I know many couples where one partner is just not interested in sex at all. My best friend is married to a man who has refused to have sex for ten years. He won't discuss the reasons why or even acknowledge that there is a problem. I no longer blame him. I blame my friend for staying in a marriage that has obviously shut down years ago. My brother's wife stopped being interested in sex after their daughter was born 11 years ago. Again, I blame him for staying with someone who has such little love or respect for you that the thought of your touch is repulsive. I consider it a hostile act to not only refuse to have sex with your partner but to treat your partner as if they have no right to have a sexual desire.

Kristen, I'd blame your friend more than your brother. Your friend as a woman has a better shot of a decent divorce, your brother not so much.

If someone said they loved you, and then told you that you couldn't eat at home, but that you also couldn't eat anywhere else, would you believe them?

Most people think physical affection is a human need, same as food (though obviously not to the same degree). The withholding of it doesn't signal "love". Even for those rare situations where a medical condition makes sex painful for one partner, there are ways around the problem, if both parties are interested in finding them.

When I read about really bizarre things like this, it reminds me how lucky I am!

I would not hesitate to end a sexless marriage (although it might depend on *why*). In fact, I did so once, about 20 years ago, because I was not ready to spend the rest of my life celibate.

Well, lack of sex was one reason I ended my marriage; I won't regurgiate what most know here already. The man I am with now is just that - and as such, when he's ready, I'm ready, even if I'm not. He's persistent, yet gentle, and more often than not, if I'm not in the mood right away, his persistence pays off, for him and me! Because having sex with the one you love, in my book, is way better than the one you love having sex with someone else.

Case in point, we spent all weekend moving (just got internet up and running) and we were dog-tired last night. We went to bed and the next thing you know, he was caressing me and telling me how much he loved me and saying 'thank' you for all the help I gave him with this move. And at first I was 'love you too honey but I'm so tired' and the next thing you know, I wasn't too tired for a little foolin' around! I slept much better too!

Kristen: "My brother's wife stopped being interested in sex after their daughter was born 11 years ago. Again, I blame him for staying with someone who has such little love or respect for you that the thought of your touch is repulsive."

If he had no kids involved he would have left 10.5 years ago.

It seems like the concept of "marriage rape" was invented to counter the bedrock principal that (1) agreement to marriage is an agreement to sexual availability, and (2) abandonment/desertion as defined as the refusal of sex was grounds for cause before no-fault divorce.

There are several generations who don't understand why they get married; they act out echos of the past.

I wish I knew where people got that idea. I'm living that daily disappointment.

In my group of men, all of us in our 50's or 60's, and faithfully married for decades, sexless marriages are commonplace. The guys who have regular sex with their wives are in the minority
as far as I can tell.

From my experience as boyfriend-husband-single father-boyfriend and husband, FWIW, the guy who wants to have regular, happy intimacy with a woman is much more likely to get it as a boyfriend than a husband.

I'm not talking about immature guys who are broke, socially inept or otherwise repellent. I'm talking about husbands and fathers who are educated, clean, and presentable with good jobs.

What's the single, solitary characteristic that differentiates a romantic relationship from any other kind?

Sex.

Without sex, a couple is merely a pair of close friends.

Should force ever be involved? No, unless the couple is into that (at which point it's not really force, it's rough sex - "consensual force" is a contradiction in terms). Must a partner engage in sex every single time it's requested? No, but "not now" isn't anything remotely like "not ever."

Cessation of sex is cessation of the romantic relationship.

I think there are a lot of women who don't realize how important sexual intimacy is to a man in terms of demonstrating love.

We were out camping as usual this weekend and my son and I along with a few of the families we camp with arrived a day before my husband. I volunteered to have one of the couples' kids spend the first night in our camper, as I know the parents have been lacking alone time recently. We're all good friends and around the campfire we teased them a bit about getting to spend the night alone, so the intent of the child-minding offer was clear.

And nothing. (No, we weren't all watching the trailer -- he thanked me the next day, but said it didn't solve the issue.)

Yet she complains when he doesn't comment on her new hairdo or when she had her makeup done recently for a special event. I keep trying to explain to her that the compliment is in wanting to get into her pants after two kids and a dozen years of marriage, but she's doesn't seem to get it.

If there is nothing in the cabinet you can always go to the store. But with sex even that option has been outlawed. Luckily most people are sensible enough to ignore those laws but it does limit your choices and it makes the whole affair more dangerous and demeaning than it would be otherwise.

Luckily my wife keeps the pantry stocked fairly well. I just wish the exact same thing at the exact same time wasn't the only thing on offer.

I'm reminded of a snippet of comedian Ron White: when you get married, you say I will only have sex with you ever ever ever. Well, when one of the people decides they aren't having any more sex, you find yourself in quite a pickle. I'm a good hound dog, but if you don't pet me once in a while, I'm gonna get down off that porch.

I love my husband, and 80% of the time I want it as much as he does. The other 20% to me us upholding an agreement. I'm pretty sure he doesn't always want to listen to me bitch about work, but he is always there for me when I do. The least I owe the guy is a blow job when his day hasn't been the best.
Plus - and not to sound like a manipulative bitch- I find if the man is happy in the bedroom, he is a lot more willing to keep his mouth shut when a gal comes home with a new pair of Jimmy Choos.

Been there and it was more than sex, it was emotional intimacy too.

