Should You Have Sex With Your Spouse When You Don't Want To?

Dear Just Stay Single, a lot of men are doing just that, not getting married. My mother told me, "Why should he buy the cow when he can get the milk for free?" During my marriage, sometimes I didn't feel like doing my husband's laundry, but I did it anyway. Same for sex. I think God or nature gave men such a strong sex drive because being the father of a family is the hardest job on earth, and they wouldn't do it otherwise. My hope for you is that you find a good woman and get married.

Don't trust anyone it's sad when your husband is having love affairs with your best friend, i noticed my husband is getting too much closer with my friend angelika , my husband chats now in private,his calls are in secret and he changed his phone password, I was wondering what must have gone wrong,i had to consult my sister who introduced me to (h a c k m e d i a 349 @ g m a i l c o m) who help me to hack my husband phone, without touching his phone, in less than 2 hours after his phone was finally hacked, his phone activities started coming into my phone instantly.his prove of genius cleared my doubt, he work with discretion and deliver he also does all sort of hack access to all social media account remotely . you can also contact him via call or text +1 {213} 806 5422.. if you have similar issue' his services are affordable just tell him i refer you to him he is man with heart of gold..

I am going on 18years without any sex in my marriage, simply because she says no all the time and I respect that. Recently I am considering ending my life. I have no options. Divorce would break me even more. Any sarcastic ideas for me.

There's no reason for self-pity here. I'm not stuck in a unhappy or sexless marriage. I petty the men who are. And i hope that other men learn from their suffering. So that they'll be free from these hardships. The marriage contract has changed because of feminism. It has become a totally different deal. And it doesn't benefit men anymore. Therefore it's only logical for men to reconsider. Women have been freed from their traditional gender role responsibilities. It's about time men start to rethink their own position. And really do some serious research into this contract before signing it. You can't expect men to pretend it's still 1950. While women live in the current year. You can't expect men to just except this bad deal without getting anything in return. Something has to give. Either the deal is made more favourable for men. Or more and more men will reject it all together. And your suggestions about me not being able to get laid are totally irrelevant and can't be considered an argument.

He was complaining about being separated from children, not providing for them. Is that self pity?

As to his comment about financial support, courts will order alimony even when there are no kids in the picture.

If a person voluntarily decides to have sex even though they're not totally in the mood for it, that is not rape. Nowhere in the article did the author say it's okay for the person who does want sex to force, pressure, or coerce the other partner - and he specifically says this advice doesn't apply when one partner is treating the other with disrespect or betrayal.
A long-term relationship is largely about both partners doing things for each other even when they don't have an immediate intense desire to do so.
It's not coercion. It's called 'giving' and as long as it's balanced and mutual, it is a very healthy thing in a relationship.

@ Advocate for consent

Your sexual ethics are quite impoverished if their only dimension is consent. Yes, consent is important.
However, I suspect that the over-emphasis on consent comes from a self-focused desire to remain in control 100% of the time.

Relationships - especially marriage relationships - aren't supposed to be all about you. In order to work long-term, they demand that you learn to subordinate your wants, needs, and desires in favor of the other person. This self-sacrifice can continue for indefinite periods of time and it's the basis for the traditional marriage vows... "for richer or poorer" + "in sickness and in health."

Marriage will not tolerate fair-weather fans. So, lovingly meeting your partners sexual, emotional, and other needs in the "richer" and "in health" conditions determines the strength of your resolve to weather the "poorer" and "in sickness" circumstances. If you don't learn unselfish love then you have effectively failed.

If this only went one way, then I'd agree with you, but it doesn't it applies to men as much (or more than) it does to women. No man is entitled to sex and he must love his wife in an understanding way. It's about setting aside one's privileges and preferences in favor of your partners needs. If both partners are all in on that you don't have to worry about yourself, that's your partner's job. It's beautiful when it works but it is also alien to our "me first" culture.

