Prudie, I'm Ashamed!

[cijay]

It's an overstatement to say he deserves/has a right to someone who will do everything he wishes. What's so different about his attitude than anyone else's whose spouse has stopped having sex?

I think it's rather an overstatement to say he doesn't deserve his wife just because she has reclaimed her body. Like, she won't screw him so he doesn't deserve her? What about some of the other reasons they've been together for 30 years? Does not wanting to screw him cancel the others out?

But as I read it, they've had sex in the distant past and she's changed from wanting/allowing it infrequently to never.

Yes, they've had sex in the past but I beg of you to find in the article where she wanted it. (allowing it is by no means the same as 'wanting' it, that's just 'obedience'...perhaps fear of letting him down? Maybe she finally realised it's her body and took control.) The whole article is from his point of view, we know nothing of her side...some women experience severe pain and are scared to say anything for fear of having to face surgery that'll make her (in some peoples' eyes) "less of a woman." (if he vowed 'in sickness or in health, he's dropping the ball there, too) maybe he stinks like a wagonload of rotten turnips or he's a really crappy lover and she has TRIED to tell him. We don't know, her side isn't represented and obviously he didn't think of that when he said 'for better or worse'. But to say he's not deservant of her sounds like he doesn't deserve anything about her if she doesn't screw him.

[Guest]

Most likely what is happening is she's saying "You have enough invested in me and our family, that I can deny you something that I've never much enjoyed anyway without fear of you leaving, and if you do, so what. I only had sex with you to get/keep you interested in me and now you don't have better options" That's not love. Good for her? Cate, are you comparing her husband to a rapist? Because he wants sex like the vast majority of the population? He needs to be understanding (and with 11 years of no sex, he sounds pretty understanding to me) and she needs to see if she can increase her interest in sex, or failing that, she needs to communicate that she loves him anyway, because many sexual people feel that denial of sex or physical affection is evidence that their partner no longer loves them. We don't have to understand this to know that it's true.

[Kombucha2000]

thread tried to hide.

[Zorya Vechernyaya]

The guy deserves sympathy, not his wife.

I believe you're misinterpreting the comment, it's funny.

(Sorry, I am an English geek)

I believe it is supposed to be read "he, not his wife, deserves sympathy" not "not his wife, he deserves sympathy"

See what word order can do? It's interesting because - oh all right.

I think there is a lot of jumping to the conclusion that she's asexual. People may avoid sex for various reasons, not only asexuality.

I also see a lot of people figuring that he's a nasty brute. But why? Most people enjoy and pursue sexual contact. It is perfectly reasonable for him to be upset as to why she did not.

A person, having the right to decide upon the use of their body, then also has the responsibility of enforcing their decisions. If she has not communicated her decision about the issue of sex, how is he a brute for wanting it?

Maybe she finally realised it's her body and took control.

Well, something going on for eleven years is not "finally".

The decent thing for her to do would be to communicate her decision, as it obviously affects him. On the other hand, the decent thing for him to do is to communicate his own preferences to her in a reasonable manner, rather than simpering and hoping for the best.

[Guest]

All this talk about obedience and rape and reclaiming her body. I don't understand it-it sounds like antisexuality more than asexuality. He just wants to have a sex life with her like the vast majority of married people. Also, it's a given that we only know his side of the story. But this is all that we have and when it was presented, Cate was disagreeing with him as he presented it. Well, as he presented it, I think he wants something very normal and I agree with the commentator's assessment of it.

Witholding sex (whether we're talking about the man or the woman) has always been excellent grounds for divorce, even when divorce was harder to obtain. I'm not arguing that she must "submit" to something that she finds degrading. I'm saying she should recognize that not having sex with him is a serious issue for him and that he entered this marriage with the reasonable expectation that they would have sex at least occasionally. It sounds like he can't even kiss her. She can go to counselors or doctors like her husband wants, she can try to be more receptive to physical affection, and if she still can't stand the idea of this, she can try to communicate love for him in some other way. That's probably more important to him than the issue of sex anyway. She's in a different boat than most of the asexuals here in that she entered into a lifetime commitment with a sexual person and had sex with him early in their marriage. He needs to think about her (and I think he is) but she needs to think about him, too.

[dastraube]

On October 10th, Cate posted a similar article from Dear Prudence in which a husband was no longer having sex with his wife and his wife was complaining. In her response to this October 10th article, Cate said he was wrong not to have communicated his lack of interest in sex prior to their marriage and called him a pig. So why does the man get called a pig in the first article and the woman in the second article gets support while her husband is attacked? I think there is obvious gender bias here.

[pejoratist]

On October 10th, Cate posted a similar article from Dear Prudence in which a husband was no longer having sex with his wife and his wife was complaining. In her response to this October 10th article, Cate said he was wrong not to have communicated his lack of interest in sex prior to their marriage and called him a pig. So why does the man get called a pig in the first article and the woman in the second article gets support while her husband is attacked? I think there is obvious gender bias here.

Very true, dastraube. Both partners in both scenarios should be blamed for their lack of communication.

