"... and we had sex off and on then for about six weeks till she got pregnant with our son. That’s more than 20 years ago and we’ve not had sex since, though we’ve talked about it a couple of times. We had one tricky spell about five years ago when Alison started to worry we weren’t normal and thought we should go for counselling. I didn’t care about normal – my worry was that she really did want sex and might have an affair, but she promised me that wasn’t the case. None of our friends or family would believe that we have a sexless marriage. We’ll have a spat occasionally, like everyone else, but we’re very cuddly and close to each other and still as interested in each other and do as much together as we ever did.... She’s beautiful and I love her and I don’t think we’ll ever have sex again."
From "'I don’t think we’ll ever have sex again': our happy, cuddly, celibate marriage/Brian and Alison have been together for 25 years and haven’t had sex for the past 20. Here, they explain why" in The Guardian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
cmd + f gay
0 results
Come on, guys. Really?
Whatever.
Normal? Maybe, but unlikely. Should it be normalized (e.g. promoted)? Probably not. This is one one of those transgender orientations that may be tolerated when it is not a progressive condition.
I will believe this is a lifestyle choice once he gets tested for hypoandrogenism.
At least they each apparently found the perfect mate.
Isn't this how marriage worked before birth control?
This is just fluff. Let's get back to Real News -- like that guy who was dragged off the plane; and how Spicer's goof about whether dumping Zyklon B into a "shower" was the same thing as using artillery shells filled with mustard gas proves that everyone in the Trump administration is an anti-Semite.
"It’s quite odd feeling you’re not interested in something that the rest of the human race is mad about"
I feel that way often regarding such things as romantic comedies and Bob Dylan.
Like Mockturtle, it appears that they each found their perfect mate. However, I don't believe for a second the subjects are being truthful about themselves- it all sounds like a rationalization for some other deeper cause that neither of them wants to address.
Off-topic, but you decide- mistake or an attempt at rigging an election?
Link
Tolstoy was wrong. Every happy marriage is different.
Yeah, he should not have given her that Magic Wand. Unintended consequence.
Yancey Ward said...
"...it all sounds like a rationalization for some other deeper cause that neither of them wants to address..."
When a Man tells his Wife that he is no longer interested in Sex, it usually means he IS interested in Sex, but only with Young Boys. And their Young Boy Asses...
Now, I'm not calling this Man a Pedophile, but a man almost Exactly like Him would probably be eventually discovered to be a Pedophile: a Pedophile who lusted over Young Boy Asses...
Check the routes he travels. Does he drive by elementary schools, even though they are not really on the way? Does he stop at parks and watch children's soccer games? You know: Young Boys gleefully playing soccer with Young Boy Asses in Young Boy Motion...
Does he have a LOT of 'frequent customer' Stamp Cards from local Ice Cream Shops in his wallet? Because Young Boys like Ice Cream...
Does he wash his cock an inordinate amount? Like, when he's been in the bathroom a while, does he say "I'll be out in a minute, honey, I'm washing my cock...?"
Because sometimes they slip up like that, and say they are washing their cocks, not their hands...
So of course he is not having sex with his Wife: she may have looked vaguely young-boyish in her early twenties, but even That Thrill Is Gone...
And all of their friends say he is a Sweet, Nice, Gentle Man, who enjoys taking the neighborhood children out on Hiking and Fishing trips; they never hear the quiet sobbing from the Young Boys' bedrooms as they wrestle with their Shame and hide away the underwear with the spots of blood...
Anyway, that is what I thought when I read the article.
I am Laslo.
So two people with extremely low sex drives found each other. Good for them.
This is making me reminisce about a friend I had way back in my youth (20's) - an AA male who was around my age, a little older. The dude just wasn't that interested in sex - never was. Decent looking, healthy. Once in a while he'd meet a woman that did it for him, but even then he just wasn't that into it beyond a few trysts. As a black man, it was apparently unforgivable to not be after women all the time, and he was an outcast from the AA community, and his family because of it.
