quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Would it not be more problematic when sexual relations are not by mutual consent? In other words, when sexual relations amounted to marital rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
In Jewish weddings, don't the partners specifically promise to respect and try to meet each other's sexual needs?

Things would be a lot clearer if this were the rule in Christian vows as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the Book of Common Prayer there's the line: 'With my body, I thee worship.'

---

quote:

---

But if all the married men I have met who have confessed/complained/whinged to me that they no longer have sex with their wife were laid end to end, they'd probably be a lot happier than they are

---

I'm in the position to have had this conversation with two friends - both of whom are effectively maritally celibate. Adding me, that's 3/3.

Which reminds me of a song...'I want you, I need you, but there aint no way, I'm ever gonna **** you'

So don't be sad...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the Book of Common Prayer there's the line: 'With my body, I thee worship.'

---

I agree. However, it's not even in every version of the BCP, let alone anything of the kind being usual in other denominations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the Book of Common Prayer there's the line: 'With my body, I thee worship.'

---

I agree. However, it's not even in every version of the BCP, let alone anything of the kind being usual in other denominations.

---

Its in St Paul though. (The idea, not the exact words) I think he trumps the ECUSA liturgical revision committee.

---

Heck, Paul is much more explicit than the BCP - as you'd expect.
 

---

Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :
 
My former husband and I did not have sex for approximately five years before the end of our marriage. His lack of desire, NOT mine. In the beginning of our relationship, we had been like proverbial rabbits, then things sort of calmed down, but there was still a nice amount of physical intimacy. Then it just slowed down to a trickle, then stopped all together. I finally got tired of trying to initiate sex only to be rebuffed time and time again. I felt like I had done something wrong, that it was somehow all my fault and that if I could just fix whatever it was that had broken, then I could have that part of my life back. It turns out I couldn't fix it, it wasn't my fault, and that he was far more interested in fertile, nubile, younger women. Not that he was cheating on me, it was just that my 40 year old, sterile self wasn't what he decided he wanted.

That ended up killing our marriage. I wasn't willing to become celibate. My sex drive has always been fairly healthy and I was finding myself becoming more and more tempted to cheat on him with someone else. (I'm not 22 and a size 3, but I'm still no slouch either ). In the end, we parted as friends, which is basically what we had always been anyway and I have since married someone who not only loves me but lusts after me as well. It's pretty nice.

So, for me, it was a deal-breaker. I didn't agree to a celibate marriage. He unilaterally made a decision that impacted both of our lives and I was not willing to live with his decision.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So why does that seem to happen to couples these days?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
Doersn't this negate the reason for marriage the extension of the species. NOT pleasure.

---

When did extension of the species become THE reason for marriage? Whenever it was, it was considerably later than the creation of Eve.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
As my ever-present pedantry reflex takes control, could I please for the use of correct terminology. Being " celibate" means being unmarried; "chastity" is the practice of conforming sexual practice to state of life (sex within marriage: no sex outside it); "continence" is the practice of abstaining from sex. Matt's OP is, therefore, not about celibacy within marriage, but of continence.

I'll get me coat.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Matt, sending you lots of sympathetic vibes!

To give a woman's point of view, I'm (hopefully) coming to the end of a period of marital celibacy which started somewhere mid-pregnancy and continued after the birth of our son because I was worn down with sodding sleep deprivation (son is only 5 months, so its not that bad). I also don't think I had any idea how much babies trash a woman's body. There is nothing like a saggy stomach, leaky breasts, and stitches in 'interesting' places to make one feel about as attractive as a roadkill. It takes time to think of yourself in a 'sexual' way again, even if you actually have the energy for sex. I think a lot of women never quite think of themselves in that way, which is very sad for everyone involved

Anyway, I think I could just about live without sex in marriage long term provided there was still physical closeness and affection (hugging, kissing, holding hands, whatever). I can't imagine going without any kind of physical intimacy whatsoever though. It would be unbearably lonely.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
As others have said, it depends a lot on the reason for one partner going off sex. Physical disability is one thing, along with mental health issues like depression or PTSD related to sexual trauma (though in the latter case I do think the affected partner has as much of a duty to work hard at recovery as the other does to be supportive and accepting of their needs).

However, since for almost everyone, part of the decision to marry (only part, but not an inconsiderable part) is the conclusion that "this is someone I'd like to have sex with on a regular basis for the rest of my life," the complete loss of desire in the absence of physical or mental illness is more problematic. If the implicit marriage contract assumed mutual desire and a commitment to meeting each other's sexual needs, then what the would-be celibate is asking for is a fundamental renegotiation of the marriage. It's not something they are entitled to impose unilaterally. If Mrs. O told me "I don't ever want to have sex with you again," that would mean to me that she was saying "I don't want to be married to you any more," because whatever she might want would not be marriage by my definition, even if she wanted something that she chose to define as marriage. It would really mean starting from scratch to figure out what kind of relationship we were going to have and what the terms and commitments would be.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I just wanted to add that being married to a woman coming to terms with the physical fallout of childbirth can be a bit of mindfield. On the one hand we want to know that our other half still finds us sexually attractive. On the other we get upset if we feel that we're being pressured for sex before we're ready. I expect a lot of men feel they can't win...
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Well, I've learnt something new today. I always thought celibacy was about not having sex. And that 'unmarried' was the word for, well, being unmarried. Kind of mind-blowing to think that huge numbers of my (often extremely) sexually-active unmarried friends have been 'celibate' all this time!
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
In Jewish weddings, don't the partners specifically promise to respect and try to meet each other's sexual needs? Things would be a lot clearer if this were the rule in Christian vows as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So why does that seem to happen to couples these days?

---

Because women are relatively less poweless in society, and can earn relatively more than they used to outside the home.

So the economic downside of a woman choosing to have another child is greater, and her ability to enforce her choice not to is also greater as well. Its usually men who want more kids - as long as they don't have to wipe their bums too often.

That and the Pill. I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
I've been with the same wonderful woman for 32 years. In the seasons of our lives, we have gone through times of summer where sexual energy just oozed from us, times of winter where one or both of us just couldn't and in between times of spring and autumn. It has been a process from the beginning to get our seasons into synch. We can both 'tell' when the other is, to coin the phrase, 'up for it', and this is mainly and usually the reason the other is also.

That said, there is nothing wrong with asymmetrical sex, where for one partner it is "The Joy of Sex" and for the other the "The Job of Sex". That's happenned occassionally, but it doesn't work so well. It is my job to be in synch with her needs and desires, not mine to represent my self-centred wants. I vowed to take care of her needs, and by God, I meant it. But you certainly have to talk about, and there is nothing in the realm of coercion, rather the opposite. We have gone for some lengthy periods without any interest on either of our parts, and I guess this is what I mean by 'in synch' - this has been situations of deaths, of trauma within the family, of high stress.

I would encourage any and all with troubles in marriage to go to a good pastoral or other counsellor for help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I'd strongly recommend exploring marital or sexual therapy - or at least reading Relate's Guide to sex in a loving relationship - rather than just hoping the problem will sort itself, or resigning yourself to never in a blue moon.

There are well understood causes to loss of libido, and there are effective strategies for changing the situation. Likewise, health professionals know there are sexual side effects to some medications, and there are some ways of tackling that too - *if* you tell the prescriber there is a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poptart22:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

I'm not sure who you know, but I don't know anyone like that. Also, that's only referring to people who can conceive, and not same-sex partners or where one or both are sterile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

What an incredibly gloomy view of marriage! And I'm amazed that you feel qualified to speak for 'many, maybe even most' women.
 

