'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.

[mdmathis6]

Proverbs exhorts men to remain entranced "with the wife of your youth, may your fount continue to be blessed by her". Doesn't sound like sex is merely for procreation now does it, or would you rather take your arguement up with God?

[dark_lord]

Some people recognize satire when they see it. Some don't.

:-)

[fqued]

Please go back and re-read the past 400 posts on this thread. that was answered numerous times. And yes, it does indeed come back to the man's sex drive, period.

But to restate what was said numerous times. A man most desires sex with a willing woman (preferably his wife). But if he can't have that, he will accept a substitute, even if iti is sex with his wife who doesn't give a rip about sex. So a man DOESN'T put that sort of sex at the top of the list, but it's better to him than NO sex.

Therefore, he wants that sort of sex above no sex, but wants sex with a willing wife far more.

Again, this has been said, and said, and said. It's time for you to listen.

[fqued]

you wrote: a sense of sexual obligation is poisoning to a relationship rather than one where two people are mutually giving of their own accord, not by some arbitrary rule that says they "owe" the other spouse something.

As to your implication that sex is not owed to the spouse, I disagree, history disagrees, scripture disagrees, and(apparently) most people on this thread disagree.

One statement alone shows this: THERE IS NO MARRIAGE (I.E. IT CAN BE ANNULLED EVEN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) IF THE MARRIAGE IS NOT CONSUMMATED.

Another obvious example: in those states that recognize common law marriage, IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE MAN AND WOMAN HAD SEX WITH EACH OTHER. Without that act there is no common law marriage.

History, tradition, religion, and common sense overwhelming show that each spouse does owe sexual relations to each other.

It is not the obligation that is destructive of marriage, it is a messed up relationship where one or the other withholds or desires to withhold sex from the other that is destruction. If both partners are willing, then the obligation is not problem.

Blessed is he he desires to do those things that he is obligated to do. Also blessed is she who desires to do those things that she is obligated to do.

The problem is not obligations. I am marriaged with four children. I have a boatload of obligations, responsiblilities, duties, etc. That does not destroy a family, relationships, marriage, etc. It would be harmful, however, if I decided that I didn't want to fulfill those obligations. In fact, society, history, religion, and virtually everyone on this thread would condemn me if I decided not to fulfill those obligations.

And I have a very strong sense of obligation to my family, and that is a very GOOD thing.

[SauronOfMordor]

I would add, that while Lorianne might hold that marriage is not a business arrangement, it IS a contractual arrangement (anybody who doesn't think it is, can try walking out and saying "I will no longer support my wife and kids" and see how fast the cops and courts will convince him otherwise).

There are several implicit contractual parts to marriage, which have been accepted as part of the deal for millenia. They include:

1. Each spouse will satisfy the sexual needs of the other
2. Each spouse will satisfy the emotional and companionship needs of the other
3. Each spouse will do his or her fair share of the money-earning, kid-raising, and housework (the two may work out that one does all the money-earning while the other does all the housework, or might divide things up otherwise)

If one party is unwilling (as distinct from physically unable) to fulfill his or her part, then there is a material breach of the contract.

One spouse may not declare "I don't feel like working or housecleaning any more. I'll just sit in front of the TV, drink bear, and let you do it all" and expect the marriage to continue.

One spouse may not declare "I'm not interested in your company any more. I'm going to hang out with my friends from now on. I'll send you a check from time to time for house expenses", and expect the marriage to continue

And one spouse may not declare "You don't turn me on any more. I'm not interested satisfying your sexual needs any more" and expect the marriage to continue.

Each of the above three examples constitute material breaches of the marriage contract, which must either be remedied, or the marriage is over.

[BRL]

Before you stated....

Plus I've never had sex when I didn't want to or wasn't aroused. I don't think that would feel good at all.

More recently you have stated

Also, I'm not talking about one time or a few times I'm talking about being in a relationship where sex is an oblitagion, not something one does because he/she is sexually interested/attracted to one's mate

I think I can infer from this that you have trained your hubby very well. You never have sex when it does not feel right to you. You cannot understand why your husband would even want sex if you don't want it. Apparently he has asked for it a few times, and you can understand that, but (going back to your original statement) you explain to him how unrational it is for him to want it when you don't and the problem goes away.

You have really come up with quite a convoluted way of cowing your husband. But, it would appear that it works. It would also appear that deep down you don't really respect him because on the occasion that someone has pointed out that you have a good husband... your response was to get totally pissed at him.

Am I reading too much between the lines? I don't think so.

[BRL]

Here is some advice. I don't know if I will take it, but it comes on good authority.

Be happy for the rest of your life

[Lorianne]

Pure speculation and fabrication of events and conversations of my private life which you cannot know, therefore your premise is irrational.

Yours is not an attempt at discussion but rather a mean spirited personal attack.

[muggs]

Be happy for the rest of your life

LOL, I never did know the words to that song. I thought it was
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a crazy woman your wife.

[Lorianne]

You and others keep lecturing me about obligation but not answering the question. Assume there is an "obligation" to have sex. I'm not argueing that point (though I don't agree with it). Let's just say that obligation exists.

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?

What I'm trying to figure out is what is the end game of this "obligation" thing? Obviously one cannot make someone love you or want to be with you or want to have sex with you ... or want any number of things. But with the obligation aspect, one coerce the other to pretend those things. But what is the point of being with someone who doesn't want to be there? What's the point?

It's not just sex.

