At a breaking point in nearly sexless marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open marriage. Easy solution.

Do you know anyone who has had an open marriage that lasted longer than 18 months (other than gay men)? There was a thread about this a few weeks back. Open marriages for heterosexual couples are just the first step towards divorce. Save yourself the time and money and just divorce if sex is that important to you.

What do you want then? Permission to torture your spouse with not sex and not let them release a primal urge in any way? That's selfish and abuse. Open it up then if you don't want sex. People are so prude these days.

They can't masturbate? That's a way to release a primal urge.

If it's something more than a primal urge and your wife can't do it for you, and you can't hang onto it, you should get divorced.

On what planet is masturbation remotely equivalent to sex with another person?

You said it's just about letting someone "release a primal urge".

NP. If it’s so trivial to you, what is the problem with your spouse having sex with another person?

A primal urge is trivial. If a husband is seeking another woman he should divorce his wife and go get that other woman he wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open marriage. Easy solution.

Do you know anyone who has had an open marriage that lasted longer than 18 months (other than gay men)? There was a thread about this a few weeks back. Open marriages for heterosexual couples are just the first step towards divorce. Save yourself the time and money and just divorce if sex is that important to you.

Yeah that's pretty much my own personal experience...

If OP's spouse has no drive, it might work. But it's never 'easy'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open marriage. Easy solution.

Do you know anyone who has had an open marriage that lasted longer than 18 months (other than gay men)? There was a thread about this a few weeks back. Open marriages for heterosexual couples are just the first step towards divorce. Save yourself the time and money and just divorce if sex is that important to you.

Yeah that's pretty much my own personal experience...

If OP's spouse has no drive, it might work. But it's never 'easy'

They might not have drive, but they don't want their spouse emotionally involved with someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open marriage. Easy solution.

Do you know anyone who has had an open marriage that lasted longer than 18 months (other than gay men)? There was a thread about this a few weeks back. Open marriages for heterosexual couples are just the first step towards divorce. Save yourself the time and money and just divorce if sex is that important to you.

What do you want then? Permission to torture your spouse with not sex and not let them release a primal urge in any way? That's selfish and abuse. Open it up then if you don't want sex. People are so prude these days.

They can't masturbate? That's a way to release a primal urge.

If it's something more than a primal urge and your wife can't do it for you, and you can't hang onto it, you should get divorced.

On what planet is masturbation remotely equivalent to sex with another person?

You said it's just about letting someone "release a primal urge".

NP. If it’s so trivial to you, what is the problem with your spouse having sex with another person?

A primal urge is trivial. If a husband is seeking another woman he should divorce his wife and go get that other woman he wants.

But he’s only seeking the other woman to fulfill the primal urge. Why is this a problem for you?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should just let their man go get release through a prostitute. It's not that big of a deal.

Men don’t want prostitutes or “release.” They want connection and desire.

This post sounds like it was written by a woman in any case.

Most of the ones around here complaining about sexless marriages seem completely fine with the concept of having sex with their wives, whether or not their wives are turned on or into it. The decent ones say they want consent, but none seem interested in whether their wives enjoy it.

The tip is when they start talking about their wives making "unilateral" decisions to not have sex wiht their husbands as if the husband has any say in whether his wife will have sex with him.

You sound like a complete nut case. Marriage is a partnership, off course husband will have a say when THEY will have sex. Same goes for wife. Now if the husband or wife are a-hole or if they have gotten too fat, then it is understandable for their spouse not to have any desire.

Husbands don't get to decide whether their wife will have sex. They need to get consent.

Marriage is a partnership which means both partners have a say when they have sex. Asking for permission makes it a master/slave relationship not a partnership

Having sex with someone without their permission makes it rape.

This seems like a completely irrelevant point. How exactly is rape connected to this discussion?

read the thread back—the angry guy said the both partners should get decide if the wife wants to have sex and that by doing it any other way creates a master/slave relationship. consent is key to any sexual encounter. not a debatable thing.

