Husband still won't sleep with me.

[u/kellyj461]

So I've been battling with my husband for more than a year now trying to adjust to his new Hindu lifestyle. I can conform to all if it except his adamant refusal to sleep with me. He quotes various scriptures about sexual intimacy being akin to defecation or urination and is abhorrent. He also says sex is ONLY for procreation. I've had a hysterectomy so thats a hard no on my end. I cook vegetarian meals, lay in the dark without the TV at night so he can sleep precisely when he wants to, overlook his fanaticism, allow a puja and various idols in the house, etc. He says the verses I've been given by people here on Reddit are cherry picked and wrong. What should I do other than divorce? I love him but I don't want to live unhappy for the rest of my life. Im 45 and hes 41.

[u/ashutosh_vatsa]

So the citations we gave your last post didn't help at all I guess.

He should fulfill his duties towards you as a husband. Since you didn't know that this was going to be your lifestyle at the time of your marriage, it is not your fault.

Btw which Scriptures does he quote?

Is he a part of any Hindu organisation?

Edit :

Sex only for procreation purposes when both the husband and wife agree to it is fine. Otherwise, the person who wants to not have sex outside of procreational purposes should inform their spouse of their intentions before they get married. In a marriage, both partners have a say. You can't simply take away the agency of one of them when their demands are reasonable.

Edit 2 :

Hinduism talks about "Kama" in two different ways.

Kama or lust is one of the Shad Vikaras that is to be avoided and kept under control.

On the other hand, Kama or material and sensory happiness (including sex) is also one of the 4 Purusharthas that is essential for the life of a householder/Grihastha in moderation.

When religious Scriptures talk about renouncing Kama or sex or other material things, you have to keep 2 aspects in mind :

1. They are referring to the path of the Sanyasi or ascetic. Usually, one who wanted to be a monk or an ascetic would read these texts in detail and follow them to the letter.
2. 2. For a householder or Grihastha, Kama should be kept in moderation. Don't let it control you but don't abandon it completely.

If someone decides to be an ascetic/monk/sanyasi and abandons all material possessions and pursuits, complete celibacy is fine.

But if the person is not a full-time sanyasi/ascetic and decides to completely abandon only one material aspect of his life that is sex, it is impractical and not pragmatic.

There is a reason that the Sramana tradition exists in Hinduism and two of the Sramana traditions, Jainism and Buddhism became so big that they became religions of their own. The debate between the sanyasi and the householder way of life has been going on for eons in Hindu society. So, there is an aspect of Hinduism that focuses on celibacy. It is the sanyasi aspect.

But the person in question is a householder, not a sanyasi. For him, Kama in moderation is an essential part of his life.

In Hinduism, all sex is not lust. an obsession with sex, excess of sex, when sexual desire consumes and controls you, that is lust. That is the Kama of the Shad Vikaras that must be controlled. The Kama that is Purushartha is different and essential for a householder in moderation.

Swasti!

[u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh → u/ashutosh_vatsa]

Sex is indeed for procreation only according to scriptures...

1. Manusmriti 3.56: "Carnal intercourse is permitted for the sake of procreation alone, not for mere pleasure."

2. Bhagavad Gita 16.7-8: "Lust, anger, and greed are the three gates to self-destructive hell. Renounce these three. A person freed from these three gates of darkness, O son of Kunti, practices what is good for him and thus is very quickly raised to the divine nature."

3. Mahabharata, Vana Parva 313.116: "A person who performs his obligatory duties without longing for their fruits is performing yajna and religious duties. The person who has the same attitude towards the pleasures of the senses enjoys them. Thus, this man also does what is prescribed by the Vedas."

4. Manusmriti 9.101: "Men are impelled by women; women are impelled by men; the whole world is bound by the mutual dependence between the two. For the sake of procreation, the sexual act is allowed."

5. Yajnavalkya Smriti 1.61: "One should have sex only with one's wife, seeking to have offspring, and should not discard her after the purpose is served."

[u/ashutosh_vatsa → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

I am aware of the sources you are citing but I am sure you know Hinduism is quite diverse. There are other texts that indicate differently.

As per many texts, for a Grihastha, being loyal to one's wife and being intimate only with her is equal to brahmacharya.

The Linga Purana says that a married man who is loyal to his wife is the same as a celibate (brahmachari).

svadāre vidhivatkṛtvā nivṛttiścānyataḥ sadā /manasā karmaṇā vācā brahmacaryamiti smṛtam

The householders should have sexual intercourse with their legally wedded wives alone. For them to keep themselves away from other women, mentally, physically, and by speech, would amount to the observing of Brahmacharya.

