Just Thinking

Posted a response on a forum a couple of minutes ago.

It is just some musings about something that has occurred to me.

It goes like this.

We, the ILIASM people tend to support each other in a commonly held belief.

That we - who want sex - are RIGHT
That our spouses - who don't want sex - are WRONG

These polarised positions don't leave much room for negotiation.

I will float an idea out there for you to torpedo. But please have a think about it before you let loose.

We may hold a position that sex is an integral part of marriage. We may back the assertion up with all sorts of reasons as to why our position is RIGHT, and our spouses are WRONG.

Our spouses could hold a position that sex is not an integral part of marriage. They could back this up with all sorts of cognisent reasons as to why their position is RIGHT, and we are WRONG.

Setting aside the powers of arguement, fact quoting, social expectation, scripture references, the "oh my marriage is different" scenarios - and just getting down to the bare essentials of the situation - ie the two very different viewpoints of the "refused" and the "refusers", this is the question.

Why are they not entitled to their viewpoint on the matter as we are ?

I guess I am saying that this very fundamental question has two sides to it. And both sides are entitled to their own position on it without being ridiculed for it.

This of course does not 'solve' anything. It merely advances a view that all are entitled to their viewpoint.

Now, in the case of a refused person, they have to decide if they are going to tolerate being refused. Conversely, a person subjected to repeated sexual activity they dont want has to decide if they are going to tolerate it.

That's about it. Something to consider.

Fire at will !!!!!

Tread your own path.
bazzar bazzar
56-60, M
20 Responses Aug 7, 2010

Agree with gs. It does take two to tango and screw! Pardon the pun. However folks here seem pretty mature in the way their frustrations are expressed and based on my specific circumstance, I can say this, I am not entirely blameless, but in a bad relationship, who is? <br />
It is clear that having no sex in a marriage is a symptom (unless there are physical issues) of something deeper. I think most of us are here after perhaps many attempts to remedy the situation without luck and we talk about but one symptom...

The thing about "freedom of speech", and "freedom to have your opinion", and "freedom to refuse"... is that it means everyone is free to express their opinion. Everyone... everyone... right...<br />
<br />
That means the refused are too... I don't mind if refusers come and tell us why they don't have sex with their spouse. But... I reserve my right and my freedom to say how I feel about that, should I even bother to read it in the first place.<br />
<br />
There are a great many people here who have been deeply and thoroughly abused... for years. They are not, or were not, involved with sweet lovable teddy bears that just didn't want to play grown up games in the bedroom, or have an aversion to physical touch.<br />
<br />
Why refusers refuse, though interesting enough... in the end doesn't matter. <br />
<br />
It can rarely be fixed... so very rarely... Yes, all medical issues should be addressed... absolutely... and all avenues of possibility travelled down... the thing is, by the time the refused end up here... that's mostly already been done.<br />
<br />
Since it is extremely unlikely to be fixed... listening to more endless excuses dressed up as reasons serves no benefit other than to encourage people to waste more time before making a decision. The most lasting cure is leaving.<br />
<br />
Some have more staying power, because of children, or religious beliefs, or the fact that leaving would require a serious drop in funds because the refuser is the one with the big earning power. For the rest, it's inertia, and the less time they waste wondering why... the sooner they can get on with the rest of their lives.<br />
<br />
I didn't come here to play nice in the sandbox with someone else's refuser... The person who created this group was being refused in his sexless marriage. That set the direction of this group. <br />
<br />
Perhaps a new group should be started... say... I am the refuser in my sexless marriage... there is an asexual group, which makes interesting reading, and wasn't being flamed last time I looked... Personally, if there were a refuser group I would never set foot in it... and I think there are many others who feel the same.<br />
<br />
I came her to gain support... and now I'm here to continue to gain support, but also to give support...<br />
<br />
As for truth... the truth will set us free, very cliche, but very real...<br />
<br />
...and as this thread appears to say... we are all entitled to our opinion...

Going back a few pages ... Do they know what they're doing? Is it a deliberate bait-and-switch?<br />
<br />
In our final edition of "the talk", my ex said, direct quote: "You were always more interested in sex than I was." But he made stupid excuses for 12 years before saying that.

TB, I recognise and agree with your premise about "truth", but I do think you sometimes ruthlessly pursue those whom you perceive to be not telling the truth. If ILIASM is to serve a useful purpose, we need to allow posters to make their own journeys to the truth. Insisting they arrive here already aware of this is not reasonable IMO. All of us travel different routes and many of us arrive (eventually) at the destination you call Truth. . . . But it is not a process that can be rushed, nor should it be. <br />
<br />
I see you as a Truth Crusader - and that can be invaluable. But you do not convert too many people to your cause by chopping the heads off the infidels you run into . . !! LOL Perhaps you could sometimes consider the more concilliatory approach?<br />
<br />
This is not to suggest you resile from your position of truth telling - simply to suggest that you may achieve more success if you do not always adopt the "Take No Prisoners" approach. . . . .

