Can you REALLY love your spouse, without a sexual relationship?

[xxoo]

I'm sorry, but apparently you can...

 

P.S. Not you personally, but "people"...

 

The argument would be that those people don't REALLY love their spouse, or else they would be very bothered by their spouse's situation and sacrifice. There may be love, but it isn't the level of love that makes a person value their partner's happiness as much as they value their own.

[Honorable_Venerable]

Well, I see it the other way...

 

I can be a veg, but I can not truly love my mate and force veg on him.

 

Likewise, I can be celibate, but I can not truly love my mate and force celibacy on him. I have to give him an out, or some other options, if I know that sex is something he needs and desires. My love of him requires it.

 

You, it would appear, are not the average bear. Sex, apparently, is "different".

[giotto]

There may be love, but it isn't the level of love that makes a person value their partner's happiness as much as they value their own.

 

lol... looks to me like some kind of selfish love... still love, though, apparently... As Tara Maiden (my lovely Italian compatriot) once said, be happy with what you got...

[soserious1]

Well, I see it the other way...

 

I can be a veg, but I can not truly love my mate and force veg on him.

 

Likewise, I can be celibate, but I can not truly love my mate and force celibacy on him. I have to give him an out, or some other options, if I know that sex is something he needs and desires. My love of him requires it.

 

 

I agree 100% if a spouse has decided they no longer want sex but want to remain married they really should give their spouse the option to go out and get their needs met elsewhere. Taking the risk of course that their partner won't fall in love elsewhere.

 

However, I also feel that guys who say that they do things they don't want to do for their spouses hoping it will lead to sex really need to stop it. If you don't want to do something don't but don't attach a hidden price tag to the action then get all hurt because your spouse isn't jumping up to pay the bill.

[TaraMaiden]

lol... looks to me like some kind of selfish love... still love, though, apparently... As Tara Maiden (my lovely Italian compatriot) once said, be happy with what you got...

 

Precisamente....

 

Ok, let me set the scene for you.

 

The relationship is not sexless. But the sex is not frequent or regular.

The reasons are varied.

One partner...let's say the female - is ready willing and able to have sex far more frequently and regularly than currently occurs.

The male - for aforementioned various reasons - does not either seek frequent or regular sex, nor is there any great concern that sex is not frequent or regular.

 

Does female sulk, throw hissy fit, feel inadequate, cheated or deprived?

Female could.

But female chooses not to.

 

You see, female absolutely completely and totally loves male.

And male absolutely, completely and totally loves female.

Male is doing nothing to willfully deliberately or maliciously deprive female of frequent and regular sex.

 

So what would be the point of female throwing hissy fit, feeling inadequate, cheated or deprived?

Why wilfully sabotage a situation where loving kindness, understanding, compromise and contentment can underpin the relationship?

Why insist on making sex prominent, when it would be quite content playing secondary fiddle to the demonstration of |love so evident in so many other ways?

Why get all agitated about something that is not easily negotiable, and risks undermining the relationship, when there is so much else going for it, and so much satisfaction to be gained in other areas?

 

What - really - is so damn important about sex, that people believe that relationships hinge on it and revolve around it?

 

There is no such thing as a 'normal' sex life, because whatever people do normally, is normal for them, unless they take umbrage or issue with it.

And even if you do have frequent and regular sex, out of ten times, maybe one will be 'mind-blowing', three will be 'good', and the remainder will be 'ok, I guess'.....

 

The likelihood of being with somebody whose sexual prowess/desire/libido will be in synchronicity with yours, and will ALWAYS be in synchronicity with yours, are two:

Slim - and none.

Therefore, you have a choice:

Change partners frequently, so you always have new and exciting opportunities to get your end away -

or learn to be content.

Develop satisfaction, serenity, contentment and compromise, knowing that a relationship is greater than the sum of its parts.

Knowing that ultimately, sexual satisfaction is a transitory and ephemeral thing, and other things matter more and last longer.

 

Or as Giotto put TaraMaiden put it - be happy with what you've got.

[xxoo]

lol... looks to me like some kind of selfish love... still love, though, apparently...

 

Love is neither selfish nor selfless. She isn't demonstrating a type of love (selfish love), but rather a limitation in her capacity to love (probably an honest limitation, and not intentionally "holding back" love).

