# A question for those that NEED it every day...



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

I stumbled upon the thread http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/205058-longest-period-your-marriage-without-sex.html There were a lot of comments in there that got me thinking, so I thought I'd ask the source.

First, for me, my sexual activity is directly related to my emotional connection. I've never been a ONS type of individual, or a FWB type of girl. I need a pretty intense emotional connection to allow another person to invade my body in that manner, but under the right connection, I can't get physically close enough. So, with a positive emotional connection, I'm on; without it, I'm just "off." And then I miss it like I miss the beach -- it would be nice, but simply not an option right then. End of story, life goes on.

So I'm curious about some of the responses to the referenced post, such as (and not to pick on anyone in particular) "I would never go a month or more. After a month I'd be packing his bags, " or "If I knew then what I know now it would have been less than a month of no sex," or "I don't think I could go without for even a week if both of us were physically healthy," or there's no point in getting married except for sex," or " I would not want to go longer than a week without sex and get antsy when we get close to the one week mark," and my favorite, "I am on a one day long period right now and its driving me nuts."

My question is: What do you do when you're not married? Either before marriage or after divorce? I realize you could hire a hooker (sorry, but eww!), but other than that, is sex that readily available that you can get sex everyday or 3/4/5 times a week? FWB, sure, but doesn't that have to be someone that also wants it 3/4/5 times a week? I'd think the whole advantage to a FWB situation is convenience without the obligation. And besides, doesn't that end sometimes and then you're back without a partner? What did you do to get 3/4/5 times a week before/after marriage between steadies, and that's assuming your steady wasn't impeded by the moral inclination that sex should be within the bounds of M?

What I'm trying to understand is that if you couldn't live without it/wouldn't stand for rejections from a LD partner within the M, how did you survive without it outside of M? Or did you not have to do without and how did you manage?


----------



## rubymoon (Jul 21, 2014)

Do you ever fantasize about sex? Do you ever crave sex? If so, then who is your imaginary partner when you are not in a relationship? He must be someone you are not attached to emotionally, right? 

The point is that sexual drive is either there or not, and emotional involvement can make it better, but it's not vital for your body to produce hormones that make you... Horney  

If hormones are not there or too low to make a difference, then it's that. I will never understand how it hurts to get kicked in the balls because I don't have them. But it's not a reason for me to disbelieve that it hurts  And I don't analyze it - I just take men's word for it


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Obviously, anyone can survive a while without sex, so that's not really an issue. The more you want sex, though, the more effort you'll make to find it, whether it's a ONS, a FWB, or a relationship (short term, long term, or marriage). Only a small percentage of people wait for marriage to have sex - so they take a chance on what that will be like. When seeking a relationship, the goal is to find someone sexually compatible who is also compatible in many other ways - but sometimes, the sex part gets overlooked, leading to future problems. In a relationship, you tend to expect that past frequency will continue. When there's a major drop thereafter, that creates a problem.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

rubymoon said:


> Do you ever fantasize about sex? Do you ever crave sex? If so, then who is your imaginary partner when you are not in a relationship? He must be someone you are not attached to emotionally, right?
> 
> The point is that sexual drive is either there or not, and emotional involvement can make it better, but it's not vital for your body to produce hormones that make you... Horney
> 
> If hormones are not there or too low to make a difference, then it's that. I will never understand how it hurts to get kicked in the balls because I don't have them. But it's not a reason for me to disbelieve that it hurts  And I don't analyze it - I just take men's word for it


Some of us men have learned that you can be loyal to an LD, and tie your sex drive to them. Through rejection they can kinda retrain your emotional responses, so that your sex drive is dropped!

Not a good thing, but it can happen to even the horniest toad.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

Many married couples complain that if they were single, they would have more sex. Especially when married to a LD person.


So a popular radio station I listen to decided to have married people call in to the radio show to discuss it the frequency of sex..The majority of the callers admitted to sex 1-2 times a week. Most were leaning on a 3X a MONTH frequency...

To be fair, the next day single people called in to the show...

One woman said it has been 4 years

Several others said 2-3 times a year...ONS's

Some men called in and said 4-5 times a week. So the DJ's had one man role play his PUA skills which he sounded silly.... The other men bragging that they get sex 4 plus times a week weren't all that believable...

Some me called in and said that they get lucky 1-2 times a month by as long as they are not too picky...


Being married is different... Married sex is safe free of STD's. We get to know our partner and sex should improve over time as we learn what works with our partner...Sex is mg favorite past time...

Why would married cluples , when time permits, after the kids are asleep, when the kids are gone to a day camp and have alone time... Why does a wife spend that time on the computer instead of getting busy?

I say use it now before we look it...


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Trickster said:


> Many married couples complain that if they were single, they would have more sex. Especially when married to a LD person.
> 
> 
> So a popular radio station I listen to decided to have married people call in to the radio show to discuss it the frequency of sex..The majority of the callers admitted to sex 1-2 times a week. Most were leaning on a 3X a MONTH frequency...
> ...


With my wives and LT GF's, I was almost every day man and with one wife/gf was multiple times a day over a period of years.

It makes a tremendous difference in how you see yourself and you see the entire world.

I used to stand next to sex starved guys and you could tell, they were always angry, looking all deprived, some like they are out to explode.

I thanked my ex's for taking such good care of me.

I'm going to entitle myself to greater than 3x a week from now on. Prefer whatever lady I deal with will be able to deal with it almost every day even if it isn't her preference that day, but would prefer for her to have a strong enough drive on her own that she wants it just as much :smthumbup:


----------



## inquizitivemind (Jul 16, 2013)

I can say that when I was single I wasn't getting any sex, and I am an HD. That is how I got addicted to porn. A lot of people who aren't getting regular sex because they are single use masturbation as an outlet. I am not ashamed to say I did it a lot because honestly it is natural and not something to be worried about. I think it is much better than possibly getting a disease, becoming emotionally involved with someone I am not good with in any other way, or getting PREGNANT!

I enjoyed being single, but now that I am married, the sex is great and I don't miss being single.


----------



## GinnyTonia (Jul 31, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> First, for me, my sexual activity is directly related to my emotional connection. I've never been a ONS type of individual, or a FWB type of girl. I need a pretty intense emotional connection to allow another person to invade my body in that manner, but under the right connection, I can't get physically close enough. So, with a positive emotional connection, I'm on; without it, I'm just "off." And then I miss it like I miss the beach -- it would be nice, but simply not an option right then. End of story, life goes on.
> 
> 
> What I'm trying to understand is that if you couldn't live without it/wouldn't stand for rejections from a LD partner within the M, how did you survive without it outside of M? Or did you not have to do without and how did you manage?



You basically answered your own question here, at least for the most part. 

However my drive is only in part due to emotional connection. I have had times when I engaged in a FWB situation to alleviate the "need", but even then I wasn't as satisfied and have since sworn off non-exclusive sex. When I'm in love, or even just infatuated, I can't get enough even though I'm deeply satisfied by each encounter. Sex is really my love language, or so I've been told. 

So when I have no one, sometimes I jill off and am left craving the touch of an imaginary loved one and sometimes I do it just to let off a little steam and go on about the day.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

inquizitivemind said:


> I can say that when I was single I wasn't getting any sex, and I am an HD. That is how I got addicted to porn. A lot of people who aren't getting regular sex because they are single use masturbation as an outlet. I am not ashamed to say I did it a lot because honestly it is natural and not something to be worried about. I think it is much better than possibly getting a disease, becoming emotionally involved with someone I am not good with in any other way, or getting PREGNANT!
> 
> I enjoyed being single, but now that I am married, the sex is great and I don't miss being single.


Have you ever thought that if you didn't masterbate so often that you would have found yourself in more situations where you could conjugate with a female?


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

I haven't been single in a VERY long time, so I don't know how I'd deal with it.

But I do note how many of my relatives deal with it: They just aren't single for long. Usually we're talking a month or two and then they are in a new relationship. Find a new outlet quickly and then it's not a problem.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

treyvion said:


> Have you ever thought that if you didn't masterbate so often that you would have found yourself in more situations where you could conjugate with a female?


I wouldn't be interested, honestly. 

I don't want a FWB or ONS. I like an emotional connection, I like knowing that I can have a good time without the risk of an STD. I love oral sex. Condoms suck.

Rosy palms will suffice until a new relationship develops.


----------



## Anomnom (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm HD, my ex-h was ND and we often went many months between. I used to get myself off almost daily. Not ideal but I guess it kept me sane. After 8 years of that, when we hit one year without I separated from him. Sex is so crucial to me for intimacy and bonding that in hindsight I really can't believe I lived like that for so long. My BF and I now average about 5 x week and I'll still get myself off occasionally because I think about sex A LOT! 

I think the more you think about it the more you want it. When I wasn't getting any with my ex, it was almost obsessional thinking, living and breathing the desire just to have sex and now I'm getting it regularly I don't think about it as much with the same ferocity but as I'm HD it's on my mind a lot throughout the day. Point being, that even if you're HD not getting any, you don't have to become a w*ore etc, we have hands and toys to suffice!


----------



## Sbrown (Jul 29, 2012)

When you're single it's not right there in your space, living in your house expecting you to be loyal. Sure we want it just as much but we're allowed to go out and hunt it when we're single. Imagine being hungry but your spouse controls the food.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

Sbrown said:


> When you're single it's not right there in your space, living in your house expecting you to be loyal. Sure we want it just as much but we're allowed to go out and hunt it when we're single. Imagine being hungry but your spouse controls the food.....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Like going out to a restraint. We can look at the menus, smell the food, our spouse can order and eat in front of us. We just can't eat...and we have to pay the bill


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

Meant to type Restaurant... I didnt realize the auto correct changed it to restraint.... 


Just a little Freudian slip". 

Felt I should keep it that way


----------



## Jetranger (May 31, 2013)

Before LTR, had FWBs at some points, ONS at others, but generally, porn. During later stage of LTR, with her LD in full swing, porn. 

Was talking to my friend about this last night, she is HD like me. Sometimes I'd have a good sex session with someone but still feel the need to go solo later on that day.



> What I'm trying to understand is that if you couldn't live without it/wouldn't stand for rejections from a LD partner within the M, how did you survive without it outside of M?


What's the point in a romantic partner who won't have sex with you? If you have HD then it will drive you crazy.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Jetranger said:


> Before LTR, had FWBs at some points, ONS at others, but generally, porn. During later stage of LTR, with her LD in full swing, porn.
> 
> Was talking to my friend about this last night, she is HD like me. Sometimes I'd have a good sex session with someone but still feel the need to go solo later on that day.
> 
> ...


It'll do worse than drive you crazy. It can strip your sex drive down.

They don't have to be your lover, they can be a plutonic friend that you don't do much with.


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> My question is: What do you do when you're not married? Either before marriage or after divorce?
> 
> What I'm trying to understand is that if you couldn't live without it/wouldn't stand for rejections from a LD partner within the M, how did you survive without it outside of M? Or did you not have to do without and how did you manage?


