lack of sex

[Loandbehold]

Ok. I love dh. Don't think he'smy soul mate or anything bit we are ok. The thingis he has no interest in sex. We have discussed it and he admits a low sex drive. I just have to live with it. Is this ok or worst marriage ever?? I

[TheBeautifulVisit]

From my own experience living without sex is very damaging to self esteem. There's something very winning about feeling adored, even when you're past your prime. And when life is a bit crap. One of my friends is very seriously depressed about the lack of sex in her marriage but I don't think she makes the connection.

I've never had a sexless marriage but I imagine it feels confusing.

[aroomofherown]

Can you live with it? How does his low sex drive affect you?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

It's only OK if you're OK with it. If you need physical intimacy - and most people do - then your DH and you are fundamentally incompatible. Love is fine as far as it goes but, without a physical aspect, you're just flat-mates.

Who is saying 'I just have to live with it'? You or him?

[jadeddazedandconfused]

I tried to live in a sexless marriage, to be honest I felt like the living dead. I thought I could manage it 'for the sake of the children' but I couldn't do it. Seeing the years stretch before me exactly the same made me so sad.
I have ended the marriage. It turned out there were huge issues for my husband and nothing I could have done would have saved our sinking ship.
I wish you all the best and hope that you can choose the right way for you xx

[TheBeautifulVisit]

There should be a new grounds for divorce, unreasonable sexual behaviour. Which would cover all ill-matched sexual needs and wants.

OP Did he ever have any sex drive? Were you always mismatched?

[olathelawyer05]

We don't need a new 'fact' for divorce. Lack of intimacy is subjective and so would already fit into the standard 'Unreasonable Behaviour'. What we actually need is to abolish the need to establish any of the 5 facts for divorce. It's archaic and utterly pointless. The only fact should be that you don't want to be married anymore.

[TheBeautifulVisit]

olaththelawyer - Yes, I agree. When I married my ex husband, the state didn't ask me the reasons why I wished to marry him. But they did ask me to confirm the reasons why i was divorcing him. Ugh. Archaic it is.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Actually, when making marriage vows, it does constitute a binding contract of various expectations and agreed behaviours being undertaken by both parties. So it sort of stands to reason legally that, when you want to dissolve that contract, you have to point to which clause has been breached....

[HappyGoLuckyGirl]

Cogito - same issue/advice twice today...there must be something in the water.

OP, I posted something very similar this morning. And no, I don't think it can be fixed or mended. I know this because I know I can't suppress my libido long term so I don't see how someone with a low libido can up theres.

I've realised it will lead to unhappiness and resentment in the end.

I know how hard this is.

[HappyGoLuckyGirl]

Ugh...*theirs.

[olathelawyer05]

No Cogito, there are in fact clear no 'clauses' at all that apply today. Name one?....that the bride will cook for the husband? That each party will 'put out' at least twice a week? It's a nonsense really.

This is only further summed up by the fact that you can now end the marriage 'contract' on a purely subjective basis using unreasonable behaviour. The notion of having to prove some 'fault' on the part of the other person is a completely pointless legal exercise, and I am saying this as a lawyer - I am a turkey voting for Christmas. It is basically law for the sake of law. It achieves nothing.

[TheBeautifulVisit]

www.rbkc.gov.uk/communityandlocallife/marriages/yourmarriagevows.aspx

Above is the Kensington & Chelsea wording of a civil marriage (registry office).

[TheBeautifulVisit]

www.rbkc.gov.uk/communityandlocallife/marriages/yourmarriagevows.aspx

proper link

[DevonCiderPunk]

It's corrosive, IME.

[gettingabitworriednow]

There are (sadly) thousands of threads almost exactly the same as this on mn. IMHO it doesn't work - leads to loss of self-esteem in both sides; possible affair or emotional affair and a lack of intimacy generally. If possible, try anything and everything to overcome it, otherwise you will probably end up depressed or separating, or both.
Sorry for you :(

[Lazyjaney]

"No Cogito, there are in fact clear no 'clauses' at all that apply today. Name one?....that the bride will cook for the husband?"

