Comments

101
@ 97 - Hey, it's just sex. With her husband. If it has the potential to make her "feel physically sick, violated, or traumatized", she definitely has some serious issues already.

And, I would dare to add, so do you if you really believe what you say.
102
Unfortunately, @98/99, no one can tell who will actually be able to make it through a few years of catheters, diapers, vomit, and lack of sleep with their GGG badge intact. Despite the confident claims of many on this thread.
103
@101 - do you think this woman, who has done so much for her husband, is holding back from doing something easy? Just on a whim? It's clearly not "just sex." For whatever reason, this act he wants is harder for her than years of manually extracting feces.
104
Way off the mark, Dan. She might regret not doing it, but telling her that is way different than suggesting that she HAS to do it because OMG! she's married! to him! She was and is with him in sickness and in health. That doesn't mean she has to fuck him (or let him tongue her) when she's clearly not GGG. If she can, yes, it would be an incredible gift to him. But she's already given him so much, and if this is more than she is able to give, she is still to be applauded.

#95, #96, #97 - right on. First of all, he will probably notice that she is not at all into it (even if she tries her best to contain her disgust) and that will make him feel worse than if she's upfront. Secondly, she deserves some damn dignity too! No one, including her husband, has rights to her body except for her. If it skeeves her out, too bad for him AND for her. She isn't winning some prize by being skeeved out. It makes her feel awful. But the disgust clearly outweighs that, from what she wrote. It's an awful situation for both of them and in the long run, it might help for her to be upfront with him. He doesn't have an expiration date stamped on his forehead - he could die tomorrow, or he could die 5-10 years from now. I think the real humanity would be for her to be truthful with him. She doesn't need to tell him that he "disgusts" her, but that doesn't mean she couldn't have a heart-to-heart with him about the reality of the consequences of her caretaking. But even before that, it really does seem that she would greatly benefit from being a part of a caretaker support group.
105
Dude. If it's "just sex" then why can't he go without? Christ. It goes both ways.
106
@ 103 - No, that's not what I'm saying. My comment was actually directed at amazonvera, and I was basically saying that the words "physically sick, violated, or traumatized" are way over the top. Come on! "Violated?" Please!

I quite agree with what Ankylosaur said @ 61 and in a few other posts. Among other things, that sex doesn't always have to be about sex. Some women really need to learn that, as this thread will attest to.

For all the obvious reasons, that many have cited here and the she herself mentioned, the LW stopped seeing him as her husband, so it's clearly not that easy for her to indulge him. But it could be.

What I'm actually saying is that the thought of sex with her husband wouldn't be that shocking or repulsive to her if she gave it less importance. If she thought of it as just another thing she can do for him, like changing diapers, etc. Sex is obviously too emotionally charged for her. Please forgive the stereotyping, but she needs to think like a man right now: it's just sex, it's just a physical activity; it shouldn't involve her mind and all that baggage that she carries, albeit for obvious and understandable reasons.

I remember watching my boyfriend's body in the weeks before he died. We hadn't had sex for a year. I'd been changing diapers for six months. He had bedsores all over (turning him around in his bed every two hours wasn't enough by then), he was emaciated, and yet I could still see in my mind the body I had so desired, and he was still the man I loved.

And you know what? I would get an erection every time. And although he could no longer speak, I knew from his expression that he was glad I did. Because I still looked at him in the same way, and that's what he needed to feel.
107
@ 105 - Read comments 61 and 91. If you don't get it, well, I pity your spouse.
108
#91, diner mo, I totally agree! I don't think she should try to do this out of some sense of obligation or, worse yet, pity. Rather, the idea is to reconnect to her husband AS her husband, rather than as the person she had to care for in all these difficult ways. To prepare herself for this, she would have to re-think the experience of their relationship, going back to the connection they had together before the constant demands for physical care took a toll.

Mo is SO right that if she can find a way to do this--not as a chore, but because she decides she wants to--it could be incredibly emotionally healing for both of them. If they can find any way--this way or some other way--to reintroduce sexual connection or expression into their lives, then it's a symbol of the fact that they are and remain husband and wife, and not just caregiver and cared-for.

I can totally understand why she is disturbed by the idea. Sometimes to do one thing, like wiping up someone's vomit and poop, you have to flip some switch in your brain that otherwise allows you to feel sexual. I suspect a lot of new parents have a lesser version of this problem, when they have trouble flipping from "caring for helpless infant" mode to "wild and crazy sexual creature" mode! In this case, her switch was off for years, and so much pain was associated with that. It might take a long while to move back to an intimate relationship with her husband, but again, if she can find a way it could be so uplifting for both of them.
109
Retardo, that didn't sound like philadelphia to me. In which case, don't wanna read it. Don't care 'bout aids sob stories, and nobody is interested in you getting anything up, old n' gross. And nobody is giving out gold stars for sticking your post e vac boner into your aidsy boyfriend. You can't relate to this, so don't even try.

Hire a pro. She shouldn't hafta to do this, and she's not going to remember it fondly. The thrill is GONE, and tolerable situation of some affection is going to turn very sour if you follow dan's advice.
110
Okay, this totally made me cry. This is the most heartbreaking letter I can remember from the last decade of SL. I think Dan's advice is very wise, if not necessarily easy to take.
111
@87: You sound young, so take it from an older person - there's little chance your relationship will go the distance with that kind of simplistic, selfish, and strident attitude.

Relationships are an endless series of negotiation and compromises, particularly when it comes to sex. If you insist that your sex life is conducted strictly according to your terms, any man worth keeping will eventually walk.
112
@89. This isn't about being GGG. The wife sounds like she's been through hell. She talks about being overwhelmed with grief and finally getting on with her life. It sounds like being sexual with her husband will add more truama on top of evyerthing else. She doesn't need it. She's been through enough. She doesn't have to do this and I don't think she should if it will add further injury to her.
113
@111 I'm in my early 40s and have expereince teaching people how to set healthy boundaries and how to verbalize what they want. I've done relationship coaching and sex education work as well. My comment was not an oversimplification. I don;t think pwoplw should willing engage in sexual behavior that they know they don't want, or suspect will result in psychological damamge. And it sounds like that's what's at stake for the wife.
114
I have been in this position, and it is horrific. Caring for someone you love 24/7 who needs everything done for them sucks the life out of you and I think damages you in many ways. It gets to the point that you do what you do because you love the person, but everything you have and are is squeezed out of you, your life becomes so overtaken with this person's needs that you begin to feel like you have nothing left to give. And of course, sexuality goes down the drain with every other normal aspect of the life you had. And when you are asked to be sexual, apart from the complete lack of sexual feeling and possible disgust, it begins to feel like you are being asked to surrender the last intimate part of yourself; you have given up your time, energy, sleep, interests and everything normal about you, and all you have left intact are your actual genitalia, and somehow they become the one last thing to be surrendered to the illness, and it becomes more than just disgust, it almost feels like all you have left of yourself and somehow the one thing you cannot have violated. It's nice for those who have never been through the horror of seeing a lover decline to the point of needing everything done for them and having to be the sole one doing this, to feel like this is a betrayal of the relationship and the love, but until you have you soul and heart shredded daily by this, I would advise you to refrain from judgement. As I said, I think this damages people, and when you are in this situation you are pushed to the very edge of your mental, emotional and physical limits, and it can feel like having one more thing taken from you, one more thing violated, will push you over the edge.
This woman had been and done things for another human being that fortunately, few have to. Making her feel obligated to do something that she feels she cannot should be respected. And I don't think she will feel guilty about refusing him, nor should she. I think she just needs to recognize that we all have limits and boundaries that need to be respected, and she had reached her limit.
While I feel sorry for her husband, he should be grateful for all she has done for him and give her the gift of respecting her limits.
115
@111...BTW, I agree with you when you say that relationships are in constant re-negotiation. In this case, the wife has re-negotiated her sexual relationship with her husband. She does not have an obligation to be sexual with him. If she did, marital rape would not be defined as a crime. And we all know what a long hard struggle that was, don't we?
116
@ Ricardo, unfortunately, people feeling sexually violated or traumatized by a spouse is not uncommon, even if the legal system didn't recognize that fact for centuries and many assholes the world over still don't. Marriage isn't a "get out of the need for freely given consent for any and every sex act free" card. That's where this advice crosses a line. Every spouse has the right not to take part in sexual acts that make them feel sick, even with their spouse and even when their spouse is dying.