I've had women ask me this same question. Usually it's a defensive argument from someone who has less desire. Basically they ask why if you can be single without sex as often as you would prefer couldn't you have a partner who doesn't want sex as often as you do. To me, this is an absurd question. There is no way that I could sleep in the same bed every night with a partner if I wasn't getting enough sex. For anyone who still doesn't understand this point, look up Tantalus in Greek mythology.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

It's unfortunate that I didn't get a lot of responses indicating that HD partners got as much sex when they were unattached as they're expecting when they're M'd. This would at least give credence to the statement, "I can't go 3 days without!" But the fact is that you can, and you have. So now it boils down to the truth being that you CAN but you simply "don't want to." Unfortunately, your LD partner is also basing their argument on the fact that they "don't want to." And THAT is an endless, fruitless argument. You can't possibly argue (and win) that YOUR WANTS are more important than YOUR PARTNER'S WANTS.

I'm also very saddened by all the comments (in other posts) asking what's the point of M if not the sex? Because, otherwise, they're just roommates. The thing is, I'm accepting of whether you're HD or LD. But don't you think that should have been part of your proposal/acceptance of M?

Imagine....

"Gosh, Honey, our sex is fantastic! Will you marry me? I want to have sex everyday for the rest of my life, guaranteed, free of the risk of STD's, and you're the person I want to do it with! Will you agree to be that person for me, even if you're not in the mood or too tired or too stressed by, you know, whatever those other aspects of M might be? But be honest, because if you won't commit to that, then I don't want to marry you."

"You know, Dear, sex really is great! Right now. But I don't expect to keep this up forever. We're young, hormonal, we have few responsibilities. Life changes, and I expect that our sex life is not immune to that. As we take on more responsibilities, like stressful careers, children, aging parents, etc., something else, or everything else, will have to give to make room. I think it's wonderful that we have this time now while we're young and carefree, but I can't begin to promise you that I'll keep this up forever. There's so much more to M and life than just sex.

This sounds like a reasonable exchange, doesn't it? Or do you have a better way to present it honestly? I think both people might be thrilled to know up-front how the other person feels and avoid a potential crisis later on. I'm curious, is this really not something that people talk about before they get M'd??? We did.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> ... I think both people might be thrilled to know up-front how the other person feels and avoid a potential crisis later on. I'm curious, is this really not something that people talk about before they get M'd??? We did.


I think few people really discuss this. I think many - especially young people - have NO IDEA what their long-term sex drive will be like. They are going by experience during the first year or two of a new relationship, when sexual interest is at a peak. The hormonal drivers for sex in a new relationship wear off sometime in the 18 month to 3 year time frame - mostly around the 2 year mark. So, if they marry or decide to marry before those initial hormones wear off, they are deceived into thinking that what did exist will continue.

People with more experience with longer relationships (3 plus years, etc.), may have a better idea of their normal baseline libido, and I agree with you that they would be smart to discuss this with new or potential parnters who may become long-term. I certainly did not expect the bait and switch libido with my first wife - and we did not have sufficient experience to know it could happen. I was completely aware of the issue in my next LTR, and we did discuss our baseline libidos and learned that they matched very well - if they hadn't we'd have broken up and kept looking for a good match.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

I thought it was a "given," like that men go bald, women put on weight, and sex goes out the window -- stereotypically, of course. (Or that men put on weight, women get biotchy, and sex goes out the window. LOL!) But there's enough evidence of the baldness and weight gain to prove there's at least some truth to it. I would have at least considered that the rumors about sex bore some truth as well. It's not a guarantee that those things will happen, anymore than that it's a guarantee that an affair will happen. But it's certainly nice to know the general position of your future mate, rather than assume that you're both an exception to the rule.

I guess I'm just incredibly surprised that there seem to be so many people in this situation. And how everyone thinks it's their partner's fault, rather than owning the mistake of not having ironed that out first (different, of course, if you did but your partner lied.)


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> I guess I'm just incredibly surprised that there seem to be so many people in this situation. And how everyone thinks it's their partner's fault, rather than owning the mistake of not having ironed that out first (different, of course, if you did but your partner lied.)


I'm not surprised given my own experience, but it is sad. Many of the people in this situation are still in starter marriages, and didn't have prior long term sexual relationships that would have possibly given them direct experience of the issue they are now facing.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I'm not surprised given my own experience, but it is sad. Many of the people in this situation are still in starter marriages, and didn't have prior long term sexual relationships that would have possibly given them direct experience of the issue they are now facing.


Maybe I'm not so much surprised by being in the situation, because you can't address what you don't know. Like you said, many here are starter M's. 

But how does it become the LD partner's fault? Why is the LD spouse villianized? They are who they are, and the HD spouse picked them (pretty sure these aren't arranged M's.) So I can understand the HD spouse kicking THEMSELVES in the arse all day and night long because they didn't make a compatible choice, but to blame the LD spouse? To expect the LD spouse to change who they are because the HD spouse messed up? Again, if it was a bait and switch, then the other spouse has grounds for D, but it's still their own mistaken choice.

This, of course goes both ways. The LD spouse doesn't get to villianize the HD spouse.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Most of us dive into marriage without thinking thoroughly about it.
It's very difficult to be scientific and objective about marriage.
Those who really think it through this way I think are rare.

Our culture, even today with new attitudes beckons us into getting married, so we just do.

We just do it and (subconsciously) hope for the best.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Then, we're surprised and aghast when it doesn't work out.

The lucky ones among us, usually, we just rolled the dice and came up with a couple of fives.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> But how does it become the LD partner's fault? Why is the LD spouse villianized? They are who they are, and the HD spouse picked them


I suspect the reason for this reaction is that the LD partner is much more likely to have presented themselves dishonestly in the period leading up to marriage. So when the HD partner picked them, they didn't know what they were picking.

Yes, it is reasonable to predict that some men go bald with the passage of time. But very few bald men suddenly grow hair during the courtship phase of a new relationship to stimulate the interest of a prospective mate (although many probably would if they could, I can't imagine such men would ditch the new hair once they had achieved a wedding ring.)

You concede that a bait and switch is a special scenario. With all respect, I think sexual bait and switches are much more common than you think. What I don't really know is if the "out of character" presentation of sexual desire by the LD partner is usually intentional or not. But in either case, it IS manipulative to a degree and hence the tendency to "villianise" the LD partner in discussions of mis-matched desire.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Big Dude said:


> I suspect the reason for this reaction is that the LD partner is much more likely to have presented themselves dishonestly in the period leading up to marriage. So when the HD partner picked them, they didn't know what they were picking..


I will agree that SOMETIMES the sexual interest is dishonest. But if that were the case, the sexual activity would likely come to a screeching halt almost immediately after the wedding. I suspect that in most cases, it's more of a gradual decline. Much like the gradual loss of hair or gradual gaining of weight. In that case, I don't believe their actions are "dishonest," and were probably true for "that point in their life." Things change with time and circumstances. How they are now doesn't make them "dishonest" back then.



Big Dude said:


> Yes, it is reasonable to predict that some men go bald with the passage of time. But very few bald men suddenly grow hair during the courtship phase of a new relationship to stimulate the interest of a prospective mate (although many probably would if they could, I can't imagine such men would ditch the new hair once they had achieved a wedding ring.)


Hair is a bad example. But, in fact, many wayward spouses do exactly that. One of the first signs of a straying spouse is that they suddenly start putting significant effort into the way they look: lose weight, work out, new haircut, dress better, etc., all for the purpose of "stimulating the interest of a prospective mate," regardless of whether they're the HD or LD partner.



Big Dude said:


> You concede that a bait and switch is a special scenario. With all respect, I think sexual bait and switches are much more common than you think. What I don't really know is if the "out of character" presentation of sexual desire by the LD partner is usually intentional or not. But in either case, it IS manipulative to a degree and hence the tendency to "villianise" the LD partner in discussions of mis-matched desire.


By that line of thinking, I could legitimately villianize my H because he put on 50 pounds since we were M'd. I can accuse him of "intentionally being manipulative" because he was trim and in shape before, but then let himself go after we got M'd, especially if I completely ignore aging/stress/medication/sleep issues as contributing factors.


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> It's unfortunate that I didn't get a lot of responses indicating that HD partners got as much sex when they were unattached as they're expecting when they're M'd. This would at least give credence to the statement, "I can't go 3 days without!"


So you are using your original assumptions to prove your original assumptions? Would you like to know what logical fallacy that is?



> But the fact is that you can, and you have. So now it boils down to the truth being that you CAN but you simply "don't want to."


You seem to be arguing that if I am single and I masturbate then if I were married I should be happy if masturbation were my primary outlet. The truth is that if I were married and solo masturbation was my primary sexual outlet then I would not be married. Marriage for me is necessarily a sexual relationship. And, if my partner had no interaction with or interest in my sexuality most of the time then I would lose interest in her.



> Unfortunately, your LD partner is also basing their argument on the fact that they "don't want to."


This has nothing to do with an argument. It's actually called happiness. Why would a person with low desire seek someone who would make them unhappy?



> Will you agree to be that person for me, even if you're not in the mood or too tired or too stressed by, you know, whatever those other aspects of M might be? But be honest, because if you won't commit to that, then I don't want to marry you."


This is called the strawman fallacy. Even if I wanted sex everyday, I would not expect my partner to be available under any circumstances. Clearly I would not expect sex if my partner were sick, stressed, or tired. This is a false argument. Real sexual interaction is more of an average, but if "not in the mood" occurs half the time, why would I be happy?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> So you are using your original assumptions to prove your original assumptions? Would you like to know what logical fallacy that is?


No, I'm compiling the responses to my original question. I had honestly hoped for something different, like, "I got sex everyday before I was M'd by doing x," where 'x' not = masturbation. It would make the frequency complaints more understandable for me. 



scientia said:


> You seem to be arguing that if I am single and I masturbate then if I were married I should be happy if masturbation were my primary outlet. The truth is that if I were married and solo masturbation was my primary sexual outlet then I would not be married. Marriage for me is necessarily a sexual relationship. And, if my partner had no interaction with or interest in my sexuality most of the time then I would lose interest in her.


 And I completely understand that and wouldn't blame you in the least if you opted for D. In fact, I consider that simple incompatibility, which is applicable to many marital differences, not at all unique to sex. My point would be that if masturbation was adequate for you before, then technically speaking, it should be adequate now, and ANY amount of couple-sex would be a measurable improvement to your previous situation. To dictatorially transfer that primary responsibility to your partner, one who clearly doesn't want it, simply because you DO, is unreasonable, and will most likely be unsuccessful.




scientia said:


> This has nothing to do with an argument. It's actually called happiness. Why would a person with low desire seek someone who would make them unhappy?


 Uh, why doesn't it apply? I'm not following you. I don't believe a person with LD seeks a HD person. I believe a LD person is just as miserable in a relationship with a HD person as a HD person is in a relationship with a LD person. I'm not both, of course, but I'm extending empathy and understanding to both perspectives. 



scientia said:


> This is called the strawman fallacy. Even if I wanted sex everyday, I would not expect my partner to be available under any circumstances. Clearly I would not expect sex if my partner were sick, stressed, or tired. This is a false argument. Real sexual interaction is more of an average, but if "not in the mood" occurs half the time, why would I be happy?


 So what if your S was sick, stressed, or tired ALL THE TIME? Since you wouldn't expect it under any of those circumstances, would you then be happy never getting it? Or would you admit that you would go outside the M for sex in the case of a catastrophic illness?


