Sex IS a need, for some.

[mkgal1]

"Emotions and sex SHOULD go hand in hand, and God made natural consequences to our behaviours for good reason. "

Disagree, I believe that MARRIAGE and SEX go hand in hand. It bothers me that people want to split those two up as if they CAN be split up. I hear over and over "Well if my spouse does xyz, or doesn't do xyz then I'm not going to have sex". To justify your thinking just put then I'm divorcing them (where it's underlined). You can't have it two ways, kinda like being a little bit pregnant. If you can't work it out, then leave! Don't do it half way--having legal marriage certificate but not LIVING that way. Hypocrisy!

One thousand rounds of applause for this one! Especially for the bold!

So two people have mentioned divorce specifically. No one else has advocated it though. The point was that sex was a need to them. So of course the marriage would be empty without it. A marriage would be empty without love, right? That's not the same as saying the marriage has failed, though.

That's not advocating divorce? I believe that was actually lived out, so I don't think he's talking about ONLY the marriage being "empty" without it.

 

[hijklmnop]

That's not advocating divorce?

I saw it that way too, and responded as such.

 

[JaneFW]

I just have to shrug, guys. I see it as clear as day myself, but then I'm told it's not there, so, oh well. Also, lots of editing was done in other parts of the thread so .. never mind!

 

[mkgal1]

This all came up in Becky's thread, but I think it's better suited here:

And then all that's left is the negative outlook on sex. I think it's wrong for the good aspects to not be allowed. Obviously don't discuss them graphically...but, ya know, at least show that there are GOOD aspects to a sex life.

This place really is so very cheerful....Not.

I really don't understand why it's so depressing that just a few of us insist that healthy relationships and emotional intimacy need to be present in order to have a healthy and fulfilling sex life. Is that so discouraging? Lol.

That's really been my question all along. Can someone PLEASE explain that to me? I sincerely do NOT get it

That's not all that's being said. When need is taken to mean only things you cannot live without, it makes it hard to ask for anything. When as I have you've lost the relationship it feels like you question things enough, are hard enough on yourself without wondering if you also did that badly.

It's like you can't talk about it in simple terms. It's like you are supposed to say "I would like a hug" rather than "I need a hug." When my ex would say that to me it meant she was having a hard day. That's all. Saying you need sex to me is just meant to say that you need that mutual expression of love.

I've even done it. Was it wrong for example for me on one occasion when I was kind of tired and not in the mood to put myself in the mood for my ex? (rare occasion) I don't thinkso. I didn't feel used. I felt tenderness and love towards her. But according to some posters it sounds like I should have resented it. And I don't get it.

Is that meant to be an answer to my question?

No One is saying anyone should feel any particular thing.....that's really the point. No one SHOULD be telling anyone what to feel or when.

What some are saying is (including myself) that sex isn't our TOP priority in marriage (that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place--or that it isn't celebrated--enjoyed--considered beautiful).......it's that honesty, a climate that's safe to voice concerns/opinons, conflict resolution, are above sex. True intimacy with NO pretense is chosen over hiding true feelings.

Why is that depressing....objected to....and found to be a negative outlook? What's the positive that's in opposition to that? Just do it?

**I'm unsure of how to do the indent thing....sorry this is difficult to read.

 

[Created2Write]

Iambren's point was that sex is a vital part of marriage. If a person is not willing to have sex with their spouse, they should not be married. Plain and simple. If a person is not willing to fulfill their vows, they shouldn't be married. When I agreed it wasn't really in divorcing, it was in the idea that that person(the one who isn't willing to have sex with their spouse) shouldn't be married in the first place.

Is divorcing over that still sin? According to Scripture...yes. But the Bible is clear that sex between a husband wife helps to prevent against temptation. What is the neglected spouse supposed to do? Live a celibate life? It's a tough question to answer and I honestly don't have a clear cut opinion on it. Bring kids into it and things are even more difficult.

But, to be clear, no one has advocated divorcing over a dissatisfying sex life...it's been on a completely non-existent sex life without a legitimate reason. IMO, that is breaking your wedding vows.

To some people a rejection of sex would be personally devastating as well as relationally devastating. There's nothing wrong or selfish with needing sex from your spouse and, frankly, I would not have married my husband if sex had not been a priority for him.

 

[mkgal1]

Iambren's point was that sex is a vital part of marriage. If a person is not willing to have sex with their spouse, they should not be married. Plain and simple. If a person is not willing to fulfill their vows, they shouldn't be married. When I agreed it wasn't really in divorcing, it was in the idea that that person(the one who isn't willing to have sex with their spouse) shouldn't be married in the first place.

It's not usually that black and white, C2W.....that has been my point. It's not "plain and simple". Sexual issues are normally VERY complicated (and common).