She said she says that the idea of sex with him makes her feel depressed and sick. If you think, after everything this woman did for him, that that means she has "issues," then so be it. Frankly, consenting to have your spouse give up their entire life and the ability to sleep for more than two hours at a go is some seriously Jonestown-esque shit, and being surprised that they have "issues" about letting you lick their genitals after that is pretty rich.
117
There's a huge qualitative difference between "I believe that it is morally/ethically correct for you to do this unpleasant thing", and "if necessary someone should force you by threat of violence or other harm to do this unpleasant thing." If you are unclear on this difference, you are going to be confused or horrified by Dan's advice.

To MSS, nothing but my sympathies.
118
Ugh. No one should be pressured to perform a sex act that disgusts them and that makes them depressed and sick to think about. Even if it is for a 'noble cause'. Yeah, it would be nice, and giving, and ever so kind of her to do that for him, but this is obviously something that she can't bring herself to do. If she can't force herself to do it, it doesn't make her a bad person, or less of a wife. She took care of her husband for several years, around the clock, depriving herself of sleep all the time- I think that makes her a pretty fucking incredible partner.
The situation sucks all around, but just because her husband is dying an unpleasant death doesn't make her any less important. She's already sacrificed a great deal- at what point does is she 'allowed' to say that she can't do it, that for her own emotional and mental health she has to put herself first? Is she just supposed to keep slogging through, doing things that make her depressed and sick just in the name of being 'good and giving'?
The fact that she is his 'only sexual option he has between now and oblivion' doesn't obligate her to sexually service him. The fact that she married him doesn't mean she is obligated to sexually service him. Jesus fucking christ.
She does need to be more up front with him. Let him know that it's been exhausting for her emotionally and physically, and that she doesn't feel sexual at all (she doesn't need to tell him that it's him that disgusts her, or that she's been seeking sex elsewhere). At least get that out in the open. She should at least get a conversation going about the issue rather than just sucking it up and ignoring her feelings of depression and disgust.
119
@114: Your post drives something home for me - if I were in this guy's position, I would have ended my life once it was clear that was the only gift I had left to give her.
120
Well said, rebeccax and amazonvera. I'm wondering how much of Dan's attitude and the attitudes of everyone else agreeing with him here are at least partially due to that idea that women are ''supposed" to be the caretakers, they're "supposed" to be self-sacrificing.
Reading some of the comments here, I wonder if these people even partially comprehend what hellishness she's gone through for her husband, what an insane amount of sacrifice she's made already. To insist that she must do something that makes her depressed and sick to even contemplate is just vile.
It's just disgusting to tell her all she has to do is sit there, and put on an act for her husband's sake. Do these people get that she's a person with emotions and needs of her own? Forcing herself to perform a sex act that she dreads will only add to the emotional issues she's dealing with already.
121
@rebeccax: I think in most situations you would be right. This is an exception. I don't know much about MS, but I'm pretty sure the husband still has (most of) his marbles, even while his motor function is going to shit. Assuming he's not an idiot, he probably knows exactly what he's asking of her, and probably also has a pretty good idea of how she feels about it. Everyone needs to get laid, but this isn't just about him getting laid. He wants to be intimate with his wife one last time while he still can, and knows he doesn't have much time left to do it. Under those circumstances, I think his request trumps a lot of other things. And I somehow doubt she will end up psychologically traumatized by it, although I'm sure the idea of being sexual with him when she's not into it emotionally is probably weird and sad and scary for her. But a lot of things about the illness and death of a loved one are weird and sad and scary. Nothing else in life prepares us for it. I think Dan's right, and I think his advice is compassionate to both of them. She took care of him for as long as she could, because she loves him, because (presumably) she takes the "in sickness and in health" part of marriage seriously, and because she thought it was the right thing to do. I'm guessing that if she follows Dan's advice (although I emphasize that I don't think any jury in the land would convict her if she decided she just couldn't do it) she will probably feel, somewhere down the road, that sitting on his face was the right thing to do, too.
122
Thanks Pinky.
123
@114, that was very eloquently stated and should be pondered by everyone on this thread.

One quibble: you said, "This woman had been and done things for another human being that fortunately, few have to."

It's the great hidden agony.

-An estimated 120 million adult Americans (57 percent) are either providing unpaid care to an adult family member or friend or have provided this care in the past.

-Family caregivers provide about 80 percent of all long-term care services in the U.S.

-On average, caregivers spend 21 hours per week on caregiving, with almost one-fifth of caregivers (17 percent) providing constant care of 40 or more hours a week. Caregiving falls disproportionately on women.

-The value of caregiving services to the U.S. economy is estimated at $306 billion a year, more than twice what is spent nationwide on nursing homes and paid home care combined.

-Yet, over the course of a caregiving “career,” family caregivers who provide intense personal care can lose as much as $659,000 in wages, pensions, and Social Security.

The numbing statistics go on and on.
124
I agree with everyone who's saying she should try and work herself up to it by doing things like masturbating near/for him. Did he have a favorite cologne or aftershave when they started dating? Maybe that scent would help take her back. She could start by just holding him and being physically close to him.

This story is tragic, and I can vaguely imagine how difficult this is for her, though thank goodness I've never been in a position anything like hers. But we are talking about a dying man here. If she can, in any way, give him back a tiny bit of his sexual agency, it would be the kindest thing she's done for him yet.
125
@115: Regarding this specific letter, I agree it's totally cool if she can't/won't go through with it.

Regarding your sweeping statement -- "No one should ever do things sexually that they don't want to." I don't really disagree with this either. However, if your primary concern with respect to relationships is setting boundaries, holding your ground, and refusing to compromise, that's a pretty good sign you aren't relationship material. Happy relationships are composed of flexible people who make a priority of seeking connection and common ground with each other. That sometimes means being open to persuasion with respect to sexual activity that might not, at first blush, be your thing.
126
Ricardo @106, She says it makes her feel "kinda sick." You take her resistance as a simple preference. I take it to mean, yes, she does feel physically sick at the idea, but she doesn't want to sound "over the top" (in your words) so she toned it down one notch.

You say: "Sex is obviously too emotionally charged for her...she needs to think like a man right now: it's just sex, it's just a physical activity." Well, for better or worse that's not something that most women can turn off. Or they'd be men. I don't know why it sometimes feels so icky to have someone going down on me. You can't get inside her head and know what it's really like for her. You can't know. So give her your advice (Do whatever you can because after he's gone you'll wish you had done it all), and then let her make up her mind. She's human, and she has already done more for him than most of us will do for our spouses in a lifetime.
127
Also I love the guy @92 who says "if I knew that letting her roll my penis around in her mouth would make her feel loved and accepted then there's no fucking question that I'd do it."

Got it -- that one's not hard for you. Can you imagine being asked something that was important to her, but actually hard for you? Like - "Apologize to my brother for that meaningless thing you two have fought over all these years." Hey, an apology's not hard. Me, I could give apologies all day long. When my dying husband asks me to apologize to anyone in his family, for anything, I'll be all over that. But -- I bet some men would have a hard time apologizing for something they didn't do. Even though it's just one sentence. How hard can that be? Damn hard, for certain people.
128
@Pinky:
"To insist that she must do something that makes her depressed and sick to even contemplate is just vile."
That's true as far as it goes, but there is a very, very big difference between a person's immediate feelings about a situation and how they will eventually feel about it in retrospect. She's squicked out now, but I honestly can't imagine her looking back on a mercy face-sitting years down the road, after her husband is dead, and wishing she hadn't done it. Making sacrifices for someone you love is not the same as being exploited, even if the sacrifice (in the case of this woman, doing something that makes her really uncomfortable) is real. And I don't see this as a gender issue either. Personally, I would agree with Dan's advice equally if the genders were reversed.
BTW, I think the "must" here is to be taken with a grain of salt. I think everyone here including Dan agrees that forcing someone to have sex they don't want is wrong, wrong, wrong. But I don't read "I absolutely don't want to do this" in her letter, I read something more like "I can't bring myself to do it," which is not at all the same thing. I think Dan's basically just saying "bring yourself to do it anyway."
129
MSS...this was surely not your intention, but sharing this letter with my husband tonight got us to do some serious love talking about 'the what ifs' and what we want 'if we ever ___'. it was a very necessary sober life and love affirming conversation we didn't know we needed until i shared your letter. i think you brave to ask this advice in this very public way. while we recognize that we might be able to fathom the difficulty of your situation, and its depth, we're also grateful that thinking of you helped us rev-evaluate our commitment. . we wish you continued strength and peace ..
always.
130
#128, you don't think she'll regret it, because you see it as something she should do that will be a merciful act. But I think her feelings of depression, disgust, and dread regarding the topic are a good indication that this isn't something she'll look back on and be thankful for.
What you may see as a charitable act on her part, I can see as something that would be painful, awkward, and depressing for her. It isn't likely that he'll be satisfied with the act, more likely it will be a reminder to both of them of what they don't have anymore, and how far he's declined. If this is something she dreads so much, I doubt that she'd be able to put on a convincing act and pretend it makes her aroused and happy. Chances are she'd start crying and it would be a painful and emotional mess for both of them.
She should stop demurely sidestepping the issue when he brings it up and be honest. She doesn't need to lie and submit to things that horrify her in order to protect her husband's feelings. He knows he's dying. If he still loves and respects his wife, then he should want her to be able to discuss the hard things with him, and he shouldn't want her to be silently doing something that fills her with horror just because he requested it.
Seriously, all the people here saying she should do it and they would do it for their spouse- would you, if you were the incapacitated one, want your spouse to force themselves to perform a sex act with you if it made them depressed and sick to contemplate? Especially after they cared for you 24 hours a day for several years to the point of neglecting their own care?
131
Telling the LW, who is just putting herself back together again, that the noble thing to do is to disregard all her own instincts of wrongness and permit her body to be used in a way that sickens her, is truly wrongheaded advice. If marriage conferred that absolute access, there'd be no such thing as marital rape.