During counseling, when complaining about me looking at Playboy (or even looking at a woman at the beach) my then wife asserted that only she had a right to turn me on. "Then do it," I responded, which didn't go over too well.

Anyone read that NYT article about Dan Savage's take on monogamy? I think he's onto something, both about it being downright unreasonable for a partner to withhold sex and yet not permit straying from the reservation, and also that perhaps a rethinking of monogamy and relationships is in order.

Amy this has nothing to do with the post but I finally tried the sunblock you always recommend. Yet another bit of great advice! The sunspots on my hands have gone away and I'm finally without sun burn.

"Yet she complains when he doesn't comment on her new hairdo or when she had her makeup done recently for a special event. I keep trying to explain to her that the compliment is in wanting to get into her pants after two kids and a dozen years of marriage, but she's doesn't seem to get it."

/eyeroll

She doesn't want to "get it" (no pun)--her stated reasons for being a frigid wife are excuses, not causes. She simply does not want to have sex with the man. The talk about hairdo overlooks, dishes undone, inability to really listen to her updates on family member's feelings/activities, etc. is simply post-hoc excuse-making to shift perceived blame onto him.

A woman who has lost interest in sexing her man finds reasons after the interest is gone, typically latching onto whatever reasons society will then allow as "proper" reasons for her refusal. Currently it is "he didn't notice X" or "he doesn't do chores around the house".

But back when she was hot for her husband, she didn't care if there were dirty dishes in the sink, if he noticed her hairdo, or listened with rapt attention to her talking about her sister's friend's cousin's new art showing in Poughkeepsie. And if he did start doing more dishes, noticing her hair or listening, does any man here think she would suddenly find herself lusting for her husband? Seriously, any takers on that bet? What woman ever went jelly-kneed because she found her husband of 20 years putting away the dishes?

If these women actually simply shrugged and said, "I don't feel like fucking him. I just don't feel it.", imagine what people's response would be then? People would say, "Gee, I guess he is entitled to either leave you or have an affair, since you are unwilling." And we cannot have *that* sort of honesty about some things, now can we? So we turn it into a game of HIS shortcomings being responsible for HER flagging libido.

Another thing that sometimes occurs to me when I encounter this issue is imagine if a husband started coming home from work, but not bothering to deposit his paycheck in the family bank account, because his wife did not notice his new golf score improvements. Imagine a husband who simply stopped talking to his wife, because she didn't do the dishes in the sink as regularly as he did. In short, imagine a man treating a woman with the same sort of passive-aggressive hostility about elemental marital matters (sex, money, kind personal interactions), simply because of some alleged shortcoming on the wife's part. We would call him abusive and a bit evil, I think. We would say she has a right to insist on better treatment, immediately, and he needs to work on this failings, immediately.

Yet sex is often seen as an acceptable means with which to control men by denying them such during a monogamous marriage. Dangerous stuff, in a world of easy divorce and sex outside marriage. That ploy really only works where kids are young enough that nervous fathers fear for custody rights.

Im 34 and I have very little romance and sex in my relationship of 10 years, hence the lack of kids. But I do get kisses, laughter, cuddles, affection and help in the kitchen. I love my husband but the sexual attraction melted away years ago. I guess it is a matter of weighing up the pros and cons and making a decision - one which I still have to come to if I want kids.

Kristen said: Again, I blame him for staying with someone who has such little love or respect for you that the thought of your touch is repulsive.

Respect and even love can't "fix" the death of sexual desire, or turn irrational revulsion into something else.

He should definitely leave - but going strictly on what you said, it's not a safe assumption that the death of sexual desire in a relationship means a lack of respect* or even love.

(* I, for instance, respect an awfully large number of people I have exactly zero sexual attraction to; and I couldn't "just become attracted to them!" based on that respect, no matter how helpful it'd be.)

Maybe, certainly, you left out something you know and we don't about how there really totally isn't much love or respect there... but I can only go on what you said, and you seemed to be implying that love or respect could somehow Just Make Sexual Desire Happen.

Yet another argument for polygamy. And girls, remember: Guys really dig a blow job on one end, and concurrent rim job on the other.
That's how to keep a guy happy and at home!

During counseling, when complaining about me looking at Playboy (or even looking at a woman at the beach) my then wife asserted that only she had a right to turn me on. "Then do it," I responded, which didn't go over too well.

@Joe LOL

I know a woman who NEEDS to hear that from her husband, if only he had the balls.

I'm with BOTU on this one. 'lol'

"Maybe, certainly, you left out something you know and we don't about how there really totally isn't much love or respect there... but I can only go on what you said, and you seemed to be implying that love or respect could somehow Just Make Sexual Desire Happen."

Sigivald, if you met my sister-in-law, you'd probably like her a lot. She has a great personality and was one of the most caring people I had ever known. She felt she married too young and that while my brother was good to her, he wasn't what she wanted. Of course she realized that after they had two kids and she decided to suck it up for them. She resents him for that and blames him for whatever life she feels she's missing out on. I think he's an idiot for letting her treat him the way she does. I'm sure at this point he does find sex elsewhere and I doubt she cares.

Of course, the tougher question is this: What if your spouse-mate is just not active enough?

This is kind of a straw-man argument, so far.

During counseling, when complaining about me looking at Playboy (or even looking at a woman at the beach) my then wife asserted that only she had a right to turn me on. "Then do it," I responded, which didn't go over too well. -- Joe

I laughed so hard the neighbors pounded on the wall!

