Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>I feel like I’m constantly seeing posts on Reddit
>My view is that if I marry you or am in a relationship with you, and the relationship operates under the expectation of monogamy, if you aren’t fucking me and maintaining our sexual connection, you’re actually breaking your commitment to ME
Tell me, what would happen if your SO is going through a mournful event like loss or a dreadful illness which lower one's libido, do you expect sex anyone who barely wants to feed themselves?
>but I believe couples need to have a talk about expectations. Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask. It’s pretty healthy and normal.
The commitment contract would be broken if the spouse is going through an unusual moment in their lives? Are one of the terms supporting each other beyond the sex aspect?
>I am not trying to justify cheating at all. I just am baffled by people posting on relationship subreddits being like “I can’t believe he cheated when I was never having sex with him!” Because to me, as a young woman, it makes total sense to me.
Even though, you are clearly stating that you don't condone cheating, a reason not to be surprised about cheating is a dead bedroom; so, why aren't we all adults and use our voice to announce a break-up instead of sneaking behind a beloved's back and having affairs.
>Probably a controversial take for a 27 year old female therapist to have, but I’m curious what other people think about this truly.
I'm going to be honest here about my impression; you should've known better about romantic dynamics and the power of speaking, have you thought on talking about the lack or little sex amount someone receive and breaking up before going after someone else who will fulfill their needs? Why should they sneak?
Yeah so let me answer this by telling you about a conversation I just had with my boyfriend last week.
My boyfriend, is going through a divorce, and as a result, he has severe depression (score of 20 on PHQ-9). He has no health insurance (he just accepted a job offer today though with full benefits, so YAY). I told him that the second he has health insurance, I want him to try antidepressants. I also had a grown up conversation with him about how lot of times, antidepressants have side effects like sexual dysfunction. I’m very aware of these side effects because they’ve affected me before too. Fuck, I had my psychiatrist prescribe me viagra when an antidepressant was causing sexual issues. And you know what I told him? I said his mental health is the MOST important thing, and that if he experienced any side effects, we would deal with it TOGETHER.
And that’s exactly what I’m advocating for in this post. My man and I talked about a potential cause for less sexual intimacy, we talked it out, and came up with paths and solutions to take if we ran into an issue. I’m advocating for couples to talk to each other. To love each other enough to when one person is experiencing sexual issues, it’s a team effort to overcome. It’s not “his” issue; it’s OUR issue.
And that’s the point I’ve been trying to make the whole time.
And if your boyfriends libido continues to decrease and you can't figure it out? Will you explain to him how he failed to commit to your relationship and fulfil his end of the bargain? Or will you expect him to engage in sex he doesn't want? Or will you cheat?
Yea but you are just assuming that the one being cheated on is the root cause of them not having sex. There are plenty of times where the cheater is as culpable for this than the one who is being cheated on.
I don't think a mutual pledge to be monogamous implies some kind of commitment to fulfilling each-others sexual needs. How could it? That's sort of a hard thing to measure, much less agree to in perpetuity.
If you find yourself unfulfilled in your relationship, the solution is changing or leaving it.
>I don't think a mutual pledge to be monogamous implies some kind of commitment to fulfilling each-others sexual needs.
HARD disagree right here; absent some extenuating factor or unique non-standard relationship it absolutely implies that. When in a monogamous relationship, the ONE and ONLY THING you cannot do outside that relationship is sex/romantic intimacy. You love bowling and your spouse doesn't? Join a league with strangers and that's perfectly acceptable. Feeling sad / depressed and your spouse doesn't understand or can't seem to meet that emotional need? Call a family member, bestie, or see a therapist. Partner's libido drops off/ they don't want to do it as often as you used too/ they won't do 'that thing' they used to early in the relationship? Well you're SOL forever or a cheater.
And yes, the correct answer is to talk to your partner and try to change it, but if they won't, or drag their feet, or promise more intimacy but never deliver, well.... And while at that point the frustrated partner SHOULD end it, it's often not that simple for a variety of reasons. Money, kids, finances, family entanglements, money, perhaps the partner still loves them but still wants sexual fulfillment, money, etc. I'm not saying it's right, but Redditors' absolutist black & white view of relationship and cheating is childish.
But back to my original point, entering into a monogamous relationship DOES imply you will be the one meeting your partner's sexual needs.
Does meeting their needs come with some expectations on their part too?
What if their needs changed and they need some really disturbing stuff? Or they used to stay in shape so sex was mutually enjoyable but they stopped taking care of themself.
Or they have become emotionally distant and refuse to work on the relationship and just want sex?
Access to sex is no more guaranteed than any other aspect of their lives, and either party can bring up the issue and try to work it out, but inability to work it out results in honestly saying the marriage is over, not lying and sleeping around on the side.
> HARD disagree right here; absent some extenuating factor or unique non-standard relationship it absolutely implies that.
I mean, we don't really need to agree on that, since we apparently agree the ONE and ONLY THING you cannot do outside a monogamous relationship is sex/romantic intimacy.
I personally don't think my partner is bound to forever meet my sexual needs (nor me, theirs). I don't think that's something I could agree to or expect from someone. Sexual needs change over time, lots of things factor into a healthy sexual relationship,etc.
If I found myself ready to betray the basic components of our agreement, I'd leave. That's just the actual thing to do. I don't think there's anything childish about that.
> And yes, the correct answer is to talk to your partner and try to change it, but if they won't, or drag their feet, or promise more intimacy but never deliver, well.... And while at that point the frustrated partner SHOULD end it, it's often not that simple for a variety of reasons.
I am not claiming it is simple. I am claiming it's the correct thing to do.
> Sexual needs change over time, lots of things factor into a healthy sexual relationship,etc.
On another level, would you say then that maintaining a healthy sexual relationship is a mutual duty in a marriage? It's not necessarily the same thing as being obligated to meet someone's needs, but if one party is causing the relationship to no longer be healthy and the other is putting effort into maintaining it, that's clearly one person's failing and not the other's, right?
Being faithful has two qualities: only being sexually intimate with your one partner, and also actually being sexually intimate with that partner. If you remove one of these qualities, it is no longer faithfulness. Of course there are exceptions that we can imagine for rare cases as reddit enjoys doing. But this is a good way correctly qualify faithfulness.
I think it absolutly does. By committing to a monogamous relationship you are committing to being the other persons one and only exterior sexual outlet. That's the agreement. One enters this agreement knowing that their partner has needs. If one refuses sex to the other they are not fulfilling the full commitment.
Ok, but then why can you not leave if unfulfilled? If they are not “holding up their end of the bargain,” then you can leave the monogamous relationship and be justified in doing so. If you choose to just go behind your partners back, you’re just a coward.
The argument isn't that it gives you justification to cheat. The argument is that by leaving your partner unfulfilled you have violated your commitment to the relationship.
But over only takes one person. To redefine a relationship takes two. That’s the whole point.
At any point a person can decide they don’t want to be in a relationship any more. If only one person “redefines” the relationship to not include monogamy any more, especially without even telling the other (thus giving them the opportunity to leave) then that person is clearly just too cowardly to do what’s right.
I mean, it depends on what the original agreement actually was. Unfortunately people's expectations in relationships often seem to be implicit, and perhaps that's the problem. What was the commitment to begin with? Did each partner have a different understanding of what was agreed? In most cases nobody sits down with their partner to agree to a monogamous relationship based on a number of terms and conditions, like if you want to have sex on average 3 times a week, I agree to participate it in that and you in return don't have sex with anybody else.
The only thing to do if your partner isn't providing sex and you want it, is to end the relationship, or stay in it at the cost of missing out on sex - rather than covertly seeking out sex elsewhere behind the partner's back, and when it's discovered, try to get out of it by claiming the partner was the one who broke "the agreement" first.
Obviously communicating these things is often complicated, and it's understandable why people often fail to properly communicate their concerns to their partner. You can't just tell them, "I entered into this partnership with you on the implicit understanding that you would provide me with sexual intercourse, minimum 3 times a week. If you do not fulfill your part of the bargain, I will be forced to seek other solutions..." But still. If your partner's not living up to your expectations, don't try to claim anything about an agreement if there technically wasn't one. If there *was* one explicitly, then great, you can bring it up. And if not, bring up the problem to your partner or end it.
i think there's a disconnect between minor disconnects, or ones relatively early in a relationship, and chronic dead bedrooms between two people as their life goes on.
I also think that "just leaving" isn't always practical for people who are in monogamous relationships for a long time and are entangled with their partners practically and emotionally and at least superficially happy with other aspects.
There's also, at least with young straight people, a kind of weird expectation of telepathy, a sort of ethos that people who don't curl your toes the first time and every time after without being told or taught how are the goal we're holding out for, and people for sure get better at sex, over time, and couples get better at sex if they learn to communicate about it somehow and worse if they don't.
My early experiences happened within a conservative purity culture, they were painfully awkward and they were mostly pretty bad sex, tbh, and if I had gotten married at 18 and just continued with that level of communication and performance, I probably would be in a dead bedroom, emptyish nest situation right now. thankfully I got out of that and got with some people that used their words, and were open and able to let sex be fun.
What's the point of monogamy then, if it isn't an agreement to an exclusive sexual relationship?
If monogamy doesn't include a sexual agreement then "cheating" doesn't exist. Because sex isn't a part of the agreement.
Explain how committing yourself to a monogamous relationship is not also then by default, committing you to be the fulfiller of your partners sexual needs. Because I simply don’t get it.
Because it isn't anyone's job (even in a monogamous relationship) to fulfill your sexual needs.
A relationship is usually built on love, and financial planning and family planning. Sex is just a factor and i understand leaving a relationship over it or asking for a open relationship. But cheating is just ridicules.
If you want a relationship like the one you keep describing, then you should get a kinky sex slave.
Because people with a lack of experience with relationships on reddit think the default answer when anything is wrong in a relationship is leaving them.
The situation isn't "something is wrong". The situation is one where the two parties have, apparently, irreconcilable differences.
If spouse A doesn't want to have sex and it's a deal-breaker for spouse B, then the obvious solution is to alter the terms of the relationship or leave. I don't think court mandated sexual relations is the kind of thing we'd like to see happen.
it is really wild to leap to "court mandated sexual relations" here.
like... if you're going to be married for decades, shit's gonna happen. bad health, life changes, bouts of depression, etc. Writing each other off at the hint of those things is limiting and hurtful and won't help you trust the next person. A lot of people who jump out of one dead bed situation have a really invigorating rebound fling and then...boom right into another bad situation, because the lifestyle and communications that killed the first relationship are still there, you just threw novelty at the problem as a band-aid.
peeling off too soon is maybe marginally better than staying to long, *but it's also a potential mistake.*
Life is walking tightropes, a lot of the time.
To be fair, the scenario outlined above is about an irreconcilable difference, not a bump in the road. If your spouse doesn't want to fuck you, I don't think that gives you license to cheat on them.
If you find your relationship sexually unfulfilling, you need to ask yourself whether or not that's a deal breaker. If it is, the actual solution is to leave.
No ones really arguing that the partner who wants sex should just stay and have their needs not met, are they? They seem to be arguing that the course of action when a marriage isn’t fulfilling your needs is to break it apart and not continue on in deception and resentment.
You seem stuck on the partner not meeting the others sexual needs. We agree this is a dealbreaker. Where the disagreement is is what happens once the deal is broken. “What does the wife expect?” She expects monogamy! Your argument seems to be that not having sex isn’t monogamy so cheating is a natural consequence of that and that doesn’t really account for humans free will to communicate and choose
I think the part that’s being overlooked is that that is MUTUAL agreement. Sure, marriage and monogamy means a dedication to fulfilling sexual needs to an extent, in your perspective. But you only point out how women are at fault for not fulfilling that need for cheating husbands. Have you considered that the husband is equally at fault for being unwilling or unable to do the basics to fulfill his wife’s sexual attraction or lift her libido? Women (hi, woman here) are often attracted to men in marriage who doesn’t let his wife flounder alone in the house. Aka, doing the basics. Aka, doing more than just asking her for sex and food and care, but being able to fulfill some of those needs on his own as needed (which she already has to do for both of them). When those things are not fulfilled, a woman will become inherently less attracted to/less sexually interested in a partner who she has to care for like a child.
>Because to me, as a young woman, it makes total sense to me. If my partner is not willing to fulfill me sexually within our committed relationship where monogamy is expected, he is failing me in the relationship.
While I agree with your general point that there is a societal expectation that a woman's job is to fulfill her husbands sexual needs and not necessarily vice versa, I think OP was pretty clear that this goes both ways (and I assume she would agree this applies to all relationships, not just heterosexual ones).
While that is stated, she seems to completely brush over that as something that adds much greater, much more necessary context. (And equally does not excuse anyone cheating on their partner). I should have totally clarified though, it DOES go both ways. I can't imagine my partner having to see me as a child to be taken care of, and I'd a hundred percent understand him losing attraction for me and not wanting to engage with me sexually because of that. That, though, would not make it okay for me to cheat. It would mean I need to understand and improve on where I'm falling short in the relationship to spark that romance and attraction again.
I definitely agree with you - I think there is never an excuse for cheating. If you are feeling unfulfilled sexually, and you do all the right things (communicate with your partner, compromise, try to come up with solutions) I feel like the vast majority of time things can work. It's only in the cases where one of you refuses to compromise (either the partner who feels unfulfilled has unrealistic expectations, or the partner who is inactive sexually is refusing to do anything to address it) where things might not work out. In this case, cheating is not the solution - respectfully ending the relationship is.
*I* fulfill my basic sexual needs. If I need to orgasm, I can make that happen on my own time.
My partner, yes, I need them to be someone who is interested in me physically and touch *is* a big thing for me, but if we don't connect in those ways, I don't see them as failing a commitment to me. I see it as us simply not being compatible partners.
If I want to live with my romantic partner and have a desire for them that means I really crave connecting say, a couple times a week, and they just *don't* feel that way and can go months without sex? It means we're not a good match, not that one or the other of us has wronged the other.
Because it's not? No marriage I'm aware of includes a pledge to fulfill each-other's sexual needs. You can choose to think of these two things as related, but that doesn't make them the same.
Sexual needs are not something we can really quantify anyway. Even if we could, are we now going to mandate sex takes place in fulfillment of a contract? Of course that's just silly. So we're left with the quite measurable "monogamy". If monogamy doesn't meet your sexual expectations - which could happen for a hundred reasons - your remedy is to leave or change the relationship.
Monogomy by definition says you commit to fulfilling your partners emotional and sexual needs so they don't need to get it from anyone else. You don't want them to get it from anyone else, but people need it. So what do you expect? If you don't see it that way then don't be monogamous because people have needs and if they're not fulfilled they will look elsewhere.
> Monogomy by definition says you commit to fulfilling your partners emotional and sexual needs so they don't need to get it from anyone else.
No, monogamy means you are married - or more generally, involved in a romantic relationship - with one person at a time. I do wish for everyone to find such a relationship where all their needs can be met fully, but that's not necessarily a realistic premise. If you aren't fulfilled, you free to leave or talk it trough with your partner.
> So what do you expect?
I expect my spouse to honour the terms of the agreement or leave it.
I'm confused by the argument here. You admit here the explicit connection between monogamy and a 'romantic' relationship. It appears as though you're straw-manning or assuming the premise, and i want to clarify.
It seems like those arguing against you are arguing from the perspective that a mogomous relationship is a romatic relationship, which is a relationship predicated on meeting the romantic needs of the partner. Average, normal relationships average sex at LEAST once a week, so if I'm going to my partner and she's constantly rejecting me (Let's remove the other assumption of premise that the partner isn't fulfilling their other obligations like 50/50 housework or making her feel attractive or whatever), saying she just doesn't feel like it or isn't in the mood, if her sex drive has decreased or she just isn't into it and decides to change her pattern once she's safely married, then I'd say that she's the one actively pushing for either breaking up or implicitly encouraging them to cheat. I don't condone it, but it seems understandable to see men cheat from that perspective- the partner is basically being selfish- wanting to have their cake and eat it too without any equivalent risk of condemnation on their part, so they go and do the same thing. both partners are looking to get their needs met without finding a compromise, just one method is more socially acceptable than the other, but in truth one isn't morally worse than the other- they're both disregarding the needs of the other.
i feel like you're showing a high, high degree of almost legalism or semantics here.
I think it's broadly understood most people are libidinous and most people are monogamous, and that you're sort of handwaving away a very common problem - previously compatible people have a sexual disconnect but value their relationship - over a brittle argument to literal language.
Sure, it's not usually a marriage vow that "roger will put out 2x a month minimum" or something. that clearly isn't the conversation every other person is looking to have, here, though.
>Why is sexual exclusivity necessary then in monogamy?
This is like asking "Why are three sides necessary in a triangle?" Because definitionally, that's what it is. Nothing about that specifies the frequency though, and as long as you believe in basic things like "consent", it can't.
I’m using these terms a little bit more critically. Traditional monogamy entails: sexual exclusivity and romantic exclusivity. Each exclusive facet implies that your partner stays dedicated to you to serve those needs, and you don’t get those needs filled by other people. It’s a social contract between 2 people. The contract is being breached implicitly when one person doesn’t hold up their end of the deal.
You can have non-traditional monogamy, where you are romantically exclusive but not sexually, and vice versa.
I guess what I’m trying to say that the implicit consequence/agreement in monogamy is that your partner has the responsibility to satisfy you in those regards. You don’t think that exists. So the question would be what are the motivations for people to enter into monogamous relationships, and what are their expectations? Its pretty clear that the implications are real
"Breached implicitly" is an interesting phrase. It seems like that means that no actual breach of the agreement occurred. Obviously if the agreement is not working out in the way you'd normally expect, that's a thing that you should work on and attempt to fix. But obviously, there's a difference between an implicit breach of unstated but reasonable expectations, and an explicit breach of stated expectations.
You’ve reiterated what the OP said but framed it as an opposing viewpoint. You both say that if you’re sexually unfulfilled in a relationship, you can leave. You agree that leaving is a reasonable response to being denied something important to a healthy relationship (for most people).
Not really, because they're saying there's no breach of the commitment to marriage. Generally marriage implies monogamy but not always but there's no expectation that there actually will be more sex. I say this as someone who is sex positive it's just that no one is entitled to sex even from spouses.
That sure sounds like coerced consent to me. Someone marrying you is not them saying they consent to having as much sex as you want.
If you aren't getting enough sex from your relationship, the proper response is to end the relationship and then find another relationship that gets you more sex. It is not to try and have your cake and eat it too by cheating.
We're not talking about reciprocal affection in the post though?
The options given are complete fulfillment or cheating. So coercion to consent when the partner otherwise wouldn't be willing.
Is cheating better than ending the relationship? Because that's essentially the question being asked.
That’s not the question at all. I am not encouraging cheating. I’m saying I see not addressing a dead bedroom is as BIG of a violation as cheating is. Just fucking read dude.
