Check out some similar questions!

ordinaryguy · Jun 8, 2009, 08:08 AM

Here's a link (When Sex Leaves the Marriage) to an interview with Denise A. Donnelly, associate professor of sociology at Georgia State University about her research on sexless marriages.

A couple of excerpts:

about 15 percent of married couples have not had sex with their spouse in the last six months to one year

Some of our former respondents have kept in touch with me, and the happiest ones are actually those that have moved on to other partners. It may be that lack of sex is a signal that all intimacy in a marriage is over, and that both would be happier in other situations. I know that this may not be a popular idea with the religious and political right, but it may be a better solution than staying in a marriage that is hurtful and unfulfilling.

In sum, these situations are just so complicated. Each couple has to examine their specific histories, their motivations and goals, and whether it is worth it to them to work on putting sex back in the marriage. It can be a difficult task and require that people take emotional and physical steps that aren’t comfortable for them.

The reader comments are almost more interesting than the article. One example:

I am a 63 year old senior. My marriage became sexless around fifteen years ago. My wife had no apparent desire for sex and I finally gave up after years of begging. Five years later I began having an affair with a co-worker who was also in a sexless marriage. Our ten-year monogamous relationship likely saved both our marriages. We are both married to good people. I realize this isn’t the normal solution but it likely happens more that you could ever imagine.

I'm also 63, and the cold hard truth is that if you live long enough, EVERY marriage becomes sexless at some point. And for most couples, that point is long enough before death for it to be an issue for at least one spouse. The reasons it happens are as complicated as life is, but when it happens to you, you'll have to decide how to respond.

My marriage became sexless about five years ago. I was mentally prepared (I think) to give up physical sex, but had hoped to keep tenderness and intimate touching intact. That isn't what happened, and we separated in January. I feel much lighter, though still a little bruised and blue around the edges.

So, what do you think? When is a sexless marriage OK to settle for, and when is it better to move on? Would your answer be the same to 33-year-old person as to a 63-year-old person?

excon · Jun 8, 2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

So, what do you think? When is a sexless marriage OK to settle for, and when is it better to move on? Would your answer be the same to 33-year-old person as to a 63-year-old person?

Hello ordinary:

When there's LOTS of money. It don't matter how old you are - money is guuuuud!

excon

Synnen · Jun 8, 2009, 08:24 AM

I think that a successful sexlses marriage has to be discussed and agreed upon---just as an OPEN marriage would have to be.

If it's not brought out into the open, examined, and discussed, the marriage is doomed to failure, because there was no agreement on an important part of marital life.

Personally, I would think that a sexless marriage should happen either by mutual choice, or because one or both partners is physically unable to have sex (accident that causes paralysis, or any other problem that makes it physically impossible to have sex, etc.).

But... I'm 34. I have no idea how I would see things in my marriage at 65. I would think that a marriage can be sexless and successful as long as the OTHER forms of intimacy are still there--kissing, touching, holding hands, cuddling, etc.--but that loss of that physical, intimate connection could very easily cause the downfall of a marriage.

liz28 · Jun 8, 2009, 03:24 PM

I didn't see the comment from the 33 year old only the comments from both of the 63 years old.

I was going say maybe both of the comments from the husband and wife and they don't even know it. Maybe both of them had an affair and left a comment to the same article--that would be funny.

I couldn't stay in a sexless marriage because it would lead to me cheating. Even if you use toys your going get sick of them to.

susangpyp · Jun 8, 2009, 03:41 PM

I had a client who was going through therapy for a rape she had never dealt with. She couldn't even think of sex and she tried but would break down. Even after 2 years. Her husband had some periods where he seemed impatient or frustrated but eventually he came to the decision that he would stay with her even if meant never having sex again. It was a close and supportive relationship and he couldn't see himself without her.

Getting her to be able to be touched again took some doing and it was very tenuous but they hung in there and did eventually make love again. Love making is not often but they are both okay with it.

It takes two committed people (esp when one really wants to have it) to stay together like that.

ordinaryguy · Jun 8, 2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Synnen

But... I'm 34. I have no idea how I would see things in my marriage at 65.

