 

So what do you think? If a spouse is no longer interested in sex and doesn't even want to try to satisfy their partner anymore, do they waive their right to their partner's fidelity or do they still have a right to insist that their partner remains faithfull?

 

What are your thoughts? If you are someone that no longer has a desire for sex with your partner do you believe that your partner should remain faithfull and accept celibacy or do you think you give up that right when you no longer want to have sex with them?

 

And if you are someone who's spouse no longer wants a sexual relationship with you, do you think they have the right to insist or expect you to remain faithfull even though they no longer have a sexual interest in you?

 

And even if you don't fit into one of those catagories, what are your thoughts? I thought this topic would have a little more discussion than what it has.

[Afishwithabike]

Such a loaded topic. It will be interesting to read the other responses.

 

I suppose this question assumes that they've tried everything under the sun to discover why the spouse who no longer wants to have sex is feeling that way. Assuming that they've gone to doctors, therapists, had heart to heart talks, looked at their own behavior and its impact on the relationship and nothing has changed, I think the spouses need to renegotiate the marriage.

 

When you get married (in the USA anyway), you're asked to forsake all others which means your sexual options are limited as far as partners go. You both understand you can't have sex with other people while you're still married. That means going forward you have sex only with your spouse. The other side of this is each spouse is obligated to provide sex because after all the other spouse has agreed to remain sexually faithful only to them. We get married with the idea of sexual exclusivity with our spouses. Barring any abuse, disability or illness that makes sex impossible, I think it's cruel for one spouse to habitually deny the other spouse sex. Please note, I'm not talking about those days we all have where we're sick or too tired. I'm talking about folks who flat out refuse to have a sex life at all. Sex is part of the deal when one gets married unless you've both decided ahead of time that sex isn't exclusive to the marriage or your marriage is an asexual one then I can see why someone would leave the marriage because it's not what he/she expected when he/she got married. I can see how the partner who is constantly refused would feel unloved, unwanted, undesirable. That's dangerous for any marriage. If someone goes into marriage knowing they don't care about sex, they need to either not get married or get married to a like minded person who also doesn't care about sex.

[Nikki82]

If you are logical about this and put aside all the religious and traditional crap...then no, you should not expect your partner to give up sex just because you've decided not to give it anymore. Another example, if I was in a terrible accident or something that caused me to be physically incapable of sex, I would (sadly) tell my partner it's okay to find pleasure in others.

[carhill]

I think they have the privilege of expecting it (faithfulness) but only the rights which attend to a contract in breach. Health is restored when the contract has been renegotiated in full faith and with full disclosure.

 

'You are not meeting my needs and desires for sex, something you are fully cognizant and capable of, and in order to continue I have chosen to get them fulfilled unilaterally. It's time to renegotiate the marriage since it has broken down, or end it'

Edited November 27, 2011 by carhill
2 many 'ands'

[mem11363]

Old,

Morally you are on solid ground here though more so in scenario 1 than 2.

1. "The Giver": darling it is obvious you find sex with me so unappealing that even the desire simply to make ME happy is not strong enough to overcome your aversion. So we are going to 100 % remove the pressure from you and I will find my sexual pleasure outside the marriage.

 

2. "the don't ask don't tell model". Here you are discrete but not secretive. If asked you simply respond with "I am confused, clearly you have no interest in sex with me, why the sudden interest in my sex life". And if pressed "since we no longer have a sexual relationship you have no standing to ask me these types of questions. Please desist. "

 

I will tell you this having walked the walk preemptively in this type situation:

- you may discover your W strongly prefers sex with you over the prospect of you having sex with others

- you ONLY traverse this path if you are willing to let Her/him divorce you over your refusal to accept inCel.

 

I would not divorce my W over a lack of sex, but I Would let her divorce me over my refusal to accept an InCel marriage, because at that point she would be divorcing me over something (sex) that she had claimed was not important.

 

 

 

 

I came across a post in Dan Savage's 'Savage Love" column about spouses (male and female) who no longer want to have a sexual relationship with their partner (who IS still interested). I thought he had a good response but I wanted to get your thoughts since this kind of thing comes up quite a bit here.

 

What are your thoughts? Do you think a spouse that has shown through word and/or deed that they no longer wish to have a sexual relationship with their partner - do they have a right to expect or to demand that their parter remain faithfull/exclusive to them?

 

Do you think they forfeit that their right to exclusivity when they no longer want to have sex and do not even try to meet their partner's needs?