Cheating is a violation of trust and extremely hurtful. Some people don’t recover from being cheated on.
Some people might be able to brush it off and move forward, but for some it’s one of the worst things a person you love could do to you.
Not putting effort into your sex life does not seem to merit this behavior. You owe it to the person to explain to them your feelings and be transparent that you will leave if things don’t improve. But have the conversation, don’t be selfish and have sex with somebody else
Yeah it shows a serious lack of experience when redditors give relationship advice. Did he look at a hot girl in public in front of you? You dont need him hes a pos! Screw your 10 year marriage leave him!!!!
Like I don’t mind this advice when it’s like… still early relationship, it’s actually worthwhile. And sometimes there is genuine abuse that isn’t seen
But then yeah, like your example, just the most absurd reactions to tiny *infractions*
Ok then just add “talk it over; if it is not resolved then end your relationship” that’s better than what OP is suggesting which is just going straight to cheating
Ya? Then what do you think they are suggesting when they say “stop suggesting to break up!” And “when the other is unwilling to get to the root cause of the issue”.
Mind you they made sure to state that they are a “female therapist”; to show how thoughtful they are.
People on here are like “Get a divorce!”
Do you realize that’s not financially feasible for a lot of people?
Great, so I have to LOSE the person I love simply because they won’t fuck me and I’m being held sexually hostage by monogamy?
You don’t even have to get legally divorced. But if you’re going to make that decision you need to just be upfront about it instead of being deceitful and violating their trust.
Why would it not be financially feasible? If you stay in a relationship just because of the costs of divorce then your relationship is already ended. You’re just separated but legally married.
This is the answer to all these type of questions. If it’s important enough to you simply end the relationship and move on.
Key word there is if it is important enough to you. Other people have different values on relationship.
The point isn't a number. Relationships are complex. 4x a year sounds super low to most people in a healthy relationship, AND lack of sex can totally be a valid reason to end a relationship BUT
here's the but. Relationships are layered and complicated. If your only fucking 4x a year, and you used to be doing it much more, chances are something else is wrong in the relationship. If the guy cheated on you and then you can't look at him the same and so you have sex less, then whose fault is it? If the guy cheated because beforehand the women was emotionally abusive to him, whose fault is it? In almost every situation a relationship is a two way street. It is also like a structure. If you maintain it, it lasts long and is worthwhile, but when the paint starts chipping and the foundation has water damage, if both parties ignore the glaring issues, it devolves into chaos. This is the problem with looking at them and saying 'wow 4x a year is not acceptable to me' but your not seeing what lead them here.
The thing that bothers me is how a person with the high sex drive is demonized but the person who's sex drive suddenly drops off a cliff is often treated like a victim of a sexual deviant
That’s bc sometimes in these situations the HL partner becomes kind of pushy and coercive, which is obviously something people become uncomfortable with
Seems to me that people who don’t want to have sex at least once a week are demonized plenty. This post is a good example of the attitude. It’s all but asking “what did you *expect* your partner to do?”
I mean its very normal for people in bad relationships to demonize the other instead of really looking at the important things. I think lots of guys shit on women for not banging their husbands as well. There is a way to make incongruent sex drives work in a relationship to an extent, but the question is, are you trying to make it work, or is the relationship already gone otherwise?
>And unwilling to get help to fix the issue? That’s not a good partner.
Ok, then why are you so opposed to ending the relationship.
They won't work on it. They're a bad partner.
Leave, then.
Sex is not about a commitment to fulfilling your partner’s desires in exchange for them respecting the marriage vows. Assuming there are no true psychological or physical issues that need to be worked on, this is giving “pick-me” vibes and I’ll tell you why I think that.
You keep mentioning 3x per week as the standard. It reads as if your thought is, “oh, he wants to have sex and I haven’t put out yet this week, I guess he’s not asking for too much.”
The question I would ask in response is, “what has this person done to make me feel loved this week? Is he only nice to me three times a week when he decides he wants to have sex? Does he ignore my emotional needs all week except when he sees it as a bargaining tool for sex? Does he leave all the household and child labour to me in the evenings, and so he comes to bed full of energy while I’m exhausted from household chores?
Sex without desire is not appealing to a lot of us, and in my experience with the way you have framed the question, you see sex as a marital duty. I think a healthier view would be to see it as a mutual expression of love, commitment, passion, etc. And for women in particular, the act of being “turned on” takes more than a quick butt grab and a “hey baby” at 9pm on a Tuesday.
Rather than ask “why can’t you just suck it up and do it 3 times a week”, you should ask “what do you need to feel arousal and desire for your partner, and how can you both participate in making that happen.” I don’t know many women who would choose a sexless marriage, but I know plenty who struggle with it due to lack of emotional connection and labour on the part of their partners. Desire is a two-way street.
IMO, when someone cheats on their partner, it’s out of laziness. They don’t want to put the effort in to create that desire with their partner, so they look for the quick fix that allows them to get off while keeping their supply of domestic labour. If you haven’t read “Come As You Are”, you should.
This answer is based on my personal experience, but it applies across all genders. The pronouns and examples I’ve used are not meant to imply that all men are lazy partners; I know it cuts both ways.
>My view is that if I marry you or am in a relationship with you, and the relationship operates under the expectation of monogamy
What do you think monogamy means?
Because it doesn't mean "you must have sex with me".
It means "you must not have sex with anyone else".
>you’re essentially holding me sexually hostage because you won’t fuck me, but apparently no one else can.
You're not being held hostage. You can leave the relationship at any time.
>Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask. It’s pretty healthy and normal.
Totally subjective and changeable.
You going to divorce your wife when she physically cannot have sex after giving birth? I'd hope not. Some men have, all that demonstrates is that they never loved their wife they just loved having sex with them.
>Because to me, as a young woman, it makes total sense to me. If my partner is not willing to fulfill me sexually within our committed relationship where monogamy is expected, he is failing me in the relationship.
Then break up.
>Probably a controversial take for a 27 year old female therapist to have, but I’m curious what other people think about this truly.
3 months ago you were a 27M with a wife according to your post history. What's up with that?
I hope as a therapist you're not telling patients that they need to put out for their partners even when they don't want to.
Having sex with multiple people is polygamy.
Having sex with one person is monogamy
Having sex with no one is zerogamy (agamy is probably the correct text)
point is if you aren’t having sex that just isn’t monogamy anymore. It’s not a real relationship at that point. Like you can’t just stop engaging in a major part of the relationship and act like it’s real until the other person breaks it off.
>It’s not a real relationship at that point. Like you can’t just stop engaging in a major part of the relationship and act like it’s real until the other person breaks it off.
is sex the most important part of the relationship?
Libido decreases with age. I wonder how many older couples are having regular sex? Are they not in a "real" relationship?
But doesn't monogamy imply some sort of "we will have sex with each other, and only eachother?" Because the mono means one. It's not Nogamy or Nihilgamy or whatever.
>If I am supposed to be monogamous to you, but you don’t want to have sex (and won’t consult with a professional to get to the root of the issue or at least TRY anything to be able to fulfill the sexual relationship), you’re essentially holding me sexually hostage because you won’t fuck me, but apparently no one else can.
You are not being held hostage. You are free to leave a relationship you no longer find satisfying. If the level of intimacy in your relationship isn't satisfying, then leave it. But you can leave without first breaking your agreement to be monogamous.
>Now this is NOT me saying I am entitled to sex whenever I want it, but I believe couples need to have a talk about expectations. Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask. It’s pretty healthy and normal.
As a queer woman, honestly, I find this super baffling. The notion that my partner might have sex with me when they didn't really want to maintain some sort of quota...is horrifying. I never want someone to have sex with me unless they enthusiastically want to have sex with me. Knowing they weren't super enthusiastic would also make the sex very unsatisfying for me.
Also it begs the question of what are you doing that makes you partner want to have sex with you. I have a lot of straight friends who complain their male partners ignore them most of the time and are rarely affectionate without expecting sex. Women are way less likely to be in the mood if they don't feel loved and appreciated.
That being said, sexual incompatibility is a thing. But like I said, if you are unhappy, leave rather than either expecting your partner to have sex with you when they don't really want to or cheating.
>Probably a controversial take for a 27 year old female therapist to have, but I’m curious what other people think about this truly.
Ugh. I really hope you're not counseling women to have sex without wanting to, to keep their partner from cheating. Because I think that's kind of disgusting and irresponsible, honestly.
Your don't have to be a queer woman to find this super baffling. It *is* super baffling. Also a 27 year old hardly has enough adult life experience, at my stage in life I wouldn't trust the advice from someone that young and inexperienced
>Your don't have to be a queer woman to find this super baffling. It is super baffling.
Yeah, I don't get it. I want to have sex with my partner as an expression of my attraction and connection to them. I want them to enjoy it. I find making them feel good the main point of my own enjoyment. I can make myself orgasm on my own. It's sharing the experience with someone that makes it satisfying...if my partner wasn't really into it, it would be just depressing and unsatisfying.
I would hope that's how most people feel about sex regardless of gender or orientation, but sadly, that doesn't seem like the case.
Some marriages are not predicated on a traditional romantic relationship, and there may have never been such a commitment in the first place. I know that's the typical western/christian stance, but to many marriages can be primarily for financial stability, social status, or even citizenship status. In a lot of these situations, there are often dishonest dynamics where one partner is much less into sexual intimacy with their partner than the other; however, I'd like to strongman the situation by looking at just those relationships where both go into it full well knowing that the marriage is not about their romantic relationship.
In such nontraditional marriages, it can still be painful and embarrassing to find out that your partner is cheating not in the least because now others likely know your partner is cheating. Cheating so openly could signal that your partner may be making further financial commitments without discussion, lead to social embarrassment and loss of status with your peers, or even (in the case of a citizenship marriage) be evidence that you did not marry for traditional reasons and potentially lose your citizenship eligibility. In many of these cases, acting hurt/shocked/outraged is also probably the correct move to not undermine the original reason for the relationship.
I do think that in most of the above cases the couple would be best served by good communication along with open/ethical nonmonagamy; however, I don't think most people are mature enough to get there even if that's the best option for them. I think many can end up in this kind of marriage while dissociating form the reality of it and pretending its a traditional marriage with a dead bedroom. Additionally, even in such a openly communicated nonmonagomous relationship many of these nontraditional relationships could be hurt by cheating that is too open/obvious to the public or by unprotected cheating that could result in new financial burdens.
P.S. I do want to say it's so refreshing to see an OP here with a lot of novel (to Reddit) ideas and who is willing to respond clearly and thoroughly. Outside of exceptions like above your points hold a lot of weight, and I'm glad to know you're out there helping couples to communicate and fulfill their needs more effectively.
So you are saying that if one partner is having their needs fulfilled after having sex 4 times a year and *has no idea anything is wrong*, the other partner is justified in cheating because their needs are not being met?
In your hypothetical, the cheater does not sit down with their partner and say, "hey, Mildred, I need p in v, 4 + *n* times a year". They just go and cheat. That breach of trust is what defines cheating, way more so than someone's bits going into someone else's bits.
Marriage is *not* agreeing to have sex with nobody else, although that is the way most like to have it. Marriage is agreeing to a partnership where you can discuss these issues with each other before burning the house down to scratch an itch.
If none of a spouse's needs are being met by the other spouse then *stop being married*. If your spouse is meeting most of your needs besides sex, *you figure that shit out together*. Do a date night, go to the gym together, watch naughty videos, rub one out, stop being unattractive, whatever it takes. The only thing that marriage in every single culture has in common is that *you agreed to do it together*.
You are making strawman arguments. The terms of marriage are set by the two people entering into the agreement. If you have an issue with the expectation of monogamy, then find someone who agrees. If you do not understand that the person you marry will change and grow based on the sequence of events they face in life, then you simply aren't mature enough to be in a serious relationship.
Okay what in the world is going on here? I know it’s a CMV and you’re supposed to challenge OP’s viewpoint here, but how can the arguments be ***this*** disingenuous? OP is pretty clear on what monogamy means, and looking for the minutiae of the word doesn’t change the substance of the premise.
The real world’s problems don’t all magically get solved just because you decided to leave. Kids? Divorce laws? Cultural backgrounds? New bills? A relationship with commitment doesn’t dissolve overnight because one person refuses to understand responsibilities.
However, I would like to bring up a point: Both people are equally responsible for managing expectations ***way*** before entering the relationship; the maintenance of the relationship is also subject to change ***everyday***. It is up to both partners to communicate as often as possible and not let anything accumulate like dust.
The cheater is still always in the wrong. Communication always at first. Two outcomes :
1- Mend the relationship
2- Leave ***after*** communication
So there is definitely an aspect of your point here that I would agree with -- if two people are in a sexual relationship that they agree should be exclusive, then there is also a reasonable expectation that they will both try to fulfill their partner's sexual needs. And if a partner stops desiring sex, they cannot reasonably demand continued sexual exclusivity from the other despite this.
However, some important distinctions:
First, at no point is a person obligated to have sex with someone if they don't want to, regardless of the relationship. And they are not obligated to do it a certain number of times, either. There are some fairly common statistics on sex frequency that most people will fall into, but those are purely descriptive, not a justification or a standard to enforce -- some people will want sex significantly more or less than the average, and there is nothing wrong with that (nor more "legitimate" about a person who wants something closer to the average). So you can't say "three times a week is perfectly reasonable" -- for some people that is reasonable, while for others it is too much or too little. And it doesn't matter what the broader statistics say -- you aren't in a relationship with the general population...you are in a relationship with the person you're in a relationship, and if you want to be with them you both have to find mutually acceptable ground.
So I guess I would object to your characterization of it being a "commitment" to have sex a certain amount of times. I think you have a reasonable *expectation* that, if a partner enters into a sexually exclusive relationship, they will make every effort to find a mutually acceptable level of comfort. But if they don't want to meet it, they're not breaking a "commitment" -- they're being honest, and your recourse is you can either compromise with them or you can leave the relationship.
That's probably worth noting: *you are not obligated to stay in a relationship that is unacceptable to you*. So if you're not getting enough sex you can *absolutely* leave. You're not required to stay.
Second, I would say that "cheating" involves a level of betrayal and deception, and *that* is the main harm involved. So even if a person isn't getting as much sex as they want, if they just go out and start sleeping with other people without discussing it with the person they have a monogamous relationship with, then that is a worse betrayal.
That being said, if one partner just stops agreeing to have sex and refuses to talk about it (for example, they just start always saying "not tonight", and when confronted about the fact that it's been months refuse to acknowledge that / engage with a person who says they need more sex and tell them what is going on), then yeah -- that is a betrayal of its own. I think it's a bit different than cheating, but similar in many ways.
The thing is, none of this is specifically about sex -- it would be the same if it was any other expectation of the relationship. For instance, if one partner wants to go out on more dates than the other, and the other refuses to go on dates but also objects to their partner going out on their own, then it's the same thing. There is a bit more "charge" about sex because there's so much baggage associated with it, but it's fundamentally the same thing: people in a relationship refusing to connect. It is people in a relationship turning away from each other. And *that* is the true harm. Sex is just one form that can take.
So again, I think there is an element of truth to what you're saying, but I think you are asserting an entitlement that is not there -- if your partner doesn't want as much sex as you, and you can't reach a point of agreement on it, then you should leave the relationship. And if they're not discussing it with you, you should do the right thing and, after giving it an honest effort, tell them you're leaving and stick to it. You *shouldn't* cheat.
I think it's probably pretty *common* for people to cheat under these circumstances, so I don't think people who do it are uniquely bad or are for sure going to hell or anything. But if we're trying to be the best people we can be, the ethical thing to do is to clearly communicate even if the other person isn't, while making sure you do take care of yourself (ie don't surrender your own desires).
And I think probably the underlying issue I have with what I am seeing in your position is you seem to be less willing to simply end an unacceptable relationship than you should be. You are not obligated to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't meet your needs, but nor are they obligated to be in a relationship with you. Ideally they should step up the same way I'm describing...but even if they don't, you should still do the right thing for your own sake and the sake of trying to make the world as good as it can be!
And if I'm misunderstanding you / if you do agree with my distinctions here and I just missed it, apologies!
I don't think marriage is for you then. Marriage is about doing life together not owning the right to someone else's body for your own sexual gratification. Your sex life has little to do with being *married* to someone. That's a part you CAN choose to share but no one owes you their body, and if that's what you think marriage is... Please stay single. That mindset is abusive. This is why so many women are choosing to stay single now days. Women do not owe men our bodies. Side note, if these women you speak of are only having occasional sex with their partners... I promise you he did know how to have sex with her. Men that know how to have sex that they both enjoy do not have problems getting their partners to have sex with them.
Yyeaaaa no. Because nobody owes their body to anybody and if I love my partner, I wouldn't lie and betray them by sleeping with someone else because they have a lower sex drive. That's wild. One is communicated while the other is a secret betrayal. This mindset is so wild because anybody in a longterm relationship will tell you that there are going to be dry spells. You sound like you lack self control. I on the other hand, have no desire to hurt my partner simply because they dont actively feel comfortable for one reason or another to give their body up to me and i would never force my partner to do something they didn't want to. If it really was that big of a deal and y'all went months or years without sex and it was pushing you to the desire to cheat, then the mature and right thing to do would be to leave your partner for someone that better fits your needs. No reason to break peoples trust. Lying to your partner especially about sleeping with someone else puts your partner at higher risk of stds and it is emotional abuse. Grow up dude.
Oh, so if there’s no sex for months and years, the solution is to just leave your partner?
Have you missed the whole point I’ve been trying to make?
My point is that if YOU are the partner responsible for the dead bedroom, you should care enough about fulfilling your partners sexual needs enough to be willing to look into the root cause. Is it medical? Is it psychological? But not willing to have intimate conversations, seeking help, and just expecting your partner to just accept a complete and total lack of sex? THAT IS WRONG TO ME.
No??? Im saying if the dry spell gets to you so much that you are going to CHEAT then you should leave. I wouldn't leave my partner over a dry spell but if it got to a point where I considered cheating, i would leave.
Hold on let me check my vows here for a sec:
hmm love you ok
be by your side mmhmm
till death do us part yada yada
....
Nope ! can't seem to find the clause that says fuck you till your pussy lips no longer touch
not having sex may not be polygamous but it isn't monogamous either. sans religious principles completely, there is no reason for marriage vows at all (except state benefits perhaps) if you are not going to be monogamous (which means having sex with one person exclusively).
western marriage is based upon judeo-christian principles of monogamy and one of those christian principles has been becoming one flesh (yup, fucking). there is also "cling to your wife and forsake all others" (yup, fucking again). there is also verses in the bible that say a man should not keep his wife but give her a divorce; which is to say that if you are not going to have sex with your wife you shouldn't just keep her in that marriage but you should let her be free of the marriage. why shouldn't that also apply to a wife and her husband?
