No sex after marriage, is it a reason for divorce (dating, men)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It somes as news to me that testicular cancer would prevent me from having sex. Durning chemo use a condom, it was still possible.
There is a huge difference between can't and won't. If it is a disease, then I wouldn't. Something about "for better or worse, in sickness and in health" that I intend to honor and keep. If she won't becuase of spite or something along those lines, then I would consider it.
So, assuming that you and those who agree with you are responding to the OP's exact post, in which she specifically mentions intercourse, you're all fine with your wife leaving you because you couldn't get it up?
Keep in mind that erectile dysfunction is a far more likely scenario than a catastrophic illness or accident that leaves someone incapacitated.
And no, not everyone can take a pill to fix it.
So, say you have a lousy genetic draw, and despite not smoking and not getting overweight and developing diabetes, you have a pesky propensity toward high cholesterol and you develop vascular disease and can't get it up. Pills are out because you have a heart condition. And willie won't work.
If I had a hypothetical spouse and she became unable to be intimate due to medical reasons...then I would continue to observe my wedding vows, and stay with her, for better or worse, to have and to hold, till death do us part, etc. I would most definitely *not* leave or abandon her, just because of that. IMO, the only things that can ever potentially justify divorcing a spouse are adultery or abuse...and even then, in those cases, I would still try to do absolutely everything I could that was humanly possible, to save the marriage...
This is the only answer that makes sense to me.
It's true that most illnesses don't stop you from having sex...but so many illnesses make you feel TERRIBLE. The medications and the side effects can ravage your body. In your vows, you didn't say "well, in sickness, if I can't have sex, I'm blowing him/her off" and either leave or cheat. WRONG ANSWER.
First, sex is certainly physical but intimacy can be so many things...which we should all know isn't just the physical part. I had breast cancer. I had a lumpectomy so let's just say that since I didn't get reconstruction, my body is not perfect. I've had chemo, radiation and several other surgeries. I've not always felt like "doing it"...but when my husband initiated actual contact with me, he was so gentle. I figured if I could handle it, I'd give myself to him. I might not have really felt like it but it was my little gift to him because he was so awesome to me. Usually, it didn't take much encouragement before I forgot about how sick I was...that's the beauty of healing!
Second, even though sex is very important to both of us, it is not the end all. I would never walk out on him and I would expect the same from him. We take our vows seriously. But it's not just about vows. It's about respect, about love, about growing and making your committment and love for each other even stronger. I don't think it even occurred to him to leave me, even though it killed him not being able to "fix" me.
Third, someone mentioned how different it would be if they were old versus when they're young. I was 33 when I got cancer. We'd been married about 3-4 years at that point (although we'd been together much longer). Would some of you have suggested that just because he, too, was 33, that he should've left me because the uncertainty of my life would be reason for him to search for nooky? Do any of you think that's beyond shallow?
I do agree with most people that having sex with your spouse is important (and fun) and not to be taken lightly, but I completely believe if that went away, you should still stick with your spouse. Also, the point about "letting the healthy spouse go" theory...well, that's just not for me. Even if I would want him to be physically sated, I would still hurt deeply from having to share him. I don't think he'd go for it either because we know we're in it for the long haul. That's just what married people do, in my view of things. You're supposed to love each other and like Knight says, barring any dangerous behaviour, there are many reasons for leaving someone. Just my opinion...
Her husband was physically disabled, and could not have sex. She told me that they had an "agreement", and I wasn't inclined to press the issue
We have an agreement, too, should such a mishap befalls us. There's no reason both of us should be unhappy because one is unable (and we wouldn't want to put the other in the position of being tempted to cheat). Of course, we also choose to be together each and every day because we WANT to be together, not because of marriage. If that ever changes, we also have an agreement that we're free to go.
We have lasted through many difficulties, medical and otherwise, and neither of us has had the least inclination to leave. We keep choosing each other each day. Perhaps knowing we are not trapped by unreasonable promises makes it easier to deal with what is.