 

The likelihood of being with somebody whose sexual prowess/desire/libido will be in synchronicity with yours, and will ALWAYS be in synchronicity with yours, are two:

Slim - and none.

Therefore, you have a choice:

Change partners frequently, so you always have new and exciting opportunities to get your end away -

or learn to be content.

Develop satisfaction, serenity, contentment and compromise, knowing that a relationship is greater than the sum of its parts.

Knowing that ultimately, sexual satisfaction is a transitory and ephemeral thing, and other things matter more and last longer.

 

Or as Giotto put TaraMaiden put it - be happy with what you've got.

 

That is fine IF you are talking about a relationship with a sexual relationship. Certainly every couple has times when they are out of sync sexually, and most can cope with that.

 

I am talking about a relationship (as the OP asked) WITHOUT a sexual relationship.

 

Still, everyone is different, and has different needs. Not everyone will be able to be happy with a low sex relationship (esp since many described on this board are also low touch/low communication relationships).

 

Everyone has their dealbreakers. It is good to be honest about what those are for each individual--honest to yourself, and honest to your partner. On another thread, Tara, you described the kid issue as a dealbreaker. Honestly, it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me. I married for the man, and not for the kids. But the sex thing MIGHT be a dealbreaker for me, if he didn't seem to value my sexual needs at all.

[TaraMaiden]

Having children, and having sex are two completely different issues.

 

(Albeit with the same primary overtures!!)

 

Having sex is merely a means of fulfilling a personal physical desire, a gratification and physical satisfaction which ultimately, fades, decreases and passes in time, anyway.

 

A desire for children is a far more complex, inherent instinct, and one which very often (for women, definitely) is as a result of a hormonal surge which is extremely difficult to combat. Women who are desperate for children, through a hormonal impulse, never have the feeling disappear, if that desire is not fulfilled.

I cannot speak for a similar desire in men, as I do not know how much of such a desire in a man, is driven by hormonal urges. I don't see any reason why it should not be.....

 

I don't believe the two are comparable.

 

I'm not being obtuse or picking an argument. I believe this to be the case, and I'm merely pointing out why the two are different issues.....

[xxoo]

I don't believe the two are comparable.

 

I'm not being obtuse or picking an argument. I believe this to be the case, and I'm merely pointing out why the two are different issues.....

 

I do think they are comparable. Like the sex issues, many couples are "out of sync" about how many children to have (or if to have children at all), and when. And, like the sex issue, you can choose to be happy with what you've got.

 

Both are hormonal issues, both are instinctual desires, both are tied to psychological wellbeing for many people--but not for others. Maybe the way you feel about babies could lend you insight into how other feel about an active sexual relationship.

 

For me, personally, I'd find it easier to be happy with my H, childless, than to be happy with my H, sexless.

[soserious1]

Precisamente....

 

Ok, let me set the scene for you.

 

The relationship is not sexless. But the sex is not frequent or regular.

The reasons are varied.

One partner...let's say the female - is ready willing and able to have sex far more frequently and regularly than currently occurs.

The male - for aforementioned various reasons - does not either seek frequent or regular sex, nor is there any great concern that sex is not frequent or regular.

 

Does female sulk, throw hissy fit, feel inadequate, cheated or deprived?

Female could.

But female chooses not to.

 

You see, female absolutely completely and totally loves male.

And male absolutely, completely and totally loves female.

Male is doing nothing to willfully deliberately or maliciously deprive female of frequent and regular sex.

 

So what would be the point of female throwing hissy fit, feeling inadequate, cheated or deprived?

Why wilfully sabotage a situation where loving kindness, understanding, compromise and contentment can underpin the relationship?

Why insist on making sex prominent, when it would be quite content playing secondary fiddle to the demonstration of |love so evident in so many other ways?

Why get all agitated about something that is not easily negotiable, and risks undermining the relationship, when there is so much else going for it, and so much satisfaction to be gained in other areas?

 

What - really - is so damn important about sex, that people believe that relationships hinge on it and revolve around it?

 

There is no such thing as a 'normal' sex life, because whatever people do normally, is normal for them, unless they take umbrage or issue with it.