As it turned out for me, the answer at 62 was the same as it was at 30--move on. But in both instances, the lack of sex was just one of the results of a complete loss of emotional trust, and not really the cause of anything.

I would think that a marriage can be sexless and successful as long as the OTHER forms of intimacy are still there--kissing, touching, holding hands, cuddling, etc.--but that loss of that physical, intimate connection could very easily cause the downfall of a marriage.

Yes, it did for ours. I can even imagine it working without any expressions of affection at all, like a business transaction, if both parties agree to that. But that scenario was just too bleak for me to contemplate. I'd rather live alone than with a business partner. Actually, I'm much less lonely now than I was before the separation, because I can cultivate other friendships. Stuck in the marriage, I didn't feel free to do that.

Do you (all) think it's generally true that unhappy marriages stifle other friendships?

::Edit:: For that matter, what about happy marriages. Do they also stifle other friendships?

susangpyp · Jun 8, 2009, 05:03 PM

I have known both unhappy marriages and enmeshed marriages to stifle friendships. But a true happy marriage of two happy people do not stifle friendships.

But I've known a lot of marriages where they are enmeshed or joined at the hip and out of fear or something they seem to let friendships die or fade away rather than rock the boat and ask for time with their friends (which everyone needs IMHO). A lot of these enmeshed relationships will CLAIM that they're happy but I'm not sure it's happiness or dependency.

88sunflower · Jun 8, 2009, 05:13 PM

I feel a sexless marriage at whatever age needs to be discussed. There are several things that can cause that. First is it some accident or sickness that caused it to be sexless. That should come with understanding from the other partner. Is it just lack of interest or boredom? Well that leads to trouble. Once you lose it its hard to gain back. Or what if there is problems in the area where arousal is an issue. Is one willing to take viagara or something along those lines? I guess it depends on the situation. There are many scenerios that can be played out and answered.

Synnen · Jun 8, 2009, 06:27 PM

I think that ANY relationship that TAKES freedom to spend time with others is unhealthy. Willingly given up is one thing, but anyone that gave me the ultimatum between a relationship and a friend would be the one left behind.

I think a truly healthy marriage is based on trust, and on the willingness of each partner to want their spouse to be happy and proud of them and the decisions they make. I don't go out with my girlfriends and do anything that would hurt or disappoint my husband, and I expect that he does likewise. I also have male friends I spend time with, and my husband has female friends he spends time with. Sometimes we go out with each other's friends together, and we have several MUTUAL friends we hang out with as well. But---it comes down to trust and communication.

So yes--I think that any marriage that stifles friendships is unhealthy, but I think it happens in unhappy marriages more than happy marriages--and I think it's a symptom of other problems(such as insecurity or low self esteem), not a problem in and of itself.

ordinaryguy · Jun 8, 2009, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by susangpyp

I have known both unhappy marriages and enmeshed marriages to stifle friendships. But a true happy marriage of two happy people do not stifle friendships.

But I've known a lot of marriages where they are enmeshed or joined at the hip and out of fear or something they seem to let friendships die or fade away rather than rock the boat and ask for time with their friends (which everyone needs IMHO). A lot of these enmeshed relationships will CLAIM that they're happy but I'm not sure it's happiness or dependency.

I ran across this article awhile back about the health benefits of friendship:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/health/21well.html?em

I found this particularly fascinating:

“In general, the role of friendship in our lives isn’t terribly well appreciated,” said Rebecca G. Adams, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. “There is just scads of stuff on families and marriage, but very little on friendship. It baffles me. Friendship has a bigger impact on our psychological well-being than family relationships.”

And this...

"And notably, proximity and the amount of contact with a friend wasn’t associated with survival. Just having friends was protective."

Which leads me to think that dead friends may be almost as beneficial as live ones. I certainly hope it's true, because some of my best friends are dead people.

ordinaryguy · Jun 8, 2009, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Synnen

I think that ANY relationship that TAKES freedom to spend time with others is unhealthy. Willingly given up is one thing, but anyone that gave me the ultimatum between a relationship and a friend would be the one left behind.

