Anonymous wrote:My answer is yes, I'd remain married, but I agree with some PPs that this is a depressing thread.
We have four kids; three are grown and one heads off to college in a couple of years. After 25+ years with my DH, we're still very much in love & enjoy an active sex life. He's my best friend, cliched as that sounds.
I tend to think of myself as a hedonist in many respects, but I guess compared to some others I wouldn't even register. I don't expect to have earth-shattering, passionate sex for the rest of my life, but the warmth & intimacy of our lovemaking is wonderful for both of us.
I wonder if as many people in the real world feel the way DCUMers do.
\Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.
For you....yes.
For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.
Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?
I don't think the OP was missing the point (even if she did thank you later for explaining). I agree with you completely about new sex being the best sex. But sex is just one facet of everyday happiness. I rank the happiness I get from having a trusted companion higher than the happiness I'd get from new sex. (And we're childfree.)
So I think you're saying, if not for the kids, you'd break up with your partner when the sex got boring -- wash, rinse, repeat. But then you'd be missing out on having a constant companion in life, unless people are basically interchangeable to you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.
For you....yes.
For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.
Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.
For you....yes.
For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.
Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
But do you think if you didn't have kids, that maybe the sex wouldn't have lost that electric luster? Since kids/family brings on a whole new dynamic to a relationship? No kids means more time to do your own thing and maybe keep that spark alive?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The fireworks/madly-in-love/sex-twice-a-day thing rarely lasts forever, even when you don't have kids. If you need to always have that dynamic to a relationship, you might reconsider whether marriage is for you at all.
As for me, if we didn't have kids, I would absolutely stay married to him. When we occasionally get a day without the kids, even if we're just running errands or working on the house, I'm reminded of just how much fun we have together and how much I love being with him.
I enjoy my time away from my husband as much as the time I spend with him.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay how about: when he leaves all the grunt work for me, although we both work full time jobs and make about the same amount of money, I resent him and have no desire for him.
I could see that being a major problem.
But do you honestly believe that once he steps it up at home, takes some of the grunt work off, that you are automatically going to spread your legs?
Yes. I take it outside now.
Anonymous wrote:
Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay how about: when he leaves all the grunt work for me, although we both work full time jobs and make about the same amount of money, I resent him and have no desire for him.
I could see that being a major problem.
But do you honestly believe that once he steps it up at home, takes some of the grunt work off, that you are automatically going to spread your legs?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.
For you....yes.
For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.
Ah but you're missing the point. Having someone to grow old with = great. It's not what the PP is saying though. Sexual variety is exciting. Having sex with the same person forever is not. It's fine, it's its own closeness, but it's not exciting. And this is really why there's so many sexless marriages. Sex with the same person gets boring. And boredom comes easily enough without having to do work to achieve it. When it comes down to it (and I'm not in a sexless marriage but I can easily see how it happens), sometimes it's not worth it to put in the effort to do something that is really pretty boring. This is why if I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't have gotten married. I love our family and our life so I accept that sex has lost that electric luster it had when I was single and fucking a new guy for the first time. As long as I'm married, I won't experience that ever again. For my kids and our family and our life, I accept that. If kids weren't in the picture? Hell no. It sounds like I'm saying I don't love my husband but I'm not. I'm just saying, I accept the drawbacks to marriage and monogamy because of what I gain from the family and marriage. Without those benefits, what's the point of signing on for the drudgery?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.
For you....yes.
For me.....No. I like having that one partner you grow old with.
Anonymous wrote:Okay how about: when he leaves all the grunt work for me, although we both work full time jobs and make about the same amount of money, I resent him and have no desire for him.
Anonymous wrote:
Sexual variety is more exciting than the old familiar person.