You make a good point about the bodies moving at different speeds. All sorts of facets of life are like that, but in the closest relationship of our lives they are revealed starkly.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that the "refused" who post here recognised a changed circumstance, and eventually start of on a journey of discovery. Often, they invite the "refuser" to join them on the jouney. Even at this stage the bodies are moving ar different speeds and frustration appears. And possibly, "refused" starts looking even harder. "Refuser" becomes even more relcalcitrant. The speed differential increases exponentially.<br />
<br />
Interesting, in my case, the "refuser" has started her own journey now. I would say she is 5 years behind where I am. But, I still care about her, always will, and would love to see her happy and content. But "her and I" are over. And a new relationship of common interest (2 kids) has emerged between her and I. The sadness is, 'what could have been', until you realise the truth - that it couldn't have been. The bodies were, and are still, travelling at different speeds.<br />
<br />
Tread your own path.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that most of our conflicts or frustrations with our mates are more or less related to the pace at which each of us travel. <br />
<br />
Friction or Separation is inevitable when two bodies move at different speeds.<br />
Frustration comes from knowing that the two bodies could have moved beautifully together

Interesting discussion. However I disagree with the premise that wanting sex is RIGHT and not wanting it is WRONG, in our out of marriage.<br />
<br />
I think, the frustration of folks in this group stems from the fact that sex is supposed to be a normal human, biological need and you marry, presumably, to have sex. In fact studies after studies show that married folks seem to have more sex (I guess our exception proves this rule!)<br />
<br />
The frustration is why would a person choose to not enjoy something more often, when they seemingly enjoy it whenever they do! In a marriage that is frustrating because that is a social and legal sanction to have sex (at least in many cultures). The simple question to ask is what is the purpose of marriage? If having sex is not part of it, what is the point?

OK. It looks like all the comments are done.<br />
Thank you all for your input.<br />
<br />
I posed the question to see if the 'refuser' was regarded the same as the 'refused' in their right to conduct their sex life as they wish.<br />
<br />
I am heartened by the fact the there seems to be general agreement that they are,<br />
Sure there are plenty of "yes, buts . . . ." and launching off into the lack of integrity if the 'refuser' has done the old bait and switch, or been disengenuos about themselves. That's commenting on their behaviour which IMHO is a different matter.<br />
<br />
Clearly some of the 'refused' posters in ILIASM have been subject to deplorable behaviour by their spouses. It would seem that some 'refuser' spouses, if they were sex orientated (but carried their same attitude seen as refusers) may well be perpetrators of sexual abuse to their partners.<br />
<br />
Shithouse behaviour is just that. Shithouse behaviour. Were it not connected with sex it would manifest in another area.<br />
<br />
Anyway. Cut to the chase. It seems unwise to ascribe the behaviour of a 'refusing' spouse in a given sexless marriage as being common to all sexless marriages.<br />
Clearly from various stories we see the person, described by the spouse as "a great spouse in all things bar sex". They are not ALL like that.<br />
Other stories paint the spouse as a "controlling dishonest conniving person" They are not ALL like that either.<br />
<br />
Now, as individuals, or as a forum, we can -<br />
- stand around in a great circle jerk and tell each other how badly done by we were / are<br />
- go totally touchy feely and engage in esoteric circular discussion until we disappear up our own arses.<br />
<br />
Or something in between, with a view to trying to learn something.<br />
<br />
Personally, I welcome 'refusers' (or whatever name is appropriate for persons unwilling to engage in sex with their spouses) to post their stories. I'd like to learn something.<br />
<br />
And, I'd like to think that they would not be ridiculed for their view - and that they would accept comment on their behaviour.<br />
<br />
As ever, tread your own path.

Yes, they know it. Amen to that. <br />
<br />
What follows is anybody's guess but I would suspect it is akin to an alcoholic being in denial, trying to tell the world that they only had one drink and somebody must have either spiked it with some nasty pharmaceutical or poured an extra shot our two to make it stronger blah blah blah personal responsibility for their own mental weakness is brushed under the rug.

The assumption that your spouse is deliberately lying underlies many of these comments. If you genuinely believe that to be the case, then you have every right to be angry and to be unforgiving.<br />
But I submit that the "no sex" people often have no real concept of what it is to be a "sex" person. . . If you don't have those feelings, have no understanding of those desires, then you are NOT lying - you are just "not into it". And you don't realise that your spouse is different - until it is too late.<br />
<br />
I think those who believe all refusers are lying fall into the trap of thinking everyone has similar feelings / responses / desires as themselves - and therefore that refusing is a deliberate act. But truly, sexuality falls on a continuum as do all behaviours. If a person has low desire / no desire, they do not understand the high end desire of others - any more than we understand them. Does this make us right and them wrong? No - it just makes us different.<br />
<br />
We BOTH got into this marriage - each with our own set of expectations. When neither of us had our expectations met, it seems it is always the low sex person that triumphs. So that leaves us (the sex people) with a decision to make . . . and each of us has or will do this - according to our own lights.