Amy I would live to hear what you (and your readers here) think about couples in sexless marriages who have children. Stay together until the kids are no longer kids? Try to branch out and get a little action on the side? What if the spouse who does not want sex is also jealous and unwilling to let their mate look elsewhere? I guess I'm most curious to know what exactly is owed to a union in which one half refuses to put out, yet is made complicated with the addition of several small and highly dependent people running around the house.

I've tried explaining to my women friends that if they love getting flowers so much from their boyfriends/husbands, then giving their boyfriends/husbands sex is the female equivalent of giving a man flowers.

During counseling, when complaining about me looking at Playboy (or even looking at a woman at the beach) my then wife asserted that only she had a right to turn me on. "Then do it," I responded, which didn't go over too well.

That got a great guffaw from me, as well. +5

| It's obvious that it's not natural

Neither are kindness, modern medicine, fuzztone guitar, or closed-circuit scuba... Wouldn't live without 'em. No one should....

"[A]ny reasonable person"? Really? Your resentment of monogamy is that intense?

If you want, we can skip all the obscurantist rhetoric and shuck right down to the cob. Is there a particular anecdote about the failure of monogamy which you'd care to share?

Monogamy is working pretty well for me, after four years. Admittedly, we are not married, do not live together, and do not have children.

@Pirate Jo: "Monogamy is working pretty well for me, after four years. Admittedly, we are not married, do not live together, and do not have children."
___________

In other words, you and your partner can dump each other if your needs go unmet and replace with someone who will meet your needs, and neither one has recourse. And because you can, you usually don't have to. That will change overnight if you invite family law into your relationship.

@Amy Alkon: "Why should there be "recourse"?"
______________

That was my point... there shouldn't be recourse. What you said is what I agree with.

"Plus - and not to sound like a manipulative bitch- I find if the man is happy in the bedroom, he is a lot more willing to keep his mouth shut when a gal comes home with a new pair of Jimmy Choos."

This. Wish more women understood it, but they seem pretty clueless. I've counseled so many girlfriends, who were bitching about their marriages, or how their husbands treated them, to try this for a week or two. Really give it a shot, like a new diet or something. Those who have usually find things greatly improved.

Somehow, that message - sex as a means of getting what you want - isn't getting through. Perhaps because the main message is that women should be swept off their feet with passion and desire every time or not do it.

They simply don't see the value.

I will add that a smart man, who is being kept regularly satisfied in the bedroom, should keep his mouth shut when his wife comes home with a new pair of Jimmy Choos.

Perhaps because the main message is that women should be swept off their feet with passion and desire every time or not do it.

There's also the fact that for the past couple of generations, women have been told that having sex with a husband, or boyfriend, when they're not 'in the mood' is verboten. It's non-consensual sex, so it's like rape or molestation. Giving in to such overtures is seen as humiliating and degrading.

Obviously not all women believe this, but such ideas are part of the background noise of relationships in the US. They come to the fore when these sorts of conflicts arise in a relationship.

But in fairness to women, it's probably not realistic to expect a middle aged woman to have much of a sex drive. This is a relatively modern expectation and isn't born out by the evidence.

"I will add that a smart man, who is being kept regularly satisfied in the bedroom, should keep his mouth shut when his wife comes home with a new pair of Jimmy Choos."

How true!! I'm very close with a couple who are a perfect example of this. What I do see though is that there is real love and affection in the marriage. Its not just a business transaction. She has a much lower sex drive than him but will laughingly tell us that she had to give up some ass this morning because she made a big purchase. He loves that she's happy but I do think he loves that she loves that he's happy as well. If she had a headache all the time, I'm sure he'd resent her shopping addiction.

it turns out that the evidence speaks to a misunderstanding of the female sex drive.

ok, so it's a misunderstanding, but the fact remains that middle aged women typically don't want to have sex with other people. I'm not sure how rephrasing this observation makes any difference.

How about post-meno women, are they misunderstood as well?

I would argue that not only should both partners be willing to have sex regularly, but neither one should come home with surprise Jimmy Choos. Personally, my husband works hard to support us and I certainly wouldn't spend hundreds (or even thousands, those shoes can get pricey) on something frivolous without consulting him.

I'd argue that sex is only one of my roles, and that being a frugal manager and making sure we have enough left over every month for mortgage amortization, savings and investments is another one of my jobs.

In other words, you and your partner can dump each other if your needs go unmet and replace with someone who will meet your needs, and neither one has recourse. And because you can, you usually don't have to. That will change overnight if you invite family law into your relationship.

A co-worker once told me I should get married because "that way he can't just leave." But if he WANTS to leave, I don't want him sticking around just because it's legally difficult to go. And anyway, what if *I* was the one who wanted to leave?

Another person I know had the idea in his head that once you reach the two-year mark you should either get married or break up. Since my sweety and I had reached the two-year mark, this friend wanted to know why we didn't shit or get off the pot. I had to explain to him that I simply have no incentive to get married. I don't NEED a reason to NOT do something, so defaulting to our current arrangement, which is working out great, makes sense. To get married, I'd need a reason to DO it. Other than the privilege of paying more taxes, that is. This guy was sort of religious, so I'm not sure the idea really sank in, but really. If these are the best reasons people can come up with to get married, it does more to reinforce my decision not to.

