Is a wife obligated to have sex regularly?

[KungFuJoe]

There is no such thing as obligation in a happy and equal partnership/relationship.

 

Something happened recently where I started to truly see the meaning of this. Last year, I tore my achilles' playing basketball. I was in a wheelchair/crutches for over a month before and after surgery. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. I was so helpless and felt so useless. Going to the bathroom was an ordeal and something as simple as getting a glass of water was a workout when you're on crutches. I'm a very independent person and hate having to rely on someone for basic needs. But there's just so much you can do when confined to crutches/wheelchair and eventually my wife had to take care of me. She had to get our 6 year old (at the time) to school every morning, take care of our 4 year old, run her business (which she is a sole prop), AND take care of me. And she did it all...without complaining, without getting frustrated at me, and without any expectation of getting anything in return. She did it because she loved me and she wanted to make me feel as comfortable as possible because she knew that it wasn't easy for me to be confined like that when I used to be so active.

 

But, there was another part to it. Something that I asked her about later on. She said that one of the reasons why she did all of that, with no problems, was because she knew I didn't EXPECT her to...that I never made it seem like she was SUPPOSED to take care of me or was OBLIGATED to do so. Every little thing she did for me, I was so grateful and thankful for and I vowed to make it up to her (and I did by doing most of the "chores" for several weeks after I was well enough to get around). And everything she did for me, she did out of love, not out of necessity or obligation.

 

Our love for each other grew stronger since that point (something we have both talked about and discovered). It's like we knew that we would always be there for each other...not out of necessity, but because it's what we wanted to do. Because it makes us happy to make us happy. And I think that truly defines what a pure and loving relationship should be like.

[sally4sara]

Well thanks for the little excursion into your marriage and friends but this is a general thread about sexual 'obligations' in marriage, or it seems, the lack therof.

 

I think it's telling that the female posters here are all shocked that sex could be seen as an obligation or God forbid a 'need', and seem to attack any poster who sees it that way. Yet there are countless posts from females on LS about "getting their needs met". I don't recall any of these posters being attacked in a similar way.

 

Oh and it's funny how these husbands are crap at sex and it's such a horrible experience post wedding, you'd think they'd be crap from the start if that was the case.

 

The opening to your post here is the reason for the difference.

 

Women typically (on LS) share the issue they are dealing with based on what is happening for them and the specific people it involves - other women weigh in with similar experiences and what they did to deal with it and the outcome. Some have no similar experience but try to bolster the OP with suggestions of who they, without the issue cloud fogging them, would want to do about it.

 

Men typically (on LS) have an issue but instead go on a rant about anyone of the same gender as the person they have or had their issue with and put up a barrier against advice or inquiry by inviting readers to instead add more attacks and internet high fives about the gender of the person who hurt or angered them. Others can share but only if they support the claims of the OP. Any who don't follow this are suggested to be of defect in some manner.

[taiko]

There is no such thing as obligation in a happy and equal partnership/relationship.

 

Something happened recently where I started to truly see the meaning of this. Last year, I tore my achilles' playing basketball. I was in a wheelchair/crutches for over a month before and after surgery. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. I was so helpless and felt so useless. Going to the bathroom was an ordeal and something as simple as getting a glass of water was a workout when you're on crutches. I'm a very independent person and hate having to rely on someone for basic needs. But there's just so much you can do when confined to crutches/wheelchair and eventually my wife had to take care of me. She had to get our 6 year old (at the time) to school every morning, take care of our 4 year old, run her business (which she is a sole prop), AND take care of me. And she did it all...without complaining, without getting frustrated at me, and without any expectation of getting anything in return. She did it because she loved me and she wanted to make me feel as comfortable as possible because she knew that it wasn't easy for me to be confined like that when I used to be so active.

 

But, there was another part to it. Something that I asked her about later on. She said that one of the reasons why she did all of that, with no problems, was because she knew I didn't EXPECT her to...that I never made it seem like she was SUPPOSED to take care of me or was OBLIGATED to do so. Every little thing she did for me, I was so grateful and thankful for and I vowed to make it up to her (and I did by doing most of the "chores" for several weeks after I was well enough to get around). And everything she did for me, she did out of love, not out of necessity or obligation.

