Would you DIVORCE over a difference in sex drives?

[Welcome 58]

Why? Why not?

Honest question.

Answer honest.

[wanderlust 315]

I don't know. Sexual compability is a necessary component in loving and functioning relationships (provided both are healthy in that respect and not asexual). A lot of external and unrelated problems can arise in a marriage when one is unsatisfied sexually. Such resentment spills over.

 

I know that my sex drive is pretty high, but if his is higher, I will always be with him. No hesitation. I can't imagine myself ever saying no. Even if I wasn't in the mood at that particular moment, I won't regret it in the end. 

 

If he, on the other hand, had an extremely low sex drive, that would crush me. I look forward to that part of my life so, so much. I don't think I could be with someone who didn't want to have sex with me, and often. I'm not worried about that happening though. Obviously we would have a frank discussion about that before marriage.

[rookiepilot1 639]

I think we each have a primal urge, innate need to have sex, it's part of humanity.

Now there are things I believe I might be able to do as a husband to arouse my wife's urges!

Everyone has differing 'turn-ons', so maybe exploring these in conversation, in the act, and at the dinner table you know.

If the both of us "try" and "give", and submit to each other as this verse from scripture suggests:

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

(1 Corinthians 7:4)

Oh yeah and this one's also pretty darn good, ... Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.

(Proverbs 5 15-19)

I mean 'forsaking all others' is a covenant of marriage, isn't it?

Where else will that partner get their water from, let's always keep that mind.

As I believe this was the idea of writers of these verses.

[Jasmine23 1,605]

NO. Why? 1. Because he's my husband and I love him.

2. Religious beliefs

3. Why would someone divorce their spouse because their sex drive is different?

4.

['tis the Bearded One 662]

No. The only legitimate reasons for divorce to me are adultery...and death but then that's not really divorce...

Though for other issues e.g. spousal abuse, a separation may be in order with the intention to reunite eventually.

[Steadfast Madcap 3,216]

No. The only legitimate reasons for divorce to me are adultery...and death but then that's not really divorce...

Though for other issues e.g. spousal abuse, a separation may be in order with the intention to reunite eventually.

 

How does adultery trump abusing someone physically/emotionally?

 

I would not divorce over a difference in sex drive unless we were talking say, years and years of no physical relationship, and repeated failures to fix it through going to counseling together & such.

['tis the Bearded One 662]

How does adultery trump abusing someone physically/emotionally?

 

It is a religous thing. I believe only adultery can terminate a marriage and allow the innocent party to remarry. But apart from that, adultery is a fairly clear-cut factor while abuse is very broad and has an extensive spectrum. If a spouse hits the other once in anger would you consider this a complete shattering of the marriage covenant? Unless its THE perfect marriage I hazard to suggest that there will *always* be some form and level of abuse (even just light verbal abuse or withholding intimacy) at some stage in the relationship. As such any spouse could claim the abuse card and exit....  I would consider adultery, no matter how small as being one of the deepest betrayals. 

 

In no way am I suggesting abuse should be tolerated. I just believe that it is not a sufficient ground for divorce (especially re-marriage). Certainly an abused spouse doesn't have to stay in an abusive relationship - hence the separation for however long it takes to remove the marrital dysfunction. I believe an intention to return if sufficient evidence of change presents itself is needed otherwise the abused spouse is abandoning their spouse. If the abuser decides to abandon the marriage and commit adultery (either before or after an 'illegitimate' divorce) then the other spouse is free to remarry. 

[Steadfast Madcap 3,216]

You could easily make the same argument about adultery...is ONE drunken indiscretion really a total shattering of a marriage?

 

The thing is that unless you legally divorce your spouse, it can be very difficult to keep yourself from them, since the whole point of marriage from a legal perspective is that it is a contract that grants two people an exceptional amount of access to one another.

 

In my experience with my father, there is absolute no amount of time or patience that will make him an OK human being again. When he made us all fear for our physical safety? That was the marriage-ender right there. That's not playing the "abuse card," that is looking out for your own life and your child's physical and emotional well-being. (BTW, he *was* having an affair, but that is so insignificant compared to everything else he did that I almost never think of it.)