Tossing around the term "GGG" in this instance, or recommending she masturbate while he watch, ignores the fact that she feels toward him as though he were her child. To those commenters saying it's "just sex", or that she's too emotional about a simple physical act: would you say that to someone who'd been coerced into incest?

A mate who's drastically ill or dying has a right to expect a reasonable amount of kindness, care, and effort on the part of their spouse. The LW has already gone far beyond that reasonable expectation. But even if you're dying, you do not have the right to emotionally coerce your mate into a sex act that disgusts them, and you sure as hell don't have the right to use your own sickness as a tool of coercion.

For those of you warning that she'll feel guilty after he dies, I'd like to present a different and likelier scenario: that if she does allow herself to be emotionally coerced into letting him use her body in a way that sickens her, then whatever real fondness she has for him will be damaged in the long run. Her memories of the good sexuality they shared before he got sick will be tainted by this act that she was too guilty to say "no" to, and by the fact that someone who supposedly loved her would coerce her in this way.

I'll say it again: suffering is not a free pass to guilt-trip the people who love you into giving more than they can give. Dying is not a permission slip to consider only your own needs.
132
@Pinky
Good point that the face-sitting session might do more harm than good. That really depends on a lot of complicated stuff we're not privy to here. Of course, having an honest conversation about why she doesn't want to sit on his face might do more harm than good too (I'm a firm believer that there's such a thing as too much honesty). My feeling is she wouldn't be writing to Dan if she wasn't at least a smidge open to being talked into it, but then she may just be writing because she wants an affirmation that she is not a selfish bitch for having these feelings, which she definitely isn't. At any rate, if MSS were my friend, I'd probably still tell her "just shut up, suck it up, and sit on his face already (although I won't think less of you if you don't)." This is, of course, assuming that sitting on the same face you've sat on many times in the past isn't ultimately that big a deal, even if that person and the relationship have changed. Maybe it is a really big deal for MSS.
I have no idea what I would do if I were in MSS' place, or in her husband's place. It's a shitty situation either way. I think if I were MSS I would react pretty much the way she's reacting. I think if I were incapacitated with no chance of recovery, I *might* see fit to ask my long-suffering spouse for one last indulgence (on the grounds that, yo, I'm DYING here, while my spouse will get to live, love, and fuck for years to come). But I don't know.
133
Some really amazing points have been raised on both sides. The only people who I disagree with are those who are so emotively on one side, saying that anyone who doesn't agree with them shouldn't get married or is an empty shell of a human.

This is clearly not a straight forward answer, I'm sure this is the same debate as the LW has being having in her head for ages. I hope the LW reads them and it helps her in someway. I have no fucking idea what I would do in her situation.
134
Piling on here to say, do it, for the sake of everything you shared before the illness got too far. He didn't cheat on you or abuse you or start voting the wrong way, he got sick. If this were me, I imagine it would help to start by talking back over some sexual memories from when times were still good. Or maybe that's too sad, IDK. Whatever it takes, find a way to do it.
135
The posters - the significant majority of us - who urge her to do it, do understand what a horrible situation it is. Please reread our comments, and the compassion and concern therein, for her, for him, and for their relationship.

Maybe she will find that she can't do it. But by all that is good in humanity, and caring, and compassionate, she needs to try. For the love she once had for him - the same love that made her marry him and the same love that led her to take care of him until she felt like an empty husk - she has to try. She has to try to rise above her understandable human reluctance, intense as it is. No one is saying it will be easy. Many are offering ways to make it easier.

But it firmly remains the right thing to do.

"this isn't about GGG"? FFS! If GGG doesn't apply to a tragically dying spouse, then what does it apply to?

My God. My visceral disgust at people like rebecca and pinky and iris is because of the absolute selfishness of your position. It is clear that you don't see the husband as a real person. To you he is already a dead thing, to be cast away as irrelevant. Alive only as an emotional parasite, not a real person. Nice. And who said anything about him coercing her into this act? There's no evidence of that.

So, though adam disapproves, I will add to my statement to people like you. Don't get married, and don't take care of the very ill. You lack the capacity.

For the LW and rest of us, may we find the strength within ourselves, if and when the time comes, to love as ricardo did, to give as he did, to hold on to the passion and love even if the object of it has become a dying shell, that we can maintain our love enough in the tidal wave of devastating emotions such a horrible circumstance provides to do yet another thing we don't want to to help the one we love.
136
While I certainly feel for the man in this situation, I can't help but feel very conflicted by the advice given. I mean, here we have a woman who very clearly DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE. The particulars of the why and whatfore are, to a certain extent, irrelevant. She does not want to give herself to this person. Using emotional blackmail to get her to do it is not that much better than physically forcing her to do it, and I have the distinctly uncomfortable feeling that's what a lot of posters here are doing.

Now, were I in that situation, would I do it for my spouse? Would I suck it up and bite the bullet and man up and all that? I hope so. I hope I could give myself in that way. But I'd never, ever recommend to another person that they do the same. Do what you want, MSS. Do what you can. And don't feel guilty if you can't make this sacrifice. It has to be YOUR choice and no one else's.
137
@ 116 - I don' think she has issues. She wouldn't have written in if she did. I think you do, and you're projecting them onto her.

I'm not saying that no one should have the right to say no to their spouse at any given moment. I'm saying that you and those who use vocabulary like you do, "violated", "traumatized" etc. are creating a storm in a teacup about what is, after all, an act they must have performed quite a few times together in the past. (Oh, and before you go batshit crazy about me saying "storm in a teacup", I'm only using a common expression here, not trying to trivialize her situation. Read my other posts above, it's obvious I'd be the last person on earth to do that.)

In a situation like this, you end up doing a lot of things you'd never imagine you'd be doing. Really shitty things. And she has. For much longer than I had to. Her behaviour has been admirable for a long, long time.

Now there's one last shitty thing she "must" do, and that's how she needs to see this: just one more little effort. As I've said previously, it's for her own future peace of mind. Those stakes are much greater than her physical/sexual integrity for the 15 minutes it'll last, and I'm sure she can handle it - she's handled much worse already.

My point on sex is this: no one should grant sex so much importance on the psychological level so as to allow it to make you feel traumatized when it doesn't happen in the perfect conditions. And I've been raped, so I do know what I'm taking about. But I chose to see that event as a rather unpleasant evening instead of a traumatizing life-defining moment. So it never became one.
138
Going by what MSS is saying, her husband has no sex drive to speak of.

If his issue is control, MSS's disgust could be rooted in wondering, "Where the f-ck are the brakes on this nightmare?"

I've heard how the performances in the asteroid scene in the Empire Strikes Back portray the circumstances in which some people pick-up PTSD, and some don't. Because nothing responds to them, Leia and Chewbacca flip out. Because the ship responds to his piloting, Han Solo doesn't. The husband needs a better solution to nothing responding to him than to deny control from his wife.

Maybe the care facility can play a role in thwarting the husband, like how doctors will help an unwilling donor by telling the transplant candidate they aren't a match.
139
@ 126 - No, EricaP, I don't "take her resistance as a simple preference". I don't know where you got that. I understand how she got there, and stated clearly so ("for obvious and understandable reasons").

All I'm saying is that for her own sake, she has to get over her resistance. Please reread my post @ 48.

