No one actually "needs" sex

[namechangedforthisone35]

Out with the girls last night and my friends talked about the "need" for sex which I can't fathom. It's obviously not a genuine need like air and food.

Clearly if you're ttc, then yes, you need sex. But that's the only situation it would be essential otherwise it's not exactly for survival is it?!

My dh and I (43 and 35) dtd maybe 4-6 times a year. He'd probably like more but that's more than enough for me. Three kids including a toddler, a dog, both work full time, up at 4.30/5, sleep comes first every single time.

Do others really see it as a need?!

Blondebutnotlegally

No one is going to die if they were destined to never talk to another human being again but for many, it would make them pretty miserable

Yet people have killed themselves due to lack of talking to people/social interaction and being miserable because of it.

So what they're trying to get across is that it's an emotional need. You don't physically drop dead because of it.

Yes, I absolutely need sex. Whenever I'm single (like currently) I have one or two FWBs.

Does that make it any less of a need?
A relationship with no sex will survive if both adults consent to it, I know from experience that if only one person wants a no sex relationship, the relationship will not last.

As others have posted, just because it doesn't kill you doesn't make it less of a need.

Again, I find the narrative around it being a need that must be met really uncomfortable.

If someone is starving, although it would be wrong for them to steal food, one would be sympathetic - because they need food to exist.

If we’re saying sex is a need on a simile primal level (and perhaps it is - I’ve never had a period where I’ve been unable to access it, so I don’t know), then we can’t be surprised that men will also feel they must have that need met, whichever way they can. Especially those who are long-term single, and can’t just get a FB or FWB (there are lots of those men).

I don’t think we can have it both ways - that it’s a need for us, and we shouldn’t have to go without it, but although it might also be a need for them, they should go without it, into perpetuity, if necessary - and that actually makes me deeply uncomfortable.

I am in that small camp that considers prostitution to be rape. But if we’re saying men need sex, then at least buying it from someone ‘willing’ to sell it, is far preferable to taking it from someone who in no way consents.

If it’s a basic human need, then we must accept men need it too.

Or, if they go without, they will be profoundly unhappy and impacted by that. And that will manifest in all sorts of ways.

It’s not a need because if it were a need, it would be a right. People have a right to food, water, and shelter. In a modern society people have a right to healthcare and education. People should never have a right to sex. We can’t have a world where consent is respected if sex is a need.

sex is beneficial to the human experience, but it is not necessary for individual survival or happiness.

We can’t have a world where consent is respected if sex is a need.

Thanks for summing up what I’ve been trying to say in one simple sentence.

In a marriage though, it is at least an expectation. A reasonable one (Provided no abuse etc)

Witholding it, IMO─becomes abusive and confusing for the spouse.

At 43? Ridiculous.

To be fair, the OP does not ‘withhold’ sex.

She said upthread, she does it a few times a year for his sake.

He could ask, but seemingly doesn’t.

There is no ‘withholding’ going on.

While this wouldn’t work for most couples, perhaps it does for the OP and her husband.

And perhaps it is more common than we might think.

Sex is not a ‘need’. It is a ‘want’. And some people want it more or less than others.

At 70, maybe.

43, I do not accept he is happy. (Or her)

Op as someone who did it only a bit more than you one year for same reason- kids, work etc etc and who thought it was all I needed/wanted … it really wasn’t. Once we both started making an effort to do date night (nothing exciting just kids to bed, watch a movie, but both a bit dressed up) … it’s definitely worth it (and if you don’t want to fine,) but when you’re in the humdrum of exhaustion, the grind etc, it all feels too much but the slightest bit of effort is great! Didn’t work every time- one or other too tired for example but when it did wow. Just wow😉

GodDammitCecil
That's been done to death on this thread.

Nobody has said sex is life or death or a sexless relationship is like starving to death. Equally nobody has said that anyone is entitled to sexually assault and rape people to get their sex fix.

Taking the but you won't die without it so it's not a need line opens up many other things that aren't a life or death need, but people would generally say they're needed in a relationship, such as:

• being attracted to each other
• expressions of affection
• non sexual physical touch
• acts of kindness
• words of kindness
• quality time together

Sure a romantic relationship could theoretically exist without any of the above and it's not "needed" because you'll not die if your spouse isn't kind, you'll not die if there's no expression of affection, you'll not die if you have no quality time with your partner, but most people would apply the tiniest bit of common sense.

If someone said "I need my spouse to show affection to me in our marriage and need to spend quality time with him instead of him fucking off all weekend playing golf" very few people would reply "you're so unreasonable, you don't need him to show he cares and you won't die from him going golfing. You're so obsessed with spending time with your spouse. You should be happy with a couple of dates a year. You're not going to die from him not saying loving things to you. Me and my DH never say anything nice to each other because we're not obsessed with words of affection. I can't believe people think you need signs of affection in a relationship. It's hardly life or death.

But when the topic is sex some people get very preoccupied with the word "need" as a way of diminishing that sexual intimacy is for many people an important part of their romantic relationships.

Poor bloke. Hardly made him feel loved, saying that!

Not one bit of your post addresses the point I was making?

I haven’t mentioned sex in intimate/romantic relationships?

Maybe go back and re-read my post.

It was about single men, not in relationships, also ‘needing’ sex.

If sex is a need, as you seem to be saying it is, what are people who don’t have access to it supposed to do?

Or is it a need you can turn on and off, and if you’re single, you suddenly, magically, don’t ’need’ it any more?

