'Honey, You Repel Me': Advice For Couples in a Sexless Marriage

Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, May 15, 2003 | SUE SHELLENBARGER

[WaveThatFlag]

A few times in my 12 years writing this column, I've stumbled on a topic so unsettling to readers that it demanded a follow-up. Last month was one of those times, when my story on the problems of dual-income, no-sex marriages drew a torrent of e-mail that read as if I'd jabbed an open wound.

[ctdonath2]

If a man cannot become sexually aroused with his wife who still has a sex drive, should he he have sex with her on occasion merely for her gratification?

Yes. He should do the best he can. He may not be able to get it up, but he can sure get creative and satisfy her needs in other ways to the best of his ability (both physically and intellectually).

Obviously if there is some factor on the part of one spouse which makes him/her unable to engage in the act (either simply unable or risking physical harm), the other should not insist on what cannot be done. Nobody here is advocating harming one's spouse to get some. There are, however, other ways which can satisfy at least most of the expressed need.

[ctdonath2]

Dang, I can't believe this thread is still going on...

Internet porn is in the eye of the beholder... ;-)

[BRL]

Love is desiring to act in the best interest of another person, without too much regard for "what do I get out of it?"

You are correct. But a loving relationship only exists when both people perceive that the other is looking out for the interests of both. Notice I used the word perceive. One can be putting everything into it and the other perceives that they are not and the mariage fails. And (somewhat more rare I suspect) another marriage could have a bum for a mate, but the spouse perceives he is doing good. These perceptions go right to the emotional makeup of the the person who is perceiving it. A bum or a bitch can never be pleased, because they are bitter people and they will never ever be satisfied. They will never perceive anything but their own needs and how unfair life has been to them.

[hellinahandcart]

Ah, but there's that old "cash-register shyness".

Bad enough to have to stand in line with a SEXUAL LUBRICANT feminine moisturizer, now you're standing there with one that heats up on contact.

But I never notice men doing anything other than ATTRACT attention to the fact that they're buying condoms. They don't strut like that when they're only buying shaving cream and toothpaste.

[ctdonath2]

I've never proferred that opinion.

Well, until you suggest a legitimate way for the desireous one to "get some" under the thread's topic, I'll have to assume that your line of reasoning leads directly to practically shutting off one's libido.

[ctdonath2]

It goes both ways. But pretense is not the answer.

Neither is denial.

We're waiting for you to accept BOTH points.

[Lorianne]

I just did.

[Servant of the Nine]

Numerous studies have shown that observant Jews, loyal Catholics, and church-going Protestants who avoid extramarital affairs and have traditional values have more and better sex than postmodernist yuppies and swingers.

That proves that an inadequate sex life can cause a loss of faith in God.

So9

[fqued]

I have a theory, which seems to hold true in many, though not all cases. Try this on:

What a woman often is after is the STATUS of marriage, and to some degree the husband is her means to get there. Many woman also like the STATUS of being pregnant or being a mother (look at all the women who during their first pregancy think they are empress of the universe. that's fine with me, but note that it's the STATUS that is important.)

What a man want is SEX.

The problem, therefore, is for HER to realize and fulfill his desire for sex, and HIS is to understand that this status thing runs very deep.

You may disagree, but, if so, show me the alternative. Yes, I know that people are supposed to be after True Love, etc. etc. and I don't deny that that is improtant, but what I have written above is seems to be a significant part of why they get married.

[Lorianne]

Unbelievable. I never had the opinion that it is possible to "turn off" ones' sex drive in the first place. You invented that opinion for me. Now you're saying I must have the opinion you invented for me unless I can suggest else!

Irrational argument all the way around.

For the record, I can not have the opinions I don't have without your permission not to have them.

You're debating with yourself when you make up both sides of a discussion.

[fqued]

By the way, Lorianne, you don't answer direct questions put to you, so maybe some posters have no choice but to try to put some order into your statements.

I have waited for your answer to someone else's post #994. That person asked a quite appropriate and apropos question. You failed to answer it.

I also posted a general question in my post #995, which you also ignored.

Admittedly, you can answer or not, you are under no obligation (ha ha) to do so, but your failure to answer post #994 does not rise to level of fairness.

[ctdonath2]

Unbelievable. I never had the opinion that it is possible to "turn off" ones' sex drive in the first place. You invented that opinion for me.

I simply read what you wrote, and followed it (a very short distance) to the obvious conclusion.