[Cate Perfect]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

[Silly Green Monkey]

The cases could be very different, the earlier article mentions that the man knew he had no interest in sex before he married but failed to tell her. The woman in the second article might not have known, she might have been told all her life that all she needed was the 'right' man and she would become a nymphomaniac.

[Guest]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

As you should know, no one here has made this argument. You're using a debating tactic where you invent a bad argument against your stance and then attack it. You're also being sarcastic which is a way to belittle others.

I think it's sad that you are keyed on rights and not on ways to show love and give. People in a relationship need to give and love and nurture each other. It's quite possible that she can't give in the way her husband wishes, but she could try, or she could show love in other ways. And equally, her husband needs to love and give to her. I think the problem this couple is facing is not uncommon and the solution or outcome will be different for each couple. However, unless each person in a marriage tries to give and love, they don't have much of a relationship.

[Shockwave]

Elusive, disappearing thread.

[pejoratist]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

No one is saying that.

I think dastraube's point is that no single partner can take the blame that neither person is communicating their feelings(I know that is what I was suggesting, anyway). As you said earlier in this thread, partners need to talk with one another BEFORE marriage, and set the ground rules(if it's not really "till death do us part" you had better mention the exceptions). If such a discussion does not take place, then both parties are at fault.

[cijay]

I believe it is supposed to be read "he, not his wife, deserves sympathy" not "not his wife, he deserves sympathy"

Ohhhh :!: Oh oh oh!!! Okay...yes, I was...I apologize! I was looking at it in the English text that he deserved sympathy and not his wife...okay, I didn't say I'm brilliant!

Well, something going on for eleven years is not "finally".

Okay then...finally he woke up and realised she said no! You better believe it's final. Once you wake up and smell the coffee, it IS the end of a road. The start of a new one because you've now got to constantly remind yourself that you don't have to do anything you don't wish to...but the first road is definitely final. Hey, people go 20, 30, 40 years before they wake up and realise they've got permission to say 'no'...it's MOST liberating to learn your person doesn't belong to anyone.

And, no, we don't know anything about either of them. Only one side and just a few sentences at that. I think she already DID communicate her decision. We don't know what the condition was that made her say "hey, I don't HAVE to do this."

[Guest]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

You're ridiculing an argument that no one is making. Sarcasm just tears down people and it doesn't make a positive contribution to discussion.

You focus too much on rights. No one's contesting that she has rights to her body. I think it's more useful to talk about what one can do for one's spouse. How can you make them feel special and loved?

So she can be thinking thoughts like "I'm not going to let this guy pressure or guilt me into sex. I've had enough of him doing disgusting things with my body. I feel used and raped" or she can think "Sex is really disgusting for me and I'm never in the mood. However, I know my husband wants it. I know when he married me, he thought he'd have a sex life with me. I used to be able to have sex with him. What if anything can I do to get back to that point? I love him and I wonder how I might be able to show him physical affection in a way that at least shows him that I'm trying. If I can't do this for him, I want to show him I love him in other ways"

If he loves her, he'll be understanding and kind about her aversion to sex.

And at 11 years with no sex, he sounds to me like he's been understanding, even if he requests it now and then.

The thing is, if either one of them senses that the other is not acting in a loving and giving way, then the marriage is likely doomed. We don't know if she's feeling this from him, but I think he's got reason to wonder this of her. When sex is withheld from a sexual person, he or she often thinks that their partner doesn't love them like they used to. Not always, but sometimes this is the case, too.

[Cate Perfect]

Thread hided.

Cate

[Guest]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

I think that sarcasm gets in the way of discussion. As you must know, no one is suggesting what you say here.

You and Cijay focus too much on rights. We all have rights to our bodies, but in a marriage (and I'm talking about the typical marriage where there is sexual union) it is a loving act to try to not always exert this right. I think married couples should think more about their partner's needs and wants and try to be loving and giving.

The woman in this article could think "I'm never going to have sex again. It's disgusting and degrading. I feel violated and used. He's not going to guilt me into it either. Does he think he owns me?" or she can think "Sex to me is really disgusting and I'm never in the mood. Unfortunately, my husband still wants it and it's a normal want. I love him and am concerned with his needs as well as my own. He married me thinking we would have sex at least occasionally and I want him to have a sex life but he won't unless he leaves me or cheats on me or I make a change. I used to have sex with him. Can I get back to that point somehow? If not, can I show him some physical affection, let him touch me sometimes and at least he'll know I'm trying? Or if I can't do that, I can show him that I love him some other way, but I want to make sure he knows how I feel about him".

He needs to be thinking about her just as much. He needs to communicate his love in ways she will appreciate, including being sensitive to her feelings about sex.

Sure, there may be more to the story that we don't know. She may be making most of the money, doing the housework, raising the kids, giving, giving, giving, and not be able to give in this way that she finds degrading.

That's the type of thing a marriage counselor might point out if they explored that avenue. But we only have what he wrote Prudence. If we're to talk about this at all we have to assume that the relevant facts have been presented.

On the face of it, he's the one who for 11 years has not had a sex life while she has had the sort of sex life (abstinence) that she has wanted. Asexuals (if she's asexual) can love someone just as much as sexuals, but from what I've heard many times, it is natural and common for a sexual person to wonder if they are loved the same when their partner stops having sex with them. I think he feels this way.

