How many men would stay w/o sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband stayed the last 3.5 years despite my cancer and vaginal atrophy.

Are you saying he then left? If so, on the upside he showed his true character.

[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.

Very well said. The most important aspect of marriage is not sex. Sex is a want, not a need.

Glad to see you talking to yourself again.

What a stupid way to approach life and marriage. Sure, call it whatever you want. Be angry at your husband for having a totally normal physical desire. If you love your partners you want them to be happy and fulfilled. You are a petulant child and at this point you can call it whatever you want. It simply doesn't matter because you are completely unwilling to consider anyone but yourself. That's no marriage.

[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.

Very well said. The most important aspect of marriage is not sex. Sex is a want, not a need.

Glad to see you talking to yourself again.

What a stupid way to approach life and marriage. Sure, call it whatever you want. Be angry at your husband for having a totally normal physical desire. If you love your partners you want them to be happy and fulfilled. You are a petulant child and at this point you can call it whatever you want. It simply doesn't matter because you are completely unwilling to consider anyone but yourself. That's no marriage.

I'ts being realistic that the other parts of the marriage need to be working. Sex will not carry it alone. You seem to be taking my post personally for some reason.

[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.

Very well said. The most important aspect of marriage is not sex. Sex is a want, not a need.

Glad to see you talking to yourself again.

What a stupid way to approach life and marriage. Sure, call it whatever you want. Be angry at your husband for having a totally normal physical desire. If you love your partners you want them to be happy and fulfilled. You are a petulant child and at this point you can call it whatever you want. It simply doesn't matter because you are completely unwilling to consider anyone but yourself. That's no marriage.

I'ts being realistic that the other parts of the marriage need to be working. Sex will not carry it alone. You seem to be taking my post personally for some reason.

If nothing is working, divorce. I'm taking it as personally as you are.

[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.

Very well said. The most important aspect of marriage is not sex. Sex is a want, not a need.

Glad to see you talking to yourself again.

What a stupid way to approach life and marriage. Sure, call it whatever you want. Be angry at your husband for having a totally normal physical desire. If you love your partners you want them to be happy and fulfilled. You are a petulant child and at this point you can call it whatever you want. It simply doesn't matter because you are completely unwilling to consider anyone but yourself. That's no marriage.

I'ts being realistic that the other parts of the marriage need to be working. Sex will not carry it alone. You seem to be taking my post personally for some reason.

Not the pp above but is anyone claiming sex will carry marriage by itself? Along with many other things, sex is a very important part of marriage unless someone is dealing with a major health issue or if both partners are low libido.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men are very selfish and will always prioritize their happiness. Women rarely leave their spouses diagnosed with cancer, whereas men leave at a high rate. Men are not loyal, or rather, they’re only as loyal as long as it serves THEM.

Nope. Men also have a sense of duty - wont leave no matter what! Not happiness but a sense of honor and duty. Not a military guys either.

[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.

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

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

Again, not a need.

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

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

This post shows what a nutcase this individual is

You do realize single, asexual, some disabled people, etc don't have sex and are totally fine?

What does this have to do with people who are healthy, married, have normal libido and do not have any major disability?

Huh? Are you on the wrong thread? This thread is not about those people. And someone calling pp a "nutcase" for pointing out that you can have sexual release w/o a partner shows your lack of education and how you are approaching this conversation in bad faith.

[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.

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

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

Again, not a need.

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

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

This post shows what a nutcase this individual is

You do realize single, asexual, some disabled people, etc don't have sex and are totally fine?

What does this have to do with people who are healthy, married, have normal libido and do not have any major disability?

Huh? Are you on the wrong thread? This thread is not about those people. And someone calling pp a "nutcase" for pointing out that you can have sexual release w/o a partner shows your lack of education and how you are approaching this conversation in bad faith.

THe conversation started that way with OP's post but there has been a different conversation going on for pages now. Please read the entire thread before posting nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are very selfish and will always prioritize their happiness. Women rarely leave their spouses diagnosed with cancer, whereas men leave at a high rate. Men are not loyal, or rather, they’re only as loyal as long as it serves THEM.

Nope. Men also have a sense of duty - wont leave no matter what! Not happiness but a sense of honor and duty. Not a military guys either.

I think you mean some* men. Otherwise there wouldn't be a stereotype of men leaving to get cigarettes and never coming back. Many men do not have this sense of honour, but I am immensely glad that you do - and I bet your spouse does too!

[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.

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

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

Again, not a need.

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

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

This post shows what a nutcase this individual is

You do realize single, asexual, some disabled people, etc don't have sex and are totally fine?

What does this have to do with people who are healthy, married, have normal libido and do not have any major disability?

