Jump to content

Christian sexual married to an asexual


MightBeLosingIt

Recommended Posts

Interesting! Would you elaborate? What exactly do they think? Do you have a link or further writings or explanations?

If you look at statements from all the major denominations, as well as from secular or atheist therapists, one thing they have in common is the notion that marriage imposes duties on both people, and part of that is being willing to compromise and make sacrifices for your partner's benefit, including sexuality.

We're making two separate points. You're making an argument based on a texual analysis of the bible, and I'm making an argument based on what actual people really believe in their day-to-day life.

There is a lot more in the bible that people don't follow than what people do follow. You could argue, for instance, that the bible prohibits mixing wool and silk, and Christians believe in the bible, therefore Christians believe that mixing wool and silk is a sin.

But you know as well as I do that actual, real life Christians who exist in the USA today don't, by majority, believe in that particular piece of the bible.

I've know men, over the age of about 50, who definitely use the bible to force their wives to do shit against their will, but I think that male-centric view of sexuality died out along with a lot of other sexist stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also know a lot of Christians and have discussed marriage with them, and those particular Christian don't appear to have a sense of any sort of physical/sexual "duty" being owed by partners to each other. However, they are liberal/progressive Christians and that likely influences them.

I also know several Christians (yes, liberal types) who don't believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Again -- Christians really need to speak for themselves. Written representations don't really include the human experiential element, because they're usually couched in idealist terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible was meant to be open for any individual interpretation then there would be as many interpretations as there are people. That is why we need experts in a host of areas from language to history to theologians to help us interpret the meaning and intent of each piece of the bible.

For example, there are over 600 commandments in the old testament. The intent of many were for the health and safety of the jewish people at the time, not neccesarily meant to be imposed across time and for all peoples.

We need qualified people in a range of disciplines to help us interpret. That is why we need organization or church(es).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! Would you elaborate? What exactly do they think? Do you have a link or further writings or explanations?

If you look at statements from all the major denominations, as well as from secular or atheist therapists, one thing they have in common is the notion that marriage imposes duties on both people, and part of that is being willing to compromise and make sacrifices for your partner's benefit, including sexuality.

That belief stems from the line in the bible " The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife." But not every Christian takes what is said in the bible at face value and interpretations differ greatly depending on who you are speaking to. That same book of the bible says divorce is wrong under any circumstance, but as we know, many Christians get divorced. Tattoos are also a sin according to the bible, yet many Christians get tattoos and do not follow that. Now, we could say "well, if they do not follow the bible to the letter, they are not Christian" but the bible also orders Christians to "If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. " So, we can't really say taking and leaving parts of it is a bad thing.

We don't know what church his wife follows, or what her belief set is. We can't say she is going against her own values. We don't know her, or her religion. And even if she is, that is just one more thing that would add evidence to the fact _she is suffering as well_. No, she shouldn't blame him. But, she also doesn't have to compromise if she doesn't want to. She doesn't even have to stay in the marriage if she doesn't want to. She could even decide she's Atheist and wants a divorce, if she wanted to. She has no duty to something she said years ago, if she has changed her mind. It would be healthy for the relationship if she would calmly discuss this issue with him and try to work things out, but I don't see how badgering her and trying to coerce/guilt her into something she is obviously uncomfortable with would help matters any. Sounds like a good way of getting a very resentful wife. Yes, her blaming him is a good way to get a resentful husband. But, going in circles causing more resentment will just make the issue worse, not better.

My family are all Christians and while they think a person should have sex with their partner to avoid them straying/petitioning for a separation, none of them feel having sex is a duty a wife owes her husband if she doesn't want to give it (this line of conversation happens rather often, since they gossip about everyone they know and know way too many personal details). My Grandmother is the most strict religious person I know and she HATED that being used for her husband demanding sex from her - nine kids later (since birth control and abortion are sins), she was at a point she almost wanted to kill him for her "duty". They don't feel that staying is a duty owed to the wife though, if the husband is unhappy. Each person has to decide what their faith means to them and just how much freedom they are willing to give up to that faith and find the religion that fits what they need. My grandmother switched religions after leaving her husband, to a different type of Christianity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible was meant to be open for any individual interpretation then there would be as many interpretations as there are people. That is why we need experts in a host of areas from language to history to theologians to help us interpret the meaning and intent of each piece of the bible. For example, there are over 600 commandments in the old testament. The intent of many were for the health and safety of the jewish people at the time, not neccesarily meant to be imposed across time and for all peoples. We need qualified people in a range of disciplines to help us interpret. That is why we need organization or church(es).

