Married and unwanted

iambren said:

I see that in Christian and nonChristian circles it is automatically assumed that the man has done something wrong OR not done something right if the wife isn't sexual. Ie the default is the man is at fault.

THIS all happened in 6 months marriage,even though they've been married 3.5 years. To change THAT fast unless he's turned into an ax murderer or serial killer or jack-slapping her around the house I would say that's defrauding!!!

This guy is "cryin' in his beer" and that is NO way to live. If she presented herself as a sexually interested woman pre-marriage, then pulls the rug out leaving this kind of hurt it's a no-brainer....get out!

Click to expand...

Telling another couple who you've never met and know nothing about to divorce is quite foolish, especially on the basis of one post from only one of them. You also have no Biblical grounds to stand on.

I hope the o.p. will ignore this "advice".

iambren said:

I see that in Christian and nonChristian circles it is automatically assumed that the man has done something wrong OR not done something right if the wife isn't sexual. Ie the default is the man is at fault.

THIS all happened in 6 months marriage,even though they've been married 3.5 years. To change THAT fast unless he's turned into an ax murderer or serial killer or jack-slapping her around the house I would say that's defrauding!!!

This guy is "cryin' in his beer" and that is NO way to live. If she presented herself as a sexually interested woman pre-marriage, then pulls the rug out leaving this kind of hurt it's a no-brainer....get out!

Click to expand...

But that's just like saying it is assumed that the wife has done something wrong if the husband isn't romantic enough. Don't you see the imbalance in logic here? You are starting with the assumption that sex should always be spicy, and if it's not, then something is wrong. It's not wrong for him to want it to be spicier, bu if not having that is considered to be wrong, then there is the imbalance. Many women would like their husband's to be better listeners, or more romantic. If a woman wants that, it is fine for her to want, but if she feels defrauded over it, that is another thing entirely. My question is, why is one spouse entitled to passion and spice in one area, but the other spouse has no right to expect that same passion in other areas. My point is that passion is nice, but it shouldn't be considered a necessity in any area.

Idealist, I do hope you can get the spark back. Have you just asked her about this?

Very weary? Heartbroken? For 3 years? The OP asks does he just cope with it?

Well, I say no! With what he has given it sounds like he has been defrauded and defeated and is crying out.

There is no reason a man (or woman) has to just stand there and be taken advantage of. The vows of love at the altar incorporate the obligations to sexuality. HE is not the one abandoning the marriage, she is, defrauding him. A true Christian would not do this. Remember this is three years!

"By advising Idealist to 'get out' you could be causing him to miss out on a brilliant marriage once they have worked through their problems."

Or miss out of years of hell and heartache. I spent fourteen years of dismay, rejection, heartache along these same lines then divorced. For NOTHING! So I don't care for fairy tales here, rather it's time for cool-headed logical reasoning. Unless there's a deeper understanding behind this turmoil there is no sense in encouraging years of neglect and heartache, then children having mommy and daddy apart. It sounds so righteous to always encourage folks to stay married but when there's abuse, neglect, defrauding, unfaithfulness without cause the wiser path may be to packup and move on.

Now, if the OP feels called by God to persevere with her, in faith for her to turn that's his decision. But in many other marriages(including my own) it's a long splintered path on a short pier.

iambren said:

Now, if the OP feels called by God to persevere with her, ...

Click to expand...

This........

"...and let not the husband put away his wife."

isn't enough for one to "feel" called by God to persevere?

chaz345 said:

Why do you assume that those things are necessarily lacking?

Click to expand...

perhaps I misunderstood what he meant when he said

Idealist said:

Now there is very little of any meaning, just going through the motions. She does it for me to check the box off, there is no passion.

Click to expand...

That sounded like sex was/is mechanical, with little else being invested into the act other than mutual consent. At any rate, I said, generally speaking, as opposed to, In every cirumstance, Always, or It is required without excpetion. It was food for thought, not a diagnosis. Some people don't like, "touchy-feely". I'm sure they, generally speaking, don't like some of those extras.

Ps145 said:

perhaps I misunderstood what he meant when he said


That sounded like sex was/is mechanical, with little else being invested into the act other than mutual consent. At any rate, I said, generally speaking, as opposed to, In every cirumstance, Always, or It is required without excpetion. It was food for thought, not a diagnosis. Some people don't like, "touchy-feely". I'm sure they, generally speaking, don't like some of those extras.

Click to expand...

He said that sex was mechanical and your first assumption as to the cause was that he's not romantic enough. IOW, her lack of feeling sexual is his fault. I was simply asking why that was your( and usually most other people's) first assumption. If you had included even one of dozens of possibilities that have nothing to do with him it wouldn't be an issue for me. And I'll grant that it certainly could have been meant just as one suggestion but it's often the first,last and only suggestion that men in his situation get. The idea that her issue has nothing at all to do with some failure by him is never considered in most cases.

