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?!

It is often used to justify coercion though.
Go onto reddit dead bedrooms and you'll see that.

Lots of talk about it being a need, but also the word consent is used against the partner with a low libido. "I didn't consent to no sex", "I didn't consent to a dead bedroom", also the term bodily autonomy is misused. "What about my bodily autonomy, I have had celibacy forced on me".....even sexual coercion is misused. I've seen people say that not having sex is a form of sexual coercion.

And whenever someone uses those terms in that way, they resonate with a lot of people on there and they often say "I'm going to mention that the next time we have the talk.

It is often used to justify coercion though.Go onto reddit dead bedrooms and you'll see that.

Lots of talk about it being a need, but also the word consent is used against the partner with a low libido. "I didn't consent to no sex", "I didn't consent to a dead bedroom", also the term bodily autonomy is misused. "What about my bodily autonomy, I have had celibacy forced on me".....even sexual coercion is misused. I've seen people say that not having sex is a form of sexual coercion.

And whenever someone uses those terms in that way, they resonate with a lot of people on there and they often say "I'm going to mention that the next time we have the talk.

Reddit is a cesspit of misogyny. Most of that reads like whiny incels. Whatever terms people would use about consent would be twisted by them because it isn't about sex, it's about a desire to control women that's grounded in misogyny.

Rape is not about sex.
I wish people would understand that.
My rapists weren't sex starved, they were fucking rapists. End of story.

yes, and abusive people sometimes use the language of relationship therapy to manipulate their victims. But that's just a form of gaslighting and manipulation.

Twisting the meaning and lack of good faith is not the fault of the language.

I find this whole question interesting, for me sex is all about the man. Its the man that gets the full benefit all the time. Me, I can sort myself out thanks very much.................

@Strictlyfanoftenyears oof, that's one harsh review of all your lovers!

It's not just men, if anything a lot of the women on that sub seem just as angry, if not angrier than the men.

I definitely agree that it seems incel like though just in a different way. But a lot of those people are completely convinced that their partners are abusing them because they won't have sex with them, even if their partners have very legitimate reasons such as a lot of sexual trauma, being asexual and always being open about that right from the start, small babies at home...and they all hype each other up....I've seen people on MN and another forum I use also go down that way of thinking, the one who doesn't want sex is an awful, cruel person.

I don't care about people using the term need if they also acknowledge that safety is also a need. And so if one person doesn't want to have sex that's what is often kicking in, the need to protect themselves from something they appear to desperately not want to do, but that part gets ignored and it's always just about the 'need' to have sex.

I feel like there is often an elephant in the room in couples conversations about lack of sex, and the same extends to conversations about it on online forum.

If you need sex in a relationship and your partner doesn't want to have sex with you then you can need it all you want but they're not going to do it, and if they do it won't be the type of sex you want anyway, they're not really going to be into it or desire you.

I need sex in a relationship 100%, if my partner didn't want to have sex with me I would leave, I wouldn't be trying to convince them to have sex with me or coerce them or make them go to therapy so that they could sleep with me. The thought of that is disgusting to me. I'd be gone.....barring of course a dry spell brought on by a stressful period etc, but if it was a long term ongoing issue then no way would I be staying, and although I would be hurt and sad that he didn't desire me anymore I certainly wouldn't be painting him as the bad guy for not sexually desiring me or not being able to fulfil my 'needs'.

It's like no one ever considers not fucking bizarre it is that people get berated for not having a libido or experiencing sexual desire for their partner.

The OP always had a low libido, she said it was sparse and infrequent from the get go, and people are being horrible to her and acting like she's doing something wrong to the 'poor man'.

Then you've never had great sex

But when the language used is carefully chosen and intended to mean something so important then it is important that we call it out.

And although 'needs' wasn't a word carefully chosen to educate people about sex and consent, 'needs' is still a word that can be used in a coercive way.

And I don't think most people intend to use it in a coercive manipulative gaslighting way, they just see the use of the word, the explanation, it resonates with their pain and they use it.

When we were younger it was probably 'blue balls'. I've never had that said to me but it would have been one of the phrases used on TV etc. I suppose.

Now it's 'needs' and Maslow's hierarchy of 'needs' is brought into it no matter what forum I see this on...and at the end no one should be breaking out a psychological theory and making a powerpoint about human 'needs' to try to talk their partner into having sex with them, or looking for this way or that way to explain it to them, or to get through to them or to make them see their pain. You can't negotiate desire.

The message needs to be that if you need sex then you shouldn't stay in a relationship with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you or you're in for a world of pain.

If a person is starting out from the viewpoint there should be a way to argue someone into sex they don't want, then I don't really think they're starting from a non-coercive position, whether the language resonates with their pain or not.

That doesn't tend to be their viewpoint though, even though that's what so many do.

They often seem to think that their partner just doesn't understand the effect on them, so they want to just 'discuss' it again and again hoping their partner will finally get it.

But the issue isn't that they don't get it. Their partner could completely understand, it's still not going to make them sexually desire their partner the way they want them to.

Absolutely this .

I dont like sex at all ive never liked it.
Last time i done it ten years ago one night stand i ended up with HPV im convinced he gave it to me.
And came to the conclusion that men may give me cancer.
Dont miss never missed it rather be single and no pressure to have from anyone.

@Panaa I don't think the general attitude is that the asexual person is bad. Of course they're not, but if the needs are misaligned then the relationship will likely end and nobody will be the bad guy

its just like any other unmet need - if you feel unhappy then leave. There is no way to argue someone into desiring you, just like there is no way to argue people into not needing sex the way OP suggested is possible

No, it's just hormones.

Before menopause it was important, after menopause, I have zero desire.

Those people have the choice to leave and find someone who does want to have sex with them. They can twist it however they want to but it doesn't make what they're saying right.

By the same token, anyone who doesn't want to have sex in a relationship should have a conversation with that partner to ensure they're on the same page, and the option of ending the relationship so they can have one with people who's sexual needs match theirs should be given. In the same way that if I really didn't want DC and my partner did, I should let them go find someone to have them with. Or if my partner didn't want to talk openly about emotions and I did, they should let me go.

Needs in this context are about compatibility within a relationship. One needs sex more than the other. Not compatible.

I also haven't seen anyone refer to OPs DH as "poor man". More, that she should check in with him that zero sex is something he's OK with. Low amounts from the beginning, he signed up to that. None, he didn't and