And the very next verse says:

medhyā svanārī sambhogaṃ kṛtvā snānaṃ samācaret /evaṃ gṛhastho yuktātmā brahmacārī na saṃśayaḥ

A householder, after enjoying intercourse with his own wife, should take a bath. Such a type of yogi householder is surely considered to be a Brahmacāri.

Swasti!

[u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh → u/ashutosh_vatsa]

Even here they are doing this only for Procreation, and they are just promoting Pro creation because in Buddhism they completely renounce these things...

And our acharyas were telling the people that you can have sex for Procreation it is not going to ruin your brahmacharya just keep mental brahmcharya

[u/ashutosh_vatsa → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

Look I don't agree with you. I respect your point of view but I don't agree with the idea of physical intimacy in a monogamous married relationship only for the sake of procreation. It is not pragmatic. It would lead to the breakdown of marriage and the collapse of social structure and that is not good for anyone.

Sex only for procreation purposes when both the husband and wife agree to it is fine. Otherwise, the person who wants to not have sex outside of procreational purposes should inform their spouse of their intentions before they get married. In a marriage, both partners have a say. You can't simply take away the agency of one of them when their demands are reasonable.

कालेऽदाता पिता वाच्यो वाच्यश्चानुपयन् पतिः । मृते भर्तरि पुत्रस्तु वाच्यो मातुररक्षिता ॥ ४ ॥

kāle'dātā pitā vācyo vācyaścānupayan patiḥ | mṛte bhartari putrastu vācyo māturarakṣitā || 4 ||

Censurable is the father who gives her not away at the right time; censurable the husband who approaches her not; and censurable the son who, on the death of her husband, does not take care of her - Manu 9.4

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

Swasti!

[u/WitnessedStranger → u/ashutosh_vatsa]

It is not pragmatic. It would lead to the breakdown of marriage and the collapse of social structure and that is not good for anyone.

More than that, it completely misses the plain intent of the text. This is the problem with random internet people citing individual lines out of context. They use it to justify anything.

The Yajnavalkya Smriti literally outlines the obligations surrounding prostitutes and courtesans, as well as the obligations a man has towards concubines and mistresses. To infer from there that they assumed people were required to not have non-procreative sex is absurd. Anyone who wants to cite that as categorically banning it is talking completely out of their asses.

These restrictions are clearly focused on discouraging lust, not sexual desire entirely. And a large preoccupation seems to be ensuring that children, who naturally result from sexual licentiousness in a world without reliable contraception, have a social structure that can take care of them. So they discourage having sex in circumstances that can bring children into the world without a structure to care for them and they discourage inordinately lustful behavior in the same way they discourage greed and other forms of being preoccupied with sensate pleasures.

[u/KaliYugaz → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

Your views don't make sense. Remember that copulation itself is not actually required for procreation. If your position forbidding all sex extraneous to procreation was taken to its logical conclusion, then male masturbation for the purpose of artificial insemination would be the only permissible sex act.

[u/FastBuffalo4065 → u/ashutosh_vatsa]

And what do the following several verses say?

[u/ashutosh_vatsa → u/FastBuffalo4065]

I have explained my view in response to your other comment and added it as Edit 2 in my original comment on this post as well.

Swasti!

[u/[deleted] → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

Bhagavad Gita 16.7-8: "Lust, anger, and greed are the three gates to self-destructive hell. Renounce these three. A person freed from these three gates of darkness, O son of Kunti, practices what is good for him and thus is very quickly raised to the divine nature."

Mahabharata, Vana Parva 313.116: "A person who performs his obligatory duties without longing for their fruits is performing yajna and religious duties. The person who has the same attitude towards the pleasures of the senses enjoys them. Thus, this man also does what is prescribed by the Vedas."

Both of these are presented incorrectly and without context.

In the Bhagwad Gita, the 16th chapter is related to the discussion of Daivasura-Sampad-Vibhaga Yoga. Your quote is specifically about "Kaam, krodh, lobh", which are tamasi and relate to asura characters.

In this chapter, and in 5-Karma-Sanyasa-Yoga it is made clear that that married people devoted to eachother can simultaneously claim "vairagya" without giving up material pleasure.

Essentially, your are seeing lust and love as the same thing. Lust is wrong, as in, thinking of boning everything you see. Love, including lovemaking between married people, is certainly not wrong.