 

 

What is this but the "for the better or the worse, in sickness and in health" obligation clause in the traditional western marriage ceremony.

[SoMovinOn]

If you're married, and you really care about your partner's happiness and the well-being of the marriage, there will be times that one has sort of obligatory sex.

 

If your partner cares about your happiness, what pleasure could they really get from forcing you to have sex with them? That's rape, not sex.

[MissBee]

There is no such thing as obligation in a happy and equal partnership/relationship.

 

Something happened recently where I started to truly see the meaning of this. Last year, I tore my achilles' playing basketball. I was in a wheelchair/crutches for over a month before and after surgery. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. I was so helpless and felt so useless. Going to the bathroom was an ordeal and something as simple as getting a glass of water was a workout when you're on crutches. I'm a very independent person and hate having to rely on someone for basic needs. But there's just so much you can do when confined to crutches/wheelchair and eventually my wife had to take care of me. She had to get our 6 year old (at the time) to school every morning, take care of our 4 year old, run her business (which she is a sole prop), AND take care of me. And she did it all...without complaining, without getting frustrated at me, and without any expectation of getting anything in return. She did it because she loved me and she wanted to make me feel as comfortable as possible because she knew that it wasn't easy for me to be confined like that when I used to be so active.

 

But, there was another part to it. Something that I asked her about later on. She said that one of the reasons why she did all of that, with no problems, was because she knew I didn't EXPECT her to...that I never made it seem like she was SUPPOSED to take care of me or was OBLIGATED to do so. Every little thing she did for me, I was so grateful and thankful for and I vowed to make it up to her (and I did by doing most of the "chores" for several weeks after I was well enough to get around). And everything she did for me, she did out of love, not out of necessity or obligation.

 

Our love for each other grew stronger since that point (something we have both talked about and discovered). It's like we knew that we would always be there for each other...not out of necessity, but because it's what we wanted to do. Because it makes us happy to make us happy. And I think that truly defines what a pure and loving relationship should be like.

 

This is so beautiful and expresses my own sentiments.

 

When you're dating someone, you're excited about that person, you get to know them, you usually see them as a separate individual, you're happy to spend time with them, you want to have sex and when you do stuff for each other, you usually don't act like "well duh, they're supposed to". You treat them as someone valuable, that you don't own and who chooses freely to be with you, as you do them and you do things because you like doing it. Your marriage seems to have retained that quality and probably that's what a lot of great marriages have in common: not taking each other for granted and not believing you now have a contracted sex and domestic slave.

[Robert Z]

But, there was another part to it. Something that I asked her about later on. She said that one of the reasons why she did all of that, with no problems, was because she knew I didn't EXPECT her to...that I never made it seem like she was SUPPOSED to take care of me or was OBLIGATED to do so. Every little thing she did for me, I was so grateful and thankful for and I vowed to make it up to her (and I did by doing most of the "chores" for several weeks after I was well enough to get around). And everything she did for me, she did out of love, not out of necessity or obligation.

 

My point exactly, a person should be willing to do these things out of love. If not, then don't pretend to love your spouse. That is exactly what I mean by obligation. That is how one should act if they love someone. What she did was nothing special. It was the least she could do.

 

And how would you feel if she hadn't been willing to do these things and thought that was perfectly acceptable. If you sat there in pain, oh well. If you needed her, oh well. That is the equivalent question at hand.

[Robert Z]

not taking each other for granted and not believing you now have a contracted sex and domestic slave.

 

Women are taking their husbands for granted. That is also part of the point. No one is talking about slaves here. We are talking about basic human decency and the claim that a wife loves her husband.

 

If she doesn't give a damn about his needs, how can she claim to love him? Or are you saying masturbation is good enough? That can replace human intimacy?

[Robert Z]

If your partner cares about your happiness, what pleasure could they really get from forcing you to have sex with them? That's rape, not sex.

 

Ah, yet more ridiculousness. Now we have moved into forced rape. The rationalizations that some women will use never cease to amaze me.

 

You are being irrational.