---

Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
Dealbreaker? Not for me. I'm asexual. I belong to an online group for asexuals- people who lack sexual desire and are OK with it. I think I'd do well in a non-sexual marriage. I'd rather have friendship, and an occasional kiss and cuddle now and then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a tiny number of couples are virgins when they marry, so very few people have the excuse of sexual incompatability...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a tiny number of couples are virgins when they marry, so very few people have the excuse of sexual incompatability...

---

[clears throat] I don't know about tiny. When the subject came up once, two of three in the room were virgins. But neither of us were the sort to discuss the matter without being asked point blank by a person who needed to talk.

I suspect there are many more virgins at marriage out there than you think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre Joshua:

Second, there are going to be times when one partner sets aside his/her desire for the other. There are going to be times when one partner puts aside his/her disinterest and accepts the advances of the other. I think this will be especially true of couples where one partner has a markedly higher drive than the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a tiny number of couples are virgins when they marry, so very few people have the excuse of sexual incompatability...

---

[clears throat] I don't know about tiny. When the subject came up once, two of three in the room were virgins. But neither of us were the sort to discuss the matter without being asked point blank by a person who needed to talk.

I suspect there are many more virgins at marriage out there than you think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, exactly. At the risk of getting personal and providing TMI, Mrs Black is no longer 'up for' sex. A variety of factors: the usual waning of desire to which Leo alludes, three pregnancies and births plus anti-depressant medication. I in turn have made it clear to her that I don't want it if she doesn't want it. So it doesn't happen. Doesn't mean that I'm not frustrated as heck at times but I consider that the loving way to behave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
A dear friend of mine is in the situation of his wife having said no more sex. After several years of living without it, he found a solution: me. We get together once a month, his wife is aware of it and accepts it, and so far, two and a half years on we're all pretty happy with the arrangement.

Polyamory can work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But it does leave me wondering what prompted the pre-Enlightenment idea that women are more libidinous than men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a tiny number of couples are virgins when they marry, so very few people have the excuse of sexual incompatability...

---

[clears throat] I don't know about tiny. When the subject came up once, two of three in the room were virgins. But neither of us were the sort to discuss the matter without being asked point blank by a person who needed to talk.

I suspect there are many more virgins at marriage out there than you think.

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poptart22:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre Joshua:

Second, there are going to be times when one partner sets aside his/her desire for the other. There are going to be times when one partner puts aside his/her disinterest and accepts the advances of the other. I think this will be especially true of couples where one partner has a markedly higher drive than the other.

---

I wouldn't make that sacrifice. My wife understands. Now, it's probably different because we're two women, and so sex works differently in some ways and it is much less a simultaneous effort if you get what I mean. If she's disinterested at all, I would absolutely not ask for sex, because who wants to have it with a partner who's really not into it? Again, part of it may be that we're women and it's not like one of us can lie there motionless on the bed and have the other one do their thing. But sex is almost like a sacred thing and deserves a lot of respect and at least to us, respect includes us both being willing. We go through seasons. Sometimes hers is way up there and I'm sort of "eh" and sometimes it is the other way around. And I may get frustrated and say something about how long it has been (for the record, it has never been all that long), but it stops at my speaking my mind, it never translates into me asking her to give it to me when she isn't into it.

I wouldn't enjoy it at all. I just couldn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Matt, sending you lots of sympathetic vibes!

To give a woman's point of view, I'm (hopefully) coming to the end of a period of marital celibacy which started somewhere mid-pregnancy and continued after the birth of our son because I was worn down with sodding sleep deprivation (son is only 5 months, so its not that bad). I also don't think I had any idea how much babies trash a woman's body. There is nothing like a saggy stomach, leaky breasts, and stitches in 'interesting' places to make one feel about as attractive as a roadkill. It takes time to think of yourself in a 'sexual' way again, even if you actually have the energy for sex. I think a lot of women never quite think of themselves in that way, which is very sad for everyone involved

Anyway, I think I could just about live without sex in marriage long term provided there was still physical closeness and affection (hugging, kissing, holding hands, whatever). I can't imagine going without any kind of physical intimacy whatsoever though. It would be unbearably lonely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
there's still plenty of hugging and cuddling ...

---

I don't really get any of that either. If I ask for a hug, I'll get one, though often it feels as if I'm being held at arms length. If I ask for a kiss, or present myself for a hello or goodbye kiss, I qualify for a peck on the lips.

I feel sometimes as if I'm a character in a sitcom. There was one recent occasion when I came out of my son's room, both the children at last asleep, and as I walked across the landing, my husband approached me with his arms out. I smiled and moved forward into what I thought was going to be an embrace. He placed one hand on each of my shoulders, moved me to one side and walked past me.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
. I at least get that, although kissing tends to be more a peck on the cheek rather than anything more intimate or 'sexy' than that.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
You guys are doing it tough.

Infact I feel so that I can't even bring myself to make a joke about lawyers.

Seriously for you both.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
These stories make my heart bleed, so much pain and loneliness is caused by these situations. And there is no easy solution, and sometimes, no solution at all, especially if there are children involved.

When I was in the throes of this, I started doing therapy, just to have somewhere to wail and stomp about it, which helped. And it can clarify various thoughts and feelings about it.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
However, I have no doubt that he is faithful to me. And 90% of the time I have no doubt that he loves me. We're Catholics, and as far as I can see, the Church's view is that nothing is unforgivable in a marriage except to abandon it and "marry" someone else. (Please do not infer that that is my view but I suppose it does affect what I see as being possible options).

I read someone somewhere said that God answers prayers in three ways: (1) Yes, (2) Wait or (3) I have something better in mind.

I'm not sure what He's saying here, but as my youngest is not quite 2 yet, I have plenty of time to wait.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I feel sometimes as if I'm a character in a sitcom. There was one recent occasion when I came out of my son's room, both the children at last asleep, and as I walked across the landing, my husband approached me with his arms out. I smiled and moved forward into what I thought was going to be an embrace. He placed one hand on each of my shoulders, moved me to one side and walked past me.

---

Ouch. The lack of sex is bad, but when kindness, respect and humour start to vanish from a relationship then I think drastic measures are called for....

The biggest long term problem I see is the build-up of resentment. The accumulation of frustration can be quite toxic, making the little one may have look even less and ruining other parts of the relationship that were in good shape. While the natural give and take of a relationship works, we do not worry much about its balance sheet. But when that is disrupted, we start counting what comes in and goes out quite keenly. And as the perceived debts mount, what is on offer appears to steadily lose value. I sometimes think that memory of the past is the biggest relationship killer.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I feel sometimes as if I'm a character in a sitcom. There was one recent occasion when I came out of my son's room, both the children at last asleep, and as I walked across the landing, my husband approached me with his arms out. I smiled and moved forward into what I thought was going to be an embrace. He placed one hand on each of my shoulders, moved me to one side and walked past me.

---

Ouch. The lack of sex is bad, but when kindness, respect and humour start to vanish from a relationship then I think drastic measures are called for....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poptart22:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

I'm not sure who you know, but I don't know anyone like that. Also, that's only referring to people who can conceive, and not same-sex partners or where one or both are sterile.

---

My guess is ken was taking the long view. Historically, marriage has been a heterosexual arrangement, and I suspect ken's suspicion - that a lot of married women didn't used to willingly have regular sex - may be correct, since not having sex was their only reliable method of birth control. Some women would have been willing, others would have submitted, still others would have been forced. Those big families didn't come from nowhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

What an incredibly gloomy view of marriage! And I'm amazed that you feel qualified to speak for 'many, maybe even most' women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Okay, I'm an outsider to all of this, but one thing amazes me.