I said BOTH partners decide when THEY have sex in a PARTNERSHIP. Its a MUTUAL decision. Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse. However if their spouse is an a-hole, abusive or have become very fat then it’s completely not to have any desire.

OMG i can't stop laughing

Laughing is the easy way out if you don’t have an answer

no, i just love the idea that NOT having sex with someone because they're gross is abusive. sorry, i'll try to take you seriously.

You are injecting your own thoughts into other people’s posts. I clearly said if a person is abusive, a-hole or very fat then it’s completely understandable for their spouse to not have any desire for them

no, you said Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse.

It's so funny.

Off course it is abuse. How else is that person supposed to fulfill their desires? Jerking off or using toys is vastly different from sex with another person. And no marriage is not just about sex, but it is a very important element of a marriage unless both partners are low libido

Abuse isn’t accurate, but withholding sex is absolutely equivalent to cheating.

Except it's done openly.

Also, to consider equivalent to cheating, you'd have to believe that sex is an obligation of marriage. Fidelity is an obligation of marriage. Sex is not. It's a thing we enjoy and desire.

So you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your spouse, but expect fidelity? Boy you are nuttier than I thought

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys, the OP is a woman. But it’s pretty funny watching the frigid queens with their dried up quims wringing their hands and muttering misandrist slurs.

The OP doesn't say what they are. By the language it's clearly a man though.

On the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open marriage. Easy solution.

Do you know anyone who has had an open marriage that lasted longer than 18 months (other than gay men)? There was a thread about this a few weeks back. Open marriages for heterosexual couples are just the first step towards divorce. Save yourself the time and money and just divorce if sex is that important to you.

Yeah that's pretty much my own personal experience...

If OP's spouse has no drive, it might work. But it's never 'easy'

They might not have drive, but they don't want their spouse emotionally involved with someone else.

Most likely not. So yeah, they'd be part of the 99% whose open marriages do not work out.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should just let their man go get release through a prostitute. It's not that big of a deal.

Men don’t want prostitutes or “release.” They want connection and desire.

This post sounds like it was written by a woman in any case.

Most of the ones around here complaining about sexless marriages seem completely fine with the concept of having sex with their wives, whether or not their wives are turned on or into it. The decent ones say they want consent, but none seem interested in whether their wives enjoy it.

The tip is when they start talking about their wives making "unilateral" decisions to not have sex wiht their husbands as if the husband has any say in whether his wife will have sex with him.

You sound like a complete nut case. Marriage is a partnership, off course husband will have a say when THEY will have sex. Same goes for wife. Now if the husband or wife are a-hole or if they have gotten too fat, then it is understandable for their spouse not to have any desire.

Husbands don't get to decide whether their wife will have sex. They need to get consent.

Marriage is a partnership which means both partners have a say when they have sex. Asking for permission makes it a master/slave relationship not a partnership

Having sex with someone without their permission makes it rape.

This seems like a completely irrelevant point. How exactly is rape connected to this discussion?

read the thread back—the angry guy said the both partners should get decide if the wife wants to have sex and that by doing it any other way creates a master/slave relationship. consent is key to any sexual encounter. not a debatable thing.

I said BOTH partners decide when THEY have sex in a PARTNERSHIP. Its a MUTUAL decision. Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse. However if their spouse is an a-hole, abusive or have become very fat then it’s completely not to have any desire.

OMG i can't stop laughing

Laughing is the easy way out if you don’t have an answer

no, i just love the idea that NOT having sex with someone because they're gross is abusive. sorry, i'll try to take you seriously.

You are injecting your own thoughts into other people’s posts. I clearly said if a person is abusive, a-hole or very fat then it’s completely understandable for their spouse to not have any desire for them

no, you said Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse.

It's so funny.

Off course it is abuse. How else is that person supposed to fulfill their desires? Jerking off or using toys is vastly different from sex with another person. And no marriage is not just about sex, but it is a very important element of a marriage unless both partners are low libido

Abuse isn’t accurate, but withholding sex is absolutely equivalent to cheating.

