# Sexless Marriage Stories



## Stahlherz

I am a new poster to this site and I see this in a lot of men's threads, and it's my worst nightmare to end up in a relationship where we don't have sex at least once a week.

Since I am not and never have been married, I don't have to worry. However, I am curious about men's stories with this- how long have you been married, when did the sex start to slow down, do you still have sex occasionally or did it stop completely, have you considered an affair, do you watch porn instead and how does your wife feel about porn, etc.

Medical and psychological reasons for not wanting or being able to have sex exist, but I just want to hear some general stories.


----------



## chillymorn69

Stahlherz said:


> I am a new poster to this site and I see this in a lot of men's threads, and it's my worst nightmare to end up in a relationship where we don't have sex at least once a week.
> 
> Since I am not and never have been married, I don't have to worry. However, I am curious about men's stories with this- how long have you been married, when did the sex start to slow down, do you still have sex occasionally or did it stop completely, have you considered an affair, do you watch porn instead and how does your wife feel about porn, etc.
> 
> Medical and psychological reasons for not wanting or being able to have sex exist, but I just want to hear some general stories.


Yours will be a self fulling prophecy.


----------



## cc48kel

There's a thread on the women's forum about this... Many stories about men and women in a sexless marriage. Some get a divorce over it and others just muck thru it


----------



## uhtred

I don't think there is any one pattern. Sometimes sex was great, but slowly declines. Sometimes it almost stops after marriage. Sometimes it was never good and people just had unrealistic expectations that it would improve. 

Reasons vary all over the map. There can be bait / switch where one partner was only pretending to enjoy sex. There can be cases where one partner allows themselves to become completely undesirable. Sometimes there is a medical cause. Sometimes there is no "reason", one person just doesn't have any sex drive.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anyone who has a frequency focus is likely inconsiderate, sucky and generally not that fun to bang. I'm out.


----------



## uhtred

I think it depends on what you mean by "frequency focus". If someone is complaining that they only had sex 2 times one week rather than the usual 3, then I agree that they don't have a lot to complain about. OTOH, of someone is complaining that their partner only wants sex every couple of months, I think that is a valid reason to be unhappy.





NobodySpecial said:


> Anyone who has a frequency focus is likely inconsiderate, sucky and generally not that fun to bang. I'm out.


----------



## GuyInColorado

I was in a 4+ year 100% sexless marriage. Married for 8 years, dated for 4 years prior. I'll admit she never gave me a BJ and I never went down on her in those 12 years. The times we did have sex wasn't that great. She was a virgin when we met and I had 5 partners prior. 

I stayed in the marriage because of a house, and then kids. Eventually all the money in the world doesn't matter and you'll get fed up. I left her when the kids hit elementary school. My new relationship has major issues but me getting laid will never be an issue again. I have a different outlook on life now. I don't believe in God anymore and know that every day is not guaranteed.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think it depends on what you mean by "frequency focus". If someone is complaining that they only had sex 2 times one week rather than the usual 3, then I agree that they don't have a lot to complain about. OTOH, of someone is complaining that their partner only wants sex every couple of months, I think that is a valid reason to be unhappy.


Life is highly variable. And I see unhappiness from a general trend of a poor sex life. But attachment to frequency is anathema to quality very often. And is a turn off unto itself. So it becomes a self defeating focus. A high degree of fun, passion and quality begets frequency. Frequency focus begets duty which is hard to maintain. And not very fun.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> Life is highly variable. And I see unhappiness from a general trend of a poor sex life. But attachment to frequency is anathema to quality very often. And is a turn off unto itself. So it becomes a self defeating focus. A high degree of fun, passion and quality begets frequency. Frequency focus begets duty which is hard to maintain. And not very fun.


Ah yes, fun and passion should be the baseline and if that is done well, frequency will follow.

well... not always. 

When fun and passion are honestly pursued for their own sake, with a genuine heart and a sincere desire for togetherness and shared joy, but there remains no frequency, the one working so hard to bring the fun and passion for its own sake will wake up one day and realize that, while frequency has not been the focus, nor has it been a result. 

No matter how much the initiator wasn't seeking frequency for frequency sake, the lack of it will rise up and slap him (or her) in the face one day. Then it just cant be helped that lack of frequency becomes the metric for measuring failure.

No matter the quality, once every month or two, will be inadequate for most folks. Moreover, if you're only doing it once every month or two, that makes it even harder for it to be quality in the first place. It's the sex death spiral.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Ah yes, fun and passion should be the baseline and if that is done well, frequency will follow.
> 
> well... not always.
> 
> When fun and passion are honestly pursued for their own sake, with a genuine heart and a sincere desire for togetherness and shared joy, but there remains no frequency, the one working so hard to bring the fun and passion for its own sake will wake up one day and realize that, while frequency has not been the focus, nor has it been a result.
> 
> No matter how much the initiator wasn't seeking frequency for frequency sake, the lack of it will rise up and slap him (or her) in the face one day. Then it just cant be helped that lack of frequency becomes the metric for measuring failure.
> 
> No matter the quality, once every month or two, will be inadequate for most folks. Moreover, if you're only doing it once every month or two, that makes it even harder for it to be quality in the first place. It's the sex death spiral.


Yup. That sure is not what the OP was referring to, however.


----------



## Married but Happy

Stahlherz said:


> I am a new poster to this site and I see this in a lot of men's threads, and it's my worst nightmare to end up in a relationship where we don't have sex at least once a week.
> 
> Since I am not and never have been married, I don't have to worry. However, I am curious about men's stories with this- how long have you been married, when did the sex start to slow down, do you still have sex occasionally or did it stop completely, have you considered an affair, do you watch porn instead and how does your wife feel about porn, etc.
> 
> Medical and psychological reasons for not wanting or being able to have sex exist, but I just want to hear some general stories.


In my first marriage, sex declined immediately upon marriage. After years of trying everything (including lengthy counseling), nothing changed, and in fact became progressively worse. I divorced her. Good decision! I didn't cheat on her, but it was tempting. It was her low drive nature and her belief system that ruined our marriage.

I was much more careful in choosing my second partner, whom I married eventually. Sex has not slowed down significantly in the past 17 years, other than a modest decline due to age. We still have more sex than many newlyweds. We both had sexless first marriages, and neither of us would accept a relationship where sex isn't a priority, and discussed this early on - extensively. We both make an effort to keep the relationship great in _all_ ways, and maintain sex as a priority.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> Yup. That sure is not what the OP was referring to, however.


Well, we're not sure exactly what he was referring to since OP is pretty vague. It was strictly frequency focused, but what generated that focus? It could have been all the accounts of people trying to do everything right and still being denied. 

At this point, we don't know which is the cart and which is the horse with regard to his concern about potential lack of sex.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Find someone who has sexual needs as a priority the same as you and someone who's likes and dislikes in bed match your own. 

Sex was super important to me so I looked for, and found, someone who also has sex something that is super important. 

If sex is crappy to start it will likely always be crappy. 
If sex isn't a priority for someone it will likely never be a priority to them. 

Meet their other needs, have lots of alone time each week, be a responsible person at home and out of it + finding someone sexually compatible to start with is your best bet to keeping a good sexual relationship.


----------



## uhtred

I think this is where people's experience varies so much. There ARE people who focus on frequency rather than fun. There are also cases where lack of frequency really is the most important issue. 