If either one of them begins to doubt that they are loved, then it's really close to it being over.

So how should this wind up for them? There's no one answer. They might wind up having a sex life together after all or maybe none at all. They could get a divorce. What I'm saying is that the important thing, if they love each other, is to communicate this love and each be as giving as possible. Where they wind up is secondary to this.

[Guest]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

I think that sarcasm gets in the way of discussion. As you must know, no one is suggesting what you say here.

You and Cijay focus too much on rights. We all have rights to our bodies, but in a marriage (and I'm talking about the typical marriage where there is sexual union) it is a loving act to try to not always exert this right. I think married couples should think more about their partner's needs and wants and try to be loving and giving.

The woman in this article could think "I'm never going to have sex again. It's disgusting and degrading. I feel violated and used. He's not going to guilt me into it either. Does he think he owns me?" or she can think "Sex to me is really disgusting and I'm never in the mood. Unfortunately, my husband still wants it and it's a normal want. I love him and am concerned with his needs as well as my own. He married me thinking we would have sex at least occasionally and I want him to have a sex life but he won't unless he leaves me or cheats on me or I make a change. I used to have sex with him. Can I get back to that point somehow? If not, can I show him some physical affection, let him touch me sometimes and at least he'll know I'm trying? Or if I can't do that, I can show him that I love him some other way, but I want to make sure he knows how I feel about him".

He needs to be thinking about her just as much. He needs to communicate his love in ways she will appreciate, including being sensitive to her feelings about sex.

Sure, there may be more to the story that we don't know. She may be making most of the money, doing the housework, raising the kids, giving, giving, giving, and not be able to give in this way that she finds degrading.

That's the type of thing a marriage counselor might point out if they explored that avenue. But we only have what he wrote Prudence. If we're to talk about this at all we have to assume that the relevant facts have been presented.

On the face of it, he's the one who for 11 years has not had a sex life while she has had the sort of sex life (abstinence) that she has wanted. Asexuals (if she's asexual) can love someone just as much as sexuals, but from what I've heard many times, it is natural and common for a sexual person to wonder if they are loved the same when their partner stops having sex with them. I think he feels this way.

If either one of them begins to doubt that they are loved, then it's really close to it being over.

So how should this wind up for them? There's no one answer. They might wind up having a sex life together after all or maybe none at all. They could get a divorce. What I'm saying is that the important thing, if they love each other, is to communicate this love and each be as giving as possible. Where they wind up is secondary to this.

[Guest]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

I think that sarcasm gets in the way of discussion. As you must know, no one is suggesting what you say here.

You and Cijay focus too much on rights. We all have rights to our bodies, but in a marriage (and I'm talking about the typical marriage where there is sexual union) it is a loving act to try to not always exert this right. I think married couples should think more about their partner's needs and wants and try to be loving and giving.

The woman in this article could think "I'm never going to have sex again. It's disgusting and degrading. I feel violated and used. He's not going to guilt me into it either. Does he think he owns me?" or she can think "Sex to me is really disgusting and I'm never in the mood. Unfortunately, my husband still wants it and it's a normal want. I love him and am concerned with his needs as well as my own. He married me thinking we would have sex at least occasionally and I want him to have a sex life but he won't unless he leaves me or cheats on me or I make a change. I used to have sex with him. Can I get back to that point somehow? If not, can I show him some physical affection, let him touch me sometimes and at least he'll know I'm trying? Or if I can't do that, I can show him that I love him some other way, but I want to make sure he knows how I feel about him".

He needs to be thinking about her just as much. He needs to communicate his love in ways she will appreciate, including being sensitive to her feelings about sex.

Sure, there may be more to the story that we don't know. She may be making most of the money, doing the housework, raising the kids, giving, giving, giving, and not be able to give in this way that she finds degrading.

That's the type of thing a marriage counselor might point out if they explored that avenue. But we only have what he wrote Prudence. If we're to talk about this at all we have to assume that the relevant facts have been presented.

On the face of it, he's the one who for 11 years has not had a sex life while she has had the sort of sex life (abstinence) that she has wanted. Asexuals (if she's asexual) can love someone just as much as sexuals, but from what I've heard many times, it is natural and common for a sexual person to wonder if they are loved the same when their partner stops having sex with them. I think he feels this way.

If either one of them begins to doubt that they are loved, then it's really close to it being over.

So how should this wind up for them? There's no one answer. They might wind up having a sex life together after all or maybe none at all. They could get a divorce. What I'm saying is that the important thing, if they love each other, is to communicate this love and each be as giving as possible. Where they wind up is secondary to this.

[dastraube]

All right, I take it all back. If you marry someone it gives them the right to your body whether you're male or female. You have no say. Just do let them do whatever they want to you because you signed a marriage certificate.

Cate

I think that sarcasm gets in the way of discussion. As you must know, no one is suggesting what you say here.

You and Cijay focus too much on rights. We all have rights to our bodies, but in a marriage (and I'm talking about the typical marriage where there is sexual union) it is a loving act to try to not always exert this right. I think married couples should think more about their partner's needs and wants and try to be loving and giving.