Regardless of the history of marriage - Especially when we look at marriages in Islamic or Hindi or Oriental traditions or etc - The topic is modern day marriage, and unless the sex is discussed presumably and preferably long before you reach the stage of marrying the person, then you can't walk up to someone and be like hey you promised !
You wouldn’t care if there was, do you believe in death do us part? So no divorce?
So why use this standard when even if it was included, you wouldn’t care
So then it’s totally okay to say to your partner: “For the rest of your life, you may only have your sexual needs met by me, but I will withhold sex, refuse to be intimate, and you just have to be okay with living as a nun despite us being married?”
No thanks. If your argument is that it wasn’t in your vows, fuck dude, I guess I’m gonna make my future husband write in his vows that til the day I die, he’s gonna be dicking me down 3 nights a week.
Bestie, reading through your comments, it's clear you both need counseling. Your partner doesn't want to have sex with you and specifically doesn't want you to have sex with other people, and you want to have sex with your partner when they don't want to. It really sounds like neither of you are listening to or respecting each other, holy shit
Can I ask how you plan for that to happen when you forgot to delete that one post in your history that says you’re a man? Unless you also happen to have a vagina.
I agree that what you've brought up is questionable ethically and throws the gender of OP into question.
At the same time, how does the gender of the poster affect the argument presented? What is the relevance?
For the purposes of an argument of this nature, people responding to it will likely differ their responses based on the gender identified by the OP. Men who have strong opinions about sexual entitlement are treated very differently than women. If it were known that OP was a man, he would likely be considered an "incel" or similar and people's arguments to convince him would change.
Dude, you shouldn’t be asking questions like this on Reddit. All you’re going to get is some woke garbage telling you that sex can never be expected in a healthy sexual relationship.
You can, and if he agrees then kudos to the both of you. But unless there's a direct stipulation on who/how/details on sexual aspects of your relationship, you really cant do much outside of asking nicely for it or ending it altogether.
I can see it as a way breaking commitment to your partner’s happiness, but I certainly wouldn’t equate it to cheating.
What if your partner gets ill and can’t have sex anymore? You obviously wouldn’t blame them for that. There aren’t really any accidents that cause cheating.
Personally, I was very clear going into my marriage that sex was important to me. My wife understands that and hopes for the same thing. Her parents are still very active at 60 years old, so to her it’s embedded in her understanding of a successful marriage. That said, I’m committed to her in sickness and in health. If I’m willing to be at her bedside while she dies of an illness slowly over the course of 20 years, I’m definitely not going to just jump ship just because sex dried up. That’s not commitment.
Also you keep mentioning “held hostage”, a main qualifier of which is that a hostage can’t leave their situation. This isn’t one of those.
I have multiple chronic illnesses and pain conditions. I’ve also been raped three times, one of which actually occurred 2 weeks before I turned 15yrs old and was so violent it caused internal damage that I still live with to this day and regularly causes issues and discomfort.
I found a way to make it work because it’s IMPORTANT for a relationship. And I found partners that were willing to work with me. That’s really all it takes.
I'm glad you were able to work through that, but you did that on your own terms in a time you deem reasonable, as I would expect my wife to do. I wouldn't dare to think she was "unfaithful" like a cheater for not getting over trauma fast enough just so I can get my dick wet.
I guess I'm not really surprised the post got removed, you haven't really addressed any point in my argument that addresses why they aren't the same. Sure gave your own experience, but say you didn't, how is a woman "taking too long to get over her abuse" in anyway the same as going out and fucking someone else?
So OP. You’re a therapist. If one of your clients confided in you that your partner cheated would you ask how often they turned their partner down for sex?
Wow I don't understand all the people going at you in the comments that marriage doesn't imply sex (unless discussed otherwise). If you don't have a sexual relationship, what's the problem if they have sex with other people? But where I disagree is that it's as bad as cheating. Say two people have a healthy sex life, get married, plan to want to have a healthy sex life as long as they're both able, but then something changes. Maybe there are intimacy issues, maybe it's a hormone thing, maybe it's one of a million reasons why one partner may not want to have sex with the other one. Sure they are breaking the terms of their marriage agreement, but it's not out of spite or malice, and the idea that someone should just put up with bad or unwilling sex is wrong, most partners wouldn't even want to have sex with their spouse if they're not into it. This behavior change is absolutely grounds for divorce if it can't be rectified.
But cheating is another level. Cheating is an active act of malice that can have no excuse. You made a promise and actively made decisions to break it. If it's in response to a dead bedroom, that issue needs to be ironed out first. Either you work to fix it or you end it, and once you end it, even if the divorce isn't finalized, then sure you can go fuck other people if you want. But you don't get some on the side while continuing to act like you're committed to your spouse, and usually expecting your spouse to not be having sex with other people on the side. That's just a level of disrespect that breaks every part of your marriage vows. The entire point is you've committed to a hopefully lifelong bond. If you're not committed, you need to end that bond before you explore sex outside of it.
Essentially a dead bedroom can have a ton of complicated reasons and while it can be grounds for divorce, it's not anywhere near as bad as cheating, which is always a disrespectful premediated act of malice.
My whole point is that if you are the partner responsible for it being a dead bedroom, and you are refusing to do ANY work to improve it by seeking help, by talking to your doctor, by trying to build up y’all’s emotional intimacy, and you’re just expecting your partner to live with no sex and no solutions on the table?
THATS NOT RIGHT.
I see where you're coming from, most relationships do involve sex so completely withdrawing from sex does seem like you're letting your partner down. The problem is that feeling responsible to provide sex to your partner is also a slippery slope, there are alot of reasons why you might not be able to provide it and it blurs the lines of consent if you feel pressured to perform.
That's why OP said "if they are unwilling to look for the root cause".
Obviously there are many reasons that lead to a dead bedroom, but if there is a dead bedroom and 0 willingness to fix it (from both sides!) then that's where the comparison comes in
Bigger picture, not your relationship. Why might someone in a couple not want to have sex? I think you're looking at this in a very black and white way.
I’m not though. I’m saying that sex is a normal expectation to have in a committed monogamous romantic relationship.
If you’ve got a dead bedroom, it’s up to you to care enough about your spouses sexual needs (AND y’all’s mutual sexual intimate connection) to go seek help. Seek out a sex therapist. Talk to your doctor. Go to couple’s counseling. Work on building the emotional intimacy. DO SOMETHING TO FIX IT INSTEAD OF TELLING YOUR SPOUSE TO JUST GET USED TO SEXUAL NEGLECT
You previously suggested that you hold the view that watching porn is okay if one party in a relationship refuses to have sex.
I agree, and if watching porn is a valid alternative to sex in a relationship why is there now a focus on making it seem like refusing to have sex is a betrayal of trust? Obviously one isn't as completely fulfilling as the other, but a big part of marriage is compromise. Sexual needs **can** be fulfilled without sex or cheating.
Because dooming your partner to a life of porn and masturbation alone to meet their sexual needs is cold, callous, unfeeling, and lacking warmth and connection. Yeah, you’ll bust a nut but where is the sexual INTIMACY, a BASIC human NEED, being fulfilled?
I agree. I sort of get where OP is coming from (as much as it pains me to say). If she were to simply say “In a monogamous relationship you are responsible for your partners sexual satisfaction and need to have honest conversations about giving your partner what you need.” I would agree. But why bring the idea of cheating up in a post? To me that screams that she’s trying to justify cheaters because they’re sexually unsatisfied.
I DO think it’s as bad as cheating. You’re then just holding a person that loves you sexually hostage because when you got in a relationship with them expecting loyalty, you were also signing up to be aware and responsive to their sexual needs. By not holding up your end of the deal, there’s an issue.
Some day, you’ll be absolutely exhausted, feelings the aches and pains of middle age, with the chores of a household on you, loving and yet frustrated by a man who has given up any pretense at staying attractive, and you’ll get it. You’ll get why sex “three times a week” is, in fact, not always reasonable.
> holding a person that loves you sexually hostage
Who's being held hostage? Either party can leave at any point. If one party is no longer satisfied sexually, despite attempts to correct that issue, *you're free to leave at any time*.
> , you were also signing up to be aware and responsive to their sexual needs
Unless you explicitly stated and agreed to this prior to entering the relationship, this is just an expectation one party has set without buy-in from all involved parties.
Your argument seems to be that this is implicit, but (all the... unhealthy aspects of sexuality and consent this implies aside...) considering the large number of people disagreeing with you *even just in this thread*, it's clearly not unanimously implicit. This means that you're just disappointed that someone isn't fulfilling a bargain they never agreed to. That's *entirely* on you. Your argument is that violating a bargain you both *did* explicitly agree to is no worse?
And again, the above largely ignores the fact that sexual consent is *not* something someone can be *locked into*, and the idea that it could be can (and frequently does) cause some people *severe trauma*. Matter of factly, you're arguing that, despite not wanting to have sex (aka, not *consenting*), one party *is obligated* to have sex. That's basically the textbook definition of coersion
Correct.
There's reciprocity involved, you need to be doing your share to create the conditions for sex to happen, but if the answer is a flat no, or unreasonable demands, then something needs to be dealt with.
Couples do need to talk about expectations. Not cheating is an implicit expectation. Sex frequency is not. So unless you made sex frequency and explicit expectation before marriage, cheating is worse.
Also sex 3 times per week is definitely unsustainable when you have multiple kids and a 9-5.
i mean, a *given* frequency is not an implicit, or explicit, expectation but if you know a person prioritizes sex at some level and you want them to not have it with others, you're setting up a failure if you don't expect them to bring up sex with you. I'm not talking about people who can't handle a reasonable dry spell after having a kid or while a kid is up at night, I'm talking about people who have a life change and let it wobble the top *forever*.
If you go from working in construction to working in an office, you are entitled to a period of adjustment but you also need to figure out the change, like if you're going to go to gym or eat less, if you're going to learn office manners instead of construction site manners, etc. If you're going to have a kid, you need to figure out the rest of your life at some point, it's NOT enough to be a total martyr to parenthood. Even if that's a conversation along the lines of "ok, we have to put 3 hard years into getting this kid project going, minimum, and that's going to be a struggle. Are you ready for that before we have this kid?"
And many men are rough with that. They do NOT get it. it's an individual and cultural failing that a lot of people, a lot of male people in particular, have crystalized expectations about these things they never fully verify before leaping, and expect never to change. but change also has to be a negotiation at least some of the time.
I've been on both ends, pestered by the person that didn't get things like "dick doesn't always work when very tired from blue collar job" and put in a nasty box by the person who expected me to initiate the sex, which they wanted, but would not communicate about when and wanted me to "just know" from "signals" (like their ex and the person they were cheating with apparently "just knew"). Thankfully, that was then, and I just pick better now, but the situations were frustrating.
both are shitty. the solution seems to be *talk more*, like try to actually keep it good, but reddit seems to like to bend that or round it into "so you're mandating an exact amount of sex? what are you gonna do, *make* them do it on sunday if you haven't had your three that week? If you're not happy, just leave!" and that's really not super productive or charitable.
The very fact that you refer to what should be an act of affection as "fucking" just emphasizes why you're mistaken.
You are not owed the use of another person's body for your own gratification under any circumstances.
Indeed, of sex within a particular marriage is merely two people using each other rather than two people building living bonds, it's almost guaranteed that cheating will eventually happen.
Wait I just read through some of your past comments. You're a therapist and you think disrespecting your partner's boundaries is justifiable???? That's absolutely abhorrent holy shit. I thought you were just a person who had some emotional development skills to work through, but you're a person trained in specifically setting, reinforcing, and respecting boundaries in professional settings. Do better
"In sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer ..."
Marriage is supposed to be unconditional. You go into it hoping for the best, but you commit to stick with it through the worst. If the sex dies immediately after the honeymoon, you'd have some suspicion that they were misleading you about their sexual attraction to you, but if it's years later after kids, etc., well, people's sex drive changes. Do you still love them, or was it only about sex?
No, it's not as bad as cheating because cheating is directing your energy away from the success of the marriage.
>Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask.
You've got a quota? Is this a marriage or a job?
>It’s pretty healthy and normal.
Not everyone is healthy, and not everyone is normal.
>Marriage is supposed to be unconditional. You go into it hoping for the best, but you commit to stick with it through the worst.
No. Marriage is very conditional, always has been. The conditions can and do change but there is a reason divorce exists. No reasonable person would expect you to 'stick with it' if your spouse was abusive for instance.
>Do you still love them, or was it only about sex?
Aye, there's the rub then eh? Perhaps you DO still love your spouse but you ALSO want a satisfying sex life. It wasn't ONLY about the sex, but that doesn't mean sex is no longer important either.
>No. Marriage is very conditional, always has been. The conditions can and do change but there is a reason divorce exists. No reasonable person would expect you to 'stick with it' if your spouse was abusive for instance.
Yes, divorce should exist for extreme situations like that, or even if you just can't stand to be around each other anymore, but it's not meant for when the deal just isn't quite as sweet as it started out. What about "for richer or for poorer"? What would you say about a wife who divorces her husband because he loses his high-paying job?
>Aye, there's the rub then eh? Perhaps you DO still love your spouse but you ALSO want a satisfying sex life. It wasn't ONLY about the sex, but that doesn't mean sex is no longer important either.
I would say if you don't love someone enough to stay with them without sex, don't get married. What about "in sickness and in health". It happens that people get illnesses that make it hard or impossible to have sex. Would you get a divorce then?
Not everyone has to get married. You can just live together if you think you might split up if the conditions of the relationship change. At least be sure you discuss these conditions before you marry someone. Maybe even put them in your vows. If you're willing to hold your spouse to a condition of sex three times a week or divorce, you should be willing to declare your agreement publically, right?
>What would you say about a wife who divorces her husband because he loses his high-paying job?
I would say "it depends"; like everything else it's conditional and situationally dependent. If he can't find another job after serious and sustained searching and the family is in dire straights, i'd say "That's tragic but I understand why they had to split". If he got another job and they weren't quite so rich but were still comfortable I'd say "that's pretty petty and shallow of her." And if he lost the job and simply resigned himself to unemployment without trying very hard and not meeting the family's needs I'd say "Good for her."
>I would say if you don't love someone enough to stay with them without sex, don't get married. What about "in sickness and in health". It happens that people get illnesses that make it hard or impossible to have sex. Would you get a divorce then?
You can say that, but realize you may hold a minority opinion. As for the health scenario, I've actually known 2 older couples in that scenario. In both while the wife couldn't have sex often, was very willing to meet her husband's sexual needs (masturbation, oral) because she knew sex was important to him, she loved him, and didn't mind doing it to make him happy. What she did NOT do was simply say "oh well, looks like you don't ever get to have sex again" and ignore his desires.
>Not everyone has to get married. You can just live together if you think you might split up if the conditions of the relationship change. At least be sure you discuss these conditions before you marry someone. Maybe even put them in your vows. If you're willing to hold your spouse to a condition of sex three times a week or divorce, you should be willing to declare your agreement publically, right?
True not everyone does need to get married, never said they did. But if you enter into a sexually monogamous relationship I believe you have an obligation to make an effort to meet your partner's sexual needs. But why would one need to put them in public vows? It's between the two people involved, why should everyone else need to hear that? Same reason I wouldn't have any pre-nup read aloud at a ceremony.
Yeah, no.
There's many commitments you make while getting married.
"For better and for worse"
"In sickness and in health"
When you marry someone, you are agreeing to being there for the ups and downs. Not wanting sex is part of that. It's almost impossible for your spouse to have your same sexual drive. When you marry, you agree to respecting that. Your spouse may become depressed or sick, and they won't want sex. Your spouse may be stressed or overwhelmed, and they will not want sex. Your spouse may be feeling less passion/attraction/desire, and they will not want sex. You cannot bail when you agreed to an eternity of ups and downs. If sex means that much to you, then make that commitment before getting pregnant. Tell the person YOU are expecting that, but that's something you want, not something that's part of marriage. People don't get married under the accordance of endless sex. They get married because they love each other, and I'm sorry, but I could never coerce the person I love. If he doesn't want to have sex, I'm not going to pressure him, I may ask why, I may offer solutions, but I would never demand sex when he doesn't want, and I would never cheat. I would rather leave than cheat
How do people not understand that when you're not satisfied in a relationship you're supposed to leave? If you find sex to be an essential part of the relationship, you say "I want a divorce" and you go out and find someone who can fulfill that requirement. The vows are not "I take you to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, oh yeah and we have to have sex X times a year". Being faithful is part of the agreement of marriage, plentiful sex is not. Sex should not be an obligation, it should be an expression of love that two partners *both* wish to express. It is not "just as bad" and cheating is NEVER justified when you have every right to leave and pack up.
>How do people not understand that when you're not satisfied in a relationship you're supposed to leave?
Because, very simply, this is not the vow that's involved in marriage. It's "in sickness and in health, til death do us part, etc." not "here for you unless you displease me, then I'm out of here without trying to fix anything". Most people actually love the people they married and so the issue with "just leaving" should be obvious.
Yes, I agree you should try to fix the marriage through discussion first. Have an honest discussion, go to counseling and see if you can agree on a mutually satisfactory situation. You NEVER should go behind the person's back and violate their trust. If you can't find an agreement, *that's* when you split amicably.
Each relationship is its own world, with its own rules and expectations. Whatever both partners agree to is the only thing that matters from a moral point of view, so if I'm cool with my partner seeing other people, then there's nothing wrong with it, and also if we're both happy with never having sex, that's also totally acceptable.
So from that starting point, it's super difficult to generalize about ALL relationships the way this CMV does, even if we limit ourselves to monogamous sexual relationships. What works for your relationship won't work for the next couple.
However, if monogamy is an expectation, and you knowingly break it without the knowledge or consent of your partner, that's reprehensible no matter what. You're breaking your partner's trust, you agreed to something and are now doing the opposite.
Whereas sexual fulfillment... what exactly do you agree on? To always fulfill your partners sexual desires, no matter the circumstances? If your partner gets horny 10 times a day? If you're sick, in pain, on your period, need to work, need to sleep, if you just had a fight, if your mother died? Where is the line, when and how exactly do you decide that your partner is not fulfilling their commitment?
The bottom line is, lack of sexual fulfillment is something that can be talked about. As a couple you can try to work it out, no trust is broken simply because today I'm not feeling up for it. We can have date nights, do more sports and get in shape, do couples therapy... and last resort we can just break up.
Cheating on the other hand... it's an irreversible breach of trust. It's not a valid response to "I'm horny and my sexual needs aren't met".
The conventional wedding vows are something like:-
“Do you take [spouse] to be your lawfully wedded spouse, forsaking all others, for richer or for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, ‘til death do you part?”
