|
|
Post by unmatched on May 14, 2016 18:28:20 GMT -5
I think I might just go with the lack of intimacy. I do t need actual sex per say, but some intimacy so we just don't feel line close friends. If I was having sex 12 times a year I might not define it as sexless. But that's because I'm getting zero now. So 12 might at least have me looking forward to it. I remember past sex and wish for some of that. :-) I always thought that. But I now think it is very hard to have real intimacy in a relationship without the sex. We had a relationship with no touch and no physical affection at all, and over the last couple of years we have managed to massively improve that side of things. It doesn't come naturally to my wife and I think she often doesn't 'feel' it the same way I do. But it is hugely better. How intimate is it though? I now feel intimacy requires real openness and vulnerability on both sides. And it is very hard to have that feeling when there is a huge wall around sex. It is a bit like saying I will share myself with you so long as you don't go near the stuff that is uncomfortable for me. |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on May 14, 2016 21:23:03 GMT -5
It's been 10 years. With little physical contact at all. 12 x a year would be like an orgy.
|
|
|
|
Post by skguy on May 14, 2016 21:23:37 GMT -5
I think I might just go with the lack of intimacy. I do t need actual sex per say, but some intimacy so we just don't feel line close friends. If I was having sex 12 times a year I might not define it as sexless. But that's because I'm getting zero now. So 12 might at least have me looking forward to it. I remember past sex and wish for some of that. :-) I always thought that. But I now think it is very hard to have real intimacy in a relationship without the sex. We had a relationship with no touch and no physical affection at all, and over the last couple of years we have managed to massively improve that side of things. It doesn't come naturally to my wife and I think she often doesn't 'feel' it the same way I do. But it is hugely better. How intimate is it though? I now feel intimacy requires real openness and vulnerability on both sides. And it is very hard to have that feeling when there is a huge wall around sex. It is a bit like saying I will share myself with you so long as you don't go near the stuff that is uncomfortable for me. I agree. I guess because I haven't even got to have what I classify as intimacy, I sort of put the thought of sex on the backburner. I'm sure if we had that intimacy, things would naturally progress. I'll keep working on it with my wife. |
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on May 15, 2016 13:08:09 GMT -5
I think I might just go with the lack of intimacy. I do t need actual sex per say, but some intimacy so we just don't feel line close friends. If I was having sex 12 times a year I might not define it as sexless. But that's because I'm getting zero now. So 12 might at least have me looking forward to it. I remember past sex and wish for some of that. :-) I always thought that. But I now think it is very hard to have real intimacy in a relationship without the sex. We had a relationship with no touch and no physical affection at all, and over the last couple of years we have managed to massively improve that side of things. It doesn't come naturally to my wife and I think she often doesn't 'feel' it the same way I do. But it is hugely better. How intimate is it though? I now feel intimacy requires real openness and vulnerability on both sides. And it is very hard to have that feeling when there is a huge wall around sex. It is a bit like saying I will share myself with you so long as you don't go near the stuff that is uncomfortable for me. , I'd swear we're married to the same woman. Very conditional "openness", only when it requires no vulnerability. Sadly ironic because she was adamant about adding "communicate openly" to our wedding vows. As you know, there is a very, very big difference between sex and intimacy. Clinically, we're not sexless. But there has never been intimacy or passion. It makes for a very shallow, hollow relationship without strong bonds. To darktippedrose's OP, 10x a year is an easy way to label the condition. Those of us in it would define it more broadly, where emotionless sex doesn't count. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman12345 on May 15, 2016 16:56:35 GMT -5
Love, friendship and sexual intimacy. That is the elusive trifecta. I had this for 27 years and it was everything I wanted.
Problem is we have been married 32 years. It was like quitting cigarettes cold turkey. From three or four times a month to zero.
We would make time to make time - if we missed a session we made it up later. Now, there is nothing to make up.
I don't even think I want sex with her anymore - way too much work for very little pay off. I would be happy with non PIV sex just to show me she still cares about what I need. She has verbally acknowledged what it is she needs to do and has promised time and again that she will. But she won't. She just won't.
Sorry for the rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chatter Fox on May 15, 2016 20:18:37 GMT -5
I personally am not a fan of using some predetermined number to define a sexless marriage. My definition is more about your own sexual satisfaction. It's not just about frequency to me either. One could deal out duty sex on a weekly basis and it could be just as bad as no sex. I base that on experience. Bad sex or forced sex or any kind of sex that feels wrong to you in any sense is, in my opinion, worse than no sex. Been there, done that. Rejection comes in many forms. If she says yes but her body says no.... well... let's just say I'm not deaf blind or dumb. I get it. She doesn't need to spell it out and it still conveys the message that my sexuality is not welcome in this relationship.