As someone interested in history, I wonder about Georgian and Victorian couples, who had far harder lives than ours, very few books, magazines and specialists to help them with their 'problems', far less leisure, yet they managed to have familes of 8, 10, 12, 14+ children. They didn't have one or two kids and then complain about how tired they were and how they'd lost all interest in sex. So why does that seem to happen to couples these days?

Some people say it's due to all the chemicals people are ingesting now in one form or another. Maybe so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtingthomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
Dealbreaker? Not for me. I'm asexual. I belong to an online group for asexuals- people who lack sexual desire and are OK with it. I think I'd do well in a non-sexual marriage. I'd rather have friendship, and an occasional kiss and cuddle now and then.

---

It's not quite the same deal if he marriage is non-sexual from the start, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
I have been reading with interest and would like to weigh into the debate - a lot of what's been said has probably been part of many people's experience, each subtly different - so here's my particular take.

With respect to whether one partner could/should 'put up with it' or 'do the job', or whatever, as far as the other partner's libido goes: to those who are saying that this is icky, awful, wrong, I would say; There is a big different between not really wanting sex and really not wanting sex. A big difference - and I'm qualified to say, because I've been both places, both quite recently.

I have two children, both preschoolers. After the birth of the first, as Yerevan has alluded to, my libido took a bit of a hit, partly to do with tiredness, partly to do with my own feelings about the sack of lumpy custard that was apparently my body now, and partly I think because my self-confidence took a hit - I felt pretty incompetent as a parent. So most of the time for the first year at least, I felt a bit meh - whatever about sex, but I went along with at at least some of the time ...and here's the important bit... I enjoyed it while it was happening, but it didn't have any overall boosting effect on my libido.

After the second pregnancy/birth (and you think you know what you are doing the second time around), something unexpected happened. My libido completely and utterly died. It just was-not-there. Mentally, I kind of went back to the pre-teen times, where the idea of the whole thing just became bewildering, incomprehensible, and above all, gross*. After about five months of this I started to feel a bit sorry for my husband and to think that probably I should just go along for the ride sometime for his sake, but I couldn't do it. It felt as though it would be kind of traumatic, somehow.

There really is a big difference between don't really want it and really don't want it, and I guess it is only the individual who knows which of those categories they fall in. I can understand why a 'really don't' can't just go along for the ride, and why they react with horror to others suggestions of this. I can also understand why there are people here saying 'What's the problem? Why not just get on with it, for the other one's sake?', because I've been there too, and if you are there, it's not really a problem. Libidos aren't going to be matched all the time, after all...

*Has gone away, thank God!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
A dear friend of mine is in the situation of his wife having said no more sex. After several years of living without it, he found a solution: me. We get together once a month, his wife is aware of it and accepts it, and so far, two and a half years on we're all pretty happy with the arrangement.

Polyamory can work.

---

Isn't that a rather bold claim to make after just 2.5 years?

Or did you mean polyamory has worked so far?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

My guess is ken was taking the long view. Historically, marriage has been a heterosexual arrangement, and I suspect ken's suspicion - that a lot of married women didn't used to willingly have regular sex - may be correct, since not having sex was their only reliable method of birth control.

---

Yes. It was a response to a question about what's changed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that many, maybe even most, married women have never willingly had frequent intercourse with their husbands other than for the purpose of having children. Leaving aside the first few months of marriage and the occasional aftermath of a drunken party.

---

What an incredibly gloomy view of marriage! And I'm amazed that you feel qualified to speak for 'many, maybe even most' women.

---

Read some history. Or even some 18th and 19th century novels. Or even try talking to some old women in pubs when the drink has loosend their tongues a bit (though the ones old enough to remember those times are mostly dead now) It's quite clear that many, maybe most, married women regarded frequent sexual relations with their husband as a duty more than a pleasure. Not all of course. And not always. But day after day week after week? Lots of them didn't like that and avoided it when they could.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
I just wanted to add that being married to a woman coming to terms with the physical fallout of childbirth can be a bit of mindfield. On the one hand we want to know that our other half still finds us sexually attractive. On the other we get upset if we feel that we're being pressured for sex before we're ready. I expect a lot of men feel they can't win...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
A dear friend of mine is in the situation of his wife having said no more sex. After several years of living without it, he found a solution: me. We get together once a month, his wife is aware of it and accepts it, and so far, two and a half years on we're all pretty happy with the arrangement.

Polyamory can work.

---

Isn't that a rather bold claim to make after just 2.5 years?

Or did you mean polyamory has worked so far?

---

Would you tell a monogamous couple who had been married for 'just' 2.5 years that their their marriage has only worked 'so far'?

I guess the poly are being held to much higher standards that the mono, cos that's fair.
 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
¡híjole! I really commend the honesty on this thread. I have been married for over 20 years and there are ups and downs especially after childbirth and in early childhood where you are exhausted all the time but I cannot imagine a totally sexless marriage long term. For me personally it would feel like it was missing an important unitive aspect. I am menopausal now and I know many women who have no drive after menopause and so I sometimes worry and wonder how that kind of change would affect our marriage.
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[qb] Okay, I'm an outsider to all of this, but one thing amazes me.

As someone interested in history, I wonder about Georgian and Victorian couples, who had far harder lives than ours, very few books, magazines and specialists to help them with their 'problems', far less leisure, yet they managed to have familes of 8, 10, 12, 14+ children. They didn't have one or two kids and then complain about how tired they were and how they'd lost all interest in sex. So why does that seem to happen to couples these days?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Would you tell a monogamous couple who had been married for 'just' 2.5 years that their their marriage has only worked 'so far'?

I guess the poly are being held to much higher standards that the mono, cos that's fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Would you tell a monogamous couple who had been married for 'just' 2.5 years that their their marriage has only worked 'so far'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:

I guess the poly are being held to much higher standards that the mono, cos that's fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
there's still plenty of hugging and cuddling ...

---

I don't really get any of that either. If I ask for a hug, I'll get one, though often it feels as if I'm being held at arms length. If I ask for a kiss, or present myself for a hello or goodbye kiss, I qualify for a peck on the lips.

I feel sometimes as if I'm a character in a sitcom. There was one recent occasion when I came out of my son's room, both the children at last asleep, and as I walked across the landing, my husband approached me with his arms out. I smiled and moved forward into what I thought was going to be an embrace. He placed one hand on each of my shoulders, moved me to one side and walked past me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Would you tell a monogamous couple who had been married for 'just' 2.5 years that their their marriage has only worked 'so far'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:


And what's changed is better education for women, better wages for everybody, increased investment in property and in children's education leading to more pressure to work outside the hoime for married women, and a continuing move towards equitable, companianate marriage (though I think lots of people exagerrate the changes there - marriage was never entirely separate from love or sex, and marriage still is very much about money). And maybe a sort-of half-hearted 55%-or-so move towards women's liberation. (There is a lot more to do - but then as you know I think the backlash people who parrot the nonsense about feminism having gone to far are either ignortant or else they hate women - not mutually exclusive of course)

But basically its a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, the two great wars, and the Pill.

[...]
Read some history. Or even some 18th and 19th century novels. Or even try talking to some old women in pubs when the drink has loosend their tongues a bit (though the ones old enough to remember those times are mostly dead now) It's quite clear that many, maybe most, married women regarded frequent sexual relations with their husband as a duty more than a pleasure. Not all of course. And not always. But day after day week after week? Lots of them didn't like that and avoided it when they could.

---

So, in summary, women in general never really liked sex much, but are now liberated enough to say no, and to refuse.

