Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It's not necessary for love, but just like kissing or a massage or dancing with each other, it can be a way of expressing love.

Boiling it down to physical pleasure devalues what it can be in the context of a loving relationship. It equates sex with a loving partner with banging a hooker or something.

I love my H too much to devalue his worth to how many times he has sex with me per week.

Truthfully, I think it’s a evolution question. Less evolved people cant imagine love without ejaculation, it’s sad.

Huh? Who's talking about not imagining love without ejaculation?

That's such a weird concept, and to connect it to evolution is also intensely bizarre.

Maybe you are more evolved. But many don’t believe in love without sex.

Cool. No one here is arguing that, so your comment isn't relevant to this conversation.

So back to my original answer .., if I could pleasure myself 2x per week I would be fine if my H did not care about sex.

"It’s sad you are so dependent on another’s actions to feel love."

Huh? That's what love is all about. If you have a relationship--platonic or romantic--with someone else, it's THEIR actions that make you feel connected to them.

Anonymous wrote:The person equating evolution to less sex is an absolute moron. The level of social darwanistic bullshit that goes into that belief is nothing short of extraordinary. Go on. Feel evolutionarily superior, but you’re just a frigid asshole.

Have another drink Karen

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It’s not necessary for you. That’s fine. Stop assuming that you speak for everyone. Many people find sexual intimacy to be a necessary component of romantic love. It sounds like you are either anti sex or have at some point had someone threaten to withhold love if you didn’t have sex with them. Both are very sad.

You obviously have not read from the top. I love sex.

It’s not. necessary, period... it’s science.

Just like gifts are not necessary or word of affirmation. You have been socialized to believe these things are necessary

It’s sad you are so dependent on another’s actions to feel love.

What is the point of this question? Why do folks want to paint women with a broad crush? Some women like sex with DH every day. Some never. Some in between. There is a great deal of variability among women when it come to sex, perhaps even more so than among men. Is the OP tallying the responses to try and arrive at some conclusion that describes all women?

The person equating evolution to less sex is an absolute moron. The level of social darwanistic bullshit that goes into that belief is nothing short of extraordinary. Go on. Feel evolutionarily superior, but you’re just a frigid asshole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It's not necessary for love, but just like kissing or a massage or dancing with each other, it can be a way of expressing love.

Boiling it down to physical pleasure devalues what it can be in the context of a loving relationship. It equates sex with a loving partner with banging a hooker or something.

I love my H too much to devalue his worth to how many times he has sex with me per week.

Truthfully, I think it’s a evolution question. Less evolved people cant imagine love without ejaculation, it’s sad.

Huh? Who's talking about not imagining love without ejaculation?

That's such a weird concept, and to connect it to evolution is also intensely bizarre.

Maybe you are more evolved. But many don’t believe in love without sex.

Cool. No one here is arguing that, so your comment isn't relevant to this conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It’s not necessary for you. That’s fine. Stop assuming that you speak for everyone. Many people find sexual intimacy to be a necessary component of romantic love. It sounds like you are either anti sex or have at some point had someone threaten to withhold love if you didn’t have sex with them. Both are very sad.

Exactly. No one is saying it HAS to be part of romantic love. No is saying it's ALL of romantic love. But the fact that people are getting all huffy about the notion that sex can be a very important part of expressing romantic love seem like they have unresolved issues with sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It's not necessary for love, but just like kissing or a massage or dancing with each other, it can be a way of expressing love.

Boiling it down to physical pleasure devalues what it can be in the context of a loving relationship. It equates sex with a loving partner with banging a hooker or something.

I love my H too much to devalue his worth to how many times he has sex with me per week.

Truthfully, I think it’s a evolution question. Less evolved people cant imagine love without ejaculation, it’s sad.

Huh? Who's talking about not imagining love without ejaculation?

That's such a weird concept, and to connect it to evolution is also intensely bizarre.

Maybe you are more evolved. But many don’t believe in love without sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It's not necessary for love, but just like kissing or a massage or dancing with each other, it can be a way of expressing love.

Boiling it down to physical pleasure devalues what it can be in the context of a loving relationship. It equates sex with a loving partner with banging a hooker or something.

I love my H too much to devalue his worth to how many times he has sex with me per week.

Truthfully, I think it’s a evolution question. Less evolved people cant imagine love without ejaculation, it’s sad.

Huh? Who's talking about not imagining love without ejaculation?

That's such a weird concept, and to connect it to evolution is also intensely bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It’s not necessary for you. That’s fine. Stop assuming that you speak for everyone. Many people find sexual intimacy to be a necessary component of romantic love. It sounds like you are either anti sex or have at some point had someone threaten to withhold love if you didn’t have sex with them. Both are very sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It's not necessary for love, but just like kissing or a massage or dancing with each other, it can be a way of expressing love.

Boiling it down to physical pleasure devalues what it can be in the context of a loving relationship. It equates sex with a loving partner with banging a hooker or something.

I love my H too much to devalue his worth to how many times he has sex with me per week.

Truthfully, I think it’s a evolution question. Less evolved people cant imagine love without ejaculation, it’s sad.

Anonymous wrote:NO. I like being intimate with my husband, would not want to give that part of our relationship up.

With my second and current DH, I agree. First marriage, I was revolted by year two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was okay with me self satisfying once or twice a week, yes it’s fine.

I could not imagine tossing my H aside if he did not want sex.

Love is not sex.

It can be a way of expressing love. I think your statement is way too general. You can have love without sex or sex without love. You can't generalize about the relationship between the two.

No it’s not. It’s a way to satisfy a physical pleasure. It’s not love.

It can be purely about physical pleasure, but it can also be a powerful way of expressing love. Not the only way to express love, of course, but a powerful way.

I don't know why that's controversial.

It’s one way.., not the only way, why is that controversial.

When did I say it was the only way? PPs have said "It's a way to satisfy physical pleasure. It's not love." That's simply untrue.

It’s very true. It’s not love. It’s a way to physically enjoy each other... just like a massage, or drinking champagne or enjoying a dance.... it’s not love:

Its not necessary for love.

It's not necessary for love, but just like kissing or a massage or dancing with each other, it can be a way of expressing love.

Boiling it down to physical pleasure devalues what it can be in the context of a loving relationship. It equates sex with a loving partner with banging a hooker or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the “never” part of subject question is really skewing the results. Rephrase this as “twice per year” and 90% of women would happily agree. My wife definitely! Yet she still plays along twice per week for my sake.

Yes I was thinking the same thing. Never, nah, but a couple times a year heck yes.

Yes, this. My preferred frequency would be 0-4x a year, mostly on Vacation. Prefer never to having to give it up weekly