Coping strategies needed (probably tmi)

[Toastandstrawberryjam]

This isn't an easy subject to ask about and possibly some people will find it distasteful and for that I apologise.

I need coping strategies to help me get through having sex with my H. For reasons I can't go into leaving is not an option for a few years. It just isn't. I wholly wish it was.

But because we are not intimate with each other (my choice) tension is very high in the house. Intolerably so. The only answer to this (and I know because I know it's all that works) is for me to recommence relationships with a man who quite frankly makes my skin crawl. He is EA and has no respect for me, not exactly a turn on.

The last time I finally gave in after a month of demands, I felt ill and dirty for days afterwards. Is there anyway (other than getting very drunk) I can cope better with this? Meditation gets me through the act, so to speak but the thoughts afterwards are the problem.

I'm wondering if it's better done in the morning, hold it together and get the kids to school after then a very hot bath and try to blot it out. Sleeping afterwards never works.

I know it shouldn't be like this. I just need help getting the next few years out of the way. Any ideas?

[CailinDana]

Age why you are so keen to defend a man who has sex with a woman whom he knows doesn't want or enjoy it is beyond me.

[Portofino]

Op is not doing this happily, of her own free will. She would prefer not to.

[roz1982]

If you've read it surely you can see the link/similarities between the description you have posted and some of the op's experiences. I find it obvious.

[MrsMinkBernardLundy]

age a turn of phrase best not used in that case although I strongly suspect you know that

[Portofino]

Personally, I reported this thread, not because I disbelieve the op, but because some of the responses are really harmful, propagate rape myths, and the very idea that mnetters would suggest "Laying back and thinking of England" which many have posted in more contemporary form is totally wrong.

[NamelessMcNally]

OP feels that to protect her children she must have sex with a man. That sounds very much like coerced consent and therefore rape to me. I really hope that by using that language, in common with many others, I am not upsetting OP.

And to say that OP should not contact WA when she recognises her H is EA? Experts in supporting woman who are victims if abuse.

[WholeNutt]

OP if this were your child as an adult in this sort of relationship what advice would you give?

Children are sponges and what they pick up from you both will shape their view on the world. Staying for your children does them more harm than good. They aren't blind or deaf and you owe it to them and to yourself to leave your relationship. I really hope you find the strength you need.

[peachmint]

This isn't sex. It is rape. Please please call Women's Aid.

[Havea0]

op. I hope you have not felt pressured by CailinDana and anyone else who pmed you.

[CailinDana]

I don't know why you think I pmed the op havea0 but I didn't. I would never pm anyone unless they asked me to.

[Havea0]

Good

I do have another question.

I dont see how this can be coercion. Are there court cases where coercion has been used in a case like this, where the woman has not tried saying no to the man?
Else, it is cruel even suggesting it as if anyone went to the police, they would get laughed at.

[CailinDana]

Firstly the police don't laugh at anyone who reports a crime, they take it seriously and investigate. Psychological abuse (in this case being nasty to the children if the op doesn't have sex) is recognised form of domestic violence. If it could be proven that the op's husband was psychologically harming her children in order to obtain sex that would definitely be considered rape. However as in a huge number of rape cases proving it would be the problem. The fact that the police would more than likely not be able to charge him with rape unless he admitted it doesn't mean it's not rape. Does that make sense to you?

Btw the ip has already stated what happens when she says no - there is tension in the house and he is nasty to the children. She has sex in order to avoid her children being treated that way. If you don't count that as rape then I have serious worries about your ideas on relationships.

[CailinDana]

To add the op has said more than once that her husband knows she doesn't want sex and doesn't enjoy it. What normal man would go ahead and do it anyway?

[KatyTheCleaningLady]

Nobody is going to laugh!

I think she has said no. Perhaps not very firmly, but he knows that she doesn't want to do it.

I do think that she needs to say no unequivocally, and then stick to her guns.

I am not sure if pouting and being a dick until she decides to have sex fits the legal definition of rape, and I can't believe that there would be a conviction in court, but that's not the point.

The op needs to know that she doesn't have to have sex. We can all choose to have sex for any reason we like, including for purely transactional purposes. I mean, someone can do it for money or whatever. But you have to be making a free choice. Otherwise, it's wrong.

