I am a spouse of a sex addict and we did this..this is something that ALOT of CSAT's highly suggest, and was suggested while my husband was in intensive therapy.
I was open to anything and everything it took to help reset my husbands brain,rediscover other ways to be intimate and it also gave me time to heal from the trauma of disclosure without having to worry about actually having sex...some therapists say 30 days,as well...i would think that most spouses would be open to the idea ...remember that a time set means absitinence from all forms of sex, including masturbation...i say give it a try if you feel like you should do it to help you,your wife or your marriage...

No, Choose, never had my H ask for that. However, if it had been part of his therapy then I could see no problem. As far as choice in the matter, I'm not sure there ever is one. If my mate says that he doesn't want to engage, then he doesn't. There would be no alternative I can see but to accept that.

Is this a part of your therapy? Or, is it just something you want to do? You suggested, "I think this is something we missed early on in recovery, and I think we need to go back and do it." How long have you been in recovery? And, what benefit do you think it will serve? I think that matters. Or, it would matter to me.

The party like benefits are supposed to be for the SA that we can see that not being sexual will not kill us. For the Spouse it validates that he loves me anyway even without sex.

I kind of have problems with both of these ideas. Not that they are wrong, but that they are not complete.

Keep in mind that sexual behavior has a macro effect on the body, mind, relationship, and spirit in a normal state, so though this descrpition is focused on the physical chemestry in the brain while being sexual. It should be assumed that the proper firing of the specific pathiways involved in sexuality are "upstream" of other brain functions like the afterglow of intimacy, or the sense of safety that results from being sexually vulnerable to your spouse and it working out positively as opposed to the negative results of an earlier sexual trauma.

Also assume that I am just thinking through stuff and likely making inaccurate assumptions, not being an expert.

First benefits for the SA. I think it is something about leveling off the dopamime receports in the brain. When orgasms floods the brain with dopamine it is a God given design to bond a man to his wife and visa versa. with Porn and masturbation, it is hijacked. And as an addict, the pathways are damaged because when there is lots of dopamine sitting around apparently the receptors are damamged and loose their ability to uptake dopamine. This causes the addictive cycle of insatialbe sex.

An analogy; these dopamine receports are supposed to have 50 'ports' for receiving dopamine. The brain wants sex to fire the sinapses and experience the 'whole' process of sexuality with our spouses. But the receptors are damaged and can only uptake units of dopamine. So the need for sex is not satisfied. Another issues is that the dopamine bath has provided 50 units of dopamine for this experience, but only used 6 in the process, so the other 44 sit around and damage the recepticals like an electrical short damages a wire. Not completely destroying it woulding its ability to work at full capacity.

I am gathering that the idea of a time of abstinance is to allow the brain to heal these sinapses. Or to declog them and allow the full flow of chemestry to flow through them. I believe that it is like the spoke of a wheel. Emotional, physical, intellectual, sexual and social intimacy all connect as spokes to a center of spiritual intimacy. If the addicted brain has weak sexual sinapses because they are clogged and flooded, then it imacts the entire wheel which bumbles and wabbles along causing damage to all of the other spokes.

At this point i am not all balled up about not being able to go without sex for 3 or 6 months. I know the chemistry will cause some wierdness as it subsides, but If it clears the road for a new level of intimacy I am in. But there is a caviate....

FOr the Spouse... the proposed benefit is to see that their SA loves them even without sex. The problem with this notion is that God is love, and God specifically created marriage and sexuality within that marriage to overshadow the bond between a husband and wife beyond all other possible relationships on the planet. Spiritual intimacy requires sexual intimacy, along with the other forms. So the idea is probably more like it shows the spouse that sex is not the only proof that love exists. Not that sex is not necessary because, I do not think a marriage can be spiritually complete without sexuality than a person can be spiritually compete without sexuality.

The other benefit I think the Spouse gets is that sex is no longer available as a tool to control or punish. I think withholding sex to punish is deeply wounding and costs the relationship far more than it gains. A simple example if this is poor communication. Proper boundaries about authentically expressing anger would facilitate intimacy in addressing those expectation. The bible says do not let the sun go down on your anger. I know some couples that are committed to staying up all night working through issues because of this verse. Some of them have dark bags under their eyes, AND they clearly adore each other through those tired eyes.

