Here's my situation:

Married 15 yrs, sexless for 4 years, 6-18 month stretches sexless before that. Very active before kids, started going south once we started trying. Even though DW doesn't enjoy PIV (which is fine - happy to do other things) she usually pushed for that so it would be over faster. The last time was the worst experience of my life - very clear she just wanted it over with.

I have tried to support her career journey, including SAH and PT when she wanted it. I do at least half of housework and cooking and almost all work related to yard and cars. Also pick up kids and help them with their HW since I work from home these days. I have tried most of the "romance" suggestions on this thread at one time or another except vacation since she doesn't enjoy travel.

We have talked about it and she basically says she is no longer interested. She has no friends, so I have thought about telling her sister that we are having problems. (She doesn't want to go to counseling or therapy.)

I am under consideration for a project where I would travel to the same location a few days each week. If that happens, I am planning to tell her that I am not planning to be celibate while I am there. I think she will then file for divorce...

Are there enough sexless married women to fill this need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would really benefit a lot of these men to be on the receiving end of sex when they were on the “meeting someone’s needs”-level of enthusiasm for it. It might make the whole situation clearer for them.

Agree completely. This is why men in this situation should sleep around discreetly. Saves everyone from having to engage in duty sex.

In a perfect world, couples would be more open minded about finding a way for each person to find sexual satisfaction outside the marriage when the spark dies. The alternative is this rigid method of passion, marriage and divorce which ruins family relationships as you can see from the Second Marriages thread.

If you can cheat and get away with it, you can save all this heart ache

Dumb advice. How many second marriages do you think started when someone didn’t get away with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would really benefit a lot of these men to be on the receiving end of sex when they were on the “meeting someone’s needs”-level of enthusiasm for it. It might make the whole situation clearer for them.

Agree completely. This is why men in this situation should sleep around discreetly. Saves everyone from having to engage in duty sex.

In a perfect world, couples would be more open minded about finding a way for each person to find sexual satisfaction outside the marriage when the spark dies. The alternative is this rigid method of passion, marriage and divorce which ruins family relationships as you can see from the Second Marriages thread.

If you can cheat and get away with it, you can save all this heart ache

Anonymous wrote:Your wife is either into you, enjoys sex, and wants to enjoy it with you, or she isn't. If she's into it, non of the 100 excuses presented here will get in her way and if you could solve those 100 problems, she still wouldn't want you. Once a marriage turns sexless, it rarely recovers. Choose to join the miserable married men club, or get out.

I'm happy to enjoy the company of an awesome GF, and a few before her, who is really into me and enjoys all kinds of regular sex, sharing fantasies, etc. But, I've also been a club member. For years. I'll never allow myself to be in that position again. It's a choice anyone can make. Sexuaally miss-matched people should not be together.

This is 100% true

The only thing I would add is that once your wife is done having sex with you, there are still things you can do that might make her willing to have sex. But zero that will make her want it with you.

It's amazing when you have sex with someone new (either an affair or divorce) you realize the problem isn't you, it's just hormones and biology.

Anonymous wrote:I think it would really benefit a lot of these men to be on the receiving end of sex when they were on the “meeting someone’s needs”-level of enthusiasm for it. It might make the whole situation clearer for them.

Agree completely. This is why men in this situation should sleep around discreetly. Saves everyone from having to engage in duty sex.

Anonymous wrote:Your wife is either into you, enjoys sex, and wants to enjoy it with you, or she isn't. If she's into it, non of the 100 excuses presented here will get in her way and if you could solve those 100 problems, she still wouldn't want you. Once a marriage turns sexless, it rarely recovers. Choose to join the miserable married men club, or get out.

I'm happy to enjoy the company of an awesome GF, and a few before her, who is really into me and enjoys all kinds of regular sex, sharing fantasies, etc. But, I've also been a club member. For years. I'll never allow myself to be in that position again. It's a choice anyone can make. Sexuaally miss-matched people should not be together.

I agree with this.
After having kids, the biology has run its course. It's time to move on.

Your wife is either into you, enjoys sex, and wants to enjoy it with you, or she isn't. If she's into it, non of the 100 excuses presented here will get in her way and if you could solve those 100 problems, she still wouldn't want you. Once a marriage turns sexless, it rarely recovers. Choose to join the miserable married men club, or get out.

I'm happy to enjoy the company of an awesome GF, and a few before her, who is really into me and enjoys all kinds of regular sex, sharing fantasies, etc. But, I've also been a club member. For years. I'll never allow myself to be in that position again. It's a choice anyone can make. Sexuaally miss-matched people should not be together.

I think it would really benefit a lot of these men to be on the receiving end of sex when they were on the “meeting someone’s needs”-level of enthusiasm for it. It might make the whole situation clearer for them.

Anonymous wrote:Men need sex to feel emotionally connected to their wives and women need emotional connection to want sex with their husbands. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether one should meet the other’s needs when his or her own needs aren’t being met, but that’s the way it is. Somebody has to go first.

