Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. Sex is a need. No its not as needed as food and water, but it is a need nonetheless. Just like companionship and social interaction. Nobody dies without companionship and social interaction, but its not feasible to live without SOME level of social interaction.

No woman dies if the husband is not doing his share of financial or at home responsibilities. Since she wont die if the husband is a couch potato, its a ‘want’ that husband should pull his weight?

NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Exactly. I m the pp at 1406 and the point i m making and the other pp is unable to understand is that women should not consider a need for their dh’s to contribute in a meaningful way- whether financially or otherwise, since they will not die if their dh’s are losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

Tons of APs do that. The husbands won't leave their wives (aka hung up on them) so the APs settle for scraps. Yes it's sad and pathetic, but not uncommon.

They don’t leave, but they are completely checked out of the roommates for life situation.

No. There's no roommate situation. Marriage is a contract. If someone wants to check out, they will need to divorce. Otherwise they are very much married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. Sex is a need. No its not as needed as food and water, but it is a need nonetheless. Just like companionship and social interaction. Nobody dies without companionship and social interaction, but its not feasible to live without SOME level of social interaction.

No woman dies if the husband is not doing his share of financial or at home responsibilities. Since she wont die if the husband is a couch potato, its a ‘want’ that husband should pull his weight?

NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

You are weirdly fixated on the nomenclature. I'm not the one above, but financial security is a need for everyone as well. Whether you expect your husband to fulfill that need for you or you do it yourself is a different conversation but it is a need.

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, and the pp who keeps insisting it is, even after googling it and proving themselves wrong is weirdly delusional.

My Dh puts a much much higher importance on sex than I do. I like it, and like how it benefits our relationship, but I could probably live without it. I'm not sure about him. He doesn't seem the type to cheat, and I'm 99% sure his parents have had a sexless marriage for basically as long as we've been together (18+yrs), but I KNOW he gets grumpy and in his feelings when we have a dry spell. If I was physically unable, I'd like to think he'd stay, but I dont actually know.

Very sad to read the posts on the first page saying they'd leave or cheat immediately if something catastrophic happened to their wife. There are a few resident incels around here though, so maybe I can hold out hope it was just trolls saying such things =\

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. Sex is a need. No its not as needed as food and water, but it is a need nonetheless. Just like companionship and social interaction. Nobody dies without companionship and social interaction, but its not feasible to live without SOME level of social interaction.

No woman dies if the husband is not doing his share of financial or at home responsibilities. Since she wont die if the husband is a couch potato, its a ‘want’ that husband should pull his weight?

NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

DP, but you are the only one conflating "not a need" with "not a big deal". The pps you are replying to even said they would take you (and others) more seriously if you used the correct language, ie "sex is a big deal or dealbreaker in my relationship". You are more than welcome to feel like it is a big deal. Just as those women don't feel that a man bringing home the bacon is a "need", but rather an important aspect of their relationship (to them).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. Sex is a need. No its not as needed as food and water, but it is a need nonetheless. Just like companionship and social interaction. Nobody dies without companionship and social interaction, but its not feasible to live without SOME level of social interaction.

No woman dies if the husband is not doing his share of financial or at home responsibilities. Since she wont die if the husband is a couch potato, its a ‘want’ that husband should pull his weight?

NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.

There’s not a single lie in my statement. Debate me on what I said. According to your logic, it should not be a big deal to a woman if her husband is a loser and a couch potato since she is not going to die if he is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. Sex is a need. No its not as needed as food and water, but it is a need nonetheless. Just like companionship and social interaction. Nobody dies without companionship and social interaction, but its not feasible to live without SOME level of social interaction.

No woman dies if the husband is not doing his share of financial or at home responsibilities. Since she wont die if the husband is a couch potato, its a ‘want’ that husband should pull his weight?

NP. No it's not. It's not a need, and lying to make it seem like one makes you seem crazy and out of control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

Tons of APs do that. The husbands won't leave their wives (aka hung up on them) so the APs settle for scraps. Yes it's sad and pathetic, but not uncommon.

They don’t leave, but they are completely checked out of the roommates for life situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

Tons of APs do that. The husbands won't leave their wives (aka hung up on them) so the APs settle for scraps. Yes it's sad and pathetic, but not uncommon.

They don’t leave, but they are completely checked out of the roommates for life situation.

Not necessarily. On the cheating threads I've read on here (no personal experience), many people who cheat are still having regular sex with their partner. Not always a roommate situation. Some people are just crap people with no morals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

Tons of APs do that. The husbands won't leave their wives (aka hung up on them) so the APs settle for scraps. Yes it's sad and pathetic, but not uncommon.

They don’t leave, but they are completely checked out of the roommates for life situation.