Churches can't even agree. The Catholic church for example interprets things differently than Baptists. Who interpret things differently than Jehovah's Witnesses. Who interpret things differently from Methodists. Some allow personal interpretations to matter, some do not. My Grandmother's church leader tells her "This is our guideline, but YOU have to decide what you feel God would want you to do. Here are some passages you can read that may help."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Serran, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that no good will come of guilting and coercing.

The point of a marriage is personal happiness, emotional stability, etc. One's wife is not one's employee, and each partner's feelings, needs, etc, get equal weight. You don't get to tip the scales by placing the spectre of God on your side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a lot more in the bible that people don't follow than what people do follow. You could argue, for instance, that the bible prohibits mixing wool and silk, and Christians believe in the bible, therefore Christians believe that mixing wool and silk is a sin.

But you know as well as I do that actual, real life Christians who exist in the USA today don't, by majority, believe in that particular piece of the bible.

I've know men, over the age of about 50, who definitely use the bible to force their wives to do shit against their will, but I think that male-centric view of sexuality died out along with a lot of other sexist stuff.

Right, but my understanding was that real life Christians do, by majority, think that marriage partners have duties to each other. Not based on textual analysis of the Bible, but based on knowing Christians and reading what Christian organizations write.

To be clear, the view of sexuality I'm talking about is not male-centric or sexist, it's one that I would guess most non-Christians agree with as well, and I happen to also agree with it.

When you enter into a relationship with someone, in particular a marriage (which is supposed to last until death by solemn promise, and is legally and financially difficult to get out of), you have a duty to compromise and take care of them, the same way they do for you, and part of that is making an effort to please them sexually. Just like people should make an effort to take care of their partner in other ways.

I'm not saying that anyone should "force" others to do anything against their will. I am saying that when you're in a relationship, you have a duty to listen to your partner and stretch yourself a little. Especially if you expect monogamy... people have a right to get their sexual needs met.

Religious or not, male or female, "have sex with your partner when they want it" is generally good advice. Now if someone is sex-repulsed, etc., it's a different situation, but sex is an area where it's very important to take care of your partner.

You say "each people's feelings and needs should get equal weight." My concern is that in a lot of mixed relationships, the sexual partner's needs don't get equal weight, because the asexual partner doesn't really relate to them or understand them. So in general it's better to err on the side of sex, rather than on the side of no sex.

I'm flabbergasted that anyone could disagree with "in a marriage, you have a duty to make an effort take care of your husband/wife's sexual needs as much as you reasonably can without harming yourself." Isn't that just common sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose, on 18 Dec 2013 - 8:35 PM, said:

.

I'm flabbergasted that anyone could disagree with "in a marriage, you have a duty to make an effort take care of your husband/wife's sexual needs as much as you reasonably can without harming yourself." Isn't that just common sense?

It actually sounds, from your last post, that what you're saying is the usual Christian view of the duties of marriage is actually your view of the duties of marriage.

No, it isn't common sense. "Common sense", when applied to opinions, is not common; it's very personal. The only reasonable and rational definition of what should happen in a marriage is what both partners agree to. If one of the partners does not want to do something, and feels that doing such would make them very unhappy, then they don't really agreed to it. At that point, the partners really have to decide whether they should part because they are incompatible, or stay in the marriage and basically shut up about each other's differences.

Side note: when you're talking about rules or commandments in the Torah (the five books of Moses), many of them have been interpreted by Jews over several thousand years. They should not be taken by Christians to mean exactly as they were spoken or written those thousands of years ago. It's our book; we interpret it. Unless and until you study those interpretations, don't make fun of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm flabbergasted that anyone could disagree with "in a marriage, you have a duty to make an effort take care of your husband/wife's sexual needs as much as you reasonably can without harming yourself." Isn't that just common sense?

*shudder* Reasons why I consider the idea of marriage to be outdated crap: add one.

