Need help coping with a sexless marriage

[Pizzaguy]

As I read the OP, it occurs to me that I 'see' my last wife in the text. No, sex was not a problem for us, but, oddly enough, everything else WAS a problem.

It is weird how it takes shape in my mind, and sure there are "two sides to any story", but I am convinced that the lady in the OP has the same disorder(s) that my former wife does.

In which case, I will quote our marriage counselor, "Your wife has some deeply rooted issues, and it will be a long and arduous road to recovery..." Of course, that road wont' be traveled unless SHE is willing to go. My wife was not willing, not at all. Since there were no children involved, it was easy to walk away from the marriage.

My heart still breaks for her, and over the lost marriage (since she is the only woman I have actually LOVED since the early 80's), but I know I did what had to be done.



Back to the OP, I hate this whole mess - mostly for the child. I honestly have no advice to give, because I hate to advise you to break up a marriage with a child in it. And my only advice would be to play "hard ball" with her and hope that her desire to stay married is strong enough to get her help. But, such was not the case with my wife.

 

[Mike]

If this thread doesn't read fluently, it's because 11 posts that were off topic were removed and placed in a newly created thread here: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=43479

Try to stay on topic, folks! :yes

 

[empathologicalism]

Aside from sex? I strongly recommend that no one ever get married thinking sex is so important in a marriage that the marriage hangs in the balance based on it.

Sex is the icing on the cake for two people who have much better and lasting things they like about each other and enjoy together. A relationship based on the fleeting biological qualities of youth and vigor that God built into us will fail when those fleeting qualities of the flesh disappear (and they surely will). The person you should marry is the person you know you can be truly happy with without sex when the various circumstances of life and humanness keep sex from happening.

Communication is important in marriage, but really, if a couple succeeds in communicating their problems with one another, but lack godly character to resolve those problems all they've got are really well communicated and understood problems in their marriage, not answers for their problems. Just knowing why your spouse refuses to have sex with you may take some of the sting out of why they are doing that, but it is only the beginning, and hardly an answer in and of itself.

If, as you suggest, refusal of sex can be representative of the end of that person's desire to be married, you've got much more than just a sex problem on your hands. Sex is really a barometer of a relationship, not the relationship itself. But so many of us don't know that.

Sorry, no, sex is not the icing on the cake. Sex is a coequal part of marriage, sometimes sex facilitates communication, sometimes communication facilitates sex.

The problem with sex in Christian marriage goes away with a simple thought, and its a right though and a Godly thought. Sex should simply BE in marriage. Some agreements compromise on the WHATS and the HOW OFTEN ....of course.....but relegating it to icing on the cake is a huge problem in today's obviously miserably failing church view on marriage and divorce. The more this and many other newer views are adopted, the more we see divorce spike. We are over valuing things that we should realize set too high and expectation, and undervaluing something (sex) that is a perfectly valid expectation....there WILL BE sex in marriage if everyone is healthy and able....period.

There is an easy explanation for why all of this has happened

 

[empathologicalism]

Right, you did not say it was the only factor. And it is important. But in the context of this thread I'm suggesting it is not so important that it determines in and of itself whether you stay married or not. The reason a couple is not having sex anymore is what should determine the fate of a marriage. Knowing that is what will get us men (and some women) through the rough spots where sex is not available...and help us think reasonably and logically about whether or not the relationship really is over. Making that decision from the waist down only is foolish.

And I will say it again: Sex is not the relationship itself. Knowing this before marriage is one of the greatest truths a man should know when deciding to get married or not. And for us married men, it's a truth that can take the steam and frustration out of a sexless marriage and help him make right decisions about the relationship.

Moreover
Oh I know this one stirs people up, because we live by a deception called Biblical Correctness (as opposed to political) and Churchical Correctness, and what I will say is neither BC or CC. Men would not marry if told they would have no sex after marriage. Now....stop please....because right here is where you wills say "but we age or we get ill or we have a car accident or any number of things prevent sex and then you realize its not to be all that"
Irrelevant.
WHILE ABLE, it should be present in marriage, period. That someday it may not be possible is a statement dictated by BC, CC, and a dose of gynocentric churchianity. Ive even seen a few women agree that they would not have married if they were told after a year (pick a time), no more sex

Sex is the only activity that is limited to marriage, its absurd to say its like a lucky thing to have. We can both be committed enough to stay married as we age or have illness, or that car wreck ...AND to expect some degree of sexual activity in the meantime, these two things are not mutually exclusive.