[Jasmine23 1,605]

I do agree with the Adultery part for divorce but I also say anyform of abuse is cause for divorce. But they can also be used as a form of separation to reconcile the relationship.

I don't believe in divorce one bit but if my husband hits me he's dead meat js

[Matthew 2,546]

The plan is to marry a girl as compatible with me sexually as possible (as far as we can tell while WTM), so hopefully this will be an avoided problem. But I'm not naive enough to expect a perfect sex life.

 

If we ran into the problem of deviating sex drives, divorce would be the last thing on my mind. There are plenty of things to look at first: is it some sort of hormonal imbalance? Is one of us going through a period of excess stress, depression, or some other neurological issue that would cause a dip in sex drive? Are we not communicating enough or emotionally connecting well right now? 

 

If my wife somehow changed and decided she never wanted to have sex with me again or only once or twice a year...I can see that being a marriage-ender.

[Amber Elizabeth 873]

I would divorce my husband if he actually wanted to have sex. 

 

 

Actually, I probably wouldn't even marry someone with a significantly different sex drive than mine in the first place.

 

But I'm afraid if I marry someone with a low one like mine, mine would go up sometime after we're married while his stayed the same. It would be fine if both of our sex drives went up, but if only one of us gained a higher sex drive while the other didn't, it would create some conflict.

 

But then I'm also afraid if I marry someone with an average or higher sex drive mine would stay the same or at least not go up high enough to be compatible with his after we're married, which would also create conflict.

 

If my sex drive doesn't go up while I'm dating my future husband, I wouldn't know if it would go up or not sometime after we're married, and either way there would be some conflict about incompatible sex drives.

 

So I wouldn't know what to do besides talk to my future husband about things like this.

 

But I most likely wouldn't divorce over something like this.

[Buster Cannon 1,432]

I know I'm echoing a few of the above posts, but yeah, divorce isn't anywhere on the table except in the case of adultery. Even then, I'd try to work through it first before letting it come to that.

 

Having different sex drives is something that can be worked on, and it would require a little compromise on both ends.

[Jegsy Scarr 3,521]

Nope. No divorce, no exceptions. Obviously, there might be, God forbid, something serious like abuse etc. that might require a civil divorce, but I still believe that sacramental marriage doesn't end till death. And certainly not because of difference in sex drive. Heck, isn't that what marriage counselling is supposed to be for?

 

[ACTUAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ENDS HERE]

 

Incidentally, the adultery "exception" Catholics argue is just a bad translation of the Greek text. Jesus condemns divorce in all four gospel accounts, but in Matthew's gospel, Jesus qualifies the statement "Whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another, commits adultery. Now, the word porneia is often translated as "adultery", but that's not the word for "adultery". It's more accurately rendered as "sexual immorality" or "unchastity". The word for adultery is moicheia, and Jesus uses it in literally the same sentence: "Whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia [sexual immorality], and marries another, moichatai [commits adultery]."

 

What does "porneia" mean specifically in this context? Well, there's a clue from the fact that the exception is mentioned only in Matthew's account but not in any other. Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience, and therefore it's taken to mean that what the word is referring to is illicit (and therefore invalid) marriages. For example, under the law of Moses, certain consanguineous and familial relationships, such as marriage between an aunt and nephew, are forbidden and sexually immoral, as is marriage between a Jew and Gentile. These are marriages which Jews would consider invalid, and therefore dissolvable.

 

Just logically speaking, if there was an exception to divorce and remarriage for adultery, like Steadfast said, it's not the absolute worst thing a spouse could do - why would it be the only exception? Plus, it would make it rather easy to get out of a marriage if you wanted to be free to marry someone else - just have an affair, and the new wife would be yours.

 

(Yeah, I know no one asked, but it's hard to take off my apologist hat...)

 

xxx

['tis the Bearded One 662]

You could easily make the same argument about adultery...is ONE drunken indiscretion really a total shattering of a marriage?

 

The thing is that unless you legally divorce your spouse, it can be very difficult to keep yourself from them, since the whole point of marriage from a legal perspective is that it is a contract that grants two people an exceptional amount of access to one another.

 

In my experience with my father, there is absolute no amount of time or patience that will make him an OK human being again. When he made us all fear for our physical safety? That was the marriage-ender right there. That's not playing the "abuse card," that is looking out for your own life and your child's physical and emotional well-being. (BTW, he *was* having an affair, but that is so insignificant compared to everything else he did that I almost never think of it.)

