If the other person is refusing to have sex with the other person, I think that’s a pretty big sign of relationship difficulties in the marriage. I certainly wouldn’t want a wife who would always turn to stone rather than make love. Kind of defeats the point of marriage. Might as well just be friends or something if that’s the way she’s going to be.
Thanks, ** yosemitebabe**, that’s exactly what I meant. It seems to me that most people tend to divide their desires into “needs” and “wants”, and the main difference is that you can’t always have what you want, but when you need something, all bets are off: it’s OK to steal or lie or cheat (or go into debt) to get something you need. And as far as that goes, I tend to agree–I do think it’s ok to steal or lie or cheat (or go into debt) to get medicene for your sick kid, or even your sick self. The problem comes in when people stark sticking the “need” label on things they simply really, really want.
Now then, a successful relationship shouldn’t just be about having your needs satisfied–it has to be something you want, as well. So I’ve no problem, morally, with someone leaving a relationship because they aren’t getting what they want out of it, be it sex or compainonship or money. But I don’t think it needs to be dressed up as “well, I wasn’t getting sex, and I need sex, I have to have it.” A person wants to have it, and that’s fine. A person may decide that the lack of it is more important that whatever they are getting out of the relationship–and again, that’s fine. But if you have convinced yourself that you need to have regular sex with another person, you cannot live with out it, then you are going to run into the exact same problem in every single relationship–you are going to be vunerable to manipulation by someone who can live without it, and I think that that vunerablity would make me, at least, feel insecure even if the other person never dreamed of using it against me, rather in the same way I wouldn’t want to be totally finacially dependent on another person, even if they would never dream of withholding support.
Nobody goes to the hospital for being yelled at all the time, either. But many people seek divorces from spouses who are verbally abusive.
I think functional abandonment is a valid reason for seeking a divorce, if there aren’t children involved. For some people, sex is very important. Without it, they feel unloved, frustrated, and alone. For some men, the lack of sex from their partner feels like constant rejection. It can become a serious issue. I think sex is a reasonable expectation within a marriage, as long as both partners are reasonably healthy, just as living together is an expectation. Marriages are supposed to be intimate.
See, I go even further than that: I think that not getting a blow job at least six times a day is a valid reason for getting a divorce, if you feel that not getting a blow job six times a day is too high a price to pay for whatever other benefits you get from the relationship. To me, all this talk about whether or not something is a “valid” reason suggests that people have some sort of objective obligation to stay in a relationship unless certain narrow lines are crossed, which I don’t agree with. It seems like it only really matters if someone is concerned with proving that they weren’t the one “at fault”, that the other partner is the one who dropped the ball, was the bad guy.
There’s no need to prove that sex is a “serious” issue–it’s ok to leave over something that’s trivial. Relationships are something we chose to be involved in, or not involved in, and you don’t have to justify anything (children, of course, make the issue more complicated.)
Now then, with the understanding that it’s ok to end a relationship simply because it doesn’t make you happy, I still believe that, for me, at least, it is extrememly difficult to shape a happy, healthy relationship if/when one partner is completely at the mercy of the other because they desperatly need something that only the other person can provide, be that thing money, sex, approval, or entertainment. In my experience (and this is really more a IMHO topic) I have seen neediness and the fear of having a need suddenly go unmet posion and ruin more relationships than any other factor.
I agree with your post, but I’d like to add that it’s not just men who feel ‘constant rejection’ to the point of it becoming a serious issue if their partner is not interested in having sex with them.
It affects women too, and it’s just as serious an issue for women to feel they are being constantly rejected by their boyfriend or husband. If it’s occasional because he’s not in the mood, that’s expected. He won’t always be. But if it’s every time, and there’s never any sex, it feels as bad as being called ugly every day.
I need to be with someone who finds me sexually desirable and enjoys having sex with me. If it’s not my current man, well, he goes to the curb and I find someone who does find me sexy.
Is that really called for? That’s hateful.
