# Physical or emotional?



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

I just finished reading the who here has divorced because of lack of sex thread. Fascinating! Unfortunately, also a bit all over the place. But THOUND's subsequent question and a number of the responses poses a question that I've held for some time.

Is sex a physical act or an emotional act?

Obviously, it could be both. But I believe its true value is exposed when it's denied, or at least in the basest manner in which it is accepted. The discussions about having "corpse sex" (or corps sex as the original poster put it  ) indicates that it's purely physical, or why would anyone debase themselves to participate in that format? Yet other comments about it being soul-destroying indicates that its more emotional. Then the comments about hiring someone else to fulfill the unmet needs in a completely non-emotional, detached manner points again to it being purely physical. Some books like Sex-starved Marriage claim that it's emotional. On the other hand, one-night-stands where the dude doesn't even know the gals name are the theme of many popular TV shows.

So which is it? Or does it vary by individual?

ETA: To clarify, if it was taken away, what would you miss the most? The physical aspect or emotional?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It's both, but sometimes it's mostly one or the other. It may vary by individual or couple, or by the circumstances, or what need is being pursued at the time.

Sometimes it's mostly about the bonding, emotional connection. Sometimes it's mostly about the hot wild monkey sex and lusty satisfaction. Cuddling and emotional connectional afterwards is optional!

It's a physical urge and desire, of course, that can be expressed in a variety of ways.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's mostly the emotional connection. The physical connection is important but one can get physical in a variety of forms and still be in square one emotionally.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

DaytoDay said:


> Is sex a physical act or an emotional act?


Sex between spouses is primarily an emotional act.



> The discussions about having "corpse sex" (or corps sex as the original poster put it  ) indicates that it's purely physical, or why would anyone debase themselves to participate in that format?


I disagree. I think the complaints about having sex with an unresponsive partner are based in the fact that it's emotionally unfulfilling to do that.



> Yet other comments about it being soul-destroying indicates that its more emotional.


I think it's just two ways of saying the same thing.



> Then the comments about hiring someone else to fulfill the unmet needs in a completely non-emotional, detached manner points again to it being purely physical.


Again, I disagree. If your spouse is unwilling to have sex in a manner that gives some emotional satisfaction, then sex with a prostitute would accomplish the same thing. It's certainly emotionally unfulfilling to pay someone for sex. However, at least the prostitute will participate, be pleasant, and appreciate your business. Given the choice between that and a sexual partner who rolls his/her eyes and makes passive-aggressive comments during sex, I can't fault anyone for choosing the prostitute.



> Some books like Sex-starved Marriage claim that it's emotional. On the other hand, one-night-stands where the dude doesn't even know the gals name are the theme of many popular TV shows.


Obviously, no one should expect a sexual encounter with someone you just met to be emotionally fulfilling. That is a purely physical act. However, sex with one's spouse is different. Married couples pledge to have an exclusive sexual relationship. The reason for that is the emotional component of sex that is prevalent in marriage.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> Sex between spouses is primarily an emotional act.
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think the complaints about having sex with an unresponsive partner are based in the fact that it's emotionally unfulfilling to do that.
> ...


Why does it have to be a prostitute? It could be someone who wants to have sex with you, not for pay.



PHTlump said:


> Obviously, no one should expect a sexual encounter with someone you just met to be emotionally fulfilling. That is a purely physical act. However, sex with one's spouse is different. Married couples pledge to have an exclusive sexual relationship. The reason for that is the emotional component of sex that is prevalent in marriage.


Sure there is supposed to be an emotional component. Sex with someone you just met is not going to be emotionally filling it can however provide you a good feeling and a lot of confidence versus being in a situation of lack. 

I guess provided the situation of going sexless for prolonged periods of time, like months and years. The premise of doing one night or short term sexual flings is better than nothing at all. I like many on TAM would like pure connected sex which refills the batteries allows us to share a great emotional connection.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

It's emotional. If it was physical then masturbation would satisfy in a way that it simply doesn't.


