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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Financial security may be, sure. But as you say, how you fulfill that is a different conversation. While the security is the "need", who does what to get there certainly isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, and the pp who keeps insisting it is, even after googling it and proving themselves wrong is weirdly delusional.

My Dh puts a much much higher importance on sex than I do. I like it, and like how it benefits our relationship, but I could probably live without it. I'm not sure about him. He doesn't seem the type to cheat, and I'm 99% sure his parents have had a sexless marriage for basically as long as we've been together (18+yrs), but I KNOW he gets grumpy and in his feelings when we have a dry spell. If I was physically unable, I'd like to think he'd stay, but I dont actually know.

Very sad to read the posts on the first page saying they'd leave or cheat immediately if something catastrophic happened to their wife. There are a few resident incels around here though, so maybe I can hold out hope it was just trolls saying such things =\

This is a little disingenuous. Have you never said “Larlo/Larla, I need to you get me something from the store.” Or some such. I mean, you won’t DIE if they don’t. As a matter of common usage, “need” is not defined so narrowly as you claim.

Comparing a colloquialism of going to the store vs justifying cheating on your spouse because you NEED sex are not even in the same galaxy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Exactly. I m the pp at 1406 and the point i m making and the other pp is unable to understand is that women should not consider a need for their dh’s to contribute in a meaningful way- whether financially or otherwise, since they will not die if their dh’s are losers.

No one is misunderstanding you. You keep saying it is "necessary" it is a "need", when it's not. It is correct that you will not die without sex. You may find it very important for your relationship, but that does not make it a need.

Whether you and pp think that I, and other pps are focusing too much on the nomenclature doesn't really matter. This thread is about if a man would stay with his wife if she was no longer able to have sex with him. By saying that sex is a need and thus justifying yourself to leave or cheat, YOU are the one being disingenuous. You are just trying to cover your tracks as a morally lacking person, and calling it a "need" somehow justifies it in your mind. That's all I, and I assume previous pps, were trying to point out.

I do find it odd your insistence on comparing a woman in a catastrophic accident who can't have sex with her husband to a woman being a "couch potato". Not really an apples to apples comparison, again showing your disingenuous argument.

You keep making stuff up. It's uncanny really. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone like you because you keep making stuff up and moving the goalposts. No, not fulfilling a need will not make it ok for anyone to cheat in a marriage. Calling it a need (which it is) does not give your husband a free pass to cheat. No one said any of that or a myriad of other shit you keep claiming. Calling it a need (just like his emotional needs, his need for love, his need to be financially secure) might provide you with a fundamental understanding that you lack that people will yearn to have their needs met. An honest husband will tell you that he needs sex, will not lie to you or cheat. How you deal with that is up to you. You have chosen to belittle him and call him childish. Not surprising at all if he leaves or even cheats in that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, and the pp who keeps insisting it is, even after googling it and proving themselves wrong is weirdly delusional.

My Dh puts a much much higher importance on sex than I do. I like it, and like how it benefits our relationship, but I could probably live without it. I'm not sure about him. He doesn't seem the type to cheat, and I'm 99% sure his parents have had a sexless marriage for basically as long as we've been together (18+yrs), but I KNOW he gets grumpy and in his feelings when we have a dry spell. If I was physically unable, I'd like to think he'd stay, but I dont actually know.

Very sad to read the posts on the first page saying they'd leave or cheat immediately if something catastrophic happened to their wife. There are a few resident incels around here though, so maybe I can hold out hope it was just trolls saying such things =\

This is a little disingenuous. Have you never said “Larlo/Larla, I need to you get me something from the store.” Or some such. I mean, you won’t DIE if they don’t. As a matter of common usage, “need” is not defined so narrowly as you claim.

Comparing a colloquialism of going to the store vs justifying cheating on your spouse because you NEED sex are not even in the same galaxy.

WHO IS JUSTIFYING CHEATING. You are either a troll or the dumbest liar on this entire forum.

[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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Financial security may be, sure. But as you say, how you fulfill that is a different conversation. While the security is the "need", who does what to get there certainly isn't.

A sane person might venture to say that you fulfill your sexual needs within your marriage. It's entirely reasonable to expect that in a marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Exactly. I m the pp at 1406 and the point i m making and the other pp is unable to understand is that women should not consider a need for their dh’s to contribute in a meaningful way- whether financially or otherwise, since they will not die if their dh’s are losers.