As I said, my post @ 101 was directed at amazonvera, who I do think is overreacting. More on that @ 137. What I qualified as "over the top" was amazonvera's choice of words, not the LW's. MSS said she felt "kinda sick." That's quite different from "violated" and "traumatized", wouldn't you agree? (And no, unlike you and amazonvera, I don't feel we have the right to decide what she meant by that other than "kinda sick".)

And one last thing: women constantly ask of men to see things their way and to behave accordingly. What's wrong with men asking the same of women?
140
...oh, or maybe that could be part of the sexy game MSS needs to sit on her husband's face. "What do they mean I can't sit on my husband's face? No only do I lose my husband, I have to lose myself as well? Well, we'll show them!" They she winks at her husband, hikes up her skirt, and so on.
141
I think its safe to say that the Husband is not looking for sex, he is looking for sexual connection with his wife. A shared moment of intimacy when EVERYTHING else has been taken from them as a couple.

The wife can do what she wants but I tend to agree that after her husband dies and if she doesn't do this she is going to regret it the rest of her life. Some point down the road she is going pound on herself emotionally. For her own sake I hope she can find a way to do this.

The sex worker idea would be a disaster and the husband would feel, if I am correct on my read of this, as the ultimate rejection of him. It would be way worse than just saying no.
142
...or even better than playing lovers defying the heartless institution, you can do that AND bring in someone to play the frigid administrator. "Oh Mr MSS, I'm not just a cog in a heartless combine. I'm a woman, too. Let me show you. Mreowr, rowrrrr..."
143
Got it, Ricardo. People saying that this particular sex act makes them feel sick means they have "issues," except, you know, not when the OP says it, and people bringing up the possibility of that going ahead with unwanted, sickening, depressing sex acts could be traumatizing or cause someone to feel violated are totes over-reacting. Because a marriage license and/or MS negates the fact that those are really common feelings that go along with unwanted, sickening, depressing sex acts, not to mention in the context of a years-long nightmarish relationship scenario. Or something.

As far as your "Won't someone think of the men?" comment, if you look back at a lot of columns where it's a man writing in about his sexual problems and a bunch of women tell him how his body and various sex acts do or should work for him, you'll see a lot of men asking them to "see it their way."

144
Hello to any that read. I was forwarded this from a friend of mine. That was read such a gut wrenching story I was crying in the end... For reasons some have no clue why...I hardly feel inclined to write on such blogs but I have to!
I have MS. I am a 41 year old women with 4 children 19, 17, 9, and 5. I moved to Seattle area originaly from Las Vegas about 6 years ago. The thing I fear the most are those things that womens husband lost. I am a lucky lucky women. I can do most anything.. I have my handicap but noone notices unless you know me, u will see little things I do apear clumsy uncoordinated at times. But this whole sexual thing bugs me.. I am a very sexual person, I walk into a room and I exude sexuality. It's me. I at times with my MS have not been able to feel from my arm pits down. Although I could feel my private area, I knew it would be a challenge at times to ever get me to that big O the way I used to. Sex is not the thing in life that makes us feel good, just laying next to someone, touching, caressing, loving, talking..all these things we carry with us to the next "whatever it is you believe".. Just give me a break, this women doesn't need to fullfill some sexual craving this man has..He is a man he will forever have the craving, like a caveman, sorry men. But seriously, I would never ask my husband get on top of me and to stick it in, any orifice because it makes ME feel better.. Because having MS is like haveing a knumbness all over, just depends on who you are as to where the areas are..but remains all the same feeling in our body changes.. We deal with it.. He does too...Thats life..
145
I think she's been GGG - although I don't really think this falls into the same category as accepting your partner's kink fetish - and she's certainly been there for him "in sickness and in health" so for goodness sake, don't throw that up in her face.

This is not a sex act anymore. This is not sex. This is a woman, sitting on a man's face while he licks her. There will be no loving caresses, no writhing, arching bodies, just her sitting on the face of an incapacitated man. It depresses her, and she doesn't want to do it.

And I can't blame her. No one can.

146
@139 - You've given your advice. And sure, you can ask of women (MSS in particular) that she see things like a man - it's just a physical act. But your asking doesn't make it so. You still got erections, thinking of him. That's great, lovely to hear. That's not her situation. Tell me about what you did for your lover that was "unimaginable" for you. If a woman you loved wanted you to talk about your feelings about her death, would you have done that? Or is sex "easy" and feelings "hard," because that's how it is for you? If she can choose this, I will cheer her on. If she can't, I will assure her that the guilt will not destroy her. People are not required to be saints.
147
#45 confirmation bias sexism.

148
Maybe she should just be upfront with him and ask him why he wants to do it. I can't imagine that he could enjoy it. He probably just wants to make her feel good, so this plan won't work out for anyone.
149
I lived with a family member who also had a very severe case of MS from which she inevitably died a few years ago. She suffered from the disease for over 20 years. Many, if not most, people with MS go through stages where you'd never be aware that they even have the disease. However, some poor souls never experience a remission and their disease is a gradual but consistent progression toward death. It sounds like this woman's husband is, like my sister, one of those poor souls. I find it hard to believe that at such an advanced stage of the disease that her husband would be interested in her sitting on his face. In fact, once you get to the point her husband is at you are completely miserable, with pain from bed sores and other gross complications. All of her hesitency is completely understandable and most caregivers inevitably build up some resentments to their loved one because of the lifestyle they've lost as well. Naturally, it's not the sick persons fault, but those resentments surface nonetheless. I'd tell her not to do it if that experience will deepen those resentments. If her last sexual experience with her husband turns into a horrific nightmare for her to remember long after he's gone then it's just as well she do what she's got to do to get through it all. I feel bad for her husband and for her. I say, don't do it! Besides, what if a nurse walks in and she's riding his face, they'll cart her off to the pokie saying she was trying to smother him or something.
150
Just a million times no.

But then, I have issues around oral sex anyway. Or sex generally. The idea of doing it even though I didn't want to? Helloooo ten years of therapy and periodic hospitalisations. It just feels profoundly wrong. No one should have sex that makes them feel "depressed" and "kinda sick".
151
He's going to die.... and you're worried about WHAT exactly???

MSS, when this is done, you'll have years and years and YEARS left to live. You'll have new partners, you'll have new love, you'll have new sex. The FUTURE is yours.

Your husband doesn't have that. He could die tomorrow. All he has left in the WHOLE WORLD is the present moment, pain, and YOU.

You've managed to avoid being selfish so far, please please PLEASE do not pick this as a time to start. He has so little time left, and so much pain left to experience....
152
jesus
153
@146 "If a woman you loved wanted you to talk about your feelings about her death, would you have done that?"

Ricardo is ""gay"".

Those are nested quotation marks, by the way. It's something I just invented.
154
Ugh, I just can't stop thinking about this. I think I've changed my mind half a million times.

At the moment, I'm sort of inclined to say that @148 has a good point. Does her husband know that she's sexually fulfilled? He might be interpreting her demuring as more selflessness on her part. He might want to give back as an adult after everything she's done for him and reconnect with her as a spouse, rather than a patient, now that she's no longer his primary caregiver.

So I don't think this is necessarily about his sexual needs, and I'm not sure that sitting on his face would benefit either of them. I think that they need to talk about it and come to some sort of compromise or solution that works for both of them. Building up further resentment after everything they've been through may just backfire and hurt them both in the end.

I hate it when there's no good answer...
155
@34 put it perfectly. If you think life is about only wanting to do what YOU want to do, then you're in for a lonely life.

Long-term sex lives are often about doing it when you're not in the mood; it's called marriage. The nice thing about sex is that once you make the effort for your significant other, the foreplay almost always changes your mood and the sex you thought you didn't want is fantastic!

Putting out for your partner doesn't mean you're not a feminist, it just means you're a nice person.
156
@154 - that's pretty much what I was going to say. I don't think he's making this request for his sexual gratification. He sees it as the one thing he can do to reconnect with his wife and perhaps re-establish some kind of intimacy. They need to stop skirting the issue and talk about it. Does she even feel comfortable just cuddling with him? Or does that squick her out too? Compromise is definitely the name of the game here.

And to the people accusing her of not being GGG - if there is an act that your partner is demanding of you, but you are not willing to do, then it's your partner that isn't being GGG. Good, Giving and Game does not mean giving into every request made upon you. It means that if you're willing to try, then try. And if the very idea makes you sick, or disgusted, then you don't. And your partner either accepts that you aren't going to go there, or goes and finds someone who will. Nobody has the right to infrige on your personal boundaries. Married or not.
157
This has nothing to do with the difference between male and female sexuality. Oy vey! Retardo, you're wrong again (like you were about scare quotes being grammatically incorrect). You don't understand healthy relationships, and you don't understand people.