The woman in this article could think "I'm never going to have sex again. It's disgusting and degrading. I feel violated and used. He's not going to guilt me into it either. Does he think he owns me?" or she can think "Sex to me is really disgusting and I'm never in the mood. Unfortunately, my husband still wants it and it's a normal want. I love him and am concerned with his needs as well as my own. He married me thinking we would have sex at least occasionally and I want him to have a sex life but he won't unless he leaves me or cheats on me or I make a change. I used to have sex with him. Can I get back to that point somehow? If not, can I show him some physical affection, let him touch me sometimes and at least he'll know I'm trying? Or if I can't do that, I can show him that I love him some other way, but I want to make sure he knows how I feel about him".

He needs to be thinking about her just as much. He needs to communicate his love in ways she will appreciate, including being sensitive to her feelings about sex.

Sure, there may be more to the story that we don't know. She may be making most of the money, doing the housework, raising the kids, giving, giving, giving, and not be able to give in this way that she finds degrading.

That's the type of thing a marriage counselor might point out if they explored that avenue. But we only have what he wrote Prudence. If we're to talk about this at all we have to assume that the relevant facts have been presented.

On the face of it, he's the one who for 11 years has not had a sex life while she has had the sort of sex life (abstinence) that she has wanted. Asexuals (if she's asexual) can love someone just as much as sexuals, but from what I've heard many times, it is natural and common for a sexual person to wonder if they are loved the same when their partner stops having sex with them. I think he feels this way.

If either one of them begins to doubt that they are loved, then it's really close to it being over.

So how should this wind up for them? There's no one answer. They might wind up having a sex life together after all or maybe none at all. They could get a divorce. What I'm saying is that the important thing, if they love each other, is to communicate this love and each be as giving as possible. Where they wind up is secondary to this.

[winged]

The woman in this article could think "I'm never going to have sex again. It's disgusting and degrading. I feel violated and used. He's not going to guilt me into it either. Does he think he owns me?" or she can think "Sex to me is really disgusting and I'm never in the mood. Unfortunately, my husband still wants it and it's a normal want. I love him and am concerned with his needs as well as my own. He married me thinking we would have sex at least occasionally and I want him to have a sex life but he won't unless he leaves me or cheats on me or I make a change. I used to have sex with him. Can I get back to that point somehow? If not, can I show him some physical affection, let him touch me sometimes and at least he'll know I'm trying? Or if I can't do that, I can show him that I love him some other way, but I want to make sure he knows how I feel about him".

He needs to be thinking about her just as much. He needs to communicate his love in ways she will appreciate, including being sensitive to her feelings about sex.

Sure, there may be more to the story that we don't know. She may be making most of the money, doing the housework, raising the kids, giving, giving, giving, and not be able to give in this way that she finds degrading.

That's the type of thing a marriage counselor might point out if they explored that avenue. But we only have what he wrote Prudence. If we're to talk about this at all we have to assume that the relevant facts have been presented.

On the face of it, he's the one who for 11 years has not had a sex life while she has had the sort of sex life (abstinence) that she has wanted. Asexuals (if she's asexual) can love someone just as much as sexuals, but from what I've heard many times, it is natural and common for a sexual person to wonder if they are loved the same when their partner stops having sex with them. I think he feels this way.

If either one of them begins to doubt that they are loved, then it's really close to it being over.

So how should this wind up for them? There's no one answer. They might wind up having a sex life together after all or maybe none at all. They could get a divorce. What I'm saying is that the important thing, if they love each other, is to communicate this love and each be as giving as possible. Where they wind up is secondary to this.

i agree that they need to communicate but i also think that people need to consider that an asexual's need for abstinence is just as great as a sexual's need for sex. she may be thinking to herself "if he really loved me, he wouldn't want to rape me" i can't stress out how much of a huuge deal it is to some people to be touched intimately by people they care about. it's incredibly hurtful to some, and you cannot simply ride it off as being something people can compromise about.

we don't know if she's an asexual or if she finds sex traumatizing, but for the sake of discussion, i think it's okay to hypothetically assume she is.

otherwise we might as well not discuss the article at all, on the premise of " we don't know the whole situation"

we don't know any facts really at all. we only know the husbands point of view, which is obviously going to be biased.

maybe she does do things all the time for him to show that she loves him. maybe making breakfast for him every morning, or raising two children or whatever else thats a non-physical display of affection is getting ignored?

the reason we are sympathetic to her case is becase

1. is this an asexuality board and our point of view is underepresented/unaccounted for in the response that trudie provided.

2. i'm sure we're all familiar with this story... the wife's side is not represented at all, and yet she is considered the sole source of the problem in this lack of sex in marriage. maybe she lost interest because he gained 300 lbs? maybe he's never got her to orgasm and she's doesn't like having to fake it. maybe she doesn't love him and doesn't want to have sex with him and is waiting for him to intiate a divorce? who knows other than "she's not willing to put out" not just in this case, but in most cases like this the "blame" tends to fall on the woman. i'm arguing that there shouldn't be BLAME. there should be discussion and a willingness to be honest. both persons involved need to be considerate of each others feelings and that is not going to happen if one person "deserves sympathy and not the other."