It's perhaps unsurprising (but obviously unPC) that certain kinds of men blame 'feminism' for their marital woes! As a woman, I can't agree, but sadly, it doesn't look as though better education, better wages, talk of companionship, etc. have really made marriage a happy and fulfililng state. Perhaps these things have mostly just made people more prone to be disappointed in their marriages.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I think with my case it's that the chemistry ain't there, at least on Mrs B's part - she just doesn't particularly fancy me, I fear
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
My grandmother (the same one who coined the sliding from the buttocks phrase above!), when I once asked her what she'd got out of sex, replied "Three beautiful children, but not much else...but it was more than worth it to get the children."
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
As Alogon has pointed out the traditional arrangement of a mistress has usually benefitted the man much more than the mistress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
As Alogon has pointed out the traditional arrangement of a mistress has usually benefitted the man much more than the mistress.

---

This is why, IMHO, women like Nicole deserve to be held in much higher regard by society than they usually are.

---

I should hold her adultery in much higher regard, because her male partner in sin profits more from their arrangement than she does herself?!

Of course, in times past a mistress was kept, so the benefits were basically mutual. I have to admit that I am a bit confused how to classify "selfless sin", but "praiseworthy" wasn't exactly on my mind there..
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
As Alogon has pointed out the traditional arrangement of a mistress has usually benefitted the man much more than the mistress.

---

This is why, IMHO, women like Nicole deserve to be held in much higher regard by society than they usually are.

---

I should hold her adultery in much higher regard, because her male partner in sin profits more from their arrangement than she does herself?!

Of course, in times past a mistress was kept, so the benefits were basically mutual. I have to admit that I am a bit confused how to classify "selfless sin", but "praiseworthy" wasn't exactly on my mind there..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I should hold her adultery in much higher regard, because her male partner in sin profits more from their arrangement than she does herself?!... "praiseworthy" wasn't exactly on my mind there..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think with my case it's that the chemistry ain't there, at least on Mrs B's part - she just doesn't particularly fancy me, I fear

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
In the interests of accuracy it should be pointed out that unless she is also married, her action is not one of adultery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I should hold her adultery in much higher regard, because her male partner in sin profits more from their arrangement than she does herself?!... "praiseworthy" wasn't exactly on my mind there..

---

I didn't actually use the word "praiseworthy", did I? But many would call her a slutty guttersnipe and that is most unfair.

Real life is not as tidy as pristine doctrinal theology would pretend. In this case, the point is that all parties are happy with the arrangement and it is very likely preserving a marriage. If the wife has refused (or at least is very reluctant) to have sex anymore-- as perhaps you agree she really should not do-- then what is actually being adulterated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Would you tell a monogamous couple who had been married for 'just' 2.5 years that their their marriage has only worked 'so far'?

---

In what context? If you leave out the "only" (which is a weasel word here), you're left with a simple statement of fact (if fact it be): your marriage has worked so far. And that's all you can say. Unless you have a machine capable of looking into the future. All too many marriages that seemed rock-solid for the first 2.5 years end in acrimonious divorce. 2.5 years tells you not a lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Vowing to forsake all others doesn't have any loopholes. Neither does "for better, for worse."

Pristine doctrinal theology is a standard. Of course, being human, many of us will fall short of it. That doesn't mean we get to lower the bar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
There's vaginismus too. I know two couples who have both been married for years and are unable to have sex.

Ironically the church is probably to blame. As one friend put it, the constant "sex is bad, don't do it" message from her church conditioned her body to the extent that now she is finally 'allowed' to, she can't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BessHiggs:
In the beginning of our relationship, we had been like proverbial rabbits, then things sort of calmed down, but there was still a nice amount of physical intimacy. Then it just slowed down to a trickle, then stopped all together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It often leads to marital breakdown, but in many cases, it's because we've become conditioned to sense gratification being more important than commitment, loyalty and friendship, which are the bedrock of any successful relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All these problems must have existed for our grandparents and great grandparents, but there were very few divorces, because it simply wasn't part of anyone's mindset back then.

---

quote:

---

Now in my late 50's, I find it perfectly easy to live in a chaste relationship

---

Paul - I've quoted you (unattributed) in Heaven's 'joys of growing older' thread. I look forward to your ease.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I'm sorry if this is a stupid comment because I'm new on this bulletin board, but I'm curious why anyone would give so much detail about their sex life on a public space on the internet.

OK, I understand there is a level of anonymous-ness, but I'm not clear what advantage there is in airing your own dirty laundry here - rather than with the partner in question or with a counsellor.

I don't want to sound insensitive because clearly this is a big issue for some of you, but... what do you think you are gaining from saying those things here?



 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm sorry if this is a stupid comment because I'm new on this bulletin board, but I'm curious why anyone would give so much detail about their sex life on a public space on the internet.

OK, I understand there is a level of anonymous-ness, but I'm not clear what advantage there is in airing your own dirty laundry here - rather than with the partner in question or with a counsellor.

I don't want to sound insensitive because clearly this is a big issue for some of you, but... what do you think you are gaining from saying those things here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
What's been overlooked so far is that many times a sexless marriage indicates that one of the partners is a homosexual.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think all long-term sexual relationships eventually end up being sexless. Did you sign up for marriage thinking that you'd always be sexually fulfilled?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I suppose I see something in the cut and thrust of discussion which can sharpen an argument and help with thinking about an issue. But I don't see much of an argument going on here - some of you are in a very unfortunate situation, others are sympathising. What is the debate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think all long-term sexual relationships eventually end up being sexless. Did you sign up for marriage thinking that you'd always be sexually fulfilled?

---

I have to say, I think that's a strange view. I'm 38. As someone posted on the related Hell thread, I'm married, not dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Someone who is not sexually intimate with anyone is not, in my view, being faithful to their partner. They are being faithful to whatever drives them to avoid sexual intimacy.

That's my view, anyway. YMMV [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm sorry if this is a stupid comment because I'm new on this bulletin board, but I'm curious why anyone would give so much detail about their sex life on a public space on the internet.

OK, I understand there is a level of anonymous-ness, but I'm not clear what advantage there is in airing your own dirty laundry here - rather than with the partner in question or with a counsellor.

I don't want to sound insensitive because clearly this is a big issue for some of you, but... what do you think you are gaining from saying those things here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think all long-term sexual relationships eventually end up being sexless. Did you sign up for marriage thinking that you'd always be sexually fulfilled?

---

I have to say, I think that's a strange view. I'm 38. As someone posted on the related Hell thread, I'm married, not dead.

---

Eh? What has your age got to do with it? Plenty of people sacrifice their career for their partner, some end up being full time carers, making others are in situations which are not of their choosing. I don't really see this is objectively different to any of those situations, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Someone who is not sexually intimate with anyone is not, in my view, being faithful to their partner. They are being faithful to whatever drives them to avoid sexual intimacy.

That's my view, anyway. YMMV

---

I'm sorry, I'm really struggling to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the person who withdraws from sexual intimacy is being unfaithful?

If so, that is the bizarrest notion of faithfulness that I've ever heard. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[sorry for DP]...and if I am not sexually cherished in my marriage and then come across a woman who does offer to sexually cherish me, as it were, would I have the will power to say no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think all long-term sexual relationships eventually end up being sexless. Did you sign up for marriage thinking that you'd always be sexually fulfilled?

---

I have to say, I think that's a strange view. I'm 38. As someone posted on the related Hell thread, I'm married, not dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm sorry if this is a stupid comment because I'm new on this bulletin board, but I'm curious why anyone would give so much detail about their sex life on a public space on the internet.

OK, I understand there is a level of anonymous-ness, but I'm not clear what advantage there is in airing your own dirty laundry here - rather than with the partner in question or with a counsellor.

I don't want to sound insensitive because clearly this is a big issue for some of you, but... what do you think you are gaining from saying those things here?