EricaP, TAKE IT OFF!
158
@113 " or suspect will result in psychological damamge. And it sounds like that's what's at stake for the wife."

I don't think the wife in this case is 11 years old. She sounds like an intelligent grown woman. Unless she is emotionally fragile or a classic victim (and she doesn't sound like she is either), I seriously doubt sitting on her husband's face will result in psychological damage or "add further injury to her." This woman does not sound like a wimp, and I think Dan took that into account when he gave her the advice she asked for.
159
I get the sense that death is so unthinkable to some commenters it wipes every other consideration completely off the board. ( "He's going to die.... and you're worried about WHAT exactly???") We're all going to die, people. Some sooner, some later. While we're alive, we do what we can for each other, but the fact that you're nearer to death than I am doesn't mean you can pull out your death as the ultimate trump card. The caregiving spouse is a live human being with her own complex pain, not a sexual "Make a Wish" Foundation.
160
@153 I know he's gay, but we're stuck on this gendered issue ("sex is an easy thing to give" / "sex can sometimes be very difficult to give"). I'm trying to come up with examples gendered the other direction, so guys like Ricardo and bassplayerguy@92 can see that they might find other kinds of requests difficult, where MSS finds the oral sex difficult. We all have our hang-ups and issues. No one has answered my question @127 - how would men feel if they were asked to "suck it up" and apologize to a third party for something they didn't do, in order to please a dying woman?
161
Looks like the assumption is that she's his only chance at having his face sat upon. Or someone being paid. I wonder if she could find him someone who would be interested in, perhaps even enjoy, it. If he was down for someone else, it seems like a win-win. She doesn't have to be skeeved, he gets his face sat upon and the bonus is that it's by someone who wants to do the sitting. Unlikely? Probably, but maybe not impossible. Maybe she could consider pursuing this. Maybe it's too unlikely. Seems like the obvious compromise that accommodates her disgust and his desire.
162
I cannot believe the lack of compassion that a lot of commenters here are displaying.

Look, marriage is one of the biggest commitments one person can make to another. You open up your life to another person, you make them as important to you as you are to yourself. You make sacrifices for that person that you wouldn't make for anybody else, and while that might involve things you wouldn't necessarily do if you had your druthers you do them anyway because it is the right thing to do for someone whose life you value as your own. I get that. I do. And I think that if MSS can somehow manage to bring herself to this for her husband, for whatever pleasure or satisfaction it will bring him, then it would be a wonderful thing and a testimony to exactly how deep that bond can be.

But I don't think that the strength of that would be lessened any if she can't, either. And I don't think she's being selfish. And I don't think she needs to get over herself.

All of you who say that if you were in her place you would do it gladly for your spouse because that is how much you love them - I know we all want to believe that love gives everything and demands nothing in return. I know we want to think that love overcomes all obstacles. And I know that even contemplating a situation where the love that we never wanted to impose any limits upon against one is wrenching, and we don't want to believe it will happen.

But you know what? Most of us don't have to.

Dan is right and he's wrong. MSS's husband has suffered hugely, and he deserves to have as many pleasures as can be made available to him now because they are precious few. IF one of those pleasures is his wife sitting on his face - IF - then he should have it, and enjoy it, and good on them both.

But if it's NOT - if three years of being a full-time caregiver (and all of you saying this revokes a GGG pass, are you MISSING that they found ways around the lack of sex until he lost the ability to move?) mean that she can no longer see him in a sexual way and this is too big an ask for her - then she is not cruel, and she's not selfish. It is a cruel and horrible thing that the illness has taken even this from them both. But it is NOT her fault, any more than it is his.

It's not you in her situation. Maybe you could do it if you were her, and maybe you couldn't, and you're entitled to your opinions on what would, the best of all possible worlds, happen here. But maybe MSS going to decide that after having given up everything else for the man she married this is one thing that she can't do, and if you're seriously going to judge her for that, then shame on you.
163
#135, Alanmt, the issue isn't that I 'don't see the husband as a real person'. I do see him as a real person, he is still her husband, and the 'rules' still apply. If he is still her husband, and still loves and respects her, then he shouldn't want her to do something that makes her feel depressed and sick to even contemplate.
The issue here doesn't even seem to be that he wants her to go ahead and do this despite her dread- although that seems to be what a lot of posters here as saying she should do. The issue seems to be that she isn't discussing this painful topic with him- she's being 'demure' and sidestepping the issue. Once he knows that she doesn't feel sexual, that's she's wiped out from the years of constant care-taking she's provided him with, then he most likely will be willing to discuss it with her and wouldn't want her to do something that would make her depressed and uncomfortable. THAT is what she needs to do.
I don't understand how ANYONE can think that it would be preferable for this already exhausted and depressed woman to suppress her emotions and force herself to engage in a sex act that she doesn't want to, rather than having them discuss the situation.

AGAIN, I'd like to ask anyone saying she 'must' do this- if you were in the husband's situation, and knew that your partner- depressed and exhausted after providing you with constant, 'round the clock care for several years- was depressed and horrified at the idea of engaging in further sex acts with you, would you want them suppress their emotions and put on an act despite their dread and disgust?
164
@160: I don't think it's always as gendered as you seem to think: there are plenty of girls with no issue getting oral, plenty of guys who can't separate sex from emotion (or who don't see sex and emotion as the same thing? I can't get the stereotypes straight), plenty of girls who can separate sex and emotion, plenty of guys who have no problem apologizing, plenty of girls who do.

(I take it you read Choke?)
165
@164 - yes to all of your counter-examples, yes, they all exist. Nevertheless, I was trying to get through to some guys who say that they can't imagine not providing any & all sex acts their dying partner requested. (There are women on that side too, yes.) I was saying that we all have limits, and I tried to think of something that might feel like a limit to a stereotypical guy. I'm open to suggestions for how to remind posters who are saying "sitting on his face is easy" that they too have limits (which might look easy to other people, but are hard for them).

If this is her limit, that's her business. She wrote in because she hates to let him down, but she can't imagine doing what her husband asks. Nowhere in the letter does she talk about loving him. I think she is done with the marriage, as a marriage. Which may be sad, but it happens.
166
Wow.

1. Dan is spot-on, 100% right, and

2. Some of you commenters are COLOSSAL, self-justifying prick-holes. Yes, there are things you "must do" in this life. This is one of them.
167
@155 "The nice thing about sex is that once you make the effort for your significant other, the foreplay almost always changes your mood and the sex you thought you didn't want is fantastic!" Are you actually saying that the LW and her husband will have fantastic sex, if she does this for him?

@166 (and others)- What's the hardest thing you've ever done for a loved one?
168
EricaP @ 167,

I said earlier that I don't think that she must do this, and that she should be good to herself. I do think that there is a possibility that she could regret not doing it at some point.

What's the hardest thing you've ever done for a loved one?

That would be forgiveness and developing a relationship that stands today, one where I have not forgotten anything, but their actions are no longer the first thing comes to mind.

1) My family of origin that physically and emotionally abusing me.

2) Would be the young man who date raped me when I was in my teens.

While I walked away while in the process of becoming a doctor, because I decided it wasn't for me. I didn't walk away because I couldn't handle feces, blood, urine, phlegm, death, etc... I just realized that I was doing it for the wrong reasons.

So my comment way back there, was more about what I would aspire to be like, and a bit of brainstorming as to how to go about it.

Again, I don't think that she must do this, I'm not in her shoes. But, I think my personality is one that would do it and would do it with enthusiasm. I don't think that I could live with the regret of not doing it. If I was the one incapacitated, I would want my husband to move on. Although, I'd want his companionship and to hold my hand. I do hope that I will never have to experience MSS situation. It is is selfish I know, but I hope that I've met my quota for suffering already.

I don't know if my answers will be of help.

Take care.
169
EricaP, I agree with your "limits are limits" post. If for this woman doing this for her husband would be 'too much', for whatever reason, I suppose she has the right to go.

But thinking of limits, and whether or not we'd do "bad things" because we're reaching a limit...

Maybe a mother or father has the right to say "enough" and abandon their terminally ill child after years of caring for them. It's their lives, they get to say whether or not their son/daughter's illness has already turned their lives into a hell. Hell, maybe they even have the right to go even if they know this will depress the child so much s/he is likely to die. Because they've reached a boundary, because they "just cannot do it".

Is there a good reason ever to let go of your boundaries? To do the undoable? To be strong, swallow the horrible feelings that come with going beyond one's boundaries, and still doing it? Arguably there is. I suppose the word for people who do this is "heroes".