Seriously, if that's common sense, then let's please start working to finally delegalize marriage, NOW. Once there are any kind of "duties" to your partner imposed on you, it's time to break up, and the less obstacles the law puts in your way to get the hell out of a loveless, dysfunctional 'ship, the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in general it's better to err on the side of sex, rather than on the side of no sex.

I think that it can be generally stated that eating whole grains is good for you, but that wouldn't give me justification to force someone with celiac to eat bread.

It can definitely be said that, when asking someone out, it's reasonable to err on the side of assuming heterosexuality, since it's a supermajority, but that doesn't mean that men get to force lesbians on dates.

You can make as many generalities as you want.... Christians do this, married people do that... but it doesn't matter, because the individuals involved need to do what's actually best for them. They aren't required to conform to the majority.

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the majority is the majority for some moral reason, like, most people made themselves sexual because being sexual is good, and people who don't make themselves sexual aren't good and therefore we don't need to worry about their wellbeing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually sounds, from your last post, that what you're saying is the usual Christian view of the duties of marriage is actually your view of the duties of marriage.

No, it isn't common sense. "Common sense", when applied to opinions, is not common; it's very personal. The only reasonable and rational definition of what should happen in a marriage is what both partners agree to. If one of the partners does not want to do something, and feels that doing such would make them very unhappy, then they don't really agreed to it. At that point, the partners really have to decide whether they should part because they are incompatible, or stay in the marriage and basically shut up about each other's differences.

The usual Christian view of marriage and sex has a lot to do with God, so no. The part I agree with is "it's not just about you. take care of your partner."

Let's take something less controversial: you'd agree you have a duty to be nice to your partner? To treat him/her with respect? and so forth. If one of the partners doesn't want to do that, then they don't agree with that, and they have to decide whether or not to stay together.

But that doesn't make it right. People SHOULD treat their partners with respect. They have an obligation to do so. If they don't, they're doing something wrong. But you're right, from a practical point of view, people don't always live up to their duties.

I'm flabbergasted that anyone could disagree with "in a marriage, you have a duty to make an effort take care of your husband/wife's sexual needs as much as you reasonably can without harming yourself." Isn't that just common sense?

*shudder* Reasons why I consider the idea of marriage to be outdated crap: add one.

Seriously, if that's common sense, then let's please start working to finally delegalize marriage, NOW. Once there are any kind of "duties" to your partner imposed on you, it's time to break up, and the less obstacles the law puts in your way to get the hell out of a loveless, dysfunctional 'ship, the better.

Any friendship or relationship has duties. You have a duty to treat people with respect, for instance. When you post on AVEN, you have a duty to follow AVEN's rules. If you don't want any duties, don't interact with other people in any way.

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the majority is the majority for some moral reason, like, most people made themselves sexual because being sexual is good, and people who don't make themselves sexual aren't good and therefore we don't need to worry about their wellbeing.

Taking care of your partner's sexuality is important in any relationship. For a sexual dating an asexual, that means be respectful, don't be pushy, don't force, and so on. Since asexuals often don't understand needing sex, they should make a special effort to do so. Since sexuals often don't understand sex-repulsion, they should also make a special effort to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take something less controversial: you'd agree you have a duty to be nice to your partner? To treat him/her with respect? and so forth. If one of the partners doesn't want to do that, then they don't agree with that, and they have to decide whether or not to stay together.

But that doesn't make it right. People SHOULD treat their partners with respect. They have an obligation to do so. If they don't, they're doing something wrong. But you're right, from a practical point of view, people don't always live up to their duties.

[...]

Any friendship or relationship has duties. You have a duty to treat people with respect, for instance.

What you are describing here is a duty to a general principle, not to a person. I treat R. with respect because she's a human being; it has nothing at all to do with us being partners in a relationship, it has everything to do with me believing in stuff like human rights. I have no duties at all to her as a person, and neither does she have any to me as a person. The only true duty I have is the one to my own integrity, and as such, to have my behavior to her reflect the values I believe in (a principle can obviously not enforce itself on me - it is me alone who has to enforce it on myself).

When you post on AVEN, you have a duty to follow AVEN's rules. If you don't want any duties, don't interact with other people in any way.