Except it's done openly.

Also, to consider equivalent to cheating, you'd have to believe that sex is an obligation of marriage. Fidelity is an obligation of marriage. Sex is not. It's a thing we enjoy and desire.

So you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your spouse, but expect fidelity? Boy you are nuttier than I thought

Fidelity is non-negotiable in a marriage. Don't want to do it, get divorced. Easy, what's everyone so upset about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open marriage. Easy solution.

Do you know anyone who has had an open marriage that lasted longer than 18 months (other than gay men)? There was a thread about this a few weeks back. Open marriages for heterosexual couples are just the first step towards divorce. Save yourself the time and money and just divorce if sex is that important to you.

What do you want then? Permission to torture your spouse with not sex and not let them release a primal urge in any way? That's selfish and abuse. Open it up then if you don't want sex. People are so prude these days.

They can't masturbate? That's a way to release a primal urge.

If it's something more than a primal urge and your wife can't do it for you, and you can't hang onto it, you should get divorced.

On what planet is masturbation remotely equivalent to sex with another person?

Equivalent in pp’s unhinged mind.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should just let their man go get release through a prostitute. It's not that big of a deal.

Men don’t want prostitutes or “release.” They want connection and desire.

This post sounds like it was written by a woman in any case.

Most of the ones around here complaining about sexless marriages seem completely fine with the concept of having sex with their wives, whether or not their wives are turned on or into it. The decent ones say they want consent, but none seem interested in whether their wives enjoy it.

The tip is when they start talking about their wives making "unilateral" decisions to not have sex wiht their husbands as if the husband has any say in whether his wife will have sex with him.

You sound like a complete nut case. Marriage is a partnership, off course husband will have a say when THEY will have sex. Same goes for wife. Now if the husband or wife are a-hole or if they have gotten too fat, then it is understandable for their spouse not to have any desire.

Husbands don't get to decide whether their wife will have sex. They need to get consent.

Marriage is a partnership which means both partners have a say when they have sex. Asking for permission makes it a master/slave relationship not a partnership

Having sex with someone without their permission makes it rape.

This seems like a completely irrelevant point. How exactly is rape connected to this discussion?

read the thread back—the angry guy said the both partners should get decide if the wife wants to have sex and that by doing it any other way creates a master/slave relationship. consent is key to any sexual encounter. not a debatable thing.

I said BOTH partners decide when THEY have sex in a PARTNERSHIP. Its a MUTUAL decision. Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse. However if their spouse is an a-hole, abusive or have become very fat then it’s completely not to have any desire.

OMG i can't stop laughing

Laughing is the easy way out if you don’t have an answer

no, i just love the idea that NOT having sex with someone because they're gross is abusive. sorry, i'll try to take you seriously.

You are injecting your own thoughts into other people’s posts. I clearly said if a person is abusive, a-hole or very fat then it’s completely understandable for their spouse to not have any desire for them

no, you said Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse.

It's so funny.

Off course it is abuse. How else is that person supposed to fulfill their desires? Jerking off or using toys is vastly different from sex with another person. And no marriage is not just about sex, but it is a very important element of a marriage unless both partners are low libido

Abuse isn’t accurate, but withholding sex is absolutely equivalent to cheating.

Except it's done openly.

Also, to consider equivalent to cheating, you'd have to believe that sex is an obligation of marriage. Fidelity is an obligation of marriage. Sex is not. It's a thing we enjoy and desire.

So you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your spouse, but expect fidelity? Boy you are nuttier than I thought

Fidelity is non-negotiable in a marriage. Don't want to do it, get divorced. Easy, what's everyone so upset about?

Why is fidelity non-negotiable but sexual satisfaction negotiable? There are plenty of cultures/religion where sex is non-negotiable- you refuse sex completely, the other party gets a divorce.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should just let their man go get release through a prostitute. It's not that big of a deal.

Men don’t want prostitutes or “release.” They want connection and desire.

This post sounds like it was written by a woman in any case.