Now you're saying I must have the opinion you invented for me unless I can suggest else!

No, I'm saying I cannot perceive you having any other opinion unless you give me a reason to believe you have another one.

From what you've written, I conclude that your view is that if one spouse doesn't want sex, the other should not insist on getting it - i.e. one may simply deny satisfying the need of the other, and the other should shut up and "turn it off". That's how I - and several others present - interpret what you wrote. We would be happy to see you express/imply a different opinion, and eagerly await your expression thereof.

Don't get angry at me, tell me your opinion clearly.

[Servant of the Nine]

A spouse is obligated (by voluntary total commitment) to fulfill the needs of the other, including sexual needs (unless there is some particular/compelling/conflicting reason).

"Obligation" is usually a cop out for not being able to arouse your spouse properly. If a man can provide consistent pleasure to his wife, he won't need to ask or talk of obligation.

So9

[fqued]

oops. I referenced your post #994 in my post #1071 and failed to name you as a recipient. sorry.

[fqued]

interesting idea, and probably true in some cases.

BUT, it ignores a variety of other possibilities, and again reduces to the idea that the man is always wrong and is a neanderthal.

What about a manipulative person who uses sex as a weapon? I have seen this to an unbelievable degree in one of my in-laws.
What about the woman who really isn't interested in sex (and yes, they do exist).

What about the woman who doesn't really care for or respect her husband, regardless of whether he is a decent man or not?

Etc. etc.

[BRL]

I am not holding my breath. She is not intellectually honest. It is getting tedious trying to follow her slowly changing arguments.

[Servant of the Nine]

What about a manipulative person who uses sex as a weapon? I have seen this to an unbelievable degree in one of my in-laws.
What about the woman who really isn't interested in sex (and yes, they do exist).
What about the woman who doesn't really care for or respect her husband, regardless of whether he is a decent man or not?

Masturbation, infidelity, divorce, homicide or suicide.

Any of the above is preferable to debasing oneself with sex that is somewhere between rape and necrophillia.

I don't think I could get it up with a woman who wasn't interested, and I wouldn't want to.

So9

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"Why would a person WANT to have sex with someone who is only doing it out of obligation? What is the point of that, what does the one calling in the marriage chips get out of it? Does it help the relationship? Does it make the marriage then valid? What is the long range view of such a relationship?"

A good example that I can think of is practicing the piano. If you wish to become a good pianist, then you must practice regularly, put time and effort into learning how to play, with skill. You loved the music to begin with, otherwise you never would have faithfully started practicing. With this skill, comes a deeper passion for the music.

Being in a marriage takes time and effort. Not just in sexual matters, but all matters. Marriage is not easy, but is one of the most rewarding relationships that you can create. Being married started with the love for each other. Continuing with intimacy takes effort, sometimes. But, the deep love that you have for each other will get you through the times when you would much rather not put 100% effort into the relationship. I have found that this is when the spouse will put in that extra 10%, 20%, 30% that is needed, be it with intimacy, friendship, understanding, assistance, laughter... anything that is needed.

Marriage is a partnership, with a give and take on both sides. If you are unwilling to give, then how can you take? If you only see that you are sacrificing, without ever acknowleding the rewards, then you need to re-evaluate why you ever entered into this relationship. If you give that much more effort to the relationship, when necessary, generally your spouse will respond with great warmth and enthusiasm, and his effort will increase, too.

Marriage has a long-term goal. Those who enter into marriage thinking that it is only good for the moment, will never see the rewards in the end. If you focus only on the problems, but never see what is good, then you will never reach the rewards.

[Lorianne]

The question in #994 was whether I take marriage vows seriously or not. I do. (Incidently, I don't a promise to have sex in the marriage vows. I know it is generally implied with marriage, but if you're taking the vows literally, sex isn't mentioned).

Do the people who imply that if one spouse isn't getting sex that is grounds for divorce, or to threaten infidelity taking their vows seriously?

Also, the writer never answered my question as to why a spouse would want sex on an obligation basis. Plus the writer was rude and inventing things about my personal life, so I did not reply to him.

The specific question in #995 I couldn't glean.

[fqued]

Very, very interesting reply.

The problem is that most people in America have the idea that marriage should be for life, and have something like the Christian conception of marriage. To those people, your way(s) of dealing with the situation, and your approach to sex with a reluctant spouse (necrophilia??) is close to anathema. For those people, they must struggle with the situation.