Not true, either. I can do whatever I want, both here on AVEN and otherwise. I can be sanctioned for some things, such as criminal offenses and breaches of terms of service; and in most cases, I guess I'd be secure enough in myself to do the responsible thing and accept any and all consequences/sanctions in stride, but that does not make it a duty that I violated. I have no duty to anyone on AVEN or to AVEN in general, and would definitely not spend my time here if I felt that I did.

I guess in a world that works how you envision it, yeah, I'd gladly be free from the oppression that human interaction brings with it; it would be beneath my dignity to lower myself into accepting the shackles of social contact. Thankfully for me (and the world at large), the real world doesn't work that way. :P

Taking care of your partner's sexuality is important in any relationship. For a sexual dating an asexual, that means be respectful, don't be pushy, don't force, and so on. Since asexuals often don't understand needing sex, they should make a special effort to do so. Since sexuals often don't understand sex-repulsion, they should also make a special effort to do so.

Absolutely not. Taking care of someone's sexuality is their own job alone, period. Regardless of any and all relationship constellations they end up with. While you can - with appropriate humility - ask for assistance in handling it, you are not ever entitled to it in any way, shape, or form, regardless of whether the one you asked happens to be your marital spouse or a stranger on the street.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Absolutely not. Taking care of someone's sexuality is their own job alone, period. Regardless of any and all relationship constellations they end up with. While you can - with appropriate humility - ask for assistance in handling it, you are not ever entitled to it in any way, shape, or form, regardless of whether the one you asked happens to be your marital spouse or a stranger on the street.

Yup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing here is a duty to a general principle, not to a person.

I think I'm experiencing sexual attraction to this sentence.
Thanks... I guess. :lol: :cake:

I'm experiencing intellectual attraction to that sentence. Possibly with a little aesthetic attraction thrown in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any friendship or relationship has duties. You have a duty to treat people with respect, for instance. When you post on AVEN, you have a duty to follow AVEN's rules. If you don't want any duties, don't interact with other people in any way.

You are confusing two things which aren't similar. The only "duty" is to the terms of a contract between individual/individual or individual/organization. I have no contract with friends or partners, and although a marriage is a legal contract, it does not involve respect (or sex) or any other attitudes or feelings. It involves finances/children/etc. Legal stuff. Whereas when we become a member of AVEN, we are made aware that if we do things which are not allowed on AVEN, we may be warned or, finally, kicked out.

When one partner does things in a relationship (or a marriage) that the other partner does not like, and they can't come to agreement about those things, they either stay together in spite of that disagreement, or they split up. No abstract "duty" is involved.

Your need to keep repeating that we all have a duty to do this/that/the other thing does not make it a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I believe in duty. I just think that duties tend to be general and personal. So, even if I think I owe you the duty to treat you with respect, I can't unilaterally bind you to a reciprocal duty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing here is a duty to a general principle, not to a person. I treat R. with respect because she's a human being; it has nothing at all to do with us being partners in a relationship, it has everything to do with me believing in stuff like human rights. I have no duties at all to her as a person, and neither does she have any to me as a person. The only true duty I have is the one to my own integrity, and as such, to have my behavior to her reflect the values I believe in (a principle can obviously not enforce itself on me - it is me alone who has to enforce it on myself).

When you post on AVEN, you have a duty to follow AVEN's rules. If you don't want any duties, don't interact with other people in any way.

Not true, either. I can do whatever I want, both here on AVEN and otherwise. I can be sanctioned for some things, such as criminal offenses and breaches of terms of service; and in most cases, I guess I'd be secure enough in myself to do the responsible thing and accept any and all consequences/sanctions in stride, but that does not make it a duty that I violated. I have no duty to anyone on AVEN or to AVEN in general, and would definitely not spend my time here if I felt that I did.

I guess in a world that works how you envision it, yeah, I'd gladly be free from the oppression that human interaction brings with it; it would be beneath my dignity to lower myself into accepting the shackles of social contact. Thankfully for me (and the world at large), the real world doesn't work that way. :P

I'm very confused now...

So you believe in human rights, and you treat people with respect because you care about their rights... but you don't think you have any duties to them? I'm not really understanding the difference. If you care about not violating people's rights, how is that different than having a duty to respect their rights? Could you explain what you mean about duties being oppressive and shackling?