The article included this disclaimer:
"If you truly believe that your relationship can operate as a platonic friendship over months, years, and decades to come, you can ignore this advice."

The article is well-intentioned. Michele Weiner-Davis says the same thing in her Ted-Talks. She says: "Just Do It". It's good advice for people that believe they consented to be in a sexual relationship with a person.

I had the exact same thoughts while reading it; I figured it had to be an old article and couldn't believe when I saw it was just published. A very insensitive treatment of this topic.

This article is suggesting that the disinterested party try to be open minded. So, unless they're somehow choosing to be raped, rape is not what's being suggested here.

Modern day marriage fails the risk/benefit analysis according to most young men. There are always exceptions to the rule. But men are generally disadvantaged in divorce. And marriage isn't giving most men what they want anymore. Feminism has changed the deal. And most men don't like it. That's why marriage and romance are dead.

But let's blame porn and video games like most people do. If that makes you feel any better about it.

I feel intensely sorry for your significant other. You are too focused on yourself to be much help to anyone else. Please stay single until you can see why acting in someone else's interests (as opposed to your own) is a prerequisite to a relationship with staying power.

If you always focus on your own rights and on yourself you have very little recognition of others much less something to share. This is toxic in a relationship.

That particular sentence is poorly phrased and could be open to the interpretation you're giving it, but only if you ignore everything else in the article.
"If you wait until both of you have an overwhelming intense libidinal desire, you will wait too long" might capture the idea more accurately. Even in a long-term relationship, people are not necessarily always in phase with each other. Making the decision to voluntarily participate, even when one does not have an overwhelming desire at the beginning, is a voluntary consented decision, and if both partners are willing to do that sometimes they will both come out ahead.
If for example on Tuesday one partner is 100% interested and the other is only 15% interested, and on Saturday those percentages are reversed, there are two choices: either they can both give a little and be willing even when they're not fully interested and have sex twice that week, or they can demand an unrealistic Hollywood standard of totally synchronous interest, and not have sex at all that week.

I am in complete agreement, that sentence and the rest of the article is just awful.

It would be useful if someone would spell-out what the outrage is about. No one said that a spouse had to have sex tonight, or tomorrow night for that matter. The issue is one partner unilaterally changing the terms of the relationship.

The author of the article went to great pains to describe the YES partner as: "a good person, and a responsible citizen in the relationship".

It's a fair topic to discuss. Marriage is a contract. A person that wants to renege on part of the deal should as least explain why it's acceptable to not live-up to their end of the bargain.

The above only applies to marriages that were entered into as monogamous sexual relationships.

Consent does not necessarily mean want in the strictest sense - there are degrees of want. If both parties at least don't mind, then there is consent.

I'd also like to add that there are many things that people regularly do despite not necessarily "wanting to," and yet they can still feel better having done it. Working out comes to mind. And, just as with sex, it would be cruel to force someone to do it, but I don't feel bad lending encouragement.

The idea of being persistent may work, but it can backfire, too. There needs to be discussion about the validity of each persons wants and needs. The NO person may find it annoying to be continually asked. Scheduled sex takes the pressure off both parties. The couple can agree that Saturday will be the day and that there is no reason to try to initiate sex before then.

Even when you ask nicely the person that declines is made to feel bad. It's a constant reminder that you're disappointed with them. When one party tries to initiate sex and the other declines, the next step is to agree on a future date that both can look forward to. It becomes a positive thing. Instead of asking for sex you can say that you're looking forward to Saturday. That acts as a reminder and lets the other party know that they are desirable.

The 1:12 ratio becomes 1:2 and there is less tension.

I tried to relate to this comment and finally gave-up. None of it applies to me or anyone I know. My marriage does not make me feel free. It's the opposite of feeling free. I feel connected and happy.

When you say: "It is never about the sex" I think the word never does not apply. I'd say it's not always about the sex, but sometimes sex is pretty high up on the list.