For example if someone with a typical level of libido is married to someone who only wants sex once every few months, a particular problem that I've experienced can develop: When there is sex there is a huge "pressure" to make it good because this will be the only "chance' for months. Even when everything else is OK, this by itself can make sex non-fun. 





NobodySpecial said:


> Life is highly variable. And I see unhappiness from a general trend of a poor sex life. But attachment to frequency is anathema to quality very often. And is a turn off unto itself. So it becomes a self defeating focus. A high degree of fun, passion and quality begets frequency. Frequency focus begets duty which is hard to maintain. And not very fun.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

uhtred said:


> I think this is where people's experience varies so much. There ARE people who focus on frequency rather than fun. There are also cases where lack of frequency really is the most important issue.
> 
> For example if someone with a typical level of libido is married to someone who only wants sex once every few months, a particular problem that I've experienced can develop: When there is sex there is a huge "pressure" to make it good because this will be the only "chance' for months. Even when everything else is OK, this by itself can make sex non-fun.


And the real killer is that, 

A.) on one hand there is that pressure to make that oh so rare opportunity good (for many reasons including but not limited to:
1. it's so rare this may my only chance
2. If it sucks this time, it'll be a long time before I get an other crack at it
3. worst of all, since we're led to believe that quality is necessary for quantity, if this one isn't good, our future frequency will go down even further

B.) and on the other hand, the lack of frequency means you're horribly out of practice which is a problem because
1. the happy chemicals haven't been flowing, meaning the bonding many need for good sex is absent
2. you have lost touch with what works, what gets the best response, etc
3. for most men, lack of activity will usually lead to a lack of control. You want a recipe for PE? Just make sure he goes without for a couple months. So when he pops prematurely, then again we have completed an unsatisfactory event, which in turn, prevents the desire to do it more often. 

C.) for some, not enough activity may even lead to the inability to perform at all, or at least a great challenge in performing. 

D.) also problematic is that lack of frequency can lead to resentment. So even when able to perform, his "heart may not be in it." It will be done out of expectation or anger, or just because the expectation is there that we _should _be doing it. None of this is conducive to intimacy

Bottom line: inadequate frequency can be a sure fire path to inadequate quality --which in turn eliminates the desire for any kind of frequency. This is why I call it the sex death spiral.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think this is where people's experience varies so much. There ARE people who focus on frequency rather than fun. There are also cases where lack of frequency really is the most important issue.
> 
> For example if someone with a typical level of libido is married to someone who only wants sex once every few months, a particular problem that I've experienced can develop: When there is sex there is a huge "pressure" to make it good because this will be the only "chance' for months. Even when everything else is OK, this by itself can make sex non-fun.


I think my point is a little more subtle than that. If someone were to ask me how frequently I want sex, I would simply be unable to answer. There is no sex desire isolated from the rest of my life or what is happening in my relationship. Did I just relax on a wonderful vacation that happened to include some good food? Four or five times this weekend, please. If my husband has been blowing off my other needs (it happened early in our relationship) I might be able to manage a couple of times of duty sex a month. 

People talk like sex exists in a vacuum, apart from all other things in life. As if drive alone dictates how that goes. Are there some people, as a result of any number of factors including restrictive upbringings and a ton of others, unwilling to address the underlying cause of sexlessness, or even know themselves? Sure. But how often do you want to have sex in your life? Oh gee, x times or week. That just is not a very productive marital conversation. People in the sexless position assume that it is a result of bait and switch or a drive issue without consideration for other potential factors. And the leading symptom of that attitude, in my experience, is the frequency discussion.


----------



## m00nman

How does one boil a frog? It usually happens slowly and one by one things come between you so that even with nothing but empty space between the sheets the flame is all but out. It could be career, kids, medical issues, depression, or any number of things but really it comes down to when two are no longer of one mind. They say that a lot of sex for women is between the ears and unfortunately for many men, we cannot tell what's going on if there's no communication.


----------



## Young at Heart

Stahlherz said:


> .....my worst nightmare to end up in a relationship where we don't have sex at least once a week.
> 
> ....I am curious about men's stories with this- how long have you been married, when did the sex start to slow down, do you still have sex occasionally or did it stop completely, have you considered an affair, do you watch porn instead and how does your wife feel about porn, etc.
> 
> *Medical and psychological reasons for not wanting or being able to have sex exist, but I just want to hear some general stories.*


I am a great fan of Dr. David Schnarch and his books (Passionate Marriage, the Crucible, etc.). He says that marriage (if done correctly) is the hardest thing that two people can do. The reason is that two individuals come together and form a single social unit in marriage and try to work together to accomplish a variety of tasks. These two people start out at different levels of emotional maturity and then they develop at different rates. They are in a constant push/pull of emotional development with their spouse. They have to constantly renegotiate how they will deal with things as they develop and as their marriage progresses.

If there are serious problems in the relationship sex will be one of the first things that suffers.

That means that just about any marriage can suffer in regards to your fear of *"Sex at least once a week." 
*

Lots and lots of studies document the decline of libido in relationships.

Women more likely to lose interest in sex in long-term relationships*

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-happiness/201212/why-the-passion-goes-out-relationships

Married Women Lose Interest in Sex - Poor Sex Lives of Married Men and Women

Sexual desire often fades in relationships

I have been married to the same woman for nearly 46 years. She is LD, I am HD. After about 40 years her LD turned into NO D or just plane No, or hell no. I decided I deserved better and read every relationship book I could get my hands on. I decided that I needed to "change myself" for the better and that I wanted to try to save my marriage. 

Some of the most insightful books I read were:

Sue Johnson's Hold Me Tight

Chapman's 5 Languages of Love

MW Davis, the Sex Starved Marriage

Gloverr's No More Mr. Nice Guy.

David Snarch's the Passionate Marriage (dryer than any college graduated school textbook I ever read).

There were other books I read that also provided insights.

Ultimately, I figured out that per Chapman, my wife only felt love through "acts of service" and "quality time." 
I started to do acts of service and make her feel like she had quality time with me. That made her feel loved and cherished. That is the point where things started to turn around. She and I had done a devil dance (MW Davis) where we emotionally pushed each other away, year after year until she emotionally shut down.

With the help of a really great, nationally known sex therapist (marriage counselors with extra training in sexual problems) we were able to save our marriage. The compromise negotiated by the sex therapist between my wife and me was for us to have sex twice a week. I wanted sex three times a week and she wanted sex maybe twice every three weeks to once a week. Twice a week, is what I can survive on emotionally, and what my wife can barely emotionally handle. it works for us. In 5 years we may need to adjust the frequency based on medical realities or not. 

My advice to you is don't be afraid of marriage. Schnarch points out that Marriage is an emotional people growing machine. Marriage and if there is commitment by both, can be an incredible experience that will change you for the better. Pick up Glover's book, No More Mr. Nice Guy. Read it carefully. Think about how integrated a man you really are or if you have any dependency or need for validation from women in your life.

Good luck.


----------



## DTO

NobodySpecial said:


> There is no sex desire isolated from the rest of my life or what is happening in my relationship. Did I just relax on a wonderful vacation that happened to include some good food? Four or five times this weekend, please. If my husband has been blowing off my other needs (it happened early in our relationship) I might be able to manage a couple of times of duty sex a month.
> 
> People talk like sex exists in a vacuum, apart from all other things in life.


I don't think people expect sex to be immune to your life circumstances, but we do expect it to be fairly stable in the face on life's everyday challenges.

