Sex deprivation- is it an abuse ?

[Taramere]

Funny how we sympathize with a BS who can't "just leave," but a person starved for intimacy is a volunteer.

 

Cheating suggests a problematic, dysfunctional marriage (even if the problems and dysfunctions are purely the cheating partner's)...but in that scenario the marriage isn't necessarily dead. There may well still be plenty of emotional and physical intimacy between the spouses, despite the presence on the sidelines of an affair partner (or affair partners). But if there's no longer intimacy and affection in a marriage, then one or both people have already checked out of it. Actually checking out formally, by separating and raising a divorce action, is a whole different ball game. Your husband should have been the one to do that, since he was the one who had emotionally and physically checked out. Unfortunately, he just let the situation drag on until you couldn't deal with it any longer.

 

If he had told you years ago something like "I don't feel connected to you any more, and I don't want to carry on feigning a marriage with somebody I've become so disconnected from" would that have felt abusive to you, or would it be honesty that you could benefit from in terms of detaching yourself decisively at an earlier stage? I think it's laudable to work at a relationship, but only up to a point. When you're the only one who seems to value the relationship enough to put that work in, then the kind of effort that should normally earn you respect and appreciation will start to earn you lack of respect and even contempt from the other person. Which is a terrible dynamic...and one that certainly underpins a lot of abusive behaviour in relationships. Lack of respect is, after all, very often at the root of abusive behaviour. Whether that's withholding affection in a very spiteful and deliberate way, or hitting somebody or abusing them sexually.

 

I would guess that a lot of people here have, at some point, kept trying in a relationship or marriage after the wiser course (with the benefit of hindsight) would have been to recognise "this is done" and knock the thing on the head. I certainly did (persevere) years back with somebody who very evidently didn't respect either me or the relationship, and who had cheated on me to demonstrate it. At the time, I saw myself as a strong woman who was trying to save her relationship. He saw me as a desperate woman who was trying to save a dead relationship. That's exactly how he put it - and it was a shock, because we'd been involved for years, and we had a very active sex life until very close to the time we broke up. However, when he decided it was dead it was very sudden and the message was delivered in a very nasty way (the cheating, the comments he made).

 

If I could turn back the clock, I would have just walked away the moment he disclosed he'd cheated. I wouldn't have tried to discuss it, or tried to salvage the relationship. I would have just walked. But I didn't....and in that sense I kept myself (albeit for a matter of days rather than weeks, months or years) in destructive and horrible situation after which I had all the terrible feelings you would normally associate with being abused.

 

In some ways I suppose his behaviour at that point could have been described as emotionally abusive. In fact, when I think on some of the stuff that happened over those few days - there's really little doubt about it. When people want out of a relationship, but they don't have the courage to say it outright, they will sometimes employ pretty abusive methods of chasing the other person away. Deliberately doing stuff that they know will hurt that person. The longer you leave it before severing ties with somebody who's doing that to you, the worse you will begin to feel. Whether or not the other person's behaviour should be labelled as abusive, you will have all those feelings associated with being abused.

 

I really think that's the message people are trying to give here. "Is it abuse?" gives rise to debate over what should and shouldn't be defined as abuse. "I feel abused" calls not so much for debate as to what abuse means, but for contemplation of what the next step for the person feeling abused should be. I can't envisage a time that there would ever be any sort of law (as I think Carhill is suggesting there should be) where withholding sex would be classed as an offence for which some sort of penalty should be imposed. The notion of laws compelling people to have sex that they don't want to have - or risk being penalised for abusing the person who wants to have sex with them, and is being frustrated...it's impossible to see how that could ever fit into a civilised society.

 

Raising awareness of the emotional impact on people in marriages to partners who are withholding sex/affection is something entirely different. That could be extremely beneficial to many people. But I think driving to label the person refusing to have sex as an abuser can only ever have a polarising effect.

[travelbug1996]

So I volunteered to be starved, I chose to stay because I like torture (it couldn't possibly be because I wanted to honor my marriage vows in spite of the pain), and now I see how much better someone like you is than a volunteer like me.

 

You should be a motivational speaker

 

Any pretzel we can twist into to avoid saying that sexual refusal is flat out WRONG

 

 

I never said I was better than you. In fact, I used to be a motivational speaker but now I'm a successful business owner. lol

 

I totally agree that it is wrong to deprive your partner of the basics of love sex and affection in a relationship. It is extremely cruel to treat someone in such a manner. The person being treated in such a manner is not powerless to change their circumstances.

[travelbug1996]

Funny how we sympathize with a BS who can't "just leave," but a person starved for intimacy is a volunteer.

