Would You Remain Married If You Didn't Have Kids Together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.

For you....yes.

For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay how about: when he leaves all the grunt work for me, although we both work full time jobs and make about the same amount of money, I resent him and have no desire for him.

I could see that being a major problem.

But do you honestly believe that once he steps it up at home, takes some of the grunt work off, that you are automatically going to spread your legs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.

For you....yes.

For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.

Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.

For you....yes.

For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.

Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?

Definitely an economic benefit to having two incomes sharing one set of fixed expenses (housing mainly). Also security in that if one loses their job the other can provide insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay how about: when he leaves all the grunt work for me, although we both work full time jobs and make about the same amount of money, I resent him and have no desire for him.

I could see that being a major problem.

But do you honestly believe that once he steps it up at home, takes some of the grunt work off, that you are automatically going to spread your legs?

Yes. I take it outside now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

But do you think if you didn't have kids, that maybe the sex wouldn't have lost that electric luster? Since kids/family brings on a whole new dynamic to a relationship? No kids means more time to do your own thing and maybe keep that spark alive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay how about: when he leaves all the grunt work for me, although we both work full time jobs and make about the same amount of money, I resent him and have no desire for him.

I could see that being a major problem.

But do you honestly believe that once he steps it up at home, takes some of the grunt work off, that you are automatically going to spread your legs?

Yes. I take it outside now.

Way to work with your DH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fireworks/madly-in-love/sex-twice-a-day thing rarely lasts forever, even when you don't have kids. If you need to always have that dynamic to a relationship, you might reconsider whether marriage is for you at all.

As for me, if we didn't have kids, I would absolutely stay married to him. When we occasionally get a day without the kids, even if we're just running errands or working on the house, I'm reminded of just how much fun we have together and how much I love being with him.

I enjoy my time away from my husband as much as the time I spend with him.

As do I, it's not like that's an either/or. I just meant that I enjoy being married to him, and feel like I'd be losing out if we split up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

But do you think if you didn't have kids, that maybe the sex wouldn't have lost that electric luster? Since kids/family brings on a whole new dynamic to a relationship? No kids means more time to do your own thing and maybe keep that spark alive?

Nope. It isn't the kids. It's familiarity. It's the known. (And known, and known some more.) Women say it's the kids and it is to a small extent but they aren't fully to blame. But women do use them as an explanation because then it seems fixable. "When the kids are older it will be like it was." "If when would help split the childcare duties, I would want to have sex again." But the truth is, sex with the same person becomes boring and familiar over time and this it loses its appeal and it's not REALLY fixable because of course, as time goes on, the relationship only gets LESS new and exciting. People want to think if their spouse did more chores or complained less or lost weight the sex life would return to what it was but truthfully it never can because what makes sex so thrilling and alluring is the newness of another person's body, being whoever you want to be with that person because they don't yet know the real you, and being DISCOVERABLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.

For you....yes.

For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.

Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?

I REALLY want to thank you for this post. You put it in perspective for me. I'm in the camp of NO I would not be married if I did not have kids because I do want sexual variety and I see very little benefit to being married outside of children. I think it is great that some people can eat chicken daily, but I crave steak and seafood and everything in between, even if chicken is my favorite.

I adore my DH and plan to die his wife. However, I struggle with the monotony that comes with marriage, and had I been raised in a different more progressive culture, then I most probably would be open to an open marriage. I really like the way you have put it as an exchange, exchange that sexual excitement and variety and electric passion for the family life.

I think some people just don't like their spouses and answer, like me with a resounding NO, but their reasons are certainly not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.

For you....yes.

For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.

Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?

I don't think the OP was missing the point (even if she did thank you later for explaining). I agree with you completely about new sex being the best sex. But sex is just one facet of everyday happiness. I rank the happiness I get from having a trusted companion higher than the happiness I'd get from new sex. (And we're childfree.)

So I think you're saying, if not for the kids, you'd break up with your partner when the sex got boring -- wash, rinse, repeat. But then you'd be missing out on having a constant companion in life, unless people are basically interchangeable to you.

[Anonymous]

NP here. We got married assuming we'd have kids. When we found out that we couldn't, I gave him the option to leave. At this point, we stay together because it's still better than being alone. We're roommates, travelling partners, co-home owners. We're familiar with each other. I wouldn't want to be trying to date in my late 30s now. I know how much the dating market sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.

For you....yes.

For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.

Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?

I don't think the OP was missing the point (even if she did thank you later for explaining). I agree with you completely about new sex being the best sex. But sex is just one facet of everyday happiness. I rank the happiness I get from having a trusted companion higher than the happiness I'd get from new sex. (And we're childfree.)

So I think you're saying, if not for the kids, you'd break up with your partner when the sex got boring -- wash, rinse, repeat. But then you'd be missing out on having a constant companion in life, unless people are basically interchangeable to you.

\

A little black in white your world is, huh?

[Anonymous]

My answer is yes, I'd remain married, but I agree with some PPs that this is a depressing thread.

We have four kids; three are grown and one heads off to college in a couple of years. After 25+ years with my DH, we're still very much in love & enjoy an active sex life. He's my best friend, cliched as that sounds.

I tend to think of myself as a hedonist in many respects, but I guess compared to some others I wouldn't even register. I don't expect to have earth-shattering, passionate sex for the rest of my life, but the warmth & intimacy of our lovemaking is wonderful for both of us.

I wonder if as many people in the real world feel the way DCUMers do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My answer is yes, I'd remain married, but I agree with some PPs that this is a depressing thread.

We have four kids; three are grown and one heads off to college in a couple of years. After 25+ years with my DH, we're still very much in love & enjoy an active sex life. He's my best friend, cliched as that sounds.

I tend to think of myself as a hedonist in many respects, but I guess compared to some others I wouldn't even register. I don't expect to have earth-shattering, passionate sex for the rest of my life, but the warmth & intimacy of our lovemaking is wonderful for both of us.

I wonder if as many people in the real world feel the way DCUMers do.

50% of marriages end in divorce, and my guess is at least half of marriages that stay the duration are functional but not very fun. Then consider that BOTH halves of the couple need to be happy, i.e. one spouse is happy with sex or lack thereof and the other isn't. So it should be no surprise that most people wouldn't stay if the kids weren't in the picture.

Signed, a DH who would is in a functional marriage with a great wife who has almost no sex drive and I would be gone in a heartbeat if we didn't have kids.