What would be the minimum frequency of sex to stay in your relationship / marriage?

[Anonymous]

The problem with the "sex is not a right of marriage" argument is that the people saying this are only okay if this favors the partner who doesn't want sex. You say that a frustrated spouse can just divorce their withholding spouse, but you don't really mean this. You would crucify a person for leaving the marriage because they were being made to feel rejected and inadequate by their withholding spouse. I'm a divorced woman whose spouse wouldn't have sex for years before he finally decided to divorce me and moved out. It was incredibly painful to have to act in public as if our marriage was normal and healthy when his rejection of me was heartbreaking.

If a husband who is a high earner decides to switch jobs and become a high school teacher, people think it's fine for his SAHM wife to divorce him. But if that same SAHM wife who is perfectly healthy refuses to have sex with him because he's got the body of a middle aged man and has lost his hair, he can't divorce her without being pilloried by people. She's allowed to stop providing physical comfort and pleasure, but he's not allowed to stop providing cold hard cash.

[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:So many lady posts on here about how the relationship is about SO much more than just sex.

So here's a post from a middle-aged man: a few times a week or it's over. I don't go around saying that, and don't need to. We've talked about it. She knows where I stand. She has her own list of things that's important. I have my list and it's very short, but nonnegotiable.

It would be her decision at this point. I'm not talking about health problems. If she was in radiation therapy or chemo and couldn't, I would be a perfect gentleman about that, be by her side till the end.

I'm talking willingness, not necessarily ability.

Willing to throw away a lifetime relationship for sex?

Is she willing to throw away a lifetime relationship to maintain no sex?

Cuts both ways.

Having sex with a woman who doesn’t want to is disgusting. It doesn’t cut both ways. You’re sticking your body part into somebody who doesn’t want it there.

But that's the job! So all these people are "quiet quitting" their marriages...

Unless your marriage vows included regular sex in perpetuity, it's not the job.

In fact it's not a job at all, it's a commitment. If the circumstances change enough that one or both people are miserable, maybe get divorced. But lots of marriages get to the point where sex is rare or even non-existent and they choose to stay married. Also surveys indicate that money issues and communication problems are the leading causes of divorce, not lack of sex. If you have great communication and no money issues, you probably won't throw out the marriage just because you don't get as much sex as you want. You might try to negotiate an open marriage but tbh most people are too lazy for that.

Sex is part of the marriage vows. If sex is not important to the marriage, then why can’t the partner who wants more sex just sleep around at will? Why do they need permission or an “open marriage?” You can’t say sex is not important but infidelity is.

what marriage vows did you take?

Most marriages vows talk about fidelity, loyalty, faithfulness- what did you think they are talking about?

That just means you won't have sex with someone else. Do you think "loyalty" means having sex even when you don't want to? You are in the minority.

Marriage vows also usually say "in sickness and in health" and getting older and losing interest in sex is a health issue for most women. So is painful sex due to childbirth and menopause.

If your expectation is that marriage without sex is totally unacceptable, you need to make that an explicit part of the marriage vows/agreement with your spouse.

So they are, in fact, about having sex. I don’t know if you are being purposefully obtuse or what and I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

But it is worth pointing out that if sexual fidelity is important, than that means sex in general is important. And being unable to engage in sexual relations because of a health issue is far different from declining to have sex because of resentment or grievances.

DP, but this is accurate and consistent with any lucid and historical definition of marriage. If you try to diminish fidelity to "doesn't have sex with other people" then you are left with only control and manipulation. Which is very, very common.

The true understanding of fidelity is that "we provide sex only for each other". If you aren't willing to provide sex you are unfaithful.

how is expecting enforcing someone to have sex with you not controlling or manipulative? If you are desirable, someone will want to have sex with you if you are not they won’t it’s really that simple married men think they have to stop trying that they are just guaranteed unlimited sex whenever however wherever they want and that is just not the case.

