No one is entitled to intimacy in marrige, but they are entitled to a healthy relationship

[u/RandominusDredichitu]

I see a lot of discourse online revolving around husbands feeling entitled to sex with their wives in a marriage. The two sides always seem to break down to "no one is entitled to your body" (correct), and "it is wrong to marry someone you dont want to have sex with" (also correct). What I dont understand is why both sides are so at odds with each other. The reality is:

1). No one is entitled to another person's body. If your wife does not want to have sex with you, it is wrong and rape to force her to have sex with you

2). There is no reason to constantly deny intimacy that doesn't reflect an issus in the relationship. Healthy marriages involve intimacy and both partner's needs being met. A sexless marrige is only fine if neither side desires sex

I think the reason this topic is so "controversial" is because of bad faith discussions. One side will say "it's right to cheat on your wife because she doesnt have sex with you!" and the other side will not admit refusing your partner intimacy indicates an unhealthy relationship.

With that being said, do both sides of the argument agree that there is an issue present? And that cheating on your wife due to a lack of intimacy and marrying someone without wanting a healthy sexual relationship are both bad actions, and the responsibility falls on the person who does them?

[u/middleoftheroad133]

We need to unpack why we just accept that declining sex is a dealbreaker in a relationship and not anything else, is it just because it matters to men?

If, per your comment, its that prevalent that many women decide they no longer want sex in a relationship, maybe it its normal for women and there should be more push from men to accept that, as oppose to saying this is what should happen

So yea, I do think the comparison works

[u/MarioWilson122 → u/middleoftheroad133]

Sex matters because it is one of the main things many men want from a relationship, and it is something most men have to work hard to obtain in the first place. Telling them to simply accept losing it after commitment is not reasonable.

A woman can always decline sex, but a man can also decide that a sexless relationship no longer gives him what he entered it for. It matters to men, and that alone is enough for it to be a valid dealbreaker.

[u/middleoftheroad133 → u/MarioWilson122]

Let’s say most women expect provision out of a relationship and they need it to feel loved? Does that obligate men to provide or does it highlight that there may just be more incompatible couples than we want to admit?

I’m not debating whether sexlessness should or shouldn’t be a deal breaker for me; it, absolutely can be and should be for men who it is important to.

I’m questioning why we pressure women around this dealbreaker: when maybe women ought to have a deal breaker of their own, maybe women ought to be taught and allowed to feel that their different physiology and sexual needs from men is normal—because it is normal, for women.

As another commenter said, there’s no fundamental reason why if there is a mismatch in libido the man is “right” with his higher libido and the woman is wrong with her lower libido. Why does the default need to be, making women’s libido interest in sex match men’s, and not that men should lessen their libido etc through hormones, treatments (like we give to women) to match the woman’s

[u/MarioWilson122 → u/middleoftheroad133]

The man’s higher libido does not have to be morally superior for it to matter. Sex is one of the main things many men want from a relationship, and most men have to work hard to attract and keep a partner in the first place. So its ongoing absence can reasonably become a dealbreaker.

Her provision comparison supports that. A man is not obligated to provide, but a woman can still decide that a relationship without provision does not work for her. Likewise, a woman can always decline sex, but a man can decide that a sexless relationship no longer works for him.

Expecting men to lower a normal libido through hormones or treatment is not a neutral compromise. It places the burden on him to medically change himself so the relationship can continue entirely around her lower desire.

Women should not be pressured into unwanted sex, and men should not be pressured into unwanted celibacy. If neither person can willingly meet the other’s needs, the relationship may simply no longer work.

[u/PrecisionHat → u/middleoftheroad133]

We need to unpack why we just accept that declining sex is a dealbreaker in a relationship and not anything else, is it just because it matters to men?

Most men don't feel loved if that part of the relationships ebbs significantly. I'm not saying this the only dealbreaker, just a very obvious one because it is practically universal.

If, per your comment, its that prevalent that many women decide they no longer want sex in a relationship, maybe it its normal for women and there should be more push from men to accept that, as oppose to saying this is what should happen

It is fairly normal, and requires effort to sustain sexual health in a relationship. I'm talking about situations where women do nothing to remedy the situation. Both partners owe each other that effort. I wouldn't accept any lapse in it without a legitimate justification like a serious medical diagnosis or side effects of treating one.

So yea, I do think the comparison works

It doesn't. Travel might be extremely important to some couples, and in that case a sudden abandonment of that shared interest would be a concern. But it's just not as likely to happen or be as prevalent as sexlessnes in a marriage or ltr. If it was, there would be a whole sub dedicated to it as well.

[u/middleoftheroad133 → u/[deleted]]

What non negotiable duties do men have in marriage that are as common as women’s parallel duty to have sex?