A thread for JimmyBean

[Dom R]

Jimmy you really do have to consider whether to get your M annulled. Your W married you under a FALSE pretext. For whatever reason.

Clearly, his wife has problems. major, major problems.
Marriage is supposed to be "for better or worse". This is obviously "worse".
What you, cobra, and lillie seem to be saying is,


"Well, if the 'worse' part comes within [X] time of you getting married... never mind all those vows.. the first year or so of your marriage is just a trial period anyways. obviously, this isnt working out for you, so just bail out now. It's ok, you dont really have to stick to all that 'better or worse' stuff, until you get at least a few years of 'good' marriage for yourself."

That just makes me sick.

For Jimmie:
Go talk to a professional counsellor, for how to deal with your wife's personal issues.
Ideally, SHE should go. But if she wont... you need to.
Maybe you should go, whether she sees one or not.

Obviously, you're getting burned out. that's a bad thing.
Take the time to schedule things in your life for you, as well as things for her. If you balance out your life more, then, you may feel better about things for the longer term.

It's probably not good to treat your wife as a child, and make appointments for her, and try to force her to go. If she doesnt want to go, then it wont DO anything for her to go anyway.

[Dom R]

PS: at a non-professional guess, I would suggest to keep doing the loving things you are doing. just try not to smother her with them, or keep her as a child. Build her up, rather than try to keep her as a dependant.

[Cobra]

Dom,

"Well, if the 'worse' part comes within [X] time of you getting married... never mind all those vows.. the first year or so of your marriage is just a trial period anyways. obviously, this isnt working out for you, so just bail out now. It's ok, you dont really have to stick to all that 'better or worse' stuff, until you get at least a few years of 'good' marriage for yourself."

That just makes me sick.

Hmmmm..... that's a loaded comment. Why does that make you sick? Why do you think Jimmy or anyone else should hold so fast to what looks so clearly to be a serious mistake? Why the sense of obligation to some idea? I'm not talking about respect for the rule of law, or how morals or values are the bedrock of society. Keep to the point at hand...why should Jimmy stay in this marriage? What nobility is there is struggling through a hard if not impossible relationship? What makes you think you or anyone else, including Jimmy has the ability to overcome such an adverse situation?

[chromosphere]

I'm still dealing with my anger issues, trying to let it settle down before I respond back over on my thread. Writing letters to those I'm angry with, so that I can tear them up, etc.

Anyway, this post bothered me a bit so I felt like I needed to respond.

I think the "jump to D" is a bit hasty, although I really don't think anyone here is seriously advocating that he call a lawyer today (maybe I'm wrong). I for one think he should try for some serious MC. But if his W refuses, and if she refuses to be a W to him, then she has already broken her vows as surely as if she cheated on him repeatedly. Withholding sex, affection, intimacy from someone is infidelity in my book.

The trick is it may be HIS actions that are prompting her to withhold being a W. He needs to take time, preferably with professional help, to identify what contributions he might be making to the situation. Then after some time, if it is clear that he is doing what he can and she still refuses to make an effort then he is within his rights, biblically or not, to D.

I've heard far too many people use God and religion to either justify bad behavior or justify staying in a situation that is bad. If Jimmy wants to say that it is against his religion to D, then he needs to realize that he is putting himself in a prison of his own making, and accept that consequence. Once you abdicate your free will to someone else or to an idea/religion, whether right or wrong, there will be consequences.

JMHO of course

Chrome

[haphazard]

Dom,

I am not talking about the amount of time, I am talking about the fact that she has said she did not love him before she married him. Therefore she must have been lying when she made the vows.

The ideal which christianity gives us is that we should not just give up on an R because it is going through a rocky period. That is the gold standard and one which we should certainly hold to in most situations. I just don't happen to believe this is one of those situations, not from what Jimmy has told us. Why do you think anullment exists - it is to protect people who made a genuine mistake and married someone who just wasn't suitable to be married.

BTW, I was raised Catholic and still do adhere to many of the values I was raised with, I do not think it is right for examle to bin someone because they turn out to have a major health problem that was not apparent before you married - even if it is within a few months.

Jimmy's W lied in order to get married. Maybe we'll never know why she did that but the fact is she knew she did not feel love and yet she stood there in church and took those vows.

Fran

[haphazard]

I just looked it up.

For example, the most common grounds for annulment is "fraud in the inducement of the marriage."

I think Jimmy has grounds.

[Dom R]

Dom,

I am not talking about the amount of time, I am talking about the fact that she has said she did not love him before she married him. Therefore she must have been lying when she made the vows.

OR... she's lying/misremembering/distorging the past now.
Hmmm?
There are many many cheating spouses, who claim as justification, "I never really loved you!!"
And I'm sure that some of them actually somehow have convinced themselves that is true. Except in reality, it wasnt.

I dont think that people in an affair, are the only ones to rewrite their memories of their past.