[Robert Z]

When you're dating you have sex with your partner because you want to. Because you're attracted to them, turned on and that's one way you bond. It's something pleasurable that you enjoy. I don't see why when you're married, sex should move from wanting to/enjoying it to a married obligation.

 

Sex is not obligatory when dating, neither should it be when married. When married, sex should still be something you do because you want to, because you're turned on, it's pleasurable and it's a way to connect. The issue is setting the right environment in your marriage where both you and your partner want to have sex in a natural way, and natural to me is not the obligatory kind of sex.

 

Like so many here you are ignoring the point. You are only thinking of the woman.

 

What is a man supposed to do when a woman loses interest in sex due to biology or other factors beyond the man's control? Are you suggesting that men should just dump their wives when the change comes?

 

Based on the some of the attitudes expressed here, one would be inclined to conclude that many women, perhaps most, lie about loving their husbands in the first place.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

It seems to me that the popular opinion is that no one has any responsibilities to another. Wedding vows are just words. Love means nothing unless I feel like it at the moment. If I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling and have Hallmark poems running through my head, I should just be selfish. It is all about what I feel like at the time and nothing more. It is all about me, me, me.

 

That is the meaning of love, according to popular opinion. And that was certainly my ex's attitude. That I waited so long to leave was the biggest mistake I've made, and that was the direct result of brain washing and rationalization like that seen by some women in this thread. But I fell for the last of those cliche manipulations and rationalizations long ago. What is being argued is nothing but a cop out to avoid any responsibility.

 

Is it any wonder most marriages will probably fail given this lack of personal responsibility?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Robert Z

[Els]

Here's an excerpt from the OP, for clarity:

 

"While a woman isn't obligated to have sex as a function only of being a wife, I think she does have that obligation as a function of loving her husband and recognizing his needs. Many women seem to feel, especially as they get older, or sometimes after having a child, that men can just do for themselves. If women don't feel like having sex, or if they have lost their drive, which is extremely common, too bad for Johnny."

 

It sounds like the OP is agreeing to specifying the 'obligation' to be a function of 'loving her husband and recognizing his needs'.

 

The thing is that this poster is notorious for saying the most incendiary and revealing things, and then backtracking a few posts later into a perfectly reasonable stand that is completely different from his previous post, before repeating the cycle all over again. Sounds to me like the reasonable posts come out when he has nothing left to say and wants to get people to agree with him, so he backtracks and insists that he 'actually means this'. This would have worked, had he not persistently reverted to square one in other posts.

 

These are two of his posts in the other thread that spawned this (to me, at least):

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/general/general-relationship-discussion/333281-would-you-give-up-porn-if-your-loved-one-asked-5.html#post4087897

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/general/general-relationship-discussion/333281-would-you-give-up-porn-if-your-loved-one-asked-2.html#post4086565

 

Some of the most notable excerpts from those posts would be:

 

Why does it matter if your loins are fired? His needs exist whether you're fired up or not.

 

Religion instructed women to be submissive to their husbands. Now submissive is a dirty word. It has everything to do with the discussion. Maybe if women were a little less liberated and a bit more considerate of men's needs, not so many men would need porn. But instead of recognizing that men need plain old sex, women want to always make it all about love and their needs. Many are unwilling to recognize that men have a different sexual nature.

 

Based on these, and many others in the other prostitute thread that I don't want to go back and dig through (because search links to inner pages are borked), I think many of us already have a view of where this poster is coming from. It's difficult to not let that view color our thoughts towards his other posts. Solely based on post alone, without considering context or poster, I would agree with some of his statements. The problem is that the other 90% of what he says is completely bonkers.

 

If you're married, and you really care about your partner's happiness and the well-being of the marriage, there will be times that one has sort of obligatory sex.

 

Like, you really are not wholeheartedly into it, but you know your partner really wants / needs it, and you are willing to put yourself out that way as an act of love and caring. Part of this, IMO, though, is the attitude that you are going to get into it as you go along - you are open to and actually expecting that, rather than doing the "dead and obligatory sex" behavior.