This teaching, which sadly panders to what is becoming an epidemic of sexless marriages in the church, is a marriage killer. Give someone the church's backing to refuse sex and you can write it off.....until she is free (or even before) and another man comes in and suddenly she wants sex a bunch again.

This is one of a handful of issues the church is badly deceived on, and those that are trying to correct it have gone kooky the other way

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Moreover
Oh I know this one stirs people up, because we live by a deception called Biblical Correctness (as opposed to political) and Churchical Correctness, and what I will say is neither BC or CC. Men would not marry if told they would have no sex after marriage. Now....stop please....because right here is where you wills say "but we age or we get ill or we have a car accident or any number of things prevent sex and then you realize its not to be all that"
Irrelevant.
WHILE ABLE, it should be present in marriage, period. That someday it may not be possible is a statement dictated by BC, CC, and a dose of gynocentric churchianity. Ive even seen a few women agree that they would not have married if they were told after a year (pick a time), no more sex

Sex is the only activity that is limited to marriage, its absurd to say its like a lucky thing to have. We can both be committed enough to stay married as we age or have illness, or that car wreck ...AND to expect some degree of sexual activity in the meantime, these two things are not mutually exclusive.

This teaching, which sadly panders to what is becoming an epidemic of sexless marriages in the church, is a marriage killer. Give someone the church's backing to refuse sex and you can write it off.....until she is free (or even before) and another man comes in and suddenly she wants sex a bunch again.

This is one of a handful of issues the church is badly deceived on, and those that are trying to correct it have gone kooky the other way

You won't get any resistance from me on this.

I'll just add this to what you said: Sex is like having the right of way. Right of way is given, not taken. That doesn't mean you don't edge your vehicle forward, like you do at a 4 way stop, to see if the other driver is going to give you the right of way. You're entitled to do that...because you have the right of way. But, start demanding right of way, whether you really have it or not, and you're going to get yourself in trouble.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Sorry, no, sex is not the icing on the cake.

It is, because the best sex is built on a foundation of mutual friendship and respect--like icing on a well baked cake. Without that foundation you're just eating right out of the frosting can. And everyone knows that's fun to do at first, but you can't do that forever.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

As I read the OP, it occurs to me that I 'see' my last wife in the text. No, sex was not a problem for us, but, oddly enough, everything else WAS a problem.

Which is proof to me that sex really isn't the substance of the marriage but the icing on the top as I've shared.

My wife and I had great sex for several years, but it meant absolutely nothing toward rectifying what really was wrong with our relationship.

 

[felix]

You won't get any resistance from me on this.

I'll just add this to what you said: Sex is like having the right of way. Right of way is given, not taken. That doesn't mean you don't edge your vehicle forward, like you do at a 4 way stop, to see if the other driver is going to give you the right of way. You're entitled to do that...because you have the right of way. But, start demanding right of way, whether you really have it or not, and you're going to get yourself in trouble.

Sex is not like "right of way". The submission of wife to husband includes in all things that includes sex. While submission is for wife, the husband too must love by however listening and understanding the situation if she is tired or sick.

(Prov 5:19) [As a] loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love.

The verse in Prov 5:19 does not say "Let her breasts satisfy you if you got permission".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

While submission is for wife, the husband too must love by however listening and understanding the situation if she is tired or sick.

Correct...he is not to seize his legitimate right of way, just a motorist would not do that at a four way stop, unless he was prepared to deal with the potential consequences. The greater principle of godly love dictates that a man consider his wife's emotional and physical well being above his own selfish desires. That means cautiously seeing if right of way is first going to be given to you, before you seize it in the surety of your right to do so.

(Prov 5:19) [As a] loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love.

The verse in Prov 5:19 does not say "Let her breasts satisfy you if you got permission".

I'm not surprised at all at your spiritless, legalistic application of the passage. Not surprised at all.

Solomon's blessing is that you always find delight in your wife's breasts and not become dissatisfied with her someday, not that you would have unlimited, unhindered access to your wife's breast. How ridiculous.