 

This really isn't about cheating or the cheater or the frustrated partner per se. This is about the person who is no longer attracted to their partner and no longer wishes to have a sexual relationship with them. Do you think they have a right to expect/demand faithfullness and have a right to force involuntary celibacy on their partner or do they forfiet any claim to their partner's sexuality when they decide they don't want a sexual relationship anymore?

[oldshirt]

Old,

 

- you ONLY traverse this path if you are willing to let Her/him divorce you over your refusal to accept inCel.

 

I would not divorce my W over a lack of sex, but I Would let her divorce me over my refusal to accept an InCel marriage, because at that point she would be divorcing me over something (sex) that she had claimed was not important.

 

 

What is an inCel marriage?

[carhill]

Involuntary Celibacy in a marriage, meaning one partner is celibate against their will and desire at the hand and mind of the other partner.

[LoveTKO]

Absolutely! My married lover told me that she hopes her husband finds himself a girlfiriend soon, since she's not having sex with him. He thinks his wife is frigid or going through pre menopause, but this obviously is not the case. If your spouse is attractive and outgoing but decides that he or she isn't interested in sex anymore, they are getting it somewhere else. This is especially true for women.

[xxoo]

I don't believe that a spouse has a right to expect faithfulness, but I do think they have a right to expect honesty. Have a frank conversation about what each person needs, and find solutions. Divorce is one. Non-monogamy is another.

 

When you get married (in the USA anyway), you're asked to forsake all others which means your sexual options are limited as far as partners go. .

 

I thought those vows were part of the prevalent religious culture, but not necessarily part of marriage.

[Afishwithabike]

 

 

I thought those vows were part of the prevalent religious culture, but not necessarily part of marriage.

 

We had a purely secular wedding and one of the vows in this civil marriage was to forsake others. We didn't write our vows so this clause was part of the standard civil marriage vow in my state. I did however tell the officiant to remove the "obey" part from my vow. "(Bride), will you have this man (Groom), to be your lawful wedded husband, to live together in the honorable estate of marriage? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him both in sickness and in health; sharing with him your joys and your sorrows; and be true only to him all the days of your lives?"

[findingnemo]

No I don't have the link at the moment but if I get the chance to do some digging around I may see if I can find it again.

 

I guess at the moment I don't want to bring his opinion on it into the discussion but rather I want to hear other people's thoughts on the matter.

 

So what do you think? If a spouse is no longer interested in sex and doesn't even want to try to satisfy their partner anymore, do they waive their right to their partner's fidelity or do they still have a right to insist that their partner remains faithfull?

 

When put like this, it is easy to answer this question. No, the uninterested party by virtue of refusing to have sex waives the right to being the only sexual partner of his/her spouse.

 

What are your thoughts? If you are someone that no longer has a desire for sex with your partner do you believe that your partner should remain faithfull and accept celibacy or do you think you give up that right when you no longer want to have sex with them? Again, easy answer. If it were I that didn't want to have sex and stated so clearly, I would be waiving my rights and wouldn't expect celibacy.

 

And if you are someone who's spouse no longer wants a sexual relationship with you, do you think they have the right to insist or expect you to remain faithfull even though they no longer have a sexual interest in you?

 

And even if you don't fit into one of those catagories, what are your thoughts? I thought this topic would have a little more discussion than what it has.

 

I see this question as one based on the ideal situation. One party doesn't want sex anymore and informs the other. The decision is communicated allowing the other party to figure put how to deal with it.

 

IRL, in how many instances that are not due to medical problems does a spouse make such a pronouncement? Correct me if I'm wrong here but many times, one spouse will determine in his/her mind that they don't want to have sex anymore and keep this information to themselves. It'll take sometime, and a number of rejections, before the other spouse notices a pattern and then asks what's going on. The offending spouse will then tell all sorts of stories and come up with excuses but never say categorically that sexual intimacy has been cut off.

 

So perhaps the question should factor in the length of time that there's been no sex and at what point the offending party has in effect waived their right and expectation of faithfulness.

[SoMovinOn]

The answer depends on the couple, depends on the marriage. Standard wedding vows include "For better or worse, in sickness and health...", so, one partner no longer wanting sex would seem to fall under "For worse" or possibly "In sickness". Unless the agreement between the couple includes sex, then, yes, technically speaking, there should still be an expectation of fidelity.

 

This is where communication comes in. It's something that has to be discussed. Perhaps they have each changed sufficiently to warrant a D. Perhaps the spouse not desiring sex would say "Go do what you have to do, be discrete and don't cut into my time." ... whatever.