After I posted the my first comment on this thread, I was driving down the road, and heard this story on one of the local christian stations as I was on my way to take care of business this morning:

A man goes to a psychiatrist, and asks him how to get revenge on his wife, with whom he can't even stand to live anymore, because she's become lazy, overweight, and she is a person with whom it is extremely hard to get along.

So the psychiastrist thinks, and finally says, I have an idea. For the next two months, every day treat her like a goddess. Do everything she asks, and more Tell her she is a goddess every day. Take her out on dates. Listen intently to everything she says, (there were a couple of more things I don't specifically remember) and then, on the 61st day, leave her and divorce her. Then you will have your revenge.

So the guy says, perfect. Though I hate the thought of being with her, that will give me my revenge. So for the next 60 days he does exactly what the psychiastrist said to do.

Now the psychiatrist is anxious to know how things turn out, so after the 60 days have gone by, he calls the guy up, and ask him, Well? Did you file for divorce? Did you get your revenge?

The guy answers, Are you crazy? I have a goddess for a wife!

I can't believe this subject is being discussed again. Its not your fault, OP, you didn't know the forum has practically been shut down over this.

I would love to know why this is such a common problem. WHY would a woman (or a man for that matter) present themselves as one way before the wedding and then shortly after the wedding do a complete 180?

I agree with Iambrem, assuming the OP has not done something gross to cause this.

Also, the comment about not putting away your wife, does everybody know what that is really all about? What (some of) the Jewish men were doing back at that time was to "put away" his wife without actually divorcing her. That is why whoever would "marry" her would be committing adultery, because she wasn't actually divorced, was still married to another. And why would a man do this? He would do this because if he actually divorced her then he would have to pay back the bride price he was given at the time of the marriage to her father.

dorig59 said:

Also, the comment about not putting away your wife, does everybody know what that is really all about? What (some of) the Jewish men were doing back at that time was to "put away" his wife without actually divorcing her. That is why whoever would "marry" her would be committing adultery, because she wasn't actually divorced, was still married to another. And why would a man do this? He would do this because if he actually divorced her then he would have to pay back the bride price he was given at the time of the marriage to her father.

Click to expand...

Your objection is seriously flawed.

Look at the text itself, and note this is Jesus who was speaking. Again, this is a situation where someone is trying to change the plain meaning of words to suit their false belief.

"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made hem at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”"

Jesus didn't say pretends to divorce, He said divorces. Of the woman He said, is divorced. Divorce, divorces, is divorced: divorce is an easily understood word, and you want to change the plain meaning of the word, to suit your false belief. This is unacceptable. No credible theologian is going to contort the plain words of scripture in this manner.

Christ said what He meant, and meant what He said.

dorig59 said:

I can't believe this subject is being discussed again. Its not your fault, OP, you didn't know the forum has practically been shut down over this.

I would love to know why this is such a common problem. WHY would a woman (or a man for that matter) present themselves as one way before the wedding and then shortly after the wedding do a complete 180?

I agree with Iambrem, assuming the OP has not done something gross to cause this.

Also, the comment about not putting away your wife, does everybody know what that is really all about? What (some of) the Jewish men were doing back at that time was to "put away" his wife without actually divorcing her. That is why whoever would "marry" her would be committing adultery, because she wasn't actually divorced, was still married to another. And why would a man do this? He would do this because if he actually divorced her then he would have to pay back the bride price he was given at the time of the marriage to her father.

Click to expand...

You are agreeing that this man ....who has posted here ONE time....should now divorce his wife?

LovesToBless said:

You are agreeing that this man ....who has posted here ONE time....should now divorce his wife?

Click to expand...

You know, whats funny is, if divorce the concept is discussed, the discussion falls to gender lines, with men generally (meaning not ALL) wanting more strict rules and policies that encourage NOT divorcing, and women exercised about the need for divorce because it isnt fair one would have to live in misery, and the covenant was already broken, and this and that and let the unbeliever and whatever....on and on.

When a particular women IRL decides to divorce with nothing but unhappiness (which will eventually be classified as abuse because they argue) her friends and family will say follow your heart sweety God wants you to be happy.

Ive argued till blue in face on that and have given up frankly, I guess Ive become a realist because the MOST dogmatically rationalizing of divorce are Christians!

So, here is a guy with a definable problem, yea you may need to bend your scripture a little to get to divorce, but its no different than the women who says God wants you to be happy sweety.

Yea, if he is to be miserable, he can go. After all, one of the favorite rationales the ladies who get worked up over limits on divorce is, "yea its sin but its forgivable"