It is their right to feel how they feel, but when they enter a relationship where sex is expected without saying they don't want it or even lying and saying they do want it, I don't think they are in the right anymore. If I had told my husband I had no interest in sex or physical intimacy beyond a peck on the lips and then demanded sex as soon as we were married, I would be wrong. It's the deception that is the major problem.

I think they're dead inside - not sure I want to live with someone who's dead. Sure, he has the right to be dead if he wants, but not to kill me too x

Football - your story could be mine, verbatim. I've come to accept that she is what she is, and in my case I was naive and blind the signs that, in retrospect, I see were painfully evident at the beginning. Shame on me.<br />
<br />
I think a big distinction for the folks in this group is that we recognize an issue and want to fix it. For the most part, our spouses are happy as things are, don't want to acknowledge any issues, and are unwilling to make an effort toward improvement or negotiate a compromise - their way is the only way. For that, they earn our distain.

My thought is this. Both views are right. As those being refused, we are within our rights to expect sex and intimacy to be a part of our relationship with our spouses. Especially if the relationship started out that way, and then the flames died away for our spouses, for whatever reason. It seems that many of us feel that we were given the ol bait and switch routine by our spouses. Once they got what they wanted, and felt secure in the relationship, then the sex and intimacy stopped.<br />
<br />
Our refusers may feel that they are entitled to their view that they never want sex again, find it repulsive, or just never think about it. They are entitiled to their views as well. We are all hard wired differently.<br />
<br />
But if they went into these relationships, masking their true feelings and beliefs in order have a mate, then that is just wrong. Yes, they are entitled and right in their beliefs for what is done to/with their own bodies, of course they are. But if they expect us to stay with them, or live as they have decided to live THEIR lives, then this is wrong. If they have health issues that they need to address, then they need to address them. If they started out loving and enjoying sex, and now they think it is vile, what happened? They need to see a mental health professional. They need to be honest with themselves and with us. <br />
<br />
Is their view right? Of course it is,....for them. They have no more right to demand that we remain sexless, then we would have to demand sex from them. Duty sex just isn't pretty, lol. <br />
<br />
As the refused person in my marriage, I just wish that my husband would be honest with himself and with me. And I do realize that he sees my pain, and only reacts when he sees me changing and living my own life, because he is afraid I will leave. To me that says that he is only concerned with his own happiness and comfort, never mine.

If a spouse is mean, I can understand and I would even encourage refusal. However, that is rarely if ever what we hear from refusers in this group. What we hear are *****-footing bullshit lies and avoidance of the truth: refusers are selfish people and they really have no empathy for the people they vowed to love. <br />
<br />
By the way, my wife has been mean to me throughout our marriage and my instinctual response is still to have sex with her. Naively, I always thought that sex would bring us together. <br />
<br />
Bazz, <br />
You have your answer. The bottom line: " No one is "entitled" to betray or hurt their partner. " Thanks, TahoeBaby.

Talking of the Refuser's point of view, I have a friend who is a refuser and talking to her, I realise that she feels the same hurt that I do but, for entirely different reasons. Her explanation for withholding is that she feels he does not respect her and she feels unloved so, she is withholding. Trying to explain OUR feelings to her was like talking to a brick wall. <br />
In her mind, her feelings are validated, as is her action.<br />
Needless to say, this friendship is not going to last long!!!!

Since I've realised that my H is an asexual, I've been forced to accept the idea that he is right - on his plane of existence, and I'm right - on my plane of existence! It's just that we are on parallel planes. Hard as it may be for me accept, the situation just IS. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' here... just a very sad mismatch.

There used to be a much quoted response to talk of "freedom"...<br />
<br />
"Your freedom ends where my nose begins."<br />
<br />
Which means you are not free to punch someone in the nose... but it also means that you are not free to impose your views on someone else without them having an opportunity to know what those views were before having made life changing decisions that would have obviously been affected by those views.<br />
<br />
The bottom line of course is honesty. Leaving out as stated above "Aside from the refuser who is actually traumatized by sex or physically unable...", the basic truth of their sexuality, or lack thereof, has been kept from their partner, who was usually quite open about their enjoyment of, and need for, sex.<br />
<br />
Lying to someone to get them to love you, or worse yet, marry you, is wrong.<br />
<br />
To exert control over someone else by emotional means... in this case, by denying them intimacy or sex, is wrong.<br />
<br />
If after the first few dates, when the topic of sex came up, the "no sex" people, and the "sex is a weapon" people, stated their opinion on sex and marriage, they would of course be completely entitled to that opinion whatever it might be.<br />
<br />
After the bait and switch, it's not any longer about "freedom to have an opinion"... it's about an essential lack of honesty.

Bazzar what struck me after reading your post was that I could not see even one of the refusers bothering to consider our side. Yet here we are always trying to figure them out, looking for ways to give etc.. Aside from the refuser who is actually traumatized by sex or physically unable they are all completely self centered. Yes you are right both sides are entitled to their position but isn't is all about compromise ? A middle ground where both can be content.

I think you're on to something. Alot of us on this forum are, or have been, guily of co-dependency of our refusar spouses. At the end of the day it really does come down to what choices we can make to better our situations, regardless of our non-participatory spouses.