"Amy I would live to hear what you (and your readers here) think about couples in sexless marriages who have children."

I didn't see any other response to this, so here we go....

"Stay together until the kids are no longer kids?"

If it can be done without undue drama that the kids are aware of/involved in, yes. The parents should maintain a "we are a solid family, and here to protect you" attitude towards the kids, and keep the parents' sex lives completely out of their kids' awareness. In short, your kids do not need (or want) to know who you are f*cking or how often you do it. The kids only need to see their parents generally getting along and maintaining a stable household.

"Try to branch out and get a little action on the side?"

If the parties can agree to this, sure. If not...

"What if the spouse who does not want sex is also jealous and unwilling to let their mate look elsewhere?"

Lie. Yes, lie, first by ommission, than outright if necessary to maintain things. "What? What!?," people will say, "you should not lie!"

Nah, bullshit. Lie. The neglected spouse promised monogamy to the no-put-out spouse, not celibacy. If the no-put-out spouse has no interest in the genitals of their partner, EXCEPT to veto those genitals from having *any* sex, the no-put-out partner forfeited the right to have input/knowledge/control regarding the other partner's sex life.

Put simply, if I am not willing to have frequent, cheerful sex with my partner to keep them happy, and I also insist that my partner have no sex with anyone else, I have no right to further updates on my partner's sex life, since I am really only trying to end their sex life, not be involved in it. That is a pretty awful thing to do to someone you claim to love. I should normally be dumped immediately and without much pity for doing such a shitty thing, but if there are kids involved, well, then the best course for the kids is to slap a smile on your face, lie to the non-sexual partner, and suck it up for ten years and cheat on the side to keep your sanity. That will give the kids whatever normalcy you can provide until their mid-teens or so.

"I guess I'm most curious to know what exactly is owed to a union in which one half refuses to put out, yet is made complicated with the addition of several small and highly dependent people running around the house."

Nothing is owed to the union. Very little is owed to the no-put-out spouse, beyond very diligent efforts to provide assistance on raising kids and maintaining a stable household. The kids are owed everything, however.

Think about it this way: most parents would jump in front of a bus to protect their kids. Doing without a full and complete sex life is not as big a sacrifice as jumping in front of a bus, but at times it can be damn close, I would imagine. The good thing is with a little deceit and careful discretion, you can provide kids the home they need and get the occasional sexual release you need.

Once the kids are old enough to accept a divorce without the world-crushing fear and anxiety kids will sometimes experience, divorce the no-put-out spouse. If the then-teenage kids are dumbstruck and upset, don't be shy about explaining that for years, your spouse simply refused to be intimate with you, and that you stayed all those years for their benefit. Teenagers are old enough to be told about such stuff, whereas 7 year olds are not.

But the partner with a sex drive should be very careful about who they have their side action with. No co-workers. No single people wanting marriage. No one in the circle of friends shared with the non-sexual spouse. Make it someone disinterested in making a scene about the whole matter.

I know, it is not ideal. But then, most of life is not ideal. These matters are no different.

Normally on this board I feel very liberal but today I feel very conservative.

"Amy I would live to hear what you (and your readers here) think about couples in sexless marriages who have children."

I didn't see any other response to this, so here we go...

I'm on deadline, and working on a question on co-sleeping, and re-read studies on it last night until my eyes almost fell out of their sockets.

Can't comment now. Will try to come back this evening.

Co-sleeping sucks, Amy.
Does that help?

"I will add that a smart man, who is being kept regularly satisfied in the bedroom, should keep his mouth shut when his wife comes home with a new pair of Jimmy Choos."

Exactly. My (common law) wife and I decided to buy rings after living together for 4 years. She had seen two that she liked and decided to sleep on the decision.

We went back to the mall the next day and I pointed out a jewelry store we hadn't checked out. She saw another ring that she loved, but it was more than 4 times the cost of the other rings she had been looking at. We went for coffee and I asked her which ring she wanted. She hesitantly said, "You know which one I like the best". I said, "Let's go get it". "But it's so expensive". I told her, "You're worth it". And she is!

"But in fairness to women, it's probably not realistic to expect a middle aged woman to have much of a sex drive. This is a relatively modern expectation and isn't born out by the evidence."

"How about post-meno women, are they misunderstood as well?"

This is only my experience, but my wife is 55 and menopause was 8 years ago. No details, but I am a very lucky man.

"Amy I would live to hear what you (and your readers here) think about couples in sexless marriages who have children"

I think that once you've made kids, the fact that you aren't getting your rocks off doesn't mean you get to fuck up their childhood by divorcing. Men-you might try scheduling once a week sex w/ your wife. She might lighten up if she knows you won't be pestering her for sex the rest of the time. IF, of course, she'd go along with it. For those of you with no sex life or irritated wives.

"So...you read a lot of studies on this? I do, and it turns out that the evidence speaks to a misunderstanding of the female sex drive."

I imagine the women who don't want the sex know their sex drive, no studies needed.

"If the then-teenage kids are dumbstruck and upset, don't be shy about explaining that for years, your spouse simply refused to be intimate with you, and that you stayed all those years for their benefit. Teenagers are old enough to be told about such stuff, whereas 7 year olds are not."

No no no no no no no. I don't care what age the kid is-even in their 40's-they don't want OR need info on their parent's sex life. They will probably end up disliking YOU for giving it, not blaming the mom who didn't put out. Your sex life is your business only. Period. Forever, no matter what. End of discussion.

