Is it wrong to refuse sex with someone you are married to?

[Mling]

It constitutes bad priorities. If your other activities leave you without time or energy to satisfy your spouse sexually, then it is the other activities that need to be cut down or cut out.

Seriously?

I posed the problem that women often work the equivalent of two or three jobs--doing much more work than men to keep their lives in order-- and your response is the women in question (you say spouse, but the problem is *not* gender-neutral) should prioritize pleasing their husbands over, say, getting the kids to school or getting the house clean, or going to their own job, or buying groceries, or paying bills or getting dinner ready, or any of the other myriad jobs that the average woman has to do, in addition to her paying job.

You say that the person who is too exhausted to have sex (ie: the woman working three jobs) is the one who needs to re prioritize, as opposed to her husband who is working one and doing little of the housework.

And you say that she needs to re prioritize not to enhance her own happiness, but so that she can make room in her schedule to please her husband.

Are you aware of how many layers of misogyny are stinking up your post?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Seriously?

I posed the problem that women often work the equivalent of two or three jobs--doing much more work than men to keep their lives in order-- and your response is the women in question (you say spouse, but the problem is *not* gender-neutral) should prioritize pleasing their husbands over, say, getting the kids to school or getting the house clean, or going to their own job, or buying groceries, or paying bills or getting dinner ready, or any of the other myriad jobs that the average woman has to do, in addition to her paying job.

You say that the person who is too exhausted to have sex (ie: the woman working three jobs) is the one who needs to re prioritize, as opposed to her husband who is working one and doing little of the housework.

And you say that she needs to re prioritize not to enhance her own happiness, but so that she can make room in her schedule to please her husband.

Are you aware of how many layers of misogyny are stinking up your post?

I didn't read his posts that way at all, especially because he's talking SPOUSES, not just wives. Husbands and wives both owe it to their spouses to devout time to them.

 

[Amiga1200]

So, according to CitizenThom, the Bible mandates what the law regards as rape. And, sorry if I don't buy the "women are denied sex as often as men" line. While it's true that women have historically been loathe to own up to their sexual impulses, the presence of testosterone and various studies do indeed show that the size of sexual appetites do vary between the sexes. That isn't misandry, but simply indicates desire (itself not problematic) is unbalanced for a variety of reasons.

 

[citizenthom]

Seriously?

I posed the problem that women often work the equivalent of two or three jobs--doing much more work than men to keep their lives in order-- and your response is the women in question (you say spouse, but the problem is *not* gender-neutral) should prioritize pleasing their husbands over, say, getting the kids to school or getting the house clean, or going to their own job, or buying groceries, or paying bills or getting dinner ready, or any of the other myriad jobs that the average woman has to do, in addition to her paying job.

You say that the person who is too exhausted to have sex (ie: the woman working three jobs) is the one who needs to re prioritize, as opposed to her husband who is working one and doing little of the housework.

And you say that she needs to re prioritize not to enhance her own happiness, but so that she can make room in her schedule to please her husband.

Are you aware of how many layers of misogyny are stinking up your post?

Yes, the problem IS gender-neutral; and please stop perpetuating a very hurtful, very inaccurate stereotype about the female sex drive just to make your rhetorical point.

And yes, the woman you describe needs to learn to live with a less tidy house, time-manage better with regard to her chores, etc., if having all those things done "her way" gets in the way of her marital duties to her husband.

There's no misogyny here. The Biblical standard goes both ways. A man who signs his kids up for every known sport, has tickets to every game in town, goes on business lunches and dinners every night, comes home and does yard work till dark, then does housework till bedtime, has no more right to refuse his wife than the overextended woman you describe. Your marriage, and the duties attendant to your marriage, are your first priority--and foremost among those duties is satisfying your spouse sexually.

 

[citizenthom]

So, according to CitizenThom, the Bible mandates what the law regards as rape.

Nice try, but neither I nor the Bible says that. Rape is sex with someone who says "no." Within the marriage bed, there should be no "no." That does not mean that one spouse should force sex on another. It means that the spouse who says "no" despite being physically able to have sex is in the wrong.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It constitutes bad priorities. If your other activities leave you without time or energy to satisfy your spouse sexually, then it is the other activities that need to be cut down or cut out.