---

quote:

---

...and if I am not sexually cherished in my marriage and then come across a woman who does offer to sexually cherish me, as it were, would I have the will power to say no?

---

quote:

---

bloody hurts

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
There's vaginismus too. I know two couples who have both been married for years and are unable to have sex.

Ironically the church is probably to blame. As one friend put it, the constant "sex is bad, don't do it" message from her church conditioned her body to the extent that now she is finally 'allowed' to, she can't.

---

Oh FFS - this a really easily treatable condition - there is a healthcare system please push them to a GP surgery at the end of a pointy stick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
There's vaginismus too. I know two couples who have both been married for years and are unable to have sex.

Ironically the church is probably to blame. As one friend put it, the constant "sex is bad, don't do it" message from her church conditioned her body to the extent that now she is finally 'allowed' to, she can't.

---

Oh FFS - this a really easily treatable condition - there is a healthcare system please push them to a GP surgery at the end of a pointy stick.

---

Why do you assume they haven't already? Your comment reminds me of evensong's in Hell - 'just stop it', which hasn't gone down that well. Maybe it's not as easily treatable as you think. They've done the counselling, the G.P. & treatments etc., they're open about it and are happy to talk about it, etc. but no luck yet (or at least minor luck). I'm sure it'll happen in time, but it's still taken years so far. So it still sucks.

---

I know I shouldn't but
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
There's vaginismus too. I know two couples who have both been married for years and are unable to have sex.

Ironically the church is probably to blame. As one friend put it, the constant "sex is bad, don't do it" message from her church conditioned her body to the extent that now she is finally 'allowed' to, she can't.

---

Oh FFS - this a really easily treatable condition - there is a healthcare system please push them to a GP surgery at the end of a pointy stick.

---

Why do you assume they haven't already? Your comment reminds me of evensong's in Hell - 'just stop it', which hasn't gone down that well. Maybe it's not as easily treatable as you think. They've done the counselling, the G.P. & treatments etc., they're open about it and are happy to talk about it, etc. but no luck yet (or at least minor luck). I'm sure it'll happen in time, but it's still taken years so far. So it still sucks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
There's vaginismus too. I know two couples who have both been married for years and are unable to have sex.

Ironically the church is probably to blame. As one friend put it, the constant "sex is bad, don't do it" message from her church conditioned her body to the extent that now she is finally 'allowed' to, she can't.

---

Oh FFS - this a really easily treatable condition - there is a healthcare system please push them to a GP surgery at the end of a pointy stick.

---

Why do you assume they haven't already? Your comment reminds me of evensong's in Hell - 'just stop it', which hasn't gone down that well. Maybe it's not as easily treatable as you think. They've done the counselling, the G.P. & treatments etc., they're open about it and are happy to talk about it, etc. but no luck yet (or at least minor luck). I'm sure it'll happen in time, but it's still taken years so far. So it still sucks.

---

Mainly, I assumed that because you included no reference to trying to treat the problem in your post.

However, I grant you I should have said easily treatable in *most* cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Matt, I know that the hormonal upheaval after having children often does odd things to the libido, and I know that it's not always long lasting.

quote:

---

...and if I am not sexually cherished in my marriage and then come across a woman who does offer to sexually cherish me, as it were, would I have the will power to say no?

---

Yes, you would have the will power to say no because, as you yourself have said, adultery

quote:

---

bloody hurts

---

the non-adulterous party. Why would you risk hurting anyone, let alone your wife, like that?

---

quote:

---

The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth point goes;
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to that toad.
               Rudyard Kipling

---

So I feel very reluctant to proffer generalised advice, but ISTM that Pyx_e is in the right territory here. To love as we believe ourselves to be loved by God can sometimes be a profoundly costly spiritual battle - a via dolorosa indeed. So marriage, as an institution in which that commitment to costly faithfulness is most clearly embodied is not something that we [ought to] get into lightly.

I think it is entirely right and fair to look at all the possible ways in which the pain of that commitment might be ended (counselling, therapy, medical treatment etc.). But where the pain just remains to be borne with for a time, then ways of mitigating it, and supports to faithfulness may need to be found.

These might include the loving support of family or (appropriate) close friends, the support of those who will pray for us, or some specific strategies that help alleviate the sense of rejection and frustration that can grow up. Some of these may be things that can be shared and discussed within the marriage so that the burden is shared by the partners to the marriage and not just carried by one alone.

 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Many thanks Pyx_e, Mark_in_manchester and BroJames for your thoughts.

But biggest thanks to MattBlack. I thought this thread was going to bring me down, but in some respects I feel uplifted by it - as much by the thread title as anything. Maybe I am called to this, for now. That I can't discern the reason for it doesn't make the whole striving for love and constancy meaningless (though sometimes I worry I will look back and think they were).

But for now, the idea of being part of a wider community of temporary (I hope) members of an Order is somehow comforting.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
ISTM that Pyx_e is in the right territory here. To love as we believe ourselves to be loved by God can sometimes be a profoundly costly spiritual battle - a via dolorosa indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
possibly because many of us regular posters regard SoF as a kind of *family* - from naive niece to mad uncle in the attic - mostly, we do care about each other

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I do though feel quite rejected by the whole "it's not that I don't want to have sex, just that I don't want to with you" message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
A podvig that is imposed on you can be a horror. But no one should ever impose a podvig on you. A podvig should be freely chosen, and embraced. And when it is, there is a potential for tremendous joy in it. Not just happiness, but joy. It's hard. But so is climbing a mountain, rebuilding a car engine, growing a perfect orchid, or any number of other things that people choose, and struggle with, and fail at, and finally succeed at. And part of the joy of the success is in fact the struggle it took to get there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
@quetzalcoatl - maybe so, but the issue is when to work through it and when to quit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember as a therapist hearing the most awful stories of people in marriage feeling utter loneliness and rejection, and yet they hang on. Is this masochism, or something nobler?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think it is also OK to recognize that a relationship is dying on its feet, and that it's OK to quit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think it is also OK to recognize that a relationship is dying on its feet, and that it's OK to quit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think it is also OK to recognize that a relationship is dying on its feet, and that it's OK to quit.

---

Is it? If your partner decides to repudiate the bond, there's not much you can do about it. But are you ever entitled to just because the chewing gum's lost its flavour?

Put it a different way. How would you feel if your wife/husband said that to you? - unless, I suppose you were already looking for a let-out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Depends also on what we mean by 'OK'. Do we mean ethically correct, emotionally authentic, wrong in Christian terms, and so on? I think all of these get intertwined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I think this is rather simplistic.

---

quote:

---

There are plenty of people struggling with marriage. There are plenty of people struggling with loneliness. There is a hell of a lot of people struggling with sex. Most people do not consciously chose marriage as a spiritual battleground, even if it becomes that, and most unmarried people are fighting their spiritual battles without even really having chosen their battle field.

---

quote:

---

In truth, we simply have to bear our cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Depends also on what we mean by 'OK'. Do we mean ethically correct, emotionally authentic, wrong in Christian terms, and so on? I think all of these get intertwined.

---

This is getting quite complex. Could a course of action be "emotionally authentic" and yet not be the right thing to do from a Christian perspective? If we think that contradiction could exist, isn't because we have either misunderstood what it means to be emotionally authentic, or misunderstood what it means to be Christian (something which I have no doubt I am guilty of)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think it is also OK to recognize that a relationship is dying on its feet, and that it's OK to quit.

---

If there are children then its not OK to quit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Depends also on what we mean by 'OK'. Do we mean ethically correct, emotionally authentic, wrong in Christian terms, and so on? I think all of these get intertwined.

