Is my husband an Incel?

[DiannaSpanna]

Hubby and I finally got round to watching Adolescence on Netflix this week.

When we finally finished we chatted for ages about it and at one point he asked what incel meant. So I explained it was involuntary celibacy and that it was guys who couldn't find a woman to sleep with. He joked "so married men?".

This got me prickly and I responded that it's different, but he thought about it for a bit and then made the point that if a husband wants sex and his wife doesn't, he's therefore involuntary celibate. I couldn't argue, as I got what he meant and he wasn't have a dig at me or women in general, just stating what it conjured up for him. But it got my back up all the same and I've not been able to stop thinking about it.

I know why. At the beginning of our relationship and marriage we had a very healthy sex life. He's great in bed, generous and still gorgeous. But after 3 kids, my body changing and generally mellowing, I don't really feel sexual desires anymore. And I'm happy with that. It feels right for me.

So I can't even remember the last time we had sex. It's definitely been over a year.

He's clearly still keen, flirts and tries it on from time to time. But I just don't feel like it. He never guilts or pressures me and is super respectful, but I can see it hurts him to be rejected. And he definitely seems less joyous than he used to and just generally deflated.

So I'm worried that I've made my husband an incel, if not in terms of red pill forums and Andrew Tate etc (he's not an idiot), but the feelings of sadness and resentment that come from being rejected.

When it comes to sex, I have all the control. He has none and has to wait for if and when I feel like it. Which is almost never anymore. When I put myself in his shoes, and if the situation were reversed, I would be angry and feel powerless.

So I find myself in a place where I really don't know what to do. I love him to bits and adore our life together, but I've changed and now he's got to live without something as fundamental as sex - through no fault of his own.

I don't know why I'm writing this here, but would love to know if anyone else is going through the same and if you have any advice.

when you have a sulky husband on your hands

Instead of being on his wife's hands, why doesn't he just use his own? He's got two of them...

@selffellatingouroborosofhate You only posted part of the wedding service, which is why the well-known lines that are in every C of E ceremony "with my body I honour you" and "forsaking all others" and "keep me only unto you" aren't in there.

I'd love to know just how many of the "right to sex in marriage" bunch are married and are apparently ignorant of the vows you made?

I don't know what you mean by this. I'm still married, and the phrases in my paragraph above were all in my wedding service.

I posted the vows that each spouse says. Those are the complete vows. The couple are not saying to each other "forsaking all others" and "with my body I thee honour" and "keep me only unto you".

Maybe they did in the past, but they don't now.

There are also the declarations that come before the vows. That being:
Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?

So yes to honouring and forsaking all others but no longer honouring "with your body".

@selffellatingouroborosofhate You are a card! 😂You posted a mere fraction of the vows, in fact in the link you shared, it even says that the ones you quoted are "from" the marriage ceremony, i.e. are just a part of it.

Hate to break it to you, but the full wedding ceremony not only mentions all the things I've said, but also mentions the words "sexual tenderness"! Do you need some smelling salts?

Here's the service with all the sexy bits highlighted. Please be seated.

In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
we have come together
to witness the marriage of N and N,
to pray for God’s blessing on them,
to share their joy
and to celebrate their love.
Marriage is a gift of God in creation
through which husband and wife may know the grace of God.
It is given
that as man and woman grow together in love and trust,
they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind,
as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,
in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love.

The Declarations
The minister says to the bridegroom
N, will you take N to be your wife?
Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?
He answers
I will.
The minister says to the bride
N, will you take N to be your husband?
Will you love him, comfort him, honour and protect him,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?
She answers
I will.

