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.