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> I will agree that SOMETIMES the sexual interest is dishonest. But if that were the case, the sexual activity would likely come to a screeching halt almost immediately after the wedding. I suspect that in most cases, it's more of a gradual decline. Much like the gradual loss of hair or gradual gaining of weight. In that case, I don't believe their actions are "dishonest," and were probably true for "that point in their life." Things change with time and circumstances. How they are now doesn't make them "dishonest" back then.
> 
> *A person who presents themselves as having high sexual desire for their prospective mate when in fact they do not sometimes bring things to a halt after the marriage ceremony. Sometimes they recognize the importance of sex to a happy marriage and try to sustain the illusion for longer. And I suspect that sometimes they really do experience a temporary sexual attraction at some point early in the courtship, but then revert to a more normal state after a period of time. I really have no idea how many cases of HD/LD mismatch fall into which category. But in all cases the LD partner is not presenting the HD partner an accurate picture of their true sexuality.*
> 
> ...


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> No, I'm compiling the responses to my original question. I had honestly hoped for something different, like, "I got sex everyday before I was M'd by doing x," where 'x' not = masturbation. It would make the frequency complaints more understandable for me.


Why? My travel trailer had a 6 gallon hot water heater. So, long showers were an impossibility. I walked over to the bathhouse to shower. I would not expect that as a matter of routine. Like most people, I would expect a bigger hot water heater.



> My point would be that if masturbation was adequate for you before, then technically speaking, it should be adequate now, and ANY amount of couple-sex would be a measurable improvement to your previous situation.


That's not a point; that's actually an assumption. And, what you are describing would be true if my wife lived in a separate house. Of course, that would make her not my wife but my girlfriend. Under those circumstances then whatever sex we had would be an improvement. So, your real question is why this would not be true if we were living together. Because if we were living together then I would desire her more often. And, I would get rejected. And this would make me lose interest in her.



> To dictatorially transfer that primary responsibility to your partner, one who clearly doesn't want it, simply because you DO, is unreasonable, and will most likely be unsuccessful.


You do like pejorative language. Why would you marry a dictator and why would sex be a responsibility? If my wife saw sex as a responsibility then why would I want to be married to her? 



> So what if your S was sick, stressed, or tired ALL THE TIME? Since you wouldn't expect it under any of those circumstances, would you then be happy never getting it? Or would you admit that you would go outside the M for sex in the case of a catastrophic illness?


You mean like when my wife was terminally ill for ten months and I took care of her everyday in home hospice care? I'm not sure if you are trying to be a jerk or if you are just completely clueless. I would guess the latter.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Big Dude said:


> Actually, if one of the important reasons you married your husband was a shared sense of the importance of fitness, athleticism, good nutritional habits, etc. then I think his failure to sustain those traits he presented to you before marriage might well be classified as manipulative. If he changed his lifestyle while courting you to present himself as "fitness man" when in fact he wasn't, letting himself go after marriage (quickly or slowly) is probably inevitable.
> 
> With fitness as with sexuality, uncontrollable external factors can and do create changes in the relationship. But in both cases your basic character heavily influences outcomes. A man who values fitness at his core may become unfit due to things he cannot control. But a man who values fitness is much less likely to become unfit over time. The same is true, I think, with sexual desire.


ABSOLUTELY AGREE!

So how to you differentiate intention vs. external factors? I could easily look upon my H and attribute his weight gain to laziness and initial deception. I mean, why work for the trophy wife once you've got her, right? And the fact that she really does value fitness and appearance in herself is just icing on his cake.

But who gave me a crystal ball to be able to adequately determine that? Maybe he really doesn't feel up to it. Maybe his work environment is Stressville. I can't get in his joints or back or even his head to know what he's thinking, so it would be pure speculation on my part as to his motive. All I can do is believe what he says as being his truth, and decide if I can live (aka. be happy) without the physical version of the man I M'd and go from there. Arguing all day long about what I want and what he presented before M is pointless and unproductive. So why do people do so regarding HD vs. LD?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Scienta, this has veered off a bit, but you seem to have an agenda.

I'd like to clear the slate and ask you a pointblank question, if you'd care to answer.

Why do you think your W (a separate individual with her own set of needs/opinions/perspectives/boundaries/free will/etc.) should meet YOUR need for sex? And why does she say she doesn't want to?

(Okay, technically, that's two questions.)


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> Arguing all day long about what I want and what he presented before M is pointless and unproductive. So why do people do so regarding HD vs. LD?


Why? Because we had expectations based on the statements and actions presented prior to marriage, and want those things to continue. We HOPE for change to return to the baseline when there is a departure, because we do not want to deal with the alternative. Eventually, if nothing changes to restore "normalcy", we either have to accept the unfortunate changes, or decide they are a deal-breaker and take appropriate action (usually divorce).

It's often a very difficult choice. I found it so, but as there were multiple areas of conflict it became easier to decide that they were deal-breakers and choose divorce.


----------



## BostonBruins32 (Nov 2, 2013)

my sex drive shot up when I found someone I loved. When single, it wasnt in my face on a daily basis, as I lived alone. When I wanted it, I'd seek it. It could take hours or days to find someone to help with this relief.

Theres a raw human element to it too. I lay next to my wife nightly in bed. 5-10 inches away from vagina and breasts. If I were single but shared a bed with an attractive female, it would be on my mind then too. 

Also, there is something about the hunt. When you are on the hunt, and its not a sure thing (finding a one nighter or some girl), its easier to go with out as you are building up to it. I suppose if I were single and running on MONTHS of nothing, I'd be frustrated.


----------



## TheCuriousWife (Jan 28, 2013)

I think you are missing the point.

I will use myself as a reference.

The bottom line is I did not get married so I could be celibate.

Do I NEED sex to live? No. No one does.

Do I NEED sex in my marriage? Yes. If I wasn't getting sex, then I would consider ones of my basic needs not be fulfilled, and I would divorce. 

If my husband suddenly died, could I and would I live without sex? Yes. 

But I would not stay in a sexless marriage. So therefore to me, it is a NEED for the marriage to continue. It isn't my only need. I wouldn't stay in the marriage if my husband was lazy and never worked, and I wouldn't stay in the marriage if he never spoke to me etc.

Because those are also NEEDS of mine.

That doesn't mean if I lived alone, and had to support myself, or didn't have someone to talk to that I would die.


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> Why do you think your W (a separate individual with her own set of needs/opinions/perspectives/boundaries/free will/etc.) should meet YOUR need for sex?


Your question makes no sense. Why would I marry someone who did not substantially meet my needs? Do you routinely buy clothes that don't fit, food that you don't like, and watch shows that you have no interest in?



> And why does she say she doesn't want to?


Could you be more specific? Under what circumstances would this hypothetical person not want to?


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

DaytoDay:
What are your needs in a marriage? Financial support? Daily conversation? Recreational companionship? Shared parenting? 

If your husband minimized these needs, gradually stopped providing them for you, how would you respond?

The whole point of being married is to want to please each other. If your husband misses the emotional as well as physical connection he gets from sex, why would you not want to meet this need of his?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

BostonBruins32 said:


> my sex drive shot up when I found someone I loved. When single, it wasnt in my face on a daily basis, as I lived alone. When I wanted it, I'd seek it. It could take hours or days to find someone to help with this relief.
> 
> Theres a raw human element to it too. I lay next to my wife nightly in bed. 5-10 inches away from vagina and breasts. If I were single but shared a bed with an attractive female, it would be on my mind then too.
> 
> Also, there is something about the hunt. When you are on the hunt, and its not a sure thing (finding a one nighter or some girl), its easier to go with out as you are building up to it. I suppose if I were single and running on MONTHS of nothing, I'd be frustrated.


Thanks for this Boston. This is a very on-point answer to the original question. I can totally understand and relate to it, too, and it explains the in-M HD.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> Your question makes no sense. Why would I marry someone who did not substantially meet my needs? Do you routinely buy clothes that don't fit, food that you don't like, and watch shows that you have no interest in?
> 
> 
> Could you be more specific? Under what circumstances would this hypothetical person not want to?


Okay, then nevermind, you don't have to answer, I just thought I'd ask.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> What I'm trying to understand is that if you couldn't live without it/wouldn't stand for rejections from a LD partner within the M, how did you survive without it outside of M? Or did you not have to do without and how did you manage?


Because living without sex and living in a relationship while being constantly rejected are not the same thing.

The first is a physical problem. The second is an emotional one.


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> Why do you think your W (a separate individual with her own set of needs/opinions/perspectives/boundaries/free will/etc.) should meet YOUR need for sex?


Okay, answer this if you can. Why would a separate person with her own needs/opinions/perspectives/free will/etc. enter into a relationship with me with the assumption that I would not meet her needs?



> And why does she say she doesn't want to?


If you could tell me who "she" is then maybe I could answer.


----------



## TheCuriousWife (Jan 28, 2013)

scientia said:


> Your question makes no sense. Why would I marry someone who did not substantially meet my needs? Do you routinely buy clothes that don't fit, food that you don't like, and watch shows that you have no interest in?


:iagree:


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Because living without sex and living in a relationship while being constantly rejected are not the same thing.
> 
> The first is a physical problem. The second is an emotional one.


Yes, this is what I've been saying. Expecting your partner to masturbate is ridiculous. Sex should be a binding force in a relationship. It should draw you closer together and relieve stress. However, if you have to resort to masturbation then are you going to fantasize about the person who just rejected you? Of course not; you will fantasize about someone else. Sex then puts distance in your relationship.

Masturbation can work but normally it would have to have at least some participation from your partner (like kissing or cuddling) to make it mutual, something shared.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

skype said:


> DaytoDay:
> What are your needs in a marriage? Financial support? Daily conversation? Recreational companionship? Shared parenting?
> 
> If your husband minimized these needs, gradually stopped providing them for you, how would you respond?
> ...


Skype, you've presented your question in a way that parallels my point. Let's say my need was financial support. Let's say I have a high measurement for financial support and my H has a low measurement. Let's say he's comfortable making $45k, living in 2-bedroom house, taking a simple vacation, and shopping for clothes at Walmart. And let's say that I need a $500k house with a pool, exotic trips to Europe, a very nice car, and shopping at Prada. Before we got M'd, I was responsible for meeting my own financial expectations, and frankly, it fell a little short of what I described.  So I decided to get M'd because I wanted more/better. I mean, why else would I get M'd if not to have a man provide $ for me? And before we got M'd, he worked and bought me things and lead me to believe that his income would increase. Maybe he had the high-profile job but the stress was killing him and he quit for something more sane, to focus on his wife and kids in ways other than $. So now that he isn't providing as I EXPECTED him to, does that mean I get to rail on him for it? Demand that he work more, provide more? I mean I have NEEDS, for crying out loud! Could I live without that Coach purse? Sure, but why should I have to, I'm M'd afterall.

This is completely hypothetical, but my point is, if a woman is this way, she's considered materialistic and a gold-digger. Her HD for $ is not considered a right by most. Sure, it is by her HD$ friends. But doesn't it look a little crazy to the middle class? This forum, as do most, has it's own sub-topic of "sex." Where's the one for financial support? You're comparing it as being the same, but it's treated very differently. I suspect there are some men reading this and it's making their skin crawl, because they've had that experience with a woman or two. Why should a LD person feel any better (any less used or objectified) by their partner's HD than a LD$ person about their partner's HD$?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

The problem with your scenario above, D2D, is that you COULD work to increase you own income and meet your material needs, whether or not your H was doing so. One cannot fulfill one's own sexual needs by oneself, nor can one meet one's own needs for connection and intimacy. These things REQUIRE the participation of another person, and in marriage there is a reasonable and legitimate expectation that your partner will happily fill these needs just as you will happily meet theirs.