Does a person addicted to morphine or tobacco have to get another hit? No. And hospitals are not full of people dying from morphine or tobacco deprivation. But the strength of their desire for morphine or tobacco is going to be a hell of a lot stronger than the strength of their desire for, say, a new Nintendo game cube or a snappier pair of shoes.
Sex may be the same way.
Sex is certainly not trivial, in human relationships, but it is not quintessential to the definition of what a relationship is. Now, marriage is a specific relationship, and much defined in law, and custom. You want a marriage, you need to understand the whole “better or worse” thing before you do it.
But, using the needs of your partner, whether sexual, emotional, financial, or legal to impose your desires upon them, without any compassion for their being, or even (as seems to be the case in the OP) any communication about reasons is simply abusive. No one should remain in an abusive relationship. There is a door, use it. Or, if you have reason to believe it can be done, fix what is wrong, and come to an understanding about how you deal with the problem. If it has gone this far, the chances are it is going to be a long standing problem, even with both members trying to solve it.
“The one who feels the least has the most power” is a shitty way to run a marriage. You don’t want a duty fuck, anyway, do you? Maybe you do, but if you do, that’s all you ever get. And you never get anything even remotely resembling hot, consensual, mutual hungry love.
Did anyone else suggest talking about this?
Tris
I’d want to hear some specifics. What does “withholding” sex mean?
- Does it just mean hubby wants it more often than wife (or vice versa)? Remember that scene in Annie Hall" where Woody and Diane are each talking to their shrinks? Woody says, “We almost NEVER have sex. Twice a week, maybe. Three time, tops.” Meanwhile, Diane is saying, “We’re always having sex. Constantly. Two, sometimes even three times a week!”
If that’s it, some conversation and some compromise are in order.
-
Does it mean flat-out blackmail (“we’re not going to have sex unless you do this, that the other thing”)? If that’s the case, there’s serious trouble in the relationship anyway, and sex is probably just one of the weapons being used.
-
Or… does it mean that, in an otherwise happy marriage, one partner has just completely lost interest in sex?
It happens, I suppose. Suppose after 25 years of marriage, Thelma tells Jake, “You’re a good man, you’ve been good to me, we’ve raised a family together, and I love you. But frankly, I’m just not interested in sex any more. I don’t have the desire, I don’t crave it, I do need it, and I don’t feel like doing it any more. I hope you’ll understand.”
Jake begs, offers to see a marriage counselor or a therapist, but Thelma says, "There’s no need to see a therapist. I don’t have a problem. I’m content without sex. If you’re not, YOU go see a therapist. I still love you, I’ll still cook and clean for you, go to church with you, take care of you when you’re sick. But I’m not interested in having sex any more.
Hypothetically, is that a valid reason to get divorced? I’d say yes.
I have this image in my mind of Jake. “What happened? Did Thelma ever really like having sex? Do I even want to know the answer to that question? What do I do now? Single again? At fifty? Who the hell wants a new wife!? I’m not that rich.”
Jake loves Thelma. That love includes a sexual attraction. And it includes an expectation that there is some reciprocation of that attraction. It’s not unreasonable for Jake to feel that way. If I am Jake, I am crying bitter tears into my pillow, every damned night for the rest of my life, no matter what else happens from here on out. Oh, God, who is going to hold me?
The words say, “For better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health, until death do you part.” Yeah, I know. I’m divorced too. But if it’s just the sex that seems to have gone, damn, you have to try to find out if that can change. Love is really important.
Tris
“Tis a secret told to the mouth instead of to the ear.” ~ Edmond Rostand ~
They don’t have to have it. But they don’t have to be married, either. We all have needs, for lack of a better word. We need to be loved, comforted, protected, and for some folks, occasionally screwed. This is why we form relationships in the first place.
IMO, withholding sex as a weapon is a perfectly valid reason to end a relationship. It says a lot about the character of the SO. It says they don’t really love you.