If a strategy like withholding sex to get your way, or to punish is used, it short circuits a positive communication opportunity that could result in intimacy.

If you have both agreed to abstinence for a time, then the tool of withholding sex to punish is not possible, so you have to find another approach. So both being committed to being intimate in other ways during that time of abstinence is crucial to learn how to work things out.

The notion of using sex to control is a bit harder. Quid Pro Quo sex, "If you mow the lawn I will have sex with you tonight." might be a fun way to banter if you were consistantly committed to meeting each others sexual needs without regard to what you get back, but the implication is that you will NOT have sex if the lawn does not get mowed.

The ideal sexuality could be something more like this, " I desire to please your sexual wants, and It would be so much more comfortable and easy for me to be really into that thing you love me doing when I feel like you really care about me. I really feel that way when I see you working hard at getting all the stuff around the house done that you don't like doing. Like mowing the lawn.

I guess the idea is that conditional sex diminishes and maybe eliminates the possibility of authentic intimacy. The message is your only worth what you give. The reality is that the true blessings are in the giving not the receiving. So withholding sex to control or punish is actually steeling your own blessings.

There are legitimate times to avoid sex especially with an SA. There are real and uncontrolled consequences to breaking marriage vows. And though healing is possible, and even likely in the face of an SA acting out, or even relapsing, hopefully relapsing over and over again. But it is not appropriate to be sexually vulnerable with unsafe people. So for example, I will not be sexual with my husband without protection for 6 months and a negative HIV test. is a valid boundary. The idea may be something like if you intend to stay in the marriage, you need to be explicitly working toward reconciliation. Or another way, I intend to stay in the marriage including provide due benevolence. But until I am confident that my need for fidelity can be met, I will need to be careful about how vulnerable I allow myself to be. Your either working towards that or away from that at any time.

The caviate is that if I do it by myself for my recovery and do not consider my wifes needs, then two things happen. 1. it is not in line with what the bible says. "Do not withhold due benevolence except for prayer and fasting, and then only for a time, then come back together so that you are no tempted by the devil."

I do not own my body, she does, so it is not appropriate for me to withhold sex without her consent. In fact, this is a big deal for both sides, and what carnes says is a huge cultural problem that is perpetuating the environment for addiction. The premise is that men are sexual and women are not. the reality is that humans are intensely sexual and believing this imbalanced message sets up rage at the other sex, and perpetuates men to believe that they are powerless over their sexuality because women have all the power, and it causes women to believe they are bad if they allow themselves to be authentic about their sexuality.

In reality mutual respect and affirmation of the amazing synergy of intimacy that results from equally powerful masculine and feminine sexuality together is Gods design and intent for us to experience and Satans intent to destroy with addiction.

Probably too much. But at this point here is where I am. My wife is angry and feels like she does not want to be sexual. I understand but do not believe that either of us are biblical allowed to withold sex without an agreement to do so. Since I want to abstain for 100 days right now, I am assuming that we are in a tentative agreement to abstain. And am OK with not being sexual. However, since she will not specifically agree to participate in the agreement, we have not agreed. So if she initiates, or responds to my flirting and affection during this time sexually, I will be sexual with her. Until she agrees to both being abstinant with me, and to agree to do other intimate things that shore up the other spokes of intimacy while we are abstaining like dating and respectful listening, maybe other exercises that build intimacy, then we are not actually abstaining,

Great that you're thinking Choose. Kudos for that! I'm not so sure that looking a healthy sexuality from a perspective of neural dopamine response is very beneficial? I think that sometimes science is very inspective and not very natural? I mean, I once tried to overthink my situation. I found it wasn't valuable to me at all. I came to a few tenative conclusions about the "why" of abstinence. I'm sure those are very different from the perspective and needs of the injured from the perspective and needs of the addict.

I mean, from the perspective of an addict, I would be a wee bit at a loss...other than to think that refraining from sexual activity until normal sex becomes more attractive might be the gist of it? It seems like the repetitive seeking of more novel approaches might well leave the normal perspective a bit unattractive? I think that learning the difference in sexual behavior for the sake of sexual behavior and replacing it with sexual behavior for the sake of loving attention is a must? So, refraining from any sexual behavior, and observing what desires seem to be prevalent and addressing the why might be beneficial? And some time to adjust to what sex should be meaning in the context of marital intimacy might be beneficial? Can't really say for a surity.