Ceasing to do so when the pattern and expectation has been established by past behavior, without a VERY good reason, is a statement that the relationship is no longer valid as originally constituted. IMO, that is grounds for divorce.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> Okay, answer this if you can. Why would a separate person with her own needs/opinions/perspectives/free will/etc. enter into a relationship with me with the assumption that I would not meet her needs?
> 
> 
> If you could tell me who "she" is then maybe I could answer.


It's okay, you don't have to answer, really.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> The problem with your scenario above, D2D, is that you COULD work to increase you own income and meet your material needs, whether or not your H was doing so. One cannot fulfill one's own sexual needs by oneself, nor can one meet one's own needs for connection and intimacy. These things REQUIRE the participation of another person, and in marriage there is a reasonable and legitimate expectation that your partner will happily fill these needs just as you will happily meet theirs.


But with this point, you've redefined "financial support" as no longer qualifying as an emotional need. If I can work to meet my own need for financial support, then a HD partner can meet his own need for sex via masturbation. Neither one is hardly the same as having the need met by someone else. But this is very frequently what I see happen -- every other emotional need on the list is thrown overboard, except sex, which ironically, is the EASIEST to fulfill by ourselves. It's a little difficult to offer ourselves "recreational companionship", or "conversation." (I should clarify, is that the list of EN's your referring to?)



Married but Happy said:


> Ceasing to do so when the pattern and expectation has been established by past behavior, without a VERY good reason, is a statement that the relationship is no longer valid as originally constituted. IMO, that is grounds for divorce.


 Obviously, the person with the reason thinks it's a very good reason. The person with the unmet need thinks it's a lousy reason. Who gets to decide? Technically, it's all grounds for D, from the perspective of the person filing.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> Skype, you've presented your question in a way that parallels my point. Let's say my need was financial support. Let's say I have a high measurement for financial support and my H has a low measurement. Let's say he's comfortable making $45k, living in 2-bedroom house, taking a simple vacation, and shopping for clothes at Walmart. And let's say that I need a $500k house with a pool, exotic trips to Europe, a very nice car, and shopping at Prada. Before we got M'd, I was responsible for meeting my own financial expectations, and frankly, it fell a little short of what I described. So I decided to get M'd because I wanted more/better. I mean, why else would I get M'd if not to have a man provide $ for me? And before we got M'd, he worked and bought me things and lead me to believe that his income would increase. Maybe he had the high-profile job but the stress was killing him and he quit for something more sane, to focus on his wife and kids in ways other than $. So now that he isn't providing as I EXPECTED him to, does that mean I get to rail on him for it? Demand that he work more, provide more? I mean I have NEEDS, for crying out loud! Could I live without that Coach purse? Sure, but why should I have to, I'm M'd afterall.
> 
> This is completely hypothetical, but my point is, if a woman is this way, she's considered materialistic and a gold-digger. Her HD for $ is not considered a right by most. Sure, it is by her HD$ friends. But doesn't it look a little crazy to the middle class? This forum, as do most, has it's own sub-topic of "sex." Where's the one for financial support? You're comparing it as being the same, but it's treated very differently. I suspect there are some men reading this and it's making their skin crawl, because they've had that experience with a woman or two. Why should a LD person feel any better (any less used or objectified) by their partner's HD than a LD$ person about their partner's HD$?


Financial support does not necessarily mean great wealth. What if your spouse stopped working all together? Stopped looking for a job and sat around all day playing computer games? Then what would you do? 

We all get married to get our needs met. If you value enthusiastic sex a few times a week, then you are going to be hurt and puzzled that your spouse has turned into a platonic roommate who does not care to recognize your needs. 

I think sex is indeed equal to other needs in a marriage. TAM has a separate section because people are baffled that such a basic need is so often ignored by their spouses. They want their spouse to recognize that this is the glue that holds two very diverse people together. They want to know how others have navigated this difficult divide.


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> It's okay, you don't have to answer, really.


I noticed that you ducked my question. You don't really seem to be interested in any other point of view. Okay, exiting the thread.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> I noticed that you ducked my question. You don't really seem to be interested in any other point of view. Okay, exiting the thread.


And you ducked mine first, twice. But I didn't take my toys and go home. I'll answer yours if you answer mine.....


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> And you ducked mine first, twice. But I didn't take my toys and go home. I'll answer yours if you answer mine.....


No, I did not duck yours. You asked a question that I said didn't make sense to me and I explained why. Then I asked you the same form of question. Presumably, when you asked your question you assumed that there was a reasonable answer; so, a question of the same form should then have a reasonable answer from you. You should be able to understand the difference.

This isn't about toys. The title of this thread is about "those that NEED it every day". This category would seem to match me. However, if you are not genuinely interested in this group and are only here to keep pushing your preconceptions then what good would my participation do?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

skype said:


> Financial support does not necessarily mean great wealth. What if your spouse stopped working all together? Stopped looking for a job and sat around all day playing computer games? Then what would you do?
> 
> We all get married to get our needs met. If you value enthusiastic sex a few times a week, then you are going to be hurt and puzzled that your spouse has turned into a platonic roommate who does not care to recognize your needs.
> 
> I think sex is indeed equal to other needs in a marriage. TAM has a separate section because people are baffled that such a basic need is so often ignored by their spouses. They want their spouse to recognize that this is the glue that holds two very diverse people together. They want to know how others have navigated this difficult divide.


HD sex = HD$. Not meeting a need = not meeting a need. I agree that it would be a problem if your partner completely stopped working, just as it would be a problem if your partner stopped having sex. I see them as the same. I don't see them treated the same by others. In all the teachings on emotional needs, I never saw them ranked external to the person that defined their own. Yet it seems to be the only one that SOME people find critical to the M relationship and it bubbles to the top LOUDLY, whereas the other needs are dismissed as negotiable. I really think it depends upon where you're personally coming from, and the opinions argued are just that -- opinions -- based upon personal perspective.

I'm wondering if a differing perspective on HD/LD is considered with any more care and concern in the M relationship than it seems to be in some of the threads on TAM. Often, they seem much more a contest of wills than a genuine inquiry into another person's mind. I spend more than enough time in my own mind, I value a different perspective. Sometime, it even makes me re-evaluate mine. Does that ever happen to anyone here in a thread about sex? Maybe that would be a topic for a new thread: "What points made during a discussion of HD vs. LD helped to adjust your viewpoint and subsequently helped your M?"

I'll let someone else take that up. I'm getting weary. I already see both sides, and there doesn't seem to be a lot more for me to glean here.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> No, I did not duck yours. You asked a question that I said didn't make sense to me and I explained why. Then I asked you the same form of question. Presumably, when you asked your question you assumed that there was a reasonable answer; so, a question of the same form should then have a reasonable answer from you. You should be able to understand the difference.
> 
> This isn't about toys. The title of this thread is about "those that NEED it every day". This category would seem to match me. However, if you are not genuinely interested in this group and are only here to keep pushing your preconceptions then what good would my participation do?


Really? I asked you a question about your W, and you ask, 'If you could tell me who "she" is then maybe I could answer.' You genuinely didn't know who I was talking about? Or is that your passive-aggressive way of telling me you're not M'd?

No, at this point, I am genuinely not interested in your answer to my questions to you. I retract them, but thanks for participating, sincerely. I've taken a lot from this exchange, hopefully you did, too.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> Maybe that would be a topic for a new thread: "What points made during a discussion of HD vs. LD helped to adjust your viewpoint and subsequently helped your M?"
> 
> I'll let someone else take that up. I'm getting weary. I already see both sides, and there doesn't seem to be a lot more for me to glean here.


GettingIt and Giro Flee both have posts about finally coming to understand the importance of a strong sexual connection in marriage.

We don't mean to make you weary, just want you to try to understand why sex is so important to the vitality of a marriage.


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

You really don't seem to understand this. A marriage should provide comfort, support, and encouragement. It should be a place of emotional strength and renewal. How would that be possible if I felt neglected or ignored? How would our relationship be strengthened if I was never satisfied sexually? What you are describing seems more like a formula for self-punishment or misery. Why would a rational person do that?

It seems to me that for two people to get along, they have to have a lot of overlap and be moving mostly in the same direction. There can be some things that you do specifically to please your partner but not things that make you miserable nor can this be the basis of most of your relationship. Why would anyone argue something different from this?


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> Really? I asked you a question about your W, and you ask, 'If you could tell me who "she" is then maybe I could answer.' You genuinely didn't know who I was talking about? Or is that your passive-aggressive way of telling me you're not M'd?


My wife died in 2005. I'm not currently married. That isn't being passive-aggressive. If you had said my wife then I would have told you that I wasn't married. I also told you that I interpreted it as hypothetical. If you had simply explained who you were talking about instead of being dismissive...why bother?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> You really don't seem to understand this. A marriage should provide comfort, support, and encouragement. It should be a place of emotional strength and renewal. How would that be possible if I felt neglected or ignored? How would our relationship be strengthened if I was never satisfied sexually? What you are describing seems more like a formula for self-punishment or misery. Why would a rational person do that?
> 
> It seems to me that for two people to get along, they have to have a lot of overlap and be moving mostly in the same direction. There can be some things that you do specifically to please your partner but not things that make you miserable nor can this be the basis of most of your relationship. Why would anyone argue something different from this?


... IS NOT DEFINED BY SEX.

It is defined by companionship, affection, trust, fidelity, financial support, recreational activities, conversation, .... AND sex. In no particular order except as defined by the individuals involved. Separate individuals, with a unique order.

No one is arguing the value of sex (at least I'm not.) But I can't personally value a HD person's need for sex over a LD person's need for (*insert emotional need here*) Are there any threads where the realization is made regarding the value of one of the other emotional needs?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> My wife died in 2005. I'm not currently married. That isn't being passive-aggressive. If you had said my wife then I would have told you that I wasn't married. I also told you that I interpreted it as hypothetical. If you had simply explained who you were talking about instead of being dismissive...why bother?


Please re-read my original question to you. Admittedly, I did abbreviate with "W", which is standard format here. 

I'm genuinely sorry about your W.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> But this is very frequently what I see happen -- every other emotional need on the list is thrown overboard
> 
> *I don't think this premise is true on TAM. I've read many posts by people who are frustrated to the point of divorce because of unmet (or insufficiently met) needs for emotional connection, non-sexual intimacy, fidelity, trustworthiness, communication, financial competence, etc.*
> 
> ...


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> ... IS NOT DEFINED BY SEX.
> 
> It is defined by companionship, affection, trust, fidelity, financial support, recreational activities, conversation, .... AND sex. In no particular order except as defined by the individuals involved. Separate individuals, with a unique order.
> 
> No one is arguing the value of sex (at least I'm not.) But I can't personally value a HD person's need for sex over a LD person's need for (*insert emotional need here*) Are there any threads where the realization is made regarding the value of one of the other emotional needs?