We hung around for years, strictly platonic. I've always cultivated platonic friendships with men as brother surrogates, as I only have a sister and was jealous of my friends with brothers - no interest in him on my end. No reason to believe he was faking it. He even went so far as to read every book on celibacy he could get his hands on. He hooked up with a friend of mine once, and told me later she just wore him out! "I HOPE she finds someone to fuck her the way she wants" is what he told me.
If the human sex drive varies among the population, why wouldn't there be people at both ends of the bell curve - very extreme at one end or the other? Is anything at the extreme ends of the bell curve "normal"?
The only thing I find odd about this is the urge to be interviewed about one's sex life or lack of it. THAT is the bizarre thing here.
Hypothesis A: One or both got fat and unattractive.
Hypothesis B: One or both is addicted to porn.
People who find their meaning in cars can't understand people who like walking.
We've become a society obsessed with sex not only as an act but an identity.
Seems like this couple has found a healthy balance that works for them, even if it doesn't work for others.
The funny thing is that society very much still has a communal ethic. People are seemingly threatened by a couple like this, as if what they do means it's the right decision for everyone. Celiphobes! Or is it abstiphobes?
Very interesting. The article was well done. I don't know what that would be like, but I'm happy they are both happy.
"I feel that way often regarding such things as romantic comedies and Bob Dylan"
With you the whole way on Dylan. Talentless and extremely annoying.
Why do we need to know about these people and hear about their non-sex lives?
These are private issues that really should remain private. That is all.
These are private issues that really should remain private. That is all.
Tell that to the Gay Pride paraders.
If you can live a celibate life, then by all means join the Catholic clergy! They need the bodies, bigly!
If you're smart, then they send you through college & grad school. Like the army, the orders need all kinds of skills, so you can even go to B-school on their dime. If you're a scholarly type, the Dominicans & Jesuits always like to show off their scholars, just to let the world know they're keeping up the standards of yore.
They live a good life. The houses all have housekeepers, ladies who actually know how to cook, & they eat remarkably well. When they travel, if they travel to a city with a house of the same order, they have a free place to stay. Wanna stay for free in Paris, London, Rome? Join a religious order!
As my brother's dissertation advisor, a Jesuit, put it: "I took a vow of poverty. Other people live a life of it."
If looked back on the last 31 years as other than blissful, I'd have more regrets about not joining the clergy.
Ooops!
Should be "if I looked back on the last 31 years of marriage....
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Why do we need to know about these people and hear about their non-sex lives?
These are private issues that really should remain private. That is all."
My thoughts exactly. How did the Guardian find out about this couple? Did they contact the paper and say, "We're a married couple and we don't have sex. Your readers might find us interesting?" Or did the reporter get tipped off by someone else because the couple goes around telling everyone they meet about their sexless marriage?
Their sex lives or lack of sex lives are their own business. Broadcasting the fact is what seems really weird. But as FB shows, many people now believe that everything about them of interest to the world, including what they ate for breakfast.
YH, while the Apostle Paul described himself as asexual [or at least able to be happily celibate], Peter [who is supposed by the RCC to be the first pope] was married. Paul also warned married couples not to deprive one another of sex except for occasional prayer and fasting because one's body belongs to the other and deprivation can lead to temptations and sin. This means, to me, that sex in marriage is not only for procreative ends.
This means, to me, that sex in marriage is not only for procreative ends.
As a 67 yr old woman in a 25 yr marriage....I give a hearty AMEN to that :-)
Well, DBQ, I guess we know that. But I believe [and I could be wrong--it has happened] that the RCC thinks that procreation is the only purpose of sexual union.
"Isn't this how marriage worked before birth control?"
Not exacly, and here's some contemporary science for you http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/15/female-physicist-creates-worlds-first-government-approved-birth-control-app/
But you meant artificial birth control
If you can live a celibate life, then by all means join the Catholic clergy!
I would modify that a bit. Setting aside that celibacy actually means being unmarried (which once upon a time implied sexual abstinence), better to say that if you can live a celibate and chaste life, then by all means join the Catholic clergy or consecrated religious life.
What is needed is more than simply not being married, what is needed is a full understanding and embracing of chastity. Of course, "chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being" (CCC 2337).
