Many people search for “weaponising sex” because they’re stuck in a sexless marriage and trying to understand what’s really going on. The term gets thrown around online, but very few explanations are clear or accurate. In this article I break down what weaponising sex actually means, how it differs from normal sexual withdrawal, and how to recognise the signs of genuine coercive control. You’ll learn the difference between self-protection and punishment, and what to do if you feel sex is being used to control you.

Therapy language on social media

A lot of therapy language has crept into everyday conversation over the last few years.⁽¹⁾ In some ways that’s helpful because we’ve all gained a wider emotional vocabulary.
The downside is that people have started diagnosing each other with terms they only half understand.⁽²⁾ You’ve probably seen the 60-second “how to spot a narcissist” reels that pop up on every other feed. Suddenly everyone has a personality disorder.

One of the newer phrases doing the rounds is ‘weaponising sex.’ And if you’re in a sexless relationship, chances are you’ve wondered if that’s happening to you.⁽³⁾

In case you don’t know: weaponising sex is when someone deliberately withholds sex to punish, control, or manipulate their partner.⁽⁴⁾

The problem is that the term is being thrown around far too loosely.⁽¹⁾ It’s often used with no definition, no nuance, and no consideration of the many other reasons someone might withdraw sexually.⁽³⁾

There’s no doubt that weaponising sex is a serious form of abuse.⁽⁶⁾ Which is exactly why accusing someone of it is a grave charge that deserves careful thought and balanced consideration.

five withdrawal patterns

So, here, we’re going to explore five different withdrawal patterns to help you determine what’s actually happening. My husband has put together this framework to help you follow along. There are five patterns. Three are defensive, two are abusive. Let’s start with the defensive ones, because hopefully, most of you watching will be dealing with one of these.

1. Emotional Defensive Stonewalling (Gottman)

This is a Gottman concept. It describes a defensive emotional shutdown when someone’s overwhelmed. They pull away because they feel ashamed, frightened, or flooded. They avoid conversations, go quiet, or look distant, even though they still want resolution.⁽⁷⁾ It’s harmful, yes, but the intent is self-protection, not punishment.

For example: Your partner shuts down mid-conversation because the tension is too high. They go quiet or leave not to punish you, but because they can’t cope with the heightened emotional state.

2. Sexual Defensive Stonewalling

This is my extension of the Gottman concept applied to the sexual side of a relationship. The mechanism is the same, a defensive shutdown.⁽⁷⁾ Someone withdraws sexually because sex feels emotionally or physically unsafe. It can result from hurt, hypervigilance, shame, trauma history, resentment, body issues, or pressure. It looks like rejection, but the motivation is self-protection, not control. To them, it feels like can’t, not won’t.⁽³⁾

For example: Your partner becomes distant sexually after a difficult period in the relationship. Their body feels tense and on edge, so sex feels impossible until things stabilise.

Some of you are dealing with a situation where your partner has withdrawn sexually in the long term and refuses to even discuss it. That’s a form of sexual stonewalling I’ll cover in next week’s article. For now, we need to move on.

3. Chronic Defensive Stonewalling

This is a systemic shutdown pattern that develops when both partners feel unsafe or unseen for a long time. It’s related to what’s known in therapy as the pursue–withdraw or mutual withdrawal dynamic, and it’s very common.⁽⁸⁾ It’s the quiet, eggshell-walking, “let’s not rock the boat” kind of relationship I see more than anything else. It can involve two good people who are both hurting and withdrawing, and it can go on indefinitely without intervention.

For example: One partner withdraws emotionally because the other has withdrawn sexually. This creates an escalating cycle until both sexual and emotional connection have disappeared.

None of these first three patterns are abuse because the intent is self-protection, not control.⁽⁷⁾

A grey area: Sexual Withdrawal with a “punitive edge”

OK, so before we move on to what is abuse, here’s a grey area worth noting. Maybe you’re stonewalling your partner, emotionally or sexually, and you know very well that you’re doing it a bit longer than strictly necessary. A sort of “fuck you” moment… and look, most of us are guilty of this from time to time. The thing is we make up the next day over coffee with a heartfelt sorry. No long-term damage.

