Interesting article. I tend to fall on the side of believing that NO ONE should participate in sex out of a sense of obligation. Exactly for the reasons the author of the article mentions regarding sexual autonomy and concern over exploitation. I am not my partner's whore.

HOWEVER, having said that, I think these are important factors in a relationship that need to be discussed seriously before committing lifelong. Just as people sign prenups, people need to consider beforehand how they would respond if their partner disappoints them in any way. People don't like to think about it, is my guess, because I hear the same tired story from married people who used to have sex "all the time" and when sexual frequency goes down, instead of viewing it as realistic fluctuations in sex drive, they are overwhelmed and can't cope with it. It is not unforeseeable and people need to stop treating it as such. Ideally people would negotiate in advance how they would respond to this eventuality. I did once read a book (which happened to be about lesbian partnerships, but I think it applies generally) which, in discussing disparity of sex drive between partners, made the distinction between sexual "desire" and sexual "willingness". Meaning that willingness can compensate where desire is lacking.

Also interesting was defining what constitutes cheating. I think we could learn a lot about ourselves and cheating by looking at how the poly community defines infidelity, since they do have parameters and definitions of cheating that are obviously of a more specific nature than merely having sexual contact with another person.

Interesting response Spiky. I definitely think that on some levels in a long term relationship, its highly possible that one or both partners will go through decreased sexual desire. I do believe to a certain extent that everyone has domain over their own bodies, and nobody has the right to force a breach of that space. But it is a fascinating question in that, if your partner just plane stops having sex with you and is not willing to indulge in any compromise or alternative solution, then basically what the author is stating is what is left is to either leave the relationship, have an affair, or try to find a way to squelch their desire. None of those alternatives seem appealing in the least!
I guess what I am trying to grasp is the point of view of the non sex giving partner. I can certainly understand not having a desire for sex, or being desirous of being sexually engaged, but I guess I just don’t see why they wouldn’t at that point tenderly lovingly take care of their spouse in some alternate way that does not involve coitus.
I like the example that was given in the article. If I know my mate is hungry am I not going to find a way to feed them, just because I don’t feel like cooking or am not hungry? (this does not include sickness) So I am just going to let them go hungry for days at a time? Even if I didn’t feel like cooking, I could go get fast food! And of course in that analogy the first thing I think would be why doesn’t he just go and feed himself? What if they suck as a cook? LOL. What if they then went and found someone else to cook for them other than their mate, when their mate is the only one who is supposed to cook for them..lol. I know it’s a bit twisted but the question is the same.
I read a lot of the comments and some people said that at that point if they don’t want to have sex but do anyhow it’s just obligation and no fun. Well relationships are all about obligations but more about love. And for me, If I love you and you have a need I am going to try my best to attend to it, as long as it’s not hurting someone else or myself, why wouldn’t I do it? I think that’s what love is, and I would enjoy it because it gives my mate pleasure and relieve and fills a need or a want. I know this is a VERY real issue! And one that I am sure is the reason why some in this forum had affairs.
As Always Be Blessed
GaC

I can sympathize with both viewpoints as I have been on both sides of this. If it's really down to cheating or leaving, I say leave. I made the wrong choice in past relationships. Sneaking around is just trying to have your cake and eat it too.

This is why people need to talk about it! This happens so much. It's naive of people to think "oh this will never be an issue, we have sex all the time LOL". It's VERY unusual for long term marriages to sustain the sexual momentum established during dating/engagement/first 5 years of marriage. There's a reason for that saying "if you put a pebble in a jar for every time you had sex with your partner before marriage, then took one out for every time you had sex after marriage, you'd still never empty the jar". It's hyperbole, but on the other hand I read a shocking number of testimonies on this site alone along the lines of "I cheated/divorced after 20 years of a sexless marriage..." ??!!!

If it's impossible to keep from screwing around for lack of sex, how do people manage to last that long? Are they all cheating? There must be something keeping them there. I personally think there's something to be said for open marriages, but that's not the only solution. If someone knows they couldn't handle a few weeks, months etc. without sex, they need to talk about that early along in the courtship, and figure out what would be an acceptable solution (as you mentioned). This discussion/negotiation has to happen because it's not worth destroying a lifelong partnership over temporary sexual incompatibility. (I also think this is another reason to test-drive a partner before marriage).

I just think it's unbelievably dumb for anyone to assume this is never going to come up in their lives. I guess lots of people get married before they know what marriage is really like. Anyone considering it needs to seriously ponder whether lifelong monogamy is right for them, not just blindly go along and try to force themselves into that mold because "that's what people do". It is indeed not a contract to be entered into lightly.