Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?

I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.

First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.

My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.

I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.

Same for anyone else?

Same situation.

Sex is a barometer of marriage, if you aren't having good sex at least once a week, its probably because there is something deeply wrong with the marriage. Of course, friendship is important but you can also get that outside the marriage. With sex, if you aren't getting it inside the marriage, you will eventually get it outside the marriage. Or if you remain faithful, the resentment will destroy all else.

DW here. I need the trust and communication and playfulness of the Friendship to really be interested in the Sex.

Anonymous wrote:Obviously both. Duh.

My husband and I couldn’t keep our hands off one another or be apart after we met. It was intense chemistry and so much sex I was sore.

BUT- we loved everything about one another, had the same sense of humor, interests and truly liked each other’s friends. We were intimate inside and outside the bedroom. He is my best friend.

25 years later, passion can be intense, lull and rise again. Sex can be quick or long or one is more into than the other—and it can also be amazing.

We are 50 now, we don’t go more than a week without having sex and sometimes it’s a few times per week. Or somebody has a parent dying or is sick themselves, and we obviously don’t feel like it.

You need both for a long, happy successful marriage and you need to be flexible and understanding.

This is a good post. My initial inclination is that sex is what makes you a couple and is the one thing you only do with each other. But you are right, both are essential

I think of it like arguing whether the steering wheel or the gas is more essential to a car. If you don't have both, the car is worthless

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?

I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.

First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.

My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.

I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.

Same for anyone else?

Same situation.

Sex is a barometer of marriage, if you aren't having good sex at least once a week, its probably because there is something deeply wrong with the marriage. Of course, friendship is important but you can also get that outside the marriage. With sex, if you aren't getting it inside the marriage, you will eventually get it outside the marriage. Or if you remain faithful, the resentment will destroy all else.

So much truth about this post.

Obviously both. Duh.

My husband and I couldn’t keep our hands off one another or be apart after we met. It was intense chemistry and so much sex I was sore.

BUT- we loved everything about one another, had the same sense of humor, interests and truly liked each other’s friends. We were intimate inside and outside the bedroom. He is my best friend.

25 years later, passion can be intense, lull and rise again. Sex can be quick or long or one is more into than the other—and it can also be amazing.

We are 50 now, we don’t go more than a week without having sex and sometimes it’s a few times per week. Or somebody has a parent dying or is sick themselves, and we obviously don’t feel like it.

You need both for a long, happy successful marriage and you need to be flexible and understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?

I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.

First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.

My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.

I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.

Same for anyone else?

Same situation.

Sex is a barometer of marriage, if you aren't having good sex at least once a week, its probably because there is something deeply wrong with the marriage. Of course, friendship is important but you can also get that outside the marriage. With sex, if you aren't getting it inside the marriage, you will eventually get it outside the marriage. Or if you remain faithful, the resentment will destroy all else.

NP. About the bold: The "friendship" happily married people talk about with their spouses is not the type of friendship "you can get outside the marriage." It's a relationship of true, mutual partnership; trust; and communication. The word "friendship" gets used for this but it's deeper, richer and fundamentally different from just being friends, even very close friends.

If someone's experience was one where sex was the sole glue, and they felt the friendship in the marriage was equivalent to any friendship outside marriage -- they didn't experience the form of marital "friendship" to which many people are referring. It's not something you get from any other friend. I wish there were a better, deeper term for that part of the marriage relationship as experienced in good marriages.

I do not believe sex is THE glue for us. I've been married nearly 30 years and sex is a fantastic thing but can wax and wane, and bodies and attraction change over time. The commitment of marriage is to the love that goes beyond the physical and the emotional partnership that can't be replaced by other "friendship outside marriage." I think that if sex is the sole or primary glue in the relationship, that puts a huge amount of pressure on the sexual aspect of the relationship ,and on the partners or spouses to be always focused on it.

And pressure does not contribute to good sex or happy spouses.

Disagree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?

I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.

First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.

My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.

I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.

Same for anyone else?

Same situation.

