Do partners who don't want sex have the 'right' to object to their partners having sex elsewhere?

[ImperialBlether]

There are so many threads where the OP has a low sex drive or where the OP's partner has a low sex drive.

Leaving aside those where the OP has had a young baby or where there has been illness or unusual stress, does anyone have the moral right to say "I don't want sex and I don't want you to have it, either"?

I'm not talking about where a partner is flirting with someone else or is using porn and the partner objects.

I'm talking about reasonable situations, eg the kids are aged 10 upwards and the OP or their partner just doesn't want sex.

Firstly, yes, that part of a Christian marriage ceremony does refer to sex. The line is referred to by churches granting annulments on the grounds of non-consumation of marriage. However, I will concede that I am no expect in the wording of non-Christian ceremonies but yes, I would be very surprised if there was not reference to and expectation of the marriage being a sexual one.

Secondly, in your friend's case, that is clearly not what the OP is talking about. If your friend's DH is exhibiting unreasonable behaviour then of course, he is also very much to blame in the marriage. As I said earlier, withdrawal of sex for no reason other than just deciding not to have sex with your partner must be rare and indicitive of other problems.

But again, DH has just confirmed that even in the unlikely event that a husband was wonderful, caring attentive and respectful but just refused to have sex. That is most certainly grounds for divorce as unreasonable behaviour. Though DH did say that whilst it was one of the most common reasons cited, he's never come across a case where the rest of the marriage was perfect and the only problem was refusal to have sex other than in cases relating to one partners sexual preference.

Amelia - if your friends dh is ok with the situation then fine - if he isn't, then I'm not sure how he copes. personally, I consider it a duty to provide your partner with a half decent sex life - you don't have to be emotionally or physically turned on to do a few favours ( sorry for being a little coarse - poetic prose was never my strong point ) -
There's lots of things I don't really want to do - but I do them out of love and duty - and because I care.

Ameliagrey - You are correct that the marriage vows in a civil ceremony don't say you have to have sex but the law says that a marriage can be declared void if it is not consummated. And as carpetlover says, withdrawal of sex is grounds for divorce. Your friend may be able to cross petition on grounds of his unreasonable behaviour but all that would do is increase costs. She cannot use his unreasonable behaviour to prevent a divorce. And she can't "take him to the cleaners" because of his behaviour if that is meant financially. Behaviour is not generally taken into account in determining the financial arrangements unless it is directly relevant (e.g. one partner running up large debts without the other's knowledge) or extreme (e.g. one partner attempting to murder the other).

On the OP's question, if I refuse to have sex with my wife it does not give her the right to go elsewhere, nor does it remove my right to object to her doing so. Having said that, my reaction to someone who refuses to have sex with their partner for years and then gets upset when their partner looks elsewhere is, in effect, "what did you think would happen".

my reaction to someone who refuses to have sex with their partner for years and then gets upset when their partner looks elsewhere is, in effect, "what did you think would happen".

Well, yes. It's amazing how often people forget that sex is one of the lynchpins of marriage. In my totally amateur opinion, it tends to happen when the partners have cast each other in a parental role. That's fairly usual, though not done consciously of course.

Doing the child/parent dependency thing in adult relationships also stops you leaving when it's going wrong - just as you can't choose your parents, people forget they did choose their partner and are free to reverse that choice. Which is a shame, considering how much fighting had to be done to gain that freedom.

Gone off-topic a bit but felt like throwing a random theory in here !

I was pissed off that DH didn't want as much sex as me and really wanted to shag someone else. I was trying to give myself permission to cheat. I was a pillock. I never cheated, DH and I have talked a lot and if we never have it again we will both be disappointed but we will stay together. We have been through tougher times than not being able to shag and stayed together no problem.

Do partners who don't want sex have the right to object to their partners having an affair?

That's your question basically.

Of course they do.

Either the relationship matters, or it matters less than sex. In which case it should be ended, there is never an excuse for cheating.

But Empusa, I don't look at it that way. To me, witholding sex for no good reason is just as bad as cheating. Both are breaking the emotional marriage contract IMO.
I'm not talking about when you've just had a baby, have a young child, have depression or are ill. But if you just decide you are not going to have sex with your partner from here on in then, IMO, that is akin to cheating.

"But if you just decide you are not going to have sex with your partner from here on in then, IMO, that is akin to cheating."

I really do not see it that way. A relationship is about more than just sex.

I did say it was my opinion. Of course a marriage is about more than sex but it's wrong to say sex is only a small part of it or a lesser part than fidelity or respect, again, IMO. They are all equal components in a strong, loving relationship.

TBH, if DH witheld sex from me for no good reason, I would see that as unloving and disrespectful anyway. I certainly would no longer see that we had a marriage in the same way I would see an end to out marriage if one of us cheated.

I used the term "take to the cleaners" loosely.

My friend issued a petition once citing her DH's unreasonable behaviour as the reason. She then withdrew it. He has tried to an extent to change that behaviour, but not so much that she feels warm towards him, or even sexual.

If he used no sex as a reason for divorce, what I meant was that she could also use his UR as her own grounds, although I know they can't both divorce each other at the same time- so some of you have taken the points I made too literally. One of them would issue a petition based on the other's behaviour and they both have grounds.

And yes, I know that subsequent settlements do not depend on the nature of the UB.

Neither of them is happy, but that's not about the sex or lack of it.

She doesn't see it as her duty to "service" him I can assure you.

She sees it as his duty to create a relationship so that she felslike having sex with him.

I suspect that the main reason women withhold sex is because there are other issues and it's the easiest way they can withdraw- and it's also how they feel about their partner.