So you are saying that your right to have sex whenever you want to supersedes both your wife's right to autonomy of her own body and the right of your children and other dependents to be looked after properly? Because I don't think people work 2 or 3 jobs just for the hell of it. Ditto with housework.

 

[mpok1519]

ladies; if you don't want to have ever sex with your husband because he is physically repulsive, you probably shouldn't be married to him.

 

[Amiga1200]

Nice try, but neither I nor the Bible says that. Rape is sex with someone who says "no." Within the marriage bed, there should be no "no." That does not mean that one spouse should force sex on another. It means that the spouse who says "no" despite being physically able to have sex is in the wrong.

So, the bible says that a wife cannot say no to her husband without being wrong. So her choice is either to consent to sex she does not desire (which can be classified as rape depending on the state) or to sin. Thus it mandates that sex is in the hands of the desiring party, which utterly obliterates the autonomy over the body of the party being forced to engage in sex! And that verse claimed that both husband and wife "own" each others bodies, which would seem much closer to justifying statutory rape than your claim.

 

[moonkitty]

Yes, the problem IS gender-neutral; and please stop perpetuating a very hurtful, very inaccurate stereotype about the female sex drive just to make your rhetorical point.

And yes, the woman you describe needs to learn to live with a less tidy house, time-manage better with regard to her chores, etc., if having all those things done "her way" gets in the way of her marital duties to her husband.

There's no misogyny here. The Biblical standard goes both ways. A man who signs his kids up for every known sport, has tickets to every game in town, goes on business lunches and dinners every night, comes home and does yard work till dark, then does housework till bedtime, has no more right to refuse his wife than the overextended woman you describe. Your marriage, and the duties attendant to your marriage, are your first priority--and foremost among those duties is satisfying your spouse sexually.

I rather agree with citizenthom here. I have known men who deny wives sex (often it seems because they are up late playing games like EQ or WoW--but that is another post all together)

BOTH spouses should work to make each other happy and please each other. I work about 30 hours a week in a grocery store, I run a girl scout service unit (30 troops to look after, plus doing tons of even planning year round) my own troop, my own house to look after, my own children (one who is disabled), meals to cook and laundry to do. I am a very busy woman. And yet I would be a very angry woman if my husband decided to cut me off from sex because he is tired.

If someone is so tired that they no longer have any enjoyment from the sex act with their partner then they need to seek some sort of professional help. I'm not saying a spouse has to put out at the drop of a hat whenever or where ever. Both spouses should be sensitive to their partner's need. I doubt that citizenthom is talking about a spouse refusing sex here and there because they are tired or not feeling well. I believe we are talking about spouses who refuses for months, if not years.

Spouses who refuse sex for long periods of time, when the other spouse has tried to be sensitive to their spouses needs, are doing great harm to their marriage. I would not blame a sexually starved spouse for seeking a divorce.

The way I see this issue is that no one buys a house for the bathrooms, but most people would be very angry if the bathrooms were suddenly taken away.

 

[citizenthom]

So you are saying that your right to have sex whenever you want to supersedes both your wife's right to autonomy of her own body and the right of your children and other dependents to be looked after properly?

Yes. Your marriage is your first priority, over your job, your extended family, and yes, your children. "The husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife," and vice-versa.

Also, I will once again ask people to stop using the man vs. woman rhetoric here, as I have clearly said time and time again that the duty goes both ways, as does the Bible.

Because I don't think people work 2 or 3 jobs just for the hell of it. Ditto with housework.

Prioritizing your marriage usually means giving up other things, like expendable income/the ability to manage a lot of debt, or a spotless house, or hobbies, or career advancement. If that is unacceptable to you, don't get married. It is unfair to ask your spouse to be second to anything worldly.

 

[citizenthom]

If someone is so tired that they no longer have any enjoyment from the sex act with their partner then they need to seek some sort of professional help. I'm not saying a spouse has to put out at the drop of a hat whenever or where ever. Both spouses should be sensitive to their partner's need. I doubt that citizenthom is talking about a spouse refusing sex here and there because they are tired or not feeling well. I believe we are talking about spouses who refuses for months, if not years.

When one spouse is genuinely too tired for sex or is ill, what needs to happen is that the spouse who desires sex needs to practice the kind of love demanded of her in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians and to put her spouse's feelings ahead of her sexual needs.

