Sexless relationship

[deleted21276661]

Hi guys, I am going through a very difficult situation and I wonder if any of you has gone through this and how did you deal with it?

my boyfriend and I haven’t had sex at all in the last year and I could say maybe 1 or 2 times in the last 2 years. I am going crazy, I always try to speak to him about this but he always reacts the same way. He says he either is tired from work or he is not in the mood. But how can a man be ok with just not having sex? I also have those days where I am not horny because of work stress but I am finding myself jerking off multiple times a day to get some relief.

Everything else on the relationship is good though, we get along well and love each other very much. But the sex life is not making me happy at all. I am constantly looking at other guys on the street as if I am a hungry wolf cause all I want is to get fucked, but this also makes me sad after cause I should not be going through this specially on our 20’s!

any advise? Oh and he is absolutely against of opening the relationship, so suggesting this won’t help solve this!

 

[Brodie888]

Have you told him that you aren't having your sexual needs met?

I assume that he is not on any medications such as antidepressants that can suppress his libido?

And the relationship wasn't like this prior to the last 2 years?

 

[deleted21276661]

Have you told him that you aren't having your sexual needs met?

I assume that he is not on any medications such as antidepressants that can suppress his libido?

And the relationship wasn't like this prior to the last 2 years?

Yeah we have spoken about this many times, but is always that answer about being tired from work.

no he isn’t on any medications

No it wasn’t like that before this, we didn’t live together back then and we would fuck every time we met

 

[Brodie888]

If you both value your relationship then firstly I would suggest couples therapy to see if there's an angle that you can repair.

But if the reason is simply work, he needs to find another job. Because if it's so stressful that it's affecting such a major part of his life, it simply isn't worth it.

On the other hand, there are those out there who like to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they like the security of being in a relationship with someone like you and they like getting their sex from somewhere else. Blaming work is a common lie.

Either way, it's not sustainable the way it is. All that will happen is that you will come to resent him more and more while the best years of your life are wasted waiting for something that's not going to change. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and walk away.

 

[deleted21276661]

If you both value your relationship then firstly I would suggest couples therapy to see if there's an angle that you can repair.

But if the reason is simply work, he needs to find another job. Because if it's so stressful that it's affecting such a major part of his life, it simply isn't worth it.

On the other hand, there are those out there who like to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they like the security of being in a relationship with someone like you and they like getting their sex from somewhere else. Blaming work is a common lie.

Either way, it's not sustainable the way it is. All that will happen is that you will come to resent him more and more while the best years of your life are wasted waiting for something that's not going to change. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and walk away.

Thanks so much Brodie, I think this is exactly what I needed to read!

 

[Evenflow618]

Relationship is done if the sex is done

 

[Sagittarius84]

On the other hand, there are those out there who like to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they like the security of being in a relationship with someone like you and they like getting their sex from somewhere else. Blaming work is a common lie.

I think the construct of having cake and eating it too isn't mutually exclusive to cheaters. I think one of the persistent toxicities of monogamy is that there are many individuals that like the security and benefits of being in a relationship and are content with not actually fulfilling the obligations implied by said relationship because the obligation of fidelity and implication of duty are sufficient to keep an unsatisfied partner.

 

[Brodie888]

I think the construct of having cake and eating it too isn't mutually exclusive to cheaters. I think one of the persistent toxicities of monogamy is that there are many individuals that like the security and benefits of being in a relationship and are content with not actually fulfilling the obligations implied by said relationship because the obligation of fidelity and implication of duty are sufficient to keep an unsatisfied partner.

That's not so much having your cake and eating it too. That's more like having your cake and leaving it out in the rain.

Relationships be they monogamous or otherwise require both sides to put in the work to find a compromise and if that's not happening then the relationship has reached it's natural end and those involved should move on if they want. If someone sticks around despite being unhappy, that's on them.

 

[Sagittarius84]

That's not so much having your cake and eating it too. That's more like having your cake and leaving it out in the rain.

Relationships be they monogamous or otherwise require both sides to put in the work to find a compromise and if that's not happening then the relationship has reached it's natural end and those involved should move on if they want. If someone sticks around despite being unhappy, that's on them.

Not entirely...a big aspect of the behavior is to not only establish a relationship between the two parties, which you're absolutely right in such case how long one stays is on them, but also social and legal bonds to which to choose to not stay unhappy in the relationship invariably means other losses, often more detrimental. The social etiquette of monogamy doesn't really require mutual compromise because it allows one to figuratively punish the other if a decision to depart is made in the wake of an unreasonable unilateral decision, esoecially if said decision or inaction has to do with sexual matters. As such low and responsive libido individuals(that would have to work really hard in different ways to match with matching libidos) are incentivized to seek high libido partners, whom can be easily attained and retained during the attraction/honeymoon period. After their libido returns back to its normal state, security established and emotional bonds attached, the bulk of maintaining said monogamy falls on the high libido partner, where intimacy is no longer reciprocal but transactional; a mindset they either have to embrace or deviate from via veritable celibacy or hidden infidelity to maintain the monogamous coupling and not endure the crippling socioeconomic consequences of split.
I think there are choice examples of happy compromising monogamous couples, but I'd argue a large number are essentially unequal compromises where the the one with more to lose in seperation is more apt to acquiesce.