And even if you do have frequent and regular sex, out of ten times, maybe one will be 'mind-blowing', three will be 'good', and the remainder will be 'ok, I guess'.....

 

The likelihood of being with somebody whose sexual prowess/desire/libido will be in synchronicity with yours, and will ALWAYS be in synchronicity with yours, are two:

Slim - and none.

Therefore, you have a choice:

Change partners frequently, so you always have new and exciting opportunities to get your end away -

or learn to be content.

Develop satisfaction, serenity, contentment and compromise, knowing that a relationship is greater than the sum of its parts.

Knowing that ultimately, sexual satisfaction is a transitory and ephemeral thing, and other things matter more and last longer.

 

Or as Giotto put TaraMaiden put it - be happy with what you've got.

 

 

So what you're saying is that the partner with the higher drive should do is to totally bend to the lower desire partner's level of sexual desire and content themselves with it.. no compromise, it's the lower desire partner's way? What you're also saying is that the higher desire partner is wrong, and should be ashamed at placing sex so highly on their list of needs?

 

 

I really wish people who hold those viewpoints would spell them out prior to accepting wedding rings and holding another person hostage with vows of fidelity. Cause sorry being sworn to fidelity for life but being forced to sneak to the bathroom to rub one out to meet the bulk of my sexual needs isn't something I would have willingly signed up for.

Edited June 5, 2010 by soserious1

[florence of suburbia]

I don't understand why a man would want to have sex with a woman who is feeling no desire for him (or reverse the genders, it makes no difference.) Where is the pleasure in engaging with someone who wants no part of it? Isn't the mutuality the whole point? Do you honestly not care whether your partner is just going through the motions as long as your tension is released?

[Mrs.Smith]

I didn't get through very many of the replies before I stared getting frustrated. I understand why you are concerned about this being an issue. You love your wife and want to express it physically. I am totally sure your wife loves you just the same. Maybe she is going through something mentally/emotionally you are unaware of, maybe she isn't being fulfilled like she would like, maybe your relationship is lacking intimacy.

Men, please try to understand women are complicated.... try talking to your wife, like REALLY talking to her, asking her if there is anything that she needs. I'm sure she would really appreciate it. When you talk to her try to focus on her, not just the fact that your sex life has diminished. I speak from experience, my husband and I went through this, when he finally came to me loving and caring and really focused on me, I felt so special and so wonderful and cared for our relationship took a drastic turn for the better

[TaraMaiden]

 

For me, personally, I'd find it easier to be happy with my H, childless, than to be happy with my H, sexless.

Exactly. Sex is a temporary thing. Kids are permanent.

Once around, it's irreversible.

you can't give them to someone else, like a puppy.

You're stuck with them.

people have affairs because the same criteria don't apply......

[TaraMaiden]

So what you're saying is that the partner with the higher drive should do is to totally bend to the lower desire partner's level of sexual desire and content themselves with it.. no compromise, it's the lower desire partner's way?

Yes, why not?

What's the alternative?

Anxiety? Resentment? Hostility? A constant "Elephant in the room" atmosphere?

What's wrong with a bit of self-sacrifice?

Why does everybody think that in a marriage, there is always going to be the level of compromise that means everybody always gets their way?

Why is it so wrong to give something up, from a level you'd consider ok for you, for something that puts the other partner first, in this case?

If one partner feels up to it, three times a week, and the other, three times a month - then why should the partner with a higher sex drive be the one to call the shots, or have the right to take umbrage?

What gives the higher-sex-drive partner the right to want changes made, when the other partner doesn't want changes made? you can't just 'make' a sex drive happen. You can't re-awaken or stimulate something like this, because the lower-sex-drive partner then feels guilt, and that there's something wrong with them, and that they are to blame....Efforts at sex feel forced and contrived, and basically, the sexual act is not entirely wilful.

Is that what you think should happen? The lower sex drive person should be expected to have sex against their will?

 

 

What you're also saying is that the higher desire partner is wrong, and should be ashamed at placing sex so highly on their list of needs?

Not wrong no. People are different. There's nothing wrong with being different. And if sex is so high on their needs, what is lower?

Love? Respect? compromise? The needs of their partner? Their sex drive?

What makes sex so important that it puts other matters lower?