No one is misunderstanding you. You keep saying it is "necessary" it is a "need", when it's not. It is correct that you will not die without sex. You may find it very important for your relationship, but that does not make it a need.

Whether you and pp think that I, and other pps are focusing too much on the nomenclature doesn't really matter. This thread is about if a man would stay with his wife if she was no longer able to have sex with him. By saying that sex is a need and thus justifying yourself to leave or cheat, YOU are the one being disingenuous. You are just trying to cover your tracks as a morally lacking person, and calling it a "need" somehow justifies it in your mind. That's all I, and I assume previous pps, were trying to point out.

I do find it odd your insistence on comparing a woman in a catastrophic accident who can't have sex with her husband to a woman being a "couch potato". Not really an apples to apples comparison, again showing your disingenuous argument.

You keep making stuff up. It's uncanny really. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone like you because you keep making stuff up and moving the goalposts. No, not fulfilling a need will not make it ok for anyone to cheat in a marriage. Calling it a need (which it is) does not give your husband a free pass to cheat. No one said any of that or a myriad of other shit you keep claiming. Calling it a need (just like his emotional needs, his need for love, his need to be financially secure) might provide you with a fundamental understanding that you lack that people will yearn to have their needs met. An honest husband will tell you that he needs sex, will not lie to you or cheat. How you deal with that is up to you. You have chosen to belittle him and call him childish. Not surprising at all if he leaves or even cheats in that case.

No one is moving goal posts. It's not a need, as has already been explained multiple times. If you want to use the word colloquially, as a pp (or perhaps you) suggested, fine. But it's not an actual need.

An honest husband would tell me he likes, enjoys and wants sex as part of our relationship. If he called it a need, he would be dishonest. An honest wife would tell him she likes and wants to to stay home with her children. If she told him she needed to, it would not be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Financial security may be, sure. But as you say, how you fulfill that is a different conversation. While the security is the "need", who does what to get there certainly isn't.

A sane person might venture to say that you fulfill your sexual needs within your marriage. It's entirely reasonable to expect that in a marriage.

Again, not a need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Exactly. I m the pp at 1406 and the point i m making and the other pp is unable to understand is that women should not consider a need for their dh’s to contribute in a meaningful way- whether financially or otherwise, since they will not die if their dh’s are losers.

No one is misunderstanding you. You keep saying it is "necessary" it is a "need", when it's not. It is correct that you will not die without sex. You may find it very important for your relationship, but that does not make it a need.

Whether you and pp think that I, and other pps are focusing too much on the nomenclature doesn't really matter. This thread is about if a man would stay with his wife if she was no longer able to have sex with him. By saying that sex is a need and thus justifying yourself to leave or cheat, YOU are the one being disingenuous. You are just trying to cover your tracks as a morally lacking person, and calling it a "need" somehow justifies it in your mind. That's all I, and I assume previous pps, were trying to point out.

I do find it odd your insistence on comparing a woman in a catastrophic accident who can't have sex with her husband to a woman being a "couch potato". Not really an apples to apples comparison, again showing your disingenuous argument.

You keep making stuff up. It's uncanny really. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone like you because you keep making stuff up and moving the goalposts. No, not fulfilling a need will not make it ok for anyone to cheat in a marriage. Calling it a need (which it is) does not give your husband a free pass to cheat. No one said any of that or a myriad of other shit you keep claiming. Calling it a need (just like his emotional needs, his need for love, his need to be financially secure) might provide you with a fundamental understanding that you lack that people will yearn to have their needs met. An honest husband will tell you that he needs sex, will not lie to you or cheat. How you deal with that is up to you. You have chosen to belittle him and call him childish. Not surprising at all if he leaves or even cheats in that case.

No one is moving goal posts. It's not a need, as has already been explained multiple times. If you want to use the word colloquially, as a pp (or perhaps you) suggested, fine. But it's not an actual need.

An honest husband would tell me he likes, enjoys and wants sex as part of our relationship. If he called it a need, he would be dishonest. An honest wife would tell him she likes and wants to to stay home with her children. If she told him she needed to, it would not be true.

You are not the arbiter of what someone needs. As has been explained to YOU many times already it Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a wildly accepted psychological chart of basic human needs. You choose to ignore it. You chose to put your head in the sand. That's your problem. Stating with certainty that it's not a need is just dumb at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Financial security may be, sure. But as you say, how you fulfill that is a different conversation. While the security is the "need", who does what to get there certainly isn't.