[xxoo]

We had a purely secular wedding and one of the vows in this civil marriage was to forsake others. We didn't write our vows so this clause was part of the standard civil marriage vow in my state. I did however tell the officiant to remove the "obey" part from my vow. "(Bride), will you have this man (Groom), to be your lawful wedded husband, to live together in the honorable estate of marriage? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him both in sickness and in health; sharing with him your joys and your sorrows; and be true only to him all the days of your lives?"

 

You chose to include that line (borrowed from religious ceremonies), but could have excluded it just as you excluded the "obey" part. You would still be married.

 

I didn't vow any of this stuff during our ceremony! And I'm married

[OliveOyl]

The answer depends on the couple, depends on the marriage. Standard wedding vows include "For better or worse, in sickness and health...", so, one partner no longer wanting sex would seem to fall under "For worse" or possibly "In sickness". Unless the agreement between the couple includes sex, then, yes, technically speaking, there should still be an expectation of fidelity.

 

Yes but the "for worse/in sickness" does have some limitations--interpretation is required here. Someone who is abusive is clearly "for worse" and a raging alcoholic is "In sickness" but the vows don't say "In sickness and health, except if you are an unrecoverable alcoholic," etc.

 

However, most people, even religious ones, view abuse and extreme addiction as vow deal-breakers. The question here is whether complete sexual refusal would be another. I would say so. However, I think it's much preferable to terminate the marriage instead. Living in a marriage without love or sex is a huge, huge blow to one's self-worth.

[oldshirt]

We had a purely secular wedding and one of the vows in this civil marriage was to forsake others. We didn't write our vows so this clause was part of the standard civil marriage vow in my state.

 

 

"

 

This is just a side bar comment. In most if not all states, you can only be legally married to one person at a time so even civil ceremony will have a clause about not 'marrying' others. They've probably just adopted the verbage of saying "forsaking all others..." to sound a little more palatable than saying, " do you agree to not initiate additional marriage proceedings untill your divorce decree is finalized or your spouses death certificate has been signed and filed with the state?"

[oldshirt]

I see this question as one based on the ideal situation. One party doesn't want sex anymore and informs the other. The decision is communicated allowing the other party to figure put how to deal with it.

 

IRL, in how many instances that are not due to medical problems does a spouse make such a pronouncement? Correct me if I'm wrong here but many times, one spouse will determine in his/her mind that they don't want to have sex anymore and keep this information to themselves. It'll take sometime, and a number of rejections, before the other spouse notices a pattern and then asks what's going on. The offending spouse will then tell all sorts of stories and come up with excuses but never say categorically that sexual intimacy has been cut off.

 

So perhaps the question should factor in the length of time that there's been no sex and at what point the offending party has in effect waived their right and expectation of faithfulness.

 

Your scenarios are realistic but I'm not sure if it really impacts the concept of the question or not. The concept still remains, if a person has no vested interest in a sexual relationship with their spouse, do they retain the right to impose limits and sanctions and such on their spouses sexuality?

 

I guess I don't see how length of time or what kind of excuses they pull out of their @$$ has anything to do with it.

 

If you don't have a vested interest in a sexual relationship with your partner does it really matter how long that has been in effect or what excuses you make to keep your partner off of you?

[SoMovinOn]

Yes but the "for worse/in sickness" does have some limitations--interpretation is required here. Someone who is abusive is clearly "for worse" and a raging alcoholic is "In sickness" but the vows don't say "In sickness and health, except if you are an unrecoverable alcoholic," etc.

 

However, most people, even religious ones, view abuse and extreme addiction as vow deal-breakers. The question here is whether complete sexual refusal would be another. I would say so. However, I think it's much preferable to terminate the marriage instead. Living in a marriage without love or sex is a huge, huge blow to one's self-worth.

 

Agreed. In the end, it just goes back to the couple, the individuals involved, and communication. It might be a deal breaker, might make sense to end the M. In other cases, the other spouse might say "OK, I can live with that.". I don't think there is a definitive answer.

 

Age would probably play a role here too. Not having sex with your spouse ever again at 25 would be vastly different than if you were in your 50's or 60's.

[donaldpeter58]

This really isn't about cheating or the cheater or the frustrated partner per se. This is about the person who is no longer attracted to their partner and no longer wishes to have a sexual relationship with them. Do you think they have a right to expect/demand faithfullness and have a right to force involuntary celibacy on their partner or do they forfiet any claim to their partner's sexuality when they decide they don't want a sexual relationship anymore.

[The Blue Knight]

Sex is part of the marriage package UNLESS it is understood before the marriage what the limits will be and that is clear between the two parties. But how often does this happen?

 

The big three marriage breakers are 1. finances, 2. infidelity, and 3. sex (as in - lack thereof or some other sexual incompatibility).