 

 

I really wish people who hold those viewpoints would spell them out prior to accepting wedding rings and holding another person hostage with vows of fidelity

It's not always predictable. Sometimes, it's not even deliberate. Accidents happen, illnesses occur....there could be hundreds of reasons as to why the goalposts shift....

 

Cause sorry being sworn to fidelity for life but being forced to sneak to the bathroom to rub one out to meet the bulk of my sexual needs isn't something I would have willingly signed up for.

I think it mad to get married in the first place, and swear fidelity.

Human beings are not faithful or monogamous by nature. if we were, there would be fewer affairs and far fewer divorces.

Like I always say: Desire is natural. Fidelity - and monogamy - is a choice.

 

If you're having to sneak to the bathroom and rub one off - then for all the problems you think I'm putting forward - you have far bigger ones.

 

I'm happy in my decision, and with my sex life; completely.

Anyone who's having to sneak around isn't happy with theirs.

Maybe - if this is your case - it might actually help to re-examine your priorities.....

Edited June 5, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[mem11363]

Flo,

Anybody can have sex with a partner when they are feeling lust. And that is a fine thing. But real love is often shown most powerfully when you do the opposite of what your body is telling you, solely to please your partner. And in doing so you feel happy because you are giving.

 

And that statement applies equally to:

- The husband who is dying to have sex, sees his W is tired/depressed, totally masks his desire, and goes out of his way to give her a relaxing evening.

- The wife who is tired, realizes she has ignored her H sexually for longer than he likes, and she shrugs off her fatigue takes him to bed and lets him get her in the mood so they can both have fun.

 

This idea that you either are/aren't in the mood and therefore you either are willing or not willing to have sex is simplistic and frankly given how differently men and women are wired, is highly toxic to a marriage.

 

It is abusive to routinely pressure your partner for sex, to inflict guilt on them when they don't connect with you, and it is equally abusive to choose to ignore your partners much higher drive simply because it is inconvenient to you.

 

 

I don't understand why a man would want to have sex with a woman who is feeling no desire for him (or reverse the genders, it makes no difference.) Where is the pleasure in engaging with someone who wants no part of it? Isn't the mutuality the whole point? Do you honestly not care whether your partner is just going through the motions as long as your tension is released?

[mem11363]

I don't understand the post below?

 

My W is naturally "in the mood" 3-4 times a month. I am every other day. Big gap eh? Not really. The rest of the month breaks down like this:

- 13 or so days where she is tired/truly not arousable

- 13 or so days where she "can be aroused"

 

So we connect 8-10 times a month - about an even split between her ideal and mine. But it isn't random. I can read her body language well enough to know when she just doesn't want to. And on those nights I totally mask any desire I might have. Why put pressure on someone you love - it simply creates the opposite of the desired effect.

 

As for all the "possible" nights, I just pay attention. Many nights she will say "do you want to?" and I can telling she is willing, but not wanting. And I just say "I will ravage you like an invading Viking - tomorrow. Tonight however I am glad to give you a killer massage.

 

But on any given night - she has the final word - which is fine by me. Worst case she says "can we connect later in the week?"

 

Yes, why not?

What's the alternative?

Anxiety? Resentment? Hostility? A constant "Elephant in the room" atmosphere?

What's wrong with a bit of self-sacrifice?

Why does everybody think that in a marriage, there is always going to be the level of compromise that means everybody always gets their way?

Why is it so wrong to give something up, from a level you'd consider ok for you, for something that puts the other partner first, in this case?

If one partner feels up to it, three times a week, and the other, three times a month - then why should the partner with a higher sex drive be the one to call the shots, or have the right to take umbrage?

What gives the higher-sex-drive partner the right to want changes made, when the other partner doesn't want changes made? you can't just 'make' a sex drive happen. You can't re-awaken or stimulate something like this, because the lower-sex-drive partner then feels guilt, and that there's something wrong with them, and that they are to blame....Efforts at sex feel forced and contrived, and basically, the sexual act is not entirely wilful.

Is that what you think should happen? The lower sex drive person should be expected to have sex against their will?

 

 

 

Not wrong no. People are different. There's nothing wrong with being different. And if sex is so high on their needs, what is lower?

Love? Respect? compromise? The needs of their partner? Their sex drive?