 

[TryHarrd]

As such low and responsive libido individuals(that would have to work really hard in different ways to match with matching libidos) are incentivized to seek high libido partners, whom can be easily attained and retained during the attraction/honeymoon period.

Very interesting point @Sagittarius84 but I don't think this involves intent as we don't generally know the real libido of someone when meeting them. We can't seek out high-libido people like we can seek out tall people. This coupling has more to do with the dynamics within a space of possibilities where the probability of establishing a relationship with a high libido partner is greater than a lower or equal libido. Then the proof is in the pudding as more couples with high/low libido form than low/low. And then they find themselves in a power struggle once, as you said, the honeymoon period finishes.

Referring to earlier comments, I don't agree that dealing with a sexless relationship should be worn as a badge of honour. Choosing not to have sex in a relationship, or not to consider sex, is like choosing not to bathe. Yes, everyone has the right to choose not to clean themselves, but they carry with them the implications of their actions - and for me, hygiene is a foundational part of a relationship.

 

[deleted15019751]

Very interesting point @Sagittarius84 but I don't think this involves intent as we don't generally know the real libido of someone when meeting them. We can't seek out high-libido people like we can seek out tall people. This coupling has more to do with the dynamics within a space of possibilities where the probability of establishing a relationship with a high libido partner is greater than a lower or equal libido. Then the proof is in the pudding as more couples with high/low libido form than low/low. And then they find themselves in a power struggle once, as you said, the honeymoon period finishes.

Referring to earlier comments, I don't agree that dealing with a sexless relationship should be worn as a badge of honour. Choosing not to have sex in a relationship, or not to consider sex, is like choosing not to bathe. Yes, everyone has the right to choose not to clean themselves, but they carry with them the implications of their actions - and for me, hygiene is a foundational part of a relationship.

Whatever is important to each individual in a relationship is what makes a good relationship. People should talk about that honestly and openly up front, and if they choose not to communicate about their needs, that’s a real red flag.

There are plenty of people who don’t have sex or don’t have much sex who are 100% happy with their relationship because the level of their libido/desire for sex matches with their partner’s. Asexual people, people with PTSD who are sex averse because of flashbacks, people on meds whose libido is negatively affected, people who have suffered physical trauma to their genitals, and really anyone who just doesn’t like sex are all entirely capable of having healthy, happy relationships. Not having sex is not a moral or personal failure.

Saying it’s like hygiene is wild. No one except the people in the relationship are affected by a lack of sex, and it doesn’t cause the person who is refraining from having sex any harm. Poor hygiene is dangerous for the individual and affects everyone they come near in some way. It’s a bad analogy, and frankly it’s insulting to anyone who doesn’t have a high need for sex.

By all means, seek out someone who meets your needs and if a relationship isn’t meeting your needs, there’s nothing wrong at all with ending it, but insulting people who don’t want to have sex is unnecessary and unfair. Maybe OP is an asshole or doesn’t carry their weight in the relationship. It is common for people to lose interest in screwing their partner when their partner behaves in unappealing or unattractive ways.

Any unmet need or strong preference can ruin a relationship, and not everyone has the same needs and preferences.

 

[TryHarrd]

Whatever is important to each individual in a relationship is what makes a good relationship. People should talk about that honestly and openly up front, and if they choose not to communicate about their needs, that’s a real red flag.

There are plenty of people who don’t have sex or don’t have much sex who are 100% happy with their relationship because the level of their libido/desire for sex matches with their partner’s. Asexual people, people with PTSD who are sex averse because of flashbacks, people on meds whose libido is negatively affected, people who have suffered physical trauma to their genitals, and really anyone who just doesn’t like sex are all entirely capable of having healthy, happy relationships. Not having sex is not a moral or personal failure.

Saying it’s like hygiene is wild. No one except the people in the relationship are affected by a lack of sex, and it doesn’t cause the person who is refraining from having sex any harm. Poor hygiene is dangerous for the individual and affects everyone they come near in some way. It’s a bad analogy, and frankly it’s insulting to anyone who doesn’t have a high need for sex.

By all means, seek out someone who meets your needs and if a relationship isn’t meeting your needs, there’s nothing wrong at all with ending it, but insulting people who don’t want to have sex is unnecessary and unfair. Maybe OP is an asshole or doesn’t carry their weight in the relationship. It is common for people to lose interest in screwing their partner when their partner behaves in unappealing or unattractive ways.

