As I recall my vows, it was “forsaking all others” “till death us do part.” I don’t recall anything about “unless sex is withheld.” You get married, you’re bound to be faithful.
It’s not cheating if you have sex with someone on the other side of the state.
Or on vacation.
Or if it’s just oral.
Or a Dirty Sanchez.
Or if you’re dropping off your babysitter.
You also get a pass if you have a shot at no-strings sex with twins. I mean, c’mon. That’s an automatic loophole.
Some of the posts above about the vows/contract needing to be maintained because that is what you promised still seem to be missing the point. When you said those vows you had an idea of what they meant, and what you expected. There was the letter of the law and then there was also the spirit of the law. The vows are there to remind you that there are hard times and you need to live through them together so that folk don’t just up and leave for seemingly minor reasons. But honestly, does everyone go into the marriage thinking “If my partner says no sex for the next 50 years, I’m supposed to say ‘OK’.”
After reading BobLibDem’s post, I didn’t remember my vows having that foresaking all others in it, so I looked for sample wedding vows. General Christian and Biblical Christian were the easiest to find. (Jewish and Islamic vows were not very forthcoming, so this is going to bit a bit biased towards the Christian set of vows) There are MANY different wordings, but I seemed to find three general themes:
- I take you, I accept you, I bring you into my life.
- I promise you, I will be for you, my actions are for you, I support you.
- Full-on-religious-toe-the-line God is #1, Man is head of family, wife is there to support man.
One seems to be more selfish, one more self-less, the last is for you fundies and submissive females.
Lets get rid of the easiest: #3, no doubts, no messing around, if you are a true fundie, then the word of the Lord is pretty simple: If you are a man, you can demand sex because you are the head of your house. If you deprive your wife of sex, it is OK because you are the head of the house. She needs to do whatever you say. This is most likely not what all Christians think, but, there are most certainly very strict rules and observances to back this up for fundies.
#2 seems to me to say that you have two people who promise to be there, support, help, etc the other partner. Does that not include sex? It certainly isn’t ONLY about sex, but doesn’t sex/affection sorta stand in there somewhere? And #1 has two people saying I take you, I will accept you…doesn’t that also mean that both sides have a responsibility to accepting their partners sexuality? If one side withholds sex, are they not breaking their vows to some extent?
The vows above have two sides. It can mean “When you are in bad times or sick, I will be true to you.” it also can mean “When I am in bad times or sick, I will be true to you.” and it ends with “I’ll love and honor you all the days of my life.”
If one witholds sex, for mental/physical/controlling/whatever reasons, are they themselves not being ‘true’ to their partners? Have they not broken their commitment in some way, shape or form?
I guess what I’m trying to argue is that I don’t believe that sex is so un-important to a relationship that it is not somehow protected in the vows one took when getting married.
-Tcat
Faithful doesn’t mean just sex. In fact, if the couple prefers, it doesn’t have to do with sex at all. It means that both parties are going to hold up their end of an agreement. If everyone agrees that sex simply isn’t in the cards for one of them, and the other feels they need it, they can agree to go outside the marriage for it.
Not being in the mood for four years isn’t a matter of having a low sex drive, it’s a matter of having no sex drive. If this woman was asexual then I think she should have been upfront about that at the beginning of the marriage. Aside from that (and I don’t know if asexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation or some form of medical/emotional/psychological problem) the fact that she has “not been in the mood” for a period of four consecutive years indicates something isn’t right. And if she really is somehow “just not in the mood” for four years, then I think the guy has a right to to move on, when you get involved with someone in a sexual and emotional relationship and suddenly you decide you never want to have sex again, I see no reason for the guy to be bound in that marriage anymore.
I think I made it obvious he’s expressed this is a problem for him, considering he’s pretty much begged her to explain why she’s not interested in him or not interested in sex anymore.
A relationship without communication isn’t a healthy one. And if you can’t communicate a problem you are having, that is negatively impacting someone you ostensibly love, then you’re not being a good partner in the relationship.
I think a “rights-based” approach to relationship issues is probably not the best way to deal with them. There simply isn’t any set of objective rules that satisfactorily establishes what the obligations and prerogatives of the partners in any relationship “ought” to be, nor what penalties “ought” to apply for failing to fulfil any of those obligations.
I prefer a more individual, “needs-based” approach. If the guy really needs an active sex life with his wife—and I think that’s perfectly understandable!—and it simply isn’t available and isn’t ever going to be, then yes, he should move on. Not because she “broke the rule” against withholding sex and therefore “forfeited her right” to keep her husband, but simply because the relationship cannot fundamentally make him happy or give him what he needs.
