How many men would stay w/o sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my wife woke up tomorrow and said no more sex, I would leave or just start dating.

What if she physically couldn’t?

It blows my mind that a man can love and admire everything about a woman - her looks, her mind, her job, her thoughts, her voice - but if she can’t have sex, it’s over.

How many women would stay if guy has ED? Have you read the posts? A requirement for sex in a relationship is not uniquely male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my wife woke up tomorrow and said no more sex, I would leave or just start dating.

What if she physically couldn’t?

It blows my mind that a man can love and admire everything about a woman - her looks, her mind, her job, her thoughts, her voice - but if she can’t have sex, it’s over.

How many women would stay if guy has ED? Have you read the posts? A requirement for sex in a relationship is not uniquely male.

Are you joking? So many men have ED. Soooooo many women never really orgasm with their male partner, and the male partner doesnt even care. Women have inured themselves to mediocre sex with men and most of them already live mediocre sex lives even when having sex regularly.

[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:

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?

That is what a need is, whether you like it or not. Needs are nonnegotiables and imply that such an issue is REQUIRED, not wanted or desired but NECESSARY to function. Clearly many people function without sex. If men werent so ridiculous dramatic and disingenuous about it, women would respect them more. Just say you WANT to get your D wet.

[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.

+1

These sex obsessed "I need it!!!! " posters just reveal their own pathetic immaturity and childishness. It's actually pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a study done on something like this, the researcher was not Shirley Glass it was in a book of hers.

Anyway...
a person who will cheat with sex will leave in this scenario
a person who will cheat without sex will leave in this scenario
men who never cheat will stay in this scenario

So the reality is men who cheat are just cheaters and they are lacking a basic underlying character needed to be a good person, they cheat and they do many things in their life that a good person would not do.

So the basic fact is, men who would leave in this situation were probably going to end up leaving even in the best of circumstance because they lack basic morals, integrity, etc.

Yes a dude on this post said he literally only is with his wife for sex. He has no clue why that is wild to normal people.

Link?

You have to buy the book, it’s by Shirley glass. Not just friends.

[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.

No it’s not a need, nor is having children.

Also this thread is about a wife who can’t physically have sex

[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:

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?

That is what a need is, whether you like it or not. Needs are nonnegotiables and imply that such an issue is REQUIRED, not wanted or desired but NECESSARY to function. Clearly many people function without sex. If men werent so ridiculous dramatic and disingenuous about it, women would respect them more. Just say you WANT to get your D wet.

You're pathetic. And still don't know why you married your husband since you clearly hate him so much.

[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.

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

This.

But it’s literally not a need and yes if you say it’s a need you are moaning about victim nonsense.

If it’s a want, that is a dealbreaker for you then make that clear upfront when you get married. If you are in a catastrophic accident and you can’t have sex with me, I will leave you.

Let the woman decide if she wants to marry you.

But there are plenty of men who would not leave in this scenario

[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.

Agree completely.

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

But in this scenario, it was not unilaterally, decided it was decided by fate and a terrible accident.

[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.

No it’s not a need, nor is having children.

Also this thread is about a wife who can’t physically have sex

Again, yes it is a need. You're just too dumb to comprehend.

Yes, I know the original post was about that, but this particular conversation was started by someone mentioning a spouse refusing to do it for no particular health reason but simply because they just don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my wife woke up tomorrow and said no more sex, I would leave or just start dating.

What if she physically couldn’t?

It blows my mind that a man can love and admire everything about a woman - her looks, her mind, her job, her thoughts, her voice - but if she can’t have sex, it’s over.

I am genuinely confused by this issue. Women so often in this forum include a woman’s career as something men admire or care about women. I’ve just never seen a man admire or be attracted to a woman because of her career. Maybe it is a necessary condition to dating/marriage. And yes, some careers are no go, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a male friend say “oh, she’s a [insert job] and I’m attracted to that.”

I’m not talking about fetishizing certain careers or finding careers to be logistically compatible.

Are there lots of men that actually find a career/job attractive/admirable in and of itself?

[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.

Well, I think people just need to stop using the word need when they talk about sex.

Because it’s not a need.

I think it’s fine for a man to say that it’s want that they have and it’s a dealbreaker if there’s no sex in the marriage and that they will leave.

Also, I think it is valid for a woman to say if you don’t make a certain amount of money and keep me in a home that I will be happy in and a school for my kids that will make me happy. I will leave you for another man.

That’s not a need that’s a want both are the same. Better are quite selfish, but they are the same.

[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.

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

This.

But it’s literally not a need and yes if you say it’s a need you are moaning about victim nonsense.

If it’s a want, that is a dealbreaker for you then make that clear upfront when you get married. If you are in a catastrophic accident and you can’t have sex with me, I will leave you.

Let the woman decide if she wants to marry you.

But there are plenty of men who would not leave in this scenario

Sort of like you made clear upfront that sex is only for a few years and then you and only you can decide you don't want to anymore and your husband is a "victim., and childish, and immature" for having a basic human need you knew about before you married him.

[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.

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

Otherwise, you are just roommates; nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my wife woke up tomorrow and said no more sex, I would leave or just start dating.

What if she physically couldn’t?

It blows my mind that a man can love and admire everything about a woman - her looks, her mind, her job, her thoughts, her voice - but if she can’t have sex, it’s over.

I am genuinely confused by this issue. Women so often in this forum include a woman’s career as something men admire or care about women. I’ve just never seen a man admire or be attracted to a woman because of her career. Maybe it is a necessary condition to dating/marriage. And yes, some careers are no go, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a male friend say “oh, she’s a [insert job] and I’m attracted to that.”

I’m not talking about fetishizing certain careers or finding careers to be logistically compatible.

Are there lots of men that actually find a career/job attractive/admirable in and of itself?

You’ve never met power couple. You’ve never heard of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.?