When I say that, I'm not condoning celibacy....not suggesting that it isn't agonizing, but maybe consider it isn't as simple as "just do it" when there may be other issues, either with that individual or the marriage.

And hopefully Iambren can expand upon what he meant, but I took his post to mean marriage = sex........no sex =/= marriage.

 

[Created2Write]

It's not usually that black and white, C2W.....that has been my point. It's not "plain and simple". Sexual issues are normally VERY complicated (and common).

When I say that, I'm not condoning celibacy....not suggesting that it isn't agonizing, but maybe consider it isn't as simple as "just do it" when there may be other issues in the marriage.

Ugh. How many times do I have to go in the same circles?

I know that sexual issues are not always black and white. I have said this a thousand times. I even said so in the post you just quoted. The point, itself, was a simple one even if the reality is not. Anyone who is not willing to live up to their vows shouldn't be married. The reaction/answers to that are not easy, but the point stands. If a person isn't willing to have sex with their spouse, they shouldn't be married.

Anyway, getting back on topic(although I think the subject has pretty much been completely discussed), to some people sex is a need. I could care less if anyone else saw sex as a need. But it is one in my marriage. As much as some may disagree with that, I can promise it's not selfish and it's not immature.

 

[mkgal1]

Ugh. How many times do I have to go in the same circles?

I know that sexual issues are not always black and white. I have said this a thousand times

I was responding to your saying that "If a person's not willing to have sex with their spouse, they shouldn't be married. Plain and simple." To me....that sounds as if you see it as a cut and dry (black and white) situation. If this....then this.

 

[McScribe]

This all came up in Becky's thread, but I think it's better suited here:












Is that meant to be an answer to my question?

No One is saying anyone should feel any particular thing.....that's really the point. No one SHOULD be telling anyone what to feel or when.

What some are saying is (including myself) that sex isn't our TOP priority in marriage (that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place--or that it isn't celebrated--enjoyed--considered beautiful).......it's that honesty, a climate that's safe to voice concerns/opinons, conflict resolution, are above sex. True intimacy with NO pretense is chosen over hiding true feelings.

Why is that depressing....objected to....and found to be a negative outlook? What's the positive that's in opposition to that? Just do it?

**I'm unsure of how to do the indent thing....sorry this is difficult to read.

What was said is that it's not a need. Period. End of story. It was argued strongly to the point that it was said not to be biblical. But maybe I imagined that and I'm just insane.

 

[roseread]

That's not advocating divorce? I believe that was actually lived out, so I don't think he's talking about ONLY the marriage being "empty" without it.

Well I will come right out and say it, and I'm not ashamed to say it, but I have don't have a big problem with divorce. Sure, I think they should try to fix what is wrong, go to counseling, but if that doesn't work--if there is abuse in a marriage or is one person is unwilling to work on the marriage then I think the other person should have a right to leave.

I know it's not biblical, but I also think we do a lot of things that are not biblical in our modern lives and no one seems to care (Like the scripture Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live...shall we enforce that one?)

I know what it is like to live in a loveless marriage and I don't advocate anyone staying in it if they don't have to.

 

[chaz345]

it's been on a completely non-existent sex life without a legitimate reason. IMO, that is breaking your wedding vows.

What you say here is pretty much exactly what MK says when she says that the real sin in a divorce over say for example emotional neglect is not the divorce but the sin that lead up to it.

And FWIW as far as Imbren's post goes, he's talking not to the spouse who is being refused but the one doing the refusing. He's not saying "if you don't GET any sex leave" he's saying "if you won't GIVE any sex,leave".

 

[roseread]

What you say here is pretty much exactly what MK says when she says that the real sin in a divorce over say for example emotional neglect is not the divorce but the sin that lead up to it.

And FWIW as far as Imbren's post goes, he's talking not to the spouse who is being refused but the one doing the refusing. He's not saying "if you don't GET any sex leave" he's saying "if you won't GIVE any sex,leave".

I don't know about every sexless marriage, but I know in my own--my husband who is the one not giving the sex is very unlikely to leave. He has it good. He has a wife who does everything other than making all the money. He has a son, a community who respects him, a nice home that he doesn't have to take care of--he doesn't even have to call the plumber when the pipes start leaking. He doesn't even know the name of our plumber. He doesn't know when the mortgage is due or how much we spend on electricity. He doesn't even have to take his own car in for oil change/tire rotation/tune up. He doesn't even know when his car is due for a tune up. I keep track of his whole life, when the bills are due etc...all he has to do is show up.

Why should he leave this life? I think for many (not all) in a sexless marriage the one not giving the sex usually has things pretty good and are unlikely to leave or change. So I think often it is up the the one who is being denied to leave.