Not necessarily. On the cheating threads I've read on here (no personal experience), many people who cheat are still having regular sex with their partner. Not always a roommate situation. Some people are just crap people with no morals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

Tons of APs do that. The husbands won't leave their wives (aka hung up on them) so the APs settle for scraps. Yes it's sad and pathetic, but not uncommon.

They don’t leave, but they are completely checked out of the roommates for life situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:** Spoilers for the book Intermezzo by Sally Rooney **


So part of the plot is this guy is deeply in love with his college gf. They are now in their early thirties. She was in a very bad car accident in their twenties, which leaves her with chronic pain for the rest of her life. She can no longer have penetrative sex and other sex acts are difficult as well (like blow jobs). Again, her pain is very bad and affects her on a daily basis etc. She is described as being very frail and walking like an old woman.

Her bf, the main character, initially wants to stay together, but she pushes him away because she knows he can’t live without frequent, high quality sex, which she can no longer provide. The best she can do is a hand job. He eventually gets together with another girl who he does have a good sex life with. But he’s still emotionally hung up on the first girl. He tries to get back together with her after his dad dies and he sees her at the funeral but he realizes he can’t be exclusive with someone he’s not having sex with. They end up in a thrupple with the other woman, which strikes me as highly unrealistic (!) and a cop out but never mind that.

Anyway, to the point of the book, do you think it’s true that most men cannot live without frequent penetrative sex and would leave someone they love over this?

I’m curious as to what men think of this. All of the reviewers are saying the author “nailed” the male mind and voice.

I’m not sure if the author nailed the female mind here. Why would the second woman stay in a sexual relationship when she knows the guy is still hung up on the college girlfriend and has his “real” relationship with her?
Is she depressed? I would feel so worthless in that situation.

Tons of APs do that. The husbands won't leave their wives (aka hung up on them) so the APs settle for scraps. Yes it's sad and pathetic, but not uncommon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, and the pp who keeps insisting it is, even after googling it and proving themselves wrong is weirdly delusional.

My Dh puts a much much higher importance on sex than I do. I like it, and like how it benefits our relationship, but I could probably live without it. I'm not sure about him. He doesn't seem the type to cheat, and I'm 99% sure his parents have had a sexless marriage for basically as long as we've been together (18+yrs), but I KNOW he gets grumpy and in his feelings when we have a dry spell. If I was physically unable, I'd like to think he'd stay, but I dont actually know.

Very sad to read the posts on the first page saying they'd leave or cheat immediately if something catastrophic happened to their wife. There are a few resident incels around here though, so maybe I can hold out hope it was just trolls saying such things =\

Seriously, could you imagine?

You just were in a catastrophic accident you can’t have sex.

Immediately your husband is searching out a new sex partner instead of caring for you.

I mean, what is wrong with those people that posted that. It’s quite insane..

They’re going to spend their time and energy finding a sexual partner instead of caring for their wife and children.
It’s mind-boggling.

I really could not. I am hopeful to be in good health for many many more years, but you never know. I can't imagine the pain of the women who's husbands peace out when they get cancer or whatever. What happened to "in sickness and in health"? Idk if I'd be able to trust another man again if that happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, and the pp who keeps insisting it is, even after googling it and proving themselves wrong is weirdly delusional.

My Dh puts a much much higher importance on sex than I do. I like it, and like how it benefits our relationship, but I could probably live without it. I'm not sure about him. He doesn't seem the type to cheat, and I'm 99% sure his parents have had a sexless marriage for basically as long as we've been together (18+yrs), but I KNOW he gets grumpy and in his feelings when we have a dry spell. If I was physically unable, I'd like to think he'd stay, but I dont actually know.

Very sad to read the posts on the first page saying they'd leave or cheat immediately if something catastrophic happened to their wife. There are a few resident incels around here though, so maybe I can hold out hope it was just trolls saying such things =\

Seriously, could you imagine?

You just were in a catastrophic accident you can’t have sex.

Immediately your husband is searching out a new sex partner instead of caring for you.

I mean, what is wrong with those people that posted that. It’s quite insane..

They’re going to spend their time and energy finding a sexual partner instead of caring for their wife and children.
It’s mind-boggling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, and the pp who keeps insisting it is, even after googling it and proving themselves wrong is weirdly delusional.

My Dh puts a much much higher importance on sex than I do. I like it, and like how it benefits our relationship, but I could probably live without it. I'm not sure about him. He doesn't seem the type to cheat, and I'm 99% sure his parents have had a sexless marriage for basically as long as we've been together (18+yrs), but I KNOW he gets grumpy and in his feelings when we have a dry spell. If I was physically unable, I'd like to think he'd stay, but I dont actually know.

Very sad to read the posts on the first page saying they'd leave or cheat immediately if something catastrophic happened to their wife. There are a few resident incels around here though, so maybe I can hold out hope it was just trolls saying such things =\

PLEASE STOP SOCK PUPPETING. Your writing is insane and very easily identifiable.