The reason men have sex with prostitutes or pay for sex is because those women don’t have to deal with any of the **** that you bring to a relationship and the extra weight that is put on your wives. If you took all of that weight off your wife’s shoulders, perhaps she would want to have more sex with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many lady posts on here about how the relationship is about SO much more than just sex.

So here's a post from a middle-aged man: a few times a week or it's over. I don't go around saying that, and don't need to. We've talked about it. She knows where I stand. She has her own list of things that's important. I have my list and it's very short, but nonnegotiable.

It would be her decision at this point. I'm not talking about health problems. If she was in radiation therapy or chemo and couldn't, I would be a perfect gentleman about that, be by her side till the end.

I'm talking willingness, not necessarily ability.

Willing to throw away a lifetime relationship for sex?

Is she willing to throw away a lifetime relationship to maintain no sex?

Cuts both ways.

Having sex with a woman who doesn’t want to is disgusting. It doesn’t cut both ways. You’re sticking your body part into somebody who doesn’t want it there.

But that's the job! So all these people are "quiet quitting" their marriages...

Unless your marriage vows included regular sex in perpetuity, it's not the job.

In fact it's not a job at all, it's a commitment. If the circumstances change enough that one or both people are miserable, maybe get divorced. But lots of marriages get to the point where sex is rare or even non-existent and they choose to stay married. Also surveys indicate that money issues and communication problems are the leading causes of divorce, not lack of sex. If you have great communication and no money issues, you probably won't throw out the marriage just because you don't get as much sex as you want. You might try to negotiate an open marriage but tbh most people are too lazy for that.

Sex is part of the marriage vows. If sex is not important to the marriage, then why can’t the partner who wants more sex just sleep around at will? Why do they need permission or an “open marriage?” You can’t say sex is not important but infidelity is.

what marriage vows did you take?

Most marriages vows talk about fidelity, loyalty, faithfulness- what did you think they are talking about?

That just means you won't have sex with someone else. Do you think "loyalty" means having sex even when you don't want to? You are in the minority.

Marriage vows also usually say "in sickness and in health" and getting older and losing interest in sex is a health issue for most women. So is painful sex due to childbirth and menopause.

If your expectation is that marriage without sex is totally unacceptable, you need to make that an explicit part of the marriage vows/agreement with your spouse.

So they are, in fact, about having sex. I don’t know if you are being purposefully obtuse or what and I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

But it is worth pointing out that if sexual fidelity is important, than that means sex in general is important. And being unable to engage in sexual relations because of a health issue is far different from declining to have sex because of resentment or grievances.

DP, but this is accurate and consistent with any lucid and historical definition of marriage. If you try to diminish fidelity to "doesn't have sex with other people" then you are left with only control and manipulation. Which is very, very common.

The true understanding of fidelity is that "we provide sex only for each other". If you aren't willing to provide sex you are unfaithful.

how is expecting enforcing someone to have sex with you not controlling or manipulative? If you are desirable, someone will want to have sex with you if you are not they won’t it’s really that simple married men think they have to stop trying that they are just guaranteed unlimited sex whenever however wherever they want and that is just not the case.

The reason men have sex with prostitutes or pay for sex is because those women don’t have to deal with any of the **** that you bring to a relationship and the extra weight that is put on your wives. If you took all of that weight off your wife’s shoulders, perhaps she would want to have more sex with you.

Someone has filled your head with bullshit. It's coming out your mouth now.

[Anonymous]

I'm PP. The other problem is that saying he can just divorce her sets up a "can't win" situation for a DH whose healthy SAHM wife refuses sex. OTOH, we tell him that he should be patient and supportive and do therapy, do more chores, spend more time focused on her, relieve her load as a SAHM, etc... for as long as it takes. But every year that he delays divorcing her costs him more and more money in the divorce settlement. She'll get more and more of his pension. She'll get a higher amount from the investments/retirement funds as his sole salary adds to their marital nest egg. All this time, he's doing his part (earning big bucks while she's not giving affection, care, or sex.)

