How many men would stay w/o sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

I think these discussions here tend to founder on arguments over the meaning of the term “need,” which ultimately aren’t very productive and often seem to involve bad faith from some on both sides. Let’s use a more neutral terminology. For most men, there is a level of sexual activity that is, let’s say, “essential to happiness.” This of course varies quite a lot for different people. The real issue is what is to be done when a relationship evolves in certain ways that make it impossible for one of the parties to be happy in it. I also think there is a little bit of gaslighting going on among some who would rather obscure the fundamental divide. Many women here seem to think that sex is a discretionary, dispensable aspect of marriage, while many men think that it’s a fundamental aspect of marriage that cannot be replaced by any level of other positive qualities in a marriage. Neither view is wrong, IMO, both are defensible. The question is what to do when spouses are at impasse on that issue, and it’s not an easy one.

Well, I think people just need to stop using the word need when they talk about sex.

Because it’s not a need.

I think it’s fine for a man to say that it’s want that they have and it’s a dealbreaker if there’s no sex in the marriage and that they will leave.

Also, I think it is valid for a woman to say if you don’t make a certain amount of money and keep me in a home that I will be happy in and a school for my kids that will make me happy. I will leave you for another man.

That’s not a need that’s a want both are the same. Better are quite selfish, but they are the same.

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

https://www.cnn.com/world/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-explained-wellness-cec/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

Wow, some of you treat your spouses really horribly and then laugh at them when they protest. “Victim nonsense?”You’re just terrible.

This.

But it’s literally not a need and yes if you say it’s a need you are moaning about victim nonsense.

If it’s a want, that is a dealbreaker for you then make that clear upfront when you get married. If you are in a catastrophic accident and you can’t have sex with me, I will leave you.

Let the woman decide if she wants to marry you.

But there are plenty of men who would not leave in this scenario

Sort of like you made clear upfront that sex is only for a few years and then you and only you can decide you don't want to anymore and your husband is a "victim., and childish, and immature" for having a basic human need you knew about before you married him.

Unless I have a crystal ball that told me I was gonna be in a catastrophic accident they made it impossible for me to have sex would be very difficult for me to tell my husband that upon marriage or during dating.

If I was in a catastrophic accident, and my husband left me because he couldn’t have sex I would forever never have respect for him.

Sex is not a basic human need it’s a want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

It's not a need, it's a want and desire. Unlike with basic needs like food and water, plenty of people live full, long lives without sex. You will not die if you dont get laid every few days like your pee-pee wants.

It’s a need for any normal, healthy, marriage to survive.

Otherwise, you are just roommates; nothing more.

What about catholic nuns?

They all have a normal, healthy, marriage; a marriage to Jesus. They don’t have sex. This proves sex is not a need at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

Wow, some of you treat your spouses really horribly and then laugh at them when they protest. “Victim nonsense?”You’re just terrible.

This.

But it’s literally not a need and yes if you say it’s a need you are moaning about victim nonsense.

If it’s a want, that is a dealbreaker for you then make that clear upfront when you get married. If you are in a catastrophic accident and you can’t have sex with me, I will leave you.

Let the woman decide if she wants to marry you.

But there are plenty of men who would not leave in this scenario

Sort of like you made clear upfront that sex is only for a few years and then you and only you can decide you don't want to anymore and your husband is a "victim., and childish, and immature" for having a basic human need you knew about before you married him.

Unless I have a crystal ball that told me I was gonna be in a catastrophic accident they made it impossible for me to have sex would be very difficult for me to tell my husband that upon marriage or during dating.

If I was in a catastrophic accident, and my husband left me because he couldn’t have sex I would forever never have respect for him.

Sex is not a basic human need it’s a want.

Were you in fact in a catastrophic accident?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my wife woke up tomorrow and said no more sex, I would leave or just start dating.

What if she physically couldn’t?

It blows my mind that a man can love and admire everything about a woman - her looks, her mind, her job, her thoughts, her voice - but if she can’t have sex, it’s over.

How many women would stay if guy has ED? Have you read the posts? A requirement for sex in a relationship is not uniquely male.

Men are babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

Exactly. Money is arguably much more necessary for life in our society, so I guess women should go around whining about how they "need" more money from their partner and their mean, evil husband is withholding cash. It's absolutely ridiculous and immature, the way men get so rigidly fixated on having some dream sex life from a prepubescent fantasy

You are not well.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

It's not a need, it's a want and desire. Unlike with basic needs like food and water, plenty of people live full, long lives without sex. You will not die if you dont get laid every few days like your pee-pee wants.

It’s a need for any normal, healthy, marriage to survive.

Otherwise, you are just roommates; nothing more.

What about catholic nuns?

They all have a normal, healthy, marriage; a marriage to Jesus. They don’t have sex. This proves sex is not a need at all.