What about spouse's on antidepressants that kill the sex drive, or other meds? Is going along for the other okay (assuming one doesn't lie there like a log) or does one have to fake actually wanting it and feeling something, for it to be satisfying to the other? Men, would you be okay hearing "I'll be there for you, but please don't try to do anything for me, it's a waste of time and likely to irritate me"?

"Lie. Yes, lie, first by ommission, than outright if necessary to maintain things. "What? What!?," people will say, "you should not lie!"

Yeah, I disagree with this. Living life as a liar is just no life, in my view. Sneaking around behind someone's back is smarmy, no matter what the reasons, and the truth almost always comes out in the end anyway. You've got to live life with integrity, and that requires honesty, even when there are consequences.

If you once loved your partner, and they loved you - enough to have children together - it's hard to understand why the situation can't be addressed honestly. They may not like it, but then, the ball is in their court to fix it.

It's not simply a matter of sex drive that causes some people to shut down sexually. There is usually another reason. Either it was there all along (ie: someone raised very religiously and taught to hate sex), or it develops in the course of the relationship.

The latter situation is easier to fix if a couple seeks counseling and confronts the underlying issues.

I know too many middle aged women, myself included, who hated sex in their first marriages or relationships, and enjoy sex very much now. The reasons vary, but they're rarely purely one-sided, like men often want to believe, that their wives "just doesn't like sex".

In my case, my ex's S&M tendencies were a turn off. Even "normal" sex was rough, and I knew what he was thinking anyway. I was just a body. It wasn't lovemaking. He'd actually kind of zone off in his fantasy world, and I felt like I might as well not even be there...just leave my body parts on the bed for him to play with.

Still, I did it, regularly, because I do believe it's part of the job description. It kept him happy, and a happy spouse is easier to live with. But you can have a job you love, or a job that's a chore.

And my point was not really about Jimmy Choos (I don't buy those either! Too expensive), but basically that we can "train" our partners to do what we want to a certain degree, by rewarding behaviors.

I mean, if you know your wife isn't all that in the mood, but she does it for you anyway, then reward her in ways that matter to her. Take the kids for a walk, so she can have a bubble bath. Load the dishwasher. Rub her feet.

The worst thing you could do is roll out of bed and start bitching about her spending, or the house not being clean. That's a sure way to train her not to bother.

The women I know who have a lower sex drive than their man (almost every woman), yet still put out, are getting SOMETHING besides orgasm out of it...whether it's more affection, greater cooperation around the house, or shoes.

"No no no no no no no. I don't care what age the kid is-even in their 40's-they don't want OR need info on their parent's sex life."

C'mon. People who are *having* sex cannot bear to hear why that a lack of sex ended a marriage?

A person whose children are small may make the mistake of thinking the children will always be as they are now: dependent and a bit clueless. But when children hit teen years and beyond, a glorious thing can and should happen: your kids become full, sentient adults who can be treated as such. They can make mature judgements and process information just like other adults.

Of course, details need not be given in any conversation about a why. (E.g., Okay version: "Your father and I stopped having sex 7 years ago, and that led to a slow dissolution of the marital bonds. I stayed to make sure you guys had as good a home as we could provide." Not okay: "Your father refused to perform the Iron Butterfly on me! So I got my needs met elsewhere--(sigh/faraway look in the eye)--by two bisexual Viking Swedes, who could deadlift me during the act. (giggle) We needed the fire department's jaws of life to disengage us. Gawd, that was Haaawt!")

Teenage and adult can discuss adult matters if treated like adults. Hell, we put automatic ricles in the hands of 18/19 year olds and put them in infantry units. But marital dissolution causes are verboten topics?

Explaining that a marriage ended because one partner would not have sex with the other is one of those fact-of-life issues mature people can discuss without Victorian pearl-clutching. Hell, you might be doing your adult kid a favor by letting them know how you lived your life, so they can use that information in assessing their own choices.

"A person whose children are small may make the mistake of thinking the children will always be as they are now: dependent and a bit clueless. But when children hit teen years and beyond, a glorious thing can and should happen: your kids become full, sentient adults who can be treated as such. They can make mature judgements and process information just like other adults."

No, I agree that kids don't ever need to know about their parents' sex lives. It might make you feel less guilty, but telling your kids that you only stayed with their other parent because of THEM is not a good thing to do.

Kids want to believe that love existed between their parents. If you're going to live that lie for their benefit for years, then keep it up. Why drop a bomb on them as soon as they're old enough to understand?

Trust me, they won't. They'll just feel terrible. My dad told me something similar when I was in my 30s, and firstly, it's just gross to think of your parents having/or not having sex, and secondly, I felt bad for both of them being apparently unhappy for so many years...and guilty because that unhappiness was partly due to them staying together because of me.

"If the then-teenage kids are dumbstruck and upset, don't be shy about explaining that for years, your spouse simply refused to be intimate with you, and that you stayed all those years for their benefit. Teenagers are old enough to be told about such stuff, whereas 7 year olds are not."

In my opinion, bad bad bad idea. You should never put the burden of your unhappiness on your kids, no matter their age. "I was being made miserable, but I stuck it out for you!" Whatever your choices, don't dump the responsibility for them off onto others, especially not onto your children.

