Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Then why not give the spouse who wants sex a hall pass to find it elsewhere? I mean, to not do so -- and consign them to a life of never having sex again -- is just cruel. Because not only do you not want to have sex again, you're essentially saying you never want your partner to have sex again either.

So if one partner wants a kid and the other doesn't. The one who doesn't, let's the wife get knocked up by somebody else?

No. Both people need to agree on having another child. It's not a unilateral decision.

That's an awful analogy. Both parents have to raise and support the child. DW doesn't have to have the slightest involvement in DH's outside sex life.

STDs, pregnancy of OW, rabbit boiling.... It threatens the health of the marriage/family.

Those are make weight excuses for the fact that someone both wants to demand sexual exclusivity and not have sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Then why not give the spouse who wants sex a hall pass to find it elsewhere? I mean, to not do so -- and consign them to a life of never having sex again -- is just cruel. Because not only do you not want to have sex again, you're essentially saying you never want your partner to have sex again either.

So if one partner wants a kid and the other doesn't. The one who doesn't, let's the wife get knocked up by somebody else?

No. Both people need to agree on having another child. It's not a unilateral decision.

That's another great example of an issue people divorce over if they can't come to a healthy agreement. And it's another issue where if only one person gets their way the other person is bitter and full of resentment.

So I think it's a good analogy. If my husband entered the marriage claiming he wanted to have children and then changed his mind I would divorce him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Then why not give the spouse who wants sex a hall pass to find it elsewhere? I mean, to not do so -- and consign them to a life of never having sex again -- is just cruel. Because not only do you not want to have sex again, you're essentially saying you never want your partner to have sex again either.

So if one partner wants a kid and the other doesn't. The one who doesn't, let's the wife get knocked up by somebody else?

No. Both people need to agree on having another child. It's not a unilateral decision.

That's an awful analogy. Both parents have to raise and support the child. DW doesn't have to have the slightest involvement in DH's outside sex life.

STDs, pregnancy of OW, rabbit boiling.... It threatens the health of the marriage/family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Mostly the issue is the high libido partner wanting it 3 times a week and they think 3 times a month is not a good compromise hence the partner threatening to "get it elsewhere".... Divorcing.... Or forcing the issue and the partner complying out of fear.... That is the real issue they is a little rapey or emotional abuse due to entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Then why not give the spouse who wants sex a hall pass to find it elsewhere? I mean, to not do so -- and consign them to a life of never having sex again -- is just cruel. Because not only do you not want to have sex again, you're essentially saying you never want your partner to have sex again either.

So if one partner wants a kid and the other doesn't. The one who doesn't, let's the wife get knocked up by somebody else?

No. Both people need to agree on having another child. It's not a unilateral decision.

That's an awful analogy. Both parents have to raise and support the child. DW doesn't have to have the slightest involvement in DH's outside sex life.

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, the emotional fog thread was 3 weeks without sex. And it made the guy percieve life more negatively & in a way that disappeared after sex. It wasn't "brain exploding." There was also a PP in that thread who had trouble focusing on work.

The commenter who doesn't like the idea that sex is anything more than a frivolous extra likes to exaggerate the claims in that thread.

Did somebody actually believe they can't perform at work because of 3 weeks without sex. Gmafb!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Then why not give the spouse who wants sex a hall pass to find it elsewhere? I mean, to not do so -- and consign them to a life of never having sex again -- is just cruel. Because not only do you not want to have sex again, you're essentially saying you never want your partner to have sex again either.

So if one partner wants a kid and the other doesn't. The one who doesn't, let's the wife get knocked up by somebody else?

No. Both people need to agree on having another child. It's not a unilateral decision.

If my DW decided "no moar sex," I could sort of live with that provided (1) she didn't complain when I went to see movies after work once a week or so, (2) I didn't have to listen to her vent about non-kid stuff more than say 5 minutes or so, and (3) she's OK with me staying up until midnight/1am playing video games/reading the paper/doing stuff around the house.

I mean I wouldn't be happy, but if she were flexible in other areas of my life and let me enjoy things (not sex with other women) she doesn't particularly like, the resentment would be tamped down quite a bit.

I'll concede I probably don't have THAT high a libido (maybe 4 out of 10, would prefer 2-3 times a week and wouldn't get antsy until like two weeks w/o).

Expecting the full wife treatment but no sex -- yeah, that would get real old, real fast.

FWIW, the emotional fog thread was 3 weeks without sex. And it made the guy percieve life more negatively & in a way that disappeared after sex. It wasn't "brain exploding." There was also a PP in that thread who had trouble focusing on work.

The commenter who doesn't like the idea that sex is anything more than a frivolous extra likes to exaggerate the claims in that thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Two things:

First, sometimes this can be partially answered by the couple's expectations coming into the marriage. I think the spouse who is more dramatically deviating from what the couple expected at the time they said their vows has more obligation to try to come towards the other partner's position.

Second, its unreasonable to not have sex AND demand exclusivity. If you do that, you are both demanding that your need and wish to not have sex is respected and that your spouse's desire to have sex not be met.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Then why not give the spouse who wants sex a hall pass to find it elsewhere? I mean, to not do so -- and consign them to a life of never having sex again -- is just cruel. Because not only do you not want to have sex again, you're essentially saying you never want your partner to have sex again either.

Anonymous wrote:As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”

SO when one spouse wants sex and the other could die happy never having sex again, whose needs get met?
"Compromise" and make the one who never wants to have sex, have sex just a few times a month? Well, that's doesn't seem to be meeting their needs and wishes.
According to this board, the one wants sex gets their needs met by pressuring the one who is happy never having sex again.

Athol is like saying "asshole" with a lisp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's nothing medically wrong and she isn't depressed and you're a cool guy who is way decent and helps out, you need to realize there's nothing you can fix here. The reality is she's bored of sex and other things like TV or sleep or reading are more appealing to her than more of the sex she's been having forever and which she no longer enjoys. That's all that's going on for most sexless marriages. A spouse who simply isn't interested in sex because it bores them.

This is so true. When a spouse loses libido, short of it being a medical issue, there is nothing you can do to create it. At best you might get her to have sex out of gratitude or duty, but it will never again be out of desire. I'm in the same boat and it sucks.

Yes. And many spouses who don't want sex will say "I've lost my libido" as if it's some medical issues but it really almost never is. It's sheer boredom and disinterest in having sex. That's it. And a lot of marriages could probably be saved if the disinterested spouse could just a) admit that and b) release their partner from the responsibility of being sexually faithful to a partner who is no longer interested in sex. Open your mind, allow your spouse to seek physical intimacy elsewhere, and preserve the marriage as best as you can that way. It's when you hold your spouse to ironclad vows of fidelity but refuse to have sex with them that these problems get bad.

As Athol Kay writes in The Married Man Sex Life Primer:

“Marriage is at its heart, a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legally binding friendship, which is a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each other’s sexual needs and not to run round getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and sexless marriages break that relationship agreement.”