By “right to move on” I simply mean he would be justified in leaving. The argument can be made that either party is justified in leaving a marriage at any point. But in the court of societal opinion leaving over certain things will make you out to be the bad guy (like your wife gets sick and you leave because its too much of a bother.)
I agree, but the reason he’d be justified is because he’s genuinely unhappy and unfulfilled in the relationship. Not because his wife somehow “broke the contract” by withholding sex.
I know what you mean, but this is why I think the “court of societal opinion” is not necessarily a good thing for relationships. Relationships are very individual things, and it’s not good to have “societal opinon” making the call about which reasons for ending a relationship are “valid” and which are not.
Fundamentally, all couples who break up are breaking up because for some reason(s), they can’t make the relationship work out. The details are not really any of “societal opinion’s” business.
(And in any case, surely your friend isn’t thinking of explaining the details of his marital sex life to the “court of societal opinion” as his “defense” for wanting a divorce?! :eek: TMI!! “It wasn’t working out” is all anybody needs to be told. If some nosy busybodies in the “court of societal opinion” try to pass judgement on whether that’s a “valid” reason, they need to shut up and mind their own business.)
Careful with that brush, it’s kinda broad. My marriage vows said nothing even remotely implying that–but they DID have a lot to say about mutual support, honesty, and communication.
Martin, how does your friend treat his wife?
This may be oversimplifying things, but I’ve always heard that men need sex to feel loved, and women need to feel love in order to want sex. I think for men, sex is marriage is more than just a physical act, it’s also a reaffirmation that they are loved. Not to have sex for four years with no explanation is unacceptable. I would urge your friend to go into counseling by himself.
That’s because a traditional Jewish wedding doesn’t include vows. The groom gives the bride a wedding ring, and says (in Hebrew): By this ring you are consecrated unto me by the laws of Moses and the people Israel. In a really traditional Jewish wedding, the bride doesn’t give anything to the groom or say anything at this point. More modern Jewish weddings (like mine) do use double-ring ceremonies- I said “I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine” when I gave Mr. Neville his wedding ring.
There are no promises to love, honor, and cherish, or anything of that sort in a traditional Jewish wedding. Some couples might choose to add in something like that, but they write their own, as there are no traditional Jewish wedding vows.
Of the various reasons why men see prostitutes, this is among the foremost for men over about 30.
Everyone has an absolute right to refuse to have sex. Forcing someone to have sex is rape.
However, refusing to have sex comes with consequences. Everyone ALSO has the right to seek sexual satisfaction, within the law.
This means that if you are the exclusive sexual partner of someone and you refuse to have sex with them, your exclusivity is over. That is the price of your decision.
As comedian Ron White said, on why his first marriage ended in divorce, “I’m a good dog, but you have to pet me once in a while if you expect me to stay on the front porch.”
Is it fair to demand faithfulness if one withholds sex?
Answer: It depends on the reason for withholding it. If the answer is malice, spite or the desire to cause unhappiness, then it is deeply unfair and the relationship should be dissolved. Of course I am assuming that this withholding is long-term and not just one or two occassions after fights, etc.
If two people are involved in a relationship that is otherwise loving and respectful, I would wager that there is a breakdown in communication that might be solved with counselling. The ‘withholding’ partner might have low self-esteem and not feel desireable. A more difficult issue is one of satisfaction; many women don’t achieve orgasm easily, but may feel the problem is with them and fake it instead of trying to give their partner the information they need to help them. There are also a lot of health problems that could be involved.
Now if the question is specifically: is it fair to a partner with a high sex drive to have to do without if he or she is married to someone with a low sex drive? The answer is no, but so what? There is some unfairness in every relationship. One person is almost always going to have SOME kind of needs that they will have to suppress in order to please the other person. It’s not fair that my partner has issues with crowds and does not like to go with me to movies or concerts. Neither is it fair of me to try to make him. We do other things together, it makes up for it.
As to the question of faithfullness, there is never any excuse for sneaking around, imo. If your partner is causing you pain you need to tell them. If they are not meeting your needs, you need to tell them. If they are unable to meet your needs, you should discuss it together to decide whether or not the solution could be for you to do without, get your needs met elsewhere with your partner’s consent, or dissolve the relationship.
I think it’s fair to demand faithfulness in a marriage no matter the circumstances. Being unfaithful without the other partner’s knowledge is never okay. But, it’s not fair to demand that the other person stay married.
A marriage is not a jail sentence–you can get out if you want. If someone had a need that was so strong they couldn’t do without, they should get a divorce so they can find a partner who will allow that need to be fulfilled.
One caveat would be if kids were involved. I would say to evaulate that need and see if you could wait it out until the kids were out of high school before getting divorced.