This behaviour still sits in the defensive category because the intent to harm is minimal, fleeting, and quickly resolved.

4. Love Withdrawal

This is a recognised form of emotional abuse where affection is removed deliberately to punish or control. Emotional warmth becomes conditional. Silence or distance is used to manipulate you, make you feel ashamed, or force you into compliance.⁽⁹⁾ There’s no interest in resolution because the goal is power, not connection.

For example: Your partner becomes icy cold for days because you expressed a different opinion. They know walking on eggshells hurts you, and so they create that atmosphere intentionally to make you submit.

5. Sexual Withholding – “weaponising sex”

Sexual withholding is an established term that describes the deliberate removal of sex as leverage or punishment.⁽¹⁰⁾ This is what’s now being commonly referred to as ‘weaponising sex’. It’s the sexual parallel to love withdrawal, where intimacy becomes conditional. Something you must earn. The partner knows very well the deprivation hurts, and they use it to influence your behaviour or punish you.

For example: Your partner withholds sex for weeks or months, refusing every attempt at initiation, and only re-engages temporarily once you apologise for something you didn’t do or comply with an imposed condition.

HOW INTENT defines abuse

We need to be careful with these labels related to abuse because the defining factor is intent, which is incredibly hard to pin down.⁽⁶⁾

Even when I’m sitting with a couple every week, it takes time to understand what’s really going on. He explains his side, and I might be tempted to think, “Yes, she’s weaponising sex.” Then she speaks and I might realize, “Yeah, I wouldn’t want sex in that atmosphere either.”⁽⁵⁾

The danger is that when you mislabel someone as abusive, the relationship is suddenly considered hopeless.⁽⁹⁾ Whereas most of the time, these patterns, as painful as they are, often result from fear, overwhelm, trauma, or shame.⁽¹¹⁾ Not malice.

Defensive Sexual Avoidance

So, let’s talk briefly about what to do if you recognise your relationship in one of the defensive patterns; the stonewalling behaviours we covered first. Most of you watching will fall into these categories. And that’s actually good news. Because if what’s happening isn’t intentional punishment by a disordered individual, then you have something to work with.

A few simple things make a huge difference: slow down, regulate your nervous system, intentionally warm the relationship up, keep your own side of the street clean, communicate clearly, commit to regular check-ins, and get help if you feel stuck.⁽⁸⁾ I already have videos on all these topics, so look through those for more depth.

Consent, monogamy, and the reality of involuntary celibacy

Now, before we move to the more serious situation of actual abuse, there’s one specific scenario I need to address because it comes up constantly.

When your partner says, “I don’t feel like it” or “my body my choice,” they’re technically correct. No one should have to endure unwanted sex.⁽¹²⁾

But in a monogamous relationship, there’s an implicit agreement that neither of you will have sex outside the relationship, and so sex is expected to occur within it. Therefore, if your partner doesn’t want sex and you can’t have it elsewhere, you’re being asked to accept involuntary celibacy. That’s not abuse, but it is a unilateral change to the relationship dynamic, and presumably not one you signed up for.⁽¹³⁾

Monogamy relies on either sexual connection or, at the very least, open dialogue when that connection isn’t possible. So, when you bring this up gently, someone who’s struggling with sex for whatever reason will usually demonstrate care for your feelings. They might not have an immediate solution, but your suffering will matter to them.⁽⁵⁾

However, someone who responds to your suffering with cold indifference, dismisses your needs entirely, reframes your pain as coercion, or makes you feel guilty for even talking about it is telling you they don’t care about you. And whilst that’s not weaponising sex, it’s certainly emotional abuse, and that matters.⁽⁹⁾

What to do if you believe sex is being used as punishment

OK, but what if you’ve gone through all of this and you genuinely believe you’re dealing with someone who weaponises sex? What then?

