what do you think about controlling a spouse by with holding

[wildhorses]

sex?

[KG]

1. sign of a very dysfunctional relationship.

[wildhorses]

4. trudat

:hi:

[Maine-ah]

51. ditto that!

A girl I work with does that. Actually managed to get him (husband) to pay her (yes money) to have sex with him :rofl: (I know I shouldn't laugh, but...)

[Deja Q]

2. Well, doesn't he usually want you to hold it?

:hide:

[wildhorses]

5. not me, silly!!

i am NOT married ;)

[candycom]

117. LMAO

Good one!!

[Callalily]

3. Solves nothing! n/t

[wildhorses]

6. apparently ---

it deludes the one into thinking it does :shrug:

[Lyric]

7. Trying to "control" your spouse is disgusting

no matter what tactic is used. And that particular tactic would never work for me; I'd be just as miserable as they are.

However, there is an exception or two. If you aren't ready for kids, but your spouse refuses to use protection, that would be a valid reason for withholding sex. Another would be if your spouse was previously pro-choice, but decides to convert to an anti-choice POV. I consider withholding sex from pro-lifers to be an acceptable action, considering the potential consequences.

[wildhorses]

9. not me. i am NOT married. not even dating at the moment.

theoretical question formed after people watching. thanks for your comments. :hi:

[KG]

23. oops

:hi:

[SPKrazy]

8. using sex as a weapon

in anyway

is dysfunctional

withholding sex to control a spouse is a rather useless way to solve a problem

if you don't feel like having sex that is one thing

if you are not doing it to punish your partner, that is not going to solve whatever is going on

[zanne]

10. Do you actually know a couple that isn't dysfunctional?

I don't.

[SPKrazy]

12. some are more than others

and some partners use that "weapon" more

and yeah, what is functional but an ideal anyway?

[wildhorses]

11. NOT ME SPK!! THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME!!

i am not in any form of relationship at the moment. just pondering people and power struggles is all.

[SPKrazy]

13. pffftttt!

I were jest commenting on it WH

no this isn't about you :scared:

:hi:

[wildhorses]

14. well, the use of the pronoun 'you' in the original comment

in response to my op....just sayin' this to clear all misconceptions. i think one has to have sex before they can with hold sex, right:P

i don't even have bob :cry:

:rofl:

:hi:

ya fucker:crazy:

[SPKrazy]

34. oh, yeah, sorry about that pronoun use

maybe "someone" would have been a better term.

or those who would do that

:silly:


yeah, ya fucker!

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

151. You certainly protest an awful lot. No wonder

You're not in some sort of dysfunctional mind game taunting,
sex-withholding relationship like the rest of us!

[datasuspect]

15. i would just go find it somewhere else

and let the sick pup sit there and be sick by themselves.

[wildhorses]

18. ahhh ---

spoken like a single :toast:

[mzteris]

16. what do you think about forcing a spouse to

have sex?

FYI - Force can involve psychological and emotional tactics as well as physical.

[wildhorses]

17. i, muself do NOT condone either ...

just as the with holding of it can involve psychological and emotional tactics as well as physical.

[philosophie_en_rose]

19. No one is obligated to have sex.

But it is not a good sign. It really depends on the situation.

[wildhorses]

20. trudat

case by case anaylsis...

[philosophie_en_rose]

22. Right.

If it is "I secretly hate you now, so I'm never never going to show affection towards you and won't tell you why." ---> Bad

If it is "you ate those jalapenos and you know you stink" ---> understandable.

I really don't like the idea that withholding sex is a weapon, though. No one has the right to have sex with someone and people should be able to not have sex, regardless of their reasons.

[noamnety]

26. exactly - refusing to have sex isn't an "attack"

There's no weapon involved in not having sex when you don't want to - no matter WHAT the reason is.

The underlying message in phrasing it as a weapon is that the spouse "owns" rights to your body, and it's an assault on them to withhold something that's "theirs."

If people ran with the idea that they don't have an inherent right to use other people for sex, not even if they are married, we'd be a whole lot better off.

[wildhorses]

29. and conversely ---

If people ran with the idea that they don't have an inherent right to use other people by with holding sex, not even if they are married, we'd be a whole lot better off.

comme ci, comme ca

[noamnety]

30. You aren't "using" people by not having sex with them.

What an offensive concept.

[wildhorses]

52. you have me so confused about my original topic

that i no longer know what we are discussing :crazy:

this thread is about the with holding of sex NOT the forcing of sex.

this thread is specific to spouses/long term relationships.

please do not twist my words.

[noamnety]

63. If you are telling a person

that they are "being abusive" by not having sex with you, that's coercion (also known as rape, if you bully them into having sex with you when they don't want to - no matter WHAT their reason is for not wanting to).

[uppityperson]

68. But you can be manipulating them. Is manipulating someone ok?

[noamnety]

73. Whether or not they "feel" manipulated is in their own head.

It's 100% my decision to control my body.

If they are changing their actions in order to gain access to my body, they are doing the manipulating, not me.

[uppityperson]

75. So anyone suffering from psychological manipulation or abuse, it's only in their head?

whew

And no, you are wrong with this statement "if they are changing their actions in order to gain access to my body, they are doing the manipulating, not me". The other person is saying "I won't have sex with YOU until you do this". They are not letting you have access to THEIR body. They are withholding THEIR body until YOU do something.

[noamnety]

82. You're arguing a point I didn't make. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

"anyone suffering from psychological manipulation or abuse, it's only in their head?" <-- who said that? Wasn't me.

"They are not letting you have access to THEIR body." <-- that is a basic human right. Not abuse.

If you want access to someone else's body, that's YOUR problem, not theirs. They aren't abusing you by not giving you access to their body.

Can't figure out why that's such a hard concept to grasp.

You might want access to a person's body really really badly, but they aren't under any obligation to grant that. Ever.