 

A partner is also obligated, IMO, to respect their loved ones feelings. If your partner (I refuse to even entertain the notion that men/husbands are entitled to sex and women/wives are obliged to service them that way, that just makes me sick and angry) really does not feel like having sex with you - maybe they are exhausted, upset, ill, or there are unresolved negative malingering between you - it is YOUR marital obligation to respect this and allow your partner the freedom to not have sex when they really need to not go there.

 

Both people need to be aware of what they are contributing, both positively and negatively to their sex life in a marriage. That sex life is going to include some waxing and waning. It's up to the people to learn new ways of keeping it fresh and on track. To BOTH of the people.

 

I completely agree with this. In such quasi-obligation sex, though, I would imagine that the person on the receiving end isn't insisting on receiving obligatory sex. Whole different mindset there. Basically, the OP is going into it with the mindset of 'who cares whether she wants sex now or not, she is obligated to have it whenever I want'. On the other hand, people whose partners lovingly provide them quasi-obligatory sex are not thinking in that manner at all - their partners are volunteering to do it and they are just appreciating it.

[Els]

I also find the blanket accusations towards the women here of being selfish, sex-hating fiends to be incredibly amusing. Anyone who has read the threads of the likes of CarrieT, MmeChaucer, Kamille, dreamingoftigers, etc, would know that they are anything but. I don't think most people here are saying that women should never bother having sex with their men. The issue here is the attitude of entitlement and selfishness of the OP, that makes it crystal clear why his wife was never interested in having sex with him. Of course, there could be other reasons as well, some perhaps her own fault (since there are other men who genuinely struggle in their sex lives by no fault of their own), but I'm sure his attitude would be one of them.

 

Point blank, there have been times when I had not really been in the mood, but the bf seduced me into it by lovingly doing all the things he knows I love in foreplay, so that I end up in the mood. There have been times when I was REALLY unable to participate (sore clit, heavy menstruation, etc), but offered to satisfy him - although he invariably declines in that case. Still, I would have not done any of that if he had been the 'Why does it matter if your loins are fired?' or 'women want to always make it all about love and their needs' sort of guy. I would actually not be with him in that case, but that's beside the point. The point is that anyone with the OP's attitude is just begging for celibacy (unless he pays for it).

[carhill]

Though not relevant to the topic, my understanding is that the OP is a man in his late 50's, out of a bad marriage and is well-positioned financially and can afford high-cost escorts and call girls. Perhaps, as I often do, he's reflecting upon dynamics from his past marriage and putting them into the context of discussions read here on LS, like the sexless marriage update I linked to prior, and started this thread as a result.

 

Except for known inflammatory posters, which should be reported, the guideline is divorcing topic from author. If one finds the author personally distasteful, then reward their prose with silence, or address the topic.

 

I'm now taking the advice offered in this thread, especially that about following how one feels, to give men similar advice when dealing with their wives and girlfriends. I think the advice has merit. Obligations are in the past, in my parent's generation; the old ways. Out with the old, in with the new. I can live with that. I'll get a good pre-nup and go with how I feel. It works.

[KungFuJoe]

My point exactly, a person should be willing to do these things out of love. If not, then don't pretend to love your spouse. That is exactly what I mean by obligation. That is how one should act if they love someone. What she did was nothing special. It was the least she could do.

 

And how would you feel if she hadn't been willing to do these things and thought that was perfectly acceptable. If you sat there in pain, oh well. If you needed her, oh well. That is the equivalent question at hand.

 

I think I know what you're getting at, but your posture is coming off as bitter.

 

One thing I want to say is...what my wife did for me WAS special. It was one of the most special things in the world to me. I'll never forget it and I will never stop thanking her for it. But, our relationship is full of special moments and we are both very thankful for being in each other's lives.

 

To answer the subject directly, my wife and I are both realists. We know what it means to keep the other person happy. We know that we can't just assume the other person will remain happy just because we are with them. I've never stopped trying to "impress" my wife and her me. You could say that the courting phase between us has never stopped. We both eat healthy and work out to keep in shape for each other. We also know that you need sex to maintain a healthy relationship because people have needs. I don't have a doubt in my head that even if she lost the desire to have sex for herself, she would not stop trying to please me, and vice versa.