I'm in my late 50s and I have friends/acquaintances who are closing in on 20 years of marriage but haven't had sex in at least the last 5 years. If these husbands don't divorce before that (and they're the higher earner) they will likely be on the hook for lifetime alimony in many states. So, which way do we want our public policy to go? Either we encourage people to leave right away when things get rocky, or we encourage them to stick it out and fight for their marriage. If it's the latter, we shouldn't financially punish them for having stayed longer than necessary when it turns out they can't reconcile.

[Anonymous]

men are just angry because they can no longer manipulate enforce women to provide their bodies to them whenever they want. Most marriages settle in to 2 to 4 times a month. Some months and periods of time is more frequent and other times it is less. Declining hormone levels are a medical issue for those of you who said in sickness and in health, I hate to tell you, but this is the sickness part. Her body is literally making it more difficult and less desirable to have sex. If you add into that unresolved conflict and additional household tasks and mental tasks that you are not sharing 50-50 then she probably does not have a lot of bandwidth left to try to rally for more sex each week. And that is her legal, moral and ethical right. Your legal moral and ethical right is to file for divorce if that is honestly a dealbreaker for you.. the way most of you talk I doubt your wives would really care

[Anonymous]

Turn out I'm not PP. Two posts in between my two.

[Anonymous]

Here's what I don't get, as a woman whose husband (now ex) wouldn't have sex with me --

If you don't believe that having physical intimacy (broadly speaking, not just PIV) is an essential aspect of marriage, then it must follow that you're fine with your spouse getting that elsewhere. If it's not an exclusive aspect of your marriage, then there's no reason for you to bar your spouse from seeking that out from people outside of your marriage. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:men are just angry because they can no longer manipulate enforce women to provide their bodies to them whenever they want. Most marriages settle in to 2 to 4 times a month. Some months and periods of time is more frequent and other times it is less. Declining hormone levels are a medical issue for those of you who said in sickness and in health, I hate to tell you, but this is the sickness part. Her body is literally making it more difficult and less desirable to have sex. If you add into that unresolved conflict and additional household tasks and mental tasks that you are not sharing 50-50 then she probably does not have a lot of bandwidth left to try to rally for more sex each week. And that is her legal, moral and ethical right. Your legal moral and ethical right is to file for divorce if that is honestly a dealbreaker for you.. the way most of you talk I doubt your wives would really care

You're talking all around the fact that PIV is not the only way. Lots of peri, meno, and postmeno women satisfy their husbands the whole damn time. I'm friends with guys in good 35-year marriages and it can work out great.

Shrill manhating is not the way to joy and peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get, as a woman whose husband (now ex) wouldn't have sex with me --

If you don't believe that having physical intimacy (broadly speaking, not just PIV) is an essential aspect of marriage, then it must follow that you're fine with your spouse getting that elsewhere. If it's not an exclusive aspect of your marriage, then there's no reason for you to bar your spouse from seeking that out from people outside of your marriage. Right?

It is obvious which posts are yours because you have clearly spent time thinking this through, and were once badly wronged by someone who felt no obligation to fix this aspect of marriage. You are completely right, which is why I frame this as a control issue if one spouse says "you can't have sex with anyone else (how dare you!)...but you can't have sex with me either".

As someone who has had dry spells in my marriage, but is 5x/week now, you are correct on all counts.

[Anonymous]

Are you ok with you wufe the hiring out all if the things you do t do around the house? Maid, chef, Gardner, nanny, repairman, etc

[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:So many lady posts on here about how the relationship is about SO much more than just sex.

So here's a post from a middle-aged man: a few times a week or it's over. I don't go around saying that, and don't need to. We've talked about it. She knows where I stand. She has her own list of things that's important. I have my list and it's very short, but nonnegotiable.

It would be her decision at this point. I'm not talking about health problems. If she was in radiation therapy or chemo and couldn't, I would be a perfect gentleman about that, be by her side till the end.

I'm talking willingness, not necessarily ability.