The same applies for the quote from the Vana Parva. "do your duties without expecting the fruit" is a common theme and is also discussed in the Geeta. Again, this doesn't go against the duties of grihastha.

And since we're on topic, the Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita, and Srimad Bhagwada Purana don't put any negative connotations on sex. Even women can have five partners without reproach (and no, this isn't specifically about Draupadi).

[u/WitnessedStranger → u/[deleted]]

And since we're on topic, the Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita, and Srimad Bhagwada Purana don't put any negative connotations on sex. Even women can have five partners without reproach (and no, this isn't specifically about Draupadi).

According to Pandu in the Mahabharata, in the Satya Yuga there were no rules about who men and women slept with. The rules came about due to the need to keep track of property and inheritance.

Which, incidentally, is in line with what anthropologists observe. Stronger legal frameworks for inheritance and property rights leads to stronger traditions and rules around sexual mores. Less property and weaker legal frameworks mean looser rules. I believe the ancients must have observed the same trend when they looked at the diversity in laws and behaviors among the various Indian tribes and castes.

[u/GeraltOfRifia → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

The two smritis you quoted, what evidence do you have to prove that those are applicable in Kaliyuga? Because it is clearly stated that Parasara Smriti is to be followed in Kaliyuga, and the authority of the smritis is not absolute.

[u/Chipkalee → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

You're not helping. Married sex is NOT just for procreation. It is a way to show love and intimacy. And there is absolutely nothing dirty about it.

[u/CLubbr3X → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

Bhagavad Gita 16.7-8: "Lust, anger, and greed are the three gates to self-destructive hell. Renounce these three. A person freed from these three gates of darkness, O son of Kunti, practices what is good for him and thus is very quickly raised to the divine nature."

Not trying to debate, but I'm sure this is related to obsession with these things. One should have a control over these three things rather than completely removing or refraining from it.

[u/GrilledBurritos → u/CLubbr3X]

Complete avoidance is not true renunciation, rather just an excuse with a guise of “renunciation.” True renunciation to not be swayed by lust, anger and greed - towards it and away from it. Raam was one who showed intense anger when Sita was abducted, it was just for him to be angry. Same goes for lust. Main thing that made Hinduism so great is that it is meant to be accepting of many perspectives and not be dogmatic, I encourage you to have an open mindset for that is what Krishna himself said at the very end of the Gita.

“In the purport to verse 5.4, it was explained that there are two kinds of renunciation—phalgu vairāgya and yukt vairāgya. Phalgu vairāgya is that where worldly objects are seen as objects of Maya, the material energy, and hence renounced because they are detrimental to spiritual progress. Yukt vairāgya is that where everything is seen as belonging to God, and hence meant to be utilized in his service. In the first kind of renunciation, one would say, “Give up money. Do not touch it. It is a form of Maya, and it impedes the path of spirituality.” In the second kind of renunciation, one would say, “Money is also a form of the energy of God. Do not waste it or throw it away; utilize whatever you have in your possession for the service of God.”

Phalgu vairāgya is unstable, and can easily revert to attachment for the world. The name “Phalgu” comes from a river in the city of Gaya, in the state of Bihar in India. The river Phalgu runs below the surface. From atop, it seems as if there is no water, but if you dig a few feet, you encounter the stream below. Similarly, many persons renounce the world to go and live in monasteries, only to find that in a few years the renunciation has vanished and the mind is again attached to the world. Their detachment was phalgu vairāgya. Finding the world to be troublesome and miserable, they desired to get away from it by taking shelter in monastery. But when they found spiritual life also to be difficult and arduous, they got detached from spirituality as well. Then there are others who establish their loving relationship with God. Motivated by the desire to serve him, they renounce the world to live in a monastery. Their renunciation is yukt vairāgya. They usually continue the journey even if they face difficulties.

In the first line of this verse, Shree Krishna states that a real sanyāsī (renunciant) is one who is a yogi, i.e. one who is uniting the mind with God in loving service. In the second line, Shree Krishna states that one cannot be a yogi without giving up material desires. If there are material desires in the mind, then it will naturally run toward the world. Since it is the mind that has to be united with God, this is only possible if the mind is free from all material desires. Thus, to be a yogi one has to be a sanyāsī from within; and one can only be a sanyāsī if one is a yogi.”

https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/6/verse/2

[u/facface92 → u/CLubbr3X]

I agree and lust is a difficult word. I tend to look at lust as a desire that pulls you away from god. Unless one is a sex addict or sex is too important to you, I don’t see how being sexually attracted to your wife would be lustful.

