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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Sex is absolutely the most important part of a marriage. It is the core part of the human experience. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way.

Some of us think love is the core part of the human experience.

And some of us haven’t completely separated the two of our heads. If you read Helen Fischer’s work, you will find that LOVE hormones get released during sex as well as hugging, breastfeeding etc. I happen to express love through physical contact and I feel loved when DH have sex regularly. Of course if he simply couldn’t do it for some reason, I wouldn’t leave but if he WOULDN’T, I’d feel very lonely and unloved and I’d probably consider whether our love was as solid as I’d thought.

Shaming people because they find sex to be a core way people who love each other communicate is not the flex you think it is.

Nobody is shaming you but it’s not the core way you feel love. It’s one way and it’s a way you put too much emphasis on probably due to some lacking in intimacy in childhood or friendships. But if sex is your core way to get live it’s not normal

This is just not true. It is for some people. Read Gottman’s love languages.

To the contrary, playing down the need for sex and sexuality is what leads to problems. Not accepting individual differences. So to reiterate, get off your high horse and stop shaming people for whom sex is really important.

Gottman specifically says sex is not included or necessary under physical touch,

To emphasize sex so much points to a maladaptive ability to get and show love and affection without sex.

It’s not a high horse it’s just a fact.

You should really look into why you can’t give or receive love and affection without sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Sex is absolutely the most important part of a marriage. It is the core part of the human experience. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Just because you're too dumb to understand that it is a need does not negate the fact that it is.

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.

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.

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

https://www.cnn.com/world/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-explained-wellness-cec/index.html

So you just proved her point, lol. Sex is nowhere near the bottom of the pyramid, which confers life threatening "needs" in the sense that we popularly use the term "need". Most people would never, ever list making art or music as a NEED or necessity, or that someone is in crisis and being deeply negatively affected because theyre, say, unable to play the violin. Same goes for the other things at the top of the pyramid, including sex. Not a need in any real sense of the term, not in terms of the popular conception of need. Unless you drop everything and panic because your poetic wife is unable to spend the afternoon writing, then you need to check yourself as to why you feel everyone should cater to your sexual cravings/wants. It makes you look petulant and incredibly selfish/immature.

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.

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.

Here you go you intellectually lacking moron.

https://www.cnn.com/world/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-explained-wellness-cec/index.html

Look who’s the intellectually lacking moron. Maslow doesn’t equate intimacy with sex.

The Maslow hierarchy of needs specifically says intimacy, and sex are not the same thing.

For **** sake, you’re an idiot

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Nobody on here ever claimed or believe their entire existence is around sex. You are the one claiming that.

They do act like it is though and you know it. Are you triggered?

No we don’t act like sex is the only thing that matters to us. What we claim is sex is a very important part of a marriage along with many other things.

PP literally said it's the most important part of marriage. You know you can just read the thread.

No, it's not even the top 5 considering health, finances, your children, etc. Yes it's important, but many top sex.

Communication, and compromise are important too.

I mean, either it’s important to the marriage and you treat it that way, or it’s not and you don’t pretend to be offended when your partner steps out.

Then don't be offended when the court divides the retirement since your spouse owns 50% of that, plus all the other assets. If you are a cheater you would find any other reason to cheat.

Yes! Any excuse will do for them, and if it's not this, it will be something else. They don't have relationship issues, they have moral failings and personal character issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a core group of men and women on this forum whose entire existence is around sex. I really hate then. Everything about them is sex sex sex. I don't know if they are this way because they are in a sexless marriage, or they are sex addict, or just mentally ill. Sex isn't everything in a relationship.

Nobody on here ever claimed or believe their entire existence is around sex. You are the one claiming that.

They do act like it is though and you know it. Are you triggered?

No we don’t act like sex is the only thing that matters to us. What we claim is sex is a very important part of a marriage along with many other things.

PP literally said it's the most important part of marriage. You know you can just read the thread.

No, it's not even the top 5 considering health, finances, your children, etc. Yes it's important, but many top sex.

Communication, and compromise are important too.

I mean, either it’s important to the marriage and you treat it that way, or it’s not and you don’t pretend to be offended when your partner steps out.

Then don't be offended when the court divides the retirement since your spouse owns 50% of that, plus all the other assets. If you are a cheater you would find any other reason to cheat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on this forum for years and not much has changed as far as the folks who put sex above everything else.

I am 70 and I am sure there are other 70 years old who have the libido of 20 years and good for them
For some us we can go on months without the need sex and we are still in loving relationship. Perhaps that's a hard thing to understand for some of you.

I am also 70 and a woman. When I am not in a relationship I can go long periods of time without sex with another person with no stress about it. But when I am in a relationship with someone I love and desire I want it all the time, like everyday. No post menopausal dryness going on here either! We're all different at all ages.

Want and need is different.

If you’d dump your 70 yo H (which you clearly don’t have) cause he’s unable that’s just crappy.

Don't know where you got that from. I wouldn't do that. I dumped my 48 yr old husband because he wasn't into sex at all at that point but we're still friends. I'd rather be single at this point in my life. Seems like there's lots more sex involved.

“Get that from”?

It’s what the whole thread is about .., would u dump your spouse after an accident that left them unable to have sex.

I’m sure your sh is better off.

Maybe her xh is better off, but her kids sure aren't. Which kind of circles back around to maybe thinking that discreetly going outside the marriage isn't as awful as you think. If one of my parents had an affair, I would rather they work on the relationship than call it quits. Being a teen was hard enough.