Unpopular relationship opinions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, it is a want or desire. Nobody ever died from not having it. Don't accept "I have to get my needs met" as an excuse for anything, it just rationalizes bad behavior, lack of self control, and misunderstanding of actual biological needs.

Thank you for the perspective of a sex negative fourth wave feminist.

Not sure why this is getting so much blowback. If you washed up alone on a desert island, it’s the lack of food and/or water, not the lack of sex, that would eventually kill you. It’s just a fact.

I'm the PP who said it and I don't get it either, but I guess some people don't know the difference between want and need, fact and opinion. I love sex and have had lots of great sex in my life but I've never deluded myself into thinking it was a need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, it is a want or desire. Nobody ever died from not having it. Don't accept "I have to get my needs met" as an excuse for anything, it just rationalizes bad behavior, lack of self control, and misunderstanding of actual biological needs.

Thank you for the perspective of a sex negative fourth wave feminist.

Not sure why this is getting so much blowback. If you washed up alone on a desert island, it’s the lack of food and/or water, not the lack of sex, that would eventually kill you. It’s just a fact.

O.K. let's run with that--using your example of being washed up alone on a desert island.

In addition to not needing sex, (according to your definition of "need",) the castway wouldn't need:

1. A house with a roof over her head. You can just make a little shelter out of palm tree branches.
2. Running water, or plumbing. You can just look for natural sources of rain water and take a dump in a hole in the ground.
3. Grocery stores. You can just eat bugs, plants, and raw fish or seagulls.
4. Birthday cake for your 40th birthday.

Shall I go on?

Many people do not live in houses. I listed food and water as necessities. Birthday cake is nice but you can get along without it. Your entire argument is pretty bad and much of it dovetails with what I said.

Let us all know when you give your house away to charity and by the way how do you get mail delivered to the bridge you are going to be living under. Thanks for playing.

You mad cause you can’t dispute that sex is a want, not a need? Stay mad. 😎

Hey its a free country, you can be asexual if you want. But advocating asexuality as appropriate relationship advice is delusional. Your problem isn't your hatred of sex, it is that you think it is a feature not a bug. And boy do you sound buggy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, it is a want or desire. Nobody ever died from not having it. Don't accept "I have to get my needs met" as an excuse for anything, it just rationalizes bad behavior, lack of self control, and misunderstanding of actual biological needs.

Thank you for the perspective of a sex negative fourth wave feminist.

Not sure why this is getting so much blowback. If you washed up alone on a desert island, it’s the lack of food and/or water, not the lack of sex, that would eventually kill you. It’s just a fact.

O.K. let's run with that--using your example of being washed up alone on a desert island.

In addition to not needing sex, (according to your definition of "need",) the castway wouldn't need:

1. A house with a roof over her head. You can just make a little shelter out of palm tree branches.
2. Running water, or plumbing. You can just look for natural sources of rain water and take a dump in a hole in the ground.
3. Grocery stores. You can just eat bugs, plants, and raw fish or seagulls.
4. Birthday cake for your 40th birthday.

Shall I go on?

Many people do not live in houses. I listed food and water as necessities. Birthday cake is nice but you can get along without it. Your entire argument is pretty bad and much of it dovetails with what I said.

Let us all know when you give your house away to charity and by the way how do you get mail delivered to the bridge you are going to be living under. Thanks for playing.

You mad cause you can’t dispute that sex is a want, not a need? Stay mad. 😎

Hey its a free country, you can be asexual if you want. But advocating asexuality as appropriate relationship advice is delusional. Your problem isn't your hatred of sex, it is that you think it is a feature not a bug. And boy do you sound buggy.

Understanding that sex is a want and not a need is hardly the same as advocating asexuality. It has nothing to do with hatred of sex. It has to do with adults having self control rather than excusing their bad sexual decisions with "I have needs!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

[Anonymous]

The biggest failure of therapy culture is insisting that married couples need to “communicate more”. The truth is that married couples need to say way, way less things out loud. Most marriages would benefit tremendously from people shutting up 75% more than they currently do and keeping the remaining 25% positive and playful.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many men and women make too many excuses for being overweight, obese, and out of shape. Fat acceptance is a bizarre Orwellian concept that characterizes the dystopian nature of many womens attitudes towards their obligation to remain fit sexy and attractive for their partners.

Being fat lazy and out of shape makes you a terrible marital partner.

That society thinks 50 year old woman need to look like they did in their 20s. Women used to be able to age and grandmothers weren’t sexy. Now women are made to feel like failures if they don’t weigh the same at 50 as they did at 25. Life was so much better when it was socially acceptable to age and be matronly.

+1 We were watching The Godfather recently and it was striking how all of the older mothers were portly, enjoying pasta, and wearing dresses with graying hair. It is so sad that we now require women look hot (!) and sexually available into their 60s and beyond. Americans are oversexed.

Totally. Also, who is horny when they have grown kids and are menopausal? Having sex all the time is for young and fertile woman. I enjoy it still in my mid 40s, but I don't care about it like I did from about age 16-30. That is just biology... So tired of hearing about how we need to look hot and feel aroused all the time. Um--my body cannot make a baby so it doesn't tell me to have sex a lot. (I actually am pretty hot but these societal pressures are ridiculous and watching women get all these procedures that make them look like old women trying to look young is just plain sad).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:long-term monogamy and sexual desire are incompatible. I am not sure this is unpopular, but people certainly don't want to acknowledge that monogamy as we know it has dire, dire consequences.

Agree. It should be okay to not want sex after 20 years of a marriage.

If both parties are ok with no sex after 25 years what is the problem? Hugging, kisses, and snuggling are enough intimacy at that point, it shouldn't be frowned upon.

