"You promised to be faithful to me."
This sentence can recall a precious promise. It can also serve to shut down a conversation the couple can no longer avoid.
Fidelity matters. But what becomes of that promise when, for years, another important dimension of the relationship has disappeared and one of the two even refuses to talk about it? Should you keep demanding the same life from your partner without looking at what you are putting them through? And can the one who suffers from that lack, in turn, decide alone that their promise no longer exists?
A commitment is not summed up by the list of faults the other person has no right to commit. It also lives on what each person brings so that the relationship remains livable. That gives no one a right over their partner's body. It obliges both to consider honestly the needs, the refusals, the changes and the consequences of the way they respond.
I met a couple whose story made me reflect on this difference for a long time.
What he recounted, and what his account was not enough to tell
They had been living together for about fifteen years. For nearly four years, according to the husband, their intimacy had gradually faded. When he tried to draw closer, his wife often told him she no longer felt desire. She was a little over forty and cited her age, her fatigue and a drop in desire.
The man had tried several approaches. He had offered more time, caresses, objects intended for pleasure. He noticed that his wife could sometimes feel a great deal of pleasure when they drew close. He concluded from this that she still had the capacity to enjoy those moments and did not understand why she so often refused to let them begin.
This detail matters in his experience. Yet it does not settle the question on its own.
The pleasure felt during an act proves neither the desire to do it again nor the desire to have started. A body can respond while the person feels distant, rushed, upset or simply unavailable. Conversely, saying "it's my age" does not necessarily explain everything that has changed between two people. Forty-two is not, in itself, an answer about a particular woman's desire.
I mainly knew this man's account. His pain was real. It did not give me magical access to everything his wife was living through.
The important question was therefore not to prove, from her physical reactions, that she should have accepted. It was to understand why such a long distance had settled in and what each of them was doing so that the other would not remain alone facing it.
"No" must remain a real no
A limit must be set before going further: a promise of fidelity never gives permanent access to the other's body.
We can desire regular intimacy and hear a refusal. We can be hurt by a hundred successive refusals without the hundred-and-first becoming any less free. A massage, a caress or the supposed certainty that the other will feel pleasure does not turn their no into a yes.
In this story, the wife had even said that she sometimes felt "raped" when she made love with her husband. It would be serious to treat that sentence as a mere whim, even if her husband did not understand what she meant or felt unjustly accused. At the very least, she was announcing that their intimacy could no longer continue on the same assumptions.
For his part, the man eventually said that he no longer found pleasure in an encounter he believed had become a chore for her. Here is another loss that the mere frequency of intercourse does not show: he did not only want to obtain an act. He wanted to be able to desire a person who felt free to desire him too.
When intimacy reaches that point, insisting on getting sex repairs nothing. But forbidding any conversation about what it has become repairs nothing either.
An occasional refusal and a transformed shared life do not call for the same discussion
One evening, she said she was tired. He respected that refusal. The next morning, she sometimes came to him and he accepted. In his eyes, closeness seemed possible only when she took the initiative. When he in turn sought a moment of closeness, he regularly found the same door closed.
We must be careful not to count initiatives as debts: "I accepted yesterday, you owe me today." Desire does not work on that model. Feeling desire in the morning and not in the evening is not a contradiction that a partner could use as proof of bad faith.
But the repetition of this asymmetry can give rise to another question. Do our two desires still have a place in the couple's conversations? Can one of us say what they are living through without receiving only the order to get used to it?
Each refusal keeps its legitimacy. The lasting form these refusals take nevertheless concerns the lives of both people. We have the right not to want sex. We cannot decide alone that the loss experienced by the other deserves no words, no attention and no shared choice.
This responsibility does not command us to find desire again. It asks us to acknowledge what really exists.
The visible disagreement may have hidden another wound
One element appeared later in the husband's account: he had let go the person who helped the household with domestic tasks. His wife felt that she now carried too much work. He judged that she was exaggerating, particularly because she also organized her professional activity.
I cannot settle this dispute from only one person's version. Who did the tasks? How long did they take? Had she accepted this new distribution? Was she angry about the decision, about the way it had been made, or about a longer-standing accumulation?
These questions change the possible reading of their distance. If she held a grudge against him, her intimate withdrawal could have been a way of punishing him. It could also have been the consequence of fatigue, resentment or a feeling of no longer being considered. A lived consequence and a deliberate punishment can produce the same absence of sex; they call for different responses.