What you are describing is crazy. It's not just a difference of opinion; it is irrational. People who are 6'5" don't buy compact cars. Why on earth would you assume that a marriage is about the relative value of two needs? It's like you are trying to turn marriage into a philosophical argument. At the end of the day, I can't cuddle up to a philosophical point or a hypothetical question of ethics. I want a living, breathing person. And...I want more than anything else for that person to want to be with me. Settling for less than this is guaranteed to make you unhappy. If the two of you don't fit because one of you has a lot more desire than the other then why are you married?


----------



## JASON58 (Jul 26, 2014)

Sex is not a problem for me any-more as i don't get excited or crave for it.. i guess this is what happens when you get in your late 50s...


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Why would someone *want* to stay in a sexless marriage? Or otherwise sexually deprived?

When I was single, I enjoyed regular and frequent sexual attention from different women. In marriage, why should I tolerate less? Illness, occasional exhaustion, fine. Chronic lack of interest and choice of "I'm just not interested" or "I just don't feel any desire"--there's gonna be problems, and quick. She better find some interest and enthusiasm or we'd be done, and I would quickly find a woman that doesn't have such a problem. I wouldn't expect a woman to put up with such nonsense from her man, either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Big Dude said:


> Originally Posted by DaytoDay View Post
> But this is very frequently what I see happen -- every other emotional need on the list is thrown overboard
> 
> I don't think this premise is true on TAM. I've read many posts by people who are frustrated to the point of divorce because of unmet (or insufficiently met) needs for emotional connection, non-sexual intimacy, fidelity, trustworthiness, communication, financial competence, etc.


I see those, too. It just seems that sex is the "sacred cow." Like others are sympathetic if a person has multiple other unmet needs, but only one is needed when the unmet need is sex. Just an impression, not worth doing statistics. I'll submit my impression is not based on any factual counts.



Big Dude said:


> except sex, which ironically, is the EASIEST to fulfill by ourselves.
> 
> There are more than a few threads on TAM where a spouse is hurt that their partner masturbates to a point where they do not feel like having sex with their husband/wife. It never occurred to me that the best advice to those people might be "get over yourself and just masturbate too! Now you are both satisfied! Win / win! How logical!"
> 
> Obviously I'm being flip but if you truly don't see much of a difference between married sex and masturbation I'm not surprised that you have a hard time understanding some of us illogical people here.


I know you're just being flip, but thanks for being sensitive to how I might take it. No, quite the contrary. I don't think that's a positive suggestion for ANY unmet need. Telling someone to go deal with their unmet needs by themselves is encouraging an affair, regardless of what the unmet need is. Don't many EA/PA's start with pleasant conversation? Chatting with someone at work or school, for example? (LOL! Based on that, conversation should be the most important love language to address!) Seriously, I just think they're all equally important.



Big Dude said:


> Obviously, the person with the reason thinks it's a very good reason. The person with the unmet need thinks it's a lousy reason. Who gets to decide? Technically, it's all grounds for D, from the perspective of the person filing.
> 
> It only takes one to divorce, so that person gets to decide for whatever reason they wish. I like to believe that most people don't make such decisions lightly, and try hard to get to the bottom of things before they pull the trigger on divorce. You need to know the difference between a problem that can be solved and one that cannot be solved. That's why it disturbs me when you assert that it is pointless and counter-productive to try and find a root cause for changed behavior in a spouse. Just because it's impossible to know everything doesn't mean it's impossible to know more than you do now.


_"That's why it disturbs me when you assert that it is pointless and counter-productive to try and find a root cause for changed behavior in a spouse. Just because it's impossible to know everything doesn't mean it's impossible to know more than you do now" _ WHAT??? Did I say or imply that somewhere?? If I did, I was drunk! I don't believe that AT. ALL! I'm the queen of the root of the problem! I don't believe you can fix a problem until you can define the problem. 

I do believe, however, that no one is going to get EVERY need met to the degree that they would like it met, even if they eventually understand why. It's just not humanly possible for another human being to do that, nor should we expect them to.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> What you are describing is crazy. It's not just a difference of opinion; it is irrational. People who are 6'5" don't buy compact cars. Why on earth would you assume that a marriage is about the relative value of two needs? It's like you are trying to turn marriage into a philosophical argument. At the end of the day, I can't cuddle up to a philosophical point or a hypothetical question of ethics. I want a living, breathing person. And...I want more than anything else for that person to want to be with me. Settling for less than this is guaranteed to make you unhappy. If the two of you don't fit because one of you has a lot more desire than the other then why are you married?


Well I hope you find someone that meets your criteria. Clearly some people (like me) will disagree with you. Luckily, you have the opportunity to sort all that out before you get M'd again. These sound like great topics of discussion for you to address with your potential future Mrs. Scientia's.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

JASON58 said:


> Sex is not a problem for me any-more as i don't get excited or crave for it.. i guess this is what happens when you get in your late 50s...


I suspect some people here would be appalled by your seeming comfort with that statement.

Are you M'd, and if so, is this an issue for your spouse?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Centurions said:


> Why would someone *want* to stay in a sexless marriage? Or otherwise sexually deprived?
> 
> When I was single, I enjoyed regular and frequent sexual attention from different women. In marriage, why should I tolerate less? Illness, occasional exhaustion, fine. Chronic lack of interest and choice of "I'm just not interested" or "I just don't feel any desire"--there's gonna be problems, and quick. She better find some interest and enthusiasm or we'd be done, and I would quickly find a woman that doesn't have such a problem. I wouldn't expect a woman to put up with such nonsense from her man, either.


Centurions, would you make the same blanket statement substituting any other emotional need, such as conversation, financial support, honesty/openness, etc.? Or do you hold your position of intolerance toward the lack of sex, only?


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> Well I hope you find someone that meets your criteria.


My criteria include conversation, affection, sex, cuddling, and doing things together. All of these things are important to me.



> Clearly some people (like me) will disagree with you.


So, you prefer a marriage where your needs are not being met and where you don't meet the needs of your partner?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

I consider myself HD. When I was in highschool, I was shy around girls but very horny too. So I knew I had a sex drive, but was too afraid to date when I was young. I started dating in college, and I ended up getting into a long term relationship. We didn't have sex at first, but after a few months, we began to have sex. From that time on until we broke up, I had sex with her 1 to 3 times a day. When I married my wife, the frequency of sex varied, but never was to the level I had with the college GF. If I'm lucky, I MIGHT have sex with my wife 6 times in one week. More typical is 3 - 5 times in a week. I guess I don't fit the mold.

I believe curiouswife had a great statement about "need". There is a difference between a physical need vs an emotional need for it. No one needs to have sex in order to live, but a marriage needs sex as a component in order to make it a strong marriage. As you pointed out, there are a number of facets to a strong marriage. As an HD guy, I agree with that and I'll also say "point taken", because an HD person can fixate on sex - possibly to the detriment of other things - if he/she is not satisfied with the amount and quality of sex in their lives. The flip side, is also equally valid. LD's tend to fixate on "other facets" and will not empathize sex to the levels that his/her partner would like. 

I think your working assumption is flawed. If I understand your viewpoint, you think that sex may be given too high of a role in marriage and that other things suffer. That assumes that you view marriage dynamics as a zero sum game. If you deemphasize sex, then other important facets to a marriage can be emphasized. I don't think marriage does, or should, work like this. IMHO, the best marriages are between two people who view it as a positive sum game. If you can demonstrate your love and committment to your spouse in a way that is clearly received by him/her, the spouse will develop stronger feelings of love and will want to do the same for you. You can develop a positive feedback loop between 2 spouses. It's why many of the great marriages get better with age. When you have kids, do you start off with a finite amount of love that has to be balanced out among them? Or does your love simply grow with the number of kids you have? I believe the latter is much more common. So why would you intentionally diminish anything within a marriage in order to emphasize something else? That implies that there is a finite amount of love between the couple. The reality is - based on my experience - is that you can "do it all". You can build a stronger love life AND stronger bonds with kids AND work on the financial future AND maintain fitness/improve fitness AND tend to other needs of your spouse AND... whatever is needed for the marriage and the family.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> My criteria include conversation, affection, sex, cuddling, and doing things together. All of these things are important to me.
> 
> So, you prefer a marriage where your needs are not being met and where you don't meet the needs of your partner?


No, of course not. 

You and I wouldn't get far enough to discuss each others needs. I find you argumentative and antagonistic. If you actually believe what you're asking, then you're not paying any attention to what I've written. If you don't believe it, then you're just being sarcastic. Neither have value to me in a relationship. You might consider this feedback in your IRL relationship discussions, in case you approach them in the same manner.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> But who gave me a crystal ball to be able to adequately determine that? Maybe he really doesn't feel up to it. Maybe his work environment is Stressville. I can't get in his joints or back or even his head to know what he's thinking, so it would be pure speculation on my part as to his motive. All I can do is believe what he says as being his truth, and decide if I can live (aka. be happy) without the physical version of the man I M'd and go from there. *Arguing all day long about what I want and what he presented before M is pointless and unproductive.* So why do people do so regarding HD vs. LD?


D2D, this is the comment I was referring to earlier. I took this to mean that since you have no way of knowing whether your husband's weight gain is the result of a deficient (from your perspective) appreciation of fitness or uncontrollable external factors, it was pointless to even try to find out.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I started dating in college, and I ended up getting into a long term relationship. We didn't have sex at first, but after a few months, we began to have sex. From that time on until we broke up, I had sex with her 1 to 3 times a day. When I married my wife, the frequency of sex varied, but never was to the level I had with the college GF. If I'm lucky, I MIGHT have sex with my wife 6 times in one week. More typical is 3 - 5 times in a week. I guess I don't fit the mold.


Sounds pretty good to some, I'm sure. I am curious, since sex obviously wasn't your issue, why did you two not get M'd?




Plan 9 from OS said:


> I think your working assumption is flawed. If I understand your viewpoint, you think that sex may be given too high of a role in marriage and that other things suffer. That assumes that you view marriage dynamics as a zero sum game. If you deemphasize sex, then other important facets to a marriage can be emphasized. I don't think marriage does, or should, work like this. IMHO, the best marriages are between two people who view it as a positive sum game. If you can demonstrate your love and committment to your spouse in a way that is clearly received by him/her, the spouse will develop stronger feelings of love and will want to do the same for you. You can develop a positive feedback loop between 2 spouses. It's why many of the great marriages get better with age. When you have kids, do you start off with a finite amount of love that has to be balanced out among them? Or does your love simply grow with the number of kids you have? I believe the latter is much more common. So why would you intentionally diminish anything within a marriage in order to emphasize something else? That implies that there is a finite amount of love between the couple. The reality is - based on my experience - is that you can "do it all". You can build a stronger love life AND stronger bonds with kids AND work on the financial future AND maintain fitness/improve fitness AND tend to other needs of your spouse AND... whatever is needed for the marriage and the family.


I certainly never intended to imply this message, if that's what you read. I'm suggesting that they are all equal by default. However, there are two individual people that combine to make a M. One person's needs are not more important than the others needs. However, my H's needs should be as important to me as I expect my needs to be to my H, even if they differ.

The issue seems to come into play when one spouse values the others needs, but seem to think they're excessive. Like expecting sex 3 times a day compared to expecting 5 hours of conversation a day, especially when the need is not yours and by definition you don't really enjoy it.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Big Dude said:


> D2D, this is the comment I was referring to earlier. I took this to mean that since you have no way of knowing whether your husband's weight gain is the result of a deficient (from your perspective) appreciation of fitness or uncontrollable external factors, it was pointless to even try to find out.


