How many men would stay w/o sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes, reposting Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is an entirely different concept your porn addled brain has made you unable to conceptualize, only makes you look deeply stupid, even more so than you did before (which is actually quite the feat)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s not a need.

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

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

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

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

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

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

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.

The pyramid suggests you can't get to a level higher unless you fulfill the one at the bottom or below it. So perhaps your not getting sex because you have not fulfilled your wifes phycological needs and safety needs. do better you don't deserve the 3rd tier yet. It's not something you get for nothing. Work on tier 1 and2 and come back when you fixed those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes, reposting Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is an entirely different concept your porn addled brain has made you unable to conceptualize, only makes you look deeply stupid, even more so than you did before (which is actually quite the feat)

^^^ this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Poor bunny rabbit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s not a need.

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

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

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

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

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

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

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

1) I'm a woman who gets plenty of action
2) perhaps you should learn how to use Google too instead of digging your heels in and insisting you're right when you've been presented with plenty of evidence that proves what a moron you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s not a need.

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

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

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

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

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

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

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.

The pyramid suggests you can't get to a level higher unless you fulfill the one at the bottom or below it. So perhaps your not getting sex because you have not fulfilled your wifes phycological needs and safety needs. do better you don't deserve the 3rd tier yet. It's not something you get for nothing. Work on tier 1 and2 and come back when you fixed those.

It's really sad how dumb you are. I probably shouldn't be so hard on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

There are lots of women who don't want to be #1 it's usually daddy issues, or from trauma and the ability to be an arms length is comforting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes, reposting Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is an entirely different concept your porn addled brain has made you unable to conceptualize, only makes you look deeply stupid, even more so than you did before (which is actually quite the feat)

Entirely different from what? Feel free to post something that will convince us otherwise. Personal insults alone don't count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s not a need.

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

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

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

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

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

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

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.

The pyramid suggests you can't get to a level higher unless you fulfill the one at the bottom or below it. So perhaps your not getting sex because you have not fulfilled your wifes phycological needs and safety needs. do better you don't deserve the 3rd tier yet. It's not something you get for nothing. Work on tier 1 and2 and come back when you fixed those.

It's really sad how dumb you are. I probably shouldn't be so hard on you.

you think maslow meant sex when you said intimacy which just shows you have serious and deep issues.

I'm sorry for whatever your mom did to you, or maybe it was your dad, or your uncle, or a priest... either way ... you are in my prayers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s not a need.

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

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

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

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

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

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

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.

The pyramid suggests you can't get to a level higher unless you fulfill the one at the bottom or below it. So perhaps your not getting sex because you have not fulfilled your wifes phycological needs and safety needs. do better you don't deserve the 3rd tier yet. It's not something you get for nothing. Work on tier 1 and2 and come back when you fixed those.

It's really sad how dumb you are. I probably shouldn't be so hard on you.

you think maslow meant sex when you said intimacy which just shows you have serious and deep issues.

I'm sorry for whatever your mom did to you, or maybe it was your dad, or your uncle, or a priest... either way ... you are in my prayers.

awwwww you think you're so clever by using serious sexual assault on a minor as a "got ya." Just further showed how morally lacking you are. Not surprising really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s not a need.

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

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

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

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

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

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

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.

The pyramid suggests you can't get to a level higher unless you fulfill the one at the bottom or below it. So perhaps your not getting sex because you have not fulfilled your wifes phycological needs and safety needs. do better you don't deserve the 3rd tier yet. It's not something you get for nothing. Work on tier 1 and2 and come back when you fixed those.

It's really sad how dumb you are. I probably shouldn't be so hard on you.

you think maslow meant sex when you said intimacy which just shows you have serious and deep issues.

I'm sorry for whatever your mom did to you, or maybe it was your dad, or your uncle, or a priest... either way ... you are in my prayers.

awwwww you think you're so clever by using serious sexual assault on a minor as a "got ya." Just further showed how morally lacking you are. Not surprising really.

Well thinking sex and intimacy is the same points to something going wrong in your childhood, It could have been sexual, or emotional or physical. But it's not how normally formed humans understand intimacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What if she physically couldn’t?

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

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

If he had great oral skills I would not care. Plus we can use toys.

[Anonymous]

I see zero issue with it. I am a woman.

People are allowed to have all sorts of deal breakers provided they are honest about them and there is no cheating.

Never having sex would be a deal breaker for me. So would being with someone who wanted no children or ten children or planned to move to a sheep farm in New Zealand or spend five hours a day every day at prayer or or or or. No matter how much I loved them and how perfect they were in every other way.

I don’t think sex is a unique necessity. But to me it’s an important part of a relationship and if something important enough is missing in that relationship, then relationship won’t work. Especially in this case when they don’t even have children together - why stay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s not a need.

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

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

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

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

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

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

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.

The pyramid suggests you can't get to a level higher unless you fulfill the one at the bottom or below it. So perhaps your not getting sex because you have not fulfilled your wifes phycological needs and safety needs. do better you don't deserve the 3rd tier yet. It's not something you get for nothing. Work on tier 1 and2 and come back when you fixed those.

It's really sad how dumb you are. I probably shouldn't be so hard on you.

you think maslow meant sex when you said intimacy which just shows you have serious and deep issues.

I'm sorry for whatever your mom did to you, or maybe it was your dad, or your uncle, or a priest... either way ... you are in my prayers.

awwwww you think you're so clever by using serious sexual assault on a minor as a "got ya." Just further showed how morally lacking you are. Not surprising really.

Well thinking sex and intimacy is the same points to something going wrong in your childhood, It could have been sexual, or emotional or physical. But it's not how normally formed humans understand intimacy.

Where did I say it was? Also, how gross and maladjusted do you have to be to keep throwing out sexual assault of a minor as a way to win an argument? Seriously desperate and disgusting.