 

Protection orders can still operate on married couples and in Australia economic abuse is a facet of domestic violence. But yes, domestic violence especially in its stronger forms is certainly very dififcult and dangerous. Certainly that could be an area of law that can be improved or provided for in a prenup. I didn't mean to belittle your family's situation at all. I just meant that as a moral (not legal) reason for divorce domestic violence is far more flexible and can reduce the imperative to stick together and make things work - it makes rationalising a divorce easier.

 

I believe adultery occurs whenever the intention forms to sleep with someone not your spouse, regardless of whether it actually takes place or not. Thus in a way it can certainly be hard to establish externally. As for the dunken indiscretion. The inhibition theory in regard to alcohol has been shown to be insufficient for explaining "alcohol induced" behaviour. Intoxication (unless involuntary) is generally no excuse for behaviour. If the person doesn't want to be held accountable, don't get drunk. (Though I accept that defense intoxication has a certain place in criminal law though I don't really see those circumstances applying to adultery). Of course, rape doesn't count as adultery. If someone was to get really drunk the line between rape and consensual sex can appear to be blurry. Though you don't need intoxiction for that to happen. I came across a case where someone pretended to be the victim's husband (don't know how he pulled that off! maybe it was dark...), of course it was ruled as rape.

 

Certainly, intoxication would be a mitigating circumstance but I wouldn't see it as an excuse.

Note also that when I speak of grounds for divorce I mean that in a moral sense not a legal sense. I believe a couple can be morally married but be legally divorced as I believe a couple can be morally married without being legally married.

[CarolineWaits 63]

Well...I hope not...

 

As someone with an extraordinarily high sex drive (something that constantly surprises me), I imagine sex to be an intensely emotional bonding experience like no other.  I find the notion of sex being 'just sex', as so many others seem to consider it, unbelievably difficult to comprehend.

 

Moreover, any time I imagine what the sex would be like with my husband, I picture us having a deeply philosophical conversation before, during, and after the act. (Mood killer? I think not! Just you try getting me fired up about something - I could go for hours...!)  Ergo, after what might well have been a long day of something I'll only have to repeat at the workplace the following day, I reckon I'll consider it important airtime. 

 

That said, I appreciate that, with time, things change. Children come along. Careers change. General health and wellbeing can falter. I would imagine that these three things, alone, could - and likely would - have an impact on the amount of sexual 'contact' we had.

 

If we were talking purely about intercourse, as opposed to satiating any sexual desire at all, then I suppose the findings that I have stumbled upon whilst working for the IPC would be something to consider. There are plenty of people I have come across - men and women - who don't have any physical sensation below the waist. However, many of them have a loving partner or spouse; and others, even if not in a committed relationship, still enjoy an active sex life. I've come to the understanding that people experiment, and adapt: even if intercourse itself is not possible, there are certainly ways to keep one's significant other satisfied.  In the end, love and (com)passion prevail.

 

When all is said and done, however, I genuinely can't wait to experience that aspect of a loving relationship with a husband of my own, some day.  For quite a while, I imagine - hope, actually - that rabbits will have some stiff (pardon the pun) competition. 

[Matthew 2,546]

Moreover, any time I imagine what the sex would be like with my husband, I picture us having a deeply philosophical conversation before, during, and after the act. (Mood killer? I think not! Just you try getting me fired up about something - I could go for hours...!)  

 

"Umm, well, while I appreciate his contributions to modern philosophy and admire his work towards bringing together rationalists and empiricists, I can't say I agree with his views on categorical imperatives."

 

"What? No, no, I didn't say Kant!"

 

Also I moved this to Waiting and Relationships. 

[CarolineWaits 63]

 

"Umm, well, while I appreciate his contributions to modern philosophy and admire his work towards bringing together rationalists and empiricists, I can't say I agree with his views on categorical imperatives."

 

"What? No, no, I didn't say Kant!"

 

 

 

Ha - this absolutely made my day!   Plenty of nights filled with Fichte and Kant ahead, I'm sure.

