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.
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.
Clearly you didn't read it, or if you did read it, you most definitely did not understand the pyramid. You are applying your misguided interpretation of what a need is. Please read it again for a better understanding.
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.
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.
Clearly you didn't read it, or if you did read it, you most definitely did not understand the pyramid. You are applying your misguided interpretation of what a need is. Please read it again for a better understanding.
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.
Go join the 3M other thread of men bemoaning the lack of sex from their otherwise healthy wife. This one is not about that.
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.
Go join the 3M other thread of men bemoaning the lack of sex from their otherwise healthy wife. This one is not about that.
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.
I know many power couples and nobody has their secretary talk to their kids. Stop using your 1980's version of life as what happens today.
See Amy was specifically chosen by her H and his underlings and her career to advance their agenda. Thanks for the example.
I actually think there are many men making under $150K who really want an equal partner to share the load and many would never marry a SAHM wanna be because the burden would be too much. maybe your problem is you don't know men who make $150K and less or even $80K and less.
Anonymous wrote: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?
NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.
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.
Go join the 3M other thread of men bemoaning the lack of sex from their otherwise healthy wife. This one is not about that.
The one I was responding to most definitely was.
Not every thread is about you.
Go create your own thread about your victim syndrome over lack of sex and how you may die if the need is not met.
Anonymous wrote: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?
NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.
Just because you're too dumb to understand that it is a need does not negate the fact that it is.
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.
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.
Clearly you didn't read it, or if you did read it, you most definitely did not understand the pyramid. You are applying your misguided interpretation of what a need is. Please read it again for a better understanding.
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.
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.
Clearly you didn't read it, or if you did read it, you most definitely did not understand the pyramid. You are applying your misguided interpretation of what a need is. Please read it again for a better understanding.
Also stop sockpuppeting. We know it's you.
He's such an idiot doesn't even understand 101 of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Anonymous wrote: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?
NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.
Just because you're too dumb to understand that it is a need does not negate the fact that it is.
Except the fact that it's not. And your disingenuousness on this issue does you no favors.
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.
Go join the 3M other thread of men bemoaning the lack of sex from their otherwise healthy wife. This one is not about that.
The one I was responding to most definitely was.
Not every thread is about you.
Go create your own thread about your victim syndrome over lack of sex and how you may die if the need is not met.
No, I'll keep doing what I am doing. YOU can feel free to stop responding to me though.
Anonymous wrote: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?
NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.
Just because you're too dumb to understand that it is a need does not negate the fact that it is.
Except the fact that it's not. And your disingenuousness on this issue does you no favors.
I'd say a lot depends on your age. As we age, the importance of sex for me personally is not so important. There are many other things in life I want to devote time and energy to and with sex, it's kind of BTDT. I'm not doing a lot of other stuff that was so important to me in my 20s either. Look, Al Pacino is a new dad at 84 and I'm honestly wondering how he's doing it (mentally more than physically).
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.
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.
Clearly you didn't read it, or if you did read it, you most definitely did not understand the pyramid. You are applying your misguided interpretation of what a need is. Please read it again for a better understanding.
Also stop sockpuppeting. We know it's you.
He's such an idiot doesn't even understand 101 of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Yeah he thinks Maslows hierarchy of needs is literally a list of needs that are fundamental and required, like painting is also a need as is meditation and self actualization. I dont think the guy ever came across Maslow before until he did a mad dash google search trying to justify his need to goon
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}