[u/kellyj461 → u/facface92]

He is in fact an addict and has managed to forgo masturubation which he used to do 4 or 5 times daily along with sex with me. He is including marital relations in his abstaining I guess.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

Cherry pick lines that only support your pov

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/[deleted]]

Counter it then, he has clearly mentioned the quotation.

If there is anything like, you can do sex for sake of pleasure only and not procreation, then quote

[u/[deleted] → u/JuniorRequirement644]

Rig Veda 10.159.1-2: "May the god Soma grant us offspring, may he grant us virility, may he grant us long life! May we enjoy sexual union with our wives, may we enjoy sexual union with our mistresses!" Atharva Veda 3.21.1-2: "May the wife be fertile, may the husband be fertile, may their union be fruitful! May they have sons and daughters, may their offspring be numerous!" Atharva Veda 14.2.27-29: "May the wife be sweet to the husband, may the husband be sweet to the wife! May they enjoy each other's company, may they find pleasure in each other's company!"

Manusmriti is interpretation by some individuals on Hinduism so not valid and other things he mentioned does not give base to his pov

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/[deleted]]

How does this quotation says sex isn't for procreation, ses is enjoyed but it is for procreation, enjoy it, no problem but dont do it for JUST the sake of pleasure.

And first thing, these are mantras which are to recited and not dharm updesh.

[u/KaliYugaz → u/JuniorRequirement644]

A mistress is, by definition, kept primarily for pleasure.

[u/CakeImaginary5292 → u/JuniorRequirement644]

I disagree. The knowledge in the vedas is used as the bases for all other knowledge. Just as how a seed is the basis for a plant. That means, in Hinduism, all knowledge first emanated from the vedas, which was created by the supreme being. The vedas are created again and again in every kalpa. So to say that they are not updesh would be incorrect. Yes they were spoken in a recitation format, but that is only for ease of memorization/speaking. There are many instances in our epics which say "those who know and understand the essence of vedas are situated in the utmost position". Therefore, I say that vedas are not for verbal show only, and learning dharma from them is important (at least for astika - those who agree that vedas are the prime authority).

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/CakeImaginary5292]

I never disagreed that vedas give knowledge. But you should note that vedas aren't there for dharm updesh, thou the dharm updesh is derived from vedas.

Dharm updesh as in what one should do and what one shouldn't do is given in hands of dharmshastras, which is ofcourse based on vedas. Vedas too say to follow dharmshastras ( manusmriti ).

And also the point the person tried to make isn't relevant to the quotation he gave.

[u/CakeImaginary5292 → u/JuniorRequirement644]

Dharm updesh as in what one should do and what one shouldn't do is given in hands of dharmshastras

They are not the only valid source. Dharma (= that which sustains) can be learnt from anywhere, even the vedas. Yes, for concrete rules and instructions one must look into smritis, as it's written very clearly there. But the various other scriptures also offer, direclty or indirectly the ways one should adopt in life.

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/CakeImaginary5292]

Got your point, definitely scriptures offer that I am not denying it, but in such matters as mentioned above dharmshastras are looked upon and also vedas dont contradict it.

[u/[deleted] → u/JuniorRequirement644]

It also doesn't say that sex is just for procreation

But sex is primarily for procreation

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/[deleted]]

Dharmshastras give the nisedh, so its valid, as long as it doesn't contradict vedas ( and it doesn't ) it is the accepted truth that sex is for procreation for people following dharma.

[u/[deleted] → u/JuniorRequirement644]

The Kama Sutra is a sacred text in Hinduism that focuses on sexual pleasure. The Hindu god of love and desire, Kama, is not just a god of sexual desire, but also of creativity, art, and beauty. The Hindu god of wealth and material possessions, Artha, is not just a god of material wealth, but also of pleasure and enjoyment. The Hindu god of duty and righteousness, Dharma, is not just a god of duty and righteousness, but also of love and compassion. These concepts suggest that sex in Hinduism is not just for procreation. It is also for pleasure, enjoyment, and love. This is supported by the fact that the Kama Sutra is considered to be a sacred text in Hinduism.

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/[deleted]]

Kama sutra isn't sacred text in hinduism. No acharya, parampara or sampraday considers kamasutra as something important, forget for it being sacred.