 

[JaneFW]

Why should he leave this life? I think for many (not all) in a sexless marriage the one not giving the sex usually has things pretty good and are unlikely to leave or change.

Very true.

 

[JaneFW]

Iambren's point was that sex is a vital part of marriage. If a person is not willing to have sex with their spouse, they should not be married. Plain and simple. If a person is not willing to fulfill their vows, they shouldn't be married. When I agreed it wasn't really in divorcing, it was in the idea that that person(the one who isn't willing to have sex with their spouse) shouldn't be married in the first place.

Is divorcing over that still sin? According to Scripture...yes. But the Bible is clear that sex between a husband wife helps to prevent against temptation. What is the neglected spouse supposed to do? Live a celibate life? It's a tough question to answer and I honestly don't have a clear cut opinion on it. Bring kids into it and things are even more difficult.

Exactly. Am I going to encourage my husband to leave me? Uh, no.

But, to be clear, no one has advocated divorcing over a dissatisfying sex life...it's been on a completely non-existent sex life without a legitimate reason. IMO, that is breaking your wedding vows.

There's nothing in the wedding vows about sex - to my knowledge??

To some people a rejection of sex would be personally devastating as well as relationally devastating. There's nothing wrong or selfish with needing sex from your spouse and, frankly, I would not have married my husband if sex had not been a priority for him.

C2W, it is devastating, but you can choose not to be devastated. You can choose to live it out anyway, in faith and trust in God. That's what we're supposed to do every day.

 

[c1ners]

you can choose not to be devastated. You can choose to live it out anyway, in faith and trust in God. That's what we're supposed to do every day.

I love that! Thank you so much for stating that fact. I used to get devastated over the fact that my husband didn't want/need sex as often as me. But I've grown to accept it and to live with it.

Sex within marriage is wonderful. It's beautiful. No one is denying that. But it shouldn't be the "end all" when it doesn't happen anymore as often as we would like. It's hard to deal with, but it's part of life. And I would never "leave him" over it.

 

[JaneFW]

I love that! Thank you so much for stating that fact. I used to get devastated over the fact that my husband didn't want/need sex as often as me. But I've grown to accept it and to live with it.

Sex within marriage is wonderful. It's beautiful. No one is denying that. But it shouldn't be the "end all" when it doesn't happen anymore as often as we would like. It's hard to deal with, but it's part of life. And I would never "leave him" over it.

(((C1n)))

Sometimes we have to make choices that are very hard, but perhaps this is the refining fire. I like to think so.

I will keep you in my prayers, sister.

 

[c1ners]

(((C1n)))

Sometimes we have to make choices that are very hard, but perhaps this is the refining fire. I like to think so.

I will keep you in my prayers, sister.

You have my prayers too.

 

[McScribe]

Exactly. Am I going to encourage my husband to leave me? Uh, no.


There's nothing in the wedding vows about sex - to my knowledge??


C2W, it is devastating, but you can choose not to be devastated. You can choose to live it out anyway, in faith and trust in God. That's what we're supposed to do every day.

With the greatest respect, the wedding vows are a summation of stuff from prayer books from the 16th century. Corinthians 1, 7 is biblical. This doesn't mean of course that we should automatically divorce if there are sex issues, and I think a struggling marriage requires us to look to what would be most wise and loving, but as a matter of fact the wedding vows should include it because it is biblical. The wedding vows just try to sum up the spirit of things. In a lot of ways Christianity is as much a mess now as Judaism was in Jesus' time.

 

[chaz345]

There's nothing in the wedding vows about sex - to my knowledge??

But wedding vows are not the Bible. Conceptually they come from Biblical ideas but the fact that something isn't in the wedding vows doesn't mean it shouldn't be a part of marriage.

The reality is that the Bible says that sex is definitely a part of marriage. And if the marriage is going to be all it can and should be, it's an essential one. That doesn't mean that someone such as yourself trying their best to live in a basically sexless marriage is in a dead marriage. But I'm sure you'd agree that lacking sex, your marriage is far from what it could or should be.

 

[chaz345]

But it shouldn't be the "end all" when it doesn't happen anymore as often as we would like.

But we're not talking about "not as often as we'd like" we're talking about never or almost never.

Here's the thing. No one has a problem at all with separation(not divorce) or other tough love measures when we're talking about emotional neglect, right? So why is sex different? And no I'm not talking about never saying no, I'm talking about consistent, long term not willing to do anything to change the situation types of situations. Someone who knows about their partner's need/desire for more sex, who has no identified past issues like sexual abuse or rape, and who claims that everything else is fine in the marriage but who simply refuses to try to do anything is every bit as wrong as someone who is being emotionally neglectful and refuses to change.