Sexless-ness is an acceptable negative outcome from marriage

[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?

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.

So you have no proof of the stat you claimed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, John Edwards or Newt Gingrich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Say what? Guy here, and no one is this "pretty normal" behavior. I have never heard of a guy leaving because his wife has breast cancer. If you believe that and think it's ok, you are a seriously damaged person.

[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've given no indication as to whether or not we agree. The hypothetical scenario that you're putting forth has no relationship to mine -- it is simply so far removed as to be completely irrelevant.

It's as if I had said, "James doesn't like Thai food, but his Frank does, so don't be surprised if Frank goes to get Thai food all by himself.", and you then said "But what if James doesn't like to drink Arrack out of a glass shaped like a cowboy boot on Fridays after 4:57p or before 6:13p, would you say it's still okay if Frank still goes out to get Thai food?". Of course, the scale, scope, and weight of the decisions involved are much larger when discussing physical intimacy, but the analogy still holds. It's a completely different discussion and one has no bearing on the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Say what? Guy here, and no one is this "pretty normal" behavior. I have never heard of a guy leaving because his wife has breast cancer. If you believe that and think it's ok, you are a seriously damaged person.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/mar/30/the-men-who-give-up-on-their-spouses-when-they-have-cancer

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/why-sick-wives-increase-divorce-risk-not-sick-husbands/

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

Men haaaaaate sick women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

So you have no proof of the stat you claimed

Scroll to the top and use the "Search this forum" feature to find cases of sexless marriage. Find me a single one even close to your straw man scenario and I will concede your victory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

So you have no proof of the stat you claimed

Scroll to the top and use the "Search this forum" feature to find cases of sexless marriage. Find me a single one even close to your straw man scenario and I will concede your victory.

You already proved me right with point B. Not wanting sex = it's painful to just "shove it in". Your inability to get that is why no one will have sex with you. If you can't get a woman wet, it means it's bad sex. No, wetness is not something we can turn on and off willingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

So you have no proof of the stat you claimed

Scroll to the top and use the "Search this forum" feature to find cases of sexless marriage. Find me a single one even close to your straw man scenario and I will concede your victory.

You already proved me right with point B. Not wanting sex = it's painful to just "shove it in". Your inability to get that is why no one will have sex with you. If you can't get a woman wet, it means it's bad sex. No, wetness is not something we can turn on and off willingly.

I'm not sure why you're stuck on your cis heteronormative framing of this issue. This problem can exist with male/male and female/female partners just as well as it can with male/female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

So you have no proof of the stat you claimed

Scroll to the top and use the "Search this forum" feature to find cases of sexless marriage. Find me a single one even close to your straw man scenario and I will concede your victory.

You already proved me right with point B. Not wanting sex = it's painful to just "shove it in". Your inability to get that is why no one will have sex with you. If you can't get a woman wet, it means it's bad sex. No, wetness is not something we can turn on and off willingly.

I'm not sure why you're stuck on your cis heteronormative framing of this issue. This problem can exist with male/male and female/female partners just as well as it can with male/female.

Because that's how most of us talk. We don't need to bend to your requirement to be inclusive of every possible relationship partnering. Most people don't go around using made up terms like, Cis, or heteronormative. You sound like an idiot when you talk like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I took care of my wife who had breast cancer when we were married, until the very end. I never met anyone who left their wife when she got breast cancer, and I've met plenty of couples who struggled with it.

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.

Say what? Guy here, and no one is this "pretty normal" behavior. I have never heard of a guy leaving because his wife has breast cancer. If you believe that and think it's ok, you are a seriously damaged person.

[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.

Bingo. People who haven't been sexually neglected really don't get it. I would rather be cheated on than sexually deprived again