The husband had a part to look at: removing help from the household can lighten an expense and weigh down the other's life. If he alone made a decision whose extra work she bore, he could not then treat her discontent as a flaw without examining it.
She also had a part to look at if she still wanted to build with him: leaving the other to guess for years what needed to be understood, while closing every attempt at conversation, would help neither her body to become free again nor their couple to find a living form.
Nothing obliged them to distribute equal blame. What was needed was to recover the sequence and the reality of each person.
You cannot claim only the advantages of a commitment
The man heard: "Accept that we hardly make love anymore, and stay faithful." He had the impression that an essential agreement was being rewritten by one person alone. His wife, for her part, could hear: "Since we are married, find a way to satisfy me despite what you feel."
Both sentences become traps if they prevent the other from existing.
We are not required to feel desire in order to prove our loyalty. We are required, if we want to keep building together, not to treat as insignificant what our partner is losing. The need for intimacy can matter deeply to him or to her. It can carry pleasure, tenderness, a feeling of being chosen, a way of finding each other again after difficulties.
Likewise, the one who desires more cannot invoke reciprocity while erasing the other's fatigue, wound or refusal. They build nothing by making sex a mandatory contribution to be paid in order to receive fidelity.
Reciprocity does not require two bodies available at the same moment. It requires that both lives remain present in the definition of the relationship.
Reciprocity concerns the building of the bond, never a debt of availability
A person can suffer deeply from the absence of intimacy. That pain deserves to be heard in what it means: a lack of pleasure, tenderness, closeness or the feeling of being chosen. But acknowledging that lack does not turn the sexual act into a mandatory contribution. One person's desire does not sign the other's consent.
Reciprocity can be sought elsewhere than in a demanded yes: giving speech a place, taking seriously what each person is living through, exploring forms of closeness that are freely wished for, seeking help if both desire it, or acknowledging an important incompatibility. Talking does not oblige anyone to produce desire. Refusing intimacy does not forbid saying what matters in the relationship.
If the expectations can no longer coexist, the couple must be able to examine its definition and its future without a threat designed to obtain an act. Fidelity must not become the price of sex, and lack does not become a permission to cheat. A decision about the bond has its own consequences; it deserves an examination distinct from access to the body.
This final chapter thus joins the question that runs through the book: what do we do with the worth of two people when we choose to build together? We can want our own happiness and acknowledge the other's without possessing it. We can love and discover that certain conditions of shared life are no longer met. We can also learn a new organization, if the wills and the means meet.
Understanding is not enough to create that meeting. It allows us to stop confusing it with one person's endurance alone. A living commitment leaves two people present in its advantages, in its efforts and in its choices. Our transformation then takes on a deep meaning: to love ourselves better, to love the other better and to look lucidly at what our way of living really makes possible.
A contribution to the household does not create a claim on the body
Taking on more tasks, more nights or more responsibilities can be a necessary step forward. That contribution does not become a payment whose balance the other should settle with more frequent intimacy.
Recovered rest can change what is possible; it guarantees neither the appearance of desire nor consent. We must distinguish the living conditions that weigh on the relationship from the freedom of each encounter. Removing an unjust burden does not buy new access.
The one who suffers from a lack of intimacy can ask for a conversation about their life, the possibilities, the limits and the future. The one who refuses sex can hear that pain without going back on their refusal in order to make it stop. Partnership requires treating both questions with dignity: that each takes a sustainable share of the shared life, and that intimacy remains an encounter where no one pays for their place with their body.
The partner's pain deserves a place without becoming a right over our response
Refusing sex can leave the other disappointed. We can welcome that pain without concluding that our refusal must disappear for the other to feel better. Kindness does not consist in taking charge of every emotion by abandoning one's own will.
For their part, the partner can express the lack without making their mood a punitive consequence: prolonged coldness, reproaches, withdrawal of essential means or the threat of cheating. These methods do not repair a difficulty with intimacy; they alter the freedom of the next agreement.
If the lack is lasting, a conversation about the future remains possible. It must distinguish expectations, commitments, the means of working together and each person's limits. A decision about the relationship must not be used as an immediate threat to obtain an act. The couple can seek a shared construction; it cannot replace two freedoms with a calculation in which one person's pain would cancel the other's refusal.
His withdrawal produced a consequence she had not expected
After several years, the man stopped seeking an intimacy that gave him the feeling of being a nuisance. He reduced the sensual gestures, the approaches, and then that way of looking at her with desire that had long accompanied their life.