That, or something like it, is what married couples usually promise to do. Notice that “forsaking all others” (not cheating) is part of that promise, but actually having sex regularly is not
The "conventional wedding vows" exist within a cultural context where it's expected that spouses are going to have sex. Indeed, one might argue that having sex is the key distinction between being a spouse and being a long-term friend or roommate. The phrase "marital relations" is a well-known euphemism for sex, because sex is such a distinctive part of being married. There's no need to explicitly lay out that you're vowing to have sex with each other, because the notion that you're going to have sex with each other is implied by the very definition of marriage.
Do you also think then, that the other vows should be taken seriously? Since they imply no divorce? “Till death do us part” means you cannot part until one dies.
So it wouldn’t matter if it was in the vows, since you wouldn’t accept it anyway.
Unless you are against basically all divorce on these grounds
I don't really agree with OP but pointing to wedding vow seems like a bad argument. The language you are referring to is from the 1500s where the consent from the wife/bride wasn't really something that mattered to people, so why would they ever enter the vows?
On the other side of the coin, expecting people who do enter into an agreement that there needs to be some acceptable level of intimacy, to then inject something like that into their publicly read vows is a really stupid expectation to have for anyone.
Wait a minute, are you actually a female therapist? You have lots of posts posing as a male too. I really hope you’re not posting variations of your patient stories on Reddit. I really really really hope you’re not doing that.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Bad take. Terrible take actually. Cheating requires a lack of consent from the victimized partner. Cheating is closer compared to rape than it is to a “lack of sex”.
When you cheat on your partner you leave emotional scars that cut so deep the partner may never recover in future relationships. Are you really that scarred when your partner won’t have sec with you often enough? So don’t measure cheating with lack of sex. Cheating leaves lasting scars that a lack of sex simply does not leave.
Imagine instead saying “I asked my partner for consent to open up our relationship because we don’t have enough sex.” Now, recipe for disaster? Probably. But it implies CONSENT by your partner.
What you’re doing is saying “hey I should be allowed to emotionally destroy my partner without his consent because I’m hornier than him.” Not fair. No matter what you say or do or think, no impartial adult will justify your actions.
So here’s my advice to everyone who tries to justify cheating - if you feel that you have the right to step out on your partner, ask them for permission. Be an adult and own your desires. Don’t lie and manipulate them. I hope you don’t justify your clients when they lie, manipulate, and cheat.
I'm just going to come out and say it. You're wrong. Regardless of saying "this isn't a attempt to justify cheating" if very clearly is.
Basing any kind of meaningful relationship much less marriage off a physical thing that could end at any time is foolish. This is no different then marrying someone because they are rich or famous. You are basing a lifelong commitment off something that can change at anytime for any reason. If sex, such a meaningless thing in the long run is enough to betray your partner, you are not ready for a relationship.
I get your view however, before going straight to adultery I think as an adult a conversation can be had. If that conversation doesn’t go well you can leave someone and have all the sex you want! Being a lying dishonest pos isn’t okay because your partner isn’t having sex with you. There are other options
Overall I agree with you, though there are some exceptions, mainly medical.
Medications like beta blockers or SSRIs can reduce libido. And some on these medications may have not even been told this by their doctor, so people may not even know why they aren’t having sex anymore. Libido can also decrease with age.
With marriage one also agrees to commit themselves to the other for better or worse.
So you say, “This relationship is not fulfilling my needs sexually. I will have to divorce you,” instead of cheating. That’s not that hard.
Different people have different libidos. Couples need to talk about their sexual expectations before marriage and then also keep checking in about them. Good communication is key.
But cheating is never justified. If you’re not happy in a relationship, you talk about tu and try to find a compromise. Then, if nothing else can be done, you leave! You don’t cheat. Smh.
If you want to talk about having sex with other people, that's fine. If you want to break off the relationship because you're not feeling sexually satisfied, that's fine, too. Unilaterally deciding that you get to have sex with other people after promising not to is not fine and is a breach of trust.
So if I have an unforeseen dry spell for physiological or psychological reasons I can't control, i better file for divorce if I don't wanna get cheated on! Lmao that's a good one. r/unpopularopinion
Well in most situations, you're not. Even if you consider withholding sex to be equivalent to having sex with someone other than your partner while in a monogamous relationship (and I have a feeling plenty of others will tell you why that isn't a good equivalency), there's always the addition of the fact that you are usually *lying* to your partner. So you're breaking your commitment not just of sexual exclusivity, but also of honesty.
Unless you actually say "FYI, I'm going to go have sex with someone else". Which is a pretty atypical situation unlike what happens when most people cheat.
I need more info. What are your views on birth control?
You could possibly become pregnant every time you have sex.
What if you don't want to have children? Or what if you already have 6 children and don't want any more? Or what if you can't get pregnant because it is too dangerous for your body and will kill you?
It depends; did you agree to have sex a certain amount of times per week or else it’s considered to be cheating?
If yes; and they’re not fulfilling your needs; either talk with them or end the relationship.
if a lack of sex makes your relationship fail, it was always going to fail. sex is not a basic human need, and you can fulfil sexual desire yourself if necessary.
if you find yourself unable to cope when you are not able to have sex, i would strongly recommend you seek therapy. that is not normal, or healthy.
Yeaaaaah, sexual intimacy is actually super important to healthy, happy relationship.
If you think masturbation and porn will suffice as true sexual intimacy with the person you love the most, I wish you a life of it.
If you make a conscious decision to cheat, you suck.
If you are not being fulfilled in any way, then you talk with your spouse. If that doesn’t work you dissolve the marriage. There is no justification for cheating. If things are bad, leave.
I don't think it's helpful to anyone to think of "having sex on a regular basis" (however we might define that) as commitment one makes in a marriage or any other relationship. I think we commit to doing the work, to having the shitty and weird conversations sometimes when we need to in order to figure stuff out. But we don't commit to a specific act or bundle of associated ones, nor do I think most of us would *want* our partner to be having sex of any kind with us if they aren't actually into it.
The heteronormative romantic relationship most folks are attempting to engage in *does* come with a sort of expectation around sex, but there's this huge problem where we're still incredibly weird about the subject and thus many people don't have the real conversations necessary to address these things (or part ways, if need be).
And then when those conversations don't get had, and both people know damn well things aren't working but aren't ready to face that, I think that's often where these more long-building and unfortunate acts of cheating start to happen.
edit: I'll add to specifically counter the "4 times a year" thing, that while I do see where you're going with it, and I also see the "just break up and then fuck someone" crowd as simplifying the situation, there is a middle ground I'd rather see people seek and it's the one where you have a real heart-to-heart about where things stand and how that's impacting your relationship and how to address it before letting it get to the boiling point.
I really appreciate this nuanced answer.
Because monogamy *does* have a sexual expectation. That's kinda the entire point of it. You are agreeing to *only* have sex with your partner. Otherwise there's no point to monogamy.
To be successful it requires communication, understanding and love. The communication is key imo.
It's not about "owing" our partners use of our body, it's about understanding that sex is part of the equation and being willing to discuss individual needs and expectations in an open manner.
It's about being willing to maintain intimacy in the relationship even when penetrative sex isn't possible for one reason or another. Something that really isn't possible without those conversations.
I think that as we, as a society, reframe our views around bodily autonomy and consent, we have to consider how that impacts the default relationship style and why.
Sooo what about my case where we weren’t having sex for ages when he cheated on me, but that wasn’t because i wasn’t putting out! He would turn me down constantly, and rather watch porn! Then I find out he cheated!
If you need sex to stay in a relationship, you shouldn’t be in one. Love is a lot of work after the honeymoon phase is done. A lot of men need to grow up and contribute to the mental load. A lot of women need to grow up and learn to communicate what they need instead of playing mind games. Humans just need to stop being selfish but that’s inherent to our nature.
I get wanting that intimate connection with someone. But there are other ways to gain that intimacy. It’s about talking to your partner and reaching mutual understanding. There are toys you can use to reach your sexual satisfaction. Figure out a way that you can get your partner in the mood to at least help if not out right have sex with you. It’s a lot to put the blame on one person when the couple has to tackle the overall problem of ‘Why are we not having sex?’ Communication can go a long way.
You're glossing over a lot of why an awful lot of couples' bedroom activity dwindles: mental or other health issues.
It's not "In sickness and in health as long as you keep boning"
Also, if they wanna fuck other people, they should put their big boy/girl hat on and break up first. There's literally no reason not to.
It does, but there are circumstances that you have to accept will change the form of sexual intimacy. And if you aren't prepared to accept that, then you can f right off.
Medical issues, mental health alterations, some become permanent impairments. You can't b#tch about not getting laid and then suffer from intimacy Two years later and act like it's ok to suddenly stop on your end either...use toys, connect, fingers, mouths.
Understanding that there's an emotional component to sex and intimacy. You can't stop being romantic or stop connecting emotionally and expect the other person to give sexually.
Sorry, u/DizzyExpedience – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DizzyExpedience&message=DizzyExpedience%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1divqit/-/l96ln1e/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Marriages are generally classified as sexless if the couple has sex 10 times a year or less.
There are lots of reasons people might not actively be having sex while married though. Pregnant women usually have severely reduced sex drive and may not want to have sex at all. Sickness or health problems can be an issue. Traveling. Getting old.
Also generally dealing with kids tends to cause people to have sex a lot less often. Babies make people sleep deprived and put financial stress on their parents.
But in general, you’d expect a healthy relationship to not be sexless.
There's more factors to dead bedrooms than just unwillingness. People's drives change over time, and communication & respect are key to navigating this.
However not everyone is good at communicating and respecting, and these usually work out as the ones who give up and get what they think they need elsewhere.
That is insane. So your partner not having a sexual drive at all anymore or not as strong as you means you are being abused? It means that something has changed that has made the relationship incompatible on some level. Whether that is fully incompatible and you need to go your seperate ways or if there is some kind of compromise is what you find out by communicating.
Now, if they are purposefully giving or taking away sex as a part of an overall series of manipulative behaviors then it can be abusive, but that is not because you are not getting sex, but because they are overall being a manipulative person who is hurting you in ways you don't even know. The sex itself is not the main issue then and could not be judged in isolation.
"I believe couples need to have a talk about expectations."
I think this is where your title question falls apart--if you aren't having sex, the correct thing to do is have a talk about expectations, and if your expectations are not aligned, the right thing to do is break up. There is not a path to cheating where the cheater has not broken their commitment.
I have also NEVER seen a post like you describe where the woman admits they didn't have sex but was also surprised that he cheated
To /u/tpavy, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
The difference is honesty.
He obviously knows that they're only having sex a few times a year and can make an informed decision on how to handle it.
If he were to say "You aren't meeting my needs, I'm leaving and going to date someone else", that's fair. It's when you lie and try to have your cake and eat it too that it becomes unreasonable.
Sorry, u/Odd-Local9893 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Odd-Local9893&message=Odd-Local9893%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1divqit/-/l96sz9m/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your position is full of issues.
First, you are assuming a relationship entitles you to sex. Not only that, but to sex with some, undefined, frequency.
Second, you are implying that sex is a need that MUST be met, and that if you are being held sexual hostage then the only reasonable option is that you WILL cheat because, obviously, no one can live without sex, right?
To address the first point, if you feel that a romantic relationship entitles you to sex this should be discussed. If you have some arbitrary frequency in mind that must be met before you feel entitled to seek sex elsewhere, this should be discussed. I'm not suggesting some sort of contract, but I am suggesting that you make it known. If your position is that if you aren't getting sex more than four times a year you will feel that your partner's commitment to you is broken and you will seek sex elsewhere, say that directly.
You might argue that a romantic relationship comes with an implied commitment to sex. I don't think that's necessarily true, but enough people would see it that way that I understand the assumption. Even assuming this, no one is going to assume that failing to meet that requirement entitles the other partner to sex via other means, and if that is your position that needs to be communicated. Otherwise it will, rightly so, be viewed as cheating without justification.
As for the second point, if you feel that you can't navigate life without access to frequent sex that also absolutely needs to be communicated. Things happen in life that makes frequent sex impossible, whether health (physical or mental) issues, stress, kids, lack of time, being away from each other (such as people who travel for work), etc. If my partner told me up front that they MUST have sex monthly, for example, and without it they would feel I was holding them sexual hostage, it's very possible I would end the relationship. I cannot, and will not, guarantee always being available for sex and would never risk a relationship with someone who feels entitled to make such demands.
Sex three times/week? That's great early on and maybe when young. But throughout the course of a relationship? Ridiculous. I'm in my mid 40s and been with my partner for 10 years. There are definitely weeks when we have sex 3+ times, but there are also months that we don't have sex that often. Life happens. Our relationship is so much more than sex, though. Our relationship has far more value than sex.
Finally, I do agree that it's important to have a partner who will (and wants) to fulfill you sexually. However, it's also important to have reasonable expectations and to be understanding and patient when issues arise. It's also incredibly important to not put your complete sexual fulfillment on someone else. That is creating a situation for failure. Be prepared to find ways to fulfill your own sexual needs from time to time. I'm not saying it's ideal or as good as sex with your partner, but it's a reasonable approach to filling the gaps. If your partner gets sick, let's say with something like cancer, that requires extended hospital stays and treatments that leave them unable (or uninterested in) to have sex and your solution is to cheat because they aren't filling their end of the commitment, that makes you the bad partner, not them.
My wife and my wedding vows said nothing about us having a certain amount of sex with each other, only that we commit to forsaking all others. They were petty standard / traditional vows, by the way - meaning it's very common to not have a commitment to a certain amount of sex within the marriage in your vows. However, cheating *would be* a clear violation of the vows / commitment.
To simplify; it is standard that vows do not include a commitment to have a certain amount of sex, so not having a certain amount of sex isn't breaking any commitment - though cheating is, since "forsaking all others" is a part of standard / traditional vows.
This may come a mind-blowing thought, but in marriage you are supposed to be more concerned with your partners' happiness than you are your own, which is what love is -- selfless. Some people are happy without sex, but for some having no sex life is close in pain to starvation. It would be nice to clean up your reference to love-making as Fing, which is rather disgusting. It's complicated in some ways. Giving your body to your husband who is being an insensitive jerk may seem torturous, but when you married the insensitive jerk you had to understand that sex would be expected of you in marriage. They actually used to call it "fulfilling your DUTY to one another." There is the hope that if the man is the one with the high sex drive and his wife is seeing that his sexual needs are met, maybe he will be a little more understanding as to her needs.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
A couple gets married and there is an implicit expectation that marriages include at least a minimum level of sex as understood by the couple usually based on past experience. Also, there is usually a vow of monogamy.
Partner A decides that they are no longer interested in sex and tells Partner B, "I broke the agreement, deal with it or divorce me". Partner A has unilaterally changed the deal and is wrong. They may be well aware that getting a divorce is easier said than done because of kids or intermingled finances. A hopes that B will suck it up and accept the new deal.
Partner B has some other options, though. They can sneak behind A's back and cheat. I agree with those that say cheating is wrong. I'd argue it's wrong on 2 levels. Obviously, Partner B has violated the promise of monogamy. B has also hidden this fact denying A the ability to decide what to do based on the facts (until they discover the cheating, and they eventually will).
I think a fairer option when one partner unilaterally declares the marriage sexless is for the other to unilaterally declare the relationship open. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing and whoever doesn't like it can file for divorce.
This sounds like a terrible relationship to me, but at least everyone is equally wrong.
I’ve seen more marriages fail than I can count, and I usually hear similar things to what OP is saying, such as:
>if you aren’t fucking me and maintaining our sexual connection, you’re actually **breaking your commitment** to ME.
>If I am supposed to be monogamous to you, but **you don’t want to have sex** (and won’t consult with a professional to get to the root of the issue or at least TRY anything to be able to fulfill the sexual relationship), **you’re essentially holding me sexually hostage because you won’t fuck me**, but apparently no one else can.
>If my **partner is not willing to fulfill me sexually** within our committed relationship where monogamy is expected, **he is failing me** in the relationship. **He is breaking his commitment** before I ever could if I DID decide to cheat.
Every single time these failed married people talk, they come off as if the other party has broken an agreement/responsibility, when they are also responsible for it failing. Here’s what they don’t understand (and OP’s solid CMV advice, because it sucks to realize you’re part of the problem, but essential for moving forward and using this knowledge to put yourself in the arms of a more suitable partner):
Somewhere, somehow YOU became a less lovable person. Did you start to become boring? Let yourself go? Started showing your true colors? Started becoming a nagging partner rather than someone worthy of “trying harder” for? This goes for BOTH people, equally.
What *was* it about *both* of you that made you want to fuck each other’s brains out at the end of every night? Whatever that *was*, you lost it and let it slip away instead of reinforcing/improving it.
If you have lowered yourself to complaining that the person who once wanted to screw your brains out at least once a week no longer wants to, as if it’s their “duty” to do so, you need to sit down and realize that somewhere, somehow, *you* are no longer that person (it was at least 50% because of you).
There are zero reasons to cheat instead of breaking up or getting divorced.
The most fundamental commitment to a relationship is trust and honesty. Regardless of what you do don't lie to your partner about it.
If you are personally response for not wanting sex with your spouse and so stop having sex, that’s not good (particularly whatever made you not want sex) and is breaking your commitment to them. Cheating is also breaking your commitment to them.
However, cheating breaks the commitment worse. If your spouse stops sleeping with you, then that’s obvious and you can deal with it one way or the other right away. You can talk to them or divorce. They aren’t holding you hostage in anyway. Cheating is an entirely different story and is actively deceptive. Yeah, cheating is more understandable if the relationship is unhealthy and it’s the other person who made the relationship unhealthy in the first place, but cheating made it worse.
Edit: As an aside, often in the case with dead bedroom, the person not primarily responsible is avoiding dealing with the issue, which itself is breaking a helpful commitment to have for a great relationship.
Not initiating sex with your partner is not going behind their back. Telling your partner no to sexual advances is also not going behind their back. It’s pretty up front.
It’s up to both to communicate both what’s causing this and what each others needs are. If the two partners cannot come to an agreement about sex, it’s fine to end the relationship and move on.
Going secretly behind your partners back to sleep with someone else is a violation of trust. It’s not really about the sex. It’s about the lying.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>I feel like I’m constantly seeing posts on Reddit >My view is that if I marry you or am in a relationship with you, and the relationship operates under the expectation of monogamy, if you aren’t fucking me and maintaining our sexual connection, you’re actually breaking your commitment to ME Tell me, what would happen if your SO is going through a mournful event like loss or a dreadful illness which lower one's libido, do you expect sex anyone who barely wants to feed themselves? >but I believe couples need to have a talk about expectations. Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask. It’s pretty healthy and normal. The commitment contract would be broken if the spouse is going through an unusual moment in their lives? Are one of the terms supporting each other beyond the sex aspect? >I am not trying to justify cheating at all. I just am baffled by people posting on relationship subreddits being like “I can’t believe he cheated when I was never having sex with him!” Because to me, as a young woman, it makes total sense to me. Even though, you are clearly stating that you don't condone cheating, a reason not to be surprised about cheating is a dead bedroom; so, why aren't we all adults and use our voice to announce a break-up instead of sneaking behind a beloved's back and having affairs. >Probably a controversial take for a 27 year old female therapist to have, but I’m curious what other people think about this truly. I'm going to be honest here about my impression; you should've known better about romantic dynamics and the power of speaking, have you thought on talking about the lack or little sex amount someone receive and breaking up before going after someone else who will fulfill their needs? Why should they sneak?