As for the originial topic, I married a man for whom I felt no sexual attraction. I thought I was being smart in choosing him for his other qualities, many of which are very fine. However, having made the committment, I felt that sex was part of the "bargain" as it were. I never cut him off, but it only became more difficult as the years passed.

it's just gross to think of your parents having/or not having sex

I've never understood that attitude. I'm here because they had sex. That's how it works. Why pretend they aren't sexual?

"I'd argue that sex is only one of my roles, and that being a frugal manager and making sure we have enough left over every month for mortgage amortization, savings and investments is another one of my jobs."

Now, that's wife material.

"You should never put the burden of your unhappiness on your kids, no matter their age. "I was being made miserable, but I stuck it out for you!" Whatever your choices, don't dump the responsibility for them off onto others, especially not onto your children."

Strawman, anyone? I don't believe I advocated putting (ahem) "the burden of unhappiness on your kids" or "dumping responsibility" for choices onto others, especially your children.

Let's step back from rhetorical overreach. Disclosing the circumstances of a marriage, and explaining choices made within it could just as easily--more easily?--be seen as explaining to a child of that marriage the true circumstances of a major life event they may find deeply puzzling and unclear. That could well be beneficial, not scarring.

Parents should accept that their children's lives will likely include equally difficult and complex decisions about who to marry and when to stay married. Knowing that others--including their parents--faced choices, made choices, and lived their lives after making decisions among imperfect options is not a soul-crushing burden for your kids. In fact, preparing them for such things by discussing the life you lived (a life they shared) is what some would call...parenting.

Of course, not every facet of a parent's life need be open to scrutiny and discussion ("yeah, the third time I got an STD, wow, was *that* ever a great Dead show...."). But the breakup of a parent's marriage is an event a kid will likely expoerience up close, and thus the kid will have some significant questions about the matter. Some explanation is probably in order. Full disclosure is not necesssary, but some disclosure is proper.

"I've never understood that attitude. I'm here because they had sex. That's how it works. Why pretend they aren't sexual?"

Narcissism. How can you be the ultimate expression of all creation if all other humans, including your parents, are just like you?

"I've counseled so many girlfriends, who were bitching about their marriages, or how their husbands treated them, to try this for a week or two. Really give it a shot, like a new diet or something. Those who have usually find things greatly improved."

Really? I did not realize it had a nutritional value.

"Some explanation is probably in order. Full disclosure is not necesssary, but some disclosure is proper"

I agree with that, Spartee. I just don't think it needs to get into the sexual needs or feelings of deprivation of either parent.

I wasn't going to tell my kids, "Your dad is into S&M and I wasn't." Why do they need to know about that? Likewise, it does kids no good to contemplate why mom didn't want to have sex with dad, and why dad lived a miserable, sexless existence for THEIR benefit. That's a lot to dump on kids. No matter how it's phrased, they'll come away feeling partially responsible for a decision that the parent made.

Kids want to hear, "As much as your mom (dad) and I cared for each other, we had some issues we just couldn't work through." Period. That's enough. Even if they persist, I'd leave it vague. Talk of "incompatibilities in different areas", which would be true. But laying it all on the other parent for not having sex is kind of bashing. Of course, it makes that parent look like the "bad" person.

I wish my dad had never overshared. My mom claims they did have sex (wish she hadn't overshared either, but that's what this line of discussion leads to). It probably wasn't enough for him...or too much for her...after 44 yrs...but I don't think a kid, of any age, should really have to contemplate the frequency (or quality) of their parents' sex life.

"Really? I did not realize it had a nutritional value."

Yes, it's high protein and low carb.:)

I lived this life for two years, although my it wasn't completely his fault.

I wish I could say otherwise, but I cheated to keep my sanity, and I'd do it again.

Lie, Lie and Lie some more. Lie like a rug if you have to. Men don't want to accept it, but women's sex drive is just as strong as men's, it just operates differently. And men should learn the system better!!!

Kids want to hear, "As much as your mom (dad) and I cared for each other, we had some issues we just couldn't work through." Period. That's enough. Even if they persist, I'd leave it vague. Talk of "incompatibilities in different areas", which would be true.

bullshit, Bullshit BULLSHIT BULL_FUCKING_SHIT

My parents did that - you know what I did? I called the county courthouse paid a couple of hunndered dollars and had a copy of every single courtfiling and transcrpit of their divorce and custody procedings mailed to my front door.

$20 bucks says your kids did something similiar

"I don't believe I advocated putting (ahem) "the burden of unhappiness on your kids" or "dumping responsibility" for choices onto others, especially your children."

That's exactly what you did. You said you would tell your kids you stayed in an unhappy marriage "all those years" for their "benefit". That's an unfair burden to land on your children. Even if it's true (and I doubt it would be the whole truth anyway; people stay for a variety of reasons, usually only some of which they feel comfortable acknowledging) you're unlikely to get the detached, analytic reaction you seem to be imagining.

I'm somewhere in the middle of Spartee and LS here. I don't think you need to suggest that you stayed together for the kids which could be implied to mean that you've been miserable together all this time....just for them. That may create feelings of guilt.

I think it makes more sense to frame it as coming to a recent decision about something going on for a long time. I wouldn't shy away from saying to an older teenager that you weren't intimately compatible. This opens the door for further questions for the mature, inquiring teen (or adult later in life if/when they face similar decisions) and vague enough to only be slightly weird for the squeamish ones.