 

So I agree with what you're saying, but I think people (including myself) have a problem with the word "obligation". It's not obligation that causes one to do something for the other person in a loving relationship. You don't do it because you HAVE to. You do it because you WANT to.

[MissBee]

Women are taking their husbands for granted. That is also part of the point. No one is talking about slaves here. We are talking about basic human decency and the claim that a wife loves her husband.

 

If she doesn't give a damn about his needs, how can she claim to love him? Or are you saying masturbation is good enough? That can replace human intimacy?

 

What women are you talking about?

 

Are you making a statement that all women take their husbands for granted? Are you talking about your own situation or what?

 

People have cited their personal experience within their own marriages that are opposite to your conclusion and your issues....so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you complaining about YOUR wife or just on behalf of all men whose wives don't have sex with them?

 

I find your initial and subsequent premises to be very narrow and unclear.

 

In any case, a marriage consists of more than sex, and just like any other marital issue, a couple needs to work on it together. I cannot speak for all people, but if sex became an area of concern in my marriage, I'd work to address it-- whether the problem was that my husband doesn't want it and I do (which you seem to ignore this reality that it's not always the woman who doesn't) or whether I've lost interest for biological reasons. If the reasons aren't biological...which they sometimes aren't...then that's probably due to other issues that need to be worked on.

 

The point is being obligated to have sex rubs most people the wrong way. And it seems like those people who feel that way are experiencing a lack of sex....maybe there is a correlation?

[Robert Z]

I also find the blanket accusations towards the women here of being selfish, sex-hating fiends to be incredibly amusing. Anyone who has read the threads of the likes of CarrieT, MmeChaucer, Kamille, dreamingoftigers, etc, would know that they are anything but.

 

I never said anything about sex hating fiends. That you can't even keep your basic facts straight speaks volumes to your bias. And women who still have a healthy sex drive aren't the issue.

 

The fact is that I went out of my way to make clear that biololgy plays a large role here. That you would lie to support your position is just more typical manipulation to avoid the truth.

 

I don't think most people here are saying that women should never bother having sex with their men. The issue here is the attitude of entitlement and selfishness of the OP, that makes it crystal clear why his wife was never interested in having sex with him.

 

Again, your bias is obvious. You know nothing about my relationship. And it is pure sexism to assume that you would be in any position to know. My attitude now is one that has evolved through wisdom and experience. It is what I have learned after a quarter of a century of being abused in a marriage, and after buying into bull like this from people like you for most of my life, not the least of which being my former wife. I have outgrown your arguments. Sorry.

 

Point blank, there have been times when I had not really been in the mood, but the bf seduced me into it by lovingly doing all the things he knows I love in foreplay, so that I end up in the mood.

 

Typically, you are still ignoring the main issue. You still had a sex drive. And through nothing but sexism, pure and simple, you assume that men deprived of sex deserve to be deprived. Again, pure sexism. THAT is like something right out of the 1950s, but with the sexes reversed.

[SoMovinOn]

Ah, yet more ridiculousness. Now we have moved into forced rape. The rationalizations that some women will use never cease to amaze me.

 

You are being irrational.

 

What about the logic us guys use?

 

Can you rationally clarify how forcing someone to have sex with you is anything other than rape?

[SoMovinOn]

What is a man supposed to do when a woman loses interest in sex due to biology or other factors beyond the man's control? Are you suggesting that men should just dump their wives when the change comes?

 

What do you suppose a woman should do when her H's noodle goes limp permanently? Isn't he still obligated to fulfill her sexual needs? Should she demand he do so?

[Robert Z]

I think I know what you're getting at, but your posture is coming off as bitter.

 

I am bitter! I threw away half of my life because I trusted in the love of a woman... because I bought into the crap people are trying to sell in this thread. How would you feel?

[WalkingOnEggs]

What do you suppose a woman should do when her H's noodle goes limp permanently? Isn't he still obligated to fulfill her sexual needs? Should she demand he do so?

I would say that he should do everything he can, yes. I don't know that it's so much the inability that's the problem. It's the unwillingness. If the man just refuses to get himself checked out and see what he can do about the condition, then he's at fault, IMO. If nothing can be done, then he could at least be willing to get her to orgasm in other ways that he's able. To just shrug and say "Oh well" is a cop-out.