What makes sex so important that it puts other matters lower?

 

 

 

It's not always predictable. Sometimes, it's not even deliberate. Accidents happen, illnesses occur....there could be hundreds of reasons as to why the goalposts shift....

 

 

I think it mad to get married in the first place, and swear fidelity.

Human beings are not faithful or monogamous by nature. if we were, there would be fewer affairs and far fewer divorces.

Like I always say: Desire is natural. Fidelity - and monogamy - is a choice.

 

If you're having to sneak to the bathroom and rub one off - then for all the problems you think I'm putting forward - you have far bigger ones.

 

I'm happy in my decision, and with my sex life; completely.

Anyone who's having to sneak around isn't happy with theirs.

Maybe - if this is your case - it might actually help to re-examine your priorities.....

[mem11363]

This is exactly how my wife and I both see it.

 

 

If a woman is not so much as willing to even consider compromise when it comes to something as crucial as sexual needs in a marriage, then I find it hard to believe that she loves him fully.

 

Even if the sex drive is completely gone, a woman who loves her husband fully will still be willing to do things for him that are sexually pleasing much in the same way that a husband is willing to do things for his wife that he may not have a particular drive to do.

 

It isn't about libido so much as its about compromise.

 

Get some lube, learn how to give killer hand jobs, give an enthusiastic blow job or at the very least don't just lay there and wait for him to 'get off'. Is giving up ten to thirty minutes of a night a couple of times a week to do something special for your husband like that really that much of a pain in the ass?

 

I really dislike this whole "well, I don't feel like having sex so we are never going to have sex" attitude. I'm not suggesting that women lay themselves down for non-consensual or painful sex - just to try to put some feeling into a sexual act for the sake of their husband's needs.

 

You'd think that with some women, the only needs that matter are their own.

 

Now, I know what this will spark: the whole angry "what if the husband is not deserving of sex, doesn't help around the house, is lazy, mean, etc." -

 

I'm not talking about dysfunctional or abusive situations - I'm talking about situations like some of the long suffering 'good husbands' here on the board, the ones who won't cheat, who treat their wives well, who participate actively in the marriage but who are stuck with sexually lazy wives who apparently think that since sex doesn't matter to THEM, it doesn't matter at all.

[mem11363]

This situation could possibly be fixed - but you would have to cut way back on all the extra stuff and cut way back on how much love you radiate at her via compliments, flowers, saying you love her, touching her etc. In a friendly way, you back off, stop doing all the extra services and let her come to you.

 

 

In my case, I make it a point for us to go on a date about once a week. It is usually just dinner at a restaurant she likes, or a free movie at the drive in. I send flowers to her at work, for all the usual stuff, plus every once in a while just to make her feel special. Cuddling, massages, foot rubs, etc... almost anytime she asks. To me though these things ramp up my sex drive. Being close both emotionally and physically just does that to me, not to her apparently.

 

What usually ends up happening after any of these activities is her saying, "thanks, good night", or if I suggest sex, or even display that I want it, she gets mad, and tells me how everything was going great and then I ruined it. Of course I see things the other way. Occasionally she will give in, but it is never her idea, and most of the time lays there until I'm done (sometimes asking if I'm done yet, or if I can hurry up). After this happens, I feel relieved to have um... you know... but at the same time I feel worse than I did before because I know she was only giving in.

 

I used to ask for it what I now see as too often, once every couple days. So we discussed it and agreed to twice a week, so long as I don't ask for more. So every saturday and sunday at some point she would look at me and say, "do you want to go ahead and do it now? Will it take long?" I got tired of this, and have tried my best to just not ask at all and wait for her to come to me. This seems to be a dream come true for her, and has not changed her attitude one bit. Though it has turned me more sour, because it seems like no matter what I do, its never enough. Even house hold chores. She pays the bills, does most of the laundry, and the dishes, thats it! I do everything else; cooking, vacuuming, cleaning kitchen & bathroom, mowing, and religiously taking care of our both our cars.

 

Sorry for the venting, I have just seen this response to the problem so many times, from her, and others, that I just want to scream "What more could I possibly do to change things?!" Even though I feel I am the only one attempting a change.