A sane person might venture to say that you fulfill your sexual needs within your marriage. It's entirely reasonable to expect that in a marriage.

Again, not a need.

Again, yes it is. You can feel free to state that you don't THINK it is though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Exactly. I m the pp at 1406 and the point i m making and the other pp is unable to understand is that women should not consider a need for their dh’s to contribute in a meaningful way- whether financially or otherwise, since they will not die if their dh’s are losers.

No one is misunderstanding you. You keep saying it is "necessary" it is a "need", when it's not. It is correct that you will not die without sex. You may find it very important for your relationship, but that does not make it a need.

Whether you and pp think that I, and other pps are focusing too much on the nomenclature doesn't really matter. This thread is about if a man would stay with his wife if she was no longer able to have sex with him. By saying that sex is a need and thus justifying yourself to leave or cheat, YOU are the one being disingenuous. You are just trying to cover your tracks as a morally lacking person, and calling it a "need" somehow justifies it in your mind. That's all I, and I assume previous pps, were trying to point out.

I do find it odd your insistence on comparing a woman in a catastrophic accident who can't have sex with her husband to a woman being a "couch potato". Not really an apples to apples comparison, again showing your disingenuous argument.

You keep making stuff up. It's uncanny really. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone like you because you keep making stuff up and moving the goalposts. No, not fulfilling a need will not make it ok for anyone to cheat in a marriage. Calling it a need (which it is) does not give your husband a free pass to cheat. No one said any of that or a myriad of other shit you keep claiming. Calling it a need (just like his emotional needs, his need for love, his need to be financially secure) might provide you with a fundamental understanding that you lack that people will yearn to have their needs met. An honest husband will tell you that he needs sex, will not lie to you or cheat. How you deal with that is up to you. You have chosen to belittle him and call him childish. Not surprising at all if he leaves or even cheats in that case.

No one is moving goal posts. It's not a need, as has already been explained multiple times. If you want to use the word colloquially, as a pp (or perhaps you) suggested, fine. But it's not an actual need.

An honest husband would tell me he likes, enjoys and wants sex as part of our relationship. If he called it a need, he would be dishonest. An honest wife would tell him she likes and wants to to stay home with her children. If she told him she needed to, it would not be true.

You are not the arbiter of what someone needs. As has been explained to YOU many times already it Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a wildly accepted psychological chart of basic human needs. You choose to ignore it. You chose to put your head in the sand. That's your problem. Stating with certainty that it's not a need is just dumb at this point.

As was already explained to you, you misunderstood (misunderstand apparently still) the hierarchy. I'm not ignoring anything, you are the one that continues to argue the wrong meaning of a word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Exactly. I m the pp at 1406 and the point i m making and the other pp is unable to understand is that women should not consider a need for their dh’s to contribute in a meaningful way- whether financially or otherwise, since they will not die if their dh’s are losers.

No one is misunderstanding you. You keep saying it is "necessary" it is a "need", when it's not. It is correct that you will not die without sex. You may find it very important for your relationship, but that does not make it a need.

Whether you and pp think that I, and other pps are focusing too much on the nomenclature doesn't really matter. This thread is about if a man would stay with his wife if she was no longer able to have sex with him. By saying that sex is a need and thus justifying yourself to leave or cheat, YOU are the one being disingenuous. You are just trying to cover your tracks as a morally lacking person, and calling it a "need" somehow justifies it in your mind. That's all I, and I assume previous pps, were trying to point out.

I do find it odd your insistence on comparing a woman in a catastrophic accident who can't have sex with her husband to a woman being a "couch potato". Not really an apples to apples comparison, again showing your disingenuous argument.

You keep making stuff up. It's uncanny really. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone like you because you keep making stuff up and moving the goalposts. No, not fulfilling a need will not make it ok for anyone to cheat in a marriage. Calling it a need (which it is) does not give your husband a free pass to cheat. No one said any of that or a myriad of other shit you keep claiming. Calling it a need (just like his emotional needs, his need for love, his need to be financially secure) might provide you with a fundamental understanding that you lack that people will yearn to have their needs met. An honest husband will tell you that he needs sex, will not lie to you or cheat. How you deal with that is up to you. You have chosen to belittle him and call him childish. Not surprising at all if he leaves or even cheats in that case.