3. alot of times things like this are incapable of being worked out, because society says healthy love between a man and a woman means sex (and not just once in awhile, but on a regular basis, if you're not getting it often enough, that's just not healthy love!!!) there's no compromising, no if ands or buts. this day and age, even when guys can't get it up anymore, they take medicine for it. what happened to platonic love? no, no. that's something between family, same sex friends and animals.

my opinion in a nutshell, i'm not taking sides. i'm trying to say that taking sides is pointless and will never truely solve a relationship problem of this nature. trudie took a "side" being the side of the husband and his inherent right to sex, and i think that's wrong. i argue for the woman's side of the case merely to balance out the arguement.

[Cate Perfect]

i agree that they need to communicate but i also think that people need to consider that an asexual's need for abstinence is just as great as a sexual's need for sex. she may be thinking to herself "if he really loved me, he wouldn't want to rape me" i can't stress out how much of a huuge deal it is to some people to be touched intimately by people they care about. it's incredibly hurtful to some, and you cannot simply ride it off as being something people can compromise about.

Precisely.

I'm all for compromising in other areas, but if you want to regularly have sex with me then you might as well beat me. If a woman stood up after 19 years of being beaten and degraded and said, 'No more. You like it, it gives you power and makes you feel good to humiliate me this way, but I hate it,' then she'd be applauded. She should allow a person inside of her body because she signed a contract saying she loved him and would support him? I don't think so. Even one unwilling act of sex can be mentally and emotionally (not to mention physically) damaging--there's no way you could get used to it. And why would he want to do that to a person he cares about?

I agree with Strange that this is a problem that can never be solved--it's like a couple with one person who wants children and one who doesn't--there's just no way both parties will be happy, but he did say 'for better or worse'. That includes no sex. Yet another reason I'm all for living together for a long time before marriage.

Cate

[cijay]

You and Cijay focus too much on rights. We all have rights to our bodies, but in a marriage (and I'm talking about the typical marriage where there is sexual union) it is a loving act to try to not always exert this right. I think married couples should think more about their partner's needs and wants and try to be loving and giving.

Ordinarily I'm not much on 'rights', in this case, you'd better believe it. I'm not saying they don't need to communicate, I'm not saying she 'wanted it' (still looking to see where that part was found in the original letter, can someone point that out to me?), I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to know why or to know that it's nothing wrong with him (but perhaps he's smelly, he wouldn't admit to that, would he?), I'm just saying there is no 'but'...SHE is the only one allowed to touch her body unless she says so, doesn't matter if they're married. Where did the article said that she ever wanted it? The idea that a spouse has to submit to the other or that one spouse has the right to his/her partner's body is outdated and a 'right' that never should have been. If you've ever had someone help him/herself to your body, you'd know what a violation that is. You would know the huge breath of fresh air it is when you finally see that you can say 'no more' with no strings attached. Where, please tell me does it say she wanted it? I don't believe either deserve any more sympathy than the other but please do tell in the article where it says she wanted it.

The woman in this article could think "I'm never going to have sex again. It's disgusting and degrading. I feel violated and used. He's not going to guilt me into it either. Does he think he owns me?" or she can think "Sex to me is really disgusting and I'm never in the mood. Unfortunately, my husband still wants it and it's a normal want. I love him and am concerned with his needs as well as my own. He married me thinking we would have sex at least occasionally and I want him to have a sex life but he won't unless he leaves me or cheats on me or I make a change. I used to have sex with him. Can I get back to that point somehow? If not, can I show him some physical affection, let him touch me sometimes and at least he'll know I'm trying? Or if I can't do that, I can show him that I love him some other way, but I want to make sure he knows how I feel about him".

Maybe she HAS said all this and the answer is still 'no'? Maybe she said 'but he smells like a trout market, I've asked him to bathe and he won't. Maybe she said

'we did it his way for 15 years, the next 15 years is my way', maybe she DOES want out but he'll take the kids and leave her if she mentions it so she's trying to make him miserable enough to be the one to leave. Maybe she DID want it originally but he raped her for the first 19 years... Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe...Where, again, is it that he said she wanted it? I seem to have missed that point. I don't see that we have her point of view at all...so if he said she wanted it (please tell me where) then that was from HIM...not her.

He needs to be thinking about her just as much. He needs to communicate his love in ways she will appreciate, including being sensitive to her feelings about sex.

Yes, he might try and be senstive to her needs but neither of them are going to be...welcome to the world of 'for worse'...which he said he DID vow. HE'S the one breakign the deal...unless of course they added 'to invade my body' in their vows, too. They shit their bed, they needn't complain to anyone about the smell.

Sure, there may be more to the story that we don't know. She may be making most of the money, doing the housework, raising the kids, giving, giving, giving, and not be able to give in this way that she finds degrading.

That's the type of thing a marriage counselor might point out if they explored that avenue. But we only have what he wrote Prudence. If we're to talk about this at all we have to assume that the relevant facts have been presented.