This assumes that throughout the kids growing years, you've shared age-appropriate birds & bees and relationship conversations with them. Those uncomfortable conversations are part of parenting throughout!

I'm with Joe on the issue of parents having sex. How is that traumatizing or gross? I'm completely aware from both parties that my (divorced) mother feels asexual and my father feels hypersexual. I've been familiar with my dad's exploits from the time he told me it was perfectly possible that he had a couple of children floating around the Philippines from his days in the Navy. I have opinions about that, yes, but it doesn't freak me out that my dad had (and still has) sex...and I've been aware of this since I was 12.

"My parents did that - you know what I did? I called the county courthouse paid a couple of hunndered dollars and had a copy of every single courtfiling and transcrpit of their divorce and custody procedings mailed to my front door."

Well, that's kind of sad, Luj.

If my kids did that, they wouldn't find much, besides legal wrangling by the lawyers.

I think I'm pretty open about what went wrong in the marriage. For one thing, my kids saw their dad hanging out with his "girlfriend", which began the marital implosion, so they have an understanding of what happened. We've talked about various aspects of it, but not specifically whether either of us was fulfilled sexually or not. I just think that's TMI!

If they asked me point blank, I guess I'd probably tell them it wasn't the greatest, at least for me, but, thankfully, neither of them seem interested in that level of detail.

I certainly wouldn't sit them down and tell them details if they never asked, like "Now, that you're old enough to understand, I think you should know how sexually unfulfilled I was in my marriage to your dad..."

And it's not that I'm squeamish or don't believe kids understand their parents have sex, but there's a difference between knowing it and wanting to hear about it.

I mean, I'm a newlywed, and my 17 yr old daughter lives with us. She knows we're having sex, but her reaction is more like, "I want my room downstairs. I don't want to hear you guys!"

It's not simply a matter of sex drive that causes some people to shut down sexually. There is usually another reason...ie: someone raised very religiously and taught to hate sex

In the 25 years since I converted and "went fundie", I have never met such a person. Every conservative Bible thumper I know, thinks sex is totally cool, and either,

(a) badly wants to get married and get theirs sex life going, or

(b) is really, really glad to finally be married... thank you God...ah....oh....

Some of the married men I know, don't get it as often as they'd like (hey, other than a polygamist, what man ever does?), but none of them report getting *nothing at all*.

Every conservative Bible thumper I know...badly wants to get married and get their sex life going...

I'm finding that statement highly ironic in light of Amy's original post.

"My parents did that - you know what I did? I called the county courthouse paid a couple of hunndered dollars and had a copy of every single courtfiling and transcrpit of their divorce and custody procedings mailed to my front door."

That's sorta pathetic, luj. My parents shared too much, and it pissed me off but good for along time. I am not their friend, their marriage or sex therapist, their counselor, their confidant, or their spouse. I am their KID and as such their problems belong to them, not me. Dumping them on me-in whatever form they wanted to call it-was damned selfish. And it is a form of bashing. Short of abuse, you should NEVER say anything bad about your child's parent (who they love in a highly irrational way) whether it's true or not. Period.

And it wasn't even a surprise, what they shared. I'd known my dad cheated since I was 12. So parents-even if you hide if from the spouse-you probably aren't keeping it from the kids. Just FYI.

"Some explanation is probably in order. Full disclosure is not necesssary, but some disclosure is proper."

Some disclosure is "we simply aren't compatible anymore, and we've tried for a long time and it isn't going to work". Full disclosure is not "mom would not have sex with me so now that you're a mature teen I'm outta here"

Whethermyou tell kids or not not they are going to know the reason you stuck it out was for them if the divorce paper appear just after their 18th birthday.

And momof4 the only reason you didnt have to find out what went on on your own is becuase they told you.

Ofcoure my parents divorced before I was in grade school, but even by the age of 9 I was sick and tired of conversations magically stoping whenever I wandered into range.

| you know what I did? I called the county
| courthouse paid a couple of hunndered
| dollars and had a copy of every single
| courtfiling and transcrpit of their divorce
| and custody procedings mailed to
| my front door.

Does your demeanor recommend this technique?

———

See July 18, 2011 8:40 PM:

What does a guy have to do to pick a fight with the proprietor of this joint?

Lots of people, ESPECIALLY WOMEN, love monogamy, especially as regards sexual fidelity.

Eventually, you might tire of the thrill that comes from telling other people —rightly or wrongly— that they're naive. Perhaps the broadest theme you'll see in the comments of the this blog is this: Human nature has powers that fashion cannot overwhelm. If you're going to survive whatever battles you pick for yourself, you'd better have clear recognition of human nature.

And human nature doesn't bother flattering people. Especially you and me, sister.

People want what they want.

"And momof4 the only reason you didnt have to find out what went on on your own is becuase they told you."

Nope. I was sick and tired of their sex life being my business (see knowing one parents cheats before the other parent knows, while still in elementary school) and would have been happy not to ever hear a word. Or read a word. It was simply not my weight to carry. And it's really strained my relationship with my dad. Not punishing him as a dad for sins he committed against my mom took a while into adulthood to learn. And it's still hard-probably like many who stray, when mom left it was a shock, he couldn't fathom her not coming back, and is still bitter against her. So that doesn't help. (You reading that, Spartee? Your kids aren't going to rationally thank you for giving them info. I promise.)