For me, my definition of a sexless marriage is where one partner is sexually frustrated or neglected to the point that they give divorce a serious consideration on a regular basis. I don't care if that person wants great sex everyday. If that's where they draw their own personal line, and it's crossed so bad that they are willing to seriously go through the painful process of divorce over it, then in my opinion, that's a sexless marriage..and furthermore, I don't think anyone should judge anyone for where they draw their line. It's all relative and some of us have stronger needs than others in this area.
I think the term "sexless" implies that sex is nonexistent or so infrequent that it might as well be nonexistent. In my opinion, thats not necessarily the criteria to send most people down the path of divorce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinkberry on May 15, 2016 23:57:28 GMT -5
I like the number definition only because it helped me so much when I first came to EP. I felt like my marriage was pretty much sexless, but usually (until the end was nigh) I would only go six months or so completely without sex. I felt like sexless meant zero and that perhaps it wasn't the sexless marriage that was the problem.
Of course, it turns out both were true. I was in a sexless marriage, but it was not the core problem, just a big one that made me miserable and finally was the big, flashing neon sign that told me to GTFO.
I think satisfaction with your sex life is a big factor as well, but if you are getting sex five times a week and you feel like you need it 15, you have an entirely different problem than sexless marriage. So, while numbers certainly do not tell the whole story, they are a helpful guide.
|
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on May 16, 2016 5:03:48 GMT -5
I like the number definition only because it helped me so much when I first came to EP. I felt like my marriage was pretty much sexless, but usually (until the end was nigh) I would only go six months or so completely without sex. I felt like sexless meant zero and that perhaps it wasn't the sexless marriage that was the problem. Of course, it turns out both were true. I was in a sexless marriage, but it was not the core problem, just a big one that made me miserable and finally was the big, flashing neon sign that told me to GTFO. I think satisfaction with your sex life is a big factor as well, but if you are getting sex five times a week and you feel like you need it 15, you have an entirely different problem than sexless marriage. So, while numbers certainly do not tell the whole story, they are a helpful guide. That was my experience too. Hearing it was 'official' that my marriage was sexless somehow gave me permission to start opening it up and pulling it apart. If everything I had read just said 'is it enough for you', then I might have gone on thinking maybe it wasn't really that bad and I could find a way to live with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 16, 2016 7:51:07 GMT -5
I like the number definition only because it helped me so much when I first came to EP. I felt like my marriage was pretty much sexless, but usually (until the end was nigh) I would only go six months or so completely without sex. I felt like sexless meant zero and that perhaps it wasn't the sexless marriage that was the problem. Of course, it turns out both were true. I was in a sexless marriage, but it was not the core problem, just a big one that made me miserable and finally was the big, flashing neon sign that told me to GTFO. I think satisfaction with your sex life is a big factor as well, but if you are getting sex five times a week and you feel like you need it 15, you have an entirely different problem than sexless marriage. So, while numbers certainly do not tell the whole story, they are a helpful guide. That was my experience too. Hearing it was 'official' that my marriage was sexless somehow gave me permission to start opening it up and pulling it apart. If everything I had read just said 'is it enough for you', then I might have gone on thinking maybe it wasn't really that bad and I could find a way to live with it. I totally agree with these two comments: having an "industry standard definition" IS useful. It helps individuals realize "yes, my situation is 'bad enough' to warrant extra attention/help/action". It helps therapists diagnose and consider lines of discussion and treatment. The Wikipedia article on sexless marriage states "The definition of a non-sexual marriage is often broadened to include those where sexual intimacy occurs fewer than ten times per year." Admittedly, it doesn't provide a scholarly reference to a source for this definition. But I've seen the same basic definition in many articles, both in the popular press and in publications like "Psychology Today". So take it for what you will. Admittedly, any "industry standard definition" is not perfect; certainly there are folks having sex 14 times a year that may be emotionally as distraught as those getting it 3 times or 0 times. Every case is different and I respect that; I'd never tell someone "your pain doesn't count because it doesn't meet the definition". Furthermore, I've interacted with the mental health system not only on my own journey through this, but also on other serious matters with other family matters. From this layman's point of view: EVERY definition in mental health field is a bit fungible! So I consider this a "clear definition... that is still just a 'rule of thumb'." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 7:11:22 GMT -5
if it feels sexless it is
|
|