The ideal which christianity gives us is that we should not just give up on an R because it is going through a rocky period. That is the gold standard and one which we should certainly hold to in most situations. I just don't happen to believe this is one of those situations, not from what Jimmy has told us. Why do you think anullment exists - it is to protect people who made a genuine mistake and married someone who just wasn't suitable to be married.

As a side comment: I dont believe that Anullment is biblically valid.
Show me in the bible where anullment is defined? It aint there.
Anullment is just weaslewords to cover up that a divorce is what is wanted, but there arent biblical grounds for it.

Note that one of the "grounds" for annulment, is "no sex".
I think that you can ask to have your marriage annulled, just because the two of you never had sex. No other reason: person was faithful, loves you... just wont give you sex.

But it's not biblically valid to divorce someone on those grounds. So....?


PS: being "in love" is not a requirement to get married, to begin with. It never was. After all, most marriages in Jesus's time, were arranged marriages, I think!

definately preferable. but not required, nor grounds for divorce if it isnt present.
sure makes for a sucky marriage if it stays that way... but still not biblical grounds for divorce. There's only one thing for that.

[chromosphere]

Dom R,

So what you are saying is that you could marry someone, have them promise to you in their marriage vows EXPLICITLY to have sex with you on a regular basis, and if they don't, you don't have a "Biblical" right to divorce.

OK, I'll accept that as a version of Christianity, one that could be supported by chapters and versus and such. If that is your belief, and you are in that situation, then you just need to suck it up and accept it. Go bury yourself in your religion to distract yourself from the lack of sex. Fine by me.

Of course, there are "biblical grounds" for stoning your children if they disobey you, and biblical grounds for forcing your brother's wife to marry you if he dies, and biblical precedent for calling down a curse of violent death on a bunch of children if they insult you by calling you baldy.

Or you can realize that the Bible, while IMHO was inspired by God, was written and translated by men, who inserted their own agendas whether consciously or subconsciously. That's my belief.

You of course are free to your own beliefs, as is Jimmy. But as I said before, realize that you are doing it to yourself, because of your own beliefs. And unless you are willing to try to force your beliefs on society (i.e. MAKE women have sex because they are supposed to Biblically), then you may just be out of luck on the sex front.

Chrome

[Dom R]

Or you can realize that the Bible, while IMHO was inspired by God, was written and translated by men, who inserted their own agendas whether consciously or subconsciously. That's my belief.

Which means, you can take any part of the bible that you don't like, and declare, "well, I believe that someone just made THAT bit up, so I'm going to ignore it".

how convenient for you.
And also, how tragic. Because you are following a religion that basically you have invented and refined for yourself, rather than following the bible, which is the clearest indication on earth that we have, of God's will for us.
It may be murky in places. But it's the best thing we have.

I think someone who is truely interested in following God's will for us, would be interested in following the bible as closely as possible, as written. And where their behaviour differs, they should have well researched reasons on, "well, I believe that God's will for us in this area, is ...., because of what was written/said by Him over here....".
Not, "Well, I dont like that bit. It makes me uncomfortable/it's inconvenient/makes me unhappy. So I'm going to ignore it and pretend that 'someone just inserted it into the bible', rather than it really being God's will for my behavour".

To write in your lessez-fair style: If you choose not to follow the bible, well, that's your choice.
"You of course are free to your own beliefs"

oh, and just to explicitly answer your question:

So what you are saying is that you could marry someone, have them promise to you in their marriage vows EXPLICITLY to have sex with you on a regular basis, and if they don't, you don't have a "Biblical" right to divorce.

Err.. i dont recall where my marriage vows, or any other service I've been to, had vows of "explicitly promising to have sex on a regular basis. But putting that aside; "yes". I dont see anywhere in the bible where it says you have a right to divorce based on lack of sex. And if there isnt an explicit allowance for "you may divorce if..." then, by definition, you have no grounds for divorce.

Please show me where it says otherwise in the bible. I would be honestly interested to read anything you may research

[Dom R]

PS to chromosphere: I took a quick glance at your thread, and I see that you are "personally invested" in the concept of, "if I dont get sex, i can divorce my wife", since that appears to be the exact position you are in, and I guess you "want out".

I have two suggestions for you:

1. If you truely care about God's will.. please.. read the bible, and do the research for yourself on the subject

2. from your very first post in that thread, looks like you are continually pressuring your wife to have sex with you.
or at least, that may be how she feels

Me: Hey pretty lady, come on over here with me on the couch and let's cuddle for awhile.
Her: I don't want to, we always fall asleep when we cuddle on the couch and then I can't go to sleep later.
Me: I'll bet I can get you tired enough to go to sleep later.

I think you dont have a sex problem with your wife. I think you have an intimacy problem with your wife.
Sounds like your wife is kinda in "walk away mode", when it comes to being close and intimate with you. whether cuddling, or otherwise. She's "decided against it", and you pressuring her for it, is making her more determined to not be close to you.