[giotto]

I think we all make compromise in a marriage... Tara seems to think that we should sacrifice our own desire if the low drive partner isn't willing to "accommodate" us and focus on other positive aspects of the relationship... I do understand this and share her views to a certain extent, but still she hasn't explained what happens when the low drive partner refuses point blank to have sex with the other partner when the sex drives are disproportionately different... are we really suppose to go with no sex for the rest of our life? What Tara would do in this situation? Has Tara ever found herself in this situation? Has Tara ever been a man to understand this plight?

[xxoo]

If one partner feels up to it, three times a week, and the other, three times a month - then why should the partner with a higher sex drive be the one to call the shots, or have the right to take umbrage?

 

What you are describing is very different from what the OP and the title is asking:

 

If you are in a relationship where your significant other has little or no sex drive, and it is obviously disturbing to you (both of you know about it, and have discussed it) but nothing has changed. Do you really think the love is there like it was before the problem started?

 

I have a tendency to believe that if my wife is not interested in sex with me, and has not been for a very long time, even with no one else in the picture, and she knows how deeply it bothers me. It is because she does not feel the same about me as she used to (when this was not an issue). I simply do not understand how it would be possible to me in love with someone, and at the same time resent them for wanting a physically intimate relationship to go along with the emotional bond.

 

Tara, do you believe the situation he is describing is comparable to you own? Are you sure you'd be just as happy in the relationship the OP is describing?

 

 

Is that what you think should happen? The lower sex drive person should be expected to have sex against their will?

 

No. NEVER.

 

But there are other options. If someone (as the op seems to be describing) REALLY loves their partner, but has no interest in a sexual relationship (seemingly permanently...not talking about a temporary illness or pregnancy recovery)---and resents the partner desiring a physical, sexual relationshp....that LOVE would require that the partner's needs are seriously considered. If it were me, I'd encourage my partner to get sexual needs met outside the marriage. I love him too much to ever force him into celibacy against his own wishes.

[EnigmasMuse]

"Why is sexual compromise any different than any other compromise in a marriage?"

 

Bingo! I agree, and maybe thats part of the problem. Maybe some people are putting way to much concentration on the sex part of the marriage. Maybe they are concentrating on the wrong thing. I understand it makes sense to concentrate more on what it is you're not getting. But I still say IMO, there is something deeper that may be going on, that people are missing and not understanding the deeper thing is WHY they are lacking in the sex department. I also understand if you have a spouse who will not tell you what that deeper issue is, then yes its hard to know how to fix it.

[florence of suburbia]

Mem, I don't disagree with what you're saying, in a situation where the physical relationship is strong and some outside issue, e.g., stress from work and kids, fatigue, illness, is interfering. I agree that the reluctant partner can allow themselves to be coaxed into it.

 

However, in a situation where month after month, year after year, the Body is consistently unwilling, she may start wondering what it is trying to say. Why, when a partner is a friend and a loving companion, provides emotional and financial support, helps with household and children, would that partner's physical touch induce guilt, anxiety, resentment and obsessive thought loops? Why are her own Body, Mind and Emotions screaming "No!" Should the reluctant spouse say in response -- "what you're trying to tell me is nonsense and not worth listening to. Body, maybe you're cringing, Mind, maybe you're spinning in circles, Emotions, maybe you're panicking like a bird in a cage, but my partner's feelings override all that. Body, push on!! As for the emotions and thoughts, maybe a few drinks will quiet them."

Edited June 5, 2010 by florence of suburbia

[LucreziaBorgia]

I see a lot of failure to realize that sex isn't a "selfish want" it is a "need" for a healthy male. Hormones see to that. Unfortunately, those same hormones are responsible for the death of desire in their wives.

 

Imagine the flip:

 

Wife: honey, I would love it if you took me out on dates.

 

Husband: sorry, I just don't feel like doing it

 

Wife: I would love to just lay in your arms and have you hold me and make me feel safe

 

Husband: sorry, I just don't have the desire to do that

 

Wife: will you rub my back? I have had a tough day

 

Husband: sorry, I don't feel like it - I'm beginning to feel you are nagging me

 

Wife: Do you think I am beautiful

 

Husband: sorry, dear I just don't 'feel' that way anymore

 

... see where I'm going? Sex is as important of a need for men as emotional connection is for a woman.