Not being allowed to screw someone does not count as abuse by them.

[uppityperson]

92. No, twas to you. "Whether or not they "feel" manipulated is in their own head."

"Whether or not they "feel" manipulated is in their own head." is a direct quote from you. That is what I am replying to. And manipulating someone who wants access to YOUR body by denying that until they do/are as you are trying to make them, that is what we are talking about. Psychological manipulation, psychological abuse. Can't figure out why you can't grasp this concept since it seems easy to figure out.

[noamnety]

94. I was talking about a specific.

And was very clear about that.

That's different than the broadbrush paraphrasing you attributed to me.

If a person feels manipulated BY SOMEONE NOT WANTING TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM, that's their own issue to sort out in their own head.

If a person feels manipulated because they think someone else's requirements for having sex are inappropriate, they need to buy a clue regarding who gets to set the requirements for who they have sex with.

It's not abuse to decide for yourself under what conditions you are willing to have sex.

[uppityperson]

95. True, I added some, apologies. Is it ok to manipulate others?

Yes, to be manipulated you have to allow it to happen, but I feel the blame is being placed on the one being manipulated "it's their fault for letting themselves be manipulated" and expanding it out to other things involving abuse such as DV. Hey, if she set the limits and left, she wouldn't have gotten beaten so it's her fault. See?

That and wondering in general about manipulating others. Yes, we all do it all the time, to a small extent. But is it ok to manipulate others to be/do a way or something they wouldn't otherwise just for your own satisfaction, ego, etc.

Trying to have a discussion here, not just throw stuff back and forth.

[noamnety]

97. I am very specifically NOT expanding it to other things

because I think sovereignty over one's own body and self-determination regarding sex is a special case of human rights. It's not like refusing to do the dishes, you know?

Again, "manipulation" is too vague a word to have meaning in this argument for me. I posed this question before, and didn't get an answer. Maybe you don't have one, whatever, but it's a main point of mine.

If you tell your husband "If you cheat, I won't have sex with you" is that being manipulative? Or is it merely stating your requirements for having sexual relations with another person? (They must be in a monogamous relationship with you.)

If I had a husband with a history of cheating, announcing that I won't sleep with him if he fools around on me is - by the definition you are using (?) - manipulating him into doing something he wouldn't otherwise do just for my own satisfaction, ego, etc. And I would say that's not abusive on my part at all.

[uppityperson]

99. How about this scenario...

"If you don't quit whining or talk back I won't hit you but you can't have sex with me"? Sometimes people act in ways I don't understand, even having been in a DV relationship myself. Looking back, too easy to say I should've never stood for what I did.

Give me all your money. Don't talk back. Shut the hell up about my hanging out with my buds drinking/etc. This time I won't hit you but I also won't be close physically.

You give 1 scenario (if husb cheats, say won't have sex) which I understand because I would feel that way but don't see that as manipulative, just stating your boundaries. But the ones I give are all manipulation scenarios that happen in a negative way. For some, it can be like doing the dishes. And maniulation can be abusive.



"Again, "manipulation" is too vague a word to have meaning in this argument for me. I posed this question before, and didn't get an answer. Maybe you don't have one, whatever, but it's a main point of mine." What question? What is manipulation? I don't see one. Thanks.

[noamnety]

101. I meant the question that followed (which you just addressed)

"If you tell your husband "If you cheat, I won't have sex with you" is that being manipulative? Or is it merely stating your requirements for having sexual relations with another person? (They must be in a monogamous relationship with you.)"

(I had asked it in post 83 as well)

Regarding this: "If you don't quit whining or talk back I won't hit you but you can't have sex with me"?

The problem isn't "withholding" sex. That's not the abusive part. The problems are:

a) an implied threat of violence, that hitting is even an option. THAT's abusive.
b) deciding when the other person can or can't "talk back" - controlling behavior.
c) Maybe the one person actually is whining incessantly to the point of being incredibly annoying, and thus unattractive. If someone was whiny and sullen and excessively needy, I wouldn't want to have sex with them, I'd be kind of repulsed by them acting like a child. I don't want to have sex with someone who's being childish and immature full-time - I don't have any desire to be in some weirdly imposed mother-child role play with someone I'm sleeping with. Ugh. Or ... maybe it's the other person's perception that any "talking back" (voicing an opinion) is whining. From the one quote from one perspective, I wouldn't know where the truth lies on that.

Give me all your money: Sounds abusive. And again, not because they will or won't have sex with you - the demand itself sounds unreasonable, and would sound that way whether or not they were having sex with you. The abuse and problem exists unrelated to what's happening in the bedroom. In each of those relationships, as described, the participants aren't going to screw their way into resolving those problems.

In each of your scenarios, there is a real underlying conflict, which needs to be resolved for the relationship to be healthy. The willingness to have sex isn't the problem.

[uppityperson]

102. withholding sex can be part of the whole parcel or 1 simple thing.

Can be manipulative, can be a consequence, it all depends.

[fizzgig]

103. we're not talking about willingness

we're not talking about one partner not being 'in the mood' after a fight. we're talking about about one partner making a conscious decision to withhold sex to get what they want or because they want to 'get back' at their partner

i may be perfectly willing to have sex but choose to withhold it because i want something out of my partner

it's about exercising power over the other person. withholding that intimacy to prove a point or to get back at that person . i've been abused in that manner. it's a horrible, horrible feeling.

are you going to tell me now i chose to feel that i was abused? that it was all in my mind? would you say the same to a person who was verbally abused? they chose to feel abused by the words and it was all in their minds?

[Danger Mouse]

105. way to speak truth to power, baby!

...sorry :hide:
everything i do, in regards to you, is to try and be everything i can to make you happy.
i never want you to feel that way again. :hug:

[noamnety]

108. I'm saying there was an underlying conflict that was the real problem

Not that there WASN'T conflict, but that there was conflict, which may or may not have included abuse. As a result of that conflict, the other person was so angry, violated, ticked off, hurt, whatever, that they didn't want to have sex with you. And that was within their rights.