Life will always be busy and present stressors. Kids get sick, work demands extra, cars and homes need unexpected, pricey repairs, etc. Our responsibility to our partners is to provide the support (including sex) needed to meet them and remain satisfied in the relationship, while acknowledging that things may slow down in extraordinary circumstances.

So, while it is not reasonable to demand sec 5 times a week come Hell or high water, it is very reasonable to expect a baseline 2-3 times a week that isn't impacted by it being baseball season for the kids, having to tighten the pursestrings because some bills came up, etc.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

DTO said:


> I don't think people expect sex to be immune to your life circumstances, but we do expect it to be fairly stable in the face on life's everyday challenges.
> 
> Life will always be busy and present stressors. Kids get sick, work demands extra, cars and homes need unexpected, pricey repairs, etc. Our responsibility to our partners is to provide the support (including sex) needed to meet them and remain satisfied in the relationship, while acknowledging that things may slow down in extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> So, while it is not reasonable to demand sec 5 times a week come Hell or high water, it is very reasonable to expect a baseline 2-3 times a week that isn't impacted by it being baseball season for the kids, having to tighten the pursestrings because some bills came up, etc.


Yes,

Life's stressors can cause any aspect of our lives to suffer. When it all gets to be too much, something's gotta' give.

Unfortunately, sex usually seems to be the first thing that goes by the wayside. The sad part of this is sex itself (if approached correctly) reduces stress, helping its participants to be more mentally and emotionally prepared to face those stressors. Binning sex only adds the stress, creating a negative vicious cycle.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DTO said:


> I don't think people expect sex to be immune to your life circumstances, but we do expect it to be fairly stable in the face on life's everyday challenges.


Which is funny since it is the first thing to go when the rest of the marital situation is rocky or "challenges". I wonder if that expectation is shared. I certainly don't want to just have sex cuz it's expected.



> Life will always be busy and present stressors. Kids get sick, work demands extra, cars and homes need unexpected, pricey repairs, etc. Our responsibility to our partners is to provide the support (including sex)


Ew. I will agree that a sex life is important in a macro sense. But the notion of sex as providing support is such a woman woodie killer. When does that get fun? I see nothing but resentment down that road.


----------



## john117

NobodySpecial said:


> Anyone who has a frequency focus is likely inconsiderate, sucky and generally not that fun to bang. I'm out.


Time series analysis says otherwise


----------



## uhtred

I think that makes sense for a fairly normal / healthy sexual relationship. 

You said "Did I just relax on a wonderful vacation that happened to include some good food? Four or five times this weekend, please."

My wife and I had a wonderful romantic vacation for our anniversary in Venice. Stayed in an ancient palace on the banks of the Grand Canal. Explored the city during the day, stopped for gelato, had delicious dinners. No stress, lots of free time to do whatever we wanted. We had sex exactly 0 times on that trip.

In fact I'd say we average sex about once every month of vacation time. Generally if we go on a week long vacation, we don't have sex for the week before (busy getting ready), during the trip (to many other things to do), or after (too tired, and lots of chores). 


My point is that for some people a low-sex marriage isn't a case of a partner who is too busy / stressed for frequent sex. Its a case of having partners who rarely want sex even in situations that most people would consider ideal. 


This is not to say that the situations you imply are not common, I expect that they are. Its just that some of us have an entirely different scale of problem with regards to frequency of sex. I point this out because some people do believe this very infrequent sex is completely normal. My wife only thinks that its been a long time if its been well over a month - she thinks of once a month as pretty typical. 








NobodySpecial said:


> I think my point is a little more subtle than that. If someone were to ask me how frequently I want sex, I would simply be unable to answer. There is no sex desire isolated from the rest of my life or what is happening in my relationship. Did I just relax on a wonderful vacation that happened to include some good food? Four or five times this weekend, please. If my husband has been blowing off my other needs (it happened early in our relationship) I might be able to manage a couple of times of duty sex a month.
> 
> People talk like sex exists in a vacuum, apart from all other things in life. As if drive alone dictates how that goes. Are there some people, as a result of any number of factors including restrictive upbringings and a ton of others, unwilling to address the underlying cause of sexlessness, or even know themselves? Sure. But how often do you want to have sex in your life? Oh gee, x times or week. That just is not a very productive marital conversation. People in the sexless position assume that it is a result of bait and switch or a drive issue without consideration for other potential factors. And the leading symptom of that attitude, in my experience, is the frequency discussion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> ... because some people do believe this very infrequent sex is completely normal. My wife only thinks that its been a long time if its been well over a month - she thinks of once a month as pretty typical.


I wonder why ANYONE, ANYWHERE cares what is "normal" or "typical" compared to forming a great relationship with their spouse. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## uhtred

I think there is some validity to considering "typical". Imagine if your partner needed sex 2X / day in order to be happy. The could point out that there is time in the morning if you get up early and time in the evening before bed. I could imagine responding that sex is great, but that 2X/day really is a bit unreasonable, it would not leave much time for any other recreation. 

My wife seems to think that my wanting sex more than 1/month really isn't reasonable. She thinks sex is fun, but just not something reasonable to do very frequently - there are so many other entertaining things to do. 


In most cases I think you are right. For most couples all it takes is for each to honestly desire to make the other happy and the details will work themselves out. When there is a huge difference in libido though, there may be no good solution, even if both are trying. 




NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder why ANYONE, ANYWHERE cares what is "normal" or "typical" compared to forming a great relationship with their spouse. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Ew. I will agree that a sex life is important in a macro sense. But the notion of sex as providing support is such a woman woodie killer. When does that get fun?


Is there any support that a man can need that doesn't make him a pathetic wuss?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Both spouses need all kinds of support. Praise, admiration and recognition. Listening when they've had a bad day or a back rub if work was stressful. Picking up the slack if one partner has more on their plate. 

I'd hate to think of sex as providing support because it's just fun. It's not something I'm doing for him, it's something we do together. Pretty much as soon as sex is something I should be doing for him it turns me off. 

My bf knows how to keep me wanting sex for me but that's where base compatibility comes in and a mutual need for sex. If he had none and was doing it "for me" it would be as much of a turn off.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Is there any support that a man can need that doesn't make him a pathetic wuss?


Well, I guess I am just glad that my husband does not view my "providing" sex as support. His attitude is one that engenders and inspires a great deal more... enthusiasm. Of course, when he got laid off, I was there with financial support. When he was sick, I was there with to take care of everything and fetch for him so he could rest. When his grandfather died, I was there to talk to gradnma and Mom so he did not have to. Etcetrera and so forth. I don't recall saying needing support made someone a pathetic wuss. Just the notion that sex is provisional support is not what will engender an overall good sex life, and certainly not birthday bj gifts whether I "want" to or not!


----------



## NobodySpecial

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Both spouses need all kinds of support. Praise, admiration and recognition. Listening when they've had a bad day or a back rub if work was stressful. Picking up the slack if one partner has more on their plate.
> 
> I'd hate to think of sex as providing support because it's just fun. It's not something I'm doing for him, it's something we do together. Pretty much as soon as sex is something I should be doing for him it turns me off.
> 
> My bf knows how to keep me wanting sex for me but that's where base compatibility comes in and a mutual need for sex. If he had none and was doing it "for me" it would be as much of a turn off.


I have absolutely no problem doing it just for him sometimes. But in the macro sense, if that was the view of sex, BIG turn off. Buy a blow up doll.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think there is some validity to considering "typical". Imagine if your partner needed sex 2X / day in order to be happy.