 

Few men go into a marriage believing that their wives will lose interest in sexual relations. If those same men had a crystal ball, they'd marry about 90% less of the time. That's the sad truth of the matter.

 

If one wants to use the Bible as a reference it states that a man's body belongs to the woman and the woman's to the man (sexually speaking). But even with that said, I don't want my spouse coaxed or compelled out of some manifest obligation. Some people may not care, but there are those like myself who want a willing spouse in the bedroom.

 

I can see this both ways frankly. Is it right to cheat? No, and no amount of justification can really allow for that. If it were me, rather than cheat, I'd seek a divorce for reason #3 above. With that said, I can understand why in a cold and chilly marriage some individuals can no longer take it and they look beyond their marriage for sexual gratification, or they turn to porn or some other means of "coping" with their situation.

 

If a husband or wife flat out says they are no longer interested in sex and the other spouse is still interested, I don't really see how the spouse who is no longer interested can expect fidelity given that they've broken their vows by withholding.

[stillafool]

Do you think they forfeit that their right to exclusivity when they no longer want to have sex and do not even try to meet their partner's needs?

 

 

No. If the partner no longer desires sex and there is no medical reason to withhold it, they should let the other partner go. It is not fair to withhold sex and you know your partner needs and desires it. This means you are no longer compatible. They should divorce but not cheat.

[ate_the_paint]

Sex is part of the marriage package UNLESS it is understood before the marriage what the limits will be and that is clear between the two parties. But how often does this happen?

 

The big three marriage breakers are 1. finances, 2. infidelity, and 3. sex (as in - lack thereof or some other sexual incompatibility).

 

Few men go into a marriage believing that their wives will lose interest in sexual relations. If those same men had a crystal ball, they'd marry about 90% less of the time. That's the sad truth of the matter.

 

If one wants to use the Bible as a reference it states that a man's body belongs to the woman and the woman's to the man (sexually speaking). But even with that said, I don't want my spouse coaxed or compelled out of some manifest obligation. Some people may not care, but there are those like myself who want a willing spouse in the bedroom.

 

I can see this both ways frankly. Is it right to cheat? No, and no amount of justification can really allow for that. If it were me, rather than cheat, I'd seek a divorce for reason #3 above. With that said, I can understand why in a cold and chilly marriage some individuals can no longer take it and they look beyond their marriage for sexual gratification, or they turn to porn or some other means of "coping" with their situation.

 

If a husband or wife flat out says they are no longer interested in sex and the other spouse is still interested, I don't really see how the spouse who is no longer interested can expect fidelity given that they've broken their vows by withholding.

 

Couldn't have said it better! I agree with you 100%. Withholding sex is a breach of the marriage contract (in fact, here in Canada it's grounds for a divorce in some provinces). If the partner is not fulfilling their end of the contract, and the other person wants sex, and it's just not going to happen no matter what therapy, counselling, etc takes place, then the marriage should be dissolved.

 

Infidelity should not be an option. If an open marriage is agreed upon, then that couple should have a second wedding with new vows worded in a way that infidelity is okay. I can understand if there is a great deal of love between them and they don't want divorce. In any case, the terms of the marriage contract need to be changed or dissolved.

[Afishwithabike]

Oldshirt - since you asked this question because of something you read on Savage Love (I read his stuff too btw), I'm curious what Dan had to say about the topic.

[Stung]

I don't believe that a spouse has a right to expect faithfulness, but I do think they have a right to expect honesty. Have a frank conversation about what each person needs, and find solutions. Divorce is one. Non-monogamy is another.

 

I agree with this. I don't think it's fair for one partner to hold the other partner hostage sexually, but I disagree in principle with going behind their back. If someone wants the comfort of remaining married, for whatever reason, with zero sexual interaction with their spouse, their spouse should feel free to find an alternate sexual contact--but it should be aboveboard, brought into the light as it were. Not necessarily indiscreet, but also not illicit. No lies, no passive-aggressive sneaking around, simple human needs being acknowledged and met. I also agree with a previous poster who mentioned that both partners should consider it a duty to their partnership to explore WHY the sudden lack of sexual interest--I would insist on seeing doctors and therapists before I gave up the ghost and looked for sexual comfort elsewhere.

 

As for this being something that crops up frequently on this board, I kind of disagree. I do often see issues of mismatched libidos and low sexual frequency here, but the cases of ZERO sexual contact are actually few and far between. In a situation where one spouse has higher or lower sexual needs than their partner, my answer is different than when they get no sexual intimacy at all.