You can't be real!!!!!! Nuns don't marry as a way to show sacrifice. They also don't have a husband they made a vow to!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

I think these discussions here tend to founder on arguments over the meaning of the term “need,” which ultimately aren’t very productive and often seem to involve bad faith from some on both sides. Let’s use a more neutral terminology. For most men, there is a level of sexual activity that is, let’s say, “essential to happiness.” This of course varies quite a lot for different people. The real issue is what is to be done when a relationship evolves in certain ways that make it impossible for one of the parties to be happy in it. I also think there is a little bit of gaslighting going on among some who would rather obscure the fundamental divide. Many women here seem to think that sex is a discretionary, dispensable aspect of marriage, while many men think that it’s a fundamental aspect of marriage that cannot be replaced by any level of other positive qualities in a marriage. Neither view is wrong, IMO, both are defensible. The question is what to do when spouses are at impasse on that issue, and it’s not an easy one.

Well, I think people just need to stop using the word need when they talk about sex.

Because it’s not a need.

I think it’s fine for a man to say that it’s want that they have and it’s a dealbreaker if there’s no sex in the marriage and that they will leave.

Also, I think it is valid for a woman to say if you don’t make a certain amount of money and keep me in a home that I will be happy in and a school for my kids that will make me happy. I will leave you for another man.

That’s not a need that’s a want both are the same. Better are quite selfish, but they are the same.

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

https://www.cnn.com/world/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-explained-wellness-cec/index.html

Look who’s the intellectually lacking moron. Maslow doesn’t equate intimacy with sex.

The Maslow hierarchy of needs specifically says intimacy, and sex are not the same thing.

For **** sake, you’re an idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

Wow, some of you treat your spouses really horribly and then laugh at them when they protest. “Victim nonsense?”You’re just terrible.

This.

But it’s literally not a need and yes if you say it’s a need you are moaning about victim nonsense.

If it’s a want, that is a dealbreaker for you then make that clear upfront when you get married. If you are in a catastrophic accident and you can’t have sex with me, I will leave you.

Let the woman decide if she wants to marry you.

But there are plenty of men who would not leave in this scenario

Sort of like you made clear upfront that sex is only for a few years and then you and only you can decide you don't want to anymore and your husband is a "victim., and childish, and immature" for having a basic human need you knew about before you married him.

Unless I have a crystal ball that told me I was gonna be in a catastrophic accident they made it impossible for me to have sex would be very difficult for me to tell my husband that upon marriage or during dating.

If I was in a catastrophic accident, and my husband left me because he couldn’t have sex I would forever never have respect for him.

Sex is not a basic human need it’s a want.

Were you in fact in a catastrophic accident?

Hey **** read the beginning of this thread. This whole thread is about a woman who is in a catastrophic accident and could not have sex.

The question is if your wife was in a catastrophic accident and could not have sex, would you leave her?

That is the whole point of this **** thread you moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

I think these discussions here tend to founder on arguments over the meaning of the term “need,” which ultimately aren’t very productive and often seem to involve bad faith from some on both sides. Let’s use a more neutral terminology. For most men, there is a level of sexual activity that is, let’s say, “essential to happiness.” This of course varies quite a lot for different people. The real issue is what is to be done when a relationship evolves in certain ways that make it impossible for one of the parties to be happy in it. I also think there is a little bit of gaslighting going on among some who would rather obscure the fundamental divide. Many women here seem to think that sex is a discretionary, dispensable aspect of marriage, while many men think that it’s a fundamental aspect of marriage that cannot be replaced by any level of other positive qualities in a marriage. Neither view is wrong, IMO, both are defensible. The question is what to do when spouses are at impasse on that issue, and it’s not an easy one.

Well, I think people just need to stop using the word need when they talk about sex.

Because it’s not a need.

I think it’s fine for a man to say that it’s want that they have and it’s a dealbreaker if there’s no sex in the marriage and that they will leave.

Also, I think it is valid for a woman to say if you don’t make a certain amount of money and keep me in a home that I will be happy in and a school for my kids that will make me happy. I will leave you for another man.

That’s not a need that’s a want both are the same. Better are quite selfish, but they are the same.

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

https://www.cnn.com/world/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-explained-wellness-cec/index.html

Look who’s the intellectually lacking moron. Maslow doesn’t equate intimacy with sex.

The Maslow hierarchy of needs specifically says intimacy, and sex are not the same thing.

For **** sake, you’re an idiot

I think you need to read that a couple of more times. You keep insisting that needs are only those related to basic survival (food, water, etc) but at least now you admit that intimacy is a need. I never said sex was a matter of life and death. you did that. But sex and intimacy are a need many people have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

Wow, some of you treat your spouses really horribly and then laugh at them when they protest. “Victim nonsense?”You’re just terrible.

This.

But it’s literally not a need and yes if you say it’s a need you are moaning about victim nonsense.

If it’s a want, that is a dealbreaker for you then make that clear upfront when you get married. If you are in a catastrophic accident and you can’t have sex with me, I will leave you.

Let the woman decide if she wants to marry you.

