How many men would stay w/o sex

[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.

+1

[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: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Duh

Do you have kids. I can’t believe how many men are willing to blow up their family, harm their kids and hurt themselves financially because of sex.
It’s better to just discreetly something on the side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

So again, not a need. No one "needs" sex. You enjoy, like and want it. And you are still being disingenuous. No one is talking about arbitrarily removing sex. This thread is about if a catastrophic accident happened and you are no longer ABLE to have sex. Not sure why you keep trying to twist words and derail this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Duh

Do you have kids. I can’t believe how many men are willing to blow up their family, harm their kids and hurt themselves financially because of sex.
It’s better to just discreetly something on the side.

Cheating is not the answer So many morally bankrupt people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

So again, not a need. No one "needs" sex. You enjoy, like and want it. And you are still being disingenuous. No one is talking about arbitrarily removing sex. This thread is about if a catastrophic accident happened and you are no longer ABLE to have sex. Not sure why you keep trying to twist words and derail this.

You are incapable of reading, dumb and very dishonest. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/1250520.page

The person I was originally responding to above. Go away moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

So again, not a need. No one "needs" sex. You enjoy, like and want it. And you are still being disingenuous. No one is talking about arbitrarily removing sex. This thread is about if a catastrophic accident happened and you are no longer ABLE to have sex. Not sure why you keep trying to twist words and derail this.

You are incapable of reading, dumb and very dishonest. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/1250520.page

The person I was originally responding to above. Go away moron.

Are you just responding to yourself? That post isn't even what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

You are literally explaining what the word need means. If you don't actually NEED it for survival, it's not a NEED. Thanks for proving yourself wrong, again. Wants =/= needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

You are literally explaining what the word need means. If you don't actually NEED it for survival, it's not a NEED. Thanks for proving yourself wrong, again. Wants =/= needs.

You really need to stop doubling down on your indiosyncratic definition of the word “need.” Common usage and standard dictionaries are to the contrary. See, for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need. Stomping your foot over and over in this unseemly manner doesn’t do anything to change how normal people understand this term. You should focus on the substance of your views, not get hung up in lie 14 pages of utterly useless “it is a need”; “no it isn’t”; “yes it is.”

[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.

Intimacy yes, sex no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

You are the one who posted Maslow's "needs' and intimacy is part of Maslow's "needs", sex is not listed on his chart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

You are literally explaining what the word need means. If you don't actually NEED it for survival, it's not a NEED. Thanks for proving yourself wrong, again. Wants =/= needs.

You really need to stop doubling down on your indiosyncratic definition of the word “need.” Common usage and standard dictionaries are to the contrary. See, for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need. Stomping your foot over and over in this unseemly manner doesn’t do anything to change how normal people understand this term. You should focus on the substance of your views, not get hung up in lie 14 pages of utterly useless “it is a need”; “no it isn’t”; “yes it is.”

And... intimacy is not sex. Stomping your foot over and over in this unseemly manner doesn't do anything to change how Maslow list intimacy not sex on his chart.

[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.

Intimacy yes, sex no

Of course sex! How do you think children are born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

YOU keep repeating that intimacy is not sex as something I said, but I never said that. Of course intimacy is not sex. You can have intimacy with platonic friends. Intimacy is a need just like sex which is what I said. Sex can lead to feelings of intimacy which is why it's important in a marriage. I also never said sex is a must. If neither spouse has that need, who cares if people have sex? I said and continue to say that to arbitrarily decide after years of marriage that sex is not important to you and therefore should not be and is not important to your spouse is selfish. You are the one belittling that need and calling men who need sex childish and immature.

I very much understand that if people do not have their very basic needs met (food, shelter, water, safety) they aren't looking to have some of their other needs met. No one will look for a guitar, a paintbrush, or a book if they are starting. At least, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use the things I said instead of making stuff up.

I very much also understand it's a psychological theory, but it is one that has been widely accepted and understood by intellectually honest people. You haven't provided any theory or fact that diagrees with what I said. You just keep coming back with "IT'S NOT A NEED." If you'd like to provide psychological theories that disagree with Maslow, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

I'm done talking to you because you are dishonest, dumb and stubborn. You assign words to me that I never used and you refuse to consider that people have needs that are not essential to their basic survival. At this point it's like pissing in the wind and I have no more patience.

You are literally explaining what the word need means. If you don't actually NEED it for survival, it's not a NEED. Thanks for proving yourself wrong, again. Wants =/= needs.

You really need to stop doubling down on your indiosyncratic definition of the word “need.” Common usage and standard dictionaries are to the contrary. See, for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need. Stomping your foot over and over in this unseemly manner doesn’t do anything to change how normal people understand this term. You should focus on the substance of your views, not get hung up in lie 14 pages of utterly useless “it is a need”; “no it isn’t”; “yes it is.”

And... intimacy is not sex. Stomping your foot over and over in this unseemly manner doesn't do anything to change how Maslow list intimacy not sex on his chart.

That's a different poster from me, but you're simply too dumb to continue to talking to. Good luck to your poor husband. He married a frigid moron.

[Anonymous]

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


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

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

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

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

yes, most men would be driven insane.