Ok, but your partner is obligated to understand your needs and if their determination is they will never have sex with you again you are being emotionally neglected.
They aren't being neglected just because someone doesn't want to have sex with them. That's such a strange take.
You don't seem to understand that they are inside a mandatory pact of sexual abstinence except with each other.
That is what marriage is.
She ensnared him to be his provider for life and to swear off sex with anyone else.
And then decided to refuse having sex entirely
You want your argument to have legs ?
THEN KILL MANDATORY SEXUAL EXCLUSIVITY IN MARRIAGES
THEN KILL MANDATORY SEXUAL EXCLUSIVITY IN MARRIAGES
That's a choice for people in individual marriages to make, not me.
Yes it should be an add-on choice they can make. Not this vile default !
If one person choses to be asexual after having a healthy sex drive until that point that does not mean the other person has to be asexual aswell. Why is this such a hard concept for you?
You don't seem to know what asexual means. Asexual doesn't mean someone who doesn't have sex. Asexual is someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction.
But anyways, of course the other person is free to break up and find someone else who will have sex with them. However, they aren't being neglected. Nobody owes someone their body.
What's with the pedantry? If they feel no sexual attraction to their partner and therefore never have sex the difference between that and asexuality is trivial. No one is forcing them to have sex. They just are no longer are a participant in a loving, caring, marriage.
That's certainly a better take then arguing they are being neglected
They are being neglected. Their partner doesn't care about their emotional needs.
Nobody is obligated to have sex with you
Ok, but your partner is obligated to understand your needs and if their determination is they will never have sex with you again you are being emotionally neglected.
They aren't being neglected just because someone doesn't want to have sex with them. That's such a strange take.
You don't seem to understand that they are inside a mandatory pact of sexual abstinence except with each other. That is what marriage is. She ensnared him to be his provider for life and to swear off sex with anyone else. And then decided to refuse having sex entirely You want your argument to have legs ? THEN KILL MANDATORY SEXUAL EXCLUSIVITY IN MARRIAGES
That's a choice for people in individual marriages to make, not me.
Yes it should be an add-on choice they can make. Not this vile default !
If one person choses to be asexual after having a healthy sex drive until that point that does not mean the other person has to be asexual aswell. Why is this such a hard concept for you?
You don't seem to know what asexual means. Asexual doesn't mean someone who doesn't have sex. Asexual is someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction.
But anyways, of course the other person is free to break up and find someone else who will have sex with them. However, they aren't being neglected. Nobody owes someone their body.
What's with the pedantry? If they feel no sexual attraction to their partner and therefore never have sex the difference between that and asexuality is trivial. No one is forcing them to have sex. They just are no longer are a participant in a loving, caring, marriage.
That's certainly a better take then arguing they are being neglected
They are being neglected. Their partner doesn't care about their emotional needs.