 

 

Personally, I don't sympathize with anyone who doesn't make changes to make their lives better. I have only one life to live and it won't be in a dysfunctional unhealthy relationship. Have I been in a couple in my lifetime? Sure, but I have learned my lesson.

[autumnnight]

Personally, I don't sympathize with anyone who doesn't make changes to make their lives better. I have only one life to live and it won't be in a dysfunctional unhealthy relationship. Have I been in a couple in my lifetime? Sure, but I have learned my lesson.

 

Me too...finally. It took me a long time to eschew the constraints that my upbringing still had on me, convincing me that staying in misery was more noble. It was amazing how much more peaceful everyone became when I moved on.

[carhill]

I really think that's the message people are trying to give here. "Is it abuse?" gives rise to debate over what should and shouldn't be defined as abuse. "I feel abused" calls not so much for debate as to what abuse means, but for contemplation of what the next step for the person feeling abused should be. I can't envisage a time that there would ever be any sort of law (as I think Carhill is suggesting there should be) where withholding sex would be classed as an offence for which some sort of penalty should be imposed. The notion of laws compelling people to have sex that they don't want to have - or risk being penalised for abusing the person who wants to have sex with them, and is being frustrated...it's impossible to see how that could ever fit into a civilised society.

 

Raising awareness of the emotional impact on people in marriages to partners who are withholding sex/affection is something entirely different. That could be extremely beneficial to many people. But I think driving to label the person refusing to have sex as an abuser can only ever have a polarising effect.

 

For clarity, my assertions were regarding individuals collectively making social changes through the legal process, like we experienced when the once-commonplace and legal act of disciplining women with physical violence became what we now know as domestic violence, and illegal.

 

In order for a passive act, like denial of sex, to have any traction in that realm, sex would have to be deemed an elementary part of survival, like food and water, and I seriously doubt that would ever happen.

 

That said, the legal definition of an abuse is one matter, a matter for the courts to interpret, and the layperson definition can be completely different and wider in scope. People decide that, socially. Personally, I think it's a stretch to label denial of sex as abuse but apparently some people feel it is abusive and define it that way socially. The sticky wicket, with any of this 'denial of xxx' stuff is that we apply the label equally, regardless of gender. Hence, a man who denies his wife sex is no more or less abusive than a wife who denies her husband sex. Rinse and repeat for any other denial, like affection, empathy, care, pick your description. A lack of any, rather than a an overt act, would necessarily avoid the abuse label since we're defining lack of action/word as lack of abuse. Is a man who gives his wife the 'silent treatment' abusing her? Food for thought. He's simply silent.

[travelbug1996]

Is a man who gives his wife the 'silent treatment' abusing her? Food for thought. He's simply silent.

 

 

Prime example: My ex gave me the silent treatment once and I explained to him that it was unacceptable and 3 months later he did it again and I broke up with him.

 

Allowing someone to stonewall/silent treatment you is not abuse. Allowing yourself to be stonewalled/silent treated, is more like self dishonor. Even if one verbally says "don't treat me like that" but stick around after being treated in such a way, they are indirectly condoning the behavior.

[Taramere]

The sticky wicket, with any of this 'denial of xxx' stuff is that we apply the label equally, regardless of gender. Hence, a man who denies his wife sex is no more or less abusive than a wife who denies her husband sex. Rinse and repeat for any other denial, like affection, empathy, care, pick your description. A lack of any, rather than a an overt act, would necessarily avoid the abuse label since we're defining lack of action/word as lack of abuse. Is a man who gives his wife the 'silent treatment' abusing her? Food for thought. He's simply silent.

 

I agree. It's impossible to keep any sort of relationship completely free of the kind of behaviours that somebody somewhere will define as abusive, dysfunctional, passive aggressive or whatever else. At some point, conflict will arise - and how successfully the people involved handle that conflict has a major impact on their relationship. It will also help them identify whether they're compatible for the long haul.

 

Some people will go into silent, withdrawn mode when they're upset...for no reason other than that they need a little space and privacy to work through things. If a partner who finds that hard to handle persistently tries to reach out to them during one of those periods, then the person in need of the space will feel disrespected and intruded upon. However, the other person has needs too. If a pattern emerges where they are consistently prioritising the other person's need for space, alone time etc above their own needs for support, companionship, affection etc then that's not really a healthy adult relationship.