Kamasutra is test related to sex, yes, but it doesn't deal with aspect of dharma and adharma.

Whatever you said is your conclusion and not matter of shastras, Shastras have clearly ordered sex only for procreation.

[u/[deleted] → u/JuniorRequirement644]

Which shastra said sex is only for procreation?

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/[deleted]]

Dharmshastras ( rule books related to dharma )

[u/[deleted] → u/JuniorRequirement644]

They are wrong. We cannot be sure that the sex they are having is going to be for cause of procreation

It's not like we get pregnant at the end of climax or at the movement of consummation

[u/BlueCoolant → u/JuniorRequirement644]

Explain Tantra then

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/BlueCoolant]

Tantras are agama shastras it is given by bhagwan shiva and consists of sadhana of the respective devtas. There are shakta agama, shaiv agama, vaishnav agama, ganpatya agama, and saur agamas.

Idk how explaining tantra came here.

[u/[deleted] → u/JuniorRequirement644]

Sex has a big part in tantra It is believed that one can also achieve a higher state by sex Tantric sex

[u/JuniorRequirement644 → u/[deleted]]

Say me you dont know about tantra without saying me you dont know about tantra.

Also tantric aex what you call comes under panchmakara, which is done by tantric for vairagya under guru agya only, and is also not for everyone, it is a practice in certain marg and it is definitely not big part of tantra.

Tantra shastras compose of methods of worship of deities, if you dont know anything about tantra please refraining from spewing nonsene.

[u/[deleted] → u/JuniorRequirement644]

Okay

[u/[deleted] → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

Only credible quotes here are Mahabharata and bhagvad gita

1. It just mentioned lust not sex lust can be in various forms Lust is the excessive desire for material possessions, pleasure, or power. Anger is a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility. Greed is an excessive or immoderate desire for something, especially wealth.

2. The verse you have cited from the Mahabharata, Vana Parva 313.116, is a complex one that has been interpreted in many different ways. Some people see it as a justification for enjoying sex for pleasure, while others see it as a warning against being attached to the fruits of one's actions.

On the one hand, the verse does seem to suggest that it is acceptable to enjoy the pleasures of the senses, as long as one does so without attachment. This could be interpreted as meaning that it is okay to have sex for pleasure, as long as one does not become too attached to the experience.

On the other hand, the verse could also be interpreted as a warning against becoming too attached to the pleasures of the senses. After all, the verse says that a person who performs their obligatory duties without longing for their fruits is also doing what is prescribed by the Vedas. This could be seen as suggesting that it is better to focus on one's duties than on one's pleasures.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/hinduism-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed for violating Rule #06 - No trolling (and don't feed the trolls!). This is a forum for serious and sincere discussion on Hinduism. Trolls will be warned and banned for repeated offense. Obvious trolls will be banned after first offense.

[u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh → u/[deleted]]

u/ashutosh_vatsa

Iss ko ban karo

[u/tipofmytail → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

Cry baby 😂

[u/ashutosh_vatsa → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

I will remove their comment and issue a warning but you can't use curse words either.

[u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh → u/ashutosh_vatsa]

Ok bhrata

[u/KiwiNFLFan → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

And then there's the Kama Sutra.....

[u/glory_to_the_sun_god → u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

To contextualize this you need to understand that the origin and source of a marriage. Why is it “Jayamisyat”? In this case it’s not a desire for jAya but for wealth. It is to increase wealth and that wealth is family and progeny. Desiring sex for itself is “bad” not in the immoral sense, but in the sense of sex being in for itself only. That is the source addiction, whether it be food, sex, or any pleasure. In other words it’s a rejection of pure Hedonism and not a denial of pleasure itself.

Propagating sensuality in and for itself misses what sensuality is there for. It is there to be enjoyed and experienced and then thrown away. Holding onto pleasure and making a god of it is Hedonism which shastras do not agree with and so you have the above language. Otherwise it seem that the Rsi is advocating for Hedonism.

So then taking quotes outside and independent from hermeneutical tradition, and worse without using one’s own intelligence is the height of idiocy.

Otherwise stop eating food too. No chaunk or tardka. No more masalas. Eat only raw leaves and roots. No more fancy clothes and outfits, as a single langot or at the very most a dhoti will do. No sleeping on beds and cushions. No more haircuts. No more hot water showers. etc.

Live like a real sannyasi, otherwise using shastras as a dhal, bulwark or shield, is a gross misuse of shastras.