I mean, I think that there is a huge difference, or there is for me, in just seeking a physical bang for the sake of just a physical bang and seeking to be loving to my mate. I mean, the former might be easily viewed from my perpsective as just masturbation...in the presence of another person...having nothing whatsoever to do with intimacy? I see those as distinctly different. I know of both. I've experienced both. And the former is not very attractive to me at all.

And, that...may be a major cause why I feel apprensive about attempting to renew these things. I can say that I have never, ever, even considered withholding intimacy from myself nor my H for any kind of control mechanism at all. Nor would I ever do that. What a childish persuit that seems? How could anyone ever operate under the premise that they can punish a person who isn't even true to their marriage to begin with? That makes no sense whatsoever to me personally. But, I have obstained because I really feel uncomfortable in that arena now. And, I haven't been able to find a way to prevent the discomfort? So? And, I've yet to speak to a partner who has disengaged for that reason. There are many reasons, but that hasn't been one of them. If I had, I might have felt compelled to seek their thoughts as to how that works? I can't quite see a way.

As far as the expression of love. I love many people. So, I don't view sex as an avenue to love. I do view it as an expression of love to a mate. There is nowhere in my psyche that means life without sex is life without love. If I never engaged in sexual activity again, it would have no bearing on whether or not I can love. So, I'm not sure I understand your perspective on that. Do you think that...say..a man encounters some kind of physical injury that destroys his ability to have sex can no longer love? I can't imagine that at all.

You shared, " I do not think a marriage can be spiritually complete without sexuality than a person can be spiritually compete without sexuality." I also do not connect spiritual intimacy with sexual intimacy. I think that for me they are two very different things. I have always been spiritual, but I have not always been sexual. And, whether of not I'm sexual has no bearing whatsoever in my ability to love spiritually. That proposes a question in my mind, "how spiritual do you feel when engaging in extramarital sexual behavior?" What of spirituality then? Does it meld? If so, how so? See, I happen to believe that it is "not" necessary for me to engage in sexual behavior with my H in order to love him. Were he to become completely disabled in that regard, I would still love him. So, I can't quite get your gist? Can you explain further?

I also can't quite get melding sexual response with mowing the lawn. If my H doesn't want to mow the lawn, I could care less. In fact, I hire those things done, because he doesn't like to the mow the lawn, or tend the pool either. And, I couldn't imagine offering to trade my sexual feelings for a task? Wow, that would be really degrading to my sexual feelings in my mind. I engage in sex because I want to engage in sex, and for no other reason at all.

As far as due benevolence, I can't quite aquate that in regard to an untrue mate. I think the buck stops here in that regard. That seems a bit like mixing oil with water? Also, you seem to equate only the physical aspects of a mate's injuries in regard to infidelity. I know from personal experience that though the physical side of the danger is real and prevalent, the emotional side of the danger is far more difficult to repair.

It's interesting to hear the old perspective about women not being sexual. I think in today's environment that is well worn out. For every philandering man, there is a corresponding female...unless of course the philandering man is homosexual. So? In long times past, most all psychs were men, so studies were done by men, for men. These days that is no longer true. I think that a lot of re-assessment has been done. In times past, a sexual addict was only female, and she was referred to as a nymphomaniac? These ideas are very old and antiquated? How does due benevolence fit in with outside the marriage sexual behavior?

It seems like you're struggling a bit with what others believe? Scientists are just scientists...trying to figure things out. Mostly, all they have a theories? So, checking ones own beliefs and behaviors seems paramount. I mean, just because a psych says something to me does not necessarily mean that their words or thoughts are valid? They may be, and they may be worth inspection, and they also may not be? So, what it really boils down to for me is what is it that "I" want? What is it that is within my abilities and what is not? I don't think one can take any one individual and place them in a particular place on a particular issue along with "everyone?"

I feel like I shouldn't refuse my wife sex because of my problem. I's not as hard to refuse when she still is very angry with me for the lies, but I feel like when or if she is ready to have sex again that I will still be on my reboot. If I do indulge do I need to start over, or will that type of intimacy still be ok?

agas,
some therapist suggest a 90 abstinence to reboot the addict brain, other therapists suggest when you are both ready to resume being intimate is okay too. Being intimate with your wife is of course okay, as long as she she ready and you are in the moment, not fantasizing etc.
This is a personal choice for each couple.