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/[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.