The minister introduces the vows in these or similar words
N and N, I now invite you to join hands and make your vows,
in the presence of God and his people.
The bride and bridegroom face each other.
The bridegroom takes the bride’s right hand in his.
These words are used

I, N, take you, N,
to be my 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 law.
In the presence of God I make this vow.
They loose hands.
The bride takes the bridegroom’s right hand in hers, and says
I, N, take you, N,
to be my 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 and to cherish,
till death us do part;
according to God’s holy law.
In the presence of God I make this vow.
They loose hands.
The Giving of Rings
The bridegroom places the ring on the fourth finger of the bride’s left hand and, holding it there, says
N, I give you this ring
as a sign of our marriage.
With my body I honour you,
all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If rings are exchanged, they loose hands and the bride places a ring on the fourth finger of the bridegroom’s left hand and, holding it there, says
N, I give you this ring
as a sign of our marriage.
With my body I honour you,
all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

If you think that only the section designated "vows" counts, then it would follow that the declarations don't count. That's the part where you declare you're free to marry. So by your logic, the declaration that you're free to marry carries no weight, and therefore we can all commit bigotry.

Everything the bride and groom repeat after the vicar counts as a promise.

For anyone who's interested in this ridiculous argument that you don't promise a sex life to your spouse when you marry, here's the full link to the wedding service. Yes, it includes "forsake all others/with my body I honour you/to have and to hold/to be faithful/to delight in the tenderness of sexual union." They are absolutely not things of the past, and the declarations are part of getting married, not just the vows. Otherwise the declaration that you are free to marry would mean nothing.
Marriage | The Church of England

The honouring with my body promise is made during the giving and receiving of rings. See above. It's still very much part of the marriage service.

You forgot the declarations and the promises made during the giving and receiving of rings, which is where the body-honouring words come in.

If you don't like any of this, just get married in a civil ceremony and write your own vows. Then you don't have to promise any of the sexy bits.

(Of course, what happens when your spouse wants regular sex and you tell them that you never promised them a sex life and that sex isn't part of marriage is a story for another day.)

Fair point! I forgot there's a third set of promises made with the rings.

This came up in another thread and yes, he's an incel.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/us/incel-involuntary-celibate-explained-cec/index.html

Ahhhh, looking at that marriage ceremony has made me sad. It's so beautiful and promises so much, and so many shitty human beings just piss all over those lovely words.😭 I had no problem whatsoever with lifelong commitment and was so happy to have one special person of my own forever, but he just couldn't handle real commitment. It's not fair. 😭😭😭 I feel that it's a way of life that's been denied to me. Because once you experience the underbelly of marriage via being married to someone shitty, you can't un-experience it.

Sorry for the me-rail. Off to think sad thoughts about my wedding day.

I don't understand why if you love your husband you would not have SOME sex with him - it's a connection that doesn't have to give physical pleasure it can be emotional. Otherwise you really risk losing him

1. Honouring someone with your body doesn't mean reluctant pity fucks.
2. "To have and to hold" isn't a coy euphemism for sex. It's reflecting that you are in many legal senses one legal person, mutually each other's possession, an attempt to update and make more equal the legal idea of coverture.
3. "Union of the body" refers to physical closeness generally, hugging and stuff, and to the expectation of mutual physical care spelled out in "in sickness and in health".
4. The "delight and tenderness of sexual union" part of the intro bit isn't a mandate, it's permission to have sex because premarital sex is a sin. In the same way that "you may kiss the bride" is permission, not an obligation.
5. Corollary to (4), if it isn't "delightful" and "tender" because one of you is counting the cobwebs on the ceiling out of a sense of duty or desire to avoid a sulkfest whilst the other thrusts away, then you aren't doing marital sex properly. See also: point (1).
6. Register office ceremonies don't have most of that stuff, but are still legally-valid marriage ceremonies.

Hmm, let me think. How about "it hurts"? Or "I'm sick of getting cystitis afterwards"?

I think it’s fair to say that most people enter marriage with an expectation of having a reasonable amount of sexual intimacy with their spouse. Some couples may have a shared wish for celibacy (not the case for OP); some couples may accept cessation of sex for medical reasons (also not the case for OP). But I think for many couples sexual intimacy is a significant part of their relationship. It’s something they share with their spouse which they don’t share with others, as an expression of closeness and commitment. It’s something which distinguishes their relationship with their spouse from other relationships. Not the only thing but, I think, generally quite a significant thing.