His wife reproached him for no longer coming to her. She missed an attention that she often pushed away when it led to sexual closeness.
Her pain was not necessarily hypocritical. She could want to be looked at, chosen, sometimes caressed, without wanting sex. She could also discover too late that by systematically pushing away certain approaches, she had made the whole of tenderness harder to offer. He no longer knew which gesture would be welcomed and which gesture would earn him another rejection.
We can ask: "I would still like your tenderness, but without every gesture having to lead to sex." That request gives a different closeness a chance. It cannot be replaced by the demand that the other spontaneously keep behaving as before, when their experience of our refusals has changed them too.
When we durably modify one part of the relationship, we do not control all the other parts that will remain identical. The other can lose the momentum they had before. That consequence deserves to be understood, without serving to punish in return.
Threatening to go elsewhere does not resolve the promise that has become difficult
At the end of his rope, this man eventually announced that he might seek elsewhere what he no longer found between them. His sentence expressed a real limit: he did not want to promise indefinitely a life to which he could no longer consent inwardly.
But that threat created pressure on his wife: "If you don't come closer, I will break my fidelity." She could then accept out of fear, precisely at the moment when her freedom to want was already in question. An intimacy obtained under that threat might have increased their sexual activity while further diminishing their trust.
Frustration explains a temptation. It does not choose in our place. As long as we present fidelity as our current commitment, we must answer for what we do with it.
If that commitment has become impossible to keep honestly in the relationship as it exists, it must be said and what that changes for the couple must be examined. We can ask for another agreement, acknowledge an incompatibility or decide to no longer continue the same relationship. The other keeps the freedom to refuse the proposed agreement. We keep the freedom not to remain in a promise we no longer want to carry.
This work can be painful. It is more loyal than a hidden transgression later presented as an inevitable consequence of the partner's conduct.
A limit protects; a reprisal seeks to make the other give in
"I no longer want to insist on an intimacy that weighs on you and hurts me" can be an honest limit. The man then stops a gesture that has become painful for both.
"I will withdraw all affection from you until you start again" is something else. He would in turn use the lack as an instrument of power.
In the same way, a person who no longer wants sex can say: "I cannot live this right now; I would like to understand what has closed in me." They protect their will. If they think instead: "I know you suffer from it and I will keep that suffering alive to win on another decision," they add a punishment to a problem that may be legitimate.
The difference does not always lie in the visible gesture. It lies in the truth we can tell about its motive, in the link with the problem and in what we are trying to obtain.
A limit can lead to modifying a commitment. It should not become a scene played to educate the other through pain.
Being faithful requires knowing what we are still faithful to
Fidelity is not reduced to the prohibition on seeing someone else. It expresses a broader choice: to protect a relationship, a trust and the word we have given. That choice can go through difficult periods. It does not depend on our partner's daily perfection.
But it is also not enough to repeat the promise of the past to exempt the couple from looking at what it has become. If an essential dimension has durably disappeared, if no dialogue is possible and if the two people no longer want the same life, the question is no longer only: "Who must keep their word?" It becomes: "What word can we still give each other without lying to ourselves?"
It is possible to remain faithful while trying to understand. It is possible to choose a relationship whose intimacy has changed, if that choice truly belongs to both. It is possible to acknowledge that the agreement is no longer shareable and to draw the consequences openly.
It is not fair to turn a refusal into a sexual fault. It is not fair either to make the other's need a shameful demand that he or she should carry alone forever.
A commitment between two people cannot be carried by one body, one desire or one will alone. Each must remain free to say no. Each must also be able to hear what their choices, their silences and their changes really ask of the other. It is at that point that the promise stops being a formula and becomes a living responsibility again.
The questions that help me test our commitments
What commitment am I still demanding from the other, and what am I doing today to make the relationship to which that commitment gave meaning livable for both of us?
When I say no to intimacy, what am I really protecting in myself; when I seek a yes, do I leave the other entirely free not to give it to me?
What immediate advantage does silence, pressure or threat give me, and what price will that method make our desire, our trust and my self-respect pay later?
What part of the visible problem might come from a fatigue, a decision or a wound that I prefer not to look at because it would complicate my account?
If the promise I still pronounce no longer corresponds to the relationship I am ready to live, what truth must I express before choosing an act I could no longer call faithful?
التعليقات
شارك ما ساعدك هذا المقال على فهمه. تُراجع التعليقات قبل نشرها.
جارٍ تحميل التعليقات…