Willing to throw away a lifetime relationship for sex?

Is she willing to throw away a lifetime relationship to maintain no sex?

Cuts both ways.

Having sex with a woman who doesn’t want to is disgusting. It doesn’t cut both ways. You’re sticking your body part into somebody who doesn’t want it there.

But that's the job! So all these people are "quiet quitting" their marriages...

Unless your marriage vows included regular sex in perpetuity, it's not the job.

In fact it's not a job at all, it's a commitment. If the circumstances change enough that one or both people are miserable, maybe get divorced. But lots of marriages get to the point where sex is rare or even non-existent and they choose to stay married. Also surveys indicate that money issues and communication problems are the leading causes of divorce, not lack of sex. If you have great communication and no money issues, you probably won't throw out the marriage just because you don't get as much sex as you want. You might try to negotiate an open marriage but tbh most people are too lazy for that.

Sex is part of the marriage vows. If sex is not important to the marriage, then why can’t the partner who wants more sex just sleep around at will? Why do they need permission or an “open marriage?” You can’t say sex is not important but infidelity is.

what marriage vows did you take?

Most marriages vows talk about fidelity, loyalty, faithfulness- what did you think they are talking about?

That just means you won't have sex with someone else. Do you think "loyalty" means having sex even when you don't want to? You are in the minority.

Marriage vows also usually say "in sickness and in health" and getting older and losing interest in sex is a health issue for most women. So is painful sex due to childbirth and menopause.

If your expectation is that marriage without sex is totally unacceptable, you need to make that an explicit part of the marriage vows/agreement with your spouse.

So they are, in fact, about having sex. I don’t know if you are being purposefully obtuse or what and I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

But it is worth pointing out that if sexual fidelity is important, than that means sex in general is important. And being unable to engage in sexual relations because of a health issue is far different from declining to have sex because of resentment or grievances.

DP, but this is accurate and consistent with any lucid and historical definition of marriage. If you try to diminish fidelity to "doesn't have sex with other people" then you are left with only control and manipulation. Which is very, very common.

The true understanding of fidelity is that "we provide sex only for each other". If you aren't willing to provide sex you are unfaithful.

how is expecting enforcing someone to have sex with you not controlling or manipulative? If you are desirable, someone will want to have sex with you if you are not they won’t it’s really that simple married men think they have to stop trying that they are just guaranteed unlimited sex whenever however wherever they want and that is just not the case.

The reason men have sex with prostitutes or pay for sex is because those women don’t have to deal with any of the **** that you bring to a relationship and the extra weight that is put on your wives. If you took all of that weight off your wife’s shoulders, perhaps she would want to have more sex with you.

Men don't pay prostitutes for sex; they pay prostitutes to not tell wives about the sex.

[Anonymous]

"If you are desirable, someone will want to have sex with you if you are not they won’t it’s really that simple. . . ."

If only this were true. That's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who say that no sex is a deal breaker, what do you do if your spouse can no longer have sex? My DH had his prostate removed last year and is on Androgen Deprivation Therapy. Should I divorce him because he can no longer do the deed?

A health issue is very different from the women here who don’t want to have sex with their husbands because they have grievances.

If the result is the same (no sex), why is the decision different (for those that say no sex is a deal breaker)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who say that no sex is a deal breaker, what do you do if your spouse can no longer have sex? My DH had his prostate removed last year and is on Androgen Deprivation Therapy. Should I divorce him because he can no longer do the deed?

A health issue is very different from the women here who don’t want to have sex with their husbands because they have grievances.

If the result is the same (no sex), why is the decision different (for those that say no sex is a deal breaker)?

Stupid question, but I'll bite.

If I fall down the stairs and break my back and puncture a lung, that's some bad luck.
If my spouse pushed me, it's time for divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on the circumstances. If my partner couldn’t or didn’t have any drive due to an injury or disease process, I’d be pretty forgiving.

what about normal aging ? Menopause frequently comes with loss of libido and painful sex.