Any unmet need or strong preference can ruin a relationship, and not everyone has the same needs and preferences.

Have to agree to disagree. I'm not talking about exceptions and outliers, I am talking the general population of relationships. And people who don't have a high need for sex are not victims. Sex and intimacy in a relationship are interwoven and inseperable - believe me I've tried to argue there are different but so far failed - so any relationship that involves a willing abstainment from sex involves an intentional denial of intimacy. Which is another way of saying one partner creates an inbalance of power as they becomes the holder of intimacy. How can that be healthy? And I refer to both the relationship and to the psychological states of the partners.

 

[deleted15019751]

Have to agree to disagree. I'm not talking about exceptions and outliers, I am talking the general population of relationships. And people who don't have a high need for sex are not victims. Sex and intimacy in a relationship are interwoven and inseperable - believe me I've tried to argue there are different but so far failed - so any relationship that involves a willing abstainment from sex involves an intentional denial of intimacy. Which is another way of saying one partner creates an inbalance of power as they becomes the holder of intimacy. How can that be healthy? And I refer to both the relationship and to the psychological states of the partner

Sure, how you experience things must be how everyone else does? Intimacy can mean a lot of different things to different people, that’s part of the whole concept of “love languages”. People experience things differently and uniquely. And most people enjoy sex, so when you’re talking about people who don’t enjoy sex, you’re specifically talking about the outliers and exceptions.

I can agree if you’re talking about people who enjoy sex and intentionally withhold it. But intentionally withholding any need from a partner fucks the entire relationship up. I just don’t think sex is the end all be all in a relationship. It’s not a big deal to everyone.

 

[TryHarrd]

Don't disagree with you there.

Ok, here's a real life example I would like your opinion about.

My wife and I recently had a day off together during the school week. Our kids are young so any evening is a challenge. As you could imagine, I'm really looking forward to it. Big time. Can't remember the last time we had time off together without the kids.

Around comes the day, we've had lunch with no other plans until the kids get home and I give the hint. I'm too tired, I'd rather lie here on the lounge is the response. Ok, all good I initially think, and head off for a nap. But as I lay there, I became quite upset. I walked back out and told her how valuable I find our time together, and that I was really disappointed that no effort was being made - or had even been considered -, especially given she is very happy to walk 1km down the road to get 2L of milk.

What should her response be in your view?

 

[deleted15019751]

Don't disagree with you there.

Ok, here's a real life example I would like you to given me your opinion about.

My wife and I recently had a day off together during the school week. Our kids are young so any evening is a challenge. As you could imagine, I'm really looking forward to it. Big time. Can't remember the last time we had time off together without the kids.

Around comes the day, we've had lunch with no other plans until the kids get home and I give the hint. I'm too tired, I'd rather lie here on the lounge is the response. Ok, all good I initially think, and head off for a nap. But as I lay there, I became quite upset. I walked back out and told her how valuable I find our time together, and that I was really disappointed that no effort was being made - or had even been considered -, especially given she is very happy to walk 1km down the road to get 2L of milk.

What should her response be in your view?

I mean it seems like this is assuming that sex is usually mutually enjoyed, or at least mutually had, by both of you. To be clear, that’s a different scenario than what I suggested could be healthy earlier, which is both people being in agreement from the beginning of a relationship on what their needs are.

First, I don’t think she’s in the wrong for not being in the mood at that moment. “I want sex” isn’t really the most romantic approach to intimacy, so maybe she’d be more responsive to a nice evening spent together having a meaningful conversation, lounging on the couch snuggling together, going out on a relaxing date together, reminiscing over shared memories of special moments you’ve been through together, or being reminded how amazing and beautiful you think she is, and how she’s a great mom to your children and you’re happy you’re spending your life with her. Something to make her feel close to you and good about herself.

I’m getting off on a tangent, but to answer your question about how she should respond when you express disappointment at her not making an effort to have sex… she should be honest and vulnerable with you about why she doesn’t feel like having sex at the moment but has energy for other things and you should be a safe space for her to express her genuine feelings.

She could be on her period, she could be stressed about something, she could be exhausted from caring for the kids and just wants a moment to herself, maybe she gained weight you didn’t notice, but it’s making her feel unattractive. Maybe if you express interest in how she’s feeling, she’ll shed light on what the obstacle is and you can help her get past it. Supporting someone when they’re vulnerable with you is a major part of emotional intimacy, even just listening.

I think it’s important to make it about intimacy if it’s about intimacy. A lot of people don’t like feeling like it’s just about getting off, so avoid making it seem like you’re just trying to get some by “giving her a back rub” or whatever.