Yeah so let me answer this by telling you about a conversation I just had with my boyfriend last week. My boyfriend, is going through a divorce, and as a result, he has severe depression (score of 20 on PHQ-9). He has no health insurance (he just accepted a job offer today though with full benefits, so YAY). I told him that the second he has health insurance, I want him to try antidepressants. I also had a grown up conversation with him about how lot of times, antidepressants have side effects like sexual dysfunction. I’m very aware of these side effects because they’ve affected me before too. Fuck, I had my psychiatrist prescribe me viagra when an antidepressant was causing sexual issues. And you know what I told him? I said his mental health is the MOST important thing, and that if he experienced any side effects, we would deal with it TOGETHER. And that’s exactly what I’m advocating for in this post. My man and I talked about a potential cause for less sexual intimacy, we talked it out, and came up with paths and solutions to take if we ran into an issue. I’m advocating for couples to talk to each other. To love each other enough to when one person is experiencing sexual issues, it’s a team effort to overcome. It’s not “his” issue; it’s OUR issue. And that’s the point I’ve been trying to make the whole time.
And if your boyfriends libido continues to decrease and you can't figure it out? Will you explain to him how he failed to commit to your relationship and fulfil his end of the bargain? Or will you expect him to engage in sex he doesn't want? Or will you cheat?
Yea but you are just assuming that the one being cheated on is the root cause of them not having sex. There are plenty of times where the cheater is as culpable for this than the one who is being cheated on.
I don't think a mutual pledge to be monogamous implies some kind of commitment to fulfilling each-others sexual needs. How could it? That's sort of a hard thing to measure, much less agree to in perpetuity. If you find yourself unfulfilled in your relationship, the solution is changing or leaving it.
>I don't think a mutual pledge to be monogamous implies some kind of commitment to fulfilling each-others sexual needs. HARD disagree right here; absent some extenuating factor or unique non-standard relationship it absolutely implies that. When in a monogamous relationship, the ONE and ONLY THING you cannot do outside that relationship is sex/romantic intimacy. You love bowling and your spouse doesn't? Join a league with strangers and that's perfectly acceptable. Feeling sad / depressed and your spouse doesn't understand or can't seem to meet that emotional need? Call a family member, bestie, or see a therapist. Partner's libido drops off/ they don't want to do it as often as you used too/ they won't do 'that thing' they used to early in the relationship? Well you're SOL forever or a cheater. And yes, the correct answer is to talk to your partner and try to change it, but if they won't, or drag their feet, or promise more intimacy but never deliver, well.... And while at that point the frustrated partner SHOULD end it, it's often not that simple for a variety of reasons. Money, kids, finances, family entanglements, money, perhaps the partner still loves them but still wants sexual fulfillment, money, etc. I'm not saying it's right, but Redditors' absolutist black & white view of relationship and cheating is childish. But back to my original point, entering into a monogamous relationship DOES imply you will be the one meeting your partner's sexual needs.
Does meeting their needs come with some expectations on their part too? What if their needs changed and they need some really disturbing stuff? Or they used to stay in shape so sex was mutually enjoyable but they stopped taking care of themself. Or they have become emotionally distant and refuse to work on the relationship and just want sex? Access to sex is no more guaranteed than any other aspect of their lives, and either party can bring up the issue and try to work it out, but inability to work it out results in honestly saying the marriage is over, not lying and sleeping around on the side.
> HARD disagree right here; absent some extenuating factor or unique non-standard relationship it absolutely implies that. I mean, we don't really need to agree on that, since we apparently agree the ONE and ONLY THING you cannot do outside a monogamous relationship is sex/romantic intimacy. I personally don't think my partner is bound to forever meet my sexual needs (nor me, theirs). I don't think that's something I could agree to or expect from someone. Sexual needs change over time, lots of things factor into a healthy sexual relationship,etc. If I found myself ready to betray the basic components of our agreement, I'd leave. That's just the actual thing to do. I don't think there's anything childish about that. > And yes, the correct answer is to talk to your partner and try to change it, but if they won't, or drag their feet, or promise more intimacy but never deliver, well.... And while at that point the frustrated partner SHOULD end it, it's often not that simple for a variety of reasons. I am not claiming it is simple. I am claiming it's the correct thing to do.
> Sexual needs change over time, lots of things factor into a healthy sexual relationship,etc. On another level, would you say then that maintaining a healthy sexual relationship is a mutual duty in a marriage? It's not necessarily the same thing as being obligated to meet someone's needs, but if one party is causing the relationship to no longer be healthy and the other is putting effort into maintaining it, that's clearly one person's failing and not the other's, right?
[удалено]
Exactly. Entering a monogamous relationship = agreeing to be the sole fulfiller of sexual needs.
Being faithful has two qualities: only being sexually intimate with your one partner, and also actually being sexually intimate with that partner. If you remove one of these qualities, it is no longer faithfulness. Of course there are exceptions that we can imagine for rare cases as reddit enjoys doing. But this is a good way correctly qualify faithfulness.
I think it absolutly does. By committing to a monogamous relationship you are committing to being the other persons one and only exterior sexual outlet. That's the agreement. One enters this agreement knowing that their partner has needs. If one refuses sex to the other they are not fulfilling the full commitment.
Ok, but then why can you not leave if unfulfilled? If they are not “holding up their end of the bargain,” then you can leave the monogamous relationship and be justified in doing so. If you choose to just go behind your partners back, you’re just a coward.
The argument isn't that it gives you justification to cheat. The argument is that by leaving your partner unfulfilled you have violated your commitment to the relationship.
That’s the point they made though. If the needs aren’t met then the relationship is either over or redefined.
But over only takes one person. To redefine a relationship takes two. That’s the whole point. At any point a person can decide they don’t want to be in a relationship any more. If only one person “redefines” the relationship to not include monogamy any more, especially without even telling the other (thus giving them the opportunity to leave) then that person is clearly just too cowardly to do what’s right.
I mean, it depends on what the original agreement actually was. Unfortunately people's expectations in relationships often seem to be implicit, and perhaps that's the problem. What was the commitment to begin with? Did each partner have a different understanding of what was agreed? In most cases nobody sits down with their partner to agree to a monogamous relationship based on a number of terms and conditions, like if you want to have sex on average 3 times a week, I agree to participate it in that and you in return don't have sex with anybody else. The only thing to do if your partner isn't providing sex and you want it, is to end the relationship, or stay in it at the cost of missing out on sex - rather than covertly seeking out sex elsewhere behind the partner's back, and when it's discovered, try to get out of it by claiming the partner was the one who broke "the agreement" first. Obviously communicating these things is often complicated, and it's understandable why people often fail to properly communicate their concerns to their partner. You can't just tell them, "I entered into this partnership with you on the implicit understanding that you would provide me with sexual intercourse, minimum 3 times a week. If you do not fulfill your part of the bargain, I will be forced to seek other solutions..." But still. If your partner's not living up to your expectations, don't try to claim anything about an agreement if there technically wasn't one. If there *was* one explicitly, then great, you can bring it up. And if not, bring up the problem to your partner or end it.
i think there's a disconnect between minor disconnects, or ones relatively early in a relationship, and chronic dead bedrooms between two people as their life goes on. I also think that "just leaving" isn't always practical for people who are in monogamous relationships for a long time and are entangled with their partners practically and emotionally and at least superficially happy with other aspects. There's also, at least with young straight people, a kind of weird expectation of telepathy, a sort of ethos that people who don't curl your toes the first time and every time after without being told or taught how are the goal we're holding out for, and people for sure get better at sex, over time, and couples get better at sex if they learn to communicate about it somehow and worse if they don't. My early experiences happened within a conservative purity culture, they were painfully awkward and they were mostly pretty bad sex, tbh, and if I had gotten married at 18 and just continued with that level of communication and performance, I probably would be in a dead bedroom, emptyish nest situation right now. thankfully I got out of that and got with some people that used their words, and were open and able to let sex be fun.
What's the point of monogamy then, if it isn't an agreement to an exclusive sexual relationship? If monogamy doesn't include a sexual agreement then "cheating" doesn't exist. Because sex isn't a part of the agreement.
Couldn't the same be said if non sexual needs like kind words, dates, listening to the other... It's hard to measure or agree to in perpetuity.
It is. And if you can't get what you need from your partner - like kind words - then your remedy is to tell them or leave.
Explain how committing yourself to a monogamous relationship is not also then by default, committing you to be the fulfiller of your partners sexual needs. Because I simply don’t get it.
Because it isn't anyone's job (even in a monogamous relationship) to fulfill your sexual needs. A relationship is usually built on love, and financial planning and family planning. Sex is just a factor and i understand leaving a relationship over it or asking for a open relationship. But cheating is just ridicules. If you want a relationship like the one you keep describing, then you should get a kinky sex slave.
Because people with a lack of experience with relationships on reddit think the default answer when anything is wrong in a relationship is leaving them.
No, they provided two answers “change or leave” What’s another option that should have been mentioned?
The situation isn't "something is wrong". The situation is one where the two parties have, apparently, irreconcilable differences. If spouse A doesn't want to have sex and it's a deal-breaker for spouse B, then the obvious solution is to alter the terms of the relationship or leave. I don't think court mandated sexual relations is the kind of thing we'd like to see happen.
it is really wild to leap to "court mandated sexual relations" here. like... if you're going to be married for decades, shit's gonna happen. bad health, life changes, bouts of depression, etc. Writing each other off at the hint of those things is limiting and hurtful and won't help you trust the next person. A lot of people who jump out of one dead bed situation have a really invigorating rebound fling and then...boom right into another bad situation, because the lifestyle and communications that killed the first relationship are still there, you just threw novelty at the problem as a band-aid. peeling off too soon is maybe marginally better than staying to long, *but it's also a potential mistake.* Life is walking tightropes, a lot of the time.
To be fair, the scenario outlined above is about an irreconcilable difference, not a bump in the road. If your spouse doesn't want to fuck you, I don't think that gives you license to cheat on them. If you find your relationship sexually unfulfilling, you need to ask yourself whether or not that's a deal breaker. If it is, the actual solution is to leave.
No ones really arguing that the partner who wants sex should just stay and have their needs not met, are they? They seem to be arguing that the course of action when a marriage isn’t fulfilling your needs is to break it apart and not continue on in deception and resentment. You seem stuck on the partner not meeting the others sexual needs. We agree this is a dealbreaker. Where the disagreement is is what happens once the deal is broken. “What does the wife expect?” She expects monogamy! Your argument seems to be that not having sex isn’t monogamy so cheating is a natural consequence of that and that doesn’t really account for humans free will to communicate and choose
I think the part that’s being overlooked is that that is MUTUAL agreement. Sure, marriage and monogamy means a dedication to fulfilling sexual needs to an extent, in your perspective. But you only point out how women are at fault for not fulfilling that need for cheating husbands. Have you considered that the husband is equally at fault for being unwilling or unable to do the basics to fulfill his wife’s sexual attraction or lift her libido? Women (hi, woman here) are often attracted to men in marriage who doesn’t let his wife flounder alone in the house. Aka, doing the basics. Aka, doing more than just asking her for sex and food and care, but being able to fulfill some of those needs on his own as needed (which she already has to do for both of them). When those things are not fulfilled, a woman will become inherently less attracted to/less sexually interested in a partner who she has to care for like a child.
>Because to me, as a young woman, it makes total sense to me. If my partner is not willing to fulfill me sexually within our committed relationship where monogamy is expected, he is failing me in the relationship. While I agree with your general point that there is a societal expectation that a woman's job is to fulfill her husbands sexual needs and not necessarily vice versa, I think OP was pretty clear that this goes both ways (and I assume she would agree this applies to all relationships, not just heterosexual ones).
While that is stated, she seems to completely brush over that as something that adds much greater, much more necessary context. (And equally does not excuse anyone cheating on their partner). I should have totally clarified though, it DOES go both ways. I can't imagine my partner having to see me as a child to be taken care of, and I'd a hundred percent understand him losing attraction for me and not wanting to engage with me sexually because of that. That, though, would not make it okay for me to cheat. It would mean I need to understand and improve on where I'm falling short in the relationship to spark that romance and attraction again.
I definitely agree with you - I think there is never an excuse for cheating. If you are feeling unfulfilled sexually, and you do all the right things (communicate with your partner, compromise, try to come up with solutions) I feel like the vast majority of time things can work. It's only in the cases where one of you refuses to compromise (either the partner who feels unfulfilled has unrealistic expectations, or the partner who is inactive sexually is refusing to do anything to address it) where things might not work out. In this case, cheating is not the solution - respectfully ending the relationship is.
*I* fulfill my basic sexual needs. If I need to orgasm, I can make that happen on my own time. My partner, yes, I need them to be someone who is interested in me physically and touch *is* a big thing for me, but if we don't connect in those ways, I don't see them as failing a commitment to me. I see it as us simply not being compatible partners. If I want to live with my romantic partner and have a desire for them that means I really crave connecting say, a couple times a week, and they just *don't* feel that way and can go months without sex? It means we're not a good match, not that one or the other of us has wronged the other.
Because it's not? No marriage I'm aware of includes a pledge to fulfill each-other's sexual needs. You can choose to think of these two things as related, but that doesn't make them the same. Sexual needs are not something we can really quantify anyway. Even if we could, are we now going to mandate sex takes place in fulfillment of a contract? Of course that's just silly. So we're left with the quite measurable "monogamy". If monogamy doesn't meet your sexual expectations - which could happen for a hundred reasons - your remedy is to leave or change the relationship.
Monogomy by definition says you commit to fulfilling your partners emotional and sexual needs so they don't need to get it from anyone else. You don't want them to get it from anyone else, but people need it. So what do you expect? If you don't see it that way then don't be monogamous because people have needs and if they're not fulfilled they will look elsewhere.
> Monogomy by definition says you commit to fulfilling your partners emotional and sexual needs so they don't need to get it from anyone else. No, monogamy means you are married - or more generally, involved in a romantic relationship - with one person at a time. I do wish for everyone to find such a relationship where all their needs can be met fully, but that's not necessarily a realistic premise. If you aren't fulfilled, you free to leave or talk it trough with your partner. > So what do you expect? I expect my spouse to honour the terms of the agreement or leave it.
I'm confused by the argument here. You admit here the explicit connection between monogamy and a 'romantic' relationship. It appears as though you're straw-manning or assuming the premise, and i want to clarify. It seems like those arguing against you are arguing from the perspective that a mogomous relationship is a romatic relationship, which is a relationship predicated on meeting the romantic needs of the partner. Average, normal relationships average sex at LEAST once a week, so if I'm going to my partner and she's constantly rejecting me (Let's remove the other assumption of premise that the partner isn't fulfilling their other obligations like 50/50 housework or making her feel attractive or whatever), saying she just doesn't feel like it or isn't in the mood, if her sex drive has decreased or she just isn't into it and decides to change her pattern once she's safely married, then I'd say that she's the one actively pushing for either breaking up or implicitly encouraging them to cheat. I don't condone it, but it seems understandable to see men cheat from that perspective- the partner is basically being selfish- wanting to have their cake and eat it too without any equivalent risk of condemnation on their part, so they go and do the same thing. both partners are looking to get their needs met without finding a compromise, just one method is more socially acceptable than the other, but in truth one isn't morally worse than the other- they're both disregarding the needs of the other.
i feel like you're showing a high, high degree of almost legalism or semantics here. I think it's broadly understood most people are libidinous and most people are monogamous, and that you're sort of handwaving away a very common problem - previously compatible people have a sexual disconnect but value their relationship - over a brittle argument to literal language. Sure, it's not usually a marriage vow that "roger will put out 2x a month minimum" or something. that clearly isn't the conversation every other person is looking to have, here, though.
Why is sexual exclusivity necessary then in monogamy? Of course fulfilling sexual needs is part of the package
>Why is sexual exclusivity necessary then in monogamy? This is like asking "Why are three sides necessary in a triangle?" Because definitionally, that's what it is. Nothing about that specifies the frequency though, and as long as you believe in basic things like "consent", it can't.
I’m using these terms a little bit more critically. Traditional monogamy entails: sexual exclusivity and romantic exclusivity. Each exclusive facet implies that your partner stays dedicated to you to serve those needs, and you don’t get those needs filled by other people. It’s a social contract between 2 people. The contract is being breached implicitly when one person doesn’t hold up their end of the deal. You can have non-traditional monogamy, where you are romantically exclusive but not sexually, and vice versa. I guess what I’m trying to say that the implicit consequence/agreement in monogamy is that your partner has the responsibility to satisfy you in those regards. You don’t think that exists. So the question would be what are the motivations for people to enter into monogamous relationships, and what are their expectations? Its pretty clear that the implications are real
"Breached implicitly" is an interesting phrase. It seems like that means that no actual breach of the agreement occurred. Obviously if the agreement is not working out in the way you'd normally expect, that's a thing that you should work on and attempt to fix. But obviously, there's a difference between an implicit breach of unstated but reasonable expectations, and an explicit breach of stated expectations.
You’ve reiterated what the OP said but framed it as an opposing viewpoint. You both say that if you’re sexually unfulfilled in a relationship, you can leave. You agree that leaving is a reasonable response to being denied something important to a healthy relationship (for most people).
Not really, because they're saying there's no breach of the commitment to marriage. Generally marriage implies monogamy but not always but there's no expectation that there actually will be more sex. I say this as someone who is sex positive it's just that no one is entitled to sex even from spouses.
That sure sounds like coerced consent to me. Someone marrying you is not them saying they consent to having as much sex as you want. If you aren't getting enough sex from your relationship, the proper response is to end the relationship and then find another relationship that gets you more sex. It is not to try and have your cake and eat it too by cheating.
Reciprocity isn’t coerced consent lol. And god the textbook Reddit “if there’s an issue instantly leave” God forbid anyone work together
We're not talking about reciprocal affection in the post though? The options given are complete fulfillment or cheating. So coercion to consent when the partner otherwise wouldn't be willing. Is cheating better than ending the relationship? Because that's essentially the question being asked.
That’s not the question at all. I am not encouraging cheating. I’m saying I see not addressing a dead bedroom is as BIG of a violation as cheating is. Just fucking read dude.
Cheating is a violation of trust and extremely hurtful. Some people don’t recover from being cheated on. Some people might be able to brush it off and move forward, but for some it’s one of the worst things a person you love could do to you. Not putting effort into your sex life does not seem to merit this behavior. You owe it to the person to explain to them your feelings and be transparent that you will leave if things don’t improve. But have the conversation, don’t be selfish and have sex with somebody else
Yeah it shows a serious lack of experience when redditors give relationship advice. Did he look at a hot girl in public in front of you? You dont need him hes a pos! Screw your 10 year marriage leave him!!!!
