Why get married if you cannot do without sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean with all the stories out here about sexless marriages, why make a huge commitment such as marriage knowing that when sex is done you are done? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to stay single?

It would seem that most who left because sex was not frequent are frauds.

One would argue that anyone who left based on cheating is a fraud as well, but this is not necessarily true. There is usually a lot of lying and sneaking around involved with cheating that it corrodes trust.

If you cannot live without sex, don't get married. Or make that clear to your spouse( sign a prenup stating the frequency or something).

I think a lot of people (mostly men) get married with the assumption that it is guaranteed sex without having to work for it the way they would on the dating market.

[Anonymous]

It's not about the sex itself. But ceasing sex in a marriage is a sign of a problem in the marriage. If some day, dh just stopped wanting sex or stopped showing affection, I wouldn't think "oh he's getting older and his libido is going down". Id think "shit. He's unhappy and there is a problem going on and that's why he's not interested". I assume he would think the same as me.

Does your libido decrease with age? Sure. But a sexless marriage is about so much more than lack of sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is a great institution to raise kids and for stability. It's not like if the sex dries up you are stuck. Cheating and divorcing are options and used often

OP here. Exactly my point. You get married because it is a great institution to raise kids and for stability. Other things are just perks. If sex is more important that the institution, then you should not be getting married.

And I would say I respect spouses who announce point blank that since there is no interest in sex in the marriage, they will look for it elsewhere.

Now the onus is on the withholding spouse to say that having sex elsewhere would destroy the marriage. Now you have them cornered. "If sex is that important in the marriage, why aren't we having any?"

So let me guess...you are the one who is not interested in sex but still want all the benefit of having a spouse and you expect your spouse to be celibate. Sound fair to me... sig me up for 40 year of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some people get married with the false expectation that marriage gives them some legal entitlement to sex at a certain frequency.

Agree. Or if not a legal entitlement, a moral one.
It seems to be a cultural norm that a man's ongoing desire for sex is more important than a woman's equally normal waning interest in sex, after menopause (or for some, after childbirth). I'm not sure why that's fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is a great institution to raise kids and for stability. It's not like if the sex dries up you are stuck. Cheating and divorcing are options and used often

OP here. Exactly my point. You get married because it is a great institution to raise kids and for stability. Other things are just perks. If sex is more important that the institution, then you should not be getting married.

And I would say I respect spouses who announce point blank that since there is no interest in sex in the marriage, they will look for it elsewhere.

Now the onus is on the withholding spouse to say that having sex elsewhere would destroy the marriage. Now you have them cornered. "If sex is that important in the marriage, why aren't we having any?"

So let me guess...you are the one who is not interested in sex but still want all the benefit of having a spouse and you expect your spouse to be celibate. Sound fair to me... sig me up for 40 year of it.

You are wrong. I am the one not getting enough. I am just surprised at the entitlement of many posters on here (the cheaters). L

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people get married with the false expectation that marriage gives them some legal entitlement to sex at a certain frequency.

Agree. Or if not a legal entitlement, a moral one.
It seems to be a cultural norm that a man's ongoing desire for sex is more important than a woman's equally normal waning interest in sex, after menopause (or for some, after childbirth). I'm not sure why that's fair.

Implicit in monogamy is the idea that one’s spouse will engage in a reasonable amount of sex. No one views marriage as a potential vow of celibacy at someone else’s discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a single woman, I feel like a huge draw of being married would be the constant possibility of sex. Like you'd roll over in bed and hey! there's a penis there! that seems pretty cool to me. As a single person, you have to lower your standards if you want to have sex potentially available whenever you want it.

That said, my married friends tell me I'm overestimating how often they actually have sex. When I said, "having more sex would be a motivation for me to get married", several of them actually laughed at me.

You don’t even know how low standards go having sexual with a husband.

Old, fat, unshaven, thinking hair, wrinkled, Not showed, wont brush teeth.

Uh ok, gross on the showered and won’t brush teeth...but...I’m sorry, people age. They gain weight as they get old. They get wrinkles! Their hair thins, or grays.

If more people could accept an aging body, everyone could be getting laid more. I guarantee people aren’t having sex with their spouses bc they’re embarrassing or insecure about their changing physique.

[Anonymous]

JUST. GET. DIVORCED. ALREADY.

Seriously. I swear it is the same poster all of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people get married with the false expectation that marriage gives them some legal entitlement to sex at a certain frequency.

