How many men would stay w/o sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Sex is absolutely the most important part of a marriage. It is the core part of the human experience. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way.

Wow. You are legitimately pathetic. Sincerely.

OMG—I hope that you informed any perspective partner of your …unique perspective. But I bet you didn’t, since it kind of likens your flesh and blood partner (with a brain and emotions) to a blow up doll.

What if your wife gets a double mastectomy , is paralyzed, or on chemotherapy for months? What if post menopause intercourse is painful for her? You gonna kick her to the curb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

It's not a need, it's a want and desire. Unlike with basic needs like food and water, plenty of people live full, long lives without sex. You will not die if you dont get laid every few days like your pee-pee wants.

It’s a need for any normal, healthy, marriage to survive.

Otherwise, you are just roommates; nothing more.

Nope. Get a dictionary.

I think *you* should consult a dictionary before advising other people to do that. “Need” has multiple definitions and it sounds like you know only the one you learned when your were 5. Take a look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and your narrow definition is only the bottommost layer. The ones at higher levels are still “needs”.

[Anonymous]

Well, self-actualization is clearly a desire not a need, since most people live and die without attaining it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Nobody on here ever claimed or believe their entire existence is around sex. You are the one claiming that.

They do act like it is though and you know it. Are you triggered?

No we don’t act like sex is the only thing that matters to us. What we claim is sex is a very important part of a marriage along with many other things.

PP literally said it's the most important part of marriage. You know you can just read the thread.

No, it's not even the top 5 considering health, finances, your children, etc. Yes it's important, but many top sex.

Communication, and compromise are important too.

Agree
.
Bonking your brains out is for your 20s. And even then there are other priorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

It's not a need, it's a want and desire. Unlike with basic needs like food and water, plenty of people live full, long lives without sex. You will not die if you dont get laid every few days like your pee-pee wants.

It’s a need for any normal, healthy, marriage to survive.

Otherwise, you are just roommates; nothing more.

Nope. Get a dictionary.

I think *you* should consult a dictionary before advising other people to do that. “Need” has multiple definitions and it sounds like you know only the one you learned when your were 5. Take a look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and your narrow definition is only the bottommost layer. The ones at higher levels are still “needs”.

Maslow’s Doesn’t consider sex a need. Affection is not sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a woman in her 50s and I wouldn't stay married without regular sex. Kids are grown, we have plenty of money. Why stay exclusive sexually without the sex? A lower drive woman in a marriage without much money might make a different choice.

If you were a low sex drive woman and your husband leave you because of it, how would you feel?

Marriage is complicated and I married my husband knowing his drive was lower than mine. I chose him for other reasons. We married in our 30s though and I wouldn’t have done so without having had other more fulfilling sexual relationships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a woman in her 50s and I wouldn't stay married without regular sex. Kids are grown, we have plenty of money. Why stay exclusive sexually without the sex? A lower drive woman in a marriage without much money might make a different choice.

If you were a low sex drive woman and your husband leave you because of it, how would you feel?

Marriage is complicated and I married my husband knowing his drive was lower than mine. I chose him for other reasons. We married in our 30s though and I wouldn’t have done so without having had other more fulfilling sexual relationships.

Do you regret your decision now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Nobody on here ever claimed or believe their entire existence is around sex. You are the one claiming that.

They do act like it is though and you know it. Are you triggered?

No we don’t act like sex is the only thing that matters to us. What we claim is sex is a very important part of a marriage along with many other things.

PP literally said it's the most important part of marriage. You know you can just read the thread.

No, it's not even the top 5 considering health, finances, your children, etc. Yes it's important, but many top sex.

Communication, and compromise are important too.

Agree
.
Bonking your brains out is for your 20s. And even then there are other priorities

You sound like maybe you’re not doing it right.

[Anonymous]

Every situation is different. In this case I think it is extremely realistic that a woman would allow her husband a lover to satisfy sexual needs. I know many of you might not like this, but you can't just turn off your hormones and needs. I think the situation would be ideal and a great way to keep the marriage going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

It's not a need, it's a want and desire. Unlike with basic needs like food and water, plenty of people live full, long lives without sex. You will not die if you dont get laid every few days like your pee-pee wants.

It’s a need for any normal, healthy, marriage to survive.

Otherwise, you are just roommates; nothing more.

Sometimes that is life. We had a great sex life for 30 plus years; we stopped having sex 8 years ago because of health issues on both sides.

Bodies change.

We still hold hands, snuggle, kiss.

I don't want anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although this happens, it's not as common as a healthy wife with no physical problems preventing her from having sex, she just doesn't want to and refuses. The better question is, how many men in THAT situation would stay?

"She just doesn't want to and refuses" so you want to have sex with someone against their will? Should they just lie back and take it? What on earth is wrong with you?

Where did he say that? Wow, gaslight much? When you marry someone and unilaterally decide to take sex off the table is the pinnacle of selfish.

It's almost like sex involves TWO interested and enthusiastic parties, and that people's libidos can change with age, relationship status/closeness, life events, etc. Get over it.

sute. but if you love someone and are not a selfish jerk like you, you try to meet their needs. its not surprising to see you come back with anotner "me, me, me" comment to justify your selfishness.

