'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.

[Lorianne]

Your view of marriage more closely resembles prostitution.

[strela]

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

"PRICE CHECK ON TROJAN CONDOMS - LUBRICATED - EXTRA SMALL!"

[fqued]

You can't glean the question????????????? then let me quote that open question(s) verbatim:

QUERY TO EVERYONE: YOU TOOK AND GAVE WEDDING VOWS. THOSE ARE OBLIGATIONS. WHAT WERE THEY, AND ARE YOU FULFILLING THOSE? DO YOU CONSIDER THOSE THE ONLY OBLIGATIONS YOU HAVE TO YOUR SPOUSE?

Most interesting to me is the last: do you or does anyone have obligations to his or her spouse beyond whatever he or she said in his or her wedding vows??

[fqued]

you wrote: Your view of marriage more closely resembles prostitution.


Actually, there are many feminists who believe that marriage is prostitution.

Note carefully how I couched what I said. It is a theory which seems to explain some (NOT ALL) marriages. But it is clearly not prostitition, unless one says that marriage is prostitution.

To be very direct about my truly heart-felt view of marriage: I am a Christian, and I accept whole-hearted the Biblical view of marriage (with all its obligations, and demands for love and respect and fidelity).

[fqued]

Ping to you. Lorianne answered your post #994 in her post #1079, but she failed to list you as a recipient.

[Servant of the Nine]

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.

Then I suggest they employ some Christian Decency, Prayer and Self Discipline.

So9

[Lorianne]

Well you I wouldn't have guessed you have a "Biblical view" of marriage from your post #1069.

I most certainly don't view marriage as prostitution. I see it as a life-long partnership. Each partner contributes as much as they can to the other and to the strength of the marriage, within the realization that each is not perfect and the road will not always be smooth. Marriage is not a tit for tat or quid pro quo arrangement in my view. There is no sex for this or this for sex. However, if there is built up resentment in other areas of the marriage, that is likely to undermine the sexual part.

As for sex in marriage, ideally both partners WANT to be intimate and are aroused by each other's physical presence and emotional prescence. The arousal springs from both natural hormonal responses as well as wanting to bond in every way possible both spiritually and physically with one's partner. When this doesn't happen (or ceases to happen), citing "obligations" won't make it happen.

Citing a "stonger sex drive" won't make it happen either. Sex, IMO, is not a competition and a stronger sex drive doesn't trump a less strong one. If there is NO sex drive or no interest in sex, that's a red flag that there is a physical and/or emotional problem that the flouting of "obligation" is not likely to solve (IMO). In fact I suspect it may increase the problems because it is basically saying to one spouse, "your're enjoyement of sex is not important, your fulfilling the obligation is most important".

[fqued]

Lorianne, you did an extremely fine and elegant job of completely avoiding the issues in post 994. I am in awe. You not only changed what you claim is the question, you also failed to address the important issue that he was asking. I am in awe.

now, look at what he actually said:

However, does either party have a right to split when they become bored with each other? I think that the whole premise of most posters here is that once you are in the marriage, you are beyond picking and choosing. Sometimes the ONLY thing that keeps the marriage going is the extent to which each party believes in obligations and commitments. Most posters here, even the divorced ones, I am sure, feel that they are sinning against God if they simply toss the relationship aside when it no longer makes them happy. Most divorced people struggle mightily with God's stated will and the practical hardships they are in.

If your view of marriage is the same as your view of sex, then when one becomes tired of their partner they simply move on. No morality issues, just get out and find someone else to make you happier

Your ideas only make sense to me in a world where marriages are not morally binding.

Now, let us deal with ONE sort of central question therein: Does a spouse have a right to leave a marriage if he or she gets tired of his spouse?

If you say yes, your view of marriage is consistent with your view of sex. But that is a poor view of marriage.

However, if you say no, then you are acknowledging that how a person feels about an obligation is different from whether or not he or she must fulfill that obligation.

[fqued]

BRL.

Ping to you.

Lorianne claimed to answer your post #994 in her post #1079

I then replied in post #1088

[hellinahandcart]

You know, Lorianne, this would have been a much shorter thread if you had only eliminated the words "want sex" from your original question, and substituted "have sex" instead.

Sheesh.

[hellinahandcart]

"RIBBED?"

"No, GLOW-IN-THE-DARK!!"

[Nita Nupress]

"PRICE CHECK ON TROJAN CONDOMS - LUBRICATED - EXTRA SMALL!"

ROTFLOL! Good one, Strela!

I'm glad this thread is still going. For the past few days I've been out of pocket, but I dropped in a couple of times. You guys have NO idea how much I wanted to log in from the hotel to tell you I was now a sex expert because I was staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night. LOL!

Seriously, you all probably have no idea how much you're helping people by discussing this topic candidly and openly. For any lurkers who have something to contribute but don't dare under your screen name, maybe you could go get a new one for this thread. There's nothing quite like anonymity to ensure a lively and candid discussion. :-)

[gatechie]

Actually men are much better communicators (as opposed to talkers - which women have cornered the market on). I come from a family with a lot of women in it and we constantly have 30 minute conversations and forget to make the decision on the main purpose for the call in the first place. Because men spend much more time the business world, they are better at cutting to the bottom line, getting their point across in 50 words or 1 minute which ever comes first. It is women that want men to guess what they want - to "know" by their mood (rather than a discussion) what is wrong or needed.