Should we condemn the people who couldn't? The wives/husbands who couldn't satisfy their dying spouse's last sexual fantasy? The father or mother who finally abandoned his/her sick child and ran away because s/he simply couldn't put up with it any longer?

I don't know. I may be being harsh. I may be being unfair. Maybe I'm inviting god, or any similar power, to test me by putting me in some situation in life where I have to face this harsh choice. Hubris, ate. Still, I can't stop thinking: doing what her husband asked in this situation would be the right thing. If she can't do it because it crosses a boundary for her, she's entitled not to do it. It's her body, it's her prerrogative. But as far as moral judgments go... I can't say I would support her on this. Despite all her suffering. Maybe she wouldn't be able to, maybe she couldn't force herself to; but she would miss the chance to do the right thing. (And as others point out, as time goes by she'll probably realize that and feel bad about it.)

Again, maybe I'm tempting fate to put me in a situation similar to hers and then see if I wouldn't behave like a coward and abandon my principles. But I cannot ignore what my heart tells me, and in this case, it is that the right thing to do is to fulfill her dying husband's wish.
170
Kim in Portland, I agree entirely with your viewpoint. If I were a woman and in this LW's situation, I would probably do exactly the same.

Probably.

Because, of course, I can't know that for a fact. One never knows.

At any rate, let me quote something another commenter said way, way above:
"Damn, we put a giant box around sex and make it into this hugely personal, private thing that we aren't allowed to give away (for free, anyway) except in the strictest circumstances."

I'm sure sex is inherently quite personal and private. And I'm also sure this LW is right in that we make it even more private and personal than it has to be. We often don't accept it for what it is, simply one of the facts of life, one of the things that happen between people; either because we had bad experiences with it that are difficult if not impossible to recover from, or because we've learned that in our society sex is super-duper-personal/private.

I wish it weren't so, but it is.

Anyway, I wish luck to this LW, and also to you, Kim, in your own path through life.
171
If the tables are turned I hope every man offers to do this for a dying woman without being asked. For as long as she likes.

I would, for my wife. Without any shadow of a doubt. And no matter how disgusting I found it, or how much she had become 'like a relative' in her illness.

I hope that answer makes you happy. :-)
172
#167, I don't think mitten (#155) really comprehends the situation, maybe they didn't read the letter or something. This isn't a matter of the wife has a headache and the husband is in the mood for sex, and maybe she should go along with the foreplay and then she'll be in the mood. The letter writer went through the hell of constant 24-hour care-taking for several years, watching her husband decline to the point where he can barely move at all, where he's forced to live in a care facility away from her, and she dreads the idea of any kind of sexual contact with him. For mitten to suggest that she just needs to go along with foreplay and gosh gee it'll be FANTASTIC! And it doesn't mean she isn't a feminist, it'll just mean she's a nice person, by golly!- well, that's a pretty fucking ignorant and patronizing thing for mitten to suggest.

And I'm guessing #166 has never had to care for a loved one 24 hours a day for several YEARS, cleaning their shit/ urine/ vomit many times a day, feeding them when they need to eat, administering medication as needed, waking every few hours in the night to turn them, and generally neglecting nearly every aspect of their own basic needs to care for that person. I've been in the position of caring for sick relatives- no one who I'd have to be in the position of worrying about requests for sex- and know how incredibly difficult it is. I don't think anyone who's done that would say, 'Oh no, that wasn't enough, you MUST do this other thing for them, even though it will devastate and depress you even further. Or else you're a self-justifying prick-hole'.
173
Amazonvera, no one can force this woman to do something she thinks she can't do.

Just like no one can force someone not to abandon a sick child who s/he thinks s/he can no longer care for -- a child as sick as this woman's husband is, for instance.

Every person has their limits, what they can or can't do, where they will or won't take their heroism. That's personal, I won't debate that.

But what is the right thing to do in this situation?

To claim that sex is so important that it would be OK to refuse this just because it's sex (while, I assume, refusing some other disgusting task that is not sexual would be much less acceptable -- even if it violated another, non-sexual limit of hers?...), to me, goes against every concept of morality that I can think of.

And if it's the "cumulative heroism" thing: she's done so much already, can't we give her a break? Of course we can. I can. I wouldn't think ill of her for not being able to do this. And indeed she has done so much already. And indeed it is her right to refuse.

Just as in the case of the mother who decides she can no longer care for her sick child.

My main point, though: what would be the right thing to do? To my heart, the answer is obvious: to grant her husband's wish. I won't think ill of her if she can't do it -- for all the reasons you mention. But it would be the right thing to do; there is no doubt in my mind that it would. If she can't do it, then it is yet another example of how we sometimes just can't do the right thing. A tragedy.

174
Ricardo, who said:

"I remember watching my boyfriend's body in the weeks before he died. We hadn't had sex for a year. I'd been changing diapers for six months. He had bedsores all over (turning him around in his bed every two hours wasn't enough by then), he was emaciated, and yet I could still see in my mind the body I had so desired, and he was still the man I loved.

And you know what? I would get an erection every time. And although he could no longer speak, I knew from his expression that he was glad I did. Because I still looked at him in the same way, and that's what he needed to feel."

Very beautiful, and very moving, Ricardo. I wished more people would come to see sex like this.

I hope it's not a "men" vs. "women" thing. I hope it is more of a "right thing to do" thing.

I am saddened by the thought that some people would see sex as such an important thing -- more important than death by terminal disease, more important than love, more important than commitment.

I can understand the "but she's done so much already" argument. She clearly deserves applause already. I will understand, and think no ill of her, if she can't do the right thing.

But this doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing. And that so many people here don't see this... I fault the Judaeo-Christian mentality of sexual prudishness, reversed to "sex-is-all-you-are", that some people have adopted to this very day. I hope this will change at some point in the future, after people realize that there is a difference between sex and soul.
175
rebecax: "It sounds like being sexual with her husband will add more truama on top of evyerthing else. She doesn't need it. She's been through enough. She doesn't have to do this and I don't think she should if it will add further injury to her."

She, she, she... Me, me, me...

Sigh...

Here's my point. If she can't do it, then she shouldn't do it. If there's some trauma in her life that makes sex under these circumstances such a nightmarish ordeal -- worse than years of removing faeces and not being able to sleep without interruptions every 2 hours -- then she shouldn't do it.

But it's sad that she has such trauma already. If she were a normal, healthy human being, and if our society wasn't so full of messages telling us that sex is our soul, that there's nothing in us deeper or nobler than sex... Nothing more valuable than sex... then I think things might be different.

But you are in principle right. She shouldn't do what she can't do. If sex is her soul, let her keep her soul.
176
rebecax, on the cumulative argument ('she's suffered so much already'): again, I agree it's up to her to decide.

But this doesn't change what the right thing to do is in these circumstances. I have to agree with Dan. Life is more than sex. Much, much more.
177
169/173 Do you think very few parents give up their ill children? Parents of very very ill or very very emotionally disturbed children usually do put them in residential care, after a while. It's too much for one or two people to bear, especially when they are untrained and emotionally involved.

Also, speaking for myself, I don't "put a giant box around sex and make it into this hugely personal, private thing." In fact, I have sex with strangers to please my (non-dying) husband. (I did, just this afternoon. I had diarrhea beforehand, I was so nervous. But it was surprisingly fun (the sex, not the diarrhea.)

But I do try to listen to people in pain, and take their concerns seriously.
178
Thank you, ankylosaur. My best to you and your's.
179
Kim in portland @168 - oh, my dear. I wish there were a quota for suffering, and we could all know that our own lot wouldn't be any worse than everyone else's. If there were, I'm sure you would live a charmed life from now on.

For me, the hardest thing I've done for a loved one was to agree to have a second child. (Opening up our marriage runs a close second.)
180
hamish, who said: " It gets to the point that you do what you do because you love the person, but everything you have and are is squeezed out of you, your life becomes so overtaken with this person's needs that you begin to feel like you have nothing left to give."

Indeed. I'm sure this woman went through hell. I can vividly imagine what this was like.

But she's alive. She will have the opportunity of healing from this, even if only partially; even if it will never again be the same, it will get better. (I note she is already having life-affirming sex.)

He will not.

I am sure that, if he is in any way a decent human being, he is already very thankful for all she did. Anyone who wouldn't be thankful for that level of sacrifice would probably deserve some of the worst areas in hell.

As you point out, taking care of someone, being his/her support person, feels as if the life were being sucked out of you. And you also feel guilty every time you fail as a human being to be there for the sick person who needs you. I understand that very, very well, believe me.

But ultimately, when all is said and done...

She will have the opportunity (not the certainty -- the opportunity) to heal.

He won't.