---

This is getting quite complex. Could a course of action be "emotionally authentic" and yet not be the right thing to do from a Christian perspective? If we think that contradiction could exist, isn't because we have either misunderstood what it means to be emotionally authentic, or misunderstood what it means to be Christian (something which I have no doubt I am guilty of)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And it's true that most people do not choose marriage as a spiritual battle, but that's partly a result of inadequate catechesis. Marriage, as we understand it, is always a spiritual battle, closely related to martyrdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And it's true that most people do not choose marriage as a spiritual battle, but that's partly a result of inadequate catechesis. Marriage, as we understand it, is always a spiritual battle, closely related to martyrdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is quite a common view today, that children are actually quite damaged by loveless parents. I mean loveless to each other.

But again, it's impossible to evaluate objectively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is quite a common view today, that children are actually quite damaged by loveless parents. I mean loveless to each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is quite a common view today, that children are actually quite damaged by loveless parents. I mean loveless to each other.

---

Nonetheless, the children would probably prefer the parents to love each other than to separate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is quite a common view today, that children are actually quite damaged by loveless parents. I mean loveless to each other.

---

Nonetheless, the children would probably prefer the parents to love each other than to separate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And it's true that most people do not choose marriage as a spiritual battle, but that's partly a result of inadequate catechesis. Marriage, as we understand it, is always a spiritual battle, closely related to martyrdom.

---

If marriage is a battle, who is the enemy? What does victory (winning the marriage?) look like? And is there a marital equivalent of the Geneva Conventions (i.e. rules considered so important you're not allowed to break them even if you're losing the battle/marriage)? The use of a military metaphors in this context seems like it could carry a lot of unintended freight.

---

Well, maybe the military metaphors are a step too far, but I doubt it. It kinda depends on how you think about it. In each of my beloved and I, sin still exists. In our family (which was produced by the marriage and is a deep, deep part of our lives together), there continues to be sin, and it will continue to exist long after my beloved and I have left the scene.

To me, it is a battle. It is the battle of love; in the midst of conflict, keeping your wits about you as the arrows fly (and they do) and saying, "How can love win the day? What creative tactic can I use to bring this conflict to an end? How can I demonstrate to this irate and aggrieved person that forgiveness and reconciliation is what we are called to?"

It is tough, coming from highly dysfunctional families and having made a similarly, if not worse, family ourselves. Two of our kids have completely withdrawn, and one of those has chosen a sinful course; and I walk that very difficult balancing line trying to say (and better, show), I love you, really, please stop what you are doing; I've offered help and counseling and what support I can. One is preparing to embark on his 3rd marriage, trying to work through the church, trying to "do it God's way", but has given himself such a row to hoe as it WILL require a lot of struggle in every dimension. His two soon-to-be stepdaughters have lived in downtown Manhatten all their lives, and his wife has pretty much as well. Now the girls, ages 10 and 12, pretty much without consulation, will be moved from the only home they've even known into a completely different, semi-rural and somewhat redneck environment - and they are Hispanic, my son is a big hulking white guy. We are doing our best to make them welcome and to help them adjust. One daughter is actually doing pretty good is many ways, but just had a miscarriaqe. We have an autistic son who will be with us always, but he is a sweetheart and is really the least of our troubles, still, we have the heartache of what will happen when we're gone, and he likely will have to leave the only home he's ever known. He struggles with the idea of death, I can hear him talking to himself and we do our best to explain (at least he CAN talk).

The depression and struggle is sometimes exhausting. It impacts my work performance and all other aspects of my life.

But for all my very real sinfulness, there was a time when a very screwed up, very naive young man made a promise, a vow. In my mind at that point, it was done. Forever. For better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, until death shall we part. I didn't live up to those vows the way I should. But my beloved took her vows as seriously as I did. And we found a way. It wasn't the easiest way; it would have been far easier to stay separated or even divorce. It would have been far easier for me to fade out of the picture, and she could live her life as the victim, struggling back from what this horrible man did.

She chose not to; she worked with the pastors and counselors who'd worked with me and determined that my repentance was genuine. She forgave me and we have worked through years of grief and bitterness, and forged a stronger bond than we ever had before. And in the exhaustion,and in the hurts inflicted by others and by each other, sometimes we go through lean seasons. But thank God, the sexual expression of our love has never gone completely away; when we come together it is a deep and comforting expression of the bond that Hell failed to break. We can, and have, prayed thanks to God in the midst of intercourse. If you think that's weird, well, I'm sorry. And I don't mean to brag, God forbid, that isn't my point, but I know my God is pleased when His people commune in obedience. Nothing is hidden from His knowledge.

But is it a battle? Absolutely. And for those stuck in a one-sided enforced celibacy, I'm so sorry. Nothing here is said to try to make you feel worse. I think, for what my 2 cents' worth is worth, that as others have said, barring physical problems, it is likely more of a symptom than a problem in itself. It may be something within one partner, or it may be a relational issue, but it's my opinion that if the relationship is healed, the sexual side will begin to take care of itself. Vow to love, fully and completely, creatively and without a distinct (and especially not perceivable) goal of getting back in the bed.

And for you.

Apologies for the long post and for anything that may be taken in a hurtful way. And it's really not meant to be self aggrandizing; I wish by all that is holy that I'd never done what I've done. Thank God, nothing is beyond His reach.

Blessings in the battle,

Tom
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Thank you so much
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is quite a common view today, that children are actually quite damaged by loveless parents. I mean loveless to each other.

---

Nonetheless, the children would probably prefer the parents to love each other than to separate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is quite a common view today, that children are actually quite damaged by loveless parents. I mean loveless to each other.

---

Nonetheless, the children would probably prefer the parents to love each other than to separate.

---

And, in fact, if they choose to live together, despite the loss of the passionate feelings that once drove their relationship, that IS love-- for their children and for each other. Love is a choice.

Children don't need passionate parents (although it's nice). They need respectful, committed parents in a stable relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TomofTarsus' reply is very touching, but I think there is a flaw in it. One cannot make oneself love someone.

I think sometimes love just leaves, and won't come back. I don't see why someone should be stuck in a negative relationship.

Of course, if both partners are prepared to work on it, that can help, but it will not necessarily produce love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TomofTarsus' reply is very touching, but I think there is a flaw in it. One cannot make oneself love someone.

I think sometimes love just leaves, and won't come back. I don't see why someone should be stuck in a negative relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TomofTarsus' reply is very touching, but I think there is a flaw in it. One cannot make oneself love someone.

I think sometimes love just leaves, and won't come back. I don't see why someone should be stuck in a negative relationship.

---

Well that is the subject of much debate. If love is an action, and a voluntary action at that, then one *can* choose to love. However, I don't think it's possible to get there through hard work, but only through grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TomofTarsus' reply is very touching, but I think there is a flaw in it. One cannot make oneself love someone.

---

I fully accept that I may be talking out of my fundament here, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Maybe it's over-subtle, but I think that love is often as much a choice as anything else. Certainly once you get past the initial hormones & butterflies stage. Over the years there have definitely been times when I could have actively chosen to stop loving Mrs Snags. I could have invested time, energy and emotion elsewhere, and (sub)consciously closed off the things that reinforced love for my wife. And after a while it would have been a positive feedback loop that just accelerated. Instead, sometimes with a thwack upside the head to get me to realise, I made other choices, focused on other things, chose to see things in one way not the other, and invested in building the relationship up rather than letting it start to dwindle and fade away.

Mrs Snags isn't as prone to introspection as me, but I suspect if asked she could say much the same thing from her side of the relationship too.