 

The real problem I see with these sexless marriages is that the wife knows damn well that it's a problem for the husband but that she simply doesn't care. And of course nobody is suggesting sex on demand. Of course the wife should be able to not feel like it every so often, that's just obvious.

 

The real problem is when she almost never feels like it, or when she does do her "duty" it feels just like that. Doing her duty. Her unwillingness to do anything about it is a way of saying she doesn't care for her husband that much.

 

I think it's a bit disingenuous for the women to play dumb all of the sudden when it comes to sex. They certainly didn't enter the marriage thinking their husbands would someday be happy going from sex once a day to sex once a month (if that). Sex is an important part of the marriage. The husband is expected to remain faithful to his wife for the rest of his life. Denying sex is forcing him to be celibate. There is no way any wife doesn't realize this.

 

And if something is bothering them that really turns them off, then they need to be clear about that with the husband. Most guys are not good mind readers.

 

Now if the wife really doesn't want sex with her husband, she can't verbalize why, she like things as they are .. then fine. Please at least be honest with him so he knows to stop trying. Then also give him hall passes, because it's probably going to happen anyway.

Edited July 18, 2012 by WalkingOnEggs

[123321]

No fault divorce is a huge issue here; if the owman stops feeling like having sex, the man can either stop, cheat, or resign himself to writing support checks for a very long time.

 

If it was as simple as "if she's gone bad move on", there would be a lot less cheating and a lot more dissolutions.

 

 

Sadly, I don't think Islamic nations would be the OP's cup of tea, since there are severe penalties for engagement with prostitutes there, and husbands are also 'obligated' to provide for their wives financially for as long as they remain married.

 

He might be OK, he seems to have some money and he could probably have a few wives, and if they go bad he can trade them in.

[Els]

I never said anything about sex hating fiends. That you can't even keep your basic facts straight speaks volumes to your bias. And women who still have a healthy sex drive aren't the issue.

 

The fact is that I went out of my way to make clear that biololgy plays a large role here. That you would lie to support your position is just more typical manipulation to avoid the truth.

 

 

 

Again, your bias is obvious. You know nothing about my relationship. And it is pure sexism to assume that you would be in any position to know. My attitude now is one that has evolved through wisdom and experience. It is what I have learned after a quarter of a century of being abused in a marriage, and after buying into bull like this from people like you for most of my life, not the least of which being my former wife. I have outgrown your arguments. Sorry.

 

 

 

Typically, you are still ignoring the main issue. You still had a sex drive. And through nothing but sexism, pure and simple, you assume that men deprived of sex deserve to be deprived. Again, pure sexism. THAT is like something right out of the 1950s, but with the sexes reversed.

 

Saying that your attitude of selfishness and entitlement is only going to accomplish the opposite of what you intend is sexism? You're right, that's like something out of the 50s, except with the genders reversed. You sound exactly like an extremist 'feminist' - porn is sexist, blowjobs are degrading to women and sexist, bras are sexist.

 

If you construe sexism as telling you hard truths about what I perceive about you based on your posts (note that I have said precisely nothing negative about all men, only about you), then I am indeed proudly a sexist.

[Els]

 

He might be OK, he seems to have some money and he could probably have a few wives, and if they go bad he can trade them in.

 

Hrm, good point. Perhaps he might like to migrate to Saudi Arabia then? Not all Islamic countries would be suitable, but radical Islamic states like Saudi and Iraq might.

[123321]

Hrm, good point. Perhaps he might like to migrate to Saudi Arabia then? Not all Islamic countries would be suitable, but radical Islamic states like Saudi and Iraq might.

 

I doubt the marital restrictions would be an issue but I suspect the other quality of life restrictions would be not so marvelous.

[KungFuJoe]

I am bitter! I threw away half of my life because I trusted in the love of a woman... because I bought into the crap people are trying to sell in this thread. How would you feel?

 

I would be pretty damn bitter, too. But at least you're not with that woman anymore. And not all women are the same. There are some very good ones out there and I like to think that I found one of them.