How many men would stay w/o sex

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Ah, yes, “Get over it.” The attitude essential to all healthy and happy relationships.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the 13th month since I last had sex. I am divorced. I am 48. Do I have urges? Sure. I am going to die? No. Will I have sex again? Yes. When? I don't know and I don't care

Are you M or F?

[Anonymous]

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.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

[Anonymous]

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.

So you have no other “needs” but water and food? So dumb. Sure, no one dies without sex, but it is a biological need nonetheless. Why are you even married? You don’t need your husband.

[Anonymous]

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.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

Wow, some of you treat your spouses really horribly and then laugh at them when they protest. “Victim nonsense?”You’re just terrible.

[Anonymous]

I cannot imagine not having a sexual intimate relationship with my husband, and we have been married 32 years. Actually it just gets better over age, but then again I married for love as did husband. I now understand the misery that exists on this board among most of the women. Can't get those years back ladies, just sayin and the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I wish your husbands well.

[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.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

Wow, some of you treat your spouses really horribly and then laugh at them when they protest. “Victim nonsense?”You’re just terrible.

This.

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree completely.

Denying the other person sex in a committed relationship is a form of abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot imagine not having a sexual intimate relationship with my husband, and we have been married 32 years. Actually it just gets better over age, but then again I married for love as did husband. I now understand the misery that exists on this board among most of the women. Can't get those years back ladies, just sayin and the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I wish your husbands well.

Another woman here and I completely agree. And I’m 46 and in peri but initacy is important to both of us.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure FIL and MIL had a sexless marriage due to health issues and pretty sure he never stepped out. You can never know but there just seemed to be a lot of stability and love and trust.

[Anonymous]

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.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

I think these discussions here tend to founder on arguments over the meaning of the term “need,” which ultimately aren’t very productive and often seem to involve bad faith from some on both sides. Let’s use a more neutral terminology. For most men, there is a level of sexual activity that is, let’s say, “essential to happiness.” This of course varies quite a lot for different people. The real issue is what is to be done when a relationship evolves in certain ways that make it impossible for one of the parties to be happy in it. I also think there is a little bit of gaslighting going on among some who would rather obscure the fundamental divide. Many women here seem to think that sex is a discretionary, dispensable aspect of marriage, while many men think that it’s a fundamental aspect of marriage that cannot be replaced by any level of other positive qualities in a marriage. Neither view is wrong, IMO, both are defensible. The question is what to do when spouses are at impasse on that issue, and it’s not an easy one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how men are always whining in the relationship forum about their sexless marriages, clearly lots of them will stay. Maybe the vast majority.

A sexless marriage often features *some* sex. Perhaps several times per year. And there is often the hope that things will get better. Sometimes they do.

But if a healthy spouse declared that sex would 100% never happen again, the vast majority of men would cheat or openly leave.

A sexless marriage = 12 times per year or fewer.

Lol. You’re a dolt

[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.

If sex was legitimately a "need", half the men on this forum, according to them, wouldnt be around anymore. And yet most of them stay, and just whine and moan about it and make up victim nonsense towards their wife.

I think these discussions here tend to founder on arguments over the meaning of the term “need,” which ultimately aren’t very productive and often seem to involve bad faith from some on both sides. Let’s use a more neutral terminology. For most men, there is a level of sexual activity that is, let’s say, “essential to happiness.” This of course varies quite a lot for different people. The real issue is what is to be done when a relationship evolves in certain ways that make it impossible for one of the parties to be happy in it. I also think there is a little bit of gaslighting going on among some who would rather obscure the fundamental divide. Many women here seem to think that sex is a discretionary, dispensable aspect of marriage, while many men think that it’s a fundamental aspect of marriage that cannot be replaced by any level of other positive qualities in a marriage. Neither view is wrong, IMO, both are defensible. The question is what to do when spouses are at impasse on that issue, and it’s not an easy one.

Sure, and if men were intellectually honest about that, i.e. "sex makes me happy" instead of "it's a NEED and I'll pass out if I dont get it!!!!!!!1!!! I'm being abused because my wife won't sleep with me!" women would take it more seriously. The reality is its disingenuous and manipulative in the extreme to try to pressure women into having unwanted sex with you on the basis of it being vital for your health/continued existence. Trying to play up sex and make it seem like some life and death issue that you wife has not slept with you in two weeks is gross, whiny, childish behavior, and only serves to turn women further off.