[Havea0]

"If it could be proven that the op's husband was psychologically harming her children in order to obtain sex that would definitely be considered rape"


I would be interested to read any court cases where someone has brought a case like this to court.

[JulieMumsnet]

Morning.

Thank you for the reports about this thread. We do have a mumsnet campaign, called we believe you as there are a lot of myths surrounding rape so it would be great if you could take a few minutes to have a look.

We hope you're OK, Toast.

MNHQ.

[CailinDana]

Like I say it would be difficult to prove. If someone stole your purse and the police ciuldn't bring a case would you feel you hadn't been robbed?

[MrsMinkBernardLundy]

Havea0 I have a question
where are you trying to go with this?

Are you trying to say that it is within his marital right to have sex and she as his wife should put up with it?

It isn't. she shouldn't have to.
And whether or not it would secure a legal conviction for rape is beside the point. convictions are as I am sure you know, rare in any/all cases of rape. It does not mean that the 95% or so of cases that do not secure a conviction were not rape.

the experience is damaging the OP. hence her original question.

So Havea0 exactly what is the point you are trying to make? I don't understand.

[MatildaWhispers]

The OP would certainly not be laughed at. If she spoke to a police dv unit in detail she would probably find theygently suggest this could be named as rape, even if she does not quite see it as that, and even if the OP and the police both know it would be impossible to prove.

[MatildaWhispers]

Not that I am implying she should go to the police btw, I am just pointing out I do not think the police would laugh at this or think it is all ok and 'not that bad really'.

[Havea0]

Where I am trying to go is this

Mumsnet isnt the law
Posters can right anything on here.
Most posters dont know a great deal about the law.
The law has to decide whether something is rape or not
So posters shouldnt be pushing someone towards the law system if they do not themselves have evidence[that is court cases] to prove that there may even be a case to answer.

[OxfordBags]

Havea0, I know a lot about rape law. One of my BILs is a solicitor. The sex that the OP describes is legally classified as rape. Inability to give true consent, or consent given under duress or because of coercion, and a man having sex with a women he knows doesnot want to do it: all of these count as rape.

That you don't accept this or can't understand and are also trying to persuade the OP that she should not go to WA or the police and that she'll be laughed t, etc., are very troubling. What is wrong with you that you want to discourage someone clearly being abused in a variety of ways from seeking help?! Why do you need to minimise and deny the truth about sexual abuse and rape? Whatever your own messed-up issues, start your own thread, don't make things harder for the OP.

And going to the police is not just about seeking a conviction. Many women who leave abusive partners are helped by the police, but there is never an arrest of conviction.

The police can protect.
The police can refer a victim onto other agencies that can help better.
The police can log incidences of abuse and so on, so that if and when soke sort of further action is sought, be it a conviction, a divorce, a custody battle, whatever, there is concrete proof of the abuse, and also evidence of a pattern and type, etc.

Shame on you for trying to convince a survivor of childhood sexual abuse who is being sexually abused now, not to go seek help. Shame on you.

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

Havea0 - many posters on here do know the law (right down to detailed knowledge of the relevant acts of parliament, and the history of the amendments to those acts - I have seen them quote statute on this). Many are actually solicitors/barristers/police officers themselves. In addition, many are very knowledgeable about feminist theory - "rape" isn't just used as a word to mean "what the law says it is" - it has every day connotations, cross-cultural connotations which are socially and politically complex and up for discussion in a nuanced way.

Quoting Wikipedia and thinking you have therefore found the philosopher's stone for this particular discussion, and that therefore nothing more can be said because you have enlightened us all makes you look (note: makes you look, not necessarily saying you are) a blithering idiot.

Furthermore, doing so on a thread as sensitive as this, where the OP is in such a dreadful situation makes you look (same disclaimer) like a deeply unpleasant, insensitive idiot.

[Havea0]

You can post shame on you all you like. Doesnt affect me.

But a person, including this op and others reading need to know legal basis for all of this instead of just writing it.
[And with respect, the fact[assuming you are not lying], that your BIL is a solicitor doesnt mean anything. My BIL was a Bank Manager. Doesnt mean I know what I need to know about banking.

Glad about the rest of the post. All that needed to have been said a lot earlier in this thread.

[Havea0]

Still no court cases though. If I was the op or a person reading this, I would feel a whole lot more satisified if you link to some relevant court cases.