For some reason that possibility never seems to occur to the people who recoil at the Bible's vision for the marriage bed.

 

[Amiga1200]

So doesn't that mean that 1 Corinthians and Ephesians conflicts with this idea of sex within marriage? Or does it mean that at a certain point, a spouse not desiring of sex must "compromise" and give up their bodily autonomy in exchange for the "love" previously shown them?

And, yeah, I'm a staunch feminist, so I do see this through the lens of rape, even "pressure rape", and rape does occur to women far more often than men.

 

[citizenthom]

So doesn't that mean that 1 Corinthians and Ephesians conflicts with this idea of sex within marriage? Or does it mean that at a certain point, a spouse not desiring of sex must "compromise" and give up their bodily autonomy in exchange for the "love" previously shown them?

No: each spouse gives up that bodily autonomy regardless of whether the other spouse's behavior meets any given standard. One spouse does not have to "earn" sex from the other any more than a spouse has to "earn" love or respect from the other. It is each spouse's duty to give all those things regardless of reciprocation.

 

[Amiga1200]

A) I didn't user the word "earn", so I don't know why you airquoted it twice.
B) If love is patient, and love requires some degree of altruism, then how can one demand one's rightful share of sex without violating those ideas about love?
C) Seriously, the idea that anyone can "demand" sex is so f-ed up as to beyond conception. I'm usually very calm and academic when I'm discussing with people, but violating someone's autonomy because of the "rights to sex" supposedly inherent in marriage is extremely frightening and disgusting. No one has a right to demand sex of another person. Period. And don't give me that men and women crap - if this is taken to heart, a man can physically resist a lot easier than a woman, women are trained in our society to be obedient and pliable, thus making their accession much more likely, and it is absolutely true that rape of all kinds occurs at the hands of men and directed towards women far more often than the other way. This seems like a corrollary to the old "the law prohibits both rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges".

 

[Mling]

I didn't read his posts that way at all, especially because he's talking SPOUSES, not just wives. Husbands and wives both owe it to their spouses to devout time to them.

The response may have been worded in a gender-neutral way, but the reality--which I expressed in the way I worded my original statement-- is that when women began working more and more outside the home, men did not, on average, step up to the plate and start chipping in more on housework and childcare. The end result has been, in our culture, that women tend to do a metric ton more overall work than men do.

You can word a description of that problem in gender-neutral terms if you want (and for individual cases, that may well be appropriate, as gender roles do often get blurred, reversed, or obliterated), but the average trend is definitely not.

Yes, the problem IS gender-neutral; and please stop perpetuating a very hurtful, very inaccurate stereotype about the female sex drive just to make your rhetorical point.

What stereotype? That people who get run ragged often don't have energy to have sex? Don't think that's a stereotype.

And yes, the woman you describe needs to learn to live with a less tidy house, time-manage better with regard to her chores, etc., if having all those things done "her way" gets in the way of her marital duties to her husband.

Given that I was describing a family with fairly "traditional" gender norms, why would you assume that it's the woman demanding that things get done "her way" that results in this situation? Do men, in this sort of marriage, never come home and ask "So, what's for dinner?"

And again, I notice that "The man should help out more," has yet to occur to you.

There's no misogyny here. The Biblical standard goes both ways. A man who signs his kids up for every known sport, has tickets to every game in town, goes on business lunches and dinners every night, comes home and does yard work till dark, then does housework till bedtime, has no more right to refuse his wife than the overextended woman you describe. Your marriage, and the duties attendant to your marriage, are your first priority--and foremost among those duties is satisfying your spouse sexually.

Foremost? Really? Above, say, making sure that you have a place to live (by doing paying work, and by paying bills), making sure such a place is fit to live in (by keeping it clean), making sure that your children are healthy (by feeding and caring for them)? Having sex is more important than simply maintaining a healthy life?

Also, I notice that you needed to introduce fun activities--like attending sporting events and going out to dinner-- to create a male character who is as harried as a female who simply does what is traditionally expected of women in traditional marriages.

 

[citizenthom]

A) I didn't user the word "earn", so I don't know why you airquoted it twice.

You did use the words "in exchange for." Same concept--that one's duty is dependent on another's.

B) If love is patient, and love requires some degree of altruism, then how can one demand one's rightful share of sex without violating those ideas about love?