I do get what you mean, I think, but at the same time I believe that we can, to some extent, choose how we react, what we focus on, what we 'see', where we put our time and effort, what hurts we nurse or release and so on. In so doing, you can encourage, re-kindle, or develop love where there is none, or nought but a trace (in yourself - I don't think you can necessarily make someone love you back if they don't want to).

In fact, to some extent, I'd be prepared to argue that's a large part of what love us, over time; much more so than some fluffy notion that just takes care of itself and may or may not stick around.

Of course, I'm lucky (?) in that I'm on my first and hopefully only marriage, and by and large we've always had very similar views on what that meant, and what it takes. Doubtless I'm going to go home tonight and discover I'm in deep shit over something and have a big row, having said this

[ 14. May 2012, 16:28: Message edited by: Snags ]
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Snags

That's a very nice post, and convincing. I think you are right that one can choose to not go down some roads, say of resentment and retaliation. And as we get older, we realize that a lot of stuff isn't about the other person at all, but about one's history being repeated, as Santayana said. (And Freud!).

But I also think there are wrong choices, and it is OK to acknowledge that, and start again. And also I think some people grow away from each other. Anyway, I am not trying to write a compendium on failed marriages here!

It sounds like you made a good choice.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
quetzelcoatl, this may delve into another thread entirely, but I believe God chose to love us, and that despite distinct, even dreadful unloveliness in us; since we are made in His image, then we can choose to love as well.

When you say "love leaves" I almost feel as though it is somehow being separated as some sort of entity on it's own; and I'll just leave that there because I can't quite relate to that.

Being stuck in a negative relationship is tough, but surely negative is an overly simple summation? Is there nothing good?

Croesos is correct, of course; if we are going to use military terminology, it IS a war, battle after battle, engagement after engagement. But it is the war of love, always seeking out the loveliness in it's object, and always looking for ways to let the other know that they are loved in the deepest, fullest sense; that the love cannot be broken, ever. Love is a great healer. When you have decided that you will love, no matter what, I believe you will find it very freeing.



Tom
 

---

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :
 
Some of the best spiritual advice I ever received is that everyone deserves to be cherished. Our lives, our love, are a gift from God. To give those things to someone who doesn't appreciate them is to waste God's gifts. Mt 7:6.

I don't think that a unilateral withdrawal from sexual intimacy is consistent with cherishing someone, at least not in the absence of medical, psychiatric, or situational problems.

In my experience there is an overly strong presumption among pastors and the therapy professions alike that, in the absence of addiction, adultery, or abuse, bad marriages should be saved, especially when there are children involved. I took bad advice and waited longer than I should have, but am now divorced and remarried and am happy that my children now have an opportunity to see what a loving marriage looks like and indeed be brought up in such a household.

Whenever your spouse refuses to work on any problem you face together, whether through compromise, counseling, therapy, or some other means, your choices become crystal clear insofar as staying in the marriage means you're going to have to tolerate the problem indefinitely. Choose wisely.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
TomofTarsus

Yes, I agree with some of that. I have found an immensity of love with my second wife, and every day I give thanks to God and the angels for bringing us together. At the same time, I can give myself credit for recognizing a wrong turning, and (eventually) making a right one.

Sometimes there is a whiff of masochism here, as if a bad marriage was somehow holy!
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
quetzelcoatl,

I didn't realize that you were separated until after I'd posted that last one, and now I see that you are remarried as well. I was posting for those still in the bad situation.

Who knows where all the wrong turns are? We are all very fallen people. The longer I live, the more the gospel appellation "lost" seems to apply to us as a race. Or, as my favorite singer once put it, "our hells and our heavens are so few inches apart - we must be awfully small, and not as strong as we think we are." Marriages end, it's just one more consequence of being fallen. It takes two to tango, and it took me a long time to learn that.

So please don't take anything as a condemnation, and at the same time, it's not masochism I'm into, nor the ascetic "self-flagellation" mentality. My wife and I chose the hard road because we believed it was the right road; but even now our fallenness, our blindness, or our lostness makes it harder than it needs to be. But before that road could be chosen, she had to know that I had chosen love.

Blessings,

Tom
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
TomofTarsus

Well, the wrong turning is also the right turning, as through that we can realize what is wrong and what is right. Well, we might realize that, if we stop repeating the past, Santayana again.

I recall clients on about their eighth abusive relationship, being beaten up, and so on, and saying to them, when does the penny drop?

But I think that repetition often comes from our foolish idea that we can change others, especially the abusive ones. Or, as they say, we miss a bad parent more than a good one. Not always true.

Fascinating stuff. And so with a glad heart to you.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Yow! Eight abusive relationships, yessiree, that's a pathlogical problem isn't it?

Just in case anybody happens on this thread, nothing, and I do mean NOTHING in Scripture or in even common sense says you must "choose love" and stay in an abusive relationship. Especially if there are children, get out, and NOW. In reality , what you are doing is choosing love - "I love you enough to stop you from doing this to me. I love my kids enough to stop you from doing this to them, and I love me enough to stop you from doing it to me. And you will never do it again, no matter what course our future takes."

Then get to a counselor and good pastoral help, and don't even think about going back, if ever, without clear, neon, blazing signs of repentance - getting counseling, a clear change of personality, and a willingness counsel with you and to be open and accountable with a group from your church, etc.

But even that is a very long shot, approximately 100 out of 100 physical abusers know how to play the "I'm sorry, it'll never happen again" card. Whether by supplication or brute force, their goal is to control you. You must separate and get yourself whole first. So if you feel like you want to reconcile, don't EVER even think about it before you've got a good support system around you, and are willing to listen to someone when they say they don't like what they see.

And others may add to this. Nothing and no one is beyond the reach of grace, but physical, emotional, or sexual abuse is not something EVER to be tolerated, and love, rather than stay, REQUIRES YOU TO GO.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
TomofTarsus

Yes. It gets complicated though. When we are in our 20s and 30s, I think we often make choices based on the past, and if your childhood had elements of abuse of an emotional kind, bullying, sarcasm, belittling, and so on, it is often a compulsive thing to repeat this, partly to remember it, and partly to cure it. (And partly to forget it!).

Hence, I think early choices in marriage are sometimes like this, and can be got out of.

Oh well, this is launching into a wholesale dissertation on 'repeat or remember', so I will stop repeating myself!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think it is also OK to recognize that a relationship is dying on its feet, and that it's OK to quit.

---

If there are children then its not OK to quit.

---

There are cases (not many, but some) where the marriage is so bad that the children are in fact better off if the parents separate. In those cases, quitting may be the least-bad choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is quite a common view today, that children are actually quite damaged by loveless parents. I mean loveless to each other.

But again, it's impossible to evaluate objectively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TomofTarsus' reply is very touching, but I think there is a flaw in it. One cannot make oneself love someone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

TomofTarsus' reply is very touching, but I think there is a flaw in it. One cannot make oneself love someone.

---

Really? As Christians we are commanded to love. Even our enemies. Is that command empty? Impossible?

Maybe we can't make ourselves fancy someone. Which is where we came in in the OP. But that's not the same as not loving in any way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

TomofTarsus' reply is very touching, but I think there is a flaw in it. One cannot make oneself love someone.

---

Really? As Christians we are commanded to love. Even our enemies. Is that command empty? Impossible?

Maybe we can't make ourselves fancy someone. Which is where we came in in the OP. But that's not the same as not loving in any way.

---

Exactly right. The commandment to love refers to an act of will, not to a passive emotional response to someone we find desirable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
ken wrote:

Really? As Christians we are commanded to love. Even our enemies. Is that command empty? Impossible? Maybe we can't make ourselves fancy someone. Which is where we came in in the OP. But that's not the same as not loving in any way.

