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

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

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

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

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

Same for anyone else?

Anonymous wrote:Not interested in sex anymore after 2 kids and reaching my 40s. Look, I no longer have the body I did in my 20s, OK? And I work FT. Plus he has aged too. He’s fit but his hairline is receding!(gross). And “it” ceased to be interesting long ago.

Why can’t men just be happy with friendship, kids, career, our house, etc? Why does there still have to be sex? Men are just selfish babies.

Anonymous wrote:Not interested in sex anymore after 2 kids and reaching my 40s. Look, I no longer have the body I did in my 20s, OK? And I work FT. Plus he has aged too. He’s fit but his hairline is receding!(gross). And “it” ceased to be interesting long ago.

Why can’t men just be happy with friendship, kids, career, our house, etc? Why does there still have to be sex? Men are just selfish babies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like food and water, the most important is the one you don't have right now.

boom.

Good point. My marriage is and has been sex-starved for so long, I both dream of and am looking into the logistics of divorce and starting over. Yet, we are great friends and a great team and I am sure we would co-parent well if we split. The opposite of love is indifference, not hate.

It's hard to imagine if we had passion but divergent interests how that would be worse than this sexless prison. But then again, like the PP said, you notice most that which you are missing.

Define sex starved. We have sex about once a week and I can imagine my DH calling it a sexless prison when the reality is, we have little kids and by the end of a day of working and parenting, sometimes I just collapse when I finally get to bed....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like food and water, the most important is the one you don't have right now.

boom.

Good point. My marriage is and has been sex-starved for so long, I both dream of and am looking into the logistics of divorce and starting over. Yet, we are great friends and a great team and I am sure we would co-parent well if we split. The opposite of love is indifference, not hate.

It's hard to imagine if we had passion but divergent interests how that would be worse than this sexless prison. But then again, like the PP said, you notice most that which you are missing.

Define sex starved. We have sex about once a week and I can imagine my DH calling it a sexless prison when the reality is, we have little kids and by the end of a day of working and parenting, sometimes I just collapse when I finally get to bed....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like food and water, the most important is the one you don't have right now.

boom.

Good point. My marriage is and has been sex-starved for so long, I both dream of and am looking into the logistics of divorce and starting over. Yet, we are great friends and a great team and I am sure we would co-parent well if we split. The opposite of love is indifference, not hate.

It's hard to imagine if we had passion but divergent interests how that would be worse than this sexless prison. But then again, like the PP said, you notice most that which you are missing.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like food and water, the most important is the one you don't have right now.

boom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer because I don't think there is one answer, but I will say this:

My marriage is currently in a very dry period with regards to sex, for two reasons (1) I am working through PTSD from sexual assault that was triggered when I had my DC, and (2) we have a child under the age of 5. I guess also (3) Covid.

Were it not for our friendship, this would be impossible. It's hard anyway, but obviously since we are really not having sex right now, there would just be no way to sustain our marriage without the friendship piece. Even with the love. Romantic love is great and we have that too, but it doesn't get you through the really tough stuff. For that, you really need a deep emotional bond, which we have. Also intense loyalty and commitment.

I have every reason to believe our sex life will come back given the effort we are both putting in right now. But I know I'm not the first person to go through something like this (i.e. having absolutely no interest in sex due to trauma), and I think if your marriage does not have an emotional component that can survive even without sex, then it's going to be harder to go the distance. Because while some people manage to maintain sex at a steady level for 40-50 years, the vast majority don't. Kids, stress, grief, aging, menopause... odds are very good you will hit a dry spell or three or five. I don't know how people who don't have the friendship component survive that, and my suspicion is that by and large they don't, and that leads to divorce withs one frequency.

Sometimes I laugh a bit when people on here say "our bedroom is dead" because I feel like it's so self-defeating. It's dead if you say it is. My husband and I haven't had sex in months, but we are still intimate and loving, and importantly, we are both working towards a time when we can have sex again. Our bedroom isn't dead it's just on pause. But practically speaking, we are having no more sex than some of the people talking about this issue as though it's the end of everything. The friendship piece is the difference.

I strongly suspect your husband would describe things MUCH differently. Men don’t go too long in “dry periods” before they start looking around for other available options.

Anonymous wrote:Like food and water, the most important is the one you don't have right now.

Anonymous wrote:Both are important but nothing replaces the deep intimacy and connection they sex brings. I find that what sex is absent from the relationship my heart starts longing for others and I lose that sense of closeness. Little things start to feel bigger. Good sex brings us close again.

That being said it's hard to sustain after a decade or more. OP how are you so sure you will still feel this way 10 years from now? Most of us felt wild attraction for our spouses when we were younger and had great sex early on. Not so easy to replicate now