Most of the ones around here complaining about sexless marriages seem completely fine with the concept of having sex with their wives, whether or not their wives are turned on or into it. The decent ones say they want consent, but none seem interested in whether their wives enjoy it.

The tip is when they start talking about their wives making "unilateral" decisions to not have sex wiht their husbands as if the husband has any say in whether his wife will have sex with him.

You sound like a complete nut case. Marriage is a partnership, off course husband will have a say when THEY will have sex. Same goes for wife. Now if the husband or wife are a-hole or if they have gotten too fat, then it is understandable for their spouse not to have any desire.

Husbands don't get to decide whether their wife will have sex. They need to get consent.

Marriage is a partnership which means both partners have a say when they have sex. Asking for permission makes it a master/slave relationship not a partnership

Having sex with someone without their permission makes it rape.

This seems like a completely irrelevant point. How exactly is rape connected to this discussion?

read the thread back—the angry guy said the both partners should get decide if the wife wants to have sex and that by doing it any other way creates a master/slave relationship. consent is key to any sexual encounter. not a debatable thing.

I said BOTH partners decide when THEY have sex in a PARTNERSHIP. Its a MUTUAL decision. Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse. However if their spouse is an a-hole, abusive or have become very fat then it’s completely not to have any desire.

OMG i can't stop laughing

Laughing is the easy way out if you don’t have an answer

no, i just love the idea that NOT having sex with someone because they're gross is abusive. sorry, i'll try to take you seriously.

You are injecting your own thoughts into other people’s posts. I clearly said if a person is abusive, a-hole or very fat then it’s completely understandable for their spouse to not have any desire for them

no, you said Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse.

It's so funny.

Off course it is abuse. How else is that person supposed to fulfill their desires? Jerking off or using toys is vastly different from sex with another person. And no marriage is not just about sex, but it is a very important element of a marriage unless both partners are low libido

Abuse isn’t accurate, but withholding sex is absolutely equivalent to cheating.

Except it's done openly.

Also, to consider equivalent to cheating, you'd have to believe that sex is an obligation of marriage. Fidelity is an obligation of marriage. Sex is not. It's a thing we enjoy and desire.

So you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your spouse, but expect fidelity? Boy you are nuttier than I thought

Fidelity is non-negotiable in a marriage. Don't want to do it, get divorced. Easy, what's everyone so upset about?

Why is fidelity non-negotiable but sexual satisfaction negotiable? There are plenty of cultures/religion where sex is non-negotiable- you refuse sex completely, the other party gets a divorce.

Go live in those cultures if that's what you want. That's not this culture.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should just let their man go get release through a prostitute. It's not that big of a deal.

Men don’t want prostitutes or “release.” They want connection and desire.

This post sounds like it was written by a woman in any case.

Most of the ones around here complaining about sexless marriages seem completely fine with the concept of having sex with their wives, whether or not their wives are turned on or into it. The decent ones say they want consent, but none seem interested in whether their wives enjoy it.

The tip is when they start talking about their wives making "unilateral" decisions to not have sex wiht their husbands as if the husband has any say in whether his wife will have sex with him.

You sound like a complete nut case. Marriage is a partnership, off course husband will have a say when THEY will have sex. Same goes for wife. Now if the husband or wife are a-hole or if they have gotten too fat, then it is understandable for their spouse not to have any desire.

Husbands don't get to decide whether their wife will have sex. They need to get consent.

Marriage is a partnership which means both partners have a say when they have sex. Asking for permission makes it a master/slave relationship not a partnership

Having sex with someone without their permission makes it rape.

This seems like a completely irrelevant point. How exactly is rape connected to this discussion?

read the thread back—the angry guy said the both partners should get decide if the wife wants to have sex and that by doing it any other way creates a master/slave relationship. consent is key to any sexual encounter. not a debatable thing.

I said BOTH partners decide when THEY have sex in a PARTNERSHIP. Its a MUTUAL decision. Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse. However if their spouse is an a-hole, abusive or have become very fat then it’s completely not to have any desire.