[sub]this is only about the deliberate withholding, not about differences in libidos[/sub]
I think some of you guys are missing Manda JO’s (and my) point. Just because someone wants something in a relationship (and sex is a perfectly reasonable thing to want) this is not the same as need. It’s not. Food and water is a need. Oxygen is a need. Sex, while something that is perfectly reasonable to want, is not a need in the same context. (You won’t die if you don’t have it regularly, but you will die without food, water and oxygen.)
And as Manda JO says, one can leave a relationship for whatever reason. We all have our “deal breakers”. For some it may be not enough sex (whatever amount of sex they deem to be “enough”). For others it may be not being allowed to keep a poodle as a pet. Whatever. Whatever the reason is, if it’s a deal breaker, it is. I certainly am making no value judgments on anyone who feels that lack of sex would be a dealbreaker. (IMO, it usually is a reasonable and understandable dealbreaker.)
So what’s your point? I’m not sure I’m following you here. While not getting as much sex as one would desire may be a difficult thing to some, no one is going to DIE from lack of it. That is the only point I was trying to make. I was not trying to dismiss the importance of sex in a relationship, or invalidate some people’s desire to have it. I was just clarifying, it’s not a need, it’s a want.
Your dictionary differs from mine.
Please explain! Can you provide a cite that indicates that people die from lack of sex? Perhaps I am not explaining myself adequately, but I thought Manda JO did. “Need” (meaning, “gotta have it no matter what”) puts a person at a disadvantage in a relationship. Stuck in situation where they are ruled by their “needs” and are unwilling to leave and find something better. (“She’s XXXX [undesireable quality] but I need the sex so I stay”.)
Manda JO will be around sure, I am soon, to clarify if I’ve bungled her explanation.
Oh dear. That’s just too funny. Sorry, Manda JO! You will be around, sure! And soon! 
Can you provide a cite that ‘need’ can only be defined that way? No, because you use it differently later in the paragragh.
There are needs that will not cause instant death if withheld, but they are needs nonetheless. They are needs because peple may feel deprived without them, that their lives lack substance or meaning. Sex is among these, as is affection and intimacy. As I said before, these are what we form relationships for.
Tom and Nicole filed under irreconcilable differences. Actually, I’m thinking that it was Billy Joel and Christie Brinkley. Whoever it was, when asked one of the sides said that it was the easiest grounds to file on, they didn’t want to drag all of their personal quarrels out in order to justify “irreconcilable differences” and since they’d not shared a bed (though lived together for sake of child/ren) for more than 18 months before their divorce, Constuctive Abandonment fit the bill.
It’s also on the books in both Carolinas, Pennsylvania and Oregon.
Once again, no one is dismissing the valid desire or want of sex in a relationship. The claim was made that sex is a need (as in MUST HAVE).
But do they have to have them, no matter what? No matter what the circumstances? This need cannot be postponed until a suitable time or situation comes up?
Some people will say, “I need to be in a relationship, so I’ll put up with it when he / she slaps me around.” Or, “I need sex, so I’ll put up with his / her constant verbal abuse.” Or whatever. And when people think that they need to be in a relationship, or need sex in this context, then they are in a position of weakness. That is the point Manda JO is trying to make, I believe. Do you disagree with this? Is this need (as you define it) so great that it cannot be postponed?
Manda JO originally said, “The “sex is something I have to have” mindset is learned and can be unlearned”. And I agree with this. So the question to you is, is sex something that people have to have? HAVE to have? And the answer, unless someone can provide a cite, is “no”. I think many celibate priests are proof of that. This is (once again) not dismissing the importance of sex, relationships, (or even poodles) in someone’s life.
I see your point.
Surely, if a woman (or man) lost their desire for sex, or ability to perform, (depression, illness, accident, surgery) one could learn to do without and still have a loving and fullfilling relationship.
But that’s not what the OP is talking about.
And I don’t disagree with the OP. I think (as I mentioned before) that the withholding of sex (as a method of control, not because of a health problem, etc.) is often a “deal breaker” for most people. And I personally don’t think it is an unreasonable deal breaker.