----------



## AnnieAsh (Aug 22, 2012)

It definitely depends on the person. For my husband, sex is about fulfilling physical desires. I asked him if he feels more emotionally bonded to me after sex. He gave it some thought and said no, not really. 

Complete opposite for me. The physical is a big part of it, but I LOVE feeling connected and bonded.

During our low sex (as in low for ME) I feel withdrawn and angry. As long as I do the things that make HIM feel loved, he still feels good.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

WOE...if it is the emotional part you want, then how/why is porn a replacement for it?


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

> I disagree. I think the complaints about having sex with an unresponsive partner are based in the fact that it's emotionally unfulfilling to do that.


 And yet, they're still willing to do it. A number of posters admitted to that unfortunate choice. But the fact remains they still do it even without the emotional connection. Which points again to it being physical, does it not?

Much of the advice that THOUND received was that he needs to "move out and move on" because she's not willing to engage in the physical act. I'm not sure how the marriage was otherwise. What if there were no other significant problems in a M? Lots of shared interests, companionship, respect, financial stability, both partners contributing, etc. Effectively, emotional needs met in every other aspect? Does that mean the HD partner is just too emotionally needy? Or does it point to the act of sex being primarily physical?

I'm wondering if possibly the root cause for some LD spouses being LD is that they feel like a piece of meat? That the act comes across as completely physical and they're simply legally obligated to be an available orifice? I can only imagine what humiliation the "corpse spouse" must feel knowing that the HD spouse is "fine" (aka. not happy but willing) to continue to use them in spite of their obvious mental/emotional/physical disinterest. Bad comparisons come to mind when I think of this. And from the other side of things, I know I couldn't perform under those circumstances with a gun to my head. But for me, sex is emotionally-based, and it shows in my performance. Without it, there is no sex. For others, that appears to not be the case.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

> WOE...if it is the emotional part you want, then how/why is porn a replacement for it?


 Good question. In fact, sometimes a H will decline sex with their W in preference to porn.

To those that claim that it's emotional, can you describe the connection you're referring to? Maybe this is all just a matter of semantics. Perhaps the "emotional bond" for some is just the feel-good effect of endorphins produced with climax, which is why sex with a prostitute or pornography would accomplish the same thing.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> And yet, they're still willing to do it. A number of posters admitted to that unfortunate choice. But the fact remains they still do it even without the emotional connection. Which points again to it being physical, does it not?
> 
> Much of the advice that THOUND received was that he needs to "move out and move on" because she's not willing to engage in the physical act. I'm not sure how the marriage was otherwise. What if there were no other significant problems in a M? Lots of shared interests, companionship, respect, financial stability, both partners contributing, etc. Effectively, emotional needs met in every other aspect? Does that mean the HD partner is just too emotionally needy? Or does it point to the act of sex being primarily physical?
> 
> I'm wondering if possibly the root cause for some LD spouses being LD is that they feel like a piece of meat? That the act comes across as completely physical and they're simply legally obligated to be an available orifice? I can only imagine what humiliation the "corpse spouse" must feel knowing that the HD spouse is "fine" (aka. not happy but willing) to continue to use them in spite of their obvious mental/emotional/physical disinterest. Bad comparisons come to mind when I think of this. And from the other side of things, I know I couldn't perform under those circumstances with a gun to my head. But for me, sex is emotionally-based, and it shows in my performance. Without it, there is no sex. For others, that appears to not be the case.


I havent moved out, because I made a promise 31 years ago for better or worse. As long as she doesnt cheat Im staying. I truly believe our problem is hormonal, and I have been way to beta for our entire relationship
Things have been getting somewhat better, but not where I want us to be. I everyone divorced witout working on problems, why get married. Marriage is a commitment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

DaytoDay said:


> And yet, they're still willing to do it. A number of posters admitted to that unfortunate choice. But the fact remains they still do it even without the emotional connection. Which points again to it being physical, does it not?


No. The emotional need fulfilled by having enthusiastic sex with your spouse will go unmet regardless of whether you have unresponsive sex. At that point, it defaults to a physical choice. Physically, sex with an unresponsive spouse is still better than a stick in the eye. But no one would claim to be indifferent on the matter of whether his spouse wants sex.