OMG i can't stop laughing

Laughing is the easy way out if you don’t have an answer

no, i just love the idea that NOT having sex with someone because they're gross is abusive. sorry, i'll try to take you seriously.

You are injecting your own thoughts into other people’s posts. I clearly said if a person is abusive, a-hole or very fat then it’s completely understandable for their spouse to not have any desire for them

no, you said Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse.

It's so funny.

Off course it is abuse. How else is that person supposed to fulfill their desires? Jerking off or using toys is vastly different from sex with another person. And no marriage is not just about sex, but it is a very important element of a marriage unless both partners are low libido

Abuse isn’t accurate, but withholding sex is absolutely equivalent to cheating.

Except it's done openly.

Also, to consider equivalent to cheating, you'd have to believe that sex is an obligation of marriage. Fidelity is an obligation of marriage. Sex is not. It's a thing we enjoy and desire.

So you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your spouse, but expect fidelity? Boy you are nuttier than I thought

Fidelity is non-negotiable in a marriage. Don't want to do it, get divorced. Easy, what's everyone so upset about?

Why is fidelity non-negotiable but sexual satisfaction negotiable? There are plenty of cultures/religion where sex is non-negotiable- you refuse sex completely, the other party gets a divorce.

Go live in those cultures if that's what you want. That's not this culture.

LOL what?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should just let their man go get release through a prostitute. It's not that big of a deal.

Men don’t want prostitutes or “release.” They want connection and desire.

This post sounds like it was written by a woman in any case.

Most of the ones around here complaining about sexless marriages seem completely fine with the concept of having sex with their wives, whether or not their wives are turned on or into it. The decent ones say they want consent, but none seem interested in whether their wives enjoy it.

The tip is when they start talking about their wives making "unilateral" decisions to not have sex wiht their husbands as if the husband has any say in whether his wife will have sex with him.

You sound like a complete nut case. Marriage is a partnership, off course husband will have a say when THEY will have sex. Same goes for wife. Now if the husband or wife are a-hole or if they have gotten too fat, then it is understandable for their spouse not to have any desire.

Husbands don't get to decide whether their wife will have sex. They need to get consent.

Marriage is a partnership which means both partners have a say when they have sex. Asking for permission makes it a master/slave relationship not a partnership

Having sex with someone without their permission makes it rape.

This seems like a completely irrelevant point. How exactly is rape connected to this discussion?

read the thread back—the angry guy said the both partners should get decide if the wife wants to have sex and that by doing it any other way creates a master/slave relationship. consent is key to any sexual encounter. not a debatable thing.

I said BOTH partners decide when THEY have sex in a PARTNERSHIP. Its a MUTUAL decision. Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse. However if their spouse is an a-hole, abusive or have become very fat then it’s completely not to have any desire.

OMG i can't stop laughing

Laughing is the easy way out if you don’t have an answer

no, i just love the idea that NOT having sex with someone because they're gross is abusive. sorry, i'll try to take you seriously.

You are injecting your own thoughts into other people’s posts. I clearly said if a person is abusive, a-hole or very fat then it’s completely understandable for their spouse to not have any desire for them

no, you said Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse.

It's so funny.

Off course it is abuse. How else is that person supposed to fulfill their desires? Jerking off or using toys is vastly different from sex with another person. And no marriage is not just about sex, but it is a very important element of a marriage unless both partners are low libido

Abuse isn’t accurate, but withholding sex is absolutely equivalent to cheating.

Except it's done openly.

Also, to consider equivalent to cheating, you'd have to believe that sex is an obligation of marriage. Fidelity is an obligation of marriage. Sex is not. It's a thing we enjoy and desire.

So you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your spouse, but expect fidelity? Boy you are nuttier than I thought

Fidelity is non-negotiable in a marriage. Don't want to do it, get divorced. Easy, what's everyone so upset about?

Why is fidelity non-negotiable but sexual satisfaction negotiable? There are plenty of cultures/religion where sex is non-negotiable- you refuse sex completely, the other party gets a divorce.