Sorry, I see that now. I don't believe it's pointless to find out. However, if I ask him and he says he does care about his weight gain and says he is eating healthy and says he is exercising but that "it isn't working," what's my option at that point? I can argue with him and point out that maneuvering the remote control with the agility of a cat is not exercise, or that a carmel mocha frappe is not a healthy, nutritious lunch. To what end? And if I do so anyway because I genuinely believe those facts might not be intuitively obvious to him, but he responds with defensiveness or simply not at all, then what?

Now I know, this much anyway. It still boils down to it being my decision as to whether I can continue to be happy in my M with this unmet need.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> Sounds pretty good to some, I'm sure. I am curious, since sex obviously wasn't your issue, why did you two not get M'd?


As you know, there is more to marriage than just sex. I thought she may have been the one, but it didn't work out. In the end, we weren't as compatible as originally thought. 




> I certainly never intended to imply this message, if that's what you read. I'm suggesting that they are all equal by default. However, there are two individual people that combine to make a M. One person's needs are not more important than the others needs. However, my H's needs should be as important to me as I expect my needs to be to my H, even if they differ.


I'm glad you said that. I agree with this. What I observe from time to time is that the couple will present their individual needs to each other in one way or another. You can do one of two things with these collection of needs. Either you take the lists and use the "AND" function and only include those needs that both agree on, and discard the rest, or you can think of the lists and apply the "OR" function which would basically combine the two into one larger list and make compromises where necessary to make both spouses feel more fulfilled. You probably can see where my bias lies.



> The issue seems to come into play when one spouse values the others needs, but seem to think they're excessive. Like expecting sex 3 times a day compared to expecting 5 hours of conversation a day, especially when the need is not yours and by definition you don't really enjoy it.


Extreme examples given the time constraints within a marriage, but let's make them realistic. One spouse values intimacy daily. The other spouse values regular conversation about deep and meaningful subjects. Isn't the answer obvious, i.e. strive to do both? Maybe the spouse with the higher drive wants it daily, but the answer with the higher utility is 3 - 5 days a week. Maybe the spouse craving conversation wants to talk for 2 hours/day, but the answer is to steal time where you can and the daily conversations go to as little as 15 minutes to as long as 3 hours and dependent upon how the day unfolds. It's pretty clear to me that if you love your spouse deeply, you want to do what you can to give more of yourself. What you may not like as of now can blossom into something beautiful if you are willing to go out of your comfort zone and try your best to demonstrate your love for your spouse.


----------



## scientia (Aug 27, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> Sounds pretty good to some, I'm sure.


I also agreed with Plan 9's post. In fact, I identify with it quite a bit. I thought it was both reasonable and thoughtful.



> I'm suggesting that they are all equal by default. However, there are two individual people that combine to make a M. One person's needs are not more important than the others needs. However, my H's needs should be as important to me as I expect my needs to be to my H, even if they differ.
> 
> The issue seems to come into play when one spouse values the others needs, but seem to think they're excessive. Like expecting sex 3 times a day compared to expecting 5 hours of conversation a day, especially when the need is not yours and by definition you don't really enjoy it.


However, when I read your posts, they make no sense to me. If two people are married and they are not happy then I can only see two options:

1.) You try to work out something mutually agreeable.
2.) You call it quits.

But, you seem to be arguing for something completely different. It's like you are saying that you should cling to a philosophical valuation of your mutual misery and shut up about it. If this is NOT what you are saying then please state clearly what should be done...and please don't repeat for the umpteenth time that your needs are not more important than your partner's.


----------



## JASON58 (Jul 26, 2014)

DaytoDay said:


> I suspect some people here would be appalled by your seeming comfort with that statement.
> 
> Are you M'd, and if so, is this an issue for your spouse?



As you have heard, there is more to, much more to marriage then sex..
sex doesn't have to be a priority for a marriage to work.. it never was in ours..and we are just fine.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> As you know, there is more to marriage than just sex. I thought she may have been the one, but it didn't work out. In the end, we weren't as compatible as originally thought.


Of course, I get this. It's just that in discussions with HD folks not getting their needs met, I can't recall ever hearing a shortage of a "second" emotional need, almost as if they didn't recognize that there are any needs in a M besides sex. Perhaps everything else was simply getting met, lucky them. (Again, no statistics, just perception.)



Plan 9 from OS said:


> I'm glad you said that. I agree with this. What I observe from time to time is that the couple will present their individual needs to each other in one way or another. You can do one of two things with these collection of needs. Either you take the lists and use the "AND" function and only include those needs that both agree on, and discard the rest, or you can think of the lists and apply the "OR" function which would basically combine the two into one larger list and make compromises where necessary to make both spouses feel more fulfilled. You probably can see where my bias lies.


 Your wording is a little confusing for my interpretation, but I believe I understand and agree with your point. I see a need lacking by either as a weak spot for an affair to take root.



Plan 9 from OS said:


> Extreme examples given the time constraints within a marriage, but let's make them realistic. One spouse values intimacy daily. The other spouse values regular conversation about deep and meaningful subjects. Isn't the answer obvious, i.e. strive to do both? Maybe the spouse with the higher drive wants it daily, but the answer with the higher utility is 3 - 5 days a week. Maybe the spouse craving conversation wants to talk for 2 hours/day, but the answer is to steal time where you can and the daily conversations go to as little as 15 minutes to as long as 3 hours and dependent upon how the day unfolds. *It's pretty clear to me that if you love your spouse deeply, you want to do what you can to give more of yourself. What you may not like as of now can blossom into something beautiful if you are willing to go out of your comfort zone and try your best to demonstrate your love for your spouse.*


This. Yes. What appalls me is when one S says, "Yes, I'm getting all my needs met, but I still don't feel like meeting theirs." [choke] People with that sense of entitlement shouldn't be M'd. On the other hand, when the other S says, "My needs aren't getting met either," then I have much less sympathy for the HD spouse that isn't getting any.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

JASON58 said:


> As you have heard, there is more to, much more to marriage then sex..
> sex doesn't have to be a priority for a marriage to work.. it never was in ours..and we are just fine.


Would you consider yourself both LD? Obviously, this compatibility would work. I think the issue is when one is HD and the other is LD.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

scientia said:


> However, when I read your posts, they make no sense to me. If two people are married and they are not happy then I can only see two options:
> 
> 1.) You try to work out something mutually agreeable.
> 2.) You call it quits.
> ...


Nope, we're saying the same thing.


----------



## JASON58 (Jul 26, 2014)

DaytoDay said:


> Would you consider yourself both LD? Obviously, this compatibility would work. I think the issue is when one is HD and the other is LD.


yes we are both the same , pretty rare from what i read on here.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

JASON58 said:


> yes we are both the same , pretty rare from what i read on here.


Maybe. Regardless, consider yourself blessed.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

D2D - I think I understand where your confusion is coming from. Most of the HD comments you are taking issue with are probably coming from the SIM forum. While I will start threads for suggestions to improve an already solid sex life, others are posting about their sexual needs not being met. In the mind of someone who is seeing a need of the marriage become neglected, it comes to the forefront of importance. 

To survive, we need food, water, clothing and shelter to survive. Take one away, and your focus is on that which you do not have. Even though you need all 4 to survive, if you have 3 of them, but no food, then most of your thoughts will focus on food until that problem is fixed. 

From the time I first became sexually active, I have never had a relationship that was considered sexless. While I'd like to say that my discerning eye helped me in that regard by not settling for someone or by staying with someone who appeared to have settled for me, it probably more luck on my part than anything that I found women who had at least a regular drive. The majority of the people posting in SIM are either currently experiencing a sexless relationship, have a sexual relationship that is barely active enough that it would not be defined as a sexless relationship or have experienced these situations in the past. Based on their past or current experiences, sex will be the "canary in the mine" for them moving forward. That doesn't mean that they trivialize other traits in a marriage, it means that they are more sensitive to that portion of it given their experiences.

You made a specific statement about how an HD person who refuses to meet the needs of an LD spouse should not be surprised if his/her sexual needs are not met. Is this a personal experience that you had or is it an example? I've seen a variety of causes for sexless relationships, and this is one cause for why a relationship could go sexless. It's definitely not the only or primary cause. There are other reasons why a relationship goes sexless too.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> D2D - I think I understand where your confusion is coming from. Most of the HD comments you are taking issue with are probably coming from the SIM forum. While I will start threads for suggestions to improve an already solid sex life, others are posting about their sexual needs not being met. In the mind of someone who is seeing a need of the marriage become neglected, it comes to the forefront of importance.
> 
> To survive, we need food, water, clothing and shelter to survive. Take one away, and your focus is on that which you do not have. Even though you need all 4 to survive, if you have 3 of them, but no food, then most of your thoughts will focus on food until that problem is fixed.


Yes, agreed, though there's a little bit of difference between needs attributed to happiness and needs attributed to life and death in 28 days or less. (BTW, LOVE to watch Naked and Afraid.) To imply that they're the same would completely negate any possibility of a lifelong M, because eventually, some of these things will become an impossibility due to aging. The question is at what time to you accept that it's no longer a possibility? And who gets to decide? Aging bites, but it's part of life. What happens when menopause or ED or low-T make a sex life relatively impossible for one, or at minimum, incredibly unsatisfying and even frustrating?



Plan 9 from OS said:


> From the time I first became sexually active, I have never had a relationship that was considered sexless. While I'd like to say that my discerning eye helped me in that regard by not settling for someone or by staying with someone who appeared to have settled for me, it probably more luck on my part than anything that I found women who had at least a regular drive. The majority of the people posting in SIM are either currently experiencing a sexless relationship, have a sexual relationship that is barely active enough that it would not be defined as a sexless relationship or have experienced these situations in the past. Based on their past or current experiences, sex will be the "canary in the mine" for them moving forward. That doesn't mean that they trivialize other traits in a marriage, it means that they are more sensitive to that portion of it given their experiences.


 K, I'm just recognizing that other people have different canaries. I've never gotten a HD individual to agree that their S's contrasting emotional need for some non-sexual item compares in importance to their emotional need for sex. Lack of sex is a 'crisis,' while other issues are just complaints. I don't want to reinvent a thread, so if anyone as seen that in an existing thread, please point me to it.



Plan 9 from OS said:


> You made a specific statement about how an HD person who refuses to meet the needs of an LD spouse should not be surprised if his/her sexual needs are not met. Is this a personal experience that you had or is it an example? I've seen a variety of causes for sexless relationships, and this is one cause for why a relationship could go sexless. It's definitely not the only or primary cause. There are other reasons why a relationship goes sexless too.


 Both, personal experience and an example. I can also say that my H's need for recreational companionship is not getting met specifically because he has put zero effort into meeting MY need for recreational companionship. Same needs, hard to not be able to relate to the other, or at least you'd think so. Yet he's still complaining that his need is not getting met. (Big can of worms, currently separating, not looking to address our R problems, just curious about the world in an effort to work on myself.)