Similarly, it would be within my rights to say "you're behavior is unacceptable to me, I am not willing to be intimate with someone who is behaving this way."

I am not, btw, intending to pass judgment on your actual behavior that led to that, because I know nothing about that, obviously. But there was a conflict between how you were acting and how your partner of the time wanted you to act. Not being willing to sleep with you is a symptom or result of that conflict.

I'm not going to say you weren't abused in that relationship - I'm saying (edit for clarification) the not having sex isn't the underlying problem. They had the right to not sleep with you. I would venture a guess that there was some sort of massive unresolved conflict other than you wanting them to have sex with you and them refusing, and that that conflict would have been there, even if you were having sex with them still.

This is very different from verbal abuse, and I've explained several times that I am referring specifically to a person's sovereignty over their own body, and drawing conclusions beyond that as though I've somehow implied psychological abuse doesn't ever happen is illogical, at best. Nobody has the right to verbally abuse another person. There's no issue of sovereignty there that I can think of - it's not a violation of someone else's rights over their own body to require them to not be verbally abusive to you.

[fizzgig]

113. i'm not disagreeing that there is likely an underlying conflict

and i'm not disagreeing that each person has sovereignty over their body

but i don't think it's appropriate for anyone to use sex/intimacy - or money or anything else - to exert control over their partner

if it's about control, power or retaliation, there are likely underlying problems, but that's not a good way to go about it

[noamnety]

122. What if you are so fed up about the conflict

that you don't have any desire to be intimate until it's resolved?

[uppityperson]

135. That is a different situation,a different thing.

And of course there are underlying issues with any abuse, manipulation, argument, etc. Of course there are. I, and the one you are now replying to, are NOT talking about taking a break to cool off, to make up, to solve whatever conflict is going on. We are talking about a (sometimes sustained) manipulation of another person to get them to act in a way they wouldn't, do or be contrary to their good selves.

[fizzgig]

146. not the same

and that has been repeated over and over and over and, yet, you keep coming back to that point

again, we're talking about the conscious decision of one spouse/partner to use sex (and i am including any type of intimacy here) to have control or power over their partner, get something out of their partner or otherwise hurt their partner.

would you have the same issues here if the topic was withholding money to control one's partner? say i am the sole breadwinner of my household and i use money as a means to control my partner? would that be ok? it's my money, isn't it?

[noamnety]

150. Money is not coerced sex

No comparison.

Money in a marriage can be negotiated as joint property. Bodies are not property, and they are not jointly - or otherwise - "owned."

[fizzgig]

154. i never said anything about coerced sex

i asked you if withholding money from your partner as a means of controlling a partner is any different from withholding sex as a means of controlling them.

[noamnety]

156. Yes, it's different because one is property, the other isn't. (nt)

[uppityperson]

134. Exactly. Thank you.

[Hosnon]

143. I disagree...

(Point of no return...)

"If a person feels manipulated BY SOMEONE NOT WANTING TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM, that's their own issue to sort out in their own head."

Many other posters have accused you of being disingenuous and I think that this statement is just such an example.

When two healthy, sexually capable adults enter into a "mature" relationship, the existence of a sexual relationship is usually expected. I am not certain you are denying that but if you are, that is disingenuous. If so, try this thought experiment: Would any couples go "poof" if a sexual relationship was specifically forbidden at the start of their relationship? Probably so.

No, a sexual relationship is not required, but it is usually expected. And to use that expectation against your partner for bad faith reasons is not healthy and manipulative.

Edit: Content.

[noamnety]

153. If relationships were frozen at a static point in time

we wouldn't have divorces, and every couple that felt they were "in love" would get married and live happily ever after. :)

Relationships change, people's sexual desires change. People go through pregnancy, deaths, traumas, fights, resentment, child rearing, education, separations, all sorts of things. That doesn't mean anything was entered into "in bad faith."

[uppityperson]

93. "they are doing the manipulating, not me.", I agree. Is it ok to manipulate others?

[MissMillie]

128. yeah, I think that's what I meant to say when I made my post

my post is below

[philosophie_en_rose]

132. Bullshit. Absolute Bullshit.

People have the right to withhold sex for any reason they want. NO ONE has the right to expect sex. Ever. And no one should feel obligated to have sex, unless they really want it. Personally, I like it better when my boyfriend wants it too. But that's just me.

Rejection can certainly be used as a weapon, but there is no such thing as invisible sex-fu. If someone is not happy with the amount of sex they are getting, they need to reevaluate the relationship or work with their partner to get in the mood.

People that expect sex from others shouldn't be surprised that they aren't getting any. Guilt trips are hardly sexy.

[wildhorses]

133. there are two sides to a coin

everything that is said about the one can be said about the other. neither the forcing OR the with holding of sex is good. these thread is about the with holding. move along, please.

and, QUIT trying to lay a guilt trip on me:P

[midlife_mo_Jo]

112. You're right

A spouse doesn't have the right to have sex with you tonight. Or tomorrow night. Or the next.

Six months down the road, however, the spouse withholding sex shouldn't expect that his partner is going to stay in the marriage. Sex is an "expected" part of marriage, even if it's not a right.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

124. agreed.

[Ptah]

21. Old Joke -

She can't cut me off, she doesn't know where I get it!

:hide:

[Deja Q]

59. Worse,

will it grow back if it's cut off?

[Wapsie B]

24. First, besides being dysfunctional as hell,

one would have to wonder that if a spouse were to be able to withhold sex whether a good sexual relationship was present in the marriage in the first place?

