Sexless-ness is an acceptable negative outcome from marriage

[Anonymous]

Affairs make cheaters less of a@sholes in their marriages. Wow. That’s rich. I’d ask the spouses about that. Lol. Self-justification and delusion is a wonderful thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought marriage vows should include sex once a week except postpartum

What do you think “to have and to hold” is getting at? The “for better or worse” crowd tends to skip over that vow.

What's the for better or worse crowd?

Go back a few pages. At leasr one poster was arguing that “for better or worse” includes a sexless marriage.

[Anonymous]

While I chose not to cheat ... having gone through multiple years without any sort of physical intimacy in my previous marriage -- despite doing all the things a good partner is supposed to do -- I won't judge someone who has gone through the same thing and ends up having an affair. If you haven't gone through that yourself, you don't understand what it is like. Period.

You can put me firmly in the camp of: 1) if physical intimacy is not important to you and you have no interest in sharing it with your spouse or working at that aspect of your relationship, then 2) it shouldn't suddenly become important to you when your spouse looks elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

A partner who physically has certain limits but is otherwise ready/willing/able to work with you, yet the other partner INSISTS the ONE SPECIFIC definition of "sex" that their partner cannot offer.
You've just created a straw man scenario that describes probably 0.00001% of sexless marriages. Well done!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought marriage vows should include sex once a week except postpartum

What do you think “to have and to hold” is getting at? The “for better or worse” crowd tends to skip over that vow.

What's the for better or worse crowd?

Go back a few pages. At leasr one poster was arguing that “for better or worse” includes a sexless marriage.

Aha. Thanks.

In Jewish law, lack of sex is considered valid grounds for a divorce. I'm not familiar with these vows but sounds like a similar idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

That's a good question, but addresses an entirely different situation than the one I addressed. I still stand by what I said -- which, I will point out, did not assign a gender to either party. If one partner decides that physical intimacy of any sort is of no interest to them and makes no effort or compromise towards working on that aspect of their relationship, then they shouldn't find it suddenly important when the other partner looks elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

A partner who physically has certain limits but is otherwise ready/willing/able to work with you, yet the other partner INSISTS the ONE SPECIFIC definition of "sex" that their partner cannot offer.
You've just created a straw man scenario that describes probably 0.00001% of sexless marriages. Well done!!

Can you provide a citation for this stat? Despite popular belief, the existence of a vagina doesn't mean it's wet or that there's physical ability. Sex is painful when your vagina isn't into this. But of course, we understand when a man isn't physically able, but when women aren't we try to convince them to just shove it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

That's a good question, but addresses an entirely different situation than the one I addressed. I still stand by what I said -- which, I will point out, did not assign a gender to either party. If one partner decides that physical intimacy of any sort is of no interest to them and makes no effort or compromise towards working on that aspect of their relationship, then they shouldn't find it suddenly important when the other partner looks elsewhere.

So I think we agree. When a man can no longer perform p-in-v, which was a understanding of their marriage, an open marriage or a divorce is an acceptable response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

That's a good question, but addresses an entirely different situation than the one I addressed. I still stand by what I said -- which, I will point out, did not assign a gender to either party. If one partner decides that physical intimacy of any sort is of no interest to them and makes no effort or compromise towards working on that aspect of their relationship, then they shouldn't find it suddenly important when the other partner looks elsewhere.

So I think we agree. When a man can no longer perform p-in-v, which was a understanding of their marriage, an open marriage or a divorce is an acceptable response.

Yes but if the reverse happens, the man must stay because...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I chose not to cheat ... having gone through multiple years without any sort of physical intimacy in my previous marriage -- despite doing all the things a good partner is supposed to do -- I won't judge someone who has gone through the same thing and ends up having an affair. If you haven't gone through that yourself, you don't understand what it is like. Period.

You can put me firmly in the camp of: 1) if physical intimacy is not important to you and you have no interest in sharing it with your spouse or working at that aspect of your relationship, then 2) it shouldn't suddenly become important to you when your spouse looks elsewhere.

Were both of you emotionally bonded having sex? No intimacy outside the bedroom leads to unemotional sex leads to disinterest in sex. I’m sure you think you did all the right things, but did you do what you considered right or what actually connected you two emotionally doing the day to day things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

That's a good question, but addresses an entirely different situation than the one I addressed. I still stand by what I said -- which, I will point out, did not assign a gender to either party. If one partner decides that physical intimacy of any sort is of no interest to them and makes no effort or compromise towards working on that aspect of their relationship, then they shouldn't find it suddenly important when the other partner looks elsewhere.

So I think we agree. When a man can no longer perform p-in-v, which was a understanding of their marriage, an open marriage or a divorce is an acceptable response.

Yes but if the reverse happens, the man must stay because...?

I never said the man must stay. It's pretty normal that when a woman gets breast cancer her husband will leave. I agree with those guys, if my DH was sick and became less sexy I'd be out. I'm going to get flamed, but every man on this sub agrees. It's women who are stupid enough to stick around during sickness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my DH becomes impotent he should expect cheating or divorce?

I specifically used the term "physical intimacy", not "sexual intercourse". There are plenty of ways to share physical intimacy without makin' babies.

But what if I want p-in-v sex? Is everyone who says it's acceptable to cheat on your wife also going to support that despite his inability to perform I'm entitled to have sex with a man who can get hard? Or simply divorce?

A partner who physically has certain limits but is otherwise ready/willing/able to work with you, yet the other partner INSISTS the ONE SPECIFIC definition of "sex" that their partner cannot offer.
You've just created a straw man scenario that describes probably 0.00001% of sexless marriages. Well done!!

Can you provide a citation for this stat? Despite popular belief, the existence of a vagina doesn't mean it's wet or that there's physical ability. Sex is painful when your vagina isn't into this. But of course, we understand when a man isn't physically able, but when women aren't we try to convince them to just shove it in.

Well all of the sexless marriage scenarios on here are that a) husband is an asshole/bad partner/etc and wife (duh!) does not want sex with an a-hole b) husband may be a fine partner but wife just does not want/need sex

In other words, the issue has nothing to do with any performance limitations. It's all about lack of interest/willingness for reason A or B or both.