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Here's an example (not to pick on the OP or anything):



> Is conversation really more difficult than doing the dishes?
> Is conversation really more difficult than working 8 hours a day to help support your family?
> Is conversation really more difficult than setting aside time to spend with your significant other to watch a movie, or just hang out?
> Is conversation really more difficult than making dinner?
> ...


I might agree, but I can't imagine anyone being taken seriously with this argument, especially not 135 responses worth. Conversation just doesn't seem to rate against sex, even though it's an emotional need and some value it more than sex as a means to intimacy.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening DaytoDay
I think sex is somewhat unique in marriage because it is (usually) exclusive. If I like spicy food and my wife does not, she wouldn't object to my ordering Vindaloo. If I want to talk about philosophy and she doesn't, I can talk with friends. If I want to run 10 miles every morning, and she doesn't I can go running by myself. 

For many people sex is also very closely tied to love and other forms of intimacy. To many, a relationship without sex feels like just a friendship, something very different from love. 

That said, sex is not the only think many people (including myself) need from a relationship. Love, respect, support, shared effort, interesting conversation, etc etc. It is just that lack of a satisfying sex life seems to be a very common problem in marriages. 

To the HD person it also seems so frustrating. To them sex is a fun easy thing to do - at a basic level they really can't understand why the LD person would deny them. 




DaytoDay said:


> I see those, too. It just seems that sex is the "sacred cow." Like others are sympathetic if a person has multiple other unmet needs, but only one is needed when the unmet need is sex. Just an impression, not worth doing statistics. I'll submit my impression is not based on any factual counts.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> Centurions, would you make the same blanket statement substituting any other emotional need, such as conversation, financial support, honesty/openness, etc.? Or do you hold your position of intolerance toward the lack of sex, only?


Hmmm..."Blanket Statement"?--well, whether it is sex, conversation, intimacy, finances, honesty/openness, transparency--yeah, it's all important. I want a fulfilling, loving relationship that embodies all of these things in order to build a union and happy life together. If she doesn't like talking to me, or if she lies and is deceitful, if she's not honest and transparent, why should I stay in such a dysfunctional, phucked up relationship? That nonsense would stop fast or she would be kicked to the curb. Either fix the problem and get with the program--or there's the door.

As far as "intolerance"? Yeah, I'm willing to work on problems and find solutions--but I'm not interested in wasting years of my life with a woman that wants to play BS neurotic, immature games. I want my woman to be sexual, honest, loyal, loving, mature. If my woman is not interested and committed to that program, phuck it, it's time to move on.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening DaytoDay
> I think sex is somewhat unique in marriage because it is (usually) exclusive. If I like spicy food and my wife does not, she wouldn't object to my ordering Vindaloo. If I want to talk about philosophy and she doesn't, I can talk with friends. If I want to run 10 miles every morning, and she doesn't I can go running by myself.
> 
> For many people sex is also very closely tied to love and other forms of intimacy. To many, a relationship without sex feels like just a friendship, something very different from love.
> ...


Food and exercise are not emotional needs you get from your partner, it's hard to relate your point on that. Being connected at the hip in such a manner that you couldn't do anything different/unique/without them would be unhealthy in a creepy way.

I'm aware that sexual needs not getting met in a M is a very common problem. From my perspective (and in my M,) it's not even in the top 3, perhaps because we're simply well-matched, perhaps because we simply don't value it over others. And I see LOTS of posts from people about other issues, so clearly either that's not their top issue, or maybe that's not an issue at all.

Do you agree with this?:


> To the chatty person it also seems so frustrating. To them conversation is a fun easy thing to do - at a basic level they really can't understand why the quiet person would deny them.


I can honestly tell you that if my H took the stance that I can go "chat" with someone else, when I really want to chat with him, it would be a very short road to an EA, and likely a PA shortly thereafter. Dismissing my emotional need for conversation, to me, is just as destructive to the M relationship as my dismissing his need for sex would be.

I guess it boils down to that. Does anyone that is HD that is not getting their sexual needs met adequately by their spouse agree that their (themselves) not meeting their spouse's need for (*insert alternate emotional need here) is equally destructive to the M? If not, why not? And if so, why would you expect your S to meet your need when you're not meeting theirs?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Centurions said:


> Hmmm..."Blanket Statement"?--well, whether it is sex, conversation, intimacy, finances, honesty/openness, transparency--yeah, it's all important. I want a fulfilling, loving relationship that embodies all of these things in order to build a union and happy life together. If she doesn't like talking to me, or if she lies and is deceitful, if she's not honest and transparent, why should I stay in such a dysfunctional, phucked up relationship? That nonsense would stop fast or she would be kicked to the curb. Either fix the problem and get with the program--or there's the door.
> 
> As far as "intolerance"? Yeah, I'm willing to work on problems and find solutions--but I'm not interested in wasting years of my life with a woman that wants to play BS neurotic, immature games. I want my woman to be sexual, honest, loyal, loving, mature. If my woman is not interested and committed to that program, phuck it, it's time to move on.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry for the "blanket statement" verbiage, if that was offensive to you. Hard to cram lots of thoughts into a few succinct words. Thanks for chiming in again.

Are you meeting your W's emotional needs? Or better, does SHE think you are? I'm curious what her position is from her perspective, what you're referring to as playing "BS neurotic, immature games."

Honestly, I'm wondering why you need the sexual neglect as your excuse. It seems to me that if you believe you're M'd to someone that "plays BS neurotic, immature games," that you'd be running regardless, even if she were providing sex 3x a day.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening DaytoDay
At one point in my relationship, sex was the biggest problem - essentially the only problem. (yes I was the HD one). At another point a different problem was larger. (these were many years apaart).

Did my wife have unmet needs? None that she would tell me about, or that I could deduce for myself. I made an honest effort to try to figure out what she was missing (yes, including asking) and never figured anything out.

Now we are both happy - and have a good sex life. 




DaytoDay said:


> Food and exercise are not emotional needs you get from your partner, it's hard to relate your point on that. Being connected at the hip in such a manner that you couldn't do anything different/unique/without them would be unhealthy in a creepy way.
> 
> I'm aware that sexual needs not getting met in a M is a very common problem. From my perspective (and in my M,) it's not even in the top 3, perhaps because we're simply well-matched, perhaps because we simply don't value it over others. And I see LOTS of posts from people about other issues, so clearly either that's not their top issue, or maybe that's not an issue at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Now we are both happy - and have a good sex life.


I sure hope that's true. A W that doesn't share her complaints with you but you think you're still both happy, especially after she obviously put some effort into addressing your complaints, sounds like the prelude to an ILYBINILWY speech.


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> My question is: What I'm trying to understand is that if you couldn't live without it/wouldn't stand for rejections from a LD partner within the M, how did you survive without it outside of M? Or did you not have to do without and how did you manage?


I was usually in long term relationships, but when I was not, I had no issues finding available people to share in my hobby. And there was a lot of self-sex. I had and still have a toy box. LOL 

But I am more wired like a man when it comes to sex. I don't need the emotional connection. In fact, some of my best ever sexual encounters were with people I had never wanted to date. 

If I had it to do over again, I would have put more emphasis on the sexual compatibility when choosing a partner. I guess I told myself that my expectations were too high so I settled in this area because all the other qualities were so great.


----------



## Herself (Jul 26, 2014)

DaytoDay said:


> Skype, you've presented your question in a way that parallels my point. Let's say my need was financial support. Let's say I have a high measurement for financial support and my H has a low measurement. Let's say he's comfortable making $45k, living in 2-bedroom house, taking a simple vacation, and shopping for clothes at Walmart. And let's say that I need a $500k house with a pool, exotic trips to Europe, a very nice car, and shopping at Prada. Before we got M'd, I was responsible for meeting my own financial expectations, and frankly, it fell a little short of what I described. So I decided to get M'd because I wanted more/better. I mean, why else would I get M'd if not to have a man provide $ for me? And before we got M'd, he worked and bought me things and lead me to believe that his income would increase. Maybe he had the high-profile job but the stress was killing him and he quit for something more sane, to focus on his wife and kids in ways other than $. So now that he isn't providing as I EXPECTED him to, does that mean I get to rail on him for it? Demand that he work more, provide more? I mean I have NEEDS, for crying out loud! Could I live without that Coach purse? Sure, but why should I have to, I'm M'd afterall.
> 
> This is completely hypothetical, but my point is, if a woman is this way, she's considered materialistic and a gold-digger. Her HD for $ is not considered a right by most. Sure, it is by her HD$ friends. But doesn't it look a little crazy to the middle class? This forum, as do most, has it's own sub-topic of "sex." Where's the one for financial support? You're comparing it as being the same, but it's treated very differently. I suspect there are some men reading this and it's making their skin crawl, because they've had that experience with a woman or two. Why should a LD person feel any better (any less used or objectified) by their partner's HD than a LD$ person about their partner's HD$?


Pls pls don't make this men vs women.

$ needs are about greed, and materialism.
Sex needs are a need for physical touch and connection.
No matter how LD people try and devalue and degrade sex it isn't comparable to anything tangible.

It's a physical expression of your passion for another. If you don't need this to make you happy but your spouse does why in heck would you deny them what they need to feel loved appreciated cherished and accepted.

There is nothing greedy about it. Sex is therapeutic and obviously some of us have a much higher need for this care than others do but make no mistake it is care. Denying a loved one this is denying them your love in a way they need it. No different than some need lots of hugs, or moral support through hard times.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Herself said:


> $ needs are about greed, and materialism. Sex needs are a need for physical touch and connection. No matter how LD people try and devalue and degrade sex it isn't comparable to anything tangible.
> 
> It's a physical expression of your passion for another. If you don't need this to make you happy but your spouse does why in heck would you deny them what they need to feel loved appreciated cherished and accepted.


There are a number of books written by trained relationship professionals (psychiatrists, marriage counselors, etc.) that discuss the various emotional needs, one of the most widely-read being "His Needs, Her Needs." In it, sex is INCLUDED among a total of TEN emotional needs. Also included is financial security/support. Never in the book does it say that sex is THE MOST IMPORTANT emotional need, but rather recognizes that each person has their own list of priorities. What you described about sex is how ALL of the emotional needs are described.

I think you made my point when you said, "it isn't comparable." IE. the sacred cow. I get the distinct impression that people with HD that aren't getting satisfied simply cannot relate to another person with another priority EN whose need is also not getting met. Somehow, in their mind, it's different and sex is more important.

And living in your M thinking your needs are somehow more important that your S's, even if your need is sex, is a death knell for a M.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> I get the distinct impression that people with HD that aren't getting satisfied simply cannot relate to another person with another priority EN whose need is also not getting met. Somehow, in their mind, it's different and sex is more important.


You assume that the LDs needs aren't met, but often they are met in abundance, yet the HD has one need consistently unmet. I agree that ALL the needs are important to the extent that an individual values them.

It seems that you cannot relate to an HD's need for sex and physical intimacy, as you are deriding that need consistently in this thread.

If the HD is meeting all of the LDs needs, and the LD is not meeting a key HD need, then what? Do you have a practical, workable suggestion on how the HD's need can be met, or are you saying that need doesn't matter and just get over it?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> You assume that the LDs needs aren't met, but often they are met in abundance, yet the HD has one need consistently unmet. I agree that ALL the needs are important to the extent that an individual values them.
> 
> It seems that you cannot relate to an HD's need for sex and physical intimacy, as you are deriding that need consistently in this thread.
> 
> If the HD is meeting all of the LDs needs, and the LD is not meeting a key HD need, then what? Do you have a practical, workable suggestion on how the HD's need can be met, or are you saying that need doesn't matter and just get over it?