What is the point of conversing with someone who doesn't want to converse with you, but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to converse with you? Is it enjoyable? What is the long range plan with that person?

What is the point of going out to dinner with someone who doesn't want to go out to dinner with you , but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to go out to dinner with you? Is is enjoyable eating with someone who you know wouldn't be there except out of a sense of obligation? What is the long range plan with that person?

You see, it's not a matter of IF the obligation exists, what I'm trying to ask if what is the point of one person cashing in on that obligation? What is the goal of that?

[fqued]

SOM,

Are you an attorney? sound like a pretty sophisticated legal analysis of contracts to me.

(Cornell Law Graduate, but theologian, philosopher, pipe organ repairman, and antiquarian bookman prior)

[Lorianne]

You and others keep lecturing me about obligation but not answering the question. Assume there is an "obligation" to have sex. I'm not argueing that point (though I don't agree with it). Let's just say that obligation exists.

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?

What I'm trying to figure out is what is the end game of this "obligation" thing? Obviously one cannot make someone love you or want to be with you or want to have sex with you ... or want any number of things. But with the obligation aspect, one coerce the other to pretend those things. But what is the point of being with someone who doesn't want to be there? What's the point?

It's not just sex.

What is the point of conversing with someone who doesn't want to converse with you, but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to converse with you? Is it enjoyable? What is the long range plan with that person?

What is the point of going out to dinner with someone who doesn't want to go out to dinner with you , but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to go out to dinner with you? Is is enjoyable eating with someone who you know wouldn't be there except out of a sense of obligation? What is the long range plan with that person?

You see, it's not a matter of IF the obligation exists, what I'm trying to ask if what is the point of one person cashing in on that obligation? What is the goal of that? Short term, yes you get sex, but long term what is the goal of such a sexual relationship?

[fqued]

You just don't listen. This has been answered and answered. Go back and read post #983 and 984.

Lorianne, people have answered your "questions" time and again, sometimes with very sophisticated and well-thought-out statement. Go back and read this whole thread. These questions have been answered and answered and answered.

[BRL]

Lorianne, I think that you have to state frankly to the board whether you believe in the words "'till death do you part"

I think most posters here really believe that they are supposed to make the marriage work until death. Once they commit to the marriage they are stuck with each other. Once you are stuck with a person you make the best of the siuation.

Your logic works fine in a friendship .... "why go to dinner if it is only out of obligation" or it works fine on the job "why stay at the job if it is not working for you"

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.

[fqued]

Okay, let us start with a concept that I don't think anyone would disagree with.

I am married and have four children. I have plenty of obligations, duties, responsibilities toward those children. I MUST fulfill those obligations REGARDLESS of whether I want to, feel like it, am appreciated, respected, thanked or not. If I don't feel like fulfilling my obligations, and therefore didn't, I will be roundly condemned, and rightly so.

Yes, it would be nice to be appreciated, but that is secondary to the duty, itself.

What if my kids do not appreciate my fulfilling my obligations, like telling them they can't do this, or must do that? What if they "hate" me for it? That does not change my obligation.

(interesting sidenote: my kids have obligations, duties, and responsibilities, also. One of those is to respect and obey their parents (baring truly immoral demands, etc). If they don't respect me or obey, does that change the fact that I have responsibilities to them? no.)

That is the concept of obligation, of duty, of responsibility.

Now on to second concept. Men (especially younger men) have a sex drive as big as all outdoors. A married man much prefers sex with a willing wife, but sex with a stiff wife is preferred to no sex at all. Look at it as a scale of one to ten. Sex with a willing turned-on wife is ten, no sex is zero. Sex with a wife who grudgingly gives it is maybe a two or three. The man, relatively speaking, wants a two or a three more than a zero. He settles for what he can get.

Now on the ontological problem--what is the end result of all this?
The issue is not really the problem of the man having sex with a grudging wife, there is a logically prior problem that you have a man who wants sex and a woman who doesn't. That is the issue, and that is, metaphorically speaking, a quadraplegic marriage.

Now see the beauty of the concept of obligations in marriage. (Keep in mind that the obligation of sex is only one of the many obligations that both husband and wife have.) The concept of obligation gives a foundation to a marriage--a solid firm ground. So, taking just the issue of sex, the woman who does not really have any interest in sex, understands that the giving of sex to her husband is part of that which makes a solid marriage. This same principle applies to all the other obligations.

And YOU and EVERYONE have obligations to your spouse(s).

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?

[fqued]

ping to you all, I failed to list you as recipients in my post #995

I would like some responses.

[fqued]

Ping to you, re my post #995, sorry I didn't list you in the "credits." Want your input.

[fqued]

Your post #994 is a very brilliant piece of logical reasoning. kudos, etc.

[BRL]

I MUST fulfill those obligations REGARDLESS of whether I want to, feel like it, am appreciated, respected, thanked or not

You are totally right.

On the heels of being widowed I remember being "dead man walking" for over a year. If I did not have a very strong sense of obligation I do not know what would have kept me going. My kids could care less about "my" feelings. They need(ed) to be provided for - period.

My inspiration every morning when my alarm buzzed was from the Dunkin Donut commercials

"Time to make the donuts" I figured if he could endure it (even if it was a pretend person) then I could too. So many mornings those would be the first words out of my mouth when the alarm went off.

[SauronOfMordor]

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?

See my post 979

When you have gotten to the point where sex is only happening "out of obligation", it's time to either fix what's wrong sexually, allow the unsatisfied partner to have an alternate outlet for his sexual needs, or call it quits.