[Nikia]

25. In many cases, you wander if the with holding spouse even wants sex with their spouse

When I am upset with my husband, I don't want to have sex with him. He understands that.
Now if this was happening over the course of weeks or months, obviously there is something wrong with the marriage.
No spouse is obligated to provide sex but if the spouse really doesn't ever want to have sex with their spouse perhaps the couple needs some counseling to determine why.

[jobycom]

27. Disgusting. Horrible. Awful. Really bad. I'll never do it again. Promise.

I think every marriage is its own entity, and has its own rules for acceptable control and manipulation techniques. A perfect marriage would have both partners equally attuned to the other's needs and desires, and eager to make their spouse's lives more complete, knowing their true happiness lay only in the joy of fulfilling the life of the person they most love.

Barring that, it's a battlefield. I hate any form of control or manipulation that works on me. Those that worked against my spouse were generally acceptable. Not that any of them ever did.

[dropkickpa]

28. I'd never be able to hold out

My ex (baby daddy), on the other hand, was able to. It was a shitty fucking thing to do and it made me hate him even more.

[txwhitedove]

31. Years ago a so-called "Dr./Therapist" actually suggested that method....

to me. Don't know if that was his way to see what I thought, but he kept after that line of talk even after I asked, "Really?" Needless to say, I never talked to that person again.

But then, in 1986, it was reflex to withhold, block, stop sex, due to spouse's bizarre, abhorrent behaviour....and discovery of needles. There are always reasons.

[BarenakedLady]

32. Well I sleep in the basement

But it has nothing to do with controlling anyone.

[SPKrazy]

33. nope

:hug:

:hi:

you okay?

[BarenakedLady]

35. Yup

Just hanging in. You?

:hug:

:hi:

[SPKrazy]

37. mostly good

some down moments

but mostly good

:hug:

[TOhioLiberal]

36. My STBE did that...

...for the last couple of years of our 'marriage'...pissed me off royally, especially when he left me for another woman.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. unhealty and passive aggressive. some people may say over time its abusive.

[noamnety]

41. It's abuse to not sleep with someone? (nt)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. if you are in a relationship, and over a long time, someone is withholding sex to control you

it can be emotionally abusive.

check out the anti violence project. this is where i got the abusive part.

i am not saying that not fucking your partner when you arent in the mood is abusive, but specifically withholding sex for more control maybe.

[noamnety]

43. Not having sex is NEVER abuse

Wanting to control another person is abusive. That includes wanting to control their body.

The specific act of not fucking a partner is not abuse - because it's making a decision about what you do with your OWN body. Nobody inherently has a RIGHT to make another person have sex with them. That's not an entitlement. Your own rights end at the boundaries of your own body, physically.

If a person feels they are being manipulated by not having access to another person's body, THAT is a control issue.

If you aren't having sex with a partner, that's a sign that 1) you don't feel like having sex with them, for whatever reason, or 2) you don't feel like having sex in general, with anybody.

Both those reasons are legitimate, and neither qualifies as abuse.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. exactly, the question posed was about control through sex. not just refusing sex.

[noamnety]

46. My point, though

Was that I would have to have a strong sense of entitlement and control over other people's bodies if my perception was that I was being "controlled" by someone's refusal to give me access to their body.

Not having sex with a person isn't controlling them - they can still go masturbate.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. i disagree, i think people can control others by refusing sex

in a way that is abusive. generally accompanied by other methods of control/abuse.

[noamnety]

50. This was the basis for the marriage rape exclusion

The law for a long time - and still, in some circumstances - treats rape by a husband as nonrape, because it's his right to have sex with his wife, and she's "abusing" him if she doesn't have sex.

I'm of the opinion that, say, if a husband is coming home drunk several times a week, and the wife finds that unacceptable in a relationship, she's within her rights - and NOT being abusive - to say I am not willing to have sex with a person who is drunk several times a week. If the husband is a lazy bum and won't work - even around the house, expecting her to wait on him hand and foot, supporting the family and doing all the chores, and such - it's within her rights, and not abusive, to say this isn't a person I feel like being intimate with.

You can claim that's abuse because she's trying to "control" him. I view it as her defining her own boundaries and limits. Under these conditions, she's willing to let someone have access to her body, under these other conditions, no, she's not.

It's a part of human rights that each person gets to make that determination for themselves.

And then it's within the other person's rights to decide they are or aren't willing to stay in a relationship if they don't have access to the other person's body. Their right is the right to chose whether to stay walk. But it's not to coerce the first person into having sex with them by claiming they're being "abused" by the other person's refusal.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. no ones saying the one partner should rape if they are refused sex

but it might be time to consider that your relationship is abusive to you and its time for you to go.


on edit: even if other abusive relationships there are things that legally and morally the abused shouldnt do. for instance if i verbally abuse my gf, she cant cut my tongue out.

[noamnety]

66. The problem isn't the withholding of sex.

It's the underlying issue that made them not want to sleep with you (or you with them).

Could be that Chris won't have sex with Taylor because Taylor started smoking. The problem isn't that Chris won't sleep with Taylor - it's that they have an irreconcilable difference about smoking.

Could be that Chris won't have sex with Taylor because Taylor won't take out the trash. The problem isn't withholding of sex, it's that there is a lot of anger over division of chores that needs to be resolved.

Could be that Chris won't have sex with Taylor because Taylor gained 50 pounds. Personally, I'd say Chris was being a superficial asshole in that case, but all the same, the problem isn't the withholding of sex, it's that Chris either can't get past a culturally learned distaste for overweight people, or that Chris feels ownership and a sense of control over Taylor's body, and maybe there are also some issues as to why Taylor's gained that weight that need to be addressed (by Taylor, not by Chris). Do I think it's a schmucky move to be unattracted to someone over a thing like that? Oh, you betcha. But the problem still is not refusal of sex; it's an unwillingness to accept and love another person for what they are instead of how they look.

Could be Chris realized sex with Taylor is uncomfortable, awkward, and generally unpleasant and not something they feel like doing. Oh well. Taylor can deal with that, or move on.