I think the better phrasing is "some people need sex to feel emotionally connected to their spouses" and "some people need emotion connection to want sex." There are lots of women who need sex for emotional connection. All the people who want to make this about women resisting the urges of their husbands who act "entitled" to sex are (a) not doing any favors for women who have sexual needs, and (b) are using some shield of pseudo-feminism to give a righteous tinge to their desire not to have sex.

The truth is, if you cannot meet your partner's emotional needs (whether it be through a good sexual relationship, good companionship, good conversation, moral support, etc.) then you cannot expect that the partner is going to bend over backwards to meet your needs. And yes, sexual intimacy is on par with any other kind of intimacy.

Anonymous wrote:Men need sex to feel emotionally connected to their wives and women need emotional connection to want sex with their husbands. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether one should meet the other’s needs when his or her own needs aren’t being met, but that’s the way it is. Somebody has to go first.

If that’s accurate (and I don’t believe it is but for the sake of the discussion) than the person who is expecting to have their “needs met” by compelling someone else into a potentially painful and unpleasurable act can absolutely go first. Someone who sees sex with their spouse as a “need to be met” or an entitlement of marriage is very likely not going to realize that and doesn’t care about their spouses enjoyment anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Men need sex to feel emotionally connected to their wives and women need emotional connection to want sex with their husbands. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether one should meet the other’s needs when his or her own needs aren’t being met, but that’s the way it is. Somebody has to go first.

I don't think the problem is so much going first. It's when one person has to not only go first, but second, third, fourth, and fifth. They stop trusting that maybe the sixth time is the charm.

Men need sex to feel emotionally connected to their wives and women need emotional connection to want sex with their husbands. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether one should meet the other’s needs when his or her own needs aren’t being met, but that’s the way it is. Somebody has to go first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but I’d like to take a step back from his for a moment. How does sex foster emotional intimacy when it is being demanded of someone who isn’t already feeling emotional intimacy from the person demanding sex?

My point was that needing to reach out to the other person -- and provide the emotional connection and intimacy they need on their terms -- runs both ways. The problem with so many of these posts is that complaints about a husband not providing the emotional connection and intimacy a wife needs is seen as the husband's failing. But a woman not providing the emotional connection or intimacy a husband needs is seen as justified by the husband's failures.

I should add -- you are probably making all kinds of wrong assumptions about who I am. And I don't have any of these problems. But the reflexive blame for certain parties is tiresome in these threads.

I didn’t make any assumptions about who you are and did not assign blame. This gets back to the point that people who are unsatisfied with their sex lives need to explore what else is going on their relationships to understand why their spouse isn’t interested in sex as much. The reasons are always individualized to the relationship (although there do tend to be common themes for broader societal reasons). There is a big differences between someone who stops having sex due to physiological issues and then the lack of sex leads to loss of emotional intimacy on the one hand, and on the other hand someone who loses interest in sex after a long spell of not having their emotional needs met by their spouse. But in neither case will simply demanding more sex create emotional intimacy because there is a very real physical and/or emotional block to the less-interested person engaging positively with their spouse through sex.

I agree! But I wouldn't stop there. My point was that people who don't want to have sex because the relationship is otherwise lacking intimacy should really explore ways to rekindle that intimacy. Unless they are happy with the lack of intimacy, in which case, I wonder why they even want to stay married. It is just strange for me that people say, "I don't want to have sex with my spouse because we are lacking in emotional connection." But the response is never, "What have you done to rekindle that connection?"

I completely disagree with that, it’s pretty rare hat someone comes here asking for advice on their lack of sexual desire due to a lack of emotional connection with their spouse, it when someone comes here asking for advice on a lack of emotional intimacy generally, they absolutely get the “what have you done about it” response.

If there is one thing DCUM can always be counted on it’s finding ways to blame an OP for their own situation.

I don't think you get the points being made on this thread.

Perhaps you aren’t explaining your views very well.

Sigh.

There are lots of posts on here by people saying, "I miss the connection of having sex with my spouse." And the response is always, what did you do to rekindle the connection.

There are lots of posts on here by people who say, "I don't want to have sex with my spouse because we've lost the intimate connection I need to want that." And the response is never, what did you do to rekindle that connection.

I just find it odd that some sorts of missing connection are always the fault of the person wanting more, and some types of missing connection are never the fault of the person wanting more.

The thing is? No there’s not. There are a lot of people saying (or one person saying often) “but whatabout this false equivalency I have drawn with emotional withdrawal!” And people responding that meeting basic emotional requirements that this poster lays out are basic good manners and not equivalent to having sex.

There are TONS of people, in this thread and a thousand others, saying precisely what you bolded. And your statement presupposes that sexual intimacy is not meeting basic emotional requirements. The whole point is that it is not a false equivalence. You might think so, but that's just, like, your opinion man.

Sexual intimacy is not meeting basic emotional requirements, and the way you know that is that you have emotional relationships with dozens of people with whom you do not, and do not expect to, have sex.