> What if there were no other significant problems in a M? Lots of shared interests, companionship, respect, financial stability, both partners contributing, etc. Effectively, emotional needs met in every other aspect? Does that mean the HD partner is just too emotionally needy? Or does it point to the act of sex being primarily physical?


You're missing that the emotional bond satisfied by sex is a primary need for many people. What if we were talking about a woman whose husband beats her? Many would tell her to move on. But what if he was a good guy otherwise? Fun at parties, makes a good living, and treats his wife really well? But a few times a year, he punches her in the face. Most people wouldn't claim that the marriage was good, or that the problem was simply one of physical pain.

A spouse who withholds sex is intentionally inflicting pain on the other spouse just as a spouse who punches his mate is.



> I'm wondering if possibly the root cause for some LD spouses being LD is that they feel like a piece of meat? That the act comes across as completely physical and they're simply legally obligated to be an available orifice?


Those are two frequently cited reasons. Many people also lose attraction for their spouses.



> I can only imagine what humiliation the "corpse spouse" must feel knowing that the HD spouse is "fine" (aka. not happy but willing) to continue to use them in spite of their obvious mental/emotional/physical disinterest. Bad comparisons come to mind when I think of this. And from the other side of things, I know I couldn't perform under those circumstances with a gun to my head. But for me, sex is emotionally-based, and it shows in my performance. Without it, there is no sex. For others, that appears to not be the case.


It's not really fair to HD spouses to assume that, because they will choose bad sex over no sex, that their need for sex must be entirely physical. If you are given the choice between a diet of bread and water, or nothing at all, you would certainly choose bread and water. Would that mean that you were satisfied with such a diet? I wouldn't think so.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

> You're missing that the emotional bond satisfied by sex is a primary need for many people. What if we were talking about a woman whose husband beats her? Many would tell her to move on. But what if he was a good guy otherwise? Fun at parties, makes a good living, and treats his wife really well? But a few times a year, he punches her in the face. Most people wouldn't claim that the marriage was good, or that the problem was simply one of physical pain.
> 
> A spouse who withholds sex is intentionally inflicting pain on the other spouse just as a spouse who punches his mate is.


That's simply not the same thing. 

It's much more like a spouse that withholds money from the other when the others primary love language is gifts or financial support. It's not that the (let's say) H doesn't have the money, or doesn't have the ability to provide the money to the (let's say) W (ie sex), he simply refuses. No matter how much the W explains that she _really, REALLY_ needs a new Coach purse (sex), and it's been 3 years since she bought her last one (sex), and all the other women get new purses (sex) much more often than she does, and everybody knows that women love purses (sex), ... the H simply isn't sympathetic to the W because he doesn't have the same need (LD) for a Coach purse (sex) as she does (HD). Everyday, she sees and hears evidence of the wonderful gifts (sex) enjoyed by her friends, or the exciting new bag (sexual fantasy) she's missing out on on the shopping network promos (porn), tormenting her and rubbing salt in her wounds, while she has to settle for a boring, routine bag (sex), and even that's just a pathetic counterfeit (corpse sex.)

Sure, she could do without a new purse (celibacy). The fact is that she's not going to die without it (sex), but it doesn't address her emotional need of gifts (sex.) Sure, she can get a job and earn it herself (masturbation) but it simply isn't the same. At the same time, she's tempted by the gifts (sex) that the man at the coffee shop seems so willing to give her. She's having a hard time resisting accepting his offer (PA).

She starts rationalizing that she isn't being unreasonable in wanting this gift of a new purse (sex) from her H. She doesn't ask for much, it's not like he doesn't have the ability, and she has expressed her deep emotional need and how painful it has been for her that she's already had to wait as long as she has for a new purse (sex,) yet she gets no sympathy from her H at all. Of course, her H was sure generous with the gifts (sex) when they were dating and first M'd, but he's gotten stingy (cold) and lazy over the years. She's just expecting the same thing he used to offer so freely (frequency). 