But there are plenty of men who would not leave in this scenario

Sort of like you made clear upfront that sex is only for a few years and then you and only you can decide you don't want to anymore and your husband is a "victim., and childish, and immature" for having a basic human need you knew about before you married him.

Unless I have a crystal ball that told me I was gonna be in a catastrophic accident they made it impossible for me to have sex would be very difficult for me to tell my husband that upon marriage or during dating.

If I was in a catastrophic accident, and my husband left me because he couldn’t have sex I would forever never have respect for him.

Sex is not a basic human need it’s a want.

Were you in fact in a catastrophic accident?

Hey **** read the beginning of this thread. This whole thread is about a woman who is in a catastrophic accident and could not have sex.

The question is if your wife was in a catastrophic accident and could not have sex, would you leave her?

That is the whole point of this **** thread you moron.

Hey, idiot. If you can't follow along please don't respond. You started belittling a man who said many women simply decide to not have sex for no apparent health reason. I know comprehension and nuance are not your strong suit, but you could at least try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

That's the ranking order for you. Many other people rank it a lot higher which is absolutely not wrong. The key is to have a partner who ranks it the same way.

I think most mature people rank health, their kids, and finances up there lol. Why some marriages don't end in divorce and others cut and run having multiple marriages.

How can any marriage survive without the two people who are married to each other feeling loved and fulfilled? If you don't prioritize each other, everything else is replaceable. Not talking about kids of course which would be another reason to prioritize your marriage.

No one said you can't be loved or fulfilled. Sex will change down the road in every marriage. I just stated what takes priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my wife woke up tomorrow and said no more sex, I would leave or just start dating.

What if she physically couldn’t?

It blows my mind that a man can love and admire everything about a woman - her looks, her mind, her job, her thoughts, her voice - but if she can’t have sex, it’s over.

I am genuinely confused by this issue. Women so often in this forum include a woman’s career as something men admire or care about women. I’ve just never seen a man admire or be attracted to a woman because of her career. Maybe it is a necessary condition to dating/marriage. And yes, some careers are no go, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a male friend say “oh, she’s a [insert job] and I’m attracted to that.”

I’m not talking about fetishizing certain careers or finding careers to be logistically compatible.

Are there lots of men that actually find a career/job attractive/admirable in and of itself?

You’ve never met power couple. You’ve never heard of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.?

Yes, I’ve met power couples. It is awful when teenagers have to use mom and dad’s secretaries to set up internal family meetings (true story).

I’ve heard of Amy Coney Barrett. Is that like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I guess if you are a SCOTUS justice your male partner may admire that. Big law partner or random GS whatever at EPA, I just don’t see it and have never seen it in my life. Not saying it doesn’t exist, but it just seems like very odd framing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

I think these discussions here tend to founder on arguments over the meaning of the term “need,” which ultimately aren’t very productive and often seem to involve bad faith from some on both sides. Let’s use a more neutral terminology. For most men, there is a level of sexual activity that is, let’s say, “essential to happiness.” This of course varies quite a lot for different people. The real issue is what is to be done when a relationship evolves in certain ways that make it impossible for one of the parties to be happy in it. I also think there is a little bit of gaslighting going on among some who would rather obscure the fundamental divide. Many women here seem to think that sex is a discretionary, dispensable aspect of marriage, while many men think that it’s a fundamental aspect of marriage that cannot be replaced by any level of other positive qualities in a marriage. Neither view is wrong, IMO, both are defensible. The question is what to do when spouses are at impasse on that issue, and it’s not an easy one.

Well, I think people just need to stop using the word need when they talk about sex.

Because it’s not a need.

I think it’s fine for a man to say that it’s want that they have and it’s a dealbreaker if there’s no sex in the marriage and that they will leave.

Also, I think it is valid for a woman to say if you don’t make a certain amount of money and keep me in a home that I will be happy in and a school for my kids that will make me happy. I will leave you for another man.

That’s not a need that’s a want both are the same. Better are quite selfish, but they are the same.

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

https://www.cnn.com/world/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-explained-wellness-cec/index.html

So you just proved her point, lol. Sex is nowhere near the bottom of the pyramid, which confers life threatening "needs" in the sense that we popularly use the term "need". Most people would never, ever list making art or music as a NEED or necessity, or that someone is in crisis and being deeply negatively affected because theyre, say, unable to play the violin. Same goes for the other things at the top of the pyramid, including sex. Not a need in any real sense of the term, not in terms of the popular conception of need. Unless you drop everything and panic because your poetic wife is unable to spend the afternoon writing, then you need to check yourself as to why you feel everyone should cater to your sexual cravings/wants. It makes you look petulant and incredibly selfish/immature.

[Anonymous]

Np. Sex is a need. No its not as needed as food and water, but it is a need nonetheless. Just like companionship and social interaction. Nobody dies without companionship and social interaction, but its not feasible to live without SOME level of social interaction.

No woman dies if the husband is not doing his share of financial or at home responsibilities. Since she wont die if the husband is a couch potato, its a ‘want’ that husband should pull his weight?