How many men would stay w/o sex

[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.

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.

You need to be intellectually honest and admit that no one said any of the things you are mentioning. Where did any man in this thread say they would die without sex? It IS a need just like you have a need for love, companionship, community, etc. It is a need in a sense that you felt a need to have children. No one would die without those things and plenty of people don't want them, but you married a man who wanted it, you wanted it at some point, so changing your mind and unilaterally deciding HE shouldn't want it any more and at least should just shut up about still having the same need he had when you married him is selfish and childish. If you are turned off by your husband's desire for you, you ARE the problem in your marriage. Grow up.

[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.

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.

You need to be intellectually honest and admit that no one said any of the things you are mentioning. Where did any man in this thread say they would die without sex? It IS a need just like you have a need for love, companionship, community, etc. It is a need in a sense that you felt a need to have children. No one would die without those things and plenty of people don't want them, but you married a man who wanted it, you wanted it at some point, so changing your mind and unilaterally deciding HE shouldn't want it any more and at least should just shut up about still having the same need he had when you married him is selfish and childish. If you are turned off by your husband's desire for you, you ARE the problem in your marriage. Grow up.

A "need" implies that it's something vital for life, so yes, of course there is an implication that you'll die without it. You also dont "need" love, companionship, children, etc, and I have literally never seen any woman on this board playing some kind of victim stage performance about how they "need" kids and they are enraged that their husband wont give it to them. The absolute audacity and immaturity it takes to play up a strong want and turn it into a "need", an issue of life or death, is incredible. And again, the disingenuousness and childishness of it is exactly why most women lose their desire for husbands who engage in this behavior. It's like a child screaming because he cant have a cookie he wants- just a shocking display of deep emotional immaturity.

[Anonymous]

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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

[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: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.

You need to be intellectually honest and admit that no one said any of the things you are mentioning. Where did any man in this thread say they would die without sex? It IS a need just like you have a need for love, companionship, community, etc. It is a need in a sense that you felt a need to have children. No one would die without those things and plenty of people don't want them, but you married a man who wanted it, you wanted it at some point, so changing your mind and unilaterally deciding HE shouldn't want it any more and at least should just shut up about still having the same need he had when you married him is selfish and childish. If you are turned off by your husband's desire for you, you ARE the problem in your marriage. Grow up.

A "need" implies that it's something vital for life, so yes, of course there is an implication that you'll die without it. You also dont "need" love, companionship, children, etc, and I have literally never seen any woman on this board playing some kind of victim stage performance about how they "need" kids and they are enraged that their husband wont give it to them. The absolute audacity and immaturity it takes to play up a strong want and turn it into a "need", an issue of life or death, is incredible. And again, the disingenuousness and childishness of it is exactly why most women lose their desire for husbands who engage in this behavior. It's like a child screaming because he cant have a cookie he wants- just a shocking display of deep emotional immaturity.

What needs do you have that are not life and death? Really think about it and be intellectually honest. No one other than YOU is making a biological need for sex and life and death one. You're the only one spewing that drivel. Please divorce your husband. He deserves so much better. The way you mock and belittle his perfectly normal human need is despicable. I'm a woman BTW. I need sex too.

[Anonymous]

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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

That's the ranking order for you. Many other people rank it a lot higher which is absolutely not wrong. The key is to have a partner who ranks it the same way.

[Anonymous]

There is a very big difference between an unmarried person in their twenties and someone who is married with kids. I do not think any man would want to stay with a woman like this for the rest of his life if they were not married. I think many men would stay married to the mother of their children if she got injured or disabled.

[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: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.

You need to be intellectually honest and admit that no one said any of the things you are mentioning. Where did any man in this thread say they would die without sex? It IS a need just like you have a need for love, companionship, community, etc. It is a need in a sense that you felt a need to have children. No one would die without those things and plenty of people don't want them, but you married a man who wanted it, you wanted it at some point, so changing your mind and unilaterally deciding HE shouldn't want it any more and at least should just shut up about still having the same need he had when you married him is selfish and childish. If you are turned off by your husband's desire for you, you ARE the problem in your marriage. Grow up.

A "need" implies that it's something vital for life, so yes, of course there is an implication that you'll die without it. You also dont "need" love, companionship, children, etc, and I have literally never seen any woman on this board playing some kind of victim stage performance about how they "need" kids and they are enraged that their husband wont give it to them. The absolute audacity and immaturity it takes to play up a strong want and turn it into a "need", an issue of life or death, is incredible. And again, the disingenuousness and childishness of it is exactly why most women lose their desire for husbands who engage in this behavior. It's like a child screaming because he cant have a cookie he wants- just a shocking display of deep emotional immaturity.

What needs do you have that are not life and death? Really think about it and be intellectually honest. No one other than YOU is making a biological need for sex and life and death one. You're the only one spewing that drivel. Please divorce your husband. He deserves so much better. The way you mock and belittle his perfectly normal human need is despicable. I'm a woman BTW. I need sex too.