For an appraisal of what the right thing to here (as opposed to what she is capable of doing) -- this is a very important fact.

As I said, I won't think ill of her if she doesn't -- the most important reason being, as you said, that she's given so much already.

But she'll be alive. And he'll be dead (even if his body is somehow kept alive in that nursing home). That is an important fact.
181
What if he wasn't grateful for what she has done? What if, like many ill people, he has become bitter and demanding? She doesn't mention the word love. She doesn't say anything nice about him. What if she in fact hates him? Would that get her off the hook, in your opinion?
182
Amazonvera, who said: "people bringing up the possibility of that going ahead with unwanted, sickening, depressing sex acts could be traumatizing or cause someone to feel violated are totes over-reacting"

No, Amazonvera. People bringing up the possibility that going ahead with unwanted, sickening, depressing sex acts could be traumatizing or cause someone to feel violated are not totes over-reacting.

They are pointing out something that is true.

Like those who point out that risking one's life to save people from a burning building -- like 9/11 first responders did -- could also be traumatizing and cause one to feel violated. Not only psychologically: also very, very physically traumatizing.

You can of course decline to do it. You can stand in front of the burning building and say that attempting to save someone's life from it would traumatize you too much -- and there's a good chance that you are indeed right: it very well could. So I won't think ill of you if you say you would never have risked your life to save someone from such a building. Even if you say you would never have risked your life to save a loved one who was dying in that burning building.

It's entirely your choice. Your body, your rules. You decide. If you can't do it, you can't do it, and nobody can force you to be a hero against your will. And if you've already done a lot of other things to help -- called the police, taken care of wounded people, helped in other ways -- nobody can fault you. Really, nobody can.

But there is no doubt in my mind about what the right thing to do is. If you can't do it, I won't fault you. But not because it isn't the right thing to do. Just because you couldn't do it. A different thing.
183
@148 above has made the most valid point of all. Would the husband feel any pleasure from this act, other than the impression he was pleasuring his wife? Probably no; because the wife would feel no pleasure, and I find it hard to imagine he doesn't know this. Is it to establish a connection of intimacy? I find it just as hard to imagine he wouldn't know that this is probably impossible now. So why is he asking for it? What is in it for him?

Good question.
184
Pinky, who said: AGAIN, I'd like to ask anyone saying she 'must' do this- if you were in the husband's situation, and knew that your partner- depressed and exhausted after providing you with constant, 'round the clock care for several years- was depressed and horrified at the idea of engaging in further sex acts with you, would you want them suppress their emotions and put on an act despite their dread and disgust?

Yes. I would.

Why? Because I'm self-centered? Because I"m a man who thinks of women as little dolls to play with? Because I need to 'serviced' and that is more important than any traumas she might feel?

No.

Because I'm dying. Because my body will feel all kinds of strange things -- strange urges (I remember how horny my grandmother got when she died...). Because I'll be contemplating the big emptiness, and my heart will be full of fear. Because I may even still have to spend years incapable of doing anything physical, and that might be my last chance.

If my wife couldn't bring herself to do this for me, I wouldn't think ill of her. I love her. But I would ask her, and I think she would understand I'm not just asking for a cookie at the last moment.

Life and death. The rules do apply, Pinky. To me, the rules say: take into account how much the other party is suffering -- and how much you are -- before deciding what you can or can't do. I would willingly do that for my wife -- or, if EricaP prefers, I'd do something suitably difficult for men to do (you name it, I'll do it) -- for the woman I love, who is in pain, physcially debilitated, and may never get any pleasure from the fact she has a body in the few years left for her to live.

Nobody has to be a hero. And you, Pinky, don't have to be capable of doing what I would do. But it still doesn't change the calculations; it doesn't change the fact that two people are involved, two hearts, two potentially traumatizable souls, two sufferings. You have to take them into account, and somehow compare them, if you want to decide what to do. (The main difference between viewpoints in this comments thread seems to be how to compute the suffering of each party, and how to compare them.)
185
AGAIN, I'd like to ask anyone saying she 'must' do this.

Pinky.

Noody "must" do anything. If my wife asks me for a glass of water, I don't "have" to bring her one. If I don't want to, I have the right to refuse to give her water. Even if she is desperately thirsty.

If someone falls down and breaks a leg, I don't "have to" call 911. I have the right to refuse to help, for whatever reason, and even for no reason.

So the question to me is not what she "must" do; because obviously she decides what she will do, and doesn't have to do anything, sexual or otherwise, that she doesn't want to.

She didn't have to care of him either. She had the right to dump him at the first sign of MS, too. Taking care of a person with such a disease can certainly traumatize and violate a person.

The question, therefore, is not what she "must" do. Nobody has to be a saint. Nobody even has to be a decent human being. There are no "must"s, really, other than what is described in the law.

The question is what the right thing to do would be. If she can't bring herself to do it -- if it would be too damaging for her -- then of course she doesn't have to. And I won't think ill of her.

But, I insist, that is not the question: the question is what the right thing is to do. Even if she can't do it, for whatever reason: what is the right thing to do?
186
EricaP, I'm sure there are many parents who can't take care of their children and give them away. And I'm sorry for them and their children, because I don't think this is the right thing to do. Oh yes, there are cases in which it is. But my impression is, they're not the majority.

I am glad that you and your husband can have fun with you having sex with other men. It's something I enjoy very much, too, but, alas, not my wife. So I actually do envy your husband. :-)

To me, the question is not what the LW "must" do. As I said above, she doesn't even "have to" give her husband a glass of water if she thinks that's too much for her. The question is what the right thing is.

9/11 first responders didn't have to do what they did. Not everybody is a hero.

But they did do the right thing, and I appreciate them for that.

As for making sex this big important thing... Yes. I've often seen this attitude: sex is so important, it's basically what defines me as a sentient being; I could only have it under such-and-such circumstances, and I would never put up with any inconveniences, because, after all, it's sex, the most important thing in the whole world. Clearly that is not your case; very well. But there are people like that, and I pity them, because they give sex too much importance.
187
"you name it, I'll do it" -- No limit at all? Risking prison by killing her if she asks? Giving her an organ from your minor child, so she'll have 3 more months of life?
188
What if he wasn't grateful for what she has done? What if, like many ill people, he has become bitter and demanding? She doesn't mention the word love. She doesn't say anything nice about him. What if she in fact hates him? Would that get her off the hook, in your opinion?

That is a good question. Since love is usually part of the package, to the point that losing the love of one's loved one is a deal-breaker -- if my wife stopped loving me, or if I stopped loving her, why should we make sacrifices for each other, why should we even stay together? (One possible reason: our 8-year-old daughter. Any other reasons? Maybe not.)

So, if he stopped loving her and became what you described -- even if it wasn't his fault; even if his becoming this unloving thing was not a conscious development of his personality, but something that was imposed on him by his disease -- would that affect anything?

I don't know; I suppose it all depends on what kind of bond they shared, and how much she valued what they had before he became this unloving thing. She was willing to put with a lot for his sake; either she was just obeying social norms ('that's what a good person would do'), or (I'd prefer to think) she really loved him and was committed to what they had -- before he changed into an unloving thing.

If this happend to my wife, my impression is that I would still honor what he had and do this for her, even if she became an unloving thing. But I honestly must say that I don't know that for a fact.
189
... I would still honor what we had... I shouldn't press buttons so quickly. :-)
190
"you name it, I'll do it" -- No limit at all? Risking prison by killing her if she asks? Giving her an organ from your minor child, so she'll have 3 more months of life?

:-)

You said: things that are as difficult for a man, as sex under those circumstances would be for a woman (more specifically, for her, since some women who answered here already said they would).

So: do you think these particular acts are things the LW (or even you yourself) would find easier than having sex under certain circumstances (the LW's)?

Personally, if she wanted me to kill her rather than live in pain with MS, I would. I am in favor of euthanasia. She wouldn't even have to be my beloved wife; a good friend would be enough.

Donating an organ from my minor child? If the level of suffering generated by this was inferior to the level of suffering she was going through, I would be in favor, yes. But even though the child is minor, by my moral code the decision is his/hers, not mine.
191
There are a few points to MSS's story that nobody has touched on. First of all is the tragedy that she did not seek the support of a caregivers' group early on in her husband's illness that could have helped her with coping skills and exercises to prevent the marital relationship from deteriorating. Though the physical expression of intimacy would still have been lost, she may have been able to retain some precious aspects of the former sex life with her husband. However, by becoming overwhelmed with the increasingly time-consuming nature of providing care to a man whose needs were more and more demanding, she ended up breaking the sexual link to him while thinking of him as a child and no longer the man she was married to.