 

[felix]

I'm not surprised at all at your spiritless, legalistic application of the passage. Not surprised at all.

Solomon's blessing is that you always find delight in your wife's breasts and not become dissatisfied with her someday, not that you would have unlimited, unhindered access to your wife's breast. How ridiculous.

Prov 5:19 must be read in context with what you acknowledged by my previous statement as correct, not separately. However, if she is purposefully not allowing inspite of she not sick or tired, then it is a big crack in marriage which will not last longer as the husband has despised his authority over his wife and the wife ignored him as not being her head anymore.

 

[Stan53]

I feel like I'm at the end of my rope and really need some help. I have been married for 17 years and have a wonderful 8 year old child. My wife and I have not had sex in just shy of 4 years now and it has been almost a daily struggle for me. She claims that she is unable to because of medical reasons (she claims heart problems) but we have been to several doctors and they've all said there is nothing wrong with her and ALL have prescribed anti-anxiety medications for her and most have recommended she see a counselor but she refuses.

She is a stay at home mom and I do plenty to help out around the house. I've done my own laundry for most of our married life and I do my own cooking. I throw this out there to show, it has nothing to do with stress from a job or being overworked at home.

We sleep in separate bedrooms because she says I move around too much at night and keep her awake. Not to mention that she has to have the TV on, a fan and a portable air conditioner going at all times.

Shortly after the sex stopped, so did the deep kisses, hugs and holding hands. When asked about it, she said she has never liked kissing. (oh really? so the first 15 years was just out of obligation?)

As long as I don't bring it up or show my frustration, she acts as if everything is perfectly normal. After the first two years of complaining about it, I spent 6 months trying to be the best husband I could be. I didn't bring it up and kept a smile on my face at all time. I had always given her nightly foot and leg massages to help relieve her anxiety and help her relax which I continued. I made sure the house stayed clean and took care of the vacuuming and cleaning of the bathrooms as she said they caused her issues. I thought if I was the perfect husband, she would want to meet my needs as well. Nope, just expected more of me.

I've thought of leaving and even though scripturally, I wouldn't be able to re-marry, I would feel less frustrated. Unfortunately, my child is my number one priority and since it would wreck their life if I left, I just couldn't do it. Unfortunately, I'm feeling lately that more and more, this last golden thread that the child represents in holding this marriage together is wearing thin and won't last much longer.

Keep in mind that this is just my side of the story and that there are 17 years of history in this marriage so I'm sure there are other contributing factors but I believe this is a fair representation of the problem in a nutshell. Any thoughts are welcome and more importantly, your prayers are appreciated.

Based on your representation above, I see you have two choices. Stay in this marriage and try to get help, which you've already tried and it has failed.
Two...leave. Now as a Christian I have to say I think the first option is the proper one. As a human being and former husband, if she doesn't want to participate in the marriage whole heartily, then why bother?
Perhaps this ultimatum will wake her up? Perhaps not.
I will pray for you on this issue.
God Bless
Stan

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Prov 5:19 must be read in context with what you acknowledged by my previous statement as correct, not separately. However, if she is purposefully not allowing inspite of she not sick or tired, then it is a big crack in marriage which will not last longer as the husband has despised his authority over his wife and the wife ignored him as not being her head anymore.

Telling a husband he is despising his authority over his wife by not demanding and seizing sex with her against her desire to not do that is godless, spiritless counsel.

I suggest to you the marriage will not last long if he does do that (as opposed to you saying it won't last long if he doesn't do that). I'm pretty sure she'll despise you if you try to pull a stunt like that. Am I right, ladies?

There are legitimate, godly ways for a man to assert his authority over his wife. Demanding sex, and seizing it against her will is NOT one of them. Enough of this nonsense!

 

[Thirstyone]

Telling a husband he is despising his authority over his wife by not demanding and seizing sex with her against her desire to not do that is godless, spiritless counsel.

I suggest to you the marriage will not last long if he does do that (as opposed to you saying it won't last long if he doesn't do that). I'm pretty sure she'll despise you if you try to pull a stunt like that. Am I right, ladies?

There are legitimate, godly ways for a man to assert his authority over his wife. Demanding sex, and seizing it against her will is NOT one of them. Enough of this nonsense!