I'm also not understanding what you mean about "In a world that works the way you envision it." I'm not envisioning anything different than you're experiencing. I just think people have an obligation to treat others with respect. Whether or not they feel that obligation and how they act on it is up to them.

I'm curious about the way you see the world...

You are confusing two things which aren't similar. The only "duty" is to the terms of a contract between individual/individual or individual/organization. I have no contract with friends or partners, and although a marriage is a legal contract, it does not involve respect (or sex) or any other attitudes or feelings. It involves finances/children/etc. Legal stuff. Whereas when we become a member of AVEN, we are made aware that if we do things which are not allowed on AVEN, we may be warned or, finally, kicked out.

When one partner does things in a relationship (or a marriage) that the other partner does not like, and they can't come to agreement about those things, they either stay together in spite of that disagreement, or they split up. No abstract "duty" is involved.

Your need to keep repeating that we all have a duty to do this/that/the other thing does not make it a fact.

That last paragraph came off as a little harsh :(

What are the things I'm confusing? I agree that people either stay together or split up when they can't come to an agreement about something... but I also think people should treat other people with respect, for instance. Do you not think people should treat people with respect? They might or might not actually do it, but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about whether they should do it.

Someone might hit you, and you might not like it, and you might respond however you respond... but don't you also think they shouldn't have hit you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are confusing two things which aren't similar. The only "duty" is to the terms of a contract between individual/individual or individual/organization. I have no contract with friends or partners, and although a marriage is a legal contract, it does not involve respect (or sex) or any other attitudes or feelings. It involves finances/children/etc. Legal stuff. Whereas when we become a member of AVEN, we are made aware that if we do things which are not allowed on AVEN, we may be warned or, finally, kicked out.

When one partner does things in a relationship (or a marriage) that the other partner does not like, and they can't come to agreement about those things, they either stay together in spite of that disagreement, or they split up. No abstract "duty" is involved.

Your need to keep repeating that we all have a duty to do this/that/the other thing does not make it a fact.

That last paragraph came off as a little harsh :(

I'm sorry you felt it was harsh, but it does seem to me like you are expressing your opinion but expecting others to take it as fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are confusing two things which aren't similar. The only "duty" is to the terms of a contract between individual/individual or individual/organization. I have no contract with friends or partners, and although a marriage is a legal contract, it does not involve respect (or sex) or any other attitudes or feelings. It involves finances/children/etc. Legal stuff. Whereas when we become a member of AVEN, we are made aware that if we do things which are not allowed on AVEN, we may be warned or, finally, kicked out.

When one partner does things in a relationship (or a marriage) that the other partner does not like, and they can't come to agreement about those things, they either stay together in spite of that disagreement, or they split up. No abstract "duty" is involved.

Your need to keep repeating that we all have a duty to do this/that/the other thing does not make it a fact.

That last paragraph came off as a little harsh :(

I'm sorry you felt it was harsh, but it does seem to me like you are expressing your opinion but expecting others to take it as fact.

I know some people disagree with me. And I might be wrong... it happens a lot :) I am just saying what I think.

But it's not really a matter of opinion... I mean, we either have duties to other people, or we don't. It's not like what you think of a movie or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's not really a matter of opinion... I mean, we either have duties to other people, or we don't. It's not like what you think of a movie or something.

Um. Duties are by definition purely theoretical, so no, they are never fact. They do not exist except in our heads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's not really a matter of opinion... I mean, we either have duties to other people, or we don't. It's not like what you think of a movie or something.

Um. Duties are by definition purely theoretical, so no, they are never fact. They do not exist except in our heads.

Except jury duty. ;) But, yeah, I agree with Skullery on this one - duties are what we decide they are for ourselves. Everyone has different ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are confusing two things which aren't similar. The only "duty" is to the terms of a contract between individual/individual or individual/organization. I have no contract with friends or partners, and although a marriage is a legal contract, it does not involve respect (or sex) or any other attitudes or feelings. It involves finances/children/etc. Legal stuff. Whereas when we become a member of AVEN, we are made aware that if we do things which are not allowed on AVEN, we may be warned or, finally, kicked out.