No one is moving goal posts. It's not a need, as has already been explained multiple times. If you want to use the word colloquially, as a pp (or perhaps you) suggested, fine. But it's not an actual need.

An honest husband would tell me he likes, enjoys and wants sex as part of our relationship. If he called it a need, he would be dishonest. An honest wife would tell him she likes and wants to to stay home with her children. If she told him she needed to, it would not be true.

You are not the arbiter of what someone needs. As has been explained to YOU many times already it Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a wildly accepted psychological chart of basic human needs. You choose to ignore it. You chose to put your head in the sand. That's your problem. Stating with certainty that it's not a need is just dumb at this point.

As was already explained to you, you misunderstood (misunderstand apparently still) the hierarchy. I'm not ignoring anything, you are the one that continues to argue the wrong meaning of a word.

What am I misunderstanding EXACTLY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Financial security may be, sure. But as you say, how you fulfill that is a different conversation. While the security is the "need", who does what to get there certainly isn't.

A sane person might venture to say that you fulfill your sexual needs within your marriage. It's entirely reasonable to expect that in a marriage.

Again, not a need.

Again, yes it is. You can feel free to state that you don't THINK it is though.

If it is then fulfill it all by yourself. It’s not a need to fulfill it with another human

[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: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.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Exactly. I m the pp at 1406 and the point i m making and the other pp is unable to understand is that women should not consider a need for their dh’s to contribute in a meaningful way- whether financially or otherwise, since they will not die if their dh’s are losers.

No one is misunderstanding you. You keep saying it is "necessary" it is a "need", when it's not. It is correct that you will not die without sex. You may find it very important for your relationship, but that does not make it a need.

Whether you and pp think that I, and other pps are focusing too much on the nomenclature doesn't really matter. This thread is about if a man would stay with his wife if she was no longer able to have sex with him. By saying that sex is a need and thus justifying yourself to leave or cheat, YOU are the one being disingenuous. You are just trying to cover your tracks as a morally lacking person, and calling it a "need" somehow justifies it in your mind. That's all I, and I assume previous pps, were trying to point out.

I do find it odd your insistence on comparing a woman in a catastrophic accident who can't have sex with her husband to a woman being a "couch potato". Not really an apples to apples comparison, again showing your disingenuous argument.

You keep making stuff up. It's uncanny really. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone like you because you keep making stuff up and moving the goalposts. No, not fulfilling a need will not make it ok for anyone to cheat in a marriage. Calling it a need (which it is) does not give your husband a free pass to cheat. No one said any of that or a myriad of other shit you keep claiming. Calling it a need (just like his emotional needs, his need for love, his need to be financially secure) might provide you with a fundamental understanding that you lack that people will yearn to have their needs met. An honest husband will tell you that he needs sex, will not lie to you or cheat. How you deal with that is up to you. You have chosen to belittle him and call him childish. Not surprising at all if he leaves or even cheats in that case.

No one is moving goal posts. It's not a need, as has already been explained multiple times. If you want to use the word colloquially, as a pp (or perhaps you) suggested, fine. But it's not an actual need.

An honest husband would tell me he likes, enjoys and wants sex as part of our relationship. If he called it a need, he would be dishonest. An honest wife would tell him she likes and wants to to stay home with her children. If she told him she needed to, it would not be true.

You are not the arbiter of what someone needs. As has been explained to YOU many times already it Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a wildly accepted psychological chart of basic human needs. You choose to ignore it. You chose to put your head in the sand. That's your problem. Stating with certainty that it's not a need is just dumb at this point.

As was already explained to you, you misunderstood (misunderstand apparently still) the hierarchy. I'm not ignoring anything, you are the one that continues to argue the wrong meaning of a word.

What am I misunderstanding EXACTLY?

One thing you don’t understand is intimacy is not sex. Another thing you don’t understand is unless you fulfill the needs below intimacy you can’t fulfill intimacy.

Another thing you don’t understand is it’s a theory not a fact. No research supports the idea.

[Anonymous]

Hire a lady of the evening and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

All you need to do is visit the dead bedroom sub on reddit. There are plenty of married couples in “dead bedrooms” with no plans to leave. There are also plenty of LL (low libido) men out there who don’t care. The answers to this question could also change depending on the age of the couple.