Such that what is needed is a healthy understanding of human sexuality in the context of celibate priesthood or consecrated life, where that sexuality in the personal sense is channeled toward and given up to the Lord as the Bridegroom or via the Bride of Christ, the Church. "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner (CCC 2349). Thankfully, young priests today have the benefit of the theological teachings of John Paul II on the matter.
As for Peter, all we know for certain is that, having a mother-in-law referenced in the Gospel, he was once married. We do not know if she was still living or not at the time of Jesus' ministry. She is not mentioned as being alive and if certainly sola scriptura is to be the rule, then we cannot assume that she was then alive.
Fake news. The guy is low in testosterone, and the woman is probably a prostitute.
Matthew 8:14,15 [NIV]: When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.
Bullshit! Brian and Allison only exist in the writer's head.
Brian and Allison will discuss their (non)sex lives but will they discuss their tax returns?
Another explanation is that the wife has been circumcised, and the man is impotent. Not uncommon in the UK.
I do not want to hear about the sex lives of others. Not even giraffes. And I don't want to talk about mine with anyone except my partner. Why did you find this noteworthy?
"Tolstoy was wrong. Every happy marriage is different."
In ways that we can probably only imagine. Decades of observing other people's relationships has taught me that guessing what makes those relationships work for the two people involved is a fool's errand. Like my parents, my marriage is happy and conventional, but others have priorities for a successful relationship that have nothing to do with sex (the act) or gender (the role). If you're not harming anyone, God bless.
"'I don’t think we’ll ever have sex again': our happy, cuddly, celibate marriage/Brian and Alison have been together for 25 years and haven’t had sex for the past 20. Here, they explain why"
Because they're British! Duh. This is news? Crikie.
I take it the connies here admire that sort of thing.
But I believe [and I could be wrong--it has happened] that the RCC thinks that procreation is the only purpose of sexual union.
Show of hands from anyone who believes the RCC is/should be in a position of any kind of authority on sex.
Bueller?
Just because the RCC is obsessed with sex does NOT mean it's an authority on it.
Okay. Their choice. Why are the blabbing about it to a newspaper?
Too lazy to read the article, but the subheading says, "Brian and Alison have been together for 25 years and haven’t had sex for the past 20." Haven't had sex with each other but with other people, or not at all?
This is the new world of sexuality/gender. Go find some atypical, abnormal person or people who constitute a tiny minority at the fringe ends of the bell curve and then act like they are just as normal as everybody else. The cis/trans nomenclature is a classic example of this.
I think the Guardian link to this article was infinitely more interesting and relevant.
People who aren't wanted lose their interest in wanting it.
@mockturtle,
Well, DBQ, I guess we know that. But I believe [and I could be wrong--it has happened] that the RCC thinks that procreation is the only purpose of sexual union.
Close, but not quite. Sexual relations are considered a "unitive" function (i.e they bind the couple as "one flesh" & as an expression of love), but they must always be "open" to the procreative act. This teaching is not different for the RCC than for the classical reformers, even the early Quakers. None of them had any truck with non-reproductive sex of any kind.
@Toothless,
Show of hands from anyone who believes the RCC is/should be in a position of any kind of authority on sex.
Ahh, toothless. Yet again you with your stupid, fucked up notion that somehow out there there's this repository of secular moral knowledge that all we have to do is open it up & stick our cup in & fish out the answers. I'll cut you some slack because this notion is just everywhere in modern culture, but its ubiquity in no way changes the fact that, philosophically speaking, it's incoherent.
There are in human experience two sources of morality. There's revelation (religion) & there's reason (philosophy). If anyone out there thinks that moral philosophy is an easier row to hoe than revelation in terms of explaining how we should live our lives, then I'm all ears. My experience with reading moral philosophy in no way leads me to a state of optimism. To think, however, that complex moral questions admit of simple, straightforward answers strikes me as simply imbecilic.
YH responds: they must always be "open" to the procreative act..
So post-menopausal [or post-hysterectomy] women shouldn't indulge?
Something is up..or down/diminished/inverted.
Can't imagine as a hetero male "snuggliing" for 20 yrs.
Mark said
As for Peter, all we know for certain is that, having a mother-in-law referenced in the Gospel, he was once married. We do not know if she was still living or not at the time of Jesus' ministry. She is not mentioned as being alive and if certainly sola scriptura is to be the rule, then we cannot assume that she was then alive.