I used to work for lawyers and lack of sex is actually on the application for divorce in many states usually as 'constructive abandonment.' Impotence is also a legal reason for divorce. So the answer is yes. Although you can basically cite anything as grounds for a divorce in the U.S.
I used to work for lawyers and lack of sex is actually on the application for divorce in many states usually as 'constructive abandonment.' So the answer is yes. Although you can basically cite anything as grounds for a divorce in the U.S.
Well, there is always the legal side of things but I guess the real question is, would you? I didn't know there was a spot on the application...c-razy!
I guess I object to the phrase, why shouldn't my spouse be "happy" when I'm unable to put out. Is that really the only thing that makes your spouse happy? Seriously. Again, I'm not saying sex is not important, but if I were physically unable due to chance and bad luck, I'd need him even more. We'd figure out what works for us, but letting him go to be happy while I'm miserable doesn't seem like a good compromise. I'm pretty sure my imagination is good enough to find a solution where we didn't have to break vows to each other...just sayin'.
Oh, and my girl parts are not the only thing that make me a girl...yep, I have a good enough imagination to make things work. Would they be ideal? Maybe not...but hey...who do you trust? Who do you love? Figure it out is all I'm saying...
I guess I object to the phrase, why shouldn't my spouse be "happy" when I'm unable to put out. Is that really the only thing that makes your spouse happy?
Of course it's not the only thing, but it is one thing that contributes, and its lack could be a major stresor to the relationship. You probably have a wonderful relationship - as do we - but your beliefs and priorities may differ from ours. Most couples do have their own ideas about how their relationship should work, and to which they mutually subscribe. I think our take on this is that sexual exclusivity is not necessarily a defining requirement of a good relationship, though it can be for others.
Well, there is always the legal side of things but I guess the real question is, would you? I didn't know there was a spot on the application...c-razy!
I guess I object to the phrase, why shouldn't my spouse be "happy" when I'm unable to put out. Is that really the only thing that makes your spouse happy? Seriously. Again, I'm not saying sex is not important, but if I were physically unable due to chance and bad luck, I'd need him even more. We'd figure out what works for us, but letting him go to be happy while I'm miserable doesn't seem like a good compromise. I'm pretty sure my imagination is good enough to find a solution where we didn't have to break vows to each other...just sayin'.
Oh, and my girl parts are not the only thing that make me a girl...yep, I have a good enough imagination to make things work. Would they be ideal? Maybe not...but hey...who do you trust? Who do you love? Figure it out is all I'm saying...
If you ever intend to be married, never, ever work for a divorce lawyer. LOL. You will really see what is at the heart of people who are getting married today. The reasons for which people cite they 'deserve' a divorce border on downright stupidity and immaturity. From what I seen these husbands draw their line of accountability/responsibility in the marriage at: "I go to work & earn a check for the household." IMO, most of these men/women have zero reason to be marrying in the first place, but that's another matter I suppose....
From what you posted above, I get the impression you expect men to think and act fairly. Fat chance of that happening. If these men don't get what they want physically out of a woman, they will get it elsewhere or leave, those seem to be the only 2 options they consider. There is no reason for them to stick around because they don't have to; plenty of other women willing to give what you won't. I agree that you shouldn't have to do anything you don't want to, but if you sign up for a marriage I hope you know the man is going to want REGULAR sex and again when it doesn't happen, he's likely cheating or divorcing you. I can't answer the question of 'would I divorce someone for lack of sex?' I don't have sex & my personal sex drive can run very hot and cold. Obviously no man is going to sign up for that since they expect sex in return for everything involving a night out on town and spending their money. I read in another thread men/women were saying the expect to get sex after 5 dates or 6 dates! I would never do that. But if you don't want to play the game, expect to be alone as a result. Same goes for this marriage without the sex buisness.
I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but oh well if it is.
I seen for myself how they put a very high value on sex when that's taken out of the equation and nothing more seems to matter (although they like to claim there's things that do). If you haven't seen that personally, so be it. But I'm not you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I seen these husbands draw their line of accountability/responsibility in the marriage at: "I go to work & earn a check for the household." IMO, most of these men/women have zero reason to be marrying in the first place, but that's another matter I suppose....