If I wasn’t in the mood, and you told me you were disappointed I didn’t try to have sex when I wasn’t in the mood because you value your time with me, I’d ask why you went upstairs alone rather than sitting with me for some one on one time if you wanted to spend time with me. I’d see your reaction as a guilt trip which would not increase my desire for physical intimacy at all, but maybe that’s just me

 

[Brodie888]

Not entirely...a big aspect of the behavior is to not only establish a relationship between the two parties, which you're absolutely right in such case how long one stays is on them, but also social and legal bonds to which to choose to not stay unhappy in the relationship invariably means other losses, often more detrimental. The social etiquette of monogamy doesn't really require mutual compromise because it allows one to figuratively punish the other if a decision to depart is made in the wake of an unreasonable unilateral decision, esoecially if said decision or inaction has to do with sexual matters. As such low and responsive libido individuals(that would have to work really hard in different ways to match with matching libidos) are incentivized to seek high libido partners, whom can be easily attained and retained during the attraction/honeymoon period. After their libido returns back to its normal state, security established and emotional bonds attached, the bulk of maintaining said monogamy falls on the high libido partner, where intimacy is no longer reciprocal but transactional; a mindset they either have to embrace or deviate from via veritable celibacy or hidden infidelity to maintain the monogamous coupling and not endure the crippling socioeconomic consequences of split.
I think there are choice examples of happy compromising monogamous couples, but I'd argue a large number are essentially unequal compromises where the the one with more to lose in seperation is more apt to acquiesce.

I agree but I don't think the issue is isolated to monogamous relationships. It's the nature of all partnerships that make them prone to exploitation.

Even in open relationships, there are rules (eg no bareback, no bringing trade home, sharing only, cuckolding only etc etc) and similar complications arising when one party breaks the rules knowing the other person can't do much about it without incurring socio-economic consequences.

The nature of all relationships is to evolve over time. If you want the relationship, you have to accept the risks as well as the rewards that come with it.

If someone doesn't want the issues around money, then there are prenuptial agreements for those but I won't bore people with that subject!

 

[Kalbca]

With humility I suggest having an alternative plan for the time. Keep your share of the work done to a reasonable standard (lawns, maintenance etc). Plan for some regular fun or educational time with the kids or each separately, something they and you like but useful, like a regular museum visit or a nature hike. Don’t deliberately leave your wife out, just have a plan of your own with each of them. Then have a personal project, say learning a language for a future trip. You could take a cooking course. Then try for small regular routines with the wife, say a daily short walk in the evening or a regular short trip to a nearby town, this not to get sex but to have nice pieces of a life together. Keep up your own exercise and look sharp in clothes always, home or at work. Coaching at school, helping in some role at church, local community volunteer role. In other words plan for you staying in the relationship but this lack of sex being permanent and build some parts of a life you can do. Don’t default to her owning and controlling your emotional state. I hope this set of thought contains something useful to you and I am sorry for the situation.

 

[Kalbca]

This previous bit was in response to Tryharrd’s comments.

 

[Sagittarius84]

interesting point @Sagittarius84 but I don't think this involves intent as we don't generally know the real libido of someone when meeting them.

That's the scariest part to me, honestly...I don't think there is conscious malevolent intent behind it, so it's harder to diagnose/prevent.

We can't seek out high-libido people like we can seek out tall people.

I disagree, there are plenty of social cues and interactions that imply a generally high sexual appetite, often that act as selective factors against high libido folks seeking relationships.

This coupling has more to do with the dynamics within a space of possibilities where the probability of establishing a relationship with a high libido partner is greater than a lower or equal libido.

But that probability is highly dependant upon....the presumption of a matching libido, which biology conveniently provides low and responsive libido folks the temporary hormones to create the facade of a match.

And then they find themselves in a power struggle once, as you said, the honeymoon period finishes.

Which is only a modern problem because of the modern ubiquity and biased social enforcement of monogamy. In yrs past that low/responsive libido partner would either have to share a high libido partner, settle for a partner with parallel libido and the hard work entailed in preserving that relationship, or being alone.

I don't think the issue is monogamy per se, I think it's the separation of sex from all other categories of what goes into a relationship. So while the modern social construct applauds those that leave or supplement monogamous pairings should other needs not be met, sex gets this specific placeholder, where realistically only heterosexual men are shamed if they decide to leave or stray because that need isnt being met .

It is common for people to lose interest in screwing their partner when their partner behaves in unappealing or unattractive ways.

I'd buy that as more genuine if they tended to lose interest in all of the benefits said partner provides. Seems a little hypocritical to lose interest in a partners sex but not their provisioning or protection. It's been my observation that when there is genuine, unchecked desire for a partner, nothing short of violence or blatant disrespect(which both can sometimes increase said desire as well) will turn one off. If something unappealing or attractive turns you off so easily, I'd argue you weren't really into them to begin with, which brings back the discussion about transactional relationships that low and responsive libido folk are prone to.

 

[kasturi]

I hope he isnt cheating on you