Talk:Sexless marriage

message: There should be something on religious history -- in the Gnosticism of late antiquity (and to a lesser degree in some currents of early Christianity), a sexless marriage was presented as something that husbands and wives should strive for... AnonMoos 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

message: we have listed a number of causes of sexless marriages. this could go on to a long list if people keep adding bits and pieces, as seems to have happened in the past.
I'm wondering if this could be broken into general headings
 - deliberately sexless from the beginning
- due to religious principles, 
- to one or both partners having AIDS or other serious transmittable diseases 
- or to one or both partners not wanting children, 
- asexuality, 
- past trauma, or 
- one or both of the partners has an incompatible sexual orientation.
- (historically/ culturally)  a sexless marriage was presented as something that husbands and wives should strive for.eg Gnosticism of late antiquity (and to a lesser degree in some currents of early Christianity),
- link to spiritual marriage
 - choosing to be sexless afterwards
 - sexless marriages as a symptom of dysfunction (ie not chosen) eg
- Lack of sexual vitality of the female/male due to age.
- Different work schedules/busy lives.
- Severe vaginismus or erectile dysfunction.
- link to sexual dysfunction
"Sexless marriages generally develop over time and are gradual. Love and intimacy generally existed in a relationship but sex starts to become less and less of a factor."- these sentences are unsubstantiated, contradicting the diversity of reasons in the rest of the article.
and i think before we can state that a marriage is dysfunctional, we'd need to establish how it is against the function of marriage. 
or perhaps we could delete the article- there are alternative articles already. I will post a question at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality to clarify why the article was considered mid importance, but would welcome others' thoughts.WotherspoonSmith 09:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs tidying up or deleting 

message: There should maybe be a stub on the concept of conjugal duty, which is the name that priests and theologians have given to a wife's duty to sexually satisfy her husband whenever he requests it. Due to contemporary secularization, the usage of this marital concept has become very rare in the Western world, although it retains a certain historical value that is relevant for explaining how previous generations tended to understand marriage. ADM (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that was as much a legal concept as a religious one (or even more so). AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that in Islamic law, the four major mazhab (schools) of Sunni thought agree that both wife and husband have an obligation to meet the other's sexual needs.  Commonly, withholding sex for a period of 40 days by either party (voluntarily – not, for example, in case of incapacitating illness) is sufficient grounds for divorce.  yoyo (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact Christianity also views sex as an obligation for both husband and wife, while Judaism only obliges men to satisfy their wives sexual desires (not the other way around).  The widely held belief that conjugal rights were something that men exclusively enjoyed is demonstrably wrong. Robert Brockway (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Conjugal duty

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck does that actually mean?  Your message really doesn't give any concrete idea... AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: Srsly, it's smaller than a stub and would house extremely congruent info to sexless marriage. Who's w/ me? -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why did someone go ahead and merge these articles despite the very valid point above? I am not with you, Wingdude; the articles should be separate, and Celibate marriage should be expanded. I imagine it must be insulting for people in celibate marriages to have their love described as an "epidemic". UranianPoet 10:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a valid point, because it's not backed by any sources. On the other hand, if you look at a book called "Celibate Wives: Breaking the Silence" it has this summary: "Every woman in this book expected frequent and fulfilling sex in her marriage. But now they have been in sexless marriages for 5, 10, even 20 years. [...]" . Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the articles should be separate, but a better title would be chaste marriage.  Celebate marriage is something of an oxymoron. Robert Brockway (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Celibate marriage]] should be merged into the sexless marriage article. 

message: What exactly is the definition of sexless being used here? Sexual intimacy could be holding hands. Others would consider sexless to be anything less than full sex. 146.90.116.187 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unaware of a WP:Reliable source that defines hand-holding as sexual. In short, we are supposed to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2% had no sexual intimacy 

message: I removed the "Solutions" section partly because it's a copyvio from here and partly because treating sexless marriage as a "problem" to be "solved" is non-NPOV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch on removing that; it wasn't encyclopedic either. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Solutions" section removed 

message: I am requesting to globalize this article with viewpoints and statistics if available from places like China, for example. In certain countries with a Communist history, the society's attitude on sex is very different from how it is in the United States (which was going through the sexual revolution during the 1970's at the same time Communism was at its highest in the eastern world.) 24.52.247.20 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: Please use real terminology when describing normally a functioning human versus a person with gender dysphoria.  This back bending  accommodation of a minute portion of the population damages your credibility. 2601:484:C202:51D0:0:0:0:3BA3 (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like "rotary phone" or "heterosexual marriage" -- see retronym... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cisgender is a made up term