 

For me, if somebody goes quiet on me, the natural reaction is to respond in kind...because in my mind if they've gone quiet, either they need space (which I ought to respect and not intrude upon) or they're playing a game which I ought not to indulge. However, sometimes people go silent because they really just don't know how else to express pain or handle problems they're experiencing. With those people, if you reach out to them they will tend to be immensely appreciative. It can be difficult to know when it's right to reach out, and whether you should avoid doing so. It can be hugely difficult to know when to keep holding on and when to let go.

 

My parents' dog (who I had a very strong bond with) died recently. For about ten minutes I kept stroking her fur and holding her paws, even though her eyes had turned lifeless and she wasn't blinking any more. It was the hardest thing, to bury her. To accept that something I had loved so much, and which had been such an important part of my life, was gone forever. The love which made me visit daily (to check she was being properly cared for, getting enough exercise etc - my parents are elderly and sometimes forgetful) was a strength. But when it kept me stroking her fur and delaying the horrible task of burying her well after she had clearly died....it started to become a weakness. It was causing pain to other people who couldn't bear to watch me trying to love a dead thing back to life.

 

It behooves us to have a little understanding of that when we urge other people to just let go and get over it, when they're struggling with the difficult task of letting go. But some of the posts on here show what happens when you hold on for too long, and maintain the illusion that continuing to hold on is a strength - an act of integrity - as opposed to an act of increasing stubbornness. How holding on for too long can create lasting resentment, and canstart to colour the person's perception of all sorts of things - including the efforts of well intended bystanders to provide advice and guidance. How the lasting sense of martyrdom or victimhood can create a toxic element in their communications with other people.

 

In a marriage where there are children who are constantly learning lessons from their parents about how to handle and conduct themselves in relationships and conflict, I should think it is particularly problematic in terms of storing up some major long term problems.

[autumnnight]

I have to wonder....do we believe that the women who are covered with bruises but go back to their husbands are volunteers? Would we really respond to them by saying "tough on ya, you chose it!"

 

I think that is what hurts. Because this hurt doesn't leave physical bruises and because, quite frankly, a lot of people choose to deny their spouses and justify it, we blame the starved spouse.

 

I spent years blaming myself, then I sought help only to have my efforts as a wife picked apart.

 

I no longer CARE what his possibly benign motive was. His rejection just about destroyed me. It is not MY side of the street that needed to be cleaned up.

 

I do not care if "maybe he this" or "maybe he that." He vowed to love, honor, and cherish me, and he rejected, starved, and neglected me.

 

That is that. I am allowed to be angry about that without having to feel like I chose my hurt or caused my hurt.

[xxoo]

Is a man who gives his wife the 'silent treatment' abusing her? Food for thought. He's simply silent.

 

I vote not abuse. But I'd still leave.

 

There are ways short of abuse to be a bad spouse. Neglect is one of them. Unless one spouse is disabled and dependent on the other for basic care, neglect isn't abuse between adults. If the relationship doesn't meet an adult's needs, it is an adult's responsibility to leave.

 

People who choose and stay with neglectful partners are still learning that last bit of adult responsibility. We don't turn 18 and suddenly have full development. Bad relationships that fall short of abusive are often part of the growing process, and lessons learned help with selecting and being healthier partners as we mature.

 

Think about this: if you stay with a sexually and emotionally neglectful partner, and you lay on guilt and continually pressure for sex, and they feel pressured into sex that they don't want....that may actually be sexually abusive. The right thing to do is leave. Pressuring for years is the wrong thing to do.

[elaine567]

Is a man who gives his wife the 'silent treatment' abusing her? Food for thought. He's simply silent.

 

Stonewalling is a recognised form of emotional abuse.

[carhill]

Then, if so, apply the logic to other interactions where 'lack of' or inaction applies, respecting the equality of gender in the analysis.

 

I found this bit of history, written nearly a century ago, to really help define where these debates come from and how much we've changed, and not changed, in the interim.

 

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3989&context=mulr

 

Reading, it brought up another issue I hadn't fully considered, that being 'Intention, Willfulness, and Malice', all factors which go to state of mind. Was the person denying their spouse/partner sex doing so willfully, with clear intention and with malice, or not? IDK. I can't read their mind. Did the recipient perceive the inaction or action as being willful, with intention and delivered with malice? Which perspective controls, if in disagreement? Do we interpret the 'truth' as being somewhere in the middle or does the perspective of one party or the other control?

[xxoo]

Then, if so, apply the logic to other interactions where 'lack of' or inaction applies, respecting the equality of gender in the analysis.

 

I found this bit of history, written nearly a century ago, to really help define where these debates come from and how much we've changed, and not changed, in the interim.