If you’re certain your partner is deliberately withholding sex to punish or control you, and you’re certain your behaviour isn’t contributing to the dynamic, then the response must be different.⁽¹⁰⁾

But be very sure before you come to this conclusion. Make certain there’s nothing affecting your partner that you’re unaware of. That they’re not too frightened or shut down to explain legitimate reasons for their withdrawal. That there isn’t something going on between you that’s driving this. Something you might be contributing to. You have to be absolutely certain this is deliberate control, not self-protection.⁽⁷⁾

If you are certain, here’s what you need to do:

Be completely honest with your partner. This is a nothing-to-lose situation. A last attempt at repair and an invitation to improve things together. Lay out clearly and calmly what you’ve been experiencing and why it feels like punishment or control. If you’re wrong about this being abuse, your partner may well cite legitimate reasons for withdrawing sexually; reasons you need to hear. And if they do, you need to really listen.⁽⁵⁾

But if the response to your honesty is more contempt, more blame, or complete refusal to engage, then you have important information.⁽¹⁴⁾

And know this: you’re not being selfish, dramatic, or unreasonable. Sexual deprivation used as punishment is coercive control.⁽⁴⁾ It chips away at your confidence, your sense of worth, and eventually your mental health.⁽¹⁵⁾

Recovery is only possible if the person doing it is willing to acknowledge it and take accountability, show consistent effort toward change, and engage in proper therapeutic work.⁽⁹⁾

But if the behaviour continues, make no mistake; you’re being abused, and your safety and wellbeing must come first.⁽⁶⁾

When sexual withholding becomes entrenched

Look, I very, very rarely suggest breaking up. The truth is that, in my experience anyway, this level of deliberate, abusive withholding is rare. Most sexual withdrawal is defensive, rather than manipulative.⁽¹¹⁾ But when it does occur, you need to recognise it for what it is.

Signs the relationship has crossed into coercive control

So how do you know when they’re genuinely not going to change? Here are the signs:

1. The behaviour is entrenched and attempts to discuss it are met with hostility. When you bring it up, the response is blame, contempt, or irritation with no remorse or effort to change. This is contempt, and it makes progress almost impossible.⁽¹⁴⁾
2. Your mental health is deteriorating. If you’re constantly anxious, ashamed of your own desire, depressed, struggling to sleep or concentrate, or starting to feel fundamentally unlovable, then your wellbeing is at stake.⁽¹⁵⁾
3. Your partner refuses all attempts at repair. Someone who won’t engage in therapy, won’t reflect on their behaviour, won’t have calm conversations, and won’t make even minimal efforts to improve is choosing the status quo.⁽⁹⁾
4. The relationship has become structurally unsafe. When you’re punished for having needs, when affection disappears unless you comply, and when intimacy is tied to obedience, it’s no longer a relationship, it’s a coercive system.⁽⁴⁾
5. Staying is now more painful than leaving. When the daily emotional cost of staying outweighs the fear of leaving, there’s often a quiet sense of calm that follows.⁽¹⁵⁾

an invitation to take the next step

If you’re recognizing several of these signs in your relationship, I know how painful and confusing it is. But you need to take it seriously.
You need to recognise when your relationship has become harmful. You deserve to feel valued, appreciated, and safe. You deserve to be treated like a human being with legitimate needs and desires. We all do.

I know this article has been heavier than my usual content, but I’ve seen the term ‘weaponising sex’ in the comments so often that I felt a responsibility to address it head-on. Because mislabelling defensive withdrawal as abuse not only harms your partner but also destroys the possibility of repairing what might actually be a completely fixable situation.⁽⁹⁾

At the same time, I need you to know that weaponising sex does occur. It is abusive, and if you’re on the receiving end of it, the pain, confusion and impact on your mental health and well-being needs to be taken seriously.⁽⁴⁾

Either way, my sincere hope is that this gives you a clearer picture of what’s going on for you, whether you’re dealing with abuse that requires self-protection or stuck in a dynamic that can be repaired with more effective communication and care.⁽⁸⁾

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Have you found yourself using this term, or has it been used to describe your relationship? Did this framework help you see your situation more clearly? Let me know in the comments.