One should not have to "demand" anything. The other spouse should willingly give. That's the whole point.

C) Seriously, the idea that anyone can "demand" sex is so f-ed up as to beyond conception. I'm usually very calm and academic when I'm discussing with people, but violating someone's autonomy

Marriage and "autonomy" are incompatible. Your every action and inaction, every decision and attitude, affects your spouse. To act otherwise is to violate your SPOUSE'S rights--which should come before your own.

If you are so tied up in your "autonomy" that you would deny your own spouse's basic human needs, please, do not marry.

 

[citizenthom]

And again, I notice that "The man should help out more," has yet to occur to you.

I notice the idea that the woman is doing far too much work that is unnecessary in the first place has not occurred to you. Again, if the specific list of things you made above--a job, children's activities, cleaning, and bills--are taking up so much time that there is none left for the marriage bed, too much time is being devoted to those activities. It is not that they "have to be done," but that the refusing spouse chooses them over sex. And that is the central problem with your premise: the refusal to acknowledge sex as a marital priority and not as a "sometimes food."

On a related aside, it is especially ironic for you to be invoking "traditional family roles" yet presuming a woman who works and is in charge of the family finances--neither of which are traditional female roles.

Foremost? Really? Above, say, making sure that you have a place to live (by doing paying work, and by paying bills), making sure such a place is fit to live in (by keeping it clean), making sure that your children are healthy (by feeding and caring for them)? Having sex is more important than simply maintaining a healthy life?

Having sex is CENTRAL to a healthy marriage, which is CENTRAL to a "healthy life"--much more central than a spotless bathroom or hovering over your kids every second of every day. The activities you are describing simply do not take up a healthy person's entire time and energy, even children; otherwise families would never make it past one child. If someone is spending ALL his/her time and energy on those tasks and leaving sex out, that is a CHOICE, and one that needs to be reversed.

Obsessive-compulsive cleaning, inefficient time management, and helicopter parenting are not excuses for neglecting your spouse, although many a spouse has insisted as much.

Also, I notice that you needed to introduce fun activities--like attending sporting events and going out to dinner-- to create a male character who is as harried as a female who simply does what is traditionally expected of women in traditional marriages.

Again, you have set up a "straw traditional marriage" to argue this point, and it is as transparent as it is inaccurate.

 

[moonkitty]

So doesn't that mean that 1 Corinthians and Ephesians conflicts with this idea of sex within marriage? Or does it mean that at a certain point, a spouse not desiring of sex must "compromise" and give up their bodily autonomy in exchange for the "love" previously shown them?

And, yeah, I'm a staunch feminist, so I do see this through the lens of rape, even "pressure rape", and rape does occur to women far more often than men.

To be up front, I do not think that a spouse has to say yes to sex whenever or where ever. I think a spouse can say no whenever they do not want sex.

But what happens when a spouse constantly tells the other spouse "no sex' for months or even years? What do you say to the spouse who is being refused? I have known couples where this has happened (while more often than not it is the wife refusing the husband, but I have known cases where the man refused the wife as well) and where the sex starved spouse had tried and tried to find a solution by taking on extra house hold duties, spending more time with that person, not pressing for sex, and yet the spouse continues to with hold sex. What do you say to that person?

While I think it is wrong to expect a spouse to say "yes" to sex all the time, I think it is equally wrong for a spouse to say "no" to sex all the time.

 

[JaneFW]

This points out the flaw in the whole "no sex until marriage" philosophy held up by some.

People getting married without having any knowlegde of their sexual compatibility with the other person is bound to lead to disaster.

I just want to let you know that some people did have sex before marriage and yet still did not find out until afterward that they were incompatible, because the truth about their sexual needs did not emerge until then.

 

[selfinflikted]

Hm.

My thoughts on this issue:

Sex should never be "demanded," period. If one party doesn't feel like doing "it" sometimes, the other party should respect that. Sometimes, feelings > sexual urges. If sex is being withheld for extended periods of time, perhaps something is amiss. If one party is consistently dissatisfied sexually, perhaps they should look into therapy together. The problem could be resolved with professional help, or finding a partner who is more sexually compatible.

I think ultimately, just like everything else in a relationship, sex should be a little give and take (every pun intended). Though, I suspect, if the relationship is built on love and not just sex, then each person involved will do their best to make sure the other is satisfied.