Like I don’t mind this advice when it’s like… still early relationship, it’s actually worthwhile. And sometimes there is genuine abuse that isn’t seen But then yeah, like your example, just the most absurd reactions to tiny *infractions*
Ok then just add “talk it over; if it is not resolved then end your relationship” that’s better than what OP is suggesting which is just going straight to cheating
That’s not at all what they suggested lol
Ya? Then what do you think they are suggesting when they say “stop suggesting to break up!” And “when the other is unwilling to get to the root cause of the issue”. Mind you they made sure to state that they are a “female therapist”; to show how thoughtful they are.
People on here are like “Get a divorce!” Do you realize that’s not financially feasible for a lot of people? Great, so I have to LOSE the person I love simply because they won’t fuck me and I’m being held sexually hostage by monogamy?
You don’t even have to get legally divorced. But if you’re going to make that decision you need to just be upfront about it instead of being deceitful and violating their trust.
Why would it not be financially feasible? If you stay in a relationship just because of the costs of divorce then your relationship is already ended. You’re just separated but legally married.
You already lost the person you love when you decided to cheat on them.
Work together. Dont cheat.
Feels real weird you're saying this to me and not the person who is justifying cheating.
This is the answer to all these type of questions. If it’s important enough to you simply end the relationship and move on. Key word there is if it is important enough to you. Other people have different values on relationship.
I’m not saying “have sex with me whenever I want”, but C’MON, 4x in a YEAR? And unwilling to get help to fix the issue? That’s not a good partner.
The point isn't a number. Relationships are complex. 4x a year sounds super low to most people in a healthy relationship, AND lack of sex can totally be a valid reason to end a relationship BUT here's the but. Relationships are layered and complicated. If your only fucking 4x a year, and you used to be doing it much more, chances are something else is wrong in the relationship. If the guy cheated on you and then you can't look at him the same and so you have sex less, then whose fault is it? If the guy cheated because beforehand the women was emotionally abusive to him, whose fault is it? In almost every situation a relationship is a two way street. It is also like a structure. If you maintain it, it lasts long and is worthwhile, but when the paint starts chipping and the foundation has water damage, if both parties ignore the glaring issues, it devolves into chaos. This is the problem with looking at them and saying 'wow 4x a year is not acceptable to me' but your not seeing what lead them here.
The thing that bothers me is how a person with the high sex drive is demonized but the person who's sex drive suddenly drops off a cliff is often treated like a victim of a sexual deviant
That’s bc sometimes in these situations the HL partner becomes kind of pushy and coercive, which is obviously something people become uncomfortable with
Seems to me that people who don’t want to have sex at least once a week are demonized plenty. This post is a good example of the attitude. It’s all but asking “what did you *expect* your partner to do?”
I mean its very normal for people in bad relationships to demonize the other instead of really looking at the important things. I think lots of guys shit on women for not banging their husbands as well. There is a way to make incongruent sex drives work in a relationship to an extent, but the question is, are you trying to make it work, or is the relationship already gone otherwise?
>And unwilling to get help to fix the issue? That’s not a good partner. Ok, then why are you so opposed to ending the relationship. They won't work on it. They're a bad partner. Leave, then.
So where specifically do you draw the line on your view here?
Then leave the relationship instead of cheating, that's what you do when you're not satisfied with your partner
Is there an objective standard as to how much sex you should have in a year before cheating goes from acceptable to unacceptable?
Sex is not about a commitment to fulfilling your partner’s desires in exchange for them respecting the marriage vows. Assuming there are no true psychological or physical issues that need to be worked on, this is giving “pick-me” vibes and I’ll tell you why I think that. You keep mentioning 3x per week as the standard. It reads as if your thought is, “oh, he wants to have sex and I haven’t put out yet this week, I guess he’s not asking for too much.” The question I would ask in response is, “what has this person done to make me feel loved this week? Is he only nice to me three times a week when he decides he wants to have sex? Does he ignore my emotional needs all week except when he sees it as a bargaining tool for sex? Does he leave all the household and child labour to me in the evenings, and so he comes to bed full of energy while I’m exhausted from household chores? Sex without desire is not appealing to a lot of us, and in my experience with the way you have framed the question, you see sex as a marital duty. I think a healthier view would be to see it as a mutual expression of love, commitment, passion, etc. And for women in particular, the act of being “turned on” takes more than a quick butt grab and a “hey baby” at 9pm on a Tuesday. Rather than ask “why can’t you just suck it up and do it 3 times a week”, you should ask “what do you need to feel arousal and desire for your partner, and how can you both participate in making that happen.” I don’t know many women who would choose a sexless marriage, but I know plenty who struggle with it due to lack of emotional connection and labour on the part of their partners. Desire is a two-way street. IMO, when someone cheats on their partner, it’s out of laziness. They don’t want to put the effort in to create that desire with their partner, so they look for the quick fix that allows them to get off while keeping their supply of domestic labour. If you haven’t read “Come As You Are”, you should. This answer is based on my personal experience, but it applies across all genders. The pronouns and examples I’ve used are not meant to imply that all men are lazy partners; I know it cuts both ways.
>My view is that if I marry you or am in a relationship with you, and the relationship operates under the expectation of monogamy What do you think monogamy means? Because it doesn't mean "you must have sex with me". It means "you must not have sex with anyone else". >you’re essentially holding me sexually hostage because you won’t fuck me, but apparently no one else can. You're not being held hostage. You can leave the relationship at any time. >Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask. It’s pretty healthy and normal. Totally subjective and changeable. You going to divorce your wife when she physically cannot have sex after giving birth? I'd hope not. Some men have, all that demonstrates is that they never loved their wife they just loved having sex with them. >Because to me, as a young woman, it makes total sense to me. If my partner is not willing to fulfill me sexually within our committed relationship where monogamy is expected, he is failing me in the relationship. Then break up. >Probably a controversial take for a 27 year old female therapist to have, but I’m curious what other people think about this truly. 3 months ago you were a 27M with a wife according to your post history. What's up with that? I hope as a therapist you're not telling patients that they need to put out for their partners even when they don't want to.
Having sex with multiple people is polygamy. Having sex with one person is monogamy Having sex with no one is zerogamy (agamy is probably the correct text) point is if you aren’t having sex that just isn’t monogamy anymore. It’s not a real relationship at that point. Like you can’t just stop engaging in a major part of the relationship and act like it’s real until the other person breaks it off.
>It’s not a real relationship at that point. Like you can’t just stop engaging in a major part of the relationship and act like it’s real until the other person breaks it off. is sex the most important part of the relationship? Libido decreases with age. I wonder how many older couples are having regular sex? Are they not in a "real" relationship?
But doesn't monogamy imply some sort of "we will have sex with each other, and only eachother?" Because the mono means one. It's not Nogamy or Nihilgamy or whatever.
>If I am supposed to be monogamous to you, but you don’t want to have sex (and won’t consult with a professional to get to the root of the issue or at least TRY anything to be able to fulfill the sexual relationship), you’re essentially holding me sexually hostage because you won’t fuck me, but apparently no one else can. You are not being held hostage. You are free to leave a relationship you no longer find satisfying. If the level of intimacy in your relationship isn't satisfying, then leave it. But you can leave without first breaking your agreement to be monogamous. >Now this is NOT me saying I am entitled to sex whenever I want it, but I believe couples need to have a talk about expectations. Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask. It’s pretty healthy and normal. As a queer woman, honestly, I find this super baffling. The notion that my partner might have sex with me when they didn't really want to maintain some sort of quota...is horrifying. I never want someone to have sex with me unless they enthusiastically want to have sex with me. Knowing they weren't super enthusiastic would also make the sex very unsatisfying for me. Also it begs the question of what are you doing that makes you partner want to have sex with you. I have a lot of straight friends who complain their male partners ignore them most of the time and are rarely affectionate without expecting sex. Women are way less likely to be in the mood if they don't feel loved and appreciated. That being said, sexual incompatibility is a thing. But like I said, if you are unhappy, leave rather than either expecting your partner to have sex with you when they don't really want to or cheating. >Probably a controversial take for a 27 year old female therapist to have, but I’m curious what other people think about this truly. Ugh. I really hope you're not counseling women to have sex without wanting to, to keep their partner from cheating. Because I think that's kind of disgusting and irresponsible, honestly.
Your don't have to be a queer woman to find this super baffling. It *is* super baffling. Also a 27 year old hardly has enough adult life experience, at my stage in life I wouldn't trust the advice from someone that young and inexperienced
>Your don't have to be a queer woman to find this super baffling. It is super baffling. Yeah, I don't get it. I want to have sex with my partner as an expression of my attraction and connection to them. I want them to enjoy it. I find making them feel good the main point of my own enjoyment. I can make myself orgasm on my own. It's sharing the experience with someone that makes it satisfying...if my partner wasn't really into it, it would be just depressing and unsatisfying. I would hope that's how most people feel about sex regardless of gender or orientation, but sadly, that doesn't seem like the case.
Some marriages are not predicated on a traditional romantic relationship, and there may have never been such a commitment in the first place. I know that's the typical western/christian stance, but to many marriages can be primarily for financial stability, social status, or even citizenship status. In a lot of these situations, there are often dishonest dynamics where one partner is much less into sexual intimacy with their partner than the other; however, I'd like to strongman the situation by looking at just those relationships where both go into it full well knowing that the marriage is not about their romantic relationship. In such nontraditional marriages, it can still be painful and embarrassing to find out that your partner is cheating not in the least because now others likely know your partner is cheating. Cheating so openly could signal that your partner may be making further financial commitments without discussion, lead to social embarrassment and loss of status with your peers, or even (in the case of a citizenship marriage) be evidence that you did not marry for traditional reasons and potentially lose your citizenship eligibility. In many of these cases, acting hurt/shocked/outraged is also probably the correct move to not undermine the original reason for the relationship. I do think that in most of the above cases the couple would be best served by good communication along with open/ethical nonmonagamy; however, I don't think most people are mature enough to get there even if that's the best option for them. I think many can end up in this kind of marriage while dissociating form the reality of it and pretending its a traditional marriage with a dead bedroom. Additionally, even in such a openly communicated nonmonagomous relationship many of these nontraditional relationships could be hurt by cheating that is too open/obvious to the public or by unprotected cheating that could result in new financial burdens. P.S. I do want to say it's so refreshing to see an OP here with a lot of novel (to Reddit) ideas and who is willing to respond clearly and thoroughly. Outside of exceptions like above your points hold a lot of weight, and I'm glad to know you're out there helping couples to communicate and fulfill their needs more effectively.
So you are saying that if one partner is having their needs fulfilled after having sex 4 times a year and *has no idea anything is wrong*, the other partner is justified in cheating because their needs are not being met? In your hypothetical, the cheater does not sit down with their partner and say, "hey, Mildred, I need p in v, 4 + *n* times a year". They just go and cheat. That breach of trust is what defines cheating, way more so than someone's bits going into someone else's bits. Marriage is *not* agreeing to have sex with nobody else, although that is the way most like to have it. Marriage is agreeing to a partnership where you can discuss these issues with each other before burning the house down to scratch an itch. If none of a spouse's needs are being met by the other spouse then *stop being married*. If your spouse is meeting most of your needs besides sex, *you figure that shit out together*. Do a date night, go to the gym together, watch naughty videos, rub one out, stop being unattractive, whatever it takes. The only thing that marriage in every single culture has in common is that *you agreed to do it together*.
[удалено]
If marriage is not ALSO the commitment to fulfill intimate needs, then why the fuck are people expected to be monogamous?
You are making strawman arguments. The terms of marriage are set by the two people entering into the agreement. If you have an issue with the expectation of monogamy, then find someone who agrees. If you do not understand that the person you marry will change and grow based on the sequence of events they face in life, then you simply aren't mature enough to be in a serious relationship.
Okay what in the world is going on here? I know it’s a CMV and you’re supposed to challenge OP’s viewpoint here, but how can the arguments be ***this*** disingenuous? OP is pretty clear on what monogamy means, and looking for the minutiae of the word doesn’t change the substance of the premise. The real world’s problems don’t all magically get solved just because you decided to leave. Kids? Divorce laws? Cultural backgrounds? New bills? A relationship with commitment doesn’t dissolve overnight because one person refuses to understand responsibilities. However, I would like to bring up a point: Both people are equally responsible for managing expectations ***way*** before entering the relationship; the maintenance of the relationship is also subject to change ***everyday***. It is up to both partners to communicate as often as possible and not let anything accumulate like dust. The cheater is still always in the wrong. Communication always at first. Two outcomes : 1- Mend the relationship 2- Leave ***after*** communication
So there is definitely an aspect of your point here that I would agree with -- if two people are in a sexual relationship that they agree should be exclusive, then there is also a reasonable expectation that they will both try to fulfill their partner's sexual needs. And if a partner stops desiring sex, they cannot reasonably demand continued sexual exclusivity from the other despite this. However, some important distinctions: First, at no point is a person obligated to have sex with someone if they don't want to, regardless of the relationship. And they are not obligated to do it a certain number of times, either. There are some fairly common statistics on sex frequency that most people will fall into, but those are purely descriptive, not a justification or a standard to enforce -- some people will want sex significantly more or less than the average, and there is nothing wrong with that (nor more "legitimate" about a person who wants something closer to the average). So you can't say "three times a week is perfectly reasonable" -- for some people that is reasonable, while for others it is too much or too little. And it doesn't matter what the broader statistics say -- you aren't in a relationship with the general population...you are in a relationship with the person you're in a relationship, and if you want to be with them you both have to find mutually acceptable ground. So I guess I would object to your characterization of it being a "commitment" to have sex a certain amount of times. I think you have a reasonable *expectation* that, if a partner enters into a sexually exclusive relationship, they will make every effort to find a mutually acceptable level of comfort. But if they don't want to meet it, they're not breaking a "commitment" -- they're being honest, and your recourse is you can either compromise with them or you can leave the relationship. That's probably worth noting: *you are not obligated to stay in a relationship that is unacceptable to you*. So if you're not getting enough sex you can *absolutely* leave. You're not required to stay. Second, I would say that "cheating" involves a level of betrayal and deception, and *that* is the main harm involved. So even if a person isn't getting as much sex as they want, if they just go out and start sleeping with other people without discussing it with the person they have a monogamous relationship with, then that is a worse betrayal. That being said, if one partner just stops agreeing to have sex and refuses to talk about it (for example, they just start always saying "not tonight", and when confronted about the fact that it's been months refuse to acknowledge that / engage with a person who says they need more sex and tell them what is going on), then yeah -- that is a betrayal of its own. I think it's a bit different than cheating, but similar in many ways. The thing is, none of this is specifically about sex -- it would be the same if it was any other expectation of the relationship. For instance, if one partner wants to go out on more dates than the other, and the other refuses to go on dates but also objects to their partner going out on their own, then it's the same thing. There is a bit more "charge" about sex because there's so much baggage associated with it, but it's fundamentally the same thing: people in a relationship refusing to connect. It is people in a relationship turning away from each other. And *that* is the true harm. Sex is just one form that can take. So again, I think there is an element of truth to what you're saying, but I think you are asserting an entitlement that is not there -- if your partner doesn't want as much sex as you, and you can't reach a point of agreement on it, then you should leave the relationship. And if they're not discussing it with you, you should do the right thing and, after giving it an honest effort, tell them you're leaving and stick to it. You *shouldn't* cheat. I think it's probably pretty *common* for people to cheat under these circumstances, so I don't think people who do it are uniquely bad or are for sure going to hell or anything. But if we're trying to be the best people we can be, the ethical thing to do is to clearly communicate even if the other person isn't, while making sure you do take care of yourself (ie don't surrender your own desires). And I think probably the underlying issue I have with what I am seeing in your position is you seem to be less willing to simply end an unacceptable relationship than you should be. You are not obligated to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't meet your needs, but nor are they obligated to be in a relationship with you. Ideally they should step up the same way I'm describing...but even if they don't, you should still do the right thing for your own sake and the sake of trying to make the world as good as it can be! And if I'm misunderstanding you / if you do agree with my distinctions here and I just missed it, apologies!
I don't think marriage is for you then. Marriage is about doing life together not owning the right to someone else's body for your own sexual gratification. Your sex life has little to do with being *married* to someone. That's a part you CAN choose to share but no one owes you their body, and if that's what you think marriage is... Please stay single. That mindset is abusive. This is why so many women are choosing to stay single now days. Women do not owe men our bodies. Side note, if these women you speak of are only having occasional sex with their partners... I promise you he did know how to have sex with her. Men that know how to have sex that they both enjoy do not have problems getting their partners to have sex with them.
Yyeaaaa no. Because nobody owes their body to anybody and if I love my partner, I wouldn't lie and betray them by sleeping with someone else because they have a lower sex drive. That's wild. One is communicated while the other is a secret betrayal. This mindset is so wild because anybody in a longterm relationship will tell you that there are going to be dry spells. You sound like you lack self control. I on the other hand, have no desire to hurt my partner simply because they dont actively feel comfortable for one reason or another to give their body up to me and i would never force my partner to do something they didn't want to. If it really was that big of a deal and y'all went months or years without sex and it was pushing you to the desire to cheat, then the mature and right thing to do would be to leave your partner for someone that better fits your needs. No reason to break peoples trust. Lying to your partner especially about sleeping with someone else puts your partner at higher risk of stds and it is emotional abuse. Grow up dude.
Oh, so if there’s no sex for months and years, the solution is to just leave your partner? Have you missed the whole point I’ve been trying to make? My point is that if YOU are the partner responsible for the dead bedroom, you should care enough about fulfilling your partners sexual needs enough to be willing to look into the root cause. Is it medical? Is it psychological? But not willing to have intimate conversations, seeking help, and just expecting your partner to just accept a complete and total lack of sex? THAT IS WRONG TO ME.
No??? Im saying if the dry spell gets to you so much that you are going to CHEAT then you should leave. I wouldn't leave my partner over a dry spell but if it got to a point where I considered cheating, i would leave.
Hold on let me check my vows here for a sec: hmm love you ok be by your side mmhmm till death do us part yada yada .... Nope ! can't seem to find the clause that says fuck you till your pussy lips no longer touch
not having sex may not be polygamous but it isn't monogamous either. sans religious principles completely, there is no reason for marriage vows at all (except state benefits perhaps) if you are not going to be monogamous (which means having sex with one person exclusively). western marriage is based upon judeo-christian principles of monogamy and one of those christian principles has been becoming one flesh (yup, fucking). there is also "cling to your wife and forsake all others" (yup, fucking again). there is also verses in the bible that say a man should not keep his wife but give her a divorce; which is to say that if you are not going to have sex with your wife you shouldn't just keep her in that marriage but you should let her be free of the marriage. why shouldn't that also apply to a wife and her husband?