That's an huge assumption. The only facts that have been presented have been that he wants physical intimacy she doesn't...and she isn't represented here so how can the relevant facts be presented when we're only hearing one guy's woe, suffering and sorrow? I guess to some it's all the facts needed...I guess to some it's a clear cut case of "she's his property to do with as he pleases so she should give in"

On the face of it, he's the one who for 11 years has not had a sex life while she has had the sort of sex life (abstinence) that she has wanted.

And...on the face of it, she has still had to 'give' longer than he has, huh?

If either one of them begins to doubt that they are loved, then it's really close to it being over.

I think it passed 'close to' long ago.

[antishock8]

...

[Cate Perfect]

You and Cijay focus too much on rights.

Ordinarily I'm not much on 'rights', in this case, you'd better believe it.

Me, too. The right to not have someone violate your body is *never* up for negotiation. Which antishock sums up beautifully:

Perhaps the problem with Marriage is that it creates a sense of entitlement in people that they really ought not possess. Think about it. He might feel entitled to her body, and that's bullshit. What else does he feel entitled to?

Perhaps the wife should say, 'Well, all right. We can have sex and then I get to choose a place for you to get a piercing. Every time you want to have sex, afterwards you can get another piece of metal put through some part of you, since we're sharing bodies now. Yeah, it'll hurt, yeah, you don't want it, well, welcome to my world.'

Cate

[silvergirl]

[Guest]

Winged, I thought that was a constructive post. I am arguing with you on some specifics, but I appreciate that you are trying to be mindful of how both the wife and husband feel. I think it's quite likely this couple will wind up with a divorce or a platonic relationship, but I also think that counseling would be a good step and might uncover some of the factors (including possibilities you have mentioned) that have lead to their celibate relationship.

i agree that they need to communicate but i also think that people need to consider that an asexual's need for abstinence is just as great as a sexual's need for sex.

I agree and I'm also hearing you to acknowledge here that a sexual's need for sex can be great, too.

we don't know if she's an asexual or if she finds sex traumatizing, but for the sake of discussion, i think it's okay to hypothetically assume she is.

otherwise we might as well not discuss the article at all, on the premise of " we don't know the whole situation"

we don't know any facts really at all. we only know the husbands point of view, which is obviously going to be biased.

There's quite a danger in giving advice or counseling based on one's person point of view, but we have only his view here. The article was presented "as is" for discussion and that's what we're doing; we're not even dispensing advice. I think Prudie's advice and our reactions to it should be based on the information that he presented. In effect what she is telling her readership and him is "if the facts are as presented, then...." Otherwise she has to start inventing facts. You mentioned that one possibility for the wife's reluctance to have sex might be that he might have ballooned to 300lbs or another that she can't have an orgasm with him, but you then say that a reasonable assumption to make is that she is asexual or finds sex traumatizing. Well, these are all at least slightly different things. So if we all start making different assumptions about her reasons, then we are all going to have different reactions to the article.

the reason we are sympathetic to her case is becase

1. is this an asexuality board and our point of view is underepresented/unaccounted for in the response that trudie provided.

I think at least some of us asexuals have a hard time relating to the desires and wants of sexual people and should guard against bias or even extremism when discussing sexuality. Suppose this couple went to see a marriage counselor, even an asexual marriage counselor, and the husband related his story. I don't think the right reaction would be to turn to the wife and say, "Good for you! I think it's great that you've reclaimed your body and that you don't allow him to use and degrade you any more." I think as asexuals, we're sensitive to the possibility that sex just isn't going to happen again for this couple, but I don't think a counselor would be doing their job to exclude this option immediately.

i'm arguing that there shouldn't be BLAME. there should be discussion and a willingness to be honest. both persons involved need to be considerate of each others feelings and that is not going to happen if one person "deserves sympathy and not the other."

I don't think we know enough to blame either one of them, if blame is to be assigned at all. But I'm close to finding fault with her for not going to counseling with him if that's what she decides. I've used the word "sympathy" as in "sympathy for a loss". She may deserve sympathy, but I don't think we know that she has suffered a loss. He has suffered a loss for 11 years. I agree that they need to discuss things honestly and to be considerate of each others feelings.

my opinion in a nutshell, i'm not taking sides. i'm trying to say that taking sides is pointless and will never truely solve a relationship problem of this nature. trudie took a "side" being the side of the husband and his inherent right to sex, and i think that's wrong. i argue for the woman's side of the case merely to balance out the arguement.

I don't agree with the husband's inherent right to sex either. But I think he has grounds for divorce if he is not willing to continue in a sexless marriage. I believe in marriage vows, but without agreement or prior discussion about a platonic marriage, there is both public law and religious tradition that support leaving a sexless marriage. When sexuals make their wedding vows, it is in the context of this law and tradition, and they shouldn't feel that they may be trapping themselves into what may turn out to be a sexless marriage.

[Silly Green Monkey]

This thread tried to hide its shame.