Nonsense. The fact that Peter's mother-in-law was sick at his house make it far more likely that Peter's wife was alive and caring for her. Peter certainly wasn't. If scripture is to be our guide and it is silent on a subject, we can make no assumption about that subject rather than immediately assume the negative.
As Rumpole's nemesis Mr. Justice Oliphant would say, " Let's use our common sense about this, shall we? "
Walter, I can get to a cuddling relationship for +20 years way faster than imagining myself masturbating in another guys rectum. So comparing the two lifestyles, either both are abnormal, or both must be celebrated.
Lolz
iowan2,
If you are hetero as I, you should know that is a really poor comparison.
It's pretty hard to repress what you don't instinctively seek.
Ahh, toothless. Yet again you with your stupid, fucked up notion that somehow out there there's this repository of secular moral knowledge that all we have to do is open it up & stick our cup in & fish out the answers. I'll cut you some slack because this notion is just everywhere in modern culture, but its ubiquity in no way changes the fact that, philosophically speaking, it's incoherent.
There are in human experience two sources of morality. There's revelation (religion) & there's reason (philosophy). If anyone out there thinks that moral philosophy is an easier row to hoe than revelation in terms of explaining how we should live our lives, then I'm all ears. My experience with reading moral philosophy in no way leads me to a state of optimism. To think, however, that complex moral questions admit of simple, straightforward answers strikes me as simply imbecilic.
There's moral sentiments. People have an intuitive understanding of right and wrong and really don't usually need a whole lot of hooey from academics or especially priests on the matter. Adam Smith seemed to have written a book about this very thing.
The rest of what you write is just the predictable malarkey that stems from your (understandable) disappointment at trying to find in academic philosophy all the answers that you don't (understandably) find in the mechanism of social control known as religion. And the only reason you bother to believe that there are answers in religion is because of pride.
Myths (or what you call "revelation"), like all literature, can be good at uncovering truths. But the RCC moved way past that, as well as the still valuable parables of the Gospels, the moment Constantine converted, turned the new empire into a theocracy and its mission became political, social and bureaucratic. Those things don't leave a lot in the way of morality.
I'll cut you some slack because this notion is just everywhere in modern culture -
And what the heck is it with this traditionalist Catholic war against "modern culture?" How's that working out for the drunkard Steve Bannon? While he's getting his ass thrown out of the NSC for warring against the president's son-in-law (as if that alone weren't the most obvious mark against his purported brilliance) - I guess his whole theory of America as the next 10th century European front against Islam goes out the window. What a pity. For once the right-wing was starting to give itself erections over the idea of one of those big, grand fights for global civilization that they've been looking for but never found. If only Ronald Reagan could have picked a more potent empire to "collapse" than the dying Soviet one. Something to measure up to the real fight FDR and the Democrats got to win against global fascism and racist imperialism. How disappointing this must all be for you.
"YH responds: they must always be "open" to the procreative act.."
So post-menopausal [or post-hysterectomy] women shouldn't indulge?
Oh, I'm sure YH has a "revelatory" answer for you on that one.
Failing that, he's sliding the confessional lattice door shut on you! Lights out! You questioned too much! Got in the way of all that authority! He's going to send the nuns after you.
I'm not a Catholic, TTR, and nuns don't scare me.
That's good, MT. Cause I'm sure they scare him!
An attempt to make their own non-normalcy as normal, and accepted as normal by others to make themselves feel better. Same with any other non-normal group, particularly when it involves sex. Bottom line, we don't care; it's your own insecurities that only you can deal with.
When you force the rest of the world to make a decision about your own unique foibles don't be surprised when people decide against you.
* non-normal meaning a minority.
I had an aunt and uncle who had a Josephite marriage. They weren't religious.
Perhaps this couple is just the vanguard of the coming demographic collapse?
"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."
-- T.S. Eliot, "The Hollow Men"
If both sides agree on the arraignment, all power to them.
The hell is when only one side thinks the celibate thing is great. When even non-sexual intimacy is off the table, hell doesn't describe it.
Post a Comment