Yes, besides despising him and losing any respect you may have for him, in America, a woman can accuse her husband of rape by forcing her to have sex. I guess there are those women who stay with men that abuse them, but that's another topic.

 

[handy]

Felix, I don't want to misunderstand you... are you seriously using the Proverbs to justify a man raping his wife? It sounds that way, but I would like you to clarify...

As for sex, the man is just as much under submission to his wife as she is to him. This is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 7:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 1 Corinthians 7:4

If either the husband or the wife is refusing their spouse sex.. there are deep problems in the marriage (problems that will only be exacerbated by rape)... unless those problems are addressed and resolved, there is no hope for the marriage.

 

[felix]

Felix, I don't want to misunderstand you... are you seriously using the Proverbs to justify a man raping his wife? It sounds that way, but I would like you to clarify...

As for sex, the man is just as much under submission to his wife as she is to him. This is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 7:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 1 Corinthians 7:4

If either the husband or the wife is refusing their spouse sex.. there are deep problems in the marriage (problems that will only be exacerbated by rape)... unless those problems are addressed and resolved, there is no hope for the marriage.

I agree. However, the right word may not be "submission" but "ownership" as they are no longer two but one.

 

[handy]

And since a husband's body is not his own, but his wife's... if she doesn't consent to a second wife for her husband to give his body too, then he cannot get one. Otherwise, he would not be honoring her authority over his body.

 

[felix]

And since a husband's body is not his own, but his wife's... if she doesn't consent to a second wife for her husband to give his body too, then he cannot get one. Otherwise, he would not be honoring her authority over his body.

handy, I am responding from a point of view where the wife does not honor the needs of the body of her husband, making him starve, as the OP goes. I am not responding from a view point of a married couple having happy sex life.

As in 1Cor 7:5, if they deprive one another for a long period of time, it may result in many temptations which lead to sin and Paul does not advice a sexless marriage at all. This is why, instead of falling into sin, it is better marry another.

While I honor what Paul said, it is still Paul's suggestion not any commandment as we see in the next verse 1Cor 7:6.

 

[Boidae21]

handy, I am responding from a point of view where the wife does not honor the needs of the body of her husband, making him starve, as the OP goes. I am not responding from a view point of a married couple having happy sex life.

As in 1Cor 7:5, if they deprive one another for a long period of time, it may result in many temptations which lead to sin and Paul does not advice a sexless marriage at all. This is why, instead of falling into sin, it is better marry another.

While I honor what Paul said, it is still Paul's suggestion not any commandment as we see in the next verse 1Cor 7:6.

What you're advocating is the exact temptation that Paul is speaking of, whether the woman is married or not.

 

[handy]

Paul's suggestion that is not a commandment is that it's better to not marry at all... verse 5 certainly is God's principle, that a wife has authority over her husband's body and he, her's... Nowhere in this passage is it even hinted that a husband can take on more than one wife, nor a wife take on more than one husband if the husband is depriving her... which also happens.

You said of Proverbs 5:19 "[As a] loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love.

The verse in Prov 5:19 does not say "Let her breasts satisfy you if you got permission"."

By the same token, 1 Corinthians 7:5 does not say "A wife has authority over her husband's body, unless she is depriving him sexually then he can usurp her authority and go out and get another wife if he wants, even if she doesn't want him too."

And I know, I know for a solid fact you would never in a million years say it was OK for a wife to go out and get another husband if her husband refuses to have sex with her.

Boidae is correct... you are coming to the exact opposite of what Paul is teaching.

 

[Stan53]

How long I had to go around correcting people who use a deceiving translation?

(1Cor 7:1) Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

Not to touch is not the same as: not to have sexual relations as NIV says.

The NKJV is wrongly translated using the word 'touch' Felix. First of all, it makes NO sense in light of verse 2 and even it it was a proper connotation, v2 would give it the proper meaning. BTW, verses 1-7 deal with married couples ONLY.

1 Corinthians 7

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)

7 Now concerning the matters you wrote about. Yes, “It is good for a man not to have sexual contact with a woman.†<sup class="versenum">2 </sup>But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>The husband should fulfill his marital responsibility to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a set time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer; then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>This I say by way of concession, not of command. <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>I wish that all men were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

​