Resentment starts to build. She asks herself how he can be so inconsiderate, so selfish, so insensitive to her needs, when he could easily provide her what she wants in a purse (sex). He's frustrated because it seems like her needs are endless. Even if he provides her with this purse (sex) this week, she'll just want something more again next week. His resentment starts growing as well, as he begins feeling like he's nothing more than a moneybag (piece of meat) to her. He begins to see her needs as selfish and inconsiderate of his, since she has completely ignored/discounted his reasons for not providing the purse (sex), and feels like she considers her wants more important that his. I mean, how many purses (how much sex) does one woman need??! Eventually, he stops buying her anything (sex) because she seems so unappreciative of the gifts he does get her (sex not frequent enough) that he figures there's really no point in even trying. She's simply not going to be satisfied so why waste his effort.


----------



## just_about_done (Feb 6, 2013)

I took duty sex because I kept thinking if I could get her interested this time, if I could make it good enough for her this time, she might become more willing and responsive overall. Yeah, that doesn't work. Or didn't for me anyway.

It's emotional. Physically sex with my wife wasn't bad, but I've felt more "full" having sex with someone who was more connected, willing, and eager but less technically "good".


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> WOE...if it is the emotional part you want, then how/why is porn a replacement for it?


Porn can't replace it, but it can cover up a section of viewing the opposite sex and sex energy. I still would say for one who does not have a sexual situation or is sex deprived, it's better not to view porn or masterbate, and open your mind up to the real thing.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

just_about_done said:


> I took duty sex because I kept thinking if I could get her interested this time, if I could make it good enough for her this time, she might become more willing and responsive overall. Yeah, that doesn't work. Or didn't for me anyway.
> 
> It's emotional. Physically sex with my wife wasn't bad, but I've felt more "full" having sex with someone who was more connected, willing, and eager but less technically "good".


Yep. Kinda feels like the lab rat that gets zapped when he tries to get the cheese. He know what's coming, but he just can't help himself.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

just_about_done said:


> I took duty sex because I kept thinking if I could get her interested this time, if I could make it good enough for her this time, she might become more willing and responsive overall. Yeah, that doesn't work. Or didn't for me anyway.
> 
> It's emotional. Physically sex with my wife wasn't bad, but I've felt more "full" having sex with someone who was more connected, willing, and eager but less technically "good".


So you were feeding off the energy based on "how much she was into it"...


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

> It's not really fair to HD spouses to assume that, because they will choose bad sex over no sex, that their need for sex must be entirely physical. If you are given the choice between a diet of bread and water, or nothing at all, you would certainly choose bread and water. Would that mean that you were satisfied with such a diet? I wouldn't think so.


 I had considered the comparison of food as well. Being a hardcore chocaholic, I completely get the cravings regarding food. However, regardless of my strong passion for anything chocolate, it's still superficial/emotional and would be instantly dumped for life-survival on bread and water. So, by definition, my needs are physical, even intellectually.

The physical and emotional aspects of sex are like the proverbial cake with icing. Take away the icing and what's left? It seems to be the physical side, as a M without sex seems to be dump-worthy, or "get it elsewhere" worthy. I can't imagine the W in my previous post about the purse getting much sympathy for her pain in not getting her "gifts" need met, being told to "dump him" because he's so cold and selfish and "intentionally inflicting pain on her."

Of course I could be wrong. It could also be simply a matter of HD partners finding it completely unacceptable and LD partners not having an issue with it, and they're going to describe it from their differing perspectives so there will never be a consensus.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Also, what is the _emotional connection_ obtained by a "quickie," especially since the woman is unlikely to climax in a short timeframe?

Maybe a definition of _emotional connection_ is in order.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> Also, what is the _emotional connection_ obtained by a "quickie," especially since the woman is unlikely to climax in a short timeframe?
> 
> Maybe a definition of _emotional connection_ is in order.


It's the closeness and touching of bodies, even if it is not for a prolonged period.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

> It's the closeness and touching of bodies, even if it is not for a prolonged period.