I would not be with that person. That person measures sex and sexuality in a way that would be completely incompatible with me. Even the notion of knowing "how often" per period of time one "wants sex" is so outside the realm of an actual relationship it is difficult for me to even really understand. If there are not PEOPLE involved in the sex, and all that entails, count me out. I am about as sexual as they come. But performing sex based on basically grinding bits on a timetable has no appeal. I love sex. And I would choose zero per ever rather than do that.



> The could point out that there is time in the morning if you get up early and time in the evening before bed. I could imagine responding that sex is great, but that 2X/day really is a bit unreasonable, it would not leave much time for any other recreation.
> 
> My wife seems to think that my wanting sex more than 1/month really isn't reasonable. She thinks sex is fun, but just not something reasonable to do very frequently - there are so many other entertaining things to do.


Well, I am always perplexed how people get here. There is sense that it is a simple matter of not wanting sex. And I definitely wonder about that. For the lower sex partner, it is an easy reason. But if someone formerly liked sex and now not so much... I am thinking there is more to that story. If my husband "liked sex" and called it "fun" I would be thinking, really? He'd rather watch tv, play Candy Crush or play tennis?? Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Maybe that is her reality. How do you wind up in a long term marriage with someone so wildly incompatible? 



> In most cases I think you are right. For most couples all it takes is for each to honestly desire to make the other happy and the details will work themselves out. When there is a huge difference in libido though, there may be no good solution, even if both are trying.


Well I don't think it is ALL it takes to honestly desire to make the other happy. That, by itself, might make the frequency increase slightly, and often not for very long since the motivation of pure selflessness is not enough to drive that kind of long term change. The desire to make the other happy opens the door. How the two people walk through that door is the rub. I think someone up thread talks about Passionate Marriage. Good book.


----------



## uhtred

I think there are many paths to this situation. In my case it was inexperience and a belief that if we loved each other sex would get better with time. Also, I didn't have the concept of low desire people, or any idea that libido varied so much. 






NobodySpecial said:


> snip
> Maybe that is her reality. How do you wind up in a long term marriage with someone so wildly incompatible?
> snip
> .


----------



## john117

This is a good question: "How do you wind up in a long term marriage with someone so wildly incompatible?"

Here's how. By ignoring small but critical details early on. By being infatuated with companionship, sex, happy hormones... The big stuff. 

And, by having one or both partners unwilling to compromise later on.


----------



## DTO

NobodySpecial said:


> Ew. I will agree that a sex life is important in a macro sense. But the notion of sex as providing support is such a woman woodie killer. When does that get fun? I see nothing but resentment down that road.


Really? I think it's part of the bonding aspect of sex. You and your partner come together and enjoy intimate time, strengthening the connection and getting ready to face the world. Personally, a good sex life is what gives me extra energy and drive to go out and be successful in the world, and bring the fruits of that success home to my spouse.

I know my girlfriend would very much like it if her meeting my intimate needs took the sting off of a rough day or made me feel better about tomorrow. I'm pretty sure she's not in the minority on that.

ETA: my core belief on this topic is that sex is an integral part of marriage - part of the promise spouses make to each other. It is NOT something you dole out only when everything else falls into place. With the proper priorities and mindset, there is (barring serious illness, emergency, or physical separation) always time to have good, regular sex and still handle your business.

I know that not everybody agrees with this perspective. If you don't, then we'll have to agree to disagree here.


----------



## DTO

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder why ANYONE, ANYWHERE cares what is "normal" or "typical" compared to forming a great relationship with their spouse. But maybe that's just me.


Two reasons:

First, because some very LD partners attempt to paint the HD partner as obsessed/addicted, and having a "normal" sex statistic available refutes that argument. Read on TAM enough and you'll see people being told "nobody has sex that much", "your requests are unreasonable", etc.

Second, because at some point, a large enough deviation from some observed normal range among the population at large is sufficient evidence that a problem exists. If you go to the doctor with a fever of 101 degrees, that is a problem because the average for a healthy person is 98.6 degrees. A marriage less than 10 sexual encounters per year is considered technically sexless and a significant problem, simply because it deviates so far from what most people do.


----------



## Buddy400

DTO said:


> Two reasons:
> 
> First, because some very LD partners attempt to paint the HD partner as obsessed/addicted, and having a "normal" sex statistic available refutes that argument. Read on TAM enough and you'll see people being told "nobody has sex that much", "your requests are unreasonable", etc.
> 
> Second, because at some point, a large enough deviation from some observed normal range among the population at large is sufficient evidence that a problem exists. If you go to the doctor with a fever of 101 degrees, that is a problem because the average for a healthy person is 98.6 degrees. A marriage less than 10 sexual encounters per year is considered technically sexless and a significant problem, simply because it deviates so far from what most people do.


I went to my doctor and he told me that my fenudal score was 114.

I asked if that was normal or typical.

He said "I wonder why ANYONE, ANYWHERE cares what is 'normal' or 'typical'"


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I went to my doctor and he told me that my fenudal score was 114.
> 
> I asked if that was normal or typical.
> 
> He said "I wonder why ANYONE, ANYWHERE cares what is 'normal' or 'typical'"


The context was relationships, of course.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DTO said:


> Really? I think it's part of the bonding aspect of sex. You and your partner come together and enjoy intimate time, strengthening the connection and getting ready to face the world. Personally, a good sex life is what gives me extra energy and drive to go out and be successful in the world, and bring the fruits of that success home to my spouse.
> 
> I know my girlfriend would very much like it if her meeting my intimate needs took the sting off of a rough day or made me feel better about tomorrow. I'm pretty sure she's not in the minority on that.


Different strokes. My husband would NOT be happy with my "meeting his needs" in a gifty sort of way on any kind of regular basis. His sexual needs are not limited to how frequently we engage but how that engagement goes for the long haul. His investment has paid off in having a fairly super freaky always ready to go wife. He told me when we were much younger that he had no interest in a sexless marriage. He loved me as much and more than he ever had. But sexlessness was not what he had in mind. That said, he did not want me to view sex as a thing I had to do to him or for him. That we could build a terrific sex life together and he never wanted me to view sex as a thing I did FOR HIM. It worked out fairly well. I demure. It's awesome.



> ETA: my core belief on this topic is that sex is an integral part of marriage - part of the promise spouses make to each other. It is NOT something you dole out only when everything else falls into place. With the proper priorities and mindset, there is (barring serious illness, emergency, or physical separation) always time to have good, regular sex and still handle your business.


I agree with this as written. Except... you don't "dole" sex out at all in order to have a great sex life. I do think that there are a lot of lessons in rearing from my generation that need to be unlearned. Maybe you are of the same generation, maybe not. And I do think that people who do not view sex as a leading indicator of the health of their marriage are missing a big, big boat. But the focus on frequency as the yard stick or goal is misguided in my opinion and detrimental to the building of the very thing that is desired.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> *I think there are many paths to this situation*. In my case it was inexperience and a belief that if we loved each other sex would get better with time. Also, I didn't have the concept of low desire people, or any idea that libido varied so much.


To the bolded, YES. And I am sorry for your experience. Your situation is probably one of the tougher nuts to crack. But I am still not sure I buy libido as the driving problem. I still half wonder if the libido was never opened, exposed, ripened. Many of us, myself included, don't have their libido walking around outside of the context of the rest of their experiences. Whether it be religious or other societal expectations or repression of some other form or ....