Another sad thing is that neither of them apparently discussed his deteriorating physical condition and its effect on their lives together. I can see denial in his case, as the loss of virility is a huge blow for men when it involves not only the loss of functioning genitals but also the cessation of sensations. And now MSS's husband's only hope is to reach out to her, to show her that – even if he can't accept physical pleasure – he can still be the source of it for her. For her and not just any woman (to counter those who are proposing hiring a professional).

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I've witnessed the same kind of life-robbing disease that struck a couple of my friends. The one who began to deteriorate rapidly gave his partner of many decades permission to seek outside sexual relief – which his partner did ... discreetly. The love each had for the other was never diminished, even though they could no longer demonstrate it in physical terms.

The strongest sense I get from MSS is not revulsion from the thought of face-sitting. It's the guilt building up at the thought of face-sitting with her husband-in-name-only when compared to the vigorous life-affirming sex life she's having (without her husband's knowledge). Though she says she feels bad for him, I don't think it's anywhere near the height of relief she gets from having all this new sex to make her feel like a woman again, playing catch-up for the years of doing without. I can't entirely condemn her, but do feel she's at fault for basically burying her husband prematurely by unilaterally divorcing him emotionally. So, there, I have to agree that she IS being "a selfish bitch" - her words.

Is there any solution to her dilemma? Originally (before reading all of the comments), I agreed with Dan to suck it up (with liquid courage, if required) and do it. But I can't see her doing that. The very least she should do is to cheat emotionally on her current willing-and-able lovers by putting herself back into that emotional space where she can acknowledge that her husband is still alive. Not so that she can fulfill his sexual wish, but at least to the extent that she can feel comfortable kissing him and lying in bed with him. Both of these would be a lot easier to do than any overt sexual act in a nursing home environment.

Perhaps MSS's husband would like to hear her reminisce about their lives when he was still healthy. I'm sure he would feel reassured with a bunch of "remember when" stories to know that he would not be forgotten quickly after his death (which I believe is something we all fear). And if she has to give a goddamn Oscar-worthy performance for that (which does not require doing a sexual act that squicks her out), then that's her final gift to him.

And who knows. Perhaps the "remember when" stories will rekindle the love that was in her heart for many years, making it easier for her to have a small romantic connection (kissing and caressing him). Definitely the right thing for her to do ... for him. It may not have been the marriage she expected. But at least it will be a marriage that she honoured. And MSS's husband will know that he didn't die, abandoned by her.
192
Well, ankylosaur, I have to say I think it would be pretty vile of a person to ask their partner to do something that that knew the partner dreaded, something that filled them with depression to just contemplate. I think it would be pretty creepy for a person to be able to take any satisfaction and comfort from that- if they knew the partner was just trying to put on an act and was filled with horror and loathing on the inside the whole time.
Why do you think you would be self-sacrificing enough to perform some request your sick spouse made, even though you would be disgusted and depressed by it, and yet at the same time you would not (were the situations reversed) be self-sacrificing enough to go without something that might comfort you, due to the fact that you knew it would cause your spouse depression and horror? That doesn't make sense.
The fact that someone is dying doesn't make them a martyr whose needs should be elevated above any and all needs of healthier people. We're all dying. The letter writer could easily be killed in a car accident, or die from a fatal brain aneurysm, or snap from the depression and kill herself tomorrow- and her husband could linger on for years more, or even potentially be stabilized if new treatments are discovered.
She NEEDS to discuss this with her husband. She has to stop demurely side-stepping the issue. The answer is not to just do as he says because she's somehow morally obligated to since he is dying. If they are still a couple, BOTH their needs need to be considered. If they aren't still a couple in anything other than their legal marriage, then she's REALLY not obligated to offer up her body at his requested, without question.
193
@188 - yes, if she still honors what they shared, I do believe she will decide to do the act (or something similar, if that act is particularly hard for her). But I can see circumstances where both people have changed so much, that she feels their marriage is over; her duty to him is done; and she has "unilaterally divorced him emotionally" (as Helenka put it so well @191). Under those circumstances, I wouldn't say she was any more of a "selfish bitch" than ordinary people who get divorced.

@190 Sorry for misunderstanding -- thanks for explaining that you meant something roughly equivalent to the difficulty MSS faces imagining the oral sex.

194
What is up with the people saying that others shouldn't see sex as important, and then claiming this woman should get sexhay with her husband because sex is SO important (his dying wish)? Hello, what? So is it important, or is it not important? Make up your mind already.

But really, it's not about sex. Sitting on someone's face while they move their tongue around your genitals, but you aren't aroused in any way, rather the opposite... that's not sex. That's just messed up. They need some damn honestly all up in their relationship. Yeah, his manhood has been taken from him. And it's not his fault. It *is* a shitty, shitty situation. But Jesus Christ. We're all going to die. He's terminally ill, but she might get in a car accident and die before him. Who the hell can say? And why is all of the focus on him? This is a shitty, shitty situation for BOTH of them. Don't for one second think that her life is ever going to be as carefree and joyful as it was before her husband, marriage, and life plans crumbled before her eyes.

I don't know that she'll regret not doing it, and I don't know that she'd be traumatized by doing it. In the end, it's 100% her call and doing it doesn't make her a hero and it won't fix any of her heartache, just as not doing it doesn't make her a selfish prick and won't ruin her life. In the end, he will be dead and she will have to pick up the pieces of her shattered former life. Without him. And whether or not she sat on his face? It's not going to matter much in the end.

I wouldn't want my wife to make herself sick trying to cater to a misguided wish. I would want her to be truthful with me. I would want her to hold my hand. I would want her to love me, and know that I love her. I would be so thankful for all that she'd done, and so sad that my days with her were running out. I'd want her to hold on to all of the good memories. It would hurt to see her moving on, but I would encourage it, because what's she going to do when I'm gone? I wouldn't want to leave behind a shattered shell of a wife. That is not what marriage is all about. Marriage is about BOTH parties involved. It's about unconditional love - not unconditional lust. If I were dying, sex isn't what would be important to me. Love is. And my love for her - MY unconditional love, as the dying party - that's gotta be there too. My unconditional love wouldn't want to cause her disgust or additional depression by pressuring her into doing something she didn't want to do.
195
@ ankylosaur, you seem to be so far up your own ass that you're not paying attention to what's being said by Dan and others and the fact that those comments, verbatim, are what people like EricaP, Pinky, myself, and others are responding to. Or maybe you do see that and you're such a pedantic mansplainer that you just want to educate us about the finer points of our ignorant wrongness anyway. It's a mystery.

If you feel like there's something righteous about women being morally compelled into unwanted, depressing, sickening sex acts because hey, they're married and that's what's "right," then I'd say that it might actually be you who's far too influenced by traditional Judeo-Christian sexual values. Your repeated insistence on treating wife and mother as analogous roles speaks volumes as well.
196
@ 143 - No, you didn't get it. At all. Major comprehension fail. Or maybe it's your obvious personal issues that prevent you from reading correctly.

You're not very good at understanding rhetoric, either. I don't think that men have it bad, because they generally don't. I'm very much aware of all the privileges that come with having a penis. I was just asking EricaP not to judge by a double standard - especially since, having read many of her posts, I don't think she'd like it if I did. Again, your own personal issues got in the way, it appears.

I think the only one here who's "so far up [her] ass that [she's] not paying attention to what's being said" is you.

197
@ 153 - Anyway, the two QM's on each side cancel each other out and we're back to me being just gay. Phew!
198
@ 146 - "Or is sex "easy" and feelings "hard," because that's how it is for you? "

Is that rhetorical, or is that directed at me? If it's rhetorical, you certainly have deep stereotyping issues. And if it's directed at me, well, I thought you were more intelligent than that shows you to be. Didn't you read my posts?

You write extensively about every little problem you've ever had in your relationship(s), using slog as your own personal therapist - and that's cool, with one caveat: you should first learn to listen to others, too.

At this point, I suggest you take your own advice: "You can't get inside her head and know what it's really like for her. You can't know. So give her your advice [...], and then let her make up her mind."
199
@197 I will not be dismissed that easily.

You, sir, are "*"*""gay""*"*".
200
@198 If feelings are easy for you, as well as sex -- great. I apologize for using stereotypes rather than simply asking: What is hard for you? Can you imagine something being hard for you, that might be easy for someone else to do?

Maybe everything in life is easy for you. Apparently it was easy for you to redefine rape as just an unpleasant evening. But if you think that would be easy for everyone, you're wrong. I don't care if you think I'm stupid -- I'm just trying to understand you, to my limited ability.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.