 

Men who want to have sex are not selfish perverts who can't control their libidos. They are grown men with fully functioning and healthy brains that are flooded with the hormones that make them want to mate, and connect physically with their mates.

 

A man who 'does' for his wife out of love and wanting her to be happy, should have a wife who will 'do' for her husband the same.

 

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

[carhill]

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

 

LOL, just imagine the lonely road of the human who sees 'an important need' for both, IOW an integration of sexual desire and emotional connection; as stbx used to say, 'why can't you be a 'normal' man?', meaning just desire sex like other men do and not complicate it with emotional intimacy. This underscores how we're all different and view the dynamic differently, hence the differences in 'understanding'. Enter the concept of compatibility. To me, simply, a scenario as described by the OP would indicate to me that we (a potential and myself) were/are incompatible, whether at the outset or 'down the road', mindful of the disclaimer (life-altering injury/disease) I posted prior. In those circumstances, a loving couple can still show each other sexual love to the extent possible, or the uninjured party can get their sexual (libidinous) needs met elsewhere with the other partner's support and consent.

 

IMO, the people who *can* love their spouse fully and completely and feel satisfied in an asexual relationship are compatible. Good on 'em. They found their path.

[florence of suburbia]

Why is that so hard for people to understand

 

If one partner is deeply unsatisfied, then by definition, the relationship is not healthy. In many cases, the partner who doesn't want sex with their spouse is painfully dissatisfied as well. Whether they admit that or try to mask it with addictive behaviors or by escaping into other interests is another matter.

 

In any case, I don't see how it is helpful to tell the reluctant partner to "get over it and stop being selfish." Sex is an act of intense intimacy and trust. It isn't the same as someone asking you to make them as sandwich or take them out for a drink, or even rub their back.

 

If you wanted to give a child a hug and they were hanging back, would you say to the child, "stop being selfish. I need a hug. Now give it to me!" Why not? Because intimacy is something that needs to be given willingly.

 

It's sort of like the Nancy Reagan drug slogan "just say no." Oversimplification to the highest degree and a blindness to what is behind the desire, or lack thereof, to experiment with drugs (or not have sex with someone.)

 

This doesn't mean the problem is permanent, but it isn't a case of someone who just needs to "get with the program."

[silktricks]

Yes, why not?

What's the alternative?

Anxiety? Resentment? Hostility? A constant "Elephant in the room" atmosphere?

What's wrong with a bit of self-sacrifice?

a bit of self-sacrifice is one thing - anyone can do "a bit". However, day after day, month after month, year after year with no sex is another kettle of fish altogether.

Why does everybody think that in a marriage, there is always going to be the level of compromise that means everybody always gets their way?

Why is it so wrong to give something up, from a level you'd consider ok for you, for something that puts the other partner first, in this case?

If one partner feels up to it, three times a week, and the other, three times a month - then why should the partner with a higher sex drive be the one to call the shots, or have the right to take umbrage?

What gives the higher-sex-drive partner the right to want changes made, when the other partner doesn't want changes made? you can't just 'make' a sex drive happen.

What if OK for you is once a week and OK for your partner is once a year? Compromise mean compromise - that is in both give something, not the "I don't want sex and you can't make me" side always getting their way, either. Sure, the low-sex drive person doesn't want to feel like there's something wrong with them, but neither does the high sex drive person!!! Do you have any idea what it feels like to want to have sex with the person you love and have them avoid your very touch? Let me tell you, it sucks.

\You can't re-awaken or stimulate something like this, because the lower-sex-drive partner then feels guilt, and that there's something wrong with them, and that they are to blame....Efforts at sex feel forced and contrived, and basically, the sexual act is not entirely wilful.

I think what you are saying is true for some people. Some probably do feel guilty, just as some higher-sex-drive partners feel guilty. I swear to got, though - some just feel in control.

Is that what you think should happen? The lower sex drive person should be expected to have sex against their will?

Against their will??? They got married. If they weren't interested in sex, they should have been up front about it in the beginning - in other words BEFORE they engaged their now partner into a life that is NOT what was expected. So, yes. They should sometimes have sex when they aren't all that up for it. They are expecting their partner to never have sex against their will.