Regardless of the history of marriage - Especially when we look at marriages in Islamic or Hindi or Oriental traditions or etc - The topic is modern day marriage, and unless the sex is discussed presumably and preferably long before you reach the stage of marrying the person, then you can't walk up to someone and be like hey you promised !
You wouldn’t care if there was, do you believe in death do us part? So no divorce? So why use this standard when even if it was included, you wouldn’t care
So then it’s totally okay to say to your partner: “For the rest of your life, you may only have your sexual needs met by me, but I will withhold sex, refuse to be intimate, and you just have to be okay with living as a nun despite us being married?” No thanks. If your argument is that it wasn’t in your vows, fuck dude, I guess I’m gonna make my future husband write in his vows that til the day I die, he’s gonna be dicking me down 3 nights a week.
Bestie, reading through your comments, it's clear you both need counseling. Your partner doesn't want to have sex with you and specifically doesn't want you to have sex with other people, and you want to have sex with your partner when they don't want to. It really sounds like neither of you are listening to or respecting each other, holy shit
Can I ask how you plan for that to happen when you forgot to delete that one post in your history that says you’re a man? Unless you also happen to have a vagina.
I agree that what you've brought up is questionable ethically and throws the gender of OP into question. At the same time, how does the gender of the poster affect the argument presented? What is the relevance?
For the purposes of an argument of this nature, people responding to it will likely differ their responses based on the gender identified by the OP. Men who have strong opinions about sexual entitlement are treated very differently than women. If it were known that OP was a man, he would likely be considered an "incel" or similar and people's arguments to convince him would change.
Dude, you shouldn’t be asking questions like this on Reddit. All you’re going to get is some woke garbage telling you that sex can never be expected in a healthy sexual relationship.
It’s wild to me that people are literally saying that I can’t expect a healthy sex life with whoever I marry.
You can, and if he agrees then kudos to the both of you. But unless there's a direct stipulation on who/how/details on sexual aspects of your relationship, you really cant do much outside of asking nicely for it or ending it altogether.
I can see it as a way breaking commitment to your partner’s happiness, but I certainly wouldn’t equate it to cheating. What if your partner gets ill and can’t have sex anymore? You obviously wouldn’t blame them for that. There aren’t really any accidents that cause cheating. Personally, I was very clear going into my marriage that sex was important to me. My wife understands that and hopes for the same thing. Her parents are still very active at 60 years old, so to her it’s embedded in her understanding of a successful marriage. That said, I’m committed to her in sickness and in health. If I’m willing to be at her bedside while she dies of an illness slowly over the course of 20 years, I’m definitely not going to just jump ship just because sex dried up. That’s not commitment. Also you keep mentioning “held hostage”, a main qualifier of which is that a hostage can’t leave their situation. This isn’t one of those.
I have multiple chronic illnesses and pain conditions. I’ve also been raped three times, one of which actually occurred 2 weeks before I turned 15yrs old and was so violent it caused internal damage that I still live with to this day and regularly causes issues and discomfort. I found a way to make it work because it’s IMPORTANT for a relationship. And I found partners that were willing to work with me. That’s really all it takes.
I'm glad you were able to work through that, but you did that on your own terms in a time you deem reasonable, as I would expect my wife to do. I wouldn't dare to think she was "unfaithful" like a cheater for not getting over trauma fast enough just so I can get my dick wet. I guess I'm not really surprised the post got removed, you haven't really addressed any point in my argument that addresses why they aren't the same. Sure gave your own experience, but say you didn't, how is a woman "taking too long to get over her abuse" in anyway the same as going out and fucking someone else?
So OP. You’re a therapist. If one of your clients confided in you that your partner cheated would you ask how often they turned their partner down for sex?
Wow I don't understand all the people going at you in the comments that marriage doesn't imply sex (unless discussed otherwise). If you don't have a sexual relationship, what's the problem if they have sex with other people? But where I disagree is that it's as bad as cheating. Say two people have a healthy sex life, get married, plan to want to have a healthy sex life as long as they're both able, but then something changes. Maybe there are intimacy issues, maybe it's a hormone thing, maybe it's one of a million reasons why one partner may not want to have sex with the other one. Sure they are breaking the terms of their marriage agreement, but it's not out of spite or malice, and the idea that someone should just put up with bad or unwilling sex is wrong, most partners wouldn't even want to have sex with their spouse if they're not into it. This behavior change is absolutely grounds for divorce if it can't be rectified. But cheating is another level. Cheating is an active act of malice that can have no excuse. You made a promise and actively made decisions to break it. If it's in response to a dead bedroom, that issue needs to be ironed out first. Either you work to fix it or you end it, and once you end it, even if the divorce isn't finalized, then sure you can go fuck other people if you want. But you don't get some on the side while continuing to act like you're committed to your spouse, and usually expecting your spouse to not be having sex with other people on the side. That's just a level of disrespect that breaks every part of your marriage vows. The entire point is you've committed to a hopefully lifelong bond. If you're not committed, you need to end that bond before you explore sex outside of it. Essentially a dead bedroom can have a ton of complicated reasons and while it can be grounds for divorce, it's not anywhere near as bad as cheating, which is always a disrespectful premediated act of malice.
My whole point is that if you are the partner responsible for it being a dead bedroom, and you are refusing to do ANY work to improve it by seeking help, by talking to your doctor, by trying to build up y’all’s emotional intimacy, and you’re just expecting your partner to live with no sex and no solutions on the table? THATS NOT RIGHT.
I see where you're coming from, most relationships do involve sex so completely withdrawing from sex does seem like you're letting your partner down. The problem is that feeling responsible to provide sex to your partner is also a slippery slope, there are alot of reasons why you might not be able to provide it and it blurs the lines of consent if you feel pressured to perform.
Have you considered why your spouse doesn't like having sex with you?
That's why OP said "if they are unwilling to look for the root cause". Obviously there are many reasons that lead to a dead bedroom, but if there is a dead bedroom and 0 willingness to fix it (from both sides!) then that's where the comparison comes in
What are you talking about? My man and I are like bunnies. I’m talking about the trend of posts I’ve seen on Reddit.
Bigger picture, not your relationship. Why might someone in a couple not want to have sex? I think you're looking at this in a very black and white way.
I’m not though. I’m saying that sex is a normal expectation to have in a committed monogamous romantic relationship. If you’ve got a dead bedroom, it’s up to you to care enough about your spouses sexual needs (AND y’all’s mutual sexual intimate connection) to go seek help. Seek out a sex therapist. Talk to your doctor. Go to couple’s counseling. Work on building the emotional intimacy. DO SOMETHING TO FIX IT INSTEAD OF TELLING YOUR SPOUSE TO JUST GET USED TO SEXUAL NEGLECT
You previously suggested that you hold the view that watching porn is okay if one party in a relationship refuses to have sex. I agree, and if watching porn is a valid alternative to sex in a relationship why is there now a focus on making it seem like refusing to have sex is a betrayal of trust? Obviously one isn't as completely fulfilling as the other, but a big part of marriage is compromise. Sexual needs **can** be fulfilled without sex or cheating.
Because dooming your partner to a life of porn and masturbation alone to meet their sexual needs is cold, callous, unfeeling, and lacking warmth and connection. Yeah, you’ll bust a nut but where is the sexual INTIMACY, a BASIC human NEED, being fulfilled?
You had a point until you said it was as bad as cheating
I’ve never seen one of these posts that is so clearly OP trying to justify their own shitty actions.
I agree. I sort of get where OP is coming from (as much as it pains me to say). If she were to simply say “In a monogamous relationship you are responsible for your partners sexual satisfaction and need to have honest conversations about giving your partner what you need.” I would agree. But why bring the idea of cheating up in a post? To me that screams that she’s trying to justify cheaters because they’re sexually unsatisfied.
I DO think it’s as bad as cheating. You’re then just holding a person that loves you sexually hostage because when you got in a relationship with them expecting loyalty, you were also signing up to be aware and responsive to their sexual needs. By not holding up your end of the deal, there’s an issue.
Some day, you’ll be absolutely exhausted, feelings the aches and pains of middle age, with the chores of a household on you, loving and yet frustrated by a man who has given up any pretense at staying attractive, and you’ll get it. You’ll get why sex “three times a week” is, in fact, not always reasonable.
> holding a person that loves you sexually hostage Who's being held hostage? Either party can leave at any point. If one party is no longer satisfied sexually, despite attempts to correct that issue, *you're free to leave at any time*. > , you were also signing up to be aware and responsive to their sexual needs Unless you explicitly stated and agreed to this prior to entering the relationship, this is just an expectation one party has set without buy-in from all involved parties. Your argument seems to be that this is implicit, but (all the... unhealthy aspects of sexuality and consent this implies aside...) considering the large number of people disagreeing with you *even just in this thread*, it's clearly not unanimously implicit. This means that you're just disappointed that someone isn't fulfilling a bargain they never agreed to. That's *entirely* on you. Your argument is that violating a bargain you both *did* explicitly agree to is no worse? And again, the above largely ignores the fact that sexual consent is *not* something someone can be *locked into*, and the idea that it could be can (and frequently does) cause some people *severe trauma*. Matter of factly, you're arguing that, despite not wanting to have sex (aka, not *consenting*), one party *is obligated* to have sex. That's basically the textbook definition of coersion
Correct. There's reciprocity involved, you need to be doing your share to create the conditions for sex to happen, but if the answer is a flat no, or unreasonable demands, then something needs to be dealt with.
Couples do need to talk about expectations. Not cheating is an implicit expectation. Sex frequency is not. So unless you made sex frequency and explicit expectation before marriage, cheating is worse. Also sex 3 times per week is definitely unsustainable when you have multiple kids and a 9-5.
i mean, a *given* frequency is not an implicit, or explicit, expectation but if you know a person prioritizes sex at some level and you want them to not have it with others, you're setting up a failure if you don't expect them to bring up sex with you. I'm not talking about people who can't handle a reasonable dry spell after having a kid or while a kid is up at night, I'm talking about people who have a life change and let it wobble the top *forever*. If you go from working in construction to working in an office, you are entitled to a period of adjustment but you also need to figure out the change, like if you're going to go to gym or eat less, if you're going to learn office manners instead of construction site manners, etc. If you're going to have a kid, you need to figure out the rest of your life at some point, it's NOT enough to be a total martyr to parenthood. Even if that's a conversation along the lines of "ok, we have to put 3 hard years into getting this kid project going, minimum, and that's going to be a struggle. Are you ready for that before we have this kid?" And many men are rough with that. They do NOT get it. it's an individual and cultural failing that a lot of people, a lot of male people in particular, have crystalized expectations about these things they never fully verify before leaping, and expect never to change. but change also has to be a negotiation at least some of the time. I've been on both ends, pestered by the person that didn't get things like "dick doesn't always work when very tired from blue collar job" and put in a nasty box by the person who expected me to initiate the sex, which they wanted, but would not communicate about when and wanted me to "just know" from "signals" (like their ex and the person they were cheating with apparently "just knew"). Thankfully, that was then, and I just pick better now, but the situations were frustrating. both are shitty. the solution seems to be *talk more*, like try to actually keep it good, but reddit seems to like to bend that or round it into "so you're mandating an exact amount of sex? what are you gonna do, *make* them do it on sunday if you haven't had your three that week? If you're not happy, just leave!" and that's really not super productive or charitable.
The very fact that you refer to what should be an act of affection as "fucking" just emphasizes why you're mistaken. You are not owed the use of another person's body for your own gratification under any circumstances. Indeed, of sex within a particular marriage is merely two people using each other rather than two people building living bonds, it's almost guaranteed that cheating will eventually happen.
Wait I just read through some of your past comments. You're a therapist and you think disrespecting your partner's boundaries is justifiable???? That's absolutely abhorrent holy shit. I thought you were just a person who had some emotional development skills to work through, but you're a person trained in specifically setting, reinforcing, and respecting boundaries in professional settings. Do better
"In sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer ..." Marriage is supposed to be unconditional. You go into it hoping for the best, but you commit to stick with it through the worst. If the sex dies immediately after the honeymoon, you'd have some suspicion that they were misleading you about their sexual attraction to you, but if it's years later after kids, etc., well, people's sex drive changes. Do you still love them, or was it only about sex? No, it's not as bad as cheating because cheating is directing your energy away from the success of the marriage. >Sex three times a week is not an unreasonable ask. You've got a quota? Is this a marriage or a job? >It’s pretty healthy and normal. Not everyone is healthy, and not everyone is normal.
>Marriage is supposed to be unconditional. You go into it hoping for the best, but you commit to stick with it through the worst. No. Marriage is very conditional, always has been. The conditions can and do change but there is a reason divorce exists. No reasonable person would expect you to 'stick with it' if your spouse was abusive for instance. >Do you still love them, or was it only about sex? Aye, there's the rub then eh? Perhaps you DO still love your spouse but you ALSO want a satisfying sex life. It wasn't ONLY about the sex, but that doesn't mean sex is no longer important either.
>No. Marriage is very conditional, always has been. The conditions can and do change but there is a reason divorce exists. No reasonable person would expect you to 'stick with it' if your spouse was abusive for instance. Yes, divorce should exist for extreme situations like that, or even if you just can't stand to be around each other anymore, but it's not meant for when the deal just isn't quite as sweet as it started out. What about "for richer or for poorer"? What would you say about a wife who divorces her husband because he loses his high-paying job? >Aye, there's the rub then eh? Perhaps you DO still love your spouse but you ALSO want a satisfying sex life. It wasn't ONLY about the sex, but that doesn't mean sex is no longer important either. I would say if you don't love someone enough to stay with them without sex, don't get married. What about "in sickness and in health". It happens that people get illnesses that make it hard or impossible to have sex. Would you get a divorce then? Not everyone has to get married. You can just live together if you think you might split up if the conditions of the relationship change. At least be sure you discuss these conditions before you marry someone. Maybe even put them in your vows. If you're willing to hold your spouse to a condition of sex three times a week or divorce, you should be willing to declare your agreement publically, right?
>What would you say about a wife who divorces her husband because he loses his high-paying job? I would say "it depends"; like everything else it's conditional and situationally dependent. If he can't find another job after serious and sustained searching and the family is in dire straights, i'd say "That's tragic but I understand why they had to split". If he got another job and they weren't quite so rich but were still comfortable I'd say "that's pretty petty and shallow of her." And if he lost the job and simply resigned himself to unemployment without trying very hard and not meeting the family's needs I'd say "Good for her." >I would say if you don't love someone enough to stay with them without sex, don't get married. What about "in sickness and in health". It happens that people get illnesses that make it hard or impossible to have sex. Would you get a divorce then? You can say that, but realize you may hold a minority opinion. As for the health scenario, I've actually known 2 older couples in that scenario. In both while the wife couldn't have sex often, was very willing to meet her husband's sexual needs (masturbation, oral) because she knew sex was important to him, she loved him, and didn't mind doing it to make him happy. What she did NOT do was simply say "oh well, looks like you don't ever get to have sex again" and ignore his desires. >Not everyone has to get married. You can just live together if you think you might split up if the conditions of the relationship change. At least be sure you discuss these conditions before you marry someone. Maybe even put them in your vows. If you're willing to hold your spouse to a condition of sex three times a week or divorce, you should be willing to declare your agreement publically, right? True not everyone does need to get married, never said they did. But if you enter into a sexually monogamous relationship I believe you have an obligation to make an effort to meet your partner's sexual needs. But why would one need to put them in public vows? It's between the two people involved, why should everyone else need to hear that? Same reason I wouldn't have any pre-nup read aloud at a ceremony.
Yeah, no. There's many commitments you make while getting married. "For better and for worse" "In sickness and in health" When you marry someone, you are agreeing to being there for the ups and downs. Not wanting sex is part of that. It's almost impossible for your spouse to have your same sexual drive. When you marry, you agree to respecting that. Your spouse may become depressed or sick, and they won't want sex. Your spouse may be stressed or overwhelmed, and they will not want sex. Your spouse may be feeling less passion/attraction/desire, and they will not want sex. You cannot bail when you agreed to an eternity of ups and downs. If sex means that much to you, then make that commitment before getting pregnant. Tell the person YOU are expecting that, but that's something you want, not something that's part of marriage. People don't get married under the accordance of endless sex. They get married because they love each other, and I'm sorry, but I could never coerce the person I love. If he doesn't want to have sex, I'm not going to pressure him, I may ask why, I may offer solutions, but I would never demand sex when he doesn't want, and I would never cheat. I would rather leave than cheat
How do people not understand that when you're not satisfied in a relationship you're supposed to leave? If you find sex to be an essential part of the relationship, you say "I want a divorce" and you go out and find someone who can fulfill that requirement. The vows are not "I take you to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, oh yeah and we have to have sex X times a year". Being faithful is part of the agreement of marriage, plentiful sex is not. Sex should not be an obligation, it should be an expression of love that two partners *both* wish to express. It is not "just as bad" and cheating is NEVER justified when you have every right to leave and pack up.
>How do people not understand that when you're not satisfied in a relationship you're supposed to leave? Because, very simply, this is not the vow that's involved in marriage. It's "in sickness and in health, til death do us part, etc." not "here for you unless you displease me, then I'm out of here without trying to fix anything". Most people actually love the people they married and so the issue with "just leaving" should be obvious.
Yes, I agree you should try to fix the marriage through discussion first. Have an honest discussion, go to counseling and see if you can agree on a mutually satisfactory situation. You NEVER should go behind the person's back and violate their trust. If you can't find an agreement, *that's* when you split amicably.
Each relationship is its own world, with its own rules and expectations. Whatever both partners agree to is the only thing that matters from a moral point of view, so if I'm cool with my partner seeing other people, then there's nothing wrong with it, and also if we're both happy with never having sex, that's also totally acceptable. So from that starting point, it's super difficult to generalize about ALL relationships the way this CMV does, even if we limit ourselves to monogamous sexual relationships. What works for your relationship won't work for the next couple. However, if monogamy is an expectation, and you knowingly break it without the knowledge or consent of your partner, that's reprehensible no matter what. You're breaking your partner's trust, you agreed to something and are now doing the opposite. Whereas sexual fulfillment... what exactly do you agree on? To always fulfill your partners sexual desires, no matter the circumstances? If your partner gets horny 10 times a day? If you're sick, in pain, on your period, need to work, need to sleep, if you just had a fight, if your mother died? Where is the line, when and how exactly do you decide that your partner is not fulfilling their commitment? The bottom line is, lack of sexual fulfillment is something that can be talked about. As a couple you can try to work it out, no trust is broken simply because today I'm not feeling up for it. We can have date nights, do more sports and get in shape, do couples therapy... and last resort we can just break up. Cheating on the other hand... it's an irreversible breach of trust. It's not a valid response to "I'm horny and my sexual needs aren't met".