One can have an unfulfilled need. It happens all the time to people. You don't drop dead the moment you drop down off the top of Maslow's Hierarchy.

How is it abusive to not have a high sex drive??

Before my husband and I split up years ago, my libido was through the floor, so I'd often turn down sex. It wasn't abusive of me. I told him why and he had to accept it, even if he didn't like it. No one should feel obliged to put out if they don't want to. Sex should be a pleasure, not an obligation, and especially not a wifely obligation.

Sex is an emotional need for most people like it or not. That doesn't negate the fact that other people's safety and bodily autonomy supersedes another persons emotional validation.

No need to feel uncomfortable.

@Inthebitterend

"Before my husband and I split up years ago, my libido was through the floor, so I'd often turn down sex. It wasn't abusive of me. I told him why and he had to accept it, even if he didn't like it. No one should feel obliged to put out if they don't want to. Sex should be a pleasure, not an obligation, and especially not a wifely obligation."

You told him he had to accept it!
I presume he didn't and that is in part, why you split!

If sex is a need, as you seem to be saying it is, what are people who don’t have access to it supposed to do?

Or is it a need you can turn on and off, and if you’re single, you suddenly, magically, don’t ’need’ it any more?

All the whataboutery, what about single people etc is done to try and downplay that many things people need in romantic relationships and they don't die without it. That's why my post is relevant.

Sex is something that many people consider an important part of a relationship and it's something they need as part of a healthy relationship, just like many other things that someone may need in a relationship (eg acts of kindness, verbal expressions of affection, quality time together, non sexual physical intimacy etc).

The difference is that if someone posted about any of their other needs in a relationship nobody would be jumping down their throat saying "but it isn't a NEED! you just WANT it! You're not going to die if he doesn't show affection towards you. See it isn't actually a need is it?" or "it isn't really a need though is it? Why would you need to spend time with your husband? Single person don't spend time with a spouse and they're ok so why does it bother you that you hardly see your husband?"

You also wouldn't get replies saying"But what about single people? They manage without someone showing physical signs of intimacy or acts of kindness and affection. Obviously it isn't a need is it because otherwise they'd be able to demand random people of their preferred sex give them hugs and kisses to meet their need. It's really problematic when people in relationships start saying they need signs of affection in their relationship because that's a slippery slop to saying anyone can do what they like to have their need met"

But when the conversation is about sex in relationships and people having a romantic relationship that's happy and fulfilling, for some reason all the whataboutery comes out.

The difference is that if someone posted about any of their other needs in a relationship nobody would be jumping down their throat saying "but it isn't a NEED! you just WANT it! You're not going to die if he doesn't show affection towards you. See it isn't actually a need is it?"or"it isn't really a need though is it? Why would you need to spend time with your husband? Single person don't spend time with a spouse and they're ok so why does it bother you that you hardly see your husband?"

I've seen people told they're being "needy" for those sorts of things on here.😂 (Drives me nuts.)

There's no withholding going on and the word 'withholding' shouldn't even be used to refer to sex because it really doesn't tend to accurately describe most of these situations.

I believe that in a sexless relationship if a person really wants sex and doesn't get that then there can be similar effects to if they were being abused, however that does not mean that their partner is in fact abusing them.

I also believe that in a sexless relationship that if a person doesn't want sex forces themselves to go through with it that there can be similar effects to if they were being abused, but that doesn't mean that their partner is abusing them.

There's an awful lot of people who try to label people with low libidos as being abusive when they simply are trying to protect themselves from having sex they don't want...and that's a very dangerous message.

One person could absolutely feel like it's a need for them and they need it in a relationship, but the other person very much feels like they need to protect themselves from it and not have it.

There's an incompatibility there, which is why using the word 'need' can be very inflammatory.
One person really does not want to have sex for whatever their reasons are, and they will try to avoid it as much as possible even if it causes relationship issues which shows that it's either uncomfortable or unpleasant or traumatic for whatever reason.

So framing it as a 'need' in that context is problematic because you're saying you need it from someone who really does not want to do it, and the other person can feel guilted into it.
Sex should never be like that, it should be mutually enjoyable and fulfilling, or at the very very least tolerable, which it often isn't for people, hence why they avoid it.

You mention people wanting quality time with their partner, but that's a different thing entirely. The person reluctant to spend quality time with their partner is unlikely to suffer trauma if they have to put effort into spending time with their partner. But feeling like they have to have sex they don't want could very easily lead to trauma.

The person reluctant to spend quality time with their partner is unlikely to suffer trauma if they have to put effort into spending time with their partner. But feeling like they have to have sex they don't want could very easily lead to trauma.

Some forms of non consensual intimacy are more traumatic than others but I’m not sure it’s a useful distinction to make, none are okay.

I would say that it is very useful. I said they are unlikely to suffer from trauma being expected to spend quality time with someone, which I would say is pretty accurate.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that it's possible that someone could be traumatised by having to spend quality time with their partner or by something that seems relatively minor, because they could, but it's far less likely than a situation where someone forces themselves to have sex they don't want. That's the reason why people treat the 2 scenarios differently which is what I was replying to.

There's also plenty of people who are in dead bedrooms who will say that they do things to make their partner happy such as cleaning their car, so they don't understand why their partner can't have sex to keep them happy.

And the answer is that they could make you happy by having sex, but they could suffer trauma, you might not want to clean their car but it's generally not going to traumatise you. Don't clean the car if you don't want to, but don't make out the 2 things are similar by completely ignoring the fact that unwanted sex can often cause significant trauma.