|
Post by jerri on Nov 18, 2020 3:00:57 GMT -5
Courts will see our plight very differently if it's not recorded/documented. ironhamster said: Nov 16, 2020 at 9:59am loved his post!☺If only society learned to respect intimacy as a genuine need/right. Instead, the refuser holds the rights of both with a cock cage/chastity belt. And we wonder why people don't want to be owned? It's not right to own slaves yet, we feel the need to cage someone in celibacy till death do us part? Is it really cheating if one informs their spouse/relationship that it's ok if they don't want sex/intimacy, but they do want it and will be seeking intimacy. BRB Cheating is defined so many ways. People even think an open relationship is cheating and some think that open relationships can't be monogamous. My husband told me I was cheating. I told him I wasn't doing anything behind his back. All of the information was on the table and he wasn't cheated out of any information. He understood way after we learned about loving open marriages serving the needs of both. Relationship author, Esther Perel says, todays definition of monogamy is I am monogamous in all my relationships! Hahaha Your positive or negative insight will teach many down the road. Please share 😃 I wanted intimacy so bad that I decided not to ask him for permission to open the marrige. I wished I had gotten a mentor and learned all about it before I threw that hand grenade because I really didn't care if he loved me at that point ETA: We all agree they have a right to dictate what happens to their own body. Once they give up sex, do they have a right to keep us prisoners?
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Nov 18, 2020 10:40:29 GMT -5
Legal issues aside...
For many, especially here in the puritanical U.S., religion plays into it also... and is the basis of many laws.... how does organized religion (for those that participate) view infidelity....
If you were married in a church, what did your vows say?
Laws and societal view are based on the most stringent interpretation, not the most common or most popular or most reasonable intrepretation. (the strictest 5%)
But i hate talking about religion... its as bad as politics... no one wins, everyone gets upset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2020 13:01:20 GMT -5
This also falls into the "it's either a big deal or it isn't" category. Refusers often report, "I don't know why you see this as such a big deal?!". I see it as if it isn't a big deal, then having sex isn't an issue or having sex outside the marriage shouldn't be an issue. But...refusers remain adamant in their refusals and often flip out when someone seeks an oil change outside the marriage. This confirms that it is, indeed, important both for those who want sex to be a part of their relationship and those that don't.
Does my W want to have her cake and eat it too? Yup. Do I allow that to happen? Yup. If the opportunity for an affair presented itself would I take it? 2-years ago. No. Today. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Nov 18, 2020 19:26:09 GMT -5
It is not your jurisdictions laws that got you in to an ILIASM deal. It is not your church that got you in to an ILIASM deal. It is not the general views of society that got you in to an ILIASM deal either.
What got you in to an ILIASM deal is a combination of choices you made, and choices other people made (to which you are collateral damage) What keeps you in an ILIASM deal is also a matter of your choices.
Don't look for the state to sort it out for you. Don't look to the church to sort it out for you. Don't look to society generally to sort it out for you either.
The job of sorting it all out - and the very difficult choices that entails - are on you.
|
|
|
Post by padgemi on Nov 18, 2020 21:34:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Nov 19, 2020 4:24:18 GMT -5
It is not your jurisdictions laws that got you in to an ILIASM deal. It is not your church that got you in to an ILIASM deal. It is not the general views of society that got you in to an ILIASM deal either. What got you in to an ILIASM deal is a combination of choices you made, and choices other people made (to which you are collateral damage) What keeps you in an ILIASM deal is also a matter of your choices. Don't look for the state to sort it out for you. Don't look to the church to sort it out for you. Don't look to society generally to sort it out for you either. The job of sorting it all out - and the very difficult choices that entails - are on you.
I agree in principle. Alas, I also know the psychological reality; and that is that some 80-90% of people are strongly held by what (they think) the state, the church, and society expect of them. Totally aside from the shit sandwich they may be experiencing in their marriage, they feel overwhelming societal pressure to conform. And it takes a lot of counter-pressure, a lot of pain and suffering for them to break through that. Many won't.
So it goes (in the words of Kurt Vonnegut).