And if you’re reading this and realising you might be the one who’s withdrawn, I want you to know something. I regularly hear from people who say, “I watched your videos and realised I haven’t been looking after my partner. I just didn’t understand how important sex was to them. I thought it was all a big deal about nothing, and now I feel terrible.”⁽¹¹⁾

If that’s you, and you don’t know where to start then, please hear this: the realisation is itself the start. It doesn’t mean you have to immediately start having sex if you’re uncomfortable. It all starts, as with most of these complex issues, with a conversation. And if that conversation feels too big to have on your own, you can reach out to me or one of my team, and we’ll help you figure out where to begin.

If this message felt important to you, consider signing up to my newsletter so you don’t miss the next conversation. And if you enjoyed this article, then you might also enjoy this one about ‘Restoring Sexual Intimacy in Relationships’.

Thanks for reading. I’ll see you next week. In the meantime, to yourself and to others… tell the truth.

Jump to Comments

Recommended Reading on Sexless marriages

REFERENCE LIST

1. Ahuja, J., Khosla, P., & Kumar, P. (2024). Consequences of mental illness glorification on social media and self-diagnosis trends among youth. Cureus, 16(4), e45892. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.45892 Accessible: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11032084/
2. Modlin, S. (2025). Therapy-speak, pseudo-diagnosis, and the rise of social-media-driven pathology attribution. Journal of Social Work Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894251359325 Accessible: Institutional access only — no open version currently available.
3. Basson, R. (2001). Using a different model for female sexual response to address women’s problematic low sexual desire. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 27(5), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/713846827 Accessible: https://drrebeccajorgensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Using-a-Different-Model-for-Female-Sexual-Response-to-Address-Womens-Problematic-Low-Sexual-Desire.pdf
4. Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11–12), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6 Accessible: https://www.academia.edu/26235524/Coercion_in_Intimate_Partner_Violence_Toward_a_New_Conceptualization
5. Mark, K. P., & Lasslo, J. A. (2018). Maintaining sexual desire in long-term relationships: A systematic review and conceptual model. Journal of Sex Research, 55(4–5), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1317708 Accessible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323670772
6. Bagwell-Gray, M. E., Messing, J. T., & Baldwin-White, A. (2015). Intimate partner sexual violence: A review of terms, definitions, and prevalence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(3), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014557290 Accessible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271201725
7. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221 Accessible: https://www.johngottman.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Marital-processes-predictive-of-later-dissolution-behavior-physiology-and-health.pdf
8. Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., & Goeke-Morey, M. C. (2009). Demand–withdraw patterns in marital conflict at home. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015972 Accessible: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3218801/
9. Follingstad, D. R. (2011). A measure of severe psychological abuse normed on a nationally representative sample of adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1194–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510368157 Accessible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44851465
10. Bagwell-Gray, M. E., Messing, J. T., & Baldwin-White, A. (2015). Intimate partner sexual violence: A review of terms, definitions, and prevalence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(3), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014557290 Accessible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271201725
11. Follingstad, D. R. (2009). The impact of psychological aggression on women’s mental health and behavior: The status of the field. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334453 Accessible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26851048
12. Peterson, Z. D., & Janssen, E. (2007). Ambivalent attitudes toward sexual compliance: Unwanted sex and partner influence. Journal of Sex Research, 44(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701586735 Accessible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23246666
13. Muise, M. D., Belu, C. F., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2021). Unspoken, yet understood: Exploring how couples communicate their exclusivity agreements. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(2), 196–204. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0011 Accessible: https://utppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0011
14. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x Accessible: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Timing-of-Divorce:-Predicting-When-a-Couple-a-Gottman-Levenson/c19cdf734c1f1184350409b0905ed21b37c448ca
15. Zhang, Y., & Liu, H. (2020). A national longitudinal study of partnered sex, relationship quality, and mental health among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75(8), 1772–1782. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz074 Accessible: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7489086/