This is a remarkably illogical statement in the context of this discussion. First, you are right that sex is typically something reserved for bonding with a spouse. Second, there are all sorts of non-sexual things that are reserved for spouses that most people would consider basic emotional emotional requirements of a marriage. Third, the fact that some people might not consider a marital sex life a basic emotional need for a fulfilling relationship doesn't mean that other people are wrong to feel that way or not entitled to have that need met. (It's like, ok, we get it that you think you are justified for not meeting this need for your spouse, but it doesn't mean your spouse's need is not legitimate.) Fourth, lots of people (mostly women it seems) seem to think that other things are more legitimate "basic emotional needs" in a relationship, but they are blind to this idea that their views on what is needed might not be more legitimate than someone else's. Just either totally lacking in reasoning, arguing in bad faith, or so spoiled that they cannot see beyond their own preferences.

This is the crux of it that you just don’t understand: no one is entitled to someone else’s body in 2021. Call it “having an emotional need met” if you want, there is still no entitlement to sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but I’d like to take a step back from his for a moment. How does sex foster emotional intimacy when it is being demanded of someone who isn’t already feeling emotional intimacy from the person demanding sex?

My point was that needing to reach out to the other person -- and provide the emotional connection and intimacy they need on their terms -- runs both ways. The problem with so many of these posts is that complaints about a husband not providing the emotional connection and intimacy a wife needs is seen as the husband's failing. But a woman not providing the emotional connection or intimacy a husband needs is seen as justified by the husband's failures.

I should add -- you are probably making all kinds of wrong assumptions about who I am. And I don't have any of these problems. But the reflexive blame for certain parties is tiresome in these threads.

I didn’t make any assumptions about who you are and did not assign blame. This gets back to the point that people who are unsatisfied with their sex lives need to explore what else is going on their relationships to understand why their spouse isn’t interested in sex as much. The reasons are always individualized to the relationship (although there do tend to be common themes for broader societal reasons). There is a big differences between someone who stops having sex due to physiological issues and then the lack of sex leads to loss of emotional intimacy on the one hand, and on the other hand someone who loses interest in sex after a long spell of not having their emotional needs met by their spouse. But in neither case will simply demanding more sex create emotional intimacy because there is a very real physical and/or emotional block to the less-interested person engaging positively with their spouse through sex.

I agree! But I wouldn't stop there. My point was that people who don't want to have sex because the relationship is otherwise lacking intimacy should really explore ways to rekindle that intimacy. Unless they are happy with the lack of intimacy, in which case, I wonder why they even want to stay married. It is just strange for me that people say, "I don't want to have sex with my spouse because we are lacking in emotional connection." But the response is never, "What have you done to rekindle that connection?"

I completely disagree with that, it’s pretty rare hat someone comes here asking for advice on their lack of sexual desire due to a lack of emotional connection with their spouse, it when someone comes here asking for advice on a lack of emotional intimacy generally, they absolutely get the “what have you done about it” response.

If there is one thing DCUM can always be counted on it’s finding ways to blame an OP for their own situation.

I don't think you get the points being made on this thread.

Perhaps you aren’t explaining your views very well.

Sigh.

There are lots of posts on here by people saying, "I miss the connection of having sex with my spouse." And the response is always, what did you do to rekindle the connection.

There are lots of posts on here by people who say, "I don't want to have sex with my spouse because we've lost the intimate connection I need to want that." And the response is never, what did you do to rekindle that connection.

I just find it odd that some sorts of missing connection are always the fault of the person wanting more, and some types of missing connection are never the fault of the person wanting more.

The thing is? No there’s not. There are a lot of people saying (or one person saying often) “but whatabout this false equivalency I have drawn with emotional withdrawal!” And people responding that meeting basic emotional requirements that this poster lays out are basic good manners and not equivalent to having sex.

There are TONS of people, in this thread and a thousand others, saying precisely what you bolded. And your statement presupposes that sexual intimacy is not meeting basic emotional requirements. The whole point is that it is not a false equivalence. You might think so, but that's just, like, your opinion man.

Sexual intimacy is not meeting basic emotional requirements, and the way you know that is that you have emotional relationships with dozens of people with whom you do not, and do not expect to, have sex.

This is a remarkably illogical statement in the context of this discussion. First, you are right that sex is typically something reserved for bonding with a spouse. Second, there are all sorts of non-sexual things that are reserved for spouses that most people would consider basic emotional emotional requirements of a marriage. Third, the fact that some people might not consider a marital sex life a basic emotional need for a fulfilling relationship doesn't mean that other people are wrong to feel that way or not entitled to have that need met. (It's like, ok, we get it that you think you are justified for not meeting this need for your spouse, but it doesn't mean your spouse's need is not legitimate.) Fourth, lots of people (mostly women it seems) seem to think that other things are more legitimate "basic emotional needs" in a relationship, but they are blind to this idea that their views on what is needed might not be more legitimate than someone else's. Just either totally lacking in reasoning, arguing in bad faith, or so spoiled that they cannot see beyond their own preferences.