 Thanks for chiming in, Treyvion. Still something missing in the definition though, or HD spouses would be satisfied with kissing and holding hands and hugging and sitting next to each other during a movie, or massages without sex, or even content with corpse sex.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> WOE...if it is the emotional part you want, then how/why is porn a replacement for it?


I thought WOM was answering for himself, and the fact that it is emotional for HIM, not every man. :scratchhead:

And that's true. Yea, porn and masturbation will meet the physical release, but it cannot replace the emotional bond which some feel with sex.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DaytoDay said:


> Thanks for chiming in, Treyvion. Still something missing in the definition though, or HD spouses would be satisfied with kissing and holding hands and hugging and sitting next to each other during a movie, or massages without sex, or even content with corpse sex.


An HD will take what they can get unless it makes them feel worse about themself, but many will take even that especially if they are in a starvation period.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> It's emotional. If it was physical then masturbation would satisfy in a way that it simply doesn't.


This is a very, very good point. That really is the difference. Of course, the emotions involved _may_ have nothing to do with love.

Interactivity is the key element, I think. And if that's true, "corpse" sex (unresponsive partner) may be no better and may even be less satisfying than masturbation.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> This is a very, very good point. That really is the difference. Of course, the emotions involved _may_ have nothing to do with love.
> 
> Interactivity is the key element, I think. And if that's true, "corpse" sex (unresponsive partner) may be no better and may even be less satisfying than masturbation.


Corpse sex could be worse than masterbation in a situation where the person gets a descent sex rate and is used to this.

However in a person that's been deprived for an extremely long period ( 6 months to years ), corpse sex would be much better than masturbation. I'm not too happy to know this either.


----------



## DaytoDay (Jun 23, 2013)

Sorry, Treyvion! You're obviously having a tough time. ((())) I hope things are improving for you (I don't know your current sitch.)

Since you described the connection as "the closeness and touching of bodies," can you describe what is missing in corpse sex that can't be gotten through another venue? (ie. touching = hugging, companionship = going to the ballgame, mutual interest = shared hobbies, physical release = masturbation, etc.) I'm trying to narrow down why a LD spouse wouldn't get the same thing out of sex as a HD spouse if the drive is still emotional rather than physical.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

treyvion said:


> Corpse sex could be worse than masterbation in a situation where the person gets a descent sex rate and is used to this.
> 
> However in a person that's been deprived for an extremely long period ( 6 months to years ), corpse sex would be much better than masturbation. I'm not too happy to know this either.


I wasn't too happy to know that either, with my ex. I think I'd rather go without than feel dirty from "corpse sex" - aka "the dead starfish position".


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> WOE...if it is the emotional part you want, then how/why is porn a replacement for it?


It's not. It's a bandaid stuck on an amputation. It's maybe 20% physical and 80% emotional.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> It's not. It's a bandaid stuck on an amputation. It's maybe 20% physical and 80% emotional.


Perfect analogy. Porn does nothing to cover up the "lack of"...

I'd liken it to "drinking your problems away".


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I wasn't too happy to know that either, with my ex. I think I'd rather go without than feel dirty from "corpse sex" - aka "the dead starfish position".


Better starfish than sea urchin 

Sea urchins are poisonous, not unlike many LD spouses...


----------



## livelaughlovenow (Apr 23, 2012)

DaytoDay said:


> I just finished reading the who here has divorced because of lack of sex thread. Fascinating! Unfortunately, also a bit all over the place. But THOUND's subsequent question and a number of the responses poses a question that I've held for some time.
> 
> Is sex a physical act or an emotional act?
> 
> ...


Definitely depends on the person, and I think the persons gender... and within a relationship sometimes can be solely for the physical release, and other times for the emotional connection. I give to my husband more freely than in years past, after being on here, he doesn't have corpse sex (I can't beleive someone called it that!) I am an active participant always, at those times to me, it's more emotional and fulfilling his needs of the physical... when we are both into it completely it feels totally soulful. I think however women tend to be more emtional about it... men more physical. (Hence the Bj threads... that is a physical act in my opinion, no emotions involved at all, except maybe enthusiasm to get the man to cum).


----------