Huh? Are you on the wrong thread? This thread is not about those people. And someone calling pp a "nutcase" for pointing out that you can have sexual release w/o a partner shows your lack of education and how you are approaching this conversation in bad faith.

THe conversation started that way with OP's post but there has been a different conversation going on for pages now. Please read the entire thread before posting nonsense.

How is it nonsense? Pointing out that many people survive or even thrive w/o sex w/ another person is certainly relevant in a conversation about how it's a "need".

[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.

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

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

Again, not a need.

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

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

This post shows what a nutcase this individual is

You do realize single, asexual, some disabled people, etc don't have sex and are totally fine?

What does this have to do with people who are healthy, married, have normal libido and do not have any major disability?

Huh? Are you on the wrong thread? This thread is not about those people. And someone calling pp a "nutcase" for pointing out that you can have sexual release w/o a partner shows your lack of education and how you are approaching this conversation in bad faith.

THe conversation started that way with OP's post but there has been a different conversation going on for pages now. Please read the entire thread before posting nonsense.

How is it nonsense? Pointing out that many people survive or even thrive w/o sex w/ another person is certainly relevant in a conversation about how it's a "need".

And no one is talking about those people. We are talking about one spouse deciding arbitrarily to stop se while the other very much wants it and desires it.

[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.

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

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

Again, not a need.

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

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

This post shows what a nutcase this individual is

You do realize single, asexual, some disabled people, etc don't have sex and are totally fine?

What does this have to do with people who are healthy, married, have normal libido and do not have any major disability?

Huh? Are you on the wrong thread? This thread is not about those people. And someone calling pp a "nutcase" for pointing out that you can have sexual release w/o a partner shows your lack of education and how you are approaching this conversation in bad faith.

THe conversation started that way with OP's post but there has been a different conversation going on for pages now. Please read the entire thread before posting nonsense.

How is it nonsense? Pointing out that many people survive or even thrive w/o sex w/ another person is certainly relevant in a conversation about how it's a "need".

And no one is talking about those people. We are talking about one spouse deciding arbitrarily to stop se while the other very much wants it and desires it.

Well I thought we were talking about a woman in an accident who couldn't have sex, you said no. So now I guess we're talking about asexual folks who are totally fine with no sex and still live happy and successful lives.

[Anonymous]

Sexless marriage are quite common (about 20% of long term marriages) and lots of guys stay in them. Some of them are sexless because of the guy, but most are sexless because of the woman.

[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.

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

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

Again, not a need.

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

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

This post shows what a nutcase this individual is

You do realize single, asexual, some disabled people, etc don't have sex and are totally fine?

What does this have to do with people who are healthy, married, have normal libido and do not have any major disability?

Huh? Are you on the wrong thread? This thread is not about those people. And someone calling pp a "nutcase" for pointing out that you can have sexual release w/o a partner shows your lack of education and how you are approaching this conversation in bad faith.

THe conversation started that way with OP's post but there has been a different conversation going on for pages now. Please read the entire thread before posting nonsense.

You are the only one in that conversation.

This thread is about someone who can't have sex with their H. Would you as the H leave, you are saying yes because it's a "need" either you will divorce or you cheat, that being without sex in your life is not an option.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Np. Sex is a need. No its not as needed as food and water, but it is a need nonetheless. Just like companionship and social interaction. Nobody dies without companionship and social interaction, but its not feasible to live without SOME level of social interaction.

No woman dies if the husband is not doing his share of financial or at home responsibilities. Since she wont die if the husband is a couch potato, its a ‘want’ that husband should pull his weight?

NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, not a need.

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

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

This post shows what a nutcase this individual is

You do realize single, asexual, some disabled people, etc don't have sex and are totally fine?

What does this have to do with people who are healthy, married, have normal libido and do not have any major disability?

Huh? Are you on the wrong thread? This thread is not about those people. And someone calling pp a "nutcase" for pointing out that you can have sexual release w/o a partner shows your lack of education and how you are approaching this conversation in bad faith.

THe conversation started that way with OP's post but there has been a different conversation going on for pages now. Please read the entire thread before posting nonsense.

How is it nonsense? Pointing out that many people survive or even thrive w/o sex w/ another person is certainly relevant in a conversation about how it's a "need".

And no one is talking about those people. We are talking about one spouse deciding arbitrarily to stop se while the other very much wants it and desires it.

Well I thought we were talking about a woman in an accident who couldn't have sex, you said no. So now I guess we're talking about asexual folks who are totally fine with no sex and still live happy and successful lives.

This thread is about a women in an accident. there are 3B other threads about not having sex for other reasons.