Sex is a barometer of marriage, if you aren't having good sex at least once a week, its probably because there is something deeply wrong with the marriage. Of course, friendship is important but you can also get that outside the marriage. With sex, if you aren't getting it inside the marriage, you will eventually get it outside the marriage. Or if you remain faithful, the resentment will destroy all else.

NP. About the bold: The "friendship" happily married people talk about with their spouses is not the type of friendship "you can get outside the marriage." It's a relationship of true, mutual partnership; trust; and communication. The word "friendship" gets used for this but it's deeper, richer and fundamentally different from just being friends, even very close friends.

If someone's experience was one where sex was the sole glue, and they felt the friendship in the marriage was equivalent to any friendship outside marriage -- they didn't experience the form of marital "friendship" to which many people are referring. It's not something you get from any other friend. I wish there were a better, deeper term for that part of the marriage relationship as experienced in good marriages.

I do not believe sex is THE glue for us. I've been married nearly 30 years and sex is a fantastic thing but can wax and wane, and bodies and attraction change over time. The commitment of marriage is to the love that goes beyond the physical and the emotional partnership that can't be replaced by other "friendship outside marriage." I think that if sex is the sole or primary glue in the relationship, that puts a huge amount of pressure on the sexual aspect of the relationship ,and on the partners or spouses to be always focused on it.

And pressure does not contribute to good sex or happy spouses.

both but more sex in younger days, more friendship in older days based on our exp (together more than 40)

If we are talking about hetero marriage, it can't work without sex, unless it's one of those rare circumstances where both people are asexual.

For most men, their love language is sexual touch, so they do not feel loved if that's not there. You are asking for others to invade your marriage if you don't put effort into your sex life.

Perhaps friendship and companionship are more important when people are in their 60s and beyond.

I think it depends on individuals and phases of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?

I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.

First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.

My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.

I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.

Same for anyone else?

Same situation.

Sex is a barometer of marriage, if you aren't having good sex at least once a week, its probably because there is something deeply wrong with the marriage. Of course, friendship is important but you can also get that outside the marriage. With sex, if you aren't getting it inside the marriage, you will eventually get it outside the marriage. Or if you remain faithful, the resentment will destroy all else.

I once saw a study that found it’s actually kissing, not sex, that best predicted a marriage would fail. Sex can show intimacy, love, and affection, but it isn’t the only measure, and just because there’s sex doesn’t mean there’s affection.

Ideally you’d have both, to make it last longterm.

There are many times in a marriage that sex takes a back burner. Young kids, health issues, aging… if you don’t have a friendship I think it’s tough to weather those times. But it’s true that if your spouse isn’t ever your lover you will crave that and resent the marriage.

I think our marriage has both but at different times one is stronger than the other. You have to work to maintain both.

A sexless marriage can work only if both partners are on the same page, with similar drives or lack thereof. I have a friend in a relationship like this and they are very content, and have a great partnership and connection, but neither desires sex

Anonymous wrote:For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?

I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.

First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.

My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.

I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.

Same for anyone else?

Same situation.

Sex is a barometer of marriage, if you aren't having good sex at least once a week, its probably because there is something deeply wrong with the marriage. Of course, friendship is important but you can also get that outside the marriage. With sex, if you aren't getting it inside the marriage, you will eventually get it outside the marriage. Or if you remain faithful, the resentment will destroy all else.

There is a saying that sex is the glue that keeps the couple together. I believe it's the sex.

I say this as someone who have a great friendship with my spouse. We get along well, co-parent well, finances are good, enjoy a lot of the same things, on paper everything is great. But our sex life is dead, has been slowly dying for the last 10 years and we maybe have it 1x a month on a good month and often months without it. It erodes my soul, clouds everything good about our marriage.

I dream about leaving and finding someone who wants me. Even now, I am up at an odd hour because it's so hard to lie next to someone who rejects you.

Unless you are both super low drive, a good sex life is essential.

For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?

I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.

First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.

My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.

I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.

Same for anyone else?