This hurts.

Yes. In terms of what will happen next, the label does not matter.

As far as it goes with me, I was first concerned with her behavior of not wanting and mostly not having sex with me, her husband.
That changed for a while, and then reverted after the false happiness was purchased at a high price.

At that point MY behavior changed. My behavior would no longer include being married to her.

Maybe some people on a group think she is a frysexual or some such because she is the specific type of aesexual who doesn't want to bang me because she's married to me but would otherwise pull a train at a sex club. Maybe the term is helpful if I'm talking in coded language with an in group about the specific character or nature her not wanting to bang me. Maybe she'd love to wrap herself in such a term to enjoy some moral comfort in posing the behavior as an identity, subject to whatever sanctuary or accommodation one's political dogma affords that. But it doesn't matter a bit in terms of what was going to happen next - which is no sex with her and me, in either the short or the longer run.

It's MY behavior that I control.

Nice to meet you as well @earthhorse . I was a frequent poster on the old ILIASM board at EP. Based on what you said, there are many commonalities between the scenario you stated and mine.

For example, my wife also had profoundly dissatisfying childhood with parents modelling a dysfunctional marriage, the presence of chronic neurological differences and mood disorders, an intention in getting married to create a better family life than the one she came from, difficulty in seeing and changing her own behavior or taking responsibility for it on a wide scale - much more than sex-related activity. A propensity for spectacular passive-aggressive sabotage of any enterprise in which she became disillusioned or disengaged.

She too, eventually copped to a great deal of awareness of her own dissatisfaction, with her lack of boundaries in her friendships and work relationships, with her high barriers with me, with her avoidance. Because, like you, I love her (or loved her), and because I was motivated to anticipate her perspective and the task ahead, I was compelled to take a much wider view of our long term relationship goals, and go to unusual lengths to test and arrive at the truth of our relationship, as well as taking her at her word. By that, I mean, after we tried everything else and failed (including several years of therapy, after she had an affair, after a failed reconciliation), she said it wasn't "me" - so much as losing track of her own sexuality. She needed to "Find it again, to bring it to me."  With so much therapy under our belt, we got better at communicating the various aspects of our dysfunction and disconnection, as well as mapping out and doing the tasks that we identified, hoping to create the grounds for the attraction to ignite again. This communication and description, with empathy, kindness, mutual support, felt like progress compared to the shitshow it had been. I was invested in her narrative as she struggled through complicated pretzel twists of rationalization for having her cake and eating it. I agreed to opening our relationship a crack for a while, and it worked for a while - or seemed to.

Neither of us WANTED to separate.
We both felt pretty aware of the the problems and damage report in our relationship.
My propensity for analytics, creative solutions, and big picture thinking translated into an extraordinarily high capacity for punishment and forgiveness as we sorted out this stuff over years, backing up on the flowchart, and trying different solutions. In hindsight, I would now cop to the succumbing to the seductive thought that I was the only man on the planet who knew her well enough and was invested enough, while also being able to "handle" the torture she dished out. There was a piece of me that defined my suitability for her by how much torture I could withstand without "taking it the wrong way" from her -- because only I understood her. 

When I finally said the words and meant it- it was like stepping off a cliff and going into freefall. But I had exhausted every conceivable alternative already, across several years, a lot of pain, and stories that when told, have made OTHER people cry. 

I don't know if ANYONE can really be TOLD this when they are in it (I couldn't - partly because I thought myself so clever at doing what nobody else would) is that an empathetic and intelligent person can get very invested in the diagnosis of a relationship problem without realizing that it's an autopsy. The relationship is already disconnected and flatlined - this isn't the beginning stage - it's the end of it, across years. You can both state regret about the results of that absence of life in that one thing, and you can state an intention to do things that you hope will restore it to what it used to be, or in my case, to create a new relationship entirely.

But you still start from a flatline. My point in discussing my dating life wasn't to say that dating is similar to marriage. My point was about attraction, and the way it works, now that I've dated many women. Having an intention to eventually BE attracted to someone is sweet, and certainly is well-meaning and earnest. The naivete and futility of it doesn't become apparent until you enter the dating world, though, and understand how martial attraction is. When it's gone, the credits roll. If it isn't there, you don't meet for another coffee.

I am not in a privileged position to martyr myself so that she neither has to deal with her own issues, nor has the opportunity to meet someone who may be more of her speed.  I hope that her lack of desire really is only toward me, and that she can find a more favorable relationship in the future.  As I have said, no one should have to go through life hating, dreading, or withholding sex for whatever reason.SaveSave

csl, i'd disagree on the compulsion thing. CHristianity teaches that men are the head of the marriage just as Christ is head of the church, and for wives to submit to their husbands. That's directed at women specifically. It then says men need to love their wives as christ loved the church, but since Christ never had to "submit" to the church, it does set up a one-way submission/compulsion. IMHO. When I was in the church, at least, I never once referred to it as imposing celibacy. It was always that wives needed to submit. There are many more passages (mostly written by Paul, who was a celibate) about women covering their heads, not speaking in church, not holding office, etc. The idea is that men run the show with the support of women. And the negotiation goes, if you're a wife not giving sex you can ask your husband to love you the way Christ loves the church. If you are a husband, you can expect your wife to submit to you. Same problem, I guess, just negotiated differently. But, I still think the wives' "compulsion" is Biblically mandated.

csl , i'd disagree on the compulsion thing. CHristianity teaches that men are the head of the marriage just as Christ is head of the church, and for wives to submit to their husbands. That's directed at women specifically. It then says men need to love their wives as christ loved the church, but since Christ never had to "submit" to the church, it does set up a one-way submission/compulsion. IMHO. When I was in the church, at least, I never once referred to it as imposing celibacy. It was always that wives needed to submit. There are many more passages (mostly written by Paul, who was a celibate) about women covering their heads, not speaking in church, not holding office, etc. The idea is that men run the show with the support of women. And the negotiation goes, if you're a wife not giving sex you can ask your husband to love you the way Christ loves the church. If you are a husband, you can expect your wife to submit to you. Same problem, I guess, just negotiated differently. But, I still think the wives' "compulsion" is Biblically mandated.