----------



## Married but Happy

@DTO and @NobodySpecial: you're both right, but using different perspectives. Both views provide useful information, especially when combined.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Married but Happy said:


> @DTO and @NobodySpecial: you're both right, but using different perspectives. Both views provide useful information, especially when combined.


I agree. Which is why I think the book mentioned above, Passionate Marriage, can be helpful. Well I read it a really long time ago. But that is my recollection. 

One thing I do feel is sympathy for people who find themselves in this predicament. As a total Type A person for whom effective problem solving is key, it lead me to look at the root of the problem. My poor Roman Catholic mother could have told you that libido was not my problem.  Had I been pressured with a frequency goal, I'd have shut down. Instead his willingness to unpack the years of weird messages from both the religious upbringing and the sexual assaults allowed us to grow in that way. 

The thing about having this issue address after many, many years in a marriage is that it is a hard time to reset expectations that have been established over the years. While I am fairly confident that requests for more frequency will not be terribly effective, and at best give you more frequent duty sex that we have seen is not satisfying, I really don't have any good thoughts on how to mix that expectation up. Status quo is hard to change.


----------



## Mr The Other

NobodySpecial said:


> Anyone who has a frequency focus is likely inconsiderate, sucky and generally not that fun to bang. I'm out.


I think this is a rather insensitive post.

I am going to make a couple of analogies. 
- I like to go for a run. I always feel better for it. I rarely actually do it.
- As a young man, I need a good amount of food. My girlfriends would not need as much and often finally get out of bed on a Saturday and want to eat for the first time at 3pm in the afternoon. To them, my leaving them to eat early, having become distant is nothing but unreasonable sulkiness and gluttony.

Of course there are time when the man is an utterly average man, who does a job, helps with kids, helps with housework, gets a little chubbier and thinks he is husband of the year and a rolemodel. There are also men who do not even do this, put on 50lb and stilll feel entitled. 

NJ2 also writes useful stuff on this:
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/394058-sex-isnt-important-her-but-me.html#post18411130
But, it is on the assumption that both partners will take responsibilities on here. Generally, when men come on here, it has gone past the point of two co-operative partners trying to work it out. 

There are also partners who cannot accept that sometimes you have to make an effort. If they get out the habit of sex, they get used to not bothering. This is like me and going for a run. The difference is, if going for a run a few times a week would save my marriage, I would certainly do it. Those that will not are being selfish and lazy.

There is also the difficulty in understanding that a man can feel a need if the woman does not need it. This is my comparison to food, a woman who has just eaten no longer thinks it is reasonable to be hungry. This is something we see come up time and time again, "sex is not important, get over it".

In the case of the food analogy, it could be argued that I should have made eggs benedict on fine china and served it up with candles and a romantic atmosphere. The chances are she would take the candles but ignore the food.

There is a longer vestige of sexism that affects both sides. We see it with men, when they are mediocre men who think they are special. We also see it with women who see themselves as utterly passive beings who are entirely subject to their feelings. Both are damaging.

I will perhaps be very Catholic here. The best is that both come together in the spirit of love. The worst is rape. Having sex because your partner will feel better even though you are not in the mood is not perfect, but still loving. To enforce chastiy on your partner without good reason is cruel.


----------



## Mr The Other

NobodySpecial said:


> I agree. Which is why I think the book mentioned above, Passionate Marriage, can be helpful. Well I read it a really long time ago. But that is my recollection.
> 
> One thing I do feel is sympathy for people who find themselves in this predicament. As a total Type A person for whom effective problem solving is key, it lead me to look at the root of the problem. My poor Roman Catholic mother could have told you that libido was not my problem.  Had I been pressured with a frequency goal, I'd have shut down. Instead his willingness to unpack the years of weird messages from both the religious upbringing and the sexual assaults allowed us to grow in that way.
> 
> The thing about having this issue address after many, many years in a marriage is that it is a hard time to reset expectations that have been established over the years. While I am fairly confident that requests for more frequency will not be terribly effective, and at best give you more frequent duty sex that we have seen is not satisfying, I really don't have any good thoughts on how to mix that expectation up. _Status quo_ is hard to change.


More generously, I would like to say that I think you underestimate the huge effort you made here. 

That you were willing to address that you personally might have issues showed incredible humility on your part. In most cases, it is hard to empathize with men and hard to face up to personal issues;- as a consequence, it is easist not to do any of that.

I am aware that there are men who are insensitive to their wives' issues and some that are uncaring. But, if it is easier for a women not to tackle an internal issue, then it would need an unusually caring woman to consider change.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr The Other said:


> More generously, I would like to say that I think you underestimate the huge effort you made here.
> 
> That you were willing to address that you personally might have issues showed incredible humility on your part. In most cases, it is hard to empathize with men and hard to face up to personal issues;- as a consequence, it is easist not to do any of that.
> 
> I am aware that there are men who are insensitive to their wives' issues and some that are uncaring. But, if it is easier for a women not to tackle an internal issue, then it would need an unusually caring woman to consider change.


The flip side of that is that there were real consequences to me to NOT address.


----------



## Mr The Other

NobodySpecial said:


> To the bolded, YES. And I am sorry for your experience. Your situation is probably one of the tougher nuts to crack. But I am still not sure I buy libido as the driving problem. I still half wonder if the libido was never opened, exposed, ripened. Many of us, myself included, don't have their libido walking around outside of the context of the rest of their experiences. Whether it be religious or other societal expectations or repression of some other form or ....


This example may seem crude, and I am sorry for that. In my late thirties I was with a woman I loved more than anything. I wanted sex with no-one else. I confess, I was not quite as hard as when I was twenty, but I would take longer. Just age.

Post marriage, I would end up with women with whom I did not have the same bond. But some were unusually young and pretty. Despite the fact I did not desire closeness to them as much, I found (for good and ill) I was more akin to my twenty-year-old self.

Libido is a physical and emotional amalgam, and fluctuates according to many things. I think there is often a risk of just looking at one aspect. But, thank you. A wise adn thoughtful post.


----------



## Mr The Other

NobodySpecial said:


> The flip side of that is that there were real consequences to me to NOT address.


Yes!

But, if had been in an utterly passive mindset, you would not have seen it as a choice. They would have been things that happened and proved that you were the innocent victim.

PS: I realise I am being very critical of you on the thread. I actually agree with 80% of what you write. My difference is on emphasis. I do not post frequently at all, that I am engaging as much as I am reflects how much I appreciate your views.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Sexless Marriage Stor*

This post is a really good summary of what an insufficient frequency can produce. 

What I like most about it is the explicit acknowledgment that sex can be bad. And that performance anxiety alone can make it bad.

So I'm gonna bite the bullet and make a thread on bad sex. Because I especially think that men project their sexual experience onto women. 

One of my favorite posts of all time - was a guy on here who compared sex to pizza. There is no such thing as bad pizza he said - just good to great. And he got this very agreeable response from the guys on the thread. 

And I thought. This is a total gold mine in terms of a sincere disconnect between the testosterone loaded and the testosterone lite. But - that was five years ago and I never made a thread on it. 






Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> And the real killer is that,
> 
> A.) on one hand there is that pressure to make that oh so rare opportunity good (for many reasons including but not limited to:
> 1. it's so rare this may my only chance
> 2. If it sucks this time, it'll be a long time before I get an other crack at it
> 3. worst of all, since we're led to believe that quality is necessary for quantity, if this one isn't good, our future frequency will go down even further
> 
> B.) and on the other hand, the lack of frequency means you're horribly out of practice which is a problem because
> 1. the happy chemicals haven't been flowing, meaning the bonding many need for good sex is absent
> 2. you have lost touch with what works, what gets the best response, etc
> 3. for most men, lack of activity will usually lead to a lack of control. You want a recipe for PE? Just make sure he goes without for a couple months. So when he pops prematurely, then again we have completed an unsatisfactory event, which in turn, prevents the desire to do it more often.
> 
> C.) for some, not enough activity may even lead to the inability to perform at all, or at least a great challenge in performing.
> 
> D.) also problematic is that lack of frequency can lead to resentment. So even when able to perform, his "heart may not be in it." It will be done out of expectation or anger, or just because the expectation is there that we _should _be doing it. None of this is conducive to intimacy
> 
> Bottom line: inadequate frequency can be a sure fire path to inadequate quality --which in turn eliminates the desire for any kind of frequency. This is why I call it the sex death spiral.


----------



## uhtred

Part of the reason it took me so long (25 years) to accept my situation is what you wrote below - the belief that her low libido was the result of something else, not the root problem. The idea that there was *something* that would cause her libido to increase to normal. Maybe there is, but a quarter century of trying everything I can imagine didn't change things.

I can't claim I've investigate every possible solution, but I have investigated a lot. 


I think its very difficult for a normal desire person to imagine being low desire - I know that I can't. I accept LD as a fact, but I don't understand it. To a ND person like you, I expect sex would be a natural wonderful part of a relaxing romantic vacation. That after a day of exploring medieval streets, a wonderful dinner, and watching the sunset from your balcony, climbing into bed with the man you love for long passionate lovemaking would be a wonderful way to end the day. You can't imagine deciding instead to check FB, read another chapter of a novel, then going to sleep unless something was *wrong*. That is must mean your partner is a terrible lover, or treats you badly, or is physically disgusting or something.

The only way I can imagine it is to think that a LD person thinks about their partner the way that a totally straight person thinks about a same-sex friend. I could imagine having a nice day exploring a city with a good friend o mine, but it would in no way lead to a desire to have sex with him. 








NobodySpecial said:


> To the bolded, YES. And I am sorry for your experience. Your situation is probably one of the tougher nuts to crack. But I am still not sure I buy libido as the driving problem. I still half wonder if the libido was never opened, exposed, ripened. Many of us, myself included, don't have their libido walking around outside of the context of the rest of their experiences. Whether it be religious or other societal expectations or repression of some other form or ....


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Rocky Mountain Yeti - All your points are great. When I wasn't having sex with my ex he slowly turned into brother type love which made any sex we did try super awkward and weird. I don't know if I could set a frequency other than "have great sex as many times a week as you can" Sometimes that may be once, sometimes that may be 14 but as long as it's high on your priority list it should be there. 
I think frequency matters when it's not there. When you have regular sex, if it's 2 or 3 or 5 times that specific week doesn't make a difference. Same as one sided sex. In a healthy sexual relationship, having times just for her and just for him will be fairly even and there's no counting or measuring who gets it more and what is fair. If it's lopsided where 1 gets a lot more one sided events than the other, the equalness and fairness is more important.


On that note, I don't think bad sex is like bad pizza but it would be an interesting thread. I think a lot of men want GOOD sex and bad sex just isn't a replacement.


----------



## Mr The Other

uhtred said:


> Part of the reason it took me so long (25 years) to accept my situation is what you wrote below - the belief that her low libido was the result of something else, not the root problem. The idea that there was *something* that would cause her libido to increase to normal. Maybe there is, but a quarter century of trying everything I can imagine didn't change things.
> 
> I can't claim I've investigate every possible solution, but I have investigated a lot.
> 
> 
> I think its very difficult for a normal desire person to imagine being low desire - I know that I can't. I accept LD as a fact, but I don't understand it. To a ND person like you, I expect sex would be a natural wonderful part of a relaxing romantic vacation. That after a day of exploring medieval streets, a wonderful dinner, and watching the sunset from your balcony, climbing into bed with the man you love for long passionate lovemaking would be a wonderful way to end the day. You can't imagine deciding instead to check FB, read another chapter of a novel, then going to sleep unless something was *wrong*. That is must mean your partner is a terrible lover, or treats you badly, or is physically disgusting or something.
> 
> The only way I can imagine it is to think that a LD person thinks about their partner the way that a totally straight person thinks about a same-sex friend. I could imagine having a nice day exploring a city with a good friend o mine, but it would in no way lead to a desire to have sex with him.


You know it is rewarding. 

So is exercise.

Try telling a physically lazy and unhealthy person that they will feel better if they exercise. They are likely to choose an early death.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think frequency matters when it's not there. When you have regular sex, if it's 2 or 3 or 5 times that specific week doesn't make a difference. Same as one sided sex. In a healthy sexual relationship, having times just for her and just for him will be fairly even and there's no counting or measuring who gets it more and what is fair. If it's lopsided where 1 gets a lot more one sided events than the other, the equalness and fairness is more important.


Great paragraph. Absolutely rock solid. Thanks for the additional input.


----------



## doobie

uhtred said:


> I think it depends on what you mean by "frequency focus". If someone is complaining that they only had sex 2 times one week rather than the usual 3, then I agree that they don't have a lot to complain about. OTOH, of someone is complaining that their partner only wants sex every couple of months, I think that is a valid reason to be unhappy.


I agree with this. My marriage was a classic "bait and switch" - regular sex in the year leading up to marriage and then 4 times in the first year of marriage! Until then, although I have a reasonably high sex drive, I didn't really have a "frequency focus" as such, it's something that developed when I realised that I'd been duped into marrying a man who had no interest in having sex.


----------



## uhtred

I think that is an excellent point! Its not frequency, but *priority* that is important. A happy passionate sex life should be important to both. That doesn't mean it must always happen, but it should be high on the priority list. 





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> snip
> Sometimes that may be once, sometimes that may be 14 but as long as it's high on your priority list it should be there.
> snip
> .


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr The Other said:


> Yes!
> 
> But, if had been in an utterly passive mindset, you would not have seen it as a choice. They would have been things that happened and proved that you were the innocent victim.


No, actually, he was pretty clear. I will not live in a sexless marriage. I will not live in a marriage that has a less than satisfying sexual element. Period. He was interested in journeying with me there. If I was not, I could be divorced. The choice was pretty clear.




> PS: I realise I am being very critical of you on the thread. I actually agree with 80% of what you write. My difference is on emphasis. I do not post frequently at all, that I am engaging as much as I am reflects how much I appreciate your views.



I don't feel criticized. But thanks just the same.


----------



## Mr The Other

NobodySpecial said:


> No, actually, he was pretty clear. I will not live in a sexless marriage. I will not live in a marriage that has a less than satisfying sexual element. Period. He was interested in journeying with me there. If I was not, I could be divorced. The choice was pretty clear.


There were a few things I wanted from my marriage (sex, help around the home and with wage earning, Fatherhood). If she did not budge, there would be divorce. 

She did not budge, not out of anger or spite. She just thought that I was being unreasonable as I was having a mid-life crisis and she was a brave victim. Now we are divorced.