The right of refusal when it comes to sex can't be trumped by anything. If it is, it's a human rights violation. Address the other problems in the relationship, and you may (or may not) resolve a difference in sexual desire.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. or you are in a relationship with an abusive person, and not only does s/he physically and verbally

assault you, s/he also doesnt have sex with you. in the end you are in every way unhappy and disempowered.

i am sorry, but abusive people can and do withhold sex for power.

From the domestic violence section of the ANTI VIOLENCE PROJECT

"Sexual abuse: Forcing sex or certain sex acts, forcing sex with others, assaulting parts of your body, withholding sex, criticizing sexual performance, refusing safer sex, disrespecting "safe words" or violating boundaries of a "scene."

[noamnety]

70. The abusive part is the physical and verbal abuse, though.

I'm NOT saying a person who doesn't want sex is by default never abusive. Sometimes they are the abuser, sometimes they are the abused, sometimes they are neither. I'm saying the action of not having sex is not in and of itself, abuse.

In your example, "you are in a relationship with an abusive person, and not only does s/he physically abuse you ..." Stop right there. That person is abusive, from your description. That's regardless of whether or not they have sex with you. The sex isn't the problem.

Why would you even want to have sex with a person who is physically and verbally abusive to you? I wouldn't. In that instance, if a person was abusive to me, I wouldn't sleep with them - I'd have no desire to be intimate with them at all. Would you consider me abusive for that?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. i said it upthread that withholding sex can be a part of a pattern of abuse

or it may not be, depends on the context.

[skygazer]

72. But essentially that's what the original question was

It wasn't about someone who "didn't want to have sex."

It was about CONTROLLING your spouse by withholding sex. Exact words. And don't tell me you've never heard of people doing this because I refuse to believe it. People do it all the time and in my opinion, its reprehensible. And when done purposely to control - not because they just don't want to or because they disapprove of their spouse's smoking, or whatever - when its done to manipulate and control, to make a person behave in a way they don't want to, yeah it's abusive. It's deliberately withholding affection and physical intimacy to manipulate the other party.

That's a completely different scenario than marital rape which involves someone who does not want to have sex. There is a difference between withholding something and not wanting it to begin with

[noamnety]

78. You can't "withhold" your body from someone.

It's not theirs to have. It's yours. The vocabulary is offensive. Common usage, but offense, because it implies the default position is that the other person should have access to it.

It's not "withholding" anything. It's setting limits on what sort of person you are or aren't willing to be intimate with. And those limits are allowed to be as arbitrary and stupid as you like - it's still YOUR place to set those limits.

[skygazer]

80. Your responses are what is offensive in my opinion

You stated upthread that "whether or not they "feel" manipulated is in their own head."

So people who feel they're being manipulated by others are just goofy assholes, there's no such thing as psychological abuse and we should all feel dandy when our spouse tells us they're not going to have sex with us unless we conform to their wishes.

Glad you cleared that up for me. :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

81. i know people who have been in abusive relationships, where sex was a MAJOR form of control

and abusive relationships are very tricky, and i dont like the whole blaming the victim thing at all.

[noamnety]

109. I don't like blaming the victim either.

If I don't want to have sex with you, and you yell at me that I'm being abusive by "withholding" it from you, who is the victim?

[WildEyedLiberal]

116. You are being deliberately disingenuous about this whole issue

You keep using the same phrasing over and over again: "if someone doesn't want to have sex that's not abuse" or "refusing to screw you isn't psychological abuse" and the like. You are clearly casting this in terms of individual, isolated incidents of one partner not being in the mood/not wanting to "screw" for whatever reason. That is not what the OP is about, it is not what is being discussed here, and you know it.

I think you think you're being some big feminist advocate here, but you're ironically participating in the same style of victim blame as the people who minimize rape. Like it or not, sex is a part of being in a romantic relationship, and it's just silly and disingenuous to pretend that there is NO expectation of sexual activity in a mutually entered romantic relationship between two individuals. That is NOT the same as saying that either partner has no right to refuse sex whenever they don't feel like it, and you know it. We are talking about a systematic denial of sexual/romantic intimacy that lasts weeks or months. NOT the same as "oh, I'm not in the mood tonight" or "oh I'm mad at you so I don't feel like having sex."

If you have entered into a romantic relationship, which constitutes making at least a casual promise (if dating) or an actual vow (if married) to love, cherish, and respect this person, and to be their emotional, physical, and sexual partner, and you renege on that in any way - whether by forcing them to do something they don't want to do (marital rape) or denying them love and affection purely out of spite for a sustained period of time (which is what we are talking about here), then you are an abusive partner, period. Yeah, obviously there are probably other underlying issues. Most abusive relationships have several things wrong with them because, duh, in healthy relationships with two loving and understanding partners, abuse doesn't happen. That doesn't make the chosen manifestation of these issues - whether verbal abuse or withholding sex - acceptable.

You keep saying that people who are unhappy with being denied sex over extended periods of time by manipulative partners should "just leave if they don't like it." Well, let me turn that back around on you. If a person is denying love and affection to their partner over a long period of time, why don't THEY leave that relationship? If they are no longer interested in having sex with that person, why do they continue to remain in the relationship? Could it be because they are enjoying exerting psychological and emotional control over their partner by denying them sex and intimacy?

I find it ironic - and not in a good way - that someone ostensibly so interested in defending women and someone who probably has a problem with all the rape-deniers in GD has been doing the very same thing, essentially, in this thread. You have repeatedly minimized the psychological and emotional damage that withholding intimacy in a romantic relationship can cause, supposedly in the interests of defending a person's (meaning woman's, I notice you never refer to a woman being denied sex in your examples) sovereignty over their body, but in reality, you have flippantly dismissed the very real pain this can cause because you've decided that this pain is inconvenient for your political agenda.