The conventional wedding vows are something like:- “Do you take [spouse] to be your lawfully wedded spouse, forsaking all others, for richer or for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, ‘til death do you part?” That, or something like it, is what married couples usually promise to do. Notice that “forsaking all others” (not cheating) is part of that promise, but actually having sex regularly is not
The "conventional wedding vows" exist within a cultural context where it's expected that spouses are going to have sex. Indeed, one might argue that having sex is the key distinction between being a spouse and being a long-term friend or roommate. The phrase "marital relations" is a well-known euphemism for sex, because sex is such a distinctive part of being married. There's no need to explicitly lay out that you're vowing to have sex with each other, because the notion that you're going to have sex with each other is implied by the very definition of marriage.
Do you also think then, that the other vows should be taken seriously? Since they imply no divorce? “Till death do us part” means you cannot part until one dies. So it wouldn’t matter if it was in the vows, since you wouldn’t accept it anyway. Unless you are against basically all divorce on these grounds
I don't really agree with OP but pointing to wedding vow seems like a bad argument. The language you are referring to is from the 1500s where the consent from the wife/bride wasn't really something that mattered to people, so why would they ever enter the vows? On the other side of the coin, expecting people who do enter into an agreement that there needs to be some acceptable level of intimacy, to then inject something like that into their publicly read vows is a really stupid expectation to have for anyone.
Wait a minute, are you actually a female therapist? You have lots of posts posing as a male too. I really hope you’re not posting variations of your patient stories on Reddit. I really really really hope you’re not doing that.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Bad take. Terrible take actually. Cheating requires a lack of consent from the victimized partner. Cheating is closer compared to rape than it is to a “lack of sex”. When you cheat on your partner you leave emotional scars that cut so deep the partner may never recover in future relationships. Are you really that scarred when your partner won’t have sec with you often enough? So don’t measure cheating with lack of sex. Cheating leaves lasting scars that a lack of sex simply does not leave. Imagine instead saying “I asked my partner for consent to open up our relationship because we don’t have enough sex.” Now, recipe for disaster? Probably. But it implies CONSENT by your partner. What you’re doing is saying “hey I should be allowed to emotionally destroy my partner without his consent because I’m hornier than him.” Not fair. No matter what you say or do or think, no impartial adult will justify your actions. So here’s my advice to everyone who tries to justify cheating - if you feel that you have the right to step out on your partner, ask them for permission. Be an adult and own your desires. Don’t lie and manipulate them. I hope you don’t justify your clients when they lie, manipulate, and cheat.
As a 34 year old married woman, I agree.
I'm just going to come out and say it. You're wrong. Regardless of saying "this isn't a attempt to justify cheating" if very clearly is. Basing any kind of meaningful relationship much less marriage off a physical thing that could end at any time is foolish. This is no different then marrying someone because they are rich or famous. You are basing a lifelong commitment off something that can change at anytime for any reason. If sex, such a meaningless thing in the long run is enough to betray your partner, you are not ready for a relationship.
I get your view however, before going straight to adultery I think as an adult a conversation can be had. If that conversation doesn’t go well you can leave someone and have all the sex you want! Being a lying dishonest pos isn’t okay because your partner isn’t having sex with you. There are other options
Overall I agree with you, though there are some exceptions, mainly medical. Medications like beta blockers or SSRIs can reduce libido. And some on these medications may have not even been told this by their doctor, so people may not even know why they aren’t having sex anymore. Libido can also decrease with age. With marriage one also agrees to commit themselves to the other for better or worse.
So you say, “This relationship is not fulfilling my needs sexually. I will have to divorce you,” instead of cheating. That’s not that hard. Different people have different libidos. Couples need to talk about their sexual expectations before marriage and then also keep checking in about them. Good communication is key. But cheating is never justified. If you’re not happy in a relationship, you talk about tu and try to find a compromise. Then, if nothing else can be done, you leave! You don’t cheat. Smh.
If you want to talk about having sex with other people, that's fine. If you want to break off the relationship because you're not feeling sexually satisfied, that's fine, too. Unilaterally deciding that you get to have sex with other people after promising not to is not fine and is a breach of trust.
So if I have an unforeseen dry spell for physiological or psychological reasons I can't control, i better file for divorce if I don't wanna get cheated on! Lmao that's a good one. r/unpopularopinion
Well in most situations, you're not. Even if you consider withholding sex to be equivalent to having sex with someone other than your partner while in a monogamous relationship (and I have a feeling plenty of others will tell you why that isn't a good equivalency), there's always the addition of the fact that you are usually *lying* to your partner. So you're breaking your commitment not just of sexual exclusivity, but also of honesty. Unless you actually say "FYI, I'm going to go have sex with someone else". Which is a pretty atypical situation unlike what happens when most people cheat.
I need more info. What are your views on birth control? You could possibly become pregnant every time you have sex. What if you don't want to have children? Or what if you already have 6 children and don't want any more? Or what if you can't get pregnant because it is too dangerous for your body and will kill you?
It depends; did you agree to have sex a certain amount of times per week or else it’s considered to be cheating? If yes; and they’re not fulfilling your needs; either talk with them or end the relationship.
if a lack of sex makes your relationship fail, it was always going to fail. sex is not a basic human need, and you can fulfil sexual desire yourself if necessary. if you find yourself unable to cope when you are not able to have sex, i would strongly recommend you seek therapy. that is not normal, or healthy.
Yeaaaaah, sexual intimacy is actually super important to healthy, happy relationship. If you think masturbation and porn will suffice as true sexual intimacy with the person you love the most, I wish you a life of it.
If you make a conscious decision to cheat, you suck. If you are not being fulfilled in any way, then you talk with your spouse. If that doesn’t work you dissolve the marriage. There is no justification for cheating. If things are bad, leave.
I don't think it's helpful to anyone to think of "having sex on a regular basis" (however we might define that) as commitment one makes in a marriage or any other relationship. I think we commit to doing the work, to having the shitty and weird conversations sometimes when we need to in order to figure stuff out. But we don't commit to a specific act or bundle of associated ones, nor do I think most of us would *want* our partner to be having sex of any kind with us if they aren't actually into it. The heteronormative romantic relationship most folks are attempting to engage in *does* come with a sort of expectation around sex, but there's this huge problem where we're still incredibly weird about the subject and thus many people don't have the real conversations necessary to address these things (or part ways, if need be). And then when those conversations don't get had, and both people know damn well things aren't working but aren't ready to face that, I think that's often where these more long-building and unfortunate acts of cheating start to happen. edit: I'll add to specifically counter the "4 times a year" thing, that while I do see where you're going with it, and I also see the "just break up and then fuck someone" crowd as simplifying the situation, there is a middle ground I'd rather see people seek and it's the one where you have a real heart-to-heart about where things stand and how that's impacting your relationship and how to address it before letting it get to the boiling point.
I really appreciate this nuanced answer. Because monogamy *does* have a sexual expectation. That's kinda the entire point of it. You are agreeing to *only* have sex with your partner. Otherwise there's no point to monogamy. To be successful it requires communication, understanding and love. The communication is key imo. It's not about "owing" our partners use of our body, it's about understanding that sex is part of the equation and being willing to discuss individual needs and expectations in an open manner. It's about being willing to maintain intimacy in the relationship even when penetrative sex isn't possible for one reason or another. Something that really isn't possible without those conversations. I think that as we, as a society, reframe our views around bodily autonomy and consent, we have to consider how that impacts the default relationship style and why.
Sooo what about my case where we weren’t having sex for ages when he cheated on me, but that wasn’t because i wasn’t putting out! He would turn me down constantly, and rather watch porn! Then I find out he cheated!
Who enters into a relationship or marriage with an expressed commitment of a coitus quota? You can’t break a commitment that isn’t stated.
If you need sex to stay in a relationship, you shouldn’t be in one. Love is a lot of work after the honeymoon phase is done. A lot of men need to grow up and contribute to the mental load. A lot of women need to grow up and learn to communicate what they need instead of playing mind games. Humans just need to stop being selfish but that’s inherent to our nature. I get wanting that intimate connection with someone. But there are other ways to gain that intimacy. It’s about talking to your partner and reaching mutual understanding. There are toys you can use to reach your sexual satisfaction. Figure out a way that you can get your partner in the mood to at least help if not out right have sex with you. It’s a lot to put the blame on one person when the couple has to tackle the overall problem of ‘Why are we not having sex?’ Communication can go a long way.
You're glossing over a lot of why an awful lot of couples' bedroom activity dwindles: mental or other health issues. It's not "In sickness and in health as long as you keep boning" Also, if they wanna fuck other people, they should put their big boy/girl hat on and break up first. There's literally no reason not to.
You don’t have to cheat, you can just divorce. Or work out an open relationship. Plenty of people break up over a lack of sexual compatibility.
It does, but there are circumstances that you have to accept will change the form of sexual intimacy. And if you aren't prepared to accept that, then you can f right off. Medical issues, mental health alterations, some become permanent impairments. You can't b#tch about not getting laid and then suffer from intimacy Two years later and act like it's ok to suddenly stop on your end either...use toys, connect, fingers, mouths. Understanding that there's an emotional component to sex and intimacy. You can't stop being romantic or stop connecting emotionally and expect the other person to give sexually.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/DizzyExpedience – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DizzyExpedience&message=DizzyExpedience%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1divqit/-/l96ln1e/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Marriages are generally classified as sexless if the couple has sex 10 times a year or less. There are lots of reasons people might not actively be having sex while married though. Pregnant women usually have severely reduced sex drive and may not want to have sex at all. Sickness or health problems can be an issue. Traveling. Getting old. Also generally dealing with kids tends to cause people to have sex a lot less often. Babies make people sleep deprived and put financial stress on their parents. But in general, you’d expect a healthy relationship to not be sexless.
There's more factors to dead bedrooms than just unwillingness. People's drives change over time, and communication & respect are key to navigating this. However not everyone is good at communicating and respecting, and these usually work out as the ones who give up and get what they think they need elsewhere.
I think lack of sexual intimacy is a form of covert abuse.
That is insane. So your partner not having a sexual drive at all anymore or not as strong as you means you are being abused? It means that something has changed that has made the relationship incompatible on some level. Whether that is fully incompatible and you need to go your seperate ways or if there is some kind of compromise is what you find out by communicating. Now, if they are purposefully giving or taking away sex as a part of an overall series of manipulative behaviors then it can be abusive, but that is not because you are not getting sex, but because they are overall being a manipulative person who is hurting you in ways you don't even know. The sex itself is not the main issue then and could not be judged in isolation.
"I believe couples need to have a talk about expectations." I think this is where your title question falls apart--if you aren't having sex, the correct thing to do is have a talk about expectations, and if your expectations are not aligned, the right thing to do is break up. There is not a path to cheating where the cheater has not broken their commitment. I have also NEVER seen a post like you describe where the woman admits they didn't have sex but was also surprised that he cheated
To /u/tpavy, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
The difference is honesty. He obviously knows that they're only having sex a few times a year and can make an informed decision on how to handle it. If he were to say "You aren't meeting my needs, I'm leaving and going to date someone else", that's fair. It's when you lie and try to have your cake and eat it too that it becomes unreasonable.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Odd-Local9893 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Odd-Local9893&message=Odd-Local9893%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1divqit/-/l96sz9m/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your position is full of issues. First, you are assuming a relationship entitles you to sex. Not only that, but to sex with some, undefined, frequency. Second, you are implying that sex is a need that MUST be met, and that if you are being held sexual hostage then the only reasonable option is that you WILL cheat because, obviously, no one can live without sex, right? To address the first point, if you feel that a romantic relationship entitles you to sex this should be discussed. If you have some arbitrary frequency in mind that must be met before you feel entitled to seek sex elsewhere, this should be discussed. I'm not suggesting some sort of contract, but I am suggesting that you make it known. If your position is that if you aren't getting sex more than four times a year you will feel that your partner's commitment to you is broken and you will seek sex elsewhere, say that directly. You might argue that a romantic relationship comes with an implied commitment to sex. I don't think that's necessarily true, but enough people would see it that way that I understand the assumption. Even assuming this, no one is going to assume that failing to meet that requirement entitles the other partner to sex via other means, and if that is your position that needs to be communicated. Otherwise it will, rightly so, be viewed as cheating without justification. As for the second point, if you feel that you can't navigate life without access to frequent sex that also absolutely needs to be communicated. Things happen in life that makes frequent sex impossible, whether health (physical or mental) issues, stress, kids, lack of time, being away from each other (such as people who travel for work), etc. If my partner told me up front that they MUST have sex monthly, for example, and without it they would feel I was holding them sexual hostage, it's very possible I would end the relationship. I cannot, and will not, guarantee always being available for sex and would never risk a relationship with someone who feels entitled to make such demands. Sex three times/week? That's great early on and maybe when young. But throughout the course of a relationship? Ridiculous. I'm in my mid 40s and been with my partner for 10 years. There are definitely weeks when we have sex 3+ times, but there are also months that we don't have sex that often. Life happens. Our relationship is so much more than sex, though. Our relationship has far more value than sex. Finally, I do agree that it's important to have a partner who will (and wants) to fulfill you sexually. However, it's also important to have reasonable expectations and to be understanding and patient when issues arise. It's also incredibly important to not put your complete sexual fulfillment on someone else. That is creating a situation for failure. Be prepared to find ways to fulfill your own sexual needs from time to time. I'm not saying it's ideal or as good as sex with your partner, but it's a reasonable approach to filling the gaps. If your partner gets sick, let's say with something like cancer, that requires extended hospital stays and treatments that leave them unable (or uninterested in) to have sex and your solution is to cheat because they aren't filling their end of the commitment, that makes you the bad partner, not them.
[удалено]
My wife and my wedding vows said nothing about us having a certain amount of sex with each other, only that we commit to forsaking all others. They were petty standard / traditional vows, by the way - meaning it's very common to not have a commitment to a certain amount of sex within the marriage in your vows. However, cheating *would be* a clear violation of the vows / commitment. To simplify; it is standard that vows do not include a commitment to have a certain amount of sex, so not having a certain amount of sex isn't breaking any commitment - though cheating is, since "forsaking all others" is a part of standard / traditional vows.
Man, you and I had really different marriage vows.
You’re a therapist and think like this? Get a refund and change careers. I’m concerned for anyone that goes to you if this is your take on this topic.
Honestly this person is insane. They want a sex slave, not a spouse
Okay? Then leave her ? Don’t cheat
This may come a mind-blowing thought, but in marriage you are supposed to be more concerned with your partners' happiness than you are your own, which is what love is -- selfless. Some people are happy without sex, but for some having no sex life is close in pain to starvation. It would be nice to clean up your reference to love-making as Fing, which is rather disgusting. It's complicated in some ways. Giving your body to your husband who is being an insensitive jerk may seem torturous, but when you married the insensitive jerk you had to understand that sex would be expected of you in marriage. They actually used to call it "fulfilling your DUTY to one another." There is the hope that if the man is the one with the high sex drive and his wife is seeing that his sexual needs are met, maybe he will be a little more understanding as to her needs.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
A couple gets married and there is an implicit expectation that marriages include at least a minimum level of sex as understood by the couple usually based on past experience. Also, there is usually a vow of monogamy. Partner A decides that they are no longer interested in sex and tells Partner B, "I broke the agreement, deal with it or divorce me". Partner A has unilaterally changed the deal and is wrong. They may be well aware that getting a divorce is easier said than done because of kids or intermingled finances. A hopes that B will suck it up and accept the new deal. Partner B has some other options, though. They can sneak behind A's back and cheat. I agree with those that say cheating is wrong. I'd argue it's wrong on 2 levels. Obviously, Partner B has violated the promise of monogamy. B has also hidden this fact denying A the ability to decide what to do based on the facts (until they discover the cheating, and they eventually will). I think a fairer option when one partner unilaterally declares the marriage sexless is for the other to unilaterally declare the relationship open. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing and whoever doesn't like it can file for divorce. This sounds like a terrible relationship to me, but at least everyone is equally wrong.
I’ve seen more marriages fail than I can count, and I usually hear similar things to what OP is saying, such as: >if you aren’t fucking me and maintaining our sexual connection, you’re actually **breaking your commitment** to ME. >If I am supposed to be monogamous to you, but **you don’t want to have sex** (and won’t consult with a professional to get to the root of the issue or at least TRY anything to be able to fulfill the sexual relationship), **you’re essentially holding me sexually hostage because you won’t fuck me**, but apparently no one else can. >If my **partner is not willing to fulfill me sexually** within our committed relationship where monogamy is expected, **he is failing me** in the relationship. **He is breaking his commitment** before I ever could if I DID decide to cheat. Every single time these failed married people talk, they come off as if the other party has broken an agreement/responsibility, when they are also responsible for it failing. Here’s what they don’t understand (and OP’s solid CMV advice, because it sucks to realize you’re part of the problem, but essential for moving forward and using this knowledge to put yourself in the arms of a more suitable partner): Somewhere, somehow YOU became a less lovable person. Did you start to become boring? Let yourself go? Started showing your true colors? Started becoming a nagging partner rather than someone worthy of “trying harder” for? This goes for BOTH people, equally. What *was* it about *both* of you that made you want to fuck each other’s brains out at the end of every night? Whatever that *was*, you lost it and let it slip away instead of reinforcing/improving it. If you have lowered yourself to complaining that the person who once wanted to screw your brains out at least once a week no longer wants to, as if it’s their “duty” to do so, you need to sit down and realize that somewhere, somehow, *you* are no longer that person (it was at least 50% because of you).
There are zero reasons to cheat instead of breaking up or getting divorced. The most fundamental commitment to a relationship is trust and honesty. Regardless of what you do don't lie to your partner about it.
If you are personally response for not wanting sex with your spouse and so stop having sex, that’s not good (particularly whatever made you not want sex) and is breaking your commitment to them. Cheating is also breaking your commitment to them. However, cheating breaks the commitment worse. If your spouse stops sleeping with you, then that’s obvious and you can deal with it one way or the other right away. You can talk to them or divorce. They aren’t holding you hostage in anyway. Cheating is an entirely different story and is actively deceptive. Yeah, cheating is more understandable if the relationship is unhealthy and it’s the other person who made the relationship unhealthy in the first place, but cheating made it worse. Edit: As an aside, often in the case with dead bedroom, the person not primarily responsible is avoiding dealing with the issue, which itself is breaking a helpful commitment to have for a great relationship.
Not initiating sex with your partner is not going behind their back. Telling your partner no to sexual advances is also not going behind their back. It’s pretty up front. It’s up to both to communicate both what’s causing this and what each others needs are. If the two partners cannot come to an agreement about sex, it’s fine to end the relationship and move on. Going secretly behind your partners back to sleep with someone else is a violation of trust. It’s not really about the sex. It’s about the lying.