You were challenged to grasp the nettle and did so.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr The Other said:


> There were a few things I wanted from my marriage (sex, help around the home and with wage earning, Fatherhood). If she did not budge, there would be divorce.
> 
> She did not budge, not out of anger or spite. She just thought that I was being unreasonable as I was having a mid-life crisis and she was a brave victim. Now we are divorced.
> 
> You were challenged to grasp the nettle and did so.


She can feel whatever she wants to feel. She made a choice. It was not marriage to you. Sucks. But it is what it is.


----------



## EllisRedding

uhtred said:


> I think its very difficult for a normal desire person to imagine being low desire - I know that I can't. I accept LD as a fact, but I don't understand it. To a ND person like you, I expect sex would be a natural wonderful part of a relaxing romantic vacation. That after a day of exploring medieval streets, a wonderful dinner, and watching the sunset from your balcony, climbing into bed with the man you love for long passionate lovemaking would be a wonderful way to end the day. You can't imagine deciding instead to check FB, read another chapter of a novel, then going to sleep unless something was *wrong*. That is must mean your partner is a terrible lover, or treats you badly, or is physically disgusting or something.
> 
> The only way I can imagine it is to think that a LD person thinks about their partner the way that a totally straight person thinks about a same-sex friend. I could imagine having a nice day exploring a city with a good friend o mine, but it would in no way lead to a desire to have sex with him.


In general, I think it is very difficult for an LD or HD to understand/relate to the other unless they have been on both ends. I have typically been on the higher end but of late much closer to LD. I know the frustration an HD feels when sex isn't meeting their needs, and I know the "it doesn't matter" feeling an LD may feel when sex is not really that important. Then again, if LD/HDs could easily relate to each other, working around mismatches would probably be less of an issue!


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think that is an excellent point! Its not frequency, but *priority* that is important. A happy passionate sex life should be important to both. That doesn't mean it must always happen, but it should be high on the priority list.


Wait. Full stop here. Your name is "Uhtred" and your wife is not falling down with her legs in the air when you walk in the room? PLEASE. What is WRONG with her? 

(I hope the levity is understood!)


----------



## uhtred

Sadly I am not the incredibly sexy completely awesome Uhtred of Bebanburg. While I dream of standing at the helm of a longship, with the salt spray freezing in my beard as I lead a band of warriors to sack a nearby convent, in reality my fingers get cold easily due to poor circulation, and I hate the sight of blood. I may have the soul of viking, but its trapped in the wrong body.




Interestingly, I've found that there is a subset of women who are actually really attracted to nerds - these women mostly being nerds themselves. 






NobodySpecial said:


> Wait. Full stop here. Your name is "Uhtred" and your wife is not falling down with her legs in the air when you walk in the room? PLEASE. What is WRONG with her?
> 
> (I hope the levity is understood!)


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Sadly I am not the incredibly sexy completely awesome Uhtred of Bebanburg.


LOL. I just PMed you to see if that is where you got your name.



> While I dream of standing at the helm of a longship, with the salt spray freezing in my beard as I lead a band of warriors to sack a nearby convent, in reality my fingers get cold easily due to poor circulation, and I hate the sight of blood. I may have the soul of viking, but its trapped in the wrong body.


No no. Uhtred has the soul of a viking but the conscience of a saint. He does not sack convents. He protects villagers from sacking! Get it right! It is part of why he appeals. 




> Interestingly, I've found that there is a subset of women who are actually really attracted to nerds - these women mostly being nerds themselves.


I married a nerd. Albeit a very manly nerd.


----------



## uhtred

In the books Uhtred is somewhat less angelic - though still mostly on the side of good. 






NobodySpecial said:


> LOL. I just PMed you to see if that is where you got your name.
> 
> 
> No no. Uhtred has the soul of a viking but the conscience of a saint. He does not sack convents. He protects villagers from sacking! Get it right! It is part of why he appeals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I married a nerd. Albeit a very manly nerd.


----------



## Phil Anders

I'd just like to say that this thread so far has become one of the more constructive discussions I've seen on this oft-visited topic...credit to the participants!


----------



## john117

We can fix that


----------



## Mr The Other

Phil Anders said:


> I'd just like to say that this thread so far has become one of the more constructive discussions I've seen on this oft-visited topic...credit to the participants!


I have been decent and still lowered the tone! 

So, yes, it is great.


----------



## Young at Heart

EllisRedding said:


> In general, I think it is very difficult for an LD or HD to understand/relate to the other unless they have been on both ends. I have typically been on the higher end but of late much closer to LD. I know the frustration an HD feels when sex isn't meeting their needs, *and I know the "it doesn't matter" feeling an LD may feel when sex is not really that important.* Then again, if LD/HDs could easily relate to each other, working around mismatches would probably be less of an issue!


I am HD and my wife is LD. One earlier comment was about priorities in life. I think that is and isn't true. I think it is about priorities and commitment to the marriage. 

For me commitment to my marriage is about trying to do things and sacrifices that improve both our lives together. I try to make sure that my wife feels loved in her love languages each day. My wife knows that my love languages are touch and words of affirmation. Rarely will she touch me in a non-sexual way and occasionally, will she praise me. 

Because of the Sex Therapist marriage counseling we had, my wife understands how emotionally important sex is to me. She made a commitment to save our sex starved marriage by agreeing to have sex twice a week. That was a heck of a change from no sex to twice a week. Her desire has partially returned to the point that I think she would want sex about once a week maybe a little more or less depending on the week, but not much more or less on average. 

When we don't have sex twice a week, she feel like a failure and that she is endangering the emontional closeness foundation of our marriage. As such, I don't think she feels that sex is "unimportant." She understands that it is important, she just has a hard time doing it and when she says no, she feels guilty.

I try to lighten that feeling of guilt, by saying then how about tomorrow night or the next night. That give her an out to say we can try later.

Again, if a couple has communicated their sexual needs, I don't think that the LD partner feels that sex is unimportant. It may not be something they want for themself, but at least in my case, she knows it is important.


----------



## DTO

NobodySpecial said:


> Different strokes. My husband would NOT be happy with my "meeting his needs" in a gifty sort of way on any kind of regular basis. His sexual needs are not limited to how frequently we engage but how that engagement goes for the long haul. His investment has paid off in having a fairly super freaky always ready to go wife. He told me when we were much younger that he had no interest in a sexless marriage. He loved me as much and more than he ever had. But sexlessness was not what he had in mind. That said, he did not want me to view sex as a thing I had to do to him or for him. That we could build a terrific sex life together and he never wanted me to view sex as a thing I did FOR HIM. It worked out fairly well. I demure. It's awesome.


This seems to be an area where it's hard to communicate my perspective. Let me try it this way:

Just because my partner is not amorous at the moment, does not mean that her having sex with me is a gift from her to me. It does mean that she values the relationship enough (which is because I meet her needs - sexual or not) to take pleasure in meeting my needs. It just means she's a "giver" in a sense. In no way is it something she feels she has to do one way or the other; it is something she does out of the fullness of her heart, if that makes sense.

On the subject of not wanting gift sex... The only reason your approach works is that you have (at least) a fairly good drive level to begin with, and are willing to challenge your assumptions regarding sexuality. There are ladies (and guys) with very low drives (or baggage) whose desire for sex is so infrequent (<= once per month) as to be negligible. There is simply nothing to build upon at that frequency, and you either have to learn how to give (and receive) sex as a loving service cheerfully, or risk the marriage.