I have a house full of boys and they will stop in mid sentence and say - oh! an itch - mom scratch my back right here where I cannot reach it. My nieces on the other hand make remarks about their problem, but will never directly ask some one to help them. They try to talk them into offering to help. If one of my boys is offended by his brothers, he calls him a jerk straight to his face rather than plot secret revenge. My husband says he doesn't like certain foods, and that he prefer to never eat them whether ar a restaurant or at home without making it personal - it is me (and women in general) that take it personally.

He chastises me constantly that he cannot be held accountable for family policies that have not been presented to him. I spend too much money in clothes and he spends too much money on computers. WE are learning - I work on my female weaknesses and he works on his male weaknesses.

However, the fact that women have their own weaknesses doesn't give men a free pass to wallow in theirs without effort to improve. My husband reads computer magazines all the time in order to keep his skills sharp, but rolls his eyes at the mention of a book to keep our relationship working well. He doesn't think he needs a book to tell him how. (Women probably want men to read all of those books because they say what she isn't saying - and Kama Sutra might be an acceptable book for him reference on our strengthing our relationship.)

This story is about Double income-no sex marriages and women who aren’t interested. My advice was directed at men on how to get their wives interested. I am a wife and I know how my husband got me interested. It is not and never was a gripe session about how to manipulate men (my husband rules in this house) – but the truth is that men are usually more interested in keeping the frequency high to keep themselves satisfied rather than looking for ways to increase the frequency by making it more satisfying for her. I stick by my original points

1) if you do it right, she will chase you for it. 2) great sex covers a multitude of sins and although I didn’t say it originally – 3) if you are having sex with your wife mostly for your own satisfaction and her satisfaction is optional or irrelevant – it isn't much more than glorified m-bation.

A wise man seeks advice but a fool hates correction - don't be so busy defending yourself that you miss out on a chance to learn from others.

[fqued]

you wrote: Well you I wouldn't have guessed you have a "Biblical view" of marriage from your post #1069.

Very true. BUT, one must acknowledge that people don't all get married for all the right reasons. Note also, that there was NOTHING in post #1069 that is in direct contradition to anything in the bible. It may not be your or my ideal, but it is not necessarily incorrect.

Let us be honest. most, if not all, men have an extremely strong sex drive. Biblically, they have one option for exercising that sex drive with another human being, and that is marriage.

Interestingly, about ten years ago, a book was published called "Men and Marriage". The author's (George Gilder, I think) thesis was essentially that marriage (and children) is the way that society "tames" males, and makes them productive members of society. There is much to say for this sociologically.

One can argue with his thesis, but it is not inherently anti-biblical.

Now, as to women, many, if not all, have a fairly strong maternal drive. I do know women who say they don't want children, and acknowledge that such exist. But it does indeed seem true that women in general like, need, or desire marriage partly because of the stable environment for the exercise of that maternal drive. Again, there is nothing inherently anti-biblical in that.

Frankly, there are big bundles of reasons why men and women marry, and falling is love is only one of them, and not necessarily even there for many marriages (i.e., arranged marriages, which do work, possibly more frequently that consentual marriages based on falling in love.

Is this not essentially true???

[freedumb2003]

>>The Bible loudly condemns adultery for good reason.
The Bible also clearly directs couples to marry and give themselves physically, upon request, to each other for good reason. <<

To THAT my good friend, I tip my hat in complete agreement. You've summed up over a thousands posts quite aptly.

As an aside, for what it's worth, I was watching JAG the other day and a single character (the accused) stated she had not had sex for over 3 years. The jaws of her lawyers literally dropped and their eyes bugged out. They actually suggested there was no way anyone would believe someone could go that long without sex (it moved the plot along -- she was a lesbian).

I was appalled and dismayed to think that sex was now dealt with like having dessert or something. Until very, very recently it was unusual TO have sex out of wedlock and most people went years without "fulfilment." I went more than that long between marriages (a long story, no kids and a cheating wife) and it wasn't all that bad. I felt no particular virture -- it just wasn't compatible with my values.

Man, what the Freedom-equals-license hath wrought. The very real, very bad results of: single parenthood, "blended families," children having children, victim politics, the current socialist movement in the US, etc. can be laid at the feet of those who created a society wherein a 3 year haitus from sexual activity is considered to be incredible to the point of unbelieveability.

[Nita Nupress]

Your view of marriage more closely resembles prostitution.

You're being serious, but it reminds me of an out-of-town business trip my husband and I took one time. We realized we were in a place where no one would possibly recognize us, so we took advantage of it.

I never realized how much fun it would be to be "picked up" at a bar. :-)

I bet any bystanders who happened to notice either thought my husband was the smoothest guy in town or thought I was the biggest floozy they'd ever seen. ;-)

[mrfixit514]

There are certain foods that rob a woman of her sex drive. Like wedding cake.

[strela]

I've not used a sock puppet on FreeRepublic to participate in any discussion, even the more racy ones. Its a cowardly thing to do; besides, I want to give Carnivore a nice, wide spread of FreeRepublic posts to search on ;)

I just don't get the reluctance to discuss sex and relationships in a tasteful manner - none of us would be here without them.

[Aquinasfan]

I'm trying to understand why one would want that.

Stop kidding yourself. You want no such thing.

[hellinahandcart]

Yeah, yeah. I walked around for a long time saying "There should be more to love than sex!" before I realized that, like Lorianne, I should have picked my words better and said "There should be more to love than SEX!" a lot sooner.