Of course a need is life and death, that's why it's a NEED aka a necessity. Necessities are non negotiable, meaning one cannot continue without it. Just like oil is a "need" for a car, vs heated seats which are a want. Oil is necessary for the engine to run, heated seats are not, hence the different designations. Please dont play obtuse about basic english words, THAT is despicable (and also disingenuous)

[Anonymous]

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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

Exactly. Money is arguably much more necessary for life in our society, so I guess women should go around whining about how they "need" more money from their partner and their mean, evil husband is withholding cash. It's absolutely ridiculous and immature, the way men get so rigidly fixated on having some dream sex life from a prepubescent fantasy

[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: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.

You need to be intellectually honest and admit that no one said any of the things you are mentioning. Where did any man in this thread say they would die without sex? It IS a need just like you have a need for love, companionship, community, etc. It is a need in a sense that you felt a need to have children. No one would die without those things and plenty of people don't want them, but you married a man who wanted it, you wanted it at some point, so changing your mind and unilaterally deciding HE shouldn't want it any more and at least should just shut up about still having the same need he had when you married him is selfish and childish. If you are turned off by your husband's desire for you, you ARE the problem in your marriage. Grow up.

A "need" implies that it's something vital for life, so yes, of course there is an implication that you'll die without it. You also dont "need" love, companionship, children, etc, and I have literally never seen any woman on this board playing some kind of victim stage performance about how they "need" kids and they are enraged that their husband wont give it to them. The absolute audacity and immaturity it takes to play up a strong want and turn it into a "need", an issue of life or death, is incredible. And again, the disingenuousness and childishness of it is exactly why most women lose their desire for husbands who engage in this behavior. It's like a child screaming because he cant have a cookie he wants- just a shocking display of deep emotional immaturity.

What needs do you have that are not life and death? Really think about it and be intellectually honest. No one other than YOU is making a biological need for sex and life and death one. You're the only one spewing that drivel. Please divorce your husband. He deserves so much better. The way you mock and belittle his perfectly normal human need is despicable. I'm a woman BTW. I need sex too.

Of course a need is life and death, that's why it's a NEED aka a necessity. Necessities are non negotiable, meaning one cannot continue without it. Just like oil is a "need" for a car, vs heated seats which are a want. Oil is necessary for the engine to run, heated seats are not, hence the different designations. Please dont play obtuse about basic english words, THAT is despicable (and also disingenuous)

If you can't see that every single need is not a matter of life and death, you're either too dumb to exist or you are being extremely dishonest. Humans have plenty of needs that are not a matter of survival. If you have no need for love, sex, or intimacy, why are you EVEN MARRIED?

[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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

Exactly. Money is arguably much more necessary for life in our society, so I guess women should go around whining about how they "need" more money from their partner and their mean, evil husband is withholding cash. It's absolutely ridiculous and immature, the way men get so rigidly fixated on having some dream sex life from a prepubescent fantasy

You are not well.

[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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

That's the ranking order for you. Many other people rank it a lot higher which is absolutely not wrong. The key is to have a partner who ranks it the same way.

I think most mature people rank health, their kids, and finances up there lol. Why some marriages don't end in divorce and others cut and run having multiple marriages.

[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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

Exactly. Money is arguably much more necessary for life in our society, so I guess women should go around whining about how they "need" more money from their partner and their mean, evil husband is withholding cash. It's absolutely ridiculous and immature, the way men get so rigidly fixated on having some dream sex life from a prepubescent fantasy

You are not well.

The "dream sex life" shows they are very young or very regressed imo.

[Anonymous]

Our marriage goes through extended sexless periods and then some periods of bad sex. DH is just not good and is not trying to listen or learn. I lost hope that he’d keep the pace when I ask him to continue for a minute to do what he’s doing. I wish he’d at least hug me randomly or hold my hand. Nada. I am (DW) the one who’s struggling, he seems fine. He’d probably prefer a sexless marriage.

[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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

That's the ranking order for you. Many other people rank it a lot higher which is absolutely not wrong. The key is to have a partner who ranks it the same way.

I think most mature people rank health, their kids, and finances up there lol. Why some marriages don't end in divorce and others cut and run having multiple marriages.

How can any marriage survive without the two people who are married to each other feeling loved and fulfilled? If you don't prioritize each other, everything else is replaceable. Not talking about kids of course which would be another reason to prioritize your marriage.

[Anonymous]

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?

This thread is immature imo. What about elderly people, people with health issues? How many women would stay with a man that is under employed or refuses to do any of the shared home chores? Just as important as sex, actually more.

Exactly. Money is arguably much more necessary for life in our society, so I guess women should go around whining about how they "need" more money from their partner and their mean, evil husband is withholding cash. It's absolutely ridiculous and immature, the way men get so rigidly fixated on having some dream sex life from a prepubescent fantasy

You are not well.

The "dream sex life" shows they are very young or very regressed imo.

I know, right. What's the female version of Peter Pan?