Cogito was referring to the terms of the marriage vows acting as a contract. They are fairly clear IMO.

[jchocchip]

The original wedding vows, as printed in The Book of Common Prayer, are:
Groom: I,, take thee,, to my wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.
Bride: I,, take thee,_, to my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.
Then, as the groom places the ring on the bride's finger, he says the following:
With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Somehow the religious ceremony has more of a point to it. Doesn't seem much to the civil ceremony if you are not promising anything...
Maybe I should try to hold my dh to the "with my body I thee worship" bit.

[olathelawyer05]

Lazyjaney

She also said that "...when you want to dissolve that contract, you have to point to which CLAUSE has been breached....".

I am not disagreeing that it is a contract - of course it is. I am pointing out that there are no clear clauses at all in it (save for adultery which is of course its own specific fact). It is a very poor type of contract because you don't know really know the nature of the clause you have breached, until your other half serves you with a petition saying that something you did makes him/her 'feel' a certain way - completely subjective.

The law insisting that you prove a breach of the marriage contract is actually pointless, when all you have to do is prove it SUBJECTIVELY (i.e. you only have to show that YOU believe that your spouse's behaviour is unreasonable - and of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't be filing for divorce!!).

Nobody in their right mind wants to keep people married if one of them no longer wants to be married, and so surely it makes sense to just allow people to tick a box that says, "I don't want to be married anymore".

My point is, why the facade of having to 'prove' anything?

[SolidGoldBrass]

How would you feel about staying married but having other sexual partners? How would he feel about it? I have always maintained that someone with low libido shouldn't object to a partner having other sexual partners - if you don't want to play with it, you shouldn't begrudge others making use of something, after all.

[Lazyjaney]

"How would he feel about it? I have always maintained that someone with low libido shouldn't object to a partner having other sexual partners"

It's fascinated me on MN Relationships how many people seem to think that even if one partner unilaterally breaks the "to have and to hold" clause, the other partner still has to abide by the whole contract (especially the "forsaking all others" bit).

(Mind you it's also fascinated me that the people on the "aint it awful he wants more sex" and the "ain't it awful he doesn't want more sex" topics never seem to be on each others threads. Does MN Relationships spontaneously implode if they do ? )

[Darkesteyes]

YY Solid and Janey

[NotNewButNameChanged]

I was in a sexless relationship for some years. Totally destroyed my self-esteem (I'm a bloke, btw). My ex just had a very low libido and almost no interest in sex and no matter what I did or counselling suggested, she basically said "this is me, take me or leave me". Foolishly, because I loved her, I stayed, mostly for fear of being lonely.

I have been single four years since I left her. I am incredibly lonely.

But right thing to do to leave - fundamental incompatibility and I felt that, at 36, I was entitled to a bit more sex before I fell off the perch.

Still waiting, but slightly more chance of it happening now than had I stayed.

PLEASE - get out.

[Millyblods]

Has he always had a low libido or is this a relatively new development.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

"I married my ex husband, the state didn't ask me the reasons why I wished to marry him. But they did ask me to confirm the reasons why i was divorcing him"

The point I was making was that the state may not ask the specific reasons why someone is getting married but the ceremony involves making a lot of verbal promises. Maybe 'clause' is too precise for such woolly verbal definitions as 'all my worldly goods' but, if you start the process on the basis of promises, it's not unreasonable to say you want to end it because the promises weren't delivered.

[TheBeautifulVisit]

Cogito - there is no promise to share worldly goods as part of a civil marriage. The only promise was that there was no lawful impediment to the union. And to confirm our identities. We should be able to undo the marriage by stating here's no lawful impediment to our divorce and confirm our identities. It made the whole thing doubly stressful. And having your unreasonable behaviour stated in writing via people outside of the marriage does tend to inflame things. We were on reasonably good terms when we first separated. That all changed when he engaged a lawyer. And in spite of all the legal flip flopping and humongous fees, we ended up duviding our assets in precisely the way we had agreed ourselves when we first separated. Ugh.