Of course, @DiannaSpanna shouldn’t have sex that she really doesn’t want to have but simply suggesting her husband’s expectations are unreasonable isn’t helpful to her. And it’s wrong.

OP has confirmed there has been no sex for over a year. OP doesn’t appear interested in addressing the problem - but she wants to remain married. She just wants her husband to not want to have sex.

OP’s husband’s expectations seem very reasonable. If OP isn’t interested in overcoming her reluctance to have sex, then she needs to be prepared for her husband deciding to walk away. As a PP observed, he sounds like a catch and will likely be snapped up if he decides to move on.

I don't think that anyone is saying people should have sex if there's a health issue that makes it difficult or painful. That's not what we're talking about. We're saying that marriage comes with the overall promise of a sex life in the normal scheme of things, all things being equal.

That sounds like a very personal experience - if so then that sounds deeply unpleasant. That isn't however an experience that applies in every relationship.

This is a really weird hill to die on, @selffellatingouroborosofhate, but OK! Everyone knows that marriage involves the promise of a sex life except you, apparently! Maybe a low-desire spouse would suit you best.

Look, I get it. It's horrible to think of marriage as so transactional, but long experience of living within the institution teaches many of us that it really is transactional in many ways. People don't like to admit it, but many men marry for looks and sex and babies, and to be domestically catered to, and many women marry for babies and financial support. Those are the realities you're left with after the lace and the ribbons and all the romantic promises have worn off. I expressed this thought to a therapist, and he said, "That's why we give gifts." 😂 (i.e. to make up for the disappointment!)

Marriage ultimately reflects the selfish nature of human beings. Do marriages exist where they are a meeting of the souls and physical stuff doesn't matter? I hope so! That was my approach, but he felt rather differently. He had a LOT of opinions about my weight, which for him was all inter-connected with sexual desire and, well, sex. Marriage REALLY teaches you just how strong the male sex drive is and how much it matters to men, to a degree that I still can't believe, really. I wish I had known this beforehand, and I wish more young women knew it before they got into marriage.

Sex may not be a part of marriage to you, but it's much more important to men than it is to women, usually.

Great post! Agree with all this.

Wonder why OP hasn't been back.

A lot of women posting in Relationships have said that they feel soiled and violated by the unwanted sex they tolerate to stop their husbands from sulking. First, that's no life for anyone. Second, I cannot comprehend a man who would do that to someone.

Men haven't had conjugal rights to sex since 1991. (Possibly 1992, I can never remember the date of R v R.) That means that married women have the right to say no. If their husbands don't like it, divorce is available.

Your assessment of marriage as "transactional" turns wives into prostituted women, each of whom services one punter, her husband, in return for a roof over her head and money. That's the opposite of "to love and to cherish". It ignores the value to her husband of her contribution to the home and family through housework, childcare, and any paid work she has.

It's not a "really weird hill to die on" if you value women as being more than men's wank sheaths, as human beings with the right to bodily sovereignty, and as valued contributors to the joint home.

Well said 👏. Some dimness going on with some on here.

If you don't want sex with your husband, don't get married, simples!

Or marry someone sexually matched.

And you called me contradictory. What about the ‘in sickness and in health’ vow?

I’ll leave that there. Good night

Well, you know, some feminist thinkers have likened marriage to a form of prostitution.

I think of marriage as being about all the things you've talked about outside of sex, but then, I'm a woman. Many men are just sex, sex, sex.

The law of 1991 was to make it so that husbands could be prosecuted for raping their wives, which they couldn't be before. It doesn't mean that a sex life is no longer generally expected in marriage. Most people understand that marriage involves the promise of a sex life overall, not that you give up the right to consent when you marry. No one has to consent to sex, married or not. But if you never or rarely want sex with your spouse, and there are no medical conditions, and your spouse is not happy with a sexless marriage, then the couple should divorce. Mismatched sex drives can also be a huge issue, where, say, one spouse wants it three times a week and the other wants it no more often than once a fortnight.

Of course, if a married couple are BOTH content with no sex life, that's grand! But that's not usually the case.

Spouses with mismatched desires, like the women you mention, are in a tough spot and I don't envy them.