[noamnety]

121. "Like it or not, sex is a part of being in a romantic relationship"

"Like it or not, once we are married, I expect you to have sex with me."

It's not a requirement of marriage. Some people physically can't - like the roughly 2 soldiers in Iraq a day who undergo genital amputation a day as a result of injuries. Some people just lose their sex drive. Some people are so exhausted from work and raising kids that they just don't have the energy for it.

Some people feel so used by their spouse, or neglected, or otherwise wronged that they have no desire to be with them until that other situation is resolved.

It's a hell of a word-twisting to call someone who says "people have the right to say no to sex" a "rape-denier."

[WildEyedLiberal]

148. More strawmen comparisons that have nothing to do with the OP

It's an insult to the intelligence of everyone on this thread to pretend that maimed Iraqi veterans or tired housemoms are even remotely the kind of scenario being discussed here, which is, as you have been informed time and again, the sustained and deliberate withholding of love and intimacy.

You've accused pretty much everyone who has replied to you of "twisting your words" - it's called reading between the lines. Your agenda, your tone, and the casual, flippant way you have dismissed the concept of psychological abuse via withholding sex is abundantly obvious to anyone who cares to read this thread.

[noamnety]

152. The basic argument is over entitlement

And the entitlement to another person's body isn't there.

The reason I'm bringing up various scenarios is to demonstrate that there are an infinite number of reasons why a person might not want to have sex with another person. ANY reason a person gives for not wanting to have sex is valid.

There was another thread this week where a guy was describing asking women out, and then if they rejected him, he would ask why, and if he didn't find their answer acceptable, he would be confrontational, lecture and insult them. It's not his place to do that - it's their decision alone to decide who they want to date, and whether the reason is "valid" or not isn't a negotiable item.

You may think your partner's reason for not wanting sex isn't valid. You may think they are allowed to not want it one night, or one week, but two weeks is invalid. You might decide being assexual for a month is valid, but not for a month and a half. You might decide their reasoning is valid or not. (smoking, small amount of pain, anger at a situation, all the way up to not liking you).

Didn't someone post a bunch of reasons in some other post? I wasn't the only one to do that. Not happy with their partner going out with their buddies to play cards all the time or something ... I forget what exactly that scenario was. I read that, and you know, it sounds like the one person wants independent time alone with friends, which is valid. The other maybe feels like their partner doesn't want to spend quality time with them, but just wants to use them for sex. Well, I'd find that insulting, if that was going on every night - staying out after dinner every day, coming home, expecting the partner to be sexually available on demand and then rolling over and going to sleep. Under those terms, maybe the stay-at-home partner isn't willing to have sex. So neither person is "abusive" there - they just have differing views and desires, and it's just a sliding scale of what each person finds acceptable. But I can imagine the card-playing partner telling their friends that other was "withholding sex" and being a passive aggressive asshole. It depends on your viewpoint. Mine, obviously, is that if a person doesn't want to have sex - even if the reason is that they ARE a passive aggressive asshole, that's still their right.

None of that is your decision to make. If they have a desire to hurt you, that DESIRE TO HURT YOU is the problem.

I dunno, if a person wants to emotionally hurt their spouse in some way, maybe they shouldn't be having sex with them until that gets resolved.

Can you all at least admit that one part - that it's within the legal rights of a person to opt out of sex - even if they are married?

[mzteris]

129. "purely out of spite" ???

:rofl:

No, I think it's more a case of - I just don't give a shit about you anymore - whether for my own reasons or for reasons to which you have contributed greatly by your behaviour.

If someone "withholds intimacy" solely as a "bargaining chip" - then I suspect there is no real intimacy in that relationship anyway.


I've been on both sides of this, btw.

My first husband "withheld sex" - I was terribly devastated by it. I thought he loved me and that sex was supposed to be a part of that. Of course he was emotionally abusive and insulting. He'd "do it" - when he felt like it. And how he felt like it. I was still 'in my prime' so to speak - and so much in love that I thought when he did "do it" - it meant he did love me. I didn't know I was just a scratching post or something. So was he abusing me by withholding to punish me? Or was pretending to be in a loving relationship just abusive, period.

BTW - it turned out he was gay. Took him a while to admit that. After our daughter was born, of course. We're friends now, but that's another story.


The marriage I'm currently ending, the the one I've been "withholding" in because I can't stand the sob. He finally left a few months ago. Thank god. over the years he coerced me in numerous and myriad ways into having sex. He had a complete and utter disregard for my feelings - about anything really - so was I "withholding" to abuse him? Or withholding because I started actually throwing up whenever he'd 'make me'? And then get really really MAD because I didn't enjoy it? He accused me of withholding to "punish him" or to "control him". I just didn't want him anymore. Ever. Because of his behaviour.

Controlling one's own body is a sovereign right. Period. I agree with lwfern on this. If you're partner isn't having sex with you - there's a reason. You need to get to the bottom of it. If it's something you can address and change, then do it. If not, I suspect the relationship isn't really a very good relationship at all.

[WildEyedLiberal]

149. Well, exactly - it's a sign of an unhealthy relationship

Your first relationship in which your husband did this to you - that was emotionally abusive. And your current marriage obviously has lots of issues as well, which is why you are ending it. It's not like you are withholding sex from the husband you love and cherish just to have power over him - you can't stand him and you're leaving him. The issue here isn't whether someone else has a "right" to your body - of course no one has a "right" to do anything to someone against their will. The issue is whether in a healthy relationship, barring extraordinary circumstances (such as the maimed Iraqi vet strawman introduced in a post above), is it abusive to deny love and intimacy to your partner? I say yes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

123. i think you mistake my original post. withholding sex can be part of a pattern of abuse

or it could not be. whichever it is, doesnt give anyone else the right to take over the rights of someones body.

for instance i might think you are a jerk for not fucking me in a monogamous relationship, i cant however force you to. or even yell at you for it. you still have full rights over whether or not to fuck me.