To:
"No, I agree that kids don't ever need to know about their parents' sex lives. " and similar sentiments posted:

Not to speak for all kids, but I very much needed to hear a lot more about my parent's sex lives - and anyone else who had real sex lives. It might have saved me from a lot of serious and damaging mistakes.

Sex discussions are avoided and/or dishonest in a lot of the media. Every real bit of information a teenager or young adult gets about sex helps a great deal. Hearing from peers, MTV, reading Playboy, or Cosmopolitan isn't nearly as accurate.

Learning that real couples - like your parents - have sex and problems with sex is much more helpful.

I don't think you EVER need to hear about your parents sex life. First of all, it's a different generation with different mores and beliefs. Second, one part of that couple is probably biased. Better to hear about your friends sex lives as a matter of a learning experience.

As far as one part of the couple being interested and the other not, Never having sex is not normal but I think that is bound to happen at times. It happens with everything else! Friendships, partnerships, everything goes through a dry spell and it's up to the person who is unhappy with this dry spell to speak up. However, I think women generally speaking have a lower sex drive then men. They like to cuddle, men like the physical act. At times the physical act is uncomfortable (menses) or inconvenient (the male just drops his pants, the female takes longer to get turned on, thinks about putting in her diaphragm, thinks about all the other things she needs to do after the act is over etc. I think about personal hygiene, I'd rather take a shower before getting intimate and shower after which means I prefer nighttime intimacy when I'm not going anywhere. Most men I know would get it on in a minute, hygiene aside before and after. I think of how long I've got before I'm interrupted by someone in the house, my guy probably doesn't care. And then there's just the "wasn't thinking about sex, not turned on at all" when my guy is ALWAYS thinking about sex and ALWAYS turned on. He needs to be accommodated but also needs to remember that while he wants to be physically intimate as an equator to emotionally intimate, most women just aren't ready to spread their legs at the drop of a hat because he's always in the mood. We don't equate physical intimacy with emotional intimacy.

Very well-put, Pros and Cons.

Giving your kids advice on sex is vastly different than telling them details of your own sex life, especially if it's going to paint their other parent in a negative light. That is purely self-serving.

I think the main problem is that men start off physically ready for sex almost every time, whereas women are almost never there at first.

On average, I believe, it takes a woman about 20 mins to get into the mood, so by the time, we're actually aroused enough to orgasm, the guy is often already done.

That's not a deficiency in the guy or reflective of how great a lover he may be. I've found this true with all my lovers. The smart ones just recognize the time disparity and try to last longer, which doesn't always work (yet can still be exciting!). The really great lovers will bring their partner to orgasm before they even begin intercourse, just to make sure she gets in at least one.

But, let's face it, the timing makes it tricky, and many times unfulfilling, at least in a physical sense, for the woman. And it's worse because a lot of women don't feel they can be truly honest about this. They're worried about hurting their guy's ego if they don't orgasm, so not only is sex physically unsatisfying, and perhaps even frustrating, it can become an emotional minefield.

I think the problem is for most guys foreplay is severly underated.

I also have very little symaphy for omen who fake orgasms beacuse their parnter either has no idea what their doing or what their doing makes them uncomfortable, and then go on to complain ho their partner never gets them off.

I think if more guys were made to understand that even when you do everything right a woman can still not get there and it isnt abut their lack of skills, and if more women were made to understand guys dont mind taking direction(except for control freak assholes - and in that case do you really want a relationship with such a person) more people would enjoy having sex

Re: Parents' sex lives.

Look, people realize their parents have sex. However, most of us don't want to think of ONE of out parents actually doing that, because of our internal thinking about that person. Based solely on my own personal observations, I believe that is more prevalent in men than in women, but I'm not sure. Men don't want to imagine their mothers having sex. It hits them in strange psychological areas.

It was worse when my mom was asking me about some problem dad was having... when they had sex... when she was 78. *shudder*

"Kids want to hear, "As much as your mom (dad) and I cared for each other, we had some issues we just couldn't work through." Period. That's enough. Even if they persist, I'd leave it vague. Talk of "incompatibilities in different areas", which would be true."

I see where you're coming from, but I'm with Luj, talking to your kids as though you've suddenly turned into a politician, or a corporate PR robot, or a lawyer, is probably not going to work well unless you think your kids are really simple-minded. My parents never divorced but I can imagine my reaction would've been a lot like Lujlp's. "Incompatibilities in different areas"? Seriously?

I don't know what I would do in that situation as a parent, but I have been thinking about this issue generally recently, and used to assume that one should not talk about such things to one's kids (since that's how we've mostly been raised, to treat it as taboo), but then it occurred to me that the correct approach is actually the one that is best not just "for the children" (in the way we usually think of it), but "for the children's futures", i.e. someone who is attempting to engage in "good parenting" in the true sense, should give the answer most likely to help them get to a point that they can have a happy marriage someday, and not have the same problems you had. And that probably involves a lot of open honest advice and discussion. If not putting out enough (for example) is something that is very likely to ruin a marriage, then if you genuinely want your daughter to be happy and to have a happy marriage, then it logically follows that you should teach her that that's important ... it might sound a bit perv but think about it, if you "teach" your daughter to be a prude, she will for definite 100% end up having an unhappy marriage. Anyone actually want their kids to have unhappy marriages? I don't.

I agree though that giving details of your own sex life is just gross. I don't give details of my sex life to anyone. That's private. But general advice, sure.