Go live in those cultures if that's what you want. That's not this culture.

LOL I don’t think you know much about “this culture” or any other if you think marriages require fidelity but not sex. 😂🤣😂. What a clown 🤡

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should just let their man go get release through a prostitute. It's not that big of a deal.

Men don’t want prostitutes or “release.” They want connection and desire.

This post sounds like it was written by a woman in any case.

Most of the ones around here complaining about sexless marriages seem completely fine with the concept of having sex with their wives, whether or not their wives are turned on or into it. The decent ones say they want consent, but none seem interested in whether their wives enjoy it.

The tip is when they start talking about their wives making "unilateral" decisions to not have sex wiht their husbands as if the husband has any say in whether his wife will have sex with him.

You sound like a complete nut case. Marriage is a partnership, off course husband will have a say when THEY will have sex. Same goes for wife. Now if the husband or wife are a-hole or if they have gotten too fat, then it is understandable for their spouse not to have any desire.

Husbands don't get to decide whether their wife will have sex. They need to get consent.

Marriage is a partnership which means both partners have a say when they have sex. Asking for permission makes it a master/slave relationship not a partnership

Having sex with someone without their permission makes it rape.

This seems like a completely irrelevant point. How exactly is rape connected to this discussion?

read the thread back—the angry guy said the both partners should get decide if the wife wants to have sex and that by doing it any other way creates a master/slave relationship. consent is key to any sexual encounter. not a debatable thing.

I said BOTH partners decide when THEY have sex in a PARTNERSHIP. Its a MUTUAL decision. Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse. However if their spouse is an a-hole, abusive or have become very fat then it’s completely not to have any desire.

OMG i can't stop laughing

Laughing is the easy way out if you don’t have an answer

no, i just love the idea that NOT having sex with someone because they're gross is abusive. sorry, i'll try to take you seriously.

You are injecting your own thoughts into other people’s posts. I clearly said if a person is abusive, a-hole or very fat then it’s completely understandable for their spouse to not have any desire for them

no, you said Unilaterally withholding sex by one partner is abuse.

It's so funny.

Off course it is abuse. How else is that person supposed to fulfill their desires? Jerking off or using toys is vastly different from sex with another person. And no marriage is not just about sex, but it is a very important element of a marriage unless both partners are low libido

Abuse isn’t accurate, but withholding sex is absolutely equivalent to cheating.

Except it's done openly.

Also, to consider equivalent to cheating, you'd have to believe that sex is an obligation of marriage. Fidelity is an obligation of marriage. Sex is not. It's a thing we enjoy and desire.

So you unilaterally decide not to have sex with your spouse, but expect fidelity? Boy you are nuttier than I thought

Fidelity is non-negotiable in a marriage. Don't want to do it, get divorced. Easy, what's everyone so upset about?

Why is fidelity non-negotiable but sexual satisfaction negotiable? There are plenty of cultures/religion where sex is non-negotiable- you refuse sex completely, the other party gets a divorce.

Go live in those cultures if that's what you want. That's not this culture.

LOL I don’t think you know much about “this culture” or any other if you think marriages require fidelity but not sex. 😂🤣😂. What a clown 🤡

Out of curiosity, what were your wedding vows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open marriage. Easy solution.

Do you know anyone who has had an open marriage that lasted longer than 18 months (other than gay men)? There was a thread about this a few weeks back. Open marriages for heterosexual couples are just the first step towards divorce. Save yourself the time and money and just divorce if sex is that important to you.

Yeah that's pretty much my own personal experience...

If OP's spouse has no drive, it might work. But it's never 'easy'

They might not have drive, but they don't want their spouse emotionally involved with someone else.

I don't know why women can't comprehend this. Men can easily have sex with other people and never feel any emotions whatsoever. It is just about the romp.

So what's the big deal with an open marriage if you don't want sex? Let the other partner release. There's no emotion involved. No love. No cheating. You cannot tie someone down and torture them with no sex for life. What are you running, a convent?