[noamnety]

84. Straw man.

"there's no such thing as psychological abuse"

You can debate what I said.

Debating things I didn't say wastes both our time.

I didn't say "there's no such thing as psychological abuse."

I said "Not having sex with someone is not psychological abuse."

[LostinVA]

90. Refusing to allow your spouse that sort of intimacy to prove a point is psychological abuse

If you can't see that, either it's never happened to you or you do it and you're trying to justify it.

[noamnety]

91. Rephrasing

"Refusing to allow someone to screw you is psychological abuse"

Regarding the rest of your comment - it's not your place to make assumptions and/or accusations about my private life.

[Sock Puppet]

139. bullshit

that is not a rephrasing of what lost in va said at all.

[Danger Mouse]

104. well said.

:hi:

[LostinVA]

79. Excellent, excellent post

Having been in a relationship like the one you describe, I can tell you it is emotionally abusive, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. Anyone who doesn't understand that is lucky, because it shows they haven't been in that kind of abusive relationship.

[uppityperson]

74. Is psychological manipulation abuse? Can there be psych abuse without physical abuse?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. yes,

[noamnety]

83. There is physical and emotional (psychological) abuse.

Not letting a person screw you falls into neither of those categories.

"Manipulation" isn't well enough defined here to mean anything. If you mean setting basic ground rules in a relationship, no that's not abuse.

"If you have an affair, I won't sleep with you any more." Is that manipulation? Or setting ground rules?

Everyone - EVERYONE - has conditions under which they are willing or not willing to have sex. That's not manipulation. It's self-preservation. You may not like another person's ground rules. That doesn't mean you've been abused.

[skygazer]

48. Yes, because sex is only about physical pleasure

:sarcasm:

Sorry, I disagree. By purposely withholding sex as a punishment, the person doing it is also denying their partner part of the closeness and intimacy of the relationship. Going off and maturbating isn't going to solve that part of the equation.

It IS emotional abuse when wielded that way - it's a way of telling the partner that they don't deserve any love or respect, makes them feel neglected and unwanted.

Some of see sex as an important part of our emotional and intimate relationship. And its not a matter of their "refusal to give me access to their body" which after all puts the onus on the person being denied ("give me access" - that makes it sound like the denied partner is trying to force the other into doing something they don't want to when the reality is the denying partner is purposely punishing the other) - its more a denial of closeness and intimacy.

[dropkickpa]

58. Exactly!!

When my ex did this to me, it was emotionally damaging over time; I began to question my self-worth and my self-esteem plummeted. What little closeness we had was destroyed by his behavior (and I later found out he wasn't holding out 100%, he was fucking someone else off and on). Sex for us was an integral part of our relationship. When he felt demasculated because I was the one working steadily and providing everything for our kid, he used this tool to try to get what he wanted (at one point he even said "We'll start fucking again if you let me have an ATM card to your account" - yeah fucking right!). I eventually told him to go fuck himself for this behavior among my many reasons.

I masturbated plenty both when we were having sex and not, it's NOT the same thing. Angry masturbation is NOT as satisfying as angry sex. I was still pissed when it was done.

[GirlinContempt]

88. Very succinct

[uppityperson]

69. Is psychological manipulation abuse?

If you aren't having sex with a partner it can also be that you are trying to manipulate them. If they do/don't do "X", you will have sex. Manipulation. Is psychological manipulation abuse?

[SarahB]

87. It also perfectly reasonable that

if someone has a desire to have a sexual relationship (especially with their spouse) is with someone who doesn't "feel like having sex in general, with anybody" end the relationship and look elsewhere. It's kind of rough on someone with what is normal, healthy needs to be with someone who doesn't. Nothing wrong with asexuality, but not so easy unless you're in a relationship with someone who feels the same way.

[noamnety]

89. I'd agree with that

(except for a quibble about the use of the phrase normal healthy needs, which implies a lack of wanting to have sex is unhealthy - it's sort of like calling pro-war people "pro-troops.")

If two people have irreconcilable differences regarding sex drives, the needs of the person with the least desire for sex need to be respected, and yes, the other person of course is free to decide they no longer want to be in that relationship under those conditions.

Nobody should be obligated to stay in a relationship that is making them unhappy. (In reality, economics play into that, of course - sometimes people are stuck with each other because they can't afford to separate - but that's not a moral obligation.)

I can understand though that some people would feel an obligation to stay based on marriage vows and/or religion. In that case, the person who doesn't want sex has the right not to have it, and the other might feel they shouldn't end the relationship. But they shouldn't coerce the other partner, in any event.

[buddhamama]

39. controlling behavior is wrong

period. :)

[Omphaloskepsis]

40. I'm withholding my comment from this thread..

Until you show me the attention I deserve.

Oh fuck, I just posted.. This isn't working. Sexy time.

[wildhorses]

114. ~

:thumbsup:

[Heidi]

45. I think it's wrong, but I also think lots more people do it than will admit to it.

People tend to use the ammunition they have and, sadly, that's all some people think they have.

[NewJeffCT]

140. I agree with you

Unfortunately, I think it is more common than some here in this thread might want to admit.

[Haole Girl]

49. I think when you no longer have sex with your spouse...

..it is time to leave.

I'll never forget a talk show I saw once (I think it was Oprah). There was a woman guest who told the audience that if a spouse doesn't get sex at home they will surely get it elsewhere. The way she said it really made me wonder. BTW, I think the woman ran a brothel.

[HEyHEY]

53. Looking for a method? Or is this something being applied to you?

[JitterbugPerfume]

54. a stupid ,stupid thing to do

and it solves nothing . It only breeds resentment .

[SeattleGirl]

55. I'd say, whoever is doing that is not worth being with.

:grr:

[SarahB]

56. I doubt either of us would have the sort of willpower to even attempt it.

Not to mention that it's pretty messed up in terms of marital dynamics.