Agree. Or if not a legal entitlement, a moral one.
It seems to be a cultural norm that a man's ongoing desire for sex is more important than a woman's equally normal waning interest in sex, after menopause (or for some, after childbirth). I'm not sure why that's fair.

Implicit in monogamy is the idea that one’s spouse will engage in a reasonable amount of sex. No one views marriage as a potential vow of celibacy at someone else’s discretion.

At someone else's discretion? Do you think there are a lot of people out there who choose to lose interest in sex without a legitimate reason? W

Implicit in marriage is the concept of for better or for worse. Where is the empathy for these people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JUST. GET. DIVORCED. ALREADY.

Seriously. I swear it is the same poster all of the time.

Oh shut it. Leave the discussion if you have nothing to add.

I am not getting divorced. I am happily married.

Maybe you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean with all the stories out here about sexless marriages, why make a huge commitment such as marriage knowing that when sex is done you are done? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to stay single?

It would seem that most who left because sex was not frequent are frauds.

One would argue that anyone who left based on cheating is a fraud as well, but this is not necessarily true. There is usually a lot of lying and sneaking around involved with cheating that it corrodes trust.

If you cannot live without sex, don't get married. Or make that clear to your spouse( sign a prenup stating the frequency or something).

I think a lot of people (mostly men) get married with the assumption that it is guaranteed sex without having to work for it the way they would on the dating market.

Are you freaking KIDDING ME? Most married men can get sex MUCH easier with women who aren't his wife. Talk about working hard for sex!
I seriously think this is a point of inflection for most marriages. Once it's easier for him to find sex elsewhere, the marriage dynamic fundamentally shifts and can never go back.

[Anonymous]

Sex is not more important than any other factor in a marriage. Will the communication from the other partner dry up? Will they stop doing their fair share? Will they be a equal partner raising the kids? If sex dried up it's only a symptom of a larger problem unless it's health related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people get married with the false expectation that marriage gives them some legal entitlement to sex at a certain frequency.

Agree. Or if not a legal entitlement, a moral one.
It seems to be a cultural norm that a man's ongoing desire for sex is more important than a woman's equally normal waning interest in sex, after menopause (or for some, after childbirth). I'm not sure why that's fair.

Implicit in monogamy is the idea that one’s spouse will engage in a reasonable amount of sex. No one views marriage as a potential vow of celibacy at someone else’s discretion.

At someone else's discretion? Do you think there are a lot of people out there who choose to lose interest in sex without a legitimate reason? W

Implicit in marriage is the concept of for better or for worse. Where is the empathy for these people?

Anybody with a "legitimate reason for no sex" should divorce. If your partner is so horrible as to not want sex, clearly you must leave them.

Your statement "for better of for worse" applies equally to the rejected partner who seeks sex elsewhere.... no big deal right? Sex isn't important right? Otherwise you'd be having it right? So they are sleeping around: deal with it. For better or for worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not more important than any other factor in a marriage. Will the communication from the other partner dry up? Will they stop doing their fair share? Will they be a equal partner raising the kids? If sex dried up it's only a symptom of a larger problem unless it's health related.

But that sounds like a horrible partner whom you would immediately divorce. You would not just stay sexlessly married and ignore that larger problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people get married with the false expectation that marriage gives them some legal entitlement to sex at a certain frequency.

Agree. Or if not a legal entitlement, a moral one.
It seems to be a cultural norm that a man's ongoing desire for sex is more important than a woman's equally normal waning interest in sex, after menopause (or for some, after childbirth). I'm not sure why that's fair.

Implicit in monogamy is the idea that one’s spouse will engage in a reasonable amount of sex. No one views marriage as a potential vow of celibacy at someone else’s discretion.

At someone else's discretion? Do you think there are a lot of people out there who choose to lose interest in sex without a legitimate reason? W

Implicit in marriage is the concept of for better or for worse. Where is the empathy for these people?

Anybody with a "legitimate reason for no sex" should divorce. If your partner is so horrible as to not want sex, clearly you must leave them.

Your statement "for better of for worse" applies equally to the rejected partner who seeks sex elsewhere.... no big deal right? Sex isn't important right? Otherwise you'd be having it right? So they are sleeping around: deal with it. For better or for worse.

Why should the person with the legitimate reason divorce if they are otherwise happy in the marriage?