Which leads to a common problem many of my male clients experience. They respect their wives’ sexual boundaries (as in no sex) and, as a result, are in long-term sexless marriages.
I distrust the notion that their acceptance of their wive’s sexual boundary is the cause of the sexless marriage. Applying the same standard outside of the marriage, couldn’t anyone make the same claim? Like saying that by respecting boundaries by not raping people who don’t want to have sex with us, it results in a celibate lifestyle.
Of course, that’s not the argument, but the principle holds true. The celibacy isn't about the acceptance of the boundary, nor the existence of it, but rather, the reason it was placed: a partner's change of heart or desire. In the singles' world, it’s normal to change one’s mind over time as a relationship unfolds, with exposure to circumstances or new experiences that change what you thought. Most people who have asked for a divorce have an anecdote or two where they got turned off irrevocably, where their whole concept of the person they were married to and the potential of the relationship changed.
In the singles world, we break up when this happens, and it happens all the time. It’s the most normal thing in the world. It’s not the acceptance of the boundary that’s the problem; the problem is the
reason for the disconnection which results in the boundary being placed.
The boundary could be there because they don’t see the person in their relationship (who they might love, or have complex, conflicted emotions around) as a viable sexual partner. Or, because they don’t enjoy the circumstance of being “trapped” in the relationship. Maybe having sex feels like an implicit deepening of intimacy, when they really are looking for an escape. Something happened. Something changed. There might be solid reasons, or there might be a misunderstanding about a person, or about the marriage itself. Maybe it's a scenario where they said "yes" to marriage, thinking their feelings would later catch up, but they didn't.
Their partners have shamed them just for wanting to have sexual intimacy. While I’m not in their bedrooms, from their self-reporting, these guys are asking for pretty basic stuff.
Sure, it's basic for someone who is in a sexual relationship,
but it isn't basic for someone who isn’t attracted to them, w
ho actively dislikes them, or who
blames them for their circumstance. It’s natural to want to avoid sex in that scenario. No amount of sex will be too little because every amount of sex feels unwanted or wrong to them, or like a lie.
I might think a blowjob once a year is "pretty basic", but if I make that reasonable request to someone doesn’t see me that way – like, say, the cashier at the 7/11 after I buy a bag of chips- it’s likely to be taken with hostility.
The circumstance of marriage seems to make people forget the human element – that people’s preference or circumstance changes – and that includes attraction. I have a dear and drop dead sexy friend who was in a dysfunctional relationship, in which she dressed for bed to seduce her husband. He told asked her what was wrong with her and how much she spent on what she was wearing (they weren't poor). That was it for her - as far as how she saw him. The relationship and household continued, but it was the end of her investment romantically.
We often talk about “restoring” attraction, as if “being attracted” to a particular person is the natural state. Having a libido is a natural state, but that exists irrespective of a partner. But if a realization of such significance happens that it makes you LOSE your attraction to your partner, I don’t see much evidence that it can be restored. Usually, that happens because one’s conception of them changes fundamentally. It’s why in the singles world it can be hard to get out of the friend zone, even if you are attractive and a good person, whereas an attractive stranger can come along and she might totally clear her deck for them.
Yes, it’s humiliating, heartbreaking, and insulting, to be rejected from a relationship that you formerly were in. It’s like being fired or demoted in status –
because that’s exactly what it is. Regardless of whether the formal separation or divorce has happened yet.
Imagine a patient who didn’t get along with his boss, and she fired or demoted him. We wouldn’t necessarily talk about it as if the feelings of rejection, shame and resentment on his part were the result of her mistake. The circumstance upstream of his demotion – which made her think he was unsuited to the job - might have been totally unfair – but it doesn’t change what she thinks about him as a person. The humiliation is the result of the demotion, but the demotion itself exists as the result of a change in perception of him, or of her ambition with that role.
Being fired as a sexual partner is a humiliating experience, but it doesn’t mean the firing, nor the humiliation, is a mistake.
The mistake, on both parts I think - is in not naming what's obviously happening.
Instead, we tend to take the kinder route, in treating it like she's somehow forgotten how to have sex or how to express attraction.
Miraculously, though, in her next relationship, it all tends to come back - even sooner than does working through and sorting out the rest of how to human with people.
It sounds like the motivation
assigned to these declining partners is "cruelty". If, as you say, these men are
self-reporting, this is a consistent story with much of what we see here on ILIASM. It's an accurate description of how the men feel, but it is not necessarily the intention of the averse partner.
From the standpoint of a partner who is either not into the relationship in its present format or who no longer sees their partner in a sexual context
[for reasons] but is yoked into it to preserve other benefits of the association, the pain inflicted is simply the byproduct of a no win circumstance. I’m not sure how you get around it if you don’t want to have sex with someone anymore.
I’ll grant, it would be great if people on both sides of that equation had strong insight into how they are feeling and the authenticity to express it – but it may seem like a mystery – or an uncomfortable truth to say “I no longer am attracted to you sexually.”
That basically is grounds for divorce – with implications on par with “I’m having an affair.”
As it goes, both sides of the equation are faced with the same predicament. They are in an unsatisfying sexual relationship, seemingly permanent, and they are choosing to stay in it prolong it (perhaps by working on it, with the hope that they will feel differently later) – rather than leave it.
Instead of owning their own lack of sexual interest, hang-ups and/or dysfunction
I think there is likely truth in the "not owning" of their lack of sexual interest
in their partner, which often gets interpreted or
assigned as their hang-up or dysfunction; however close examination of many of these (after the marriage ends, before the marriage started, and early in the marriage), often reveals that the "dysfunction" appears only in context with that person or in context with a circumstance. That circumstance might be "marriage" or "committed relationship" as opposed to "girlfriend" or "fwb".
Moreover, there are men and women who might have all kinds of hang-ups in one relationship from the get-go, and then after that relationship ends, embark on a robust sexual exploration with a new partner.
I don't think it is sexually dysfunctional to not want sex with someone who you don't see as a sexual partner anymore, or to stop having sex with someone when you realize too late that you never saw them as a sexual partner. I don't think it is evidence of sexual dysfunction or a hang-up to avoid sex with someone who you don't want it with.
Nor do I think the responsibility
necessarily lies
primarily lies solely with the averse partner to account for the dysfunction. BOTH parties are in the circumstance of choosing to proceed with a relationship that is obviously sexually unsatisfying for [reasons].
It doesn't matter that one partner made a mistake in saying "yes" when they didn't see their fiance as a viable sexual partner, or weren't committed to the decision to marry and felt trapped, or resentful, or angry, or regretful. It doesn't matter that it isn't fair - because you can't argue your way into being owed the sexual desire of another person. People don't seek sex because they feel "responsible" for another's pleasure - at least in Western concepts of romantic marriage. They seek out sex because they want their partner or the circumstance of having sex with them. If they don't want their partner, they turn to other outlets.
So circling back, I totally agree that it feels humiliating to be jilted by one’s partner. I distrust the tendency to treat their lack of desire for their partner as if it is some oversight of relationship etiquette, with the resulting humiliation being a mistake. The humiliation is an accurate response to the very real circumstance of being rejected as a sexual partner candidate. It’s not like people just forget sex the way they forget to make the bed; sex is a biological drive, so the insult is profound and real, and likely well considered.
The sexless marriage is likely the result of a profound disconnection, rather than simply the inappropriate placement of boundaries.