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Nov 19, 2020 4:29:46 GMT -5
jerri 'Do others have [the] right to dictate if we get sex?' you ask. Certainly not, but certainly yes inasmuch as their own body is involved. If he/she/it doesn't want to we certainly don't have the right to dictate that they should. What pisses me off is when the refusers assume rights over the disposal of our bodies while claiming that they don't want what they won't allow us. In the extreme, this case is the hyper-jealous partner who kills their ex because they don't want them to see anyone else, don't want them to have a valid relationship - or, as they see it - belong to someone else, because basically the see it as a question of ownership. You. Are. Theirs. To command, or to deal with as it pleases them.
It gets even more *redacted* bizarre when for instance, as quoted by @tooyoungtobeold2 , when third parties get involved - namely religion, movements or similar. And traditionally they don't just want to control your sex life, they also want to control the what and when of your food, the clothes you wear, what you teach your children. From the Pope to Koresh to Jim Jones to the Hairy Krishnas ... they all want to control and have their fingers in your pie.
My take: tell the wannabe slave owners in your life to eff off. As baza said: in the end it comes down to you. Stop playing their game, or excise them from your life -- or buckle under and be owned. Some people apparently thrive like that, I for one certainly don't.
|
|
|
Post by jerri on Nov 19, 2020 4:40:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Nov 19, 2020 5:13:20 GMT -5
Well, what Lindsay Beyerstein says about the gander applies equally to the goose, does it not? "He wants to have his cake and eat it too" - well, maybe so, but then so does the refuser wife, n'est ce pas? I think she's worse. He merely wants his needs taken care of, she wants to own him AND his needs AND maintain a "monogamous" marriage.
|
|
|
Post by jerri on Nov 19, 2020 5:28:33 GMT -5
Well, what Lindsay Beyerstein says about the gander applies equally to the goose, does it not? "He wants to have his cake and eat it too" - well, maybe so, but then so does the refuser wife, n'est ce pas? I think she's worse. He merely wants his needs taken care of, she wants to own him AND his needs AND maintain a "monogamous" marriage. I think we should really be weary of anyone who hasn't been in our shoes! Your posts rock! I feel the same way! You guys are so incredibly intelligent!
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Nov 19, 2020 15:27:35 GMT -5
Dan says .............. I submit that more people have been driven mad by guilt than by horniness. What will his marriage be like when he's cheating on his wife? He sounds guilty enough already.
I agree!
|
|
|
Post by jerri on Nov 20, 2020 4:16:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Nov 20, 2020 15:20:46 GMT -5
I would argue that sex is not a “need” in marriage - it is an expectation and a commonly held belief, especially as the key element that differentiates a marriage from all other forms of relationships. It’s the default in the absence of an explicit agreement otherwise.
However... “forsaking all others” and “to have and hold” are not freestanding terms and conditions; one does not happen without the other. You don’t get to keep sending invoices for products you aren’t shipping. The agreement is to be monogamous *in exchange for* a sexual relationship within the marriage.
But... are we shouting at the wind, just trying to justify our own interests? No matter how just we believe our actions are, others will judge us by their own standards. Our spouse, friends, co-workers... curiously, even other dead bedroom forums will be critical. They’re the ones who would need to share this perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Nov 20, 2020 19:24:19 GMT -5
DryCreek, one dead-bedroom sub-forum I know of has 2 common defaults. Fix it ASAP or divorce. No middle ground.
So you are correct, different people or groups have their own standards.
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Nov 20, 2020 20:41:03 GMT -5
jerri One thing I miss in the write-up by Dr. Mark D. White is the word "implicit". I looked, I looked again, and I don't think I saw it once.
We regularly enter into contracts without writing reems of fine print, because we consider some things to be implicit. One thing implicit in a marriage contract (an oral contract, people making promises and oaths to each other) is that that some income is shared. One promise, albeit vague, is to support each other. One is, unless explicitly (!) stated, cohabitation. Often there are promises of
'making you happy'. (wow, that's a tall one!).
Can we safely assume that one implicit promise is "there shall be sex"?
I think we all here can probably agree on the latter. So, does that throw a different light on Dr. White's wondering out loud if non delivery of sex is as big a fraud as going outside the relationship?
I have pondered this from time to time (usually in the middle of a sleepless night). I manage to be gracious about it 99% of the time, but occasionally, when I'm feeling a little depressed, the thought intrudes: "I've been rolled".
|
|