I said earlier that I think it's incredibly wrong if one person's needs are getting met, but then they have no interest in meeting their S's, regardless of what the need is, sex or otherwise. I'm not a LD person, I would never laugh at that need. I believe we're in agreement that "all needs are important," and for me, I feel that way whether I have the same need or not.

I see two scenarios:

1.) "I've tried everything to get my S to meet my need for sex. At this point, I'm doing all the housework and taking care of the kids. My S doesn't even have a job! There's nothing my S has complained about that I haven't addressed. Still, no sex, because my S is 'too tired!'"

For the people in this scenario, my heart truly goes out to them! And I feel that way regardless of whatever need they have that isn't getting met. It's emotional abuse by my definition.

2.) "I'm not getting my HD need for sex met. My S makes some stupid argument about me not helping around the house or helping with the kids, but so what! I'm talking a need for SEX here! Sex is important because (blah-blah-blah)." (I purposely phrased it this way, because the minute someone says their S's needs are stupid, I hear nothing after that.)

The explanation by the poster above that "$ needs are about greed, and materialism, Sex needs are a need for physical touch and connection," is exactly the sort of dismissive attitude I'm talking about. If that attitude exists in your M, then it makes perfect sense to me that an LD S would dismiss their HD S's need for sex. And I believe the dismissive attitude is what prevents any workable solution.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

So, is there a dismissive attitude from HD spouses regarding their LD spouse's other EN's? 

Not with everyone, of course, but with some people that are here complaining about their lack of sex?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> Married but Happy said:
> 
> 
> > I said earlier that I think it's incredibly wrong if one person's needs are getting met, but then they have no interest in meeting their S's, regardless of what the need is, sex or otherwise. I'm not a LD person, I would never laugh at that need. I believe we're in agreement that "all needs are important," and for me, I feel that way whether I have the same need or not.
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon DaytoDay
If you have experienced #2, I can completely understand that #1 sounds unlikely. Situation #2 does often exist. But, from from discussions on this and other forums, #1 is also common. There are a lot of people who truly have done everything they can think of for their LD partner. Where the LD partner uses rare sex as a lever to try to get ever more work out of the HD partner. Where the HD partner is mocked as a "**** or "old goat" every time they suggest sex, and whenever the LD partner does any work at all, that is the new excuse for no sex because they are too tired.

For the people in situation #1, it is extremely frustrating to hear: "were you taking care of their emotional needs" - with the implied assumption that all the HD partner wants is sex. Or , "maybe if you helped around the house", when the HD partner is already doing the majority of the work at home. Or "maybe if you were more romantic" when the HD is already sending flowers, love notes, arranging candle-lit dinners, romantic trips, back-rubs and long walks on the beach. 

I'm not discussing #2 in more detail because you are obviously familiar with that situation, and it is completely unfair to the LD partner. 

Both scenarios really do exist. (and with both genders in either side of either situation). 





DaytoDay said:


> snip
> 
> I see two scenarios:
> 
> ...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> I said earlier that I think it's incredibly wrong if one person's needs are getting met, but then they have no interest in meeting their S's, regardless of what the need is, sex or otherwise. I'm not a LD person, I would never laugh at that need. I believe we're in agreement that "all needs are important," and for me, I feel that way whether I have the same need or not.
> 
> I see two scenarios:
> 
> ...


My experience has only been with scenario 1. The dismissive attitude I experienced was always from my ex LD spouse regarding my needs, when I did everything to satisfy hers, even asking and listening and acting on her statements.

A third scenario is that BOTH are dismissive of one or more of the other's needs, and neither are willing to budge. Stalemate (or stale mate?). Both will be unhappy and there is no resolution unless one or both revise their atttitudes. Such contempt is a primary predictor of relationship failure.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> D2D, I think you're building strawmen here. The first case is the perfectly sympathetic creature while the latter is the perfectly self absorbed unsympathetic creature. What I think you miss is the majority of these cases are somewhere in the middle. Also, I think you don't appreciate the fact that these problems rarely happen overnight and build over a course of time. When needs are seen as not being met, and the perception is there that your spouse doesn't care that he/she is failing to meet a need of yours, you start to naturally disengage slowly. Then the spouse senses a pulling away and MAY pull away too. I don't get why the assumption is that HD thinks about nothing but sex and an LD fixates on one or 2 other needs and doesn't think about anything else. This makes caricatures of people that does not explain the complete story.


I admit I exaggerated my points. I'm not sure what argument could be made by "Yes, I'm only meeting my S's EN's half-arse, but I expect my S to meet my EN for sex fully and joyfully." Most of the complaints I read are not about the non-existence of sex, but simply that there isn't enough, or that it isn't satisfying (duty sex).

I agree that these things happen over time, that two people pull away from each other gradually. And if that belief is supported by all, then why isn't it assumed/expected that a gradual decrease in sexual activity goes hand-in-hand with that?

There are, of course, more than one or two needs per individual. When I read complaints about lack of sex, I don't often read, "..and my S doesn't spend any time in conversation with me either!" The single-threaded EN discussion is in response to the single-threaded complaint. That and simply trying to stay on point.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> My experience has only been with scenario 1. The dismissive attitude I experienced was always from my ex LD spouse regarding my needs, when I did everything to satisfy hers, even asking and listening and acting on her statements.
> 
> A third scenario is that BOTH are dismissive of one or more of the others needs, and neither are willing to budge. Stalemate (or stale mate?). Both will be unhappy and there is no resolution unless one or both revise their attitudes. Such contempt is a primary predictor of relationship failure.


I'm so sorry for your experience, MBH. Again, I consider that emotional abuse and it's an absolutely miserable way to live. ((hug)) Contempt is defined by Gottman as one of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse of M," and I agree with both of you.


----------



## Jetranger (May 31, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> For the people in situation #1, it is extremely frustrating to hear: "were you taking care of their emotional needs" - with the implied assumption that all the HD partner wants is sex. Or , "maybe if you helped around the house", when the HD partner is already doing the majority of the work at home. Or "maybe if you were more romantic" when the HD is already sending flowers, love notes, arranging candle-lit dinners, romantic trips, back-rubs and long walks on the beach.


:iagree:

Assuming they (LD) agree to these activities, they then become as you say the new reason for being too tired (or sweaty or gross as in that infamous spreadsheet). 

There's only so many times you can arrange for fun things to do together, put effort in to be romantic and active, and be rejected, before you decide "**** this" and stop bothering. /preaching to choir


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> I'm so sorry for your experience, MBH. Again, I consider that emotional abuse and it's an absolutely miserable way to live. ((hug)) Contempt is defined by Gottman as one of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse of M," and I agree with both of you.


Thank you. On the other hand, I (eventually!) learned from that experience, and it provided the motivation and inspiration to seek a far better relationship where we are very well matched sexually and are both very proactive in meeting all of each other's needs.

There can be hope in such problematical relationships - but it may not be with your current spouse!


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Jetranger said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Assuming they (LD) agree to these activities, they then become as you say the new reason for being too tired (or sweaty or gross as in that infamous spreadsheet).
> 
> There's only so many times you can arrange for fun things to do together, put effort in to be romantic and active, and be rejected, before you decide "**** this" and stop bothering. /preaching to choir


So what IS the solution in a sex-starved M? I've heard:
1.) Try to invest more in your S's EN's.
2.) Learn to live without it.
3.) Take care of yourself
4.) Agree to an open M and get it elsewhere.
5.) Divorce

Have I missed any? We all agree that EN's need to be met by both parties for both parties, but I haven't heard that badgering your S endlessly about it is the way to go, or that that approach is going to get you a happy, participatory S as a sex partner.

If those are the only options, now what? What's left to discuss?

BTW, this leads all the way back to my original question, about what did HD people do for sex before they were M'd. I was asking to see if there was something else to add to the list.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

HD folks were always looking for the next partner. I have had several LTRs before my W. That is what I did. Others, I am sure, do FWBs or ONS or self service or a combo of all 3.


----------



## Jetranger (May 31, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> So what IS the solution in a sex-starved M? I've heard:
> 1.) Try to invest more in your S's EN's.
> 2.) Learn to live without it.
> 3.) Take care of yourself
> ...


I did all of those steps, in that order. The only thing missing is professional intervention in the form of therapists or medical doctors in case of a mental of physical problem.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Jetranger said:


> I did all of those steps, in that order. The only thing missing is professional intervention in the form of therapists or medical doctors in case of a mental of physical problem.


Yes, that should probably go in the list, assuming both parties are looking at the list of options. If only the HD partner is looking at it, they can't very well drag their S to the doctor for tests. But I think it should be in there so the HD partner can rule it out as either "testing fine" or "unwilling to test."

New list:
1.) Try to invest more in your S's EN's.
2.) Have LD partner tested for medical/psychological barriers.
3.) Learn to live without it.
4.) Take care of yourself
5.) Agree to an open M and get it elsewhere.
6.) Divorce


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon all
If you have done everything you can think of and your LD partner still isn't interested, your choices are:

Live like a monk / nun (missing a very important part of life)

Cheat (which I won't try to defend)

Leave (leave the person that despite a lack of sex, you may truly love)

They are all really horrible choices.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Live like a monk / nun (missing a very important part of life)


LOL! Okay, not laughing at the topic, just laughing at my failing eyes which read that as "Run." Live like a monk / Run. I thought, wow, I've heard of a runner's high, and some people really love it. But seriously? Instead of sex? And do monk's run?

Maybe it's not just my eyes that are failing.

Thanks, Richard, for the accidental laugh. I needed that about now!


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

If I was single I wouldn't have a need to feel wanted or connect with my significant other. The need for intimacy wouldn't be there because their would be no one to be intimate with. I can masturbate each day, married or unmarried, if I just wanted to orgasm without intimacy.


----------



## Jetranger (May 31, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> LOL! Okay, not laughing at the topic, just laughing at my failing eyes which read that as "Run." Live like a monk / Run. I thought, wow, I've heard of a runner's high, and some people really love it. But seriously? Instead of sex? And do monk's run?
> 
> Maybe it's not just my eyes that are failing.
> 
> Thanks, Richard, for the accidental laugh. I needed that about now!



And when you wrote it like that, I took you to mean as 'Like a monk / Run (away)'


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Jetranger said:


> And when you wrote it like that, I took you to mean as 'Like like a monk / Run (away)'


LOL! Too bad it's a serious topic. This is much more fun.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
we really do have too many negative threads about sex. Somehow we need more fun ones






DaytoDay said:


> LOL! Too bad it's a serious topic. This is much more fun.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Hmmmm, I tried starting a light-hearted thread, it got nixxed by admin for some reason, but I don't know why.

Bummer.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

If you read the Sex In Marriage Forum rules, the forum is more designed for problem solving than anything else.

That's why your thread was deleted!


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> If you read the Sex In Marriage Forum rules, the forum is more designed for problem solving than anything else.
> 
> That's why your thread was deleted!


Got it! Sorry, I hadn't read the rules specifically for this forum. No problem, just looking to lighten things up, but I've read and understand the rules now.


----------