So why not marry an enemy then? Or the first girl you ever met?

There are good reasons not to do that, since marital love aims for a union of body, mind, soul, and so on.

So I find that I am compatible with some women, and not with others. Should I therefore marry somebody incompatible in order to fulfil the command to love? For what reason?

---

quote:

---

And so this is where I think any repair and maintenance work for a marriage has to start: in kindness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
What's been overlooked so far is that many times a sexless marriage indicates that one of the partners is a homosexual.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Of course arranged marriages can turn out as badly as voluntarily chosen ones, but most of the couples we know seem happy with the ......arrangement?

---

This is so long ago that its really anecdotal - I can't really remember in detail - but when I did some undergraduate anthropology courses back in the 1970s one of the topics was marriage customs in South East Asia.

And apparently at there at least one quite large society (I forget which which is embarrasing - maybe one of the cultures on Java, certainly somewhere in Indonesia) where arranged marriage is the norm, but divorce is both easy and generally socially acceptable. Apparently about half of all marriages brfeak up very quickly, usually (IIRC) with the women leaving the man. Which is a higher rate than in most places, but not that much higher than many. And the marriages that do survive the first few months or years are no less likely to last than are marriages in other cultures.

But its a long time since I studied that, so I might be misremembering.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
On the subject of arranged marriages, I don't think it's quite like "I've never seen this person in my life before, and now I'm married and headed off to bed down with them!" The sensitive parents know who their kids have an eye on, and so hopefully it isn't usually the case that the bride & groom are complete strangers, or horrified at their parents' choices... though that "easy divorce" culture in Java is enough to give one pause.

IngoB started us down the road of "kindness" I remember my old Douay Bible rendering "love" (like in 1 Cor. 13) as "charity". It's kind of a pity that in English "love" can mean so many different things. And others have pointed out that the Gospel love doesn't always mean you even like the person at the time - an extreme example may be the stopping of a crime in progress by violent means up to the killing of the perpetrator. By stopping the perp from committing the crime, you are, in a sense, loving him, and certainly you are looking out for the victims.

Another thing, sort of coming at this subject (sexless marriages) sideways - I heard what I think is some good advice while my wife and I were separated, in that, when a marriage relationship has been severely damaged, when there is much to forgive (and yet the will to try), that the couple should commit to spending about 6 months doing things together, and doing nothing sexual, even to the point of not holding hands - nothing that you wouldn't do with a member of your own sex (And nobody pipe in with Nelson's "Kiss me, Hardy!" Man, did I leave the door wide open...) Hopefully, at the end of 6 months you are ready to begin romantic contact. Seems to me that if things were going well, it'd be like a dam breaking, but hey...maybe that's the point!

The point being that you can discover, or rediscover, mutual interests and enjoyments and a full friendship, without the heavy attachmental pull of sex. (or not, I suppose, but let's be positive here...) This was recommended to be done with the couple in counseling. My 2 cents, it was, of course, more fully developed on the tape. It made sense to me at the time.

ON another aspect of this, I recently heard of a study that stated that all marriages go through a crisis (gee, just one?!) about 1 to 3 years in where the couple looks at one another and says, do we really want to do this long-term? It may be brought about by a power struggle, or a pregnancy, or an affair or other poor behaviors or coping mechanisms. But at that point a decision is made, and the love changes, becoming more "I choose to love you, and always will" than the infatuation-style stuff that sells so many greeting cards. You accept your partner knowing their imperfections (hopefully in humility because you know yours...) and you choose to love them in a deeper sense. (I'm not making any sense, I fear...)

Blessings,

Tom
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Of course arranged marriages can turn out as badly as voluntarily chosen ones, but most of the couples we know seem happy with the ......arrangement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Now you have me wondering if that isn't why some couples find cohabiting helpful beforehand. Bullfrog were housemates in Americorps (think Peace Corps) before we were even dating, and I must say that knowing his opinions on spending, cleaning etc. was very helpful to knowing that I could live with him and knowing what kind of person he really was. It somewhat lowered the romance level since staying at home chatting was in a sense a date, but it meant that I knew who he was when he was at home, so to speak.

---

Many studies, however, suggest that living together first can go hand in hand with increased likelihood of divorce. (I won't say that they it 'causes' divorce, because that's a different claim altogether.) On a more positive front, other studies suggest that serial cohabitation is the problem, rather than cohabitation per se.

Getting back on topic, I often wonder if loss of sexual interest in a marriage is more of a problem among couples who've lived together first; since they've already been through their honeymoon and experimentation stage, presumably they'll hit the 'drought' stage sooner in their marriage than couples who haven't already gone through all of that excitement first. I'm just wondering....
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Well, since Bullfrog and I were living together before even dating, we certainly weren't sleeping together then. I say this not to be a prude or because I want to claim virtue, but because I suspect that it's the actual living together that is relevant not the euphemistic living together. Also, since the literal living together isn't as exciting, it definitely doesn't encourage serial living togethers. Or at least not as much as the economy does!
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I had rather thought the linkage of breakup with living together (sic) was more due to more people gravitating towards marriage as a relationship unravels, in the hope it will hold it together. Though I don't know that and could be wrong.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I had rather thought the linkage of breakup with living together (sic) was more due to more people gravitating towards marriage as a relationship unravels, in the hope it will hold it together. Though I don't know that and could be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, since Bullfrog and I were living together before even dating, we certainly weren't sleeping together then. I say this not to be a prude or because I want to claim virtue, but because I suspect that it's the actual living together that is relevant not the euphemistic living together. Also, since the literal living together isn't as exciting, it definitely doesn't encourage serial living togethers. Or at least not as much as the economy does!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
On the subject of arranged marriages, I don't think it's quite like "I've never seen this person in my life before, and now I'm married and headed off to bed down with them!" The sensitive parents know who their kids have an eye on, and so hopefully it isn't usually the case that the bride & groom are complete strangers, or horrified at their parents' choices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I gather that in more traditional, rural areas of places such as India that marriages are still arranged with very little consideration paid to the feelings of either member of the couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

In the West we have notions such as 'love at first sight', 'opposites attract', 'love is all you need', etc.,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

In the West we have notions such as 'love at first sight', 'opposites attract', 'love is all you need', etc.,

---

Less of "the West" please! Its an obsolete Cold War construct which was irritating even when it meant something. In this context it implies a false and potentially demeaning idea of a single "Asiatic" mentality or culture which tends to supress the real diversity in Asia. Old Orientalism rears its ugly head!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
While we are at it, could we please stop eliding arranged marriages with forced marriages?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Less of "the West" please! Its an obsolete Cold War construct which was irritating even when it meant something. In this context it implies a false and potentially demeaning idea of a single "Asiatic" mentality or culture which tends to supress the real diversity in Asia. Old Orientalism rears its ugly head!

And its misleading here. All sorts of cultures have ideas of romantic love and all the rest of it, and probably always have. As anyone can easily suss out by reading old stories and poetry. Its just that not all of them think they are good bases for marriage. Also in those societies where young women are legally under the direction of their father or other male family members until marriage (which has never been the normal case here), the opinions of the wife-to-be, romatic or otherwise, are often not considered or are over-ridden.

The real difference between arranged-marriage cultures and others isn't that they lack ideas of romantic love. It is that parents have more power over their children, and men have more power over women. Its more to do with politics than sentiment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
While we are at it, could we please stop eliding arranged marriages with forced marriages?

---

Who was doing that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It's not immediately clear whether "arranged marriage" means arranged with the assent of the participants or not - clarity would be useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, European culture(s) tend to have significant differences from North American culture(s), for starters, so lumping them all together as 'the West' is not terribly helpful.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0