Well, yes, if it came in the form of a straight up-or-down ultimatum, the answer would be clear. But in my experience, it's usually a lot more subtle than that--the snide comment here, the offhand reference there, that over time accumulate to the unspoken, but not-so-subtle message, "Any time and attention you spend on other relationships will cost you something in this one". But any attempt to address it directly will be deflected by, "No, of course not, it's fine. I'm OK with it, really". You may know this is a lie, but if you try to prove it, you will not only fail, you will also cause even more damage, so you let it slide. And gradually, one phone call, one lunch, one conversation at a time, you let those other friendships wither on the vine, trying to keep this one alive.

There aren't too many things in life that I view as tragic, but this definitely is one.

ordinaryguy · Jun 8, 2009, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by 88sunflower

Or what if there is problems in the area where arousal is an issue. Is one willing to take viagara or something along those lines?.

Just a comment... ED drugs help to get an erection IF a man is aroused, but they don't help at all in BECOMING aroused in the first place. Arousal is a brain thing, whereas an erection is a nerve and blood flow thing. The drugs facilitate blood flow to the penis, and nerve synapses between the brain and the groin, but they don't affect the brain areas that are involved in arousal.

88sunflower · Jun 9, 2009, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Just a comment.... ED drugs help to get an erection IF a man is aroused, but they don't help at all in BECOMING aroused in the first place. Arousal is a brain thing, whereas an erection is a nerve and blood flow thing. The drugs facilitate blood flow to the penis, and nerve synapses between the brain and the groin, but they don't affect the brain areas that are involved in arousal.

Yep I understand that completely. I dated someone who had to take it. It's a blood flow thing all right. He always would try to trick me in thinking he didn't need to take it. But when he took one his face was red like a radish. He could never hide it. The blood flowed and made him look sun burned.

simoneaugie · Jun 10, 2009, 07:52 PM

Tragic, yes. The mental subtlety involved is sometimes overlooked too. Unhealthy relationships are a sure sign of being human. Then we learn to be better, sometimes moving away from those who aren't ready to learn.

I think that government overseen institutions, like marriage can miss the human element entirely. People change, situations change, "till death do us part" used to cover about 30 years of being married. People used to die before menopause and prostate and ED issues had a chance to become symptomatic.

There is a physical aspect of touching and smelling one another that is present in both marriages and friendships. Without touch, relationships wither, I think. Sex is touching in a specific way. Like tone of voice, gentle touching carries affection over time.

People should be free to stay or move on from their relationships. A relationship that precludes any friendship or socialization with others is not a friendship. Marriages are a union of friends.

jenniepepsi · Jun 11, 2009, 03:28 PM

Sexless marriage is OK for anyone in which BOTH people are OK with it. :) that's pretty much all I can say

ordinaryguy · Jun 11, 2009, 05:26 PM

Thanks for your comments, Simone.

This made me laugh:

Originally Posted by simoneaugie

Unhealthy relationships are a sure sign of being human.

I suppose it's true, but I can't decide whether I should be comforted or outraged by it.

Then we learn to be better, sometimes moving away from those who aren't ready to learn.

Yes, or who are ready to learn, but only from someone else, or to learn a different lesson than the one we want to teach. It does sometimes seem to me that we have a particular set of "lessons" to learn from each of the major relationships in our life. And with some people, once you've been through the syllabus and covered the material, there really isn't a lot of reason to elaborate on it.

I think that government overseen institutions, like marriage can miss the human element entirely. People change, situations change, "till death do us part" used to cover about 30 years of being married. People used to die before menopause and prostate and ED issues had a chance to become symptomatic.

Not only are we living longer, but the age cohort now moving into the years when these issues are bound to come up was the first to come of age in a time when there was such a celebration of sex-as-freedom-and-identity. We may find it harder to give it up gracefully than previous generations, most of whom probably never expected that much from it to begin with.

There is a physical aspect of touching and smelling one another that is present in both marriages and friendships. Without touch, relationships wither, I think. Sex is touching in a specific way. Like tone of voice, gentle touching carries affection over time.

Touch is an essential avenue of communication, I agree, and it seems with age sex becomes a smaller and smaller share of the "touch spectrum" available to us. I can deal with no sex in a relationship, or in my life, but without some kind of affection, in look or tone or touch, it gets pretty hard to see the point of either, doesn't it?