If he's being an arse then no wonder she doesn't want sex with him -
I was talking more about women who just can't be bothered because they'd rather be watching the telly/mumsnetting/whatever - that's just selfish.

Personnaly I don't see 'having sex' as having penetrative sex. From that a reationship where partners are not sexual at all towards each other would ring alarm bells with me.
I would say that when someone doesn't want sex of any sort then the marriage has some major problems. (eg the woman/man who can't be bothered are imho in a relationship that isn't fulfilling and therefore should not carry on anyway)
If however the intimacy is still there and there is some sexual relation (but not 'sex'), I do not see why one partner would 'go and find sex elsewhere'.

100% agree.

And yes, it is very unreasonable for someone to never want sex with their partner. It makes that person feel ugly, unloved, unwanted and, after years of it - makes them think that if they were better, prettier, nicer, sexier... that they'd be wanted. And it can break their heart in two.

What if the person who doesn't want sex doesn't want it because their partner treats them as if they are unloved and unwanted, except when the partner wants sex? Is it still unreasonable then?

See, illness, circumstance, etc aside. I don't think it's fair no, to just decide on behalf of someone else their sex life is over forever, no discussion.

I am a monogamist, I do believe in monogamy too. But I think if you relationship is at the stage no intimacy is happening, just because you can't be bothered or don't "feel" like it, then the marriage is in trouble.

Yes there is more to marriage than sex, blah, blah, blah. But I don't think than anyone person has the right to dictate or enforce a celibate life style on anyone at all. Sex is a big part of a lot of peoples lives, it's nature. Intimacy with your partner is natural.

I think is someone decides, or feels, "that's it no more sex for them". Then the other partner has several choices, accepts it, leaves or comes to an arrangement.

I don't think anyone has the right to say to another human , "I don't want sex, so that's it for you, as I don't want you going anywhere else either".

That's not love, it's control. You can't tell someone they have to remain in a celibate relationship, change the goal posts and just expect them to do it. They have the right to object about them going elsewhere, if that's what they chose. But then the partner who is being told they can't have sex, also has the right to object and walk away from enforced celibacy.

Carmina If he's being an arse then no wonder she doesn't want sex with him -
I was talking more about women who just can't be bothered because they'd rather be watching the telly/mumsnetting/whatever - that's just selfish.

I think that's a really weird thing to say, actually!

It implies that you think a woman (or man??) should "offer" sex out of some kind of duty/obligation.

If it's not spontaneous and both people want it, then it's not worth bothering IMO.

There is though a lot of sensse in sometimes having a kiss and cuddle and seeing where it leads.

Also, some sex therapists do suggest that some women need forelpay etc to feel sexy, rather than the other way round.

A bit chicken and egg.

I don't know if it's odd or not - I'm just telling you how I see it. If my dh kept refusing me sex because he was 'too tired' - but then sat up half the night on the Internet ( for example ) I'd feel extremely unloved and rejected - and that would lead to major problems - I don't expect my dh to spend all his spare time on me, but I'd want my needs put before the cats, ( figure of speech )
You have to work at a marriage - and if he kept neglecting me he'd only have himself to blame if I started getting attention elsewhere.

I should have said DH wasn't with holding sex for any reason, he just didn't want it.

I think it's unreasonable to insist that your partner remains celibate - and there are some people who do try to insist on this: they refuse sex, they refuse to give permission for their partner to seek sex elsewhere and they try to prevent the partner ending the relationship as well. These are usually very sexually dysfunctional, selfish individuals, who want the 'status' of being married more than they want to engage in a relationship with their partners. Though what I don't understand is that if someone is basically asexual, why they would mind a partner having sex with other people. Sex is not essential, of course, but it's important to most people, and trying to enforce celibacy on a partner is as selfish and unkind as trying to insist that. for instance, s/he gives up listening to or playing music just because you are tone-deaf.

It isn't the same as making someone give up listening to music at all!

If you are married and there is a medical reason for less or no sex then you need to talk, not go out and shag someone else.

Sex can't be compared to anything else at all.

JMO.

I agree if there is a medical issue, to then kick that partner when they are already down by cheating is unacceptable

But how about say, there is no medical issue and the DH decides his porn collection is enough for him, its far more exciting and less work so not to bother with you anymore? (Not sure if this happens but could imagine this could).

How many people would accept this?

I can't say I would like a life of enforced celibacy (assuming no medical problems blah, blah, blah). TBH I would just end the marriage rather than embark on a series of affairs.

It depends how your relationship was initially and how your feelings would change towards someone who was essentially a companion and not a lover. If both agree to no sex fine but not sure any relationship where it had been important would last if one or other still wanted sex

OK.
Firstly, I believe absolutely in monogamy. I cannot think of a circumstance in which an affair would be the right thing to do.

I also have experience of a 'drought' within my own marriage. It lasted ten years. It was not a case of one of us 'withholding' sex - there were health issues for both of us, for a number of years and then once they were resolved, we had 'got out of the habit'. There were never any other issues, we loved (and love) each other deeply and the thought of an affair never crossed our minds during that time. There was a point where we both decided that we wanted to get back on track, and we worked together to do just that. I am telling you this so that it is clear that I have an understanding of what it is like to live without sex - there were times I wanted it and DH couldn't and vice versa.

I do believe that if one person makes a unilateral decision that they no longer want sex, either at all, or just with their partner, that the partner should not be forced into a sexless life. In those circumstances I believe that either the relationship/marriage should end or that the sexual partner should be able to seek sex elsewhere. I would say though, that I think this should be done openly and all parties have an entitlement to negotiate ' no go areas', such as no mutual friends/no meetings in local area/ whatever.