 

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3989&context=mulr

 

Reading, it brought up another issue I hadn't fully considered, that being 'Intention, Willfulness, and Malice', all factors which go to state of mind. Was the person denying their spouse/partner sex doing so willfully, with clear intention and with malice, or not? IDK. I can't read their mind. Did the recipient perceive the inaction or action as being willful, with intention and delivered with malice? Which perspective controls, if in disagreement? Do we interpret the 'truth' as being somewhere in the middle or does the perspective of one party or the other control?

 

One thing that has changed from 1933 until now is that we don't have to worry about legal grounds for divorce!

 

Abuse can be criminal, and often is.

[autumnnight]

I vote not abuse. But I'd still leave.

 

There are ways short of abuse to be a bad spouse. Neglect is one of them. Unless one spouse is disabled and dependent on the other for basic care, neglect isn't abuse between adults. If the relationship doesn't meet an adult's needs, it is an adult's responsibility to leave.

 

People who choose and stay with neglectful partners are still learning that last bit of adult responsibility. We don't turn 18 and suddenly have full development. Bad relationships that fall short of abusive are often part of the growing process, and lessons learned help with selecting and being healthier partners as we mature.

 

Think about this: if you stay with a sexually and emotionally neglectful partner, and you lay on guilt and continually pressure for sex, and they feel pressured into sex that they don't want....that may actually be sexually abusive. The right thing to do is leave. Pressuring for years is the wrong thing to do.

 

Then it is a good thing I did not do this.

 

Really, people, is it THAT hard to believe that sometimes it is the REFUSER who is the selfish one??????????

[carhill]

I guess that's what the topic is asking - are labels like 'selfish', 'self-involved', 'insensitive', etc, etc, equal or equivalent to 'abusive' in scope and effect? IOW, is labeling someone an abuser similar to labeling them selfish? Why or why not?

 

IMO, an abuser can certainly be selfish and likely is; is a selfish person likely or certain to be an abuser? Is abuse a manifestation of selfishness? Always? Sometimes? What differentiates? Is it intention, willfulness and malice?

 

Does a spouse or partner who has no interest in sex and feels no ill will towards their spouse or partner and deprives the spouse/partner of sex simply by having no interest acting intentionally, willfully and with malice?

 

We plowed through a lot of this stuff in MC when I was feeling emotionally ignored and abandoned and struggled to differentiate what was willful and intentionally malicious from what was simply a neutral abyss. IMO, perceptions of sex can be worked similarly.

[autumnnight]

I guess that's what the topic is asking - are labels like 'selfish', 'self-involved', 'insensitive', etc, etc, equal or equivalent to 'abusive' in scope and effect? IOW, is labeling someone an abuser similar to labeling them selfish? Why or why not?

 

IMO, an abuser can certainly be selfish and likely is; is a selfish person likely or certain to be an abuser? Is abuse a manifestation of selfishness? Always? Sometimes? What differentiates? Is it intention, willfulness and malice?

Does a spouse or partner who has no interest in sex and feels no ill will towards their spouse or partner and deprives the spouse/partner of sex simply by having no interest acting intentionally, willfully and with malice?

 

We plowed through a lot of this stuff in MC when I was feeling emotionally ignored and abandoned and struggled to differentiate what was willful and intentionally malicious from what was simply a neutral abyss. IMO, perceptions of sex can be worked similarly.

 

This question actually made me think, and thank you for framing it in such a neutral and thoughtful way.

 

At the core, before all the strife, I do think this was probably the case. For my marriage, the lack of intimacy affected me deeply, and I pulled back, then would try to get close and fix me/us, then pull back again because it hurt...etc. My disconnect and disappointment that marriage for me was not going to actually BE marriage in the way I had observed growing up (i.e. a romantic partnership), I know I became withdrawn, resentful, and yes, at times I lashed out.

 

It became a cycle. I would let down the walls and try to draw him in, I would try NOT to want intimacy, I would pray that God would remove my drive....none of that worked. Meanwhile our connection deteriorated. Then he did become passive aggressive about it. Add to that his passivity in general, his overall laziness, my resentment over shouldering more and more....

 

Sex was not the only thing wrong in our marriage. But I truly believe we might have weathered some of the other challenges if there had been intimacy and a real marriage.

 

An affair is a giant bludgeon to the head of a marrriage. Sexual refusal that is not addressed is like a thousand tiny cuts that eventually just bleed out.

[dreamingoftigers]

I wish now he had just cheated on me repeatedly. Because my long term sexual betrayal apparently wasn't "real" hurt.

 

It's about the same frankly. Had it both ways.

[autumnnight]

It's about the same frankly. Had it both ways.

 

I think my hurt would have been worse. But maybe others would have been more compassionate....