When one partner does things in a relationship (or a marriage) that the other partner does not like, and they can't come to agreement about those things, they either stay together in spite of that disagreement, or they split up. No abstract "duty" is involved.

Your need to keep repeating that we all have a duty to do this/that/the other thing does not make it a fact.

That last paragraph came off as a little harsh :(

I'm sorry you felt it was harsh, but it does seem to me like you are expressing your opinion but expecting others to take it as fact.

I know some people disagree with me. And I might be wrong... it happens a lot :) I am just saying what I think.

But it's not really a matter of opinion... I mean, we either have duties to other people, or we don't. It's not like what you think of a movie or something.

I think it is opinion. Because I don't think there is any particular entity that decides that kind of thing. If you believe in an entity that decides duty/no duty, then that's your belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to believe in god to think people should treat other people with respect. There's no one who "decided" that; it's just part of being human. So... you think there's no truth about how people should act? No ethics? Just whatever people think is right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to believe in god to think people should treat other people with respect. There's no one who "decided" that; it's just part of being human. So... you think there's no truth about how people should act? No ethics? Just whatever people think is right?

There's a thread in the PPS about this... whether morality is objective or subjective. That may be a better place for us to take this convo, so we don't derail the OP's issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! thanks for the comments about my situation. I'm sorry my problems have taken over this post.

BlackRose, it's true that I'm not a confrontational person, but that doesn't mean that I can't stand up for myself. I know that my wife cares for me because of the things she has done over the years, but that's another story. I understand that you don't have all the information, and that your comments mean well.

I believe in promises and in keeping one's word. My wife made promises to me and she didn't keep them. That's hurting me - a lot. That's why I'm in Aven, to try to understand what's going on. I'm hurt, but I don't want revenge against my wife- I want things to get better, if that's possible.

I believe that Christians who are married have an obligation towards their husbands and wives. The problem here is that I don't want her to do something she clearly dislikes. If she was too lazy to have sex, I could get upset and tell her that she'd better improve. But if she's asexual, no matter what I say: she's not able to change. This basically puts me in an impossible situation.

I also believe she has an obligation towards me. After all, I gave up the chance of having sex with other women when we got married, it's call monogamy. The fact that she doesn't want to compromise isn't acceptable. But again, if touching me disgusts her... how can I even enjoy it? do I really want my wife to touch me if she finds it disgusting?

As you can see, I find this situation almost impossible to resolve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fight for that inch, I will take your word that you can stand up for yourself and that she cares for you.

The promise thing is something you need to have a long conversation with her about. If she cares for you, she should listen and apologize to you, right? Sounds like she isn't even willing to listen to you and empathize. What happens when you try to talk to her? Or give her something to read: there are a lot of articles online, even Christian ones, that discuss how important sex is to someone with a high sex drive, how it helps people feel loved and connected, how painful it is to go without.

I found these in about 30 seconds of googling:

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/sex_and_intimacy/understanding-your-husbands-sexual-needs/so-whats-the-holdup.aspx

http://intimacyinmarriage.com/2013/05/04/is-sex-really-all-that-important-in-marriage/

In your situation, I would get divorced, and if I couldn't, I would simply tell her that I cannot live like this and I need to have sex, either with her or others.

If divorce or going outside the relationship are not things you are willing to do: where are your boundaries? what will you tolerate and what won't you? would you leave her if she hit you? if she didn't listen to you? never talked to you? How about hers... what would she put up with and what wouldn't she?

(You are tolerating far more than almost anyone else would. Any normal person would be out of the relationship by now.)

If you have to stay together, the only fair thing is for both of you to be equally miserable. If sex makes her miserable, and not having sex makes you miserable, then the only fair and reasonable thing is to find a level of sex that makes you both equally miserable. Right now, you are miserable and she isn't, which isn't fair at all.

When you say she "isn't willing to compromise"... what happens if you talk about it? what happens if you say "This cannot continue. I need you to keep your promise that you made to me and god now. I don't want any excuses; I need you to have sex with me now. I have been in pain and misery for years because you didn't keep your promise... it's time for things to change. Right now."

There is no virtue in allowing your relationship to stay like this. She may never love sex or desire it like you, but progress is possible. You can't just sit back and let things continue. It's not right to just ignore your needs like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...