[Guest]

Winged, I thought that was a constructive post. I am arguing with you on some specifics, but I appreciate that you are trying to be mindful of how both the wife and husband feel. I think it's quite likely this couple will wind up with a divorce or a platonic relationship, but I also think that counseling would be a good step and might uncover some of the factors (including possibilities you have mentioned) that have lead to their celibate relationship.

i agree that they need to communicate but i also think that people need to consider that an asexual's need for abstinence is just as great as a sexual's need for sex.

I agree and I'm also hearing you to acknowledge here that a sexual's need for sex can be great, too.

we don't know if she's an asexual or if she finds sex traumatizing, but for the sake of discussion, i think it's okay to hypothetically assume she is.

otherwise we might as well not discuss the article at all, on the premise of " we don't know the whole situation"

we don't know any facts really at all. we only know the husbands point of view, which is obviously going to be biased.

There's quite a danger in giving advice or counseling based on one's person point of view, but we have only his view here. The article was presented "as is" for discussion and that's what we're doing; we're not even dispensing advice. I think Prudie's advice and our reactions to it should be based on the information that he presented. In effect what she is telling her readership and him is "if the facts are as presented, then...." Otherwise she has to start inventing facts. You mentioned that one possibility for the wife's reluctance to have sex might be that he might have ballooned to 300lbs or another that she can't have an orgasm with him, but you then say that a reasonable assumption to make is that she is asexual or finds sex traumatizing. Well, these are all at least slightly different things. So if we all start making different assumptions about her reasons, then we are all going to have different reactions to the article.

the reason we are sympathetic to her case is becase

1. is this an asexuality board and our point of view is underepresented/unaccounted for in the response that trudie provided.

I think at least some of us asexuals have a hard time relating to the desires and wants of sexual people and should guard against bias or even extremism when discussing sexuality. Suppose this couple went to see a marriage counselor, even an asexual marriage counselor, and the husband related his story. I don't think the right reaction would be to turn to the wife and say, "Good for you! I think it's great that you've reclaimed your body and that you don't allow him to use and degrade you any more." I think as asexuals, we're sensitive to the possibility that sex just isn't going to happen again for this couple, but I don't think a counselor would be doing their job to exclude this option immediately.

i'm arguing that there shouldn't be BLAME. there should be discussion and a willingness to be honest. both persons involved need to be considerate of each others feelings and that is not going to happen if one person "deserves sympathy and not the other."

I don't think we know enough to blame either one of them, if blame is to be assigned at all. But I'm close to finding fault with her for not going to counseling with him if that's what she decides. I've used the word "sympathy" as in "sympathy for a loss". She may deserve sympathy, but I don't think we know that she has suffered a loss. He has suffered a loss for 11 years. I agree that they need to discuss things honestly and to be considerate of each others feelings.

my opinion in a nutshell, i'm not taking sides. i'm trying to say that taking sides is pointless and will never truely solve a relationship problem of this nature. trudie took a "side" being the side of the husband and his inherent right to sex, and i think that's wrong. i argue for the woman's side of the case merely to balance out the arguement.

I don't agree with the husband's inherent right to sex either. But I think he has grounds for divorce if he is not willing to continue in a sexless marriage. I believe in marriage vows, but without agreement or prior discussion about a platonic marriage, there is both public law and religious tradition that support leaving a sexless marriage. When sexuals make their wedding vows, it is in the context of this law and tradition, and they shouldn't feel that they may be trapping themselves into what may turn out to be a sexless marriage.

[Guest]

Winged, I thought that was a constructive post. I am arguing with you on some specifics, but I appreciate that you are trying to be mindful of how both the wife and husband feel. I think it's quite likely this couple will wind up with a divorce or a platonic relationship, but I also think that counseling would be a good step and might uncover some of the factors (including possibilities you have mentioned) that have lead to their celibate relationship.

i agree that they need to communicate but i also think that people need to consider that an asexual's need for abstinence is just as great as a sexual's need for sex.

I agree and I'm also hearing you to acknowledge here that a sexual's need for sex can be great, too.

we don't know if she's an asexual or if she finds sex traumatizing, but for the sake of discussion, i think it's okay to hypothetically assume she is.

otherwise we might as well not discuss the article at all, on the premise of " we don't know the whole situation"

we don't know any facts really at all. we only know the husbands point of view, which is obviously going to be biased.

There's quite a danger in giving advice or counseling based on one's person point of view, but we have only his view here. The article was presented "as is" for discussion and that's what we're doing; we're not even dispensing advice. I think Prudie's advice and our reactions to it should be based on the information that he presented. In effect what she is telling her readership and him is "if the facts are as presented, then...." Otherwise she has to start inventing facts. You mentioned that one possibility for the wife's reluctance to have sex might be that he might have ballooned to 300lbs or another that she can't have an orgasm with him, but you then say that a reasonable assumption to make is that she is asexual or finds sex traumatizing. Well, these are all at least slightly different things. So if we all start making different assumptions about her reasons, then we are all going to have different reactions to the article.

the reason we are sympathetic to her case is becase

1. is this an asexuality board and our point of view is underepresented/unaccounted for in the response that trudie provided.