Sex is not actually a need, that's ridiculous. Sure, it makes life more fun when you have an active and engaged sex life. Then again, why is it expected that the male sex drive takes primacy? After all, many women consider themselves to have an active, fulfilling sex life when they have sex, say, once a week or maybe even once a month. For many women that's more than enough, and they're excited and fulfilled by such frequency. Why is it that the male libido is supposed to set the tone and pace, to the point where men will whine about a "sexless marriage" when that's clearly not the case and theyre still having regular sex with their wife, only it's maybe just ever two weeks instead of every day the way they'd prefer? Many women prefer quality over quantity, i.e. a really amazing sexual encounter where THEY GET TO ORGASM (not just the husband) over daily rushed sex and quickies, that men seem to like more. So if the woman is happy with the frequency, why are we supposed to treat it like some kind of crisis? Meanwhile, when women bend to men's desires, and force themselves to have sex every few days regardless of whether they want it or not, it's just taken as de rigeur, "healthy compromise". There's such a double standard.

One, sex is litteraly a biological need. This is how we have continued to exist for millions of years. Two, you’re moving the goalposts. If you’re having sex with your husband, then you didn’t decide to stop having sex as the poster you replied to originally suggested. Three, in a loving, caring relationship no one’s needs are more important. If you know your husband likes it every day, but you like it twice a month, maybe you talk about it and find a compromise. You don’t do it as often as he likes maybe but you also just find a way to connect even if it’s not the perfect mood/situation you need. Marriage is mostly about compromise and sex is no different.

It's not a need, it's a want and desire. Unlike with basic needs like food and water, plenty of people live full, long lives without sex. You will not die if you dont get laid every few days like your pee-pee wants.

It’s a need for any normal, healthy, marriage to survive.

Otherwise, you are just roommates; nothing more.

Sometimes that is life. We had a great sex life for 30 plus years; we stopped having sex 8 years ago because of health issues on both sides.

Bodies change.

We still hold hands, snuggle, kiss.

I don't want anyone else.

The people who think a marriage cannot survive without sex tend be younger. I need to think like that as well. I am 72 now and while we still do have sex it's not a priority at all. But then again on this forum you have the 80 years woman claiming she is wet every day and can have sex 5 times a day so what can I say lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every situation is different. In this case I think it is extremely realistic that a woman would allow her husband a lover to satisfy sexual needs. I know many of you might not like this, but you can't just turn off your hormones and needs. I think the situation would be ideal and a great way to keep the marriage going.

Thankfully, a few men replied to this thread dealing with this exact situation and did not need to cheat on their spouse to stay with them. You can't "turn off hormones" (and sex is not a need, as established), but it's also still possible to survive, keep your marriage vows, and be a good spouse. That seems difficult for some of you, and putting your hormones over your spouses health is really gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Sex is absolutely the most important part of a marriage. It is the core part of the human experience. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way.

Wow. You are legitimately pathetic. Sincerely.

OMG—I hope that you informed any perspective partner of your …unique perspective. But I bet you didn’t, since it kind of likens your flesh and blood partner (with a brain and emotions) to a blow up doll.

What if your wife gets a double mastectomy , is paralyzed, or on chemotherapy for months? What if post menopause intercourse is painful for her? You gonna kick her to the curb?

In our society it is perfectly acceptable for a married person to have a deep conversation, share a meal, watch a movie or go on a hike with a friend - but we vow to only be physically intimate with our spouse. So I can see where PP is coming from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Sex is absolutely the most important part of a marriage. It is the core part of the human experience. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way.

Wow. You are legitimately pathetic. Sincerely.

OMG—I hope that you informed any perspective partner of your …unique perspective. But I bet you didn’t, since it kind of likens your flesh and blood partner (with a brain and emotions) to a blow up doll.
What if your wife gets a double mastectomy , is paralyzed, or on chemotherapy for months? What if post menopause intercourse is painful for her? You gonna kick her to the curb?

In our society it is perfectly acceptable for a married person to have a deep conversation, share a meal, watch a movie or go on a hike with a friend - but we vow to only be physically intimate with our spouse. So I can see where PP is coming from.

If, while your spouse is extremely ill, your focus is on getting your rocks off, you should reconsider being married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Sex is absolutely the most important part of a marriage. It is the core part of the human experience. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way.

Wow. You are legitimately pathetic. Sincerely.

OMG—I hope that you informed any perspective partner of your …unique perspective. But I bet you didn’t, since it kind of likens your flesh and blood partner (with a brain and emotions) to a blow up doll.
What if your wife gets a double mastectomy , is paralyzed, or on chemotherapy for months? What if post menopause intercourse is painful for her? You gonna kick her to the curb?

In our society it is perfectly acceptable for a married person to have a deep conversation, share a meal, watch a movie or go on a hike with a friend - but we vow to only be physically intimate with our spouse. So I can see where PP is coming from.

If, while your spouse is extremely ill, your focus is on getting your rocks off, you should reconsider being married.

The same could be if your focus is on a movie or a hike. Obviously priorities change with an extremely ill spouse, but PP seems to be referring to marriage in general.