But what about the rest of us who aren't bed death lesbians?

Not sure if reading comprehension is your strong suit but I bolded the part of the PP's post that you seem to have missed.

If both parties are ok with no sex after 25 years what is the problem? Hugging, kisses, and snuggling are enough intimacy at that point, it shouldn't be frowned upon.

You don't know even a single heterosexual couple where "both parties are ok with no sex after 25 years". I mean, in real life. You fabricated a ridiculous hypothetical as an excuse for your own neurotic asexuality.

So again, reading comprehension. I am not the pp, as I said, I was simply pointing out where you misrepresented her point based on your personal biases. I have fabricated no hypotheticals, and I am not asexual (I have very regular and good sex with my husband actually!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

No one needs to split 50/50. There should be respect for all work in the family including work to bring in money and people should try to contribute when they can. But like Fairplay it doesn't make sense to overlap a lot of roles. Pick your roles, do them well, thank the other for the roles they have and help out when you need to support the other spouse in a bind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

No one needs to split 50/50. There should be respect for all work in the family including work to bring in money and people should try to contribute when they can. But like Fairplay it doesn't make sense to overlap a lot of roles. Pick your roles, do them well, thank the other for the roles they have and help out when you need to support the other spouse in a bind.

You’re right. No one needs to. And IMO, no one needs to marry someone who won’t do 50%+ unless that’s saving them $500,000 in a surrogate and egg donor. Women need to be much, much pickier about the men they marry and have much higher expectations.

I’m married to someone who makes about 30% more than me and does half of the household tasks (we outsource a lot) every time a friend complains about their husband I find myself wondering why they settled for someone who brings so little to the table when they can have families without male contributions and do just fine.

Also once men stopped getting access to matrimony unless they were actually suited for it, there would be fewer incentives to behave like man children.

[Anonymous]

There's nothing wrong with sleeping in separate rooms/beds if it helps you get better sleep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marital sex is way better than sex I have as a single divorced person with dates. I don’t perform oral on anybody, men use condoms and I can’t finish with protection or proper oral prep on both sides. I always had a simultaneous O with my ex. Every single time we had sex during our 16 years long marriage.

Maybe someone already noted this earlier in this long thread, but: You posted this exact post in another thread, the one about lessons learned about relationships. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, just noting it. You sound frustrated with the sex you're having while dating around. Maybe focus on finding one partner and bulding up the trust and commitment so you can have the sex you really want instead of only-sort-of-OK sex. I know! Unpopular opinion, to recommend one partner....

My theory on this PP is that she still wants to be with her ex, so no one new is going to be satisfying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

No one needs to split 50/50. There should be respect for all work in the family including work to bring in money and people should try to contribute when they can. But like Fairplay it doesn't make sense to overlap a lot of roles. Pick your roles, do them well, thank the other for the roles they have and help out when you need to support the other spouse in a bind.

You’re right. No one needs to. And IMO, no one needs to marry someone who won’t do 50%+ unless that’s saving them $500,000 in a surrogate and egg donor. Women need to be much, much pickier about the men they marry and have much higher expectations.

I’m married to someone who makes about 30% more than me and does half of the household tasks (we outsource a lot) every time a friend complains about their husband I find myself wondering why they settled for someone who brings so little to the table when they can have families without male contributions and do just fine.

Also once men stopped getting access to matrimony unless they were actually suited for it, there would be fewer incentives to behave like man children.

I don’t consider matrimony to be something most men care about having access to. It seems way more important to women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

No one needs to split 50/50. There should be respect for all work in the family including work to bring in money and people should try to contribute when they can. But like Fairplay it doesn't make sense to overlap a lot of roles. Pick your roles, do them well, thank the other for the roles they have and help out when you need to support the other spouse in a bind.

Yeah. I hate cooking and doing dishes. DH hates it too.

We both have to do it

Picking specific roles work well when each person likes certain roles and they don't interlap too much. When there are roles everyone hates, we gotta split the 50/50.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, it is a want or desire. Nobody ever died from not having it. Don't accept "I have to get my needs met" as an excuse for anything, it just rationalizes bad behavior, lack of self control, and misunderstanding of actual biological needs.

Thank you for the perspective of a sex negative fourth wave feminist.

Not sure why this is getting so much blowback. If you washed up alone on a desert island, it’s the lack of food and/or water, not the lack of sex, that would eventually kill you. It’s just a fact.

O.K. let's run with that--using your example of being washed up alone on a desert island.

In addition to not needing sex, (according to your definition of "need",) the castway wouldn't need:

1. A house with a roof over her head. You can just make a little shelter out of palm tree branches.
2. Running water, or plumbing. You can just look for natural sources of rain water and take a dump in a hole in the ground.
3. Grocery stores. You can just eat bugs, plants, and raw fish or seagulls.
4. Birthday cake for your 40th birthday.

Shall I go on?

Many people do not live in houses. I listed food and water as necessities. Birthday cake is nice but you can get along without it. Your entire argument is pretty bad and much of it dovetails with what I said.

Let us all know when you give your house away to charity and by the way how do you get mail delivered to the bridge you are going to be living under. Thanks for playing.

You mad cause you can’t dispute that sex is a want, not a need? Stay mad. 😎

Hey its a free country, you can be asexual if you want. But advocating asexuality as appropriate relationship advice is delusional. Your problem isn't your hatred of sex, it is that you think it is a feature not a bug. And boy do you sound buggy.

Understanding that sex is a want and not a need is hardly the same as advocating asexuality. It has nothing to do with hatred of sex. It has to do with adults having self control rather than excusing their bad sexual decisions with "I have needs!"

O.K. you win. There is no one who either needs or wants to have sex with you.