I think at least some of us asexuals have a hard time relating to the desires and wants of sexual people and should guard against bias or even extremism when discussing sexuality. Suppose this couple went to see a marriage counselor, even an asexual marriage counselor, and the husband related his story. I don't think the right reaction would be to turn to the wife and say, "Good for you! I think it's great that you've reclaimed your body and that you don't allow him to use and degrade you any more." I think as asexuals, we're sensitive to the possibility that sex just isn't going to happen again for this couple, but I don't think a counselor would be doing their job to exclude this option immediately.

i'm arguing that there shouldn't be BLAME. there should be discussion and a willingness to be honest. both persons involved need to be considerate of each others feelings and that is not going to happen if one person "deserves sympathy and not the other."

I don't think we know enough to blame either one of them, if blame is to be assigned at all. But I'm close to finding fault with her for not going to counseling with him if that's what she decides. I've used the word "sympathy" as in "sympathy for a loss". She may deserve sympathy, but I don't think we know that she has suffered a loss. He has suffered a loss for 11 years. I agree that they need to discuss things honestly and to be considerate of each others feelings.

my opinion in a nutshell, i'm not taking sides. i'm trying to say that taking sides is pointless and will never truely solve a relationship problem of this nature. trudie took a "side" being the side of the husband and his inherent right to sex, and i think that's wrong. i argue for the woman's side of the case merely to balance out the arguement.

I don't agree with the husband's inherent right to sex either. But I think he has grounds for divorce if he is not willing to continue in a sexless marriage. I believe in marriage vows, but without agreement or prior discussion about a platonic marriage, there is both public law and religious tradition that support leaving a sexless marriage. When sexuals make their wedding vows, it is in the context of this law and tradition, and they shouldn't feel that they may be trapping themselves into what may turn out to be a sexless marriage.

[dastraube]

Winged, I thought that was a constructive post. I am arguing with you on some specifics, but I appreciate that you are trying to be mindful of how both the wife and husband feel. I think it's quite likely this couple will wind up with a divorce or a platonic relationship, but I also think that counseling would be a good step and might uncover some of the factors (including possibilities you have mentioned) that have lead to their celibate relationship.

i agree that they need to communicate but i also think that people need to consider that an asexual's need for abstinence is just as great as a sexual's need for sex.

I agree and I'm also hearing you to acknowledge here that a sexual's need for sex can be great, too.

we don't know if she's an asexual or if she finds sex traumatizing, but for the sake of discussion, i think it's okay to hypothetically assume she is.

otherwise we might as well not discuss the article at all, on the premise of " we don't know the whole situation"

we don't know any facts really at all. we only know the husbands point of view, which is obviously going to be biased.

There's quite a danger in giving advice or counseling based on one's person point of view, but we have only his view here. The article was presented "as is" for discussion and that's what we're doing; we're not even dispensing advice. I think Prudie's advice and our reactions to it should be based on the information that he presented. In effect what she is telling her readership and him is "if the facts are as presented, then...." Otherwise she has to start inventing facts. You mentioned that one possibility for the wife's reluctance to have sex might be that he might have ballooned to 300lbs or another that she can't have an orgasm with him, but you then say that a reasonable assumption to make is that she is asexual or finds sex traumatizing. Well, these are all at least slightly different things. So if we all start making different assumptions about her reasons, then we are all going to have different reactions to the article.

the reason we are sympathetic to her case is becase

1. is this an asexuality board and our point of view is underepresented/unaccounted for in the response that trudie provided.

I think at least some of us asexuals have a hard time relating to the desires and wants of sexual people and should guard against bias or even extremism when discussing sexuality. Suppose this couple went to see a marriage counselor, even an asexual marriage counselor, and the husband related his story. I don't think the right reaction would be to turn to the wife and say, "Good for you! I think it's great that you've reclaimed your body and that you don't allow him to use and degrade you any more." I think as asexuals, we're sensitive to the possibility that sex just isn't going to happen again for this couple, but I don't think a counselor would be doing their job to exclude this option immediately.

i'm arguing that there shouldn't be BLAME. there should be discussion and a willingness to be honest. both persons involved need to be considerate of each others feelings and that is not going to happen if one person "deserves sympathy and not the other."

I don't think we know enough to blame either one of them, if blame is to be assigned at all. But I'm close to finding fault with her for not going to counseling with him if that's what she decides. I've used the word "sympathy" as in "sympathy for a loss". She may deserve sympathy, but I don't think we know that she has suffered a loss. He has suffered a loss for 11 years. I agree that they need to discuss things honestly and to be considerate of each others feelings.

my opinion in a nutshell, i'm not taking sides. i'm trying to say that taking sides is pointless and will never truely solve a relationship problem of this nature. trudie took a "side" being the side of the husband and his inherent right to sex, and i think that's wrong. i argue for the woman's side of the case merely to balance out the arguement.

I don't agree with the husband's inherent right to sex either. But I think he has grounds for divorce if he is not willing to continue in a sexless marriage. I believe in marriage vows, but without agreement or prior discussion about a platonic marriage, there is both public law and religious tradition that support leaving a sexless marriage. When sexuals make their wedding vows, it is in the context of this law and tradition, and they shouldn't feel that they may be trapping themselves into what may turn out to be a sexless marriage.