[WindRavenX]

57. if you even need to "control" a loved one, it's over.

NT

[LostinVA]

61. Haruka withheld from me on our wedding night

Just joking.

We had a king jacuzzi suite. You should have seen the mirror on the wall of the jacuzzi room. It was the WHOLE WALL!

[JVS]

62. Grounds for divorce

[tigereye]

64. a sign of many problems

communication-wise and trust- wise.

Not good.

[deucemagnet]

65. Very wrong,

but sometimes results in jewelry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v0Av3ocF_A

:hide:

[NC_Nurse]

77. Yuch.

Stupid and self-defeating.

[AlCzervik]

85. "Controlling a spouse" is just wrong.

[WinkyDink]

86. Lysistrata, is that you?

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

96. withholding sex/affection...for the purpose of power is contraproductive

withholding the most pleasant way to "argue"? After a good fuck when everyone is relaxed problems and arguements lose much if its edge. How Stupid...

A well a scorpions approach to sex..."there ain't anything that can't be easened by having good sex"

Death and pain of a friends, heroin-draft, pulling all four wisdom teeth, family problems, silly arguements, menstruation, headache,.... Every pain - emotionally and physically - can be transformed to sexual energy. If both sides can do it, you don't have any problems (at least you don't perceive them as such) and much sex ;-)

Why should one want to withhold that?

Tried that withholding stuff with a gf once as a mutual game called "platonic" No hugs, no kisses, no shows of affection in general. Was funny testing self-control how long one can do but at one point she grew sad and i felt i had to end that game too. i did of course.

[Ellen Forradalom]

98. I have a very dim view of it.

It's been done to me. It does terrible things to a marriage.

[Danger Mouse]

100. i think it's wrong.

*looks upthread*
wow. not getting near that with a ten foot pole.

[LostInAnomie]

106. Two opinions on this:

1. If the reason for withholding sex is because you are angry with the spouse for an unresolved fight, that is fine. No one should have sex with a person if they do not feel like it.

2. If the reason they are withholding sex is for manipulative purposes like material gain, to coerce the spouse into doing something, to harm the spouse emotionally, etc., it is a sign that the marriage is in serious trouble. If fact, I think it is grounds for a divorce or at least seeking sex outside the marriage.

Just my $0.02

[La Lioness Priyanka]

141. great response.

[Mutley]

107. Using sex as a weapon is evil.

EVIL. It should never be done.

[Withywindle]

110. I think it's horrible.

And it is, sadly, an equation I've been on both sides of --very much not proud of it, especially since it happened to me and I became aware of how shitty it feels and how destructive it is. Besides, being even on the abusive end feels shitty because, crap, if I use this method it means I'm not getting laid! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It's a nasty, lonely feeling either way and it's corrosive to a relationship. I would advise anyone it's happening to to either seek counseling (couples counseling, that is, it's a two-person problem) or, Amityville Horror whisper-voice, "GET OUT."

It's very different from the natural ebbs and flows of passion in a relationship, and it's very different from momentary "I don't want to have sex now 'cause I'm mad at you." It's like a constant cold shoulder, except it's the whole body and a piece of the soul.

[Jamastiene]

111. Sounds kind of malicious to me.

Trying to control your spouse to begin with sounds sort of pointless and counterproductive.

[Inchworm]

115. Eeewww! Sex with my spouse?

I hated it then.. I'm so glad I'm divorced from that evil spawn.

:hi:

[hfojvt]

118. if you do

then I think that maybe I'll just lay me down and cry for a hundred years

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tUTaHRs6teI

[Ghost in the Machine]

119. I'd tell her: " That's fine, doll. I'll just have to rethink the ones I've been turning down"

hey... what would I have to lose, right?

Yeah, I enjoy being single and just dating... as a single father, it works out better too. The kids don't get attached to someone, just to be let down again later if it doesn't work out..

[Skittles]

120. I would say it means you don't enjoy sex very much

yup

[NewJeffCT]

147. The withholding person you mean?

I would think, for this tactic to be effective, the person from whom sex is being withheld must have enjoyed it. Withholder: "If you don't take me out for a nice dinner this weekend, no sex for you!" Withholdee, "I'll just do without!"

[Fire Walk With Me]

125. Deny him dinner.

People can last much longer without sex.

[Deep13]

126. Why would anyone want to control his or her spouse?

:shrug:

[MissMillie]

127. it's bad... but

it's also bad to let yourself be controlled by sex.

in other words... why is it that you're not doing what you're asked to begin with? And why would the presence or absence of sex make a difference in that decision?

[DS1]

130. pretty scummy thing to do

[unpossibles]

131. I prefer when she uses a dog collar or restraints. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

136. The word "controlling" jumps out at me more than the word sex.

Marriage should be a partnership. Any form of control by one over the other bothers me.

[wildhorses]

155. thank you!!! my point exactly!!!

preach it sister :hi:

[Dr. Strange]

137. I tried it once--totally didn't work.

I suppose the fact that she wasn't my spouse may have had something to do with that, though.

[Sanctified]

138. If one spouse can control another with sex then the sex is probably not that good anyway. n/t

[ElboRuum]

142. Control in a relationship.

1) Anyone with a desire to control their spouse lacks trust and/or respect for their spouse.
2) Using the concomitant intimate portion of the relationship as leverage as a means of exerting this control is therefore disrespectful, both of the spouse and of the marriage itself.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that two of the most important pillars of any relationship are respect first, and trust a very close second. One might be inclined to question precisely what is being preserved or what end is to be effected if one is willing to put these aside at the peril of the relationship itself.

[NewJeffCT]

144. Wasn't there a Sci-Fi story where all the women agreed to withhold sex

until we had world peace and men stopped all the wars, or something like that?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

145. Lysistrata?

Though it wasn't sci-fi.