To think 'sexless' should mean 'sexless'?!

[JayneAusten]

I'm so tired of reading that a sexless marriage is defined as 10 times a year or less. How is that sexless? Surely sexless is a marriage where you don't have sex?

Yes I'm being sensitive about this because I don't feel like having it more often but don't consider my marriage sexless.

Yanbu. We have a 10 month old baby and have only managed sex 10 or maybe less times in the last year. Our marriage is not sexless.

I guess I'm guilty of passing on the stat without finding out more about it.

I'd agree that I always assumed that sexless meant none at all, but when I heard the stat, it did make me think. 10 x a year is less than one a month,so all the couples who are on once a month are not in sexless marriages (sexy marriages?) And I'd agree with the poster whon says the reason she's not having more sex is that she's busy with other stuff. Well exactly - sex has gone to near the bottom of the priority list, although it does happen.

I manage to ring my dad every week even though I usually enjoy that less than a shag. Of course, the times when sex is actually worse than ringing your dad do leave a scar.

I don't ring my dad as often as I should or would like to either. Sigh.

We're probably on a once a month diet atm, due to hormonal health issues - the window is often short for dtd. However we are affectionate, loving and certainly not sexless in the brother and sister, just good friends sense...this definition of sexless is a bit crap, imo.

I'm with you. I have two young children, both have full-on jobs that require work from home in the evenings. Once a month is our aim, but we don't always achieve it, and I certainly don't feel that our marriage is "sexless"! We're both happy with the amount, which is surely all that matters. I feel that as the children grow up and life becomes less full-on, the amount will increase if we want it to.

Actually less than 10 times a year is the definition of a sexless marriage....

I agree that actually there is a big difference between NEVER and 10~12 times a year but I suppose you need some sort of definition...

but when you use -less it means without for the duration of the action
I agree and the op specified the duration to be a year. So for most of the year the marriage is without sex, with a small amount of time (ten occasions) where sex still occurs.

No JamieXeed74 -less means without. No implying needed

Restless night is a night in which you didn't get any rest.

I have a DH with major health problems and we havent had sex at all for many years.

So it really pisses me off when i see a 10 times a year relationship being described as sexless.

I'd consider that sexless, in the same way someone who sips a little champagne at a few weddings and birthdays each year 'doesn't drink' and someone who smokes a cigarette only after a rare night out 'doesn't smoke'.

10 times a year or less means the vast, vast majority of the time the relationship is sexless. It's certainly not the norm in my circle, and we've all been married or together for decades.

So how long would the period without sex need to be for it to be truly 'sexless', OP? No sex at all for one year?

I would think a sexless marriage is one without any sex at all OP so agree with you.

But I would kind of think 10 times a year isn't really a marriage where sex is an integral part of the marriage - more an add-on so the marriage doesn't become completely sexless. To me it is a marriage where at least one person really doesn't want to have sex.

pallisers yes. That rings true for me. Absence of intimacy and affection = sexless in my experience. Others will differ. Depends on the relationship I guess. 😦

Under ten times a year? I'd say that's sexless in the first few years of a relationship. Not so as you go on - say you have challenging time with DC (eg if they're young) or else eg health issues. In both cases sex isn't really on the brain anyway - so relatively speaking, getting in ten sessions would be considered very good!! You find other ways of showing affection :)

Also it's the quality... Ten dry humps (I'm so sorry) is just awful, a hundred dry humps too. Quickies with no pleasure for you...ten or a hundred... that is really sad. If it's combined with a lack of affection generally, then actually any amount of sex is just sad. Then it's just functional :(

Also... Please don't flame me. Ladies sometimes our libido just goes. No shame in that. So ten shags might be a lot considering - we just change over time. Happened to a woman at my work, she said in her 20s she was a firecracker and nothing could hold her back. Now through menopause and just no interest in it, her husband likewise. Think she was more upset at the idea of that part of her life having gone, than actually missing sex itself

Sorry, to clarify... I think a general lack of affection (which can include sex) is more damning

And sexless I'd say only applies when you know it's long term/unintentional. Eg once kids a bit out of the way :)

Should be a LessSex marriage, not a sexless marriage, if you are having sex just not very often
^^ This.

It sounds like you want to commandeer a definition to win a propaganda war. Which does nothing to address the underlying problem.

A typical 20 year old man might want sex one (or more times) a day, a 40-year old three times a week and a sixty-year old once a week. (All statistics made up on the spot for the purposes of this post, but I believe reasonable.) If their partner would rather not bother with sex ever, but is able to say, "well I fuck you every year on your birthday, so our relationship isn't sexless, so what are you whinging about?", would that reasonably address the issue?

The problem is the size of the gap between what people want and what they get. Whinging about the meaning of words is a dishonest attempt to define the problem out of existence with semantics.

If his preference for sex is three times a week, that's 150 times a year, then relatively 10 really isn't much different from zero. Whether you regard 10/150 as different to 0/150 just depends on how much you round your numbers.

I don't mean to suggest that any incompatibility has to be solved by one person compromising more than the other. Or by anyone compromising at all. Maybe you'd both be better of with someone else.

I would think a sexless marriage is one without any sex at all OP so agree with you

But without any sex for how long? One month? Six months? One year?

I really dislike the notion prevalent on mn and in the media that if you don't have much sex, then your marriage is somehow not 'proper'), and that you should seek counselling or go to the doctors. It's nonsense. For some couples, sex just isn't high in their priorities, and that is absolutely fine.

arethere; nobody here is saying that every couple must have sex. Many do say that every individual should be with someone who is compatible with what they want. A marriage can be very happy if neither partner wants sex but when one wants it several times a week and the other not at all or very rarely, the partner forced into celibacy is going to be very frustrated and miserable.