[Jegsy Scarr 3,521]

Moreover, any time I imagine what the sex would be like with my husband, I picture us having a deeply philosophical conversation before, during, and after the act. (Mood killer? I think not! Just you try getting me fired up about something - I could go for hours...!)  Ergo, after what might well have been a long day of something I'll only have to repeat at the workplace the following day, I reckon I'll consider it important airtime. 

 

That reminds me...You know how people always make jokes about guys falling asleep after sex? It turns up in movies and whatnot as a kind of, "Oh, lol! he fell asleep, and she's so angry with him!" Yeah, for whatever reason, I've always thought that'd be the sweetest thing, just cuddling up and going to sleep afterwards. You know, just give him hugs and kisses and stroke his hair till he nods off. Sounds romantic to me, anyway.

 

I don't know, maybe because I just think it'd be awkward to talk afterwards. A few words, yes, but an actual conversation? "Um...So, we just had sex...?" "Yep, we did." "Okay, I'm glad we're on the same page about that issue."

 

 

 

"Umm, well, while I appreciate his contributions to modern philosophy and admire his work towards bringing together rationalists and empiricists, I can't say I agree with his views on categorical imperatives."

 

"What? No, no, I didn't say Kant!"

 

 

I laughed way more than I should have.

 

xxx

[CarolineWaits 63]

That reminds me...You know how people always make jokes about guys falling asleep after sex? It turns up in movies and whatnot as a kind of, "Oh, lol! he fell asleep, and she's so angry with him!" Yeah, for whatever reason, I've always thought that'd be the sweetest thing, just cuddling up and going to sleep afterwards. You know, just give him hugs and kisses and stroke his hair till he nods off. Sounds romantic to me, anyway.

 

I don't know, maybe because I just think it'd be awkward to talk afterwards. A few words, yes, but an actual conversation? "Um...So, we just had sex...?" "Yep, we did." "Okay, I'm glad we're on the same page about that issue."

 

Haha, Jegsy - I'd say you're pretty much spot on, with that.  I've always loved the idea of appreciating him lying there for awhile, and slowly drifting off into a dream world, together.

 

I suppose what I was really going for was the notion that I would be keen for us to explore each other's minds, as well as bodies; and that doesn't necessarily have to end so abruptly.

 

Then there's the concept of morning sex. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to that, at all... 

[cookiemonster 500]

No. That's a stupid reason to divorce imo. People can live without sex or lack of sex. You won't die.

[Luke 60]

No way. Like many of you, I don't support divorce. I take would take the vows very seriously, and don't plan on ever getting divorced. As a waiter, I would only marry for love, not sex. To me the the issue seems very silly to contemplate divorce over. If there becomes an issue, I'll think about it when I get there.

['tis the Bearded One 662]

To me the the issue seems very silly to contemplate divorce over.

 

While I don't accept it as a reason I wouldn't go so far as to say its silly. Spouses go through intense and deep processes from sexual rejection.

[BEKKI 43]

Nope.

I would think out of our love for one another we would try our best to please each other weather that means giving a little more or holding back a little, making more effort to get the other in the mood or finding something else to do. If my partner was chronically withholding sex with no explanation or effort knowing I wanted him it would be less about the sex and more about the "why" Maybe what ever the reason is might be grounds for divorce but hopefully ithe wouldn't and we could work through it. Equally if he constantly wanted sex and had no regard for my needs or feelings and didn't make an effort to get me in the mood etc again that's not how a loving partner should act it is selfish and I'd want to know why he was behaving that way.

And yh as others have said I would hope we would have had a discussion before marriage about our sexual compatibility so we would have at least started out on a similar level so if that changes we can work through why and what to do about it.

[Luke 60]

While I don't accept it as a reason I wouldn't go so far as to say its silly. Spouses go through intense and deep processes from sexual rejection.

I'm sure there are couples that it is a big problem they deal with. Personally, I don't it will be a big deal to me and not something I would ever consider divorce over.

[Chak 217]

Thats a thing you should talk about way before marriage ! some are looking for that high sex drive from both sex, others just like to enjoy it while they are young as its gonna go down with age, but  its gonna be a serious problem when one got cold which push the other to cheat and of course that will break the marriage, but if there is real love, consideration, understanding am sure evrything gonna be alright ..