----------



## Mr The Other

DTO said:


> This seems to be an area where it's hard to communicate my perspective. Let me try it this way:
> 
> Just because my partner is not amorous at the moment, does not mean that her having sex with me is a gift from her to me. It does mean that she values the relationship enough (which is because I meet her needs - sexual or not) to take pleasure in meeting my needs. It just means she's a "giver" in a sense. In no way is it something she feels she has to do one way or the other; it is something she does out of the fullness of her heart, if that makes sense.
> 
> On the subject of not wanting gift sex... The only reason your approach works is that you have (at least) a fairly good drive level to begin with, and are willing to challenge your assumptions regarding sexuality. There are ladies (and guys) with very low drives (or baggage) whose desire for sex is so infrequent (<= once per month) as to be negligible. There is simply nothing to build upon at that frequency, and you either have to learn how to give (and receive) sex as a loving service cheerfully, or risk the marriage.


Indeed.

I think NobodySpecial might agree with you. 

Sometimes you have to make the effort to get back into it. The alternative the marriage ending, it should not be hard. Ultimately, both have to make some effort.


----------



## arbitrator

*My entire theory of "sexless marriages" is that the female will literally bang your brains out premaritally, but once the marital "I do's" have been finally exchanged, the tap to the well starts it's sudden decendancy into turning into a "dry hole!" 

Ergo, the gradualism of diminishing returns!*


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I think NobodySpecial might agree with you.
> 
> Sometimes you have to make the effort to get back into it. The alternative the marriage ending, it should not be hard. Ultimately, both have to make some effort.


I would, indeed, agree to a point. I would think preferable to loving gifting would be a resolution to baggage. I maintain that the brain is the largest sex organ and "drive" is way over identified as root cause. When the brain is open to pleasure, drive follows.


----------



## uhtred

That happens, but it is only one model of how marriage become sexless. Lots of others.




arbitrator said:


> *My entire theory of "sexless marriages" is that the female will literally bang your brains out premaritally, but once the marital "I do's" have been finally exchanged, the tap to the well starts it's sudden decendancy into turning into a "dry hole!"
> 
> Ergo, the gradualism of diminishing returns!*


----------



## dadstartingover

NobodySpecial said:


> No, actually, he was pretty clear. I will not live in a sexless marriage. I will not live in a marriage that has a less than satisfying sexual element. Period. He was interested in journeying with me there. If I was not, I could be divorced. The choice was pretty clear.


You sound like you two have a great relationship. Your husband set expectations early on. This set the tone of "Sweetie...I love ya... but no sex means we have serious relationship problems, and that's when I step out." 

More men should do this. We don't out of shame of our sexuality. We think that saying "no sex = no romantic relationship" makes us a neandrathal that doesn't recognize the importance of all other aspects of the relationship. 

Also most men are completely attached to their wives and don't believe that a great sexual relationship is possible WITH ANOTHER WOMAN. You don't have to stay with your wife. Seriously. The lack of sex is indicative of much bigger issues. Work on that. If you do all you can and it's not working... then leave. She's just not into you. She'll probably respect a lot more if you yank your head outta your butt and realize this. 

"Marriage is more than just sex." True. But without it... there's no marriage. Not for me, and not for your hubs.


----------



## dadstartingover

NobodySpecial said:


> I would, indeed, agree to a point. I would think preferable to loving gifting would be a resolution to baggage. I maintain that the brain is the largest sex organ and "drive" is way over identified as root cause. When the brain is open to pleasure, drive follows.


I'll take it a step further and say that the brain is already open for pleasure (barring any physical/mental ailments). The buttons are there and they need to be pushed. Poor guys just keep smashing away at the wrong buttons over and over again. "Now sex?! NOW!?!" 

Then, sometimes, along comes the ol' affair partner. He, with little to no effort, pushes the right buttons. Repeatedly. She's blown away, has never felt this alive, blah blah. 

"I guess she wasn't low libido after all." 

Dead bedrooms and affairs are very much intertwined. 

Point is that when guys hear "you gotta get her brain ready first", they just jump to attention and start smashing away at the wrong buttons. They wonder why doing more laundry, staying home with kids while she goes out drinking with friends, vacuuming and other nonsense doesn't turn her on.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

dadstartingover said:


> More men should do this. We don't out of shame of our sexuality. We think that saying "no sex = no romantic relationship" makes us a neandrathal that doesn't recognize the importance of all other aspects of the relationship.


The irony here is that its the good men who want to be devoted, faithful partners are the ones who take this to heart while those who don't give a **** about anybody but themselves are ready cheat, or ditch their partner at the drop of a hat. So this unreasonable standard only has a negative effect on the ones who don't deserve it.


----------



## Young at Heart

DTO said:


> ......On the subject of not wanting gift sex... The only reason your approach works is that you have (at least) a fairly good drive level to begin with, and are willing to challenge your assumptions regarding sexuality. There are ladies (and guys) with very low drives (or baggage) whose desire for sex is so infrequent (<= once per month) as to be negligible. There is simply nothing to build upon at that frequency, and you either have to learn how to give (and receive) sex as a loving service cheerfully, or risk the marriage.


I am a believer in Chapman's 5 Languages of Love.

Sex can be a way to express your love of another person to them.

It can be a gift or Present
It can be an Act of Service
It can be Quality Time (as in great foreplay and aftercare)
It can be It can include words of Praise/Affirmation
It can be all about Touch

However, most people I know really desire a feeling of connection or intimacy with their partner that sex naturally brings about. Without sex, you need to work harder at making that emotional connection. You also need to make it a priority and devote time to it.

The Gottman's in their so many minutes per week plan have suggestions for how to emotionally bond with your partner most days of the week with just a few simple things that pay big results.



> Here are the five hours you should be investing in your relationship each week:
> 
> Connect before you leave. Before you and your wife part ways at the beginning of the day, take the time to learn about one thing each of you have planned for the day. Estimated time: 2 minutes per day x 5 working days, totals 10 minutes per week.
> 
> Connect when you reunite. At the end of the day, spend at least 20 minutes talking about the things that went on during your day. Chatting at the dinner table or in bed helps you de-stress and reconnect with your partner. Estimated time: 20 minutes per day x 5 working days, totals 1 hour, 40 minutes per week
> 
> Admire and appreciate. Every day, find ways to tell your wife that you love her and appreciate all that she does for you. Be specific. Don’t just say that she’s wonderful; tell her how beautiful she is, how she lights up a room, how her meatloaf is a little slice of heaven on earth, ect. Estimated time: 5 minutes per day x 7 days, totals 35 minutes per week.
> 
> Initiate affection. When you were dating, you were all over each other. If you want to bring back some of that magic, that you need to start being more intimate with one another. Cuddle, kiss, hold hands, spoon, and so on. The more time you spend touching, the happier your marriage will be. Estimated time: 5 minutes per day x 7 days, totals 35 minutes per week.
> 
> Go on a weekly date. Establish that you will go out on one date a week, and make this a non-negotiable commitment. If you have kids, get a babysitter. This is time for just you and your wife. The date doesn’t have to be fancy or expensive. But it needs to provide time for you two to talk, so a movie alone won’t cut it. Discuss what happened that week and your plans, hopes, and dreams for your future together.....


My feeling is that most partners in poor marriages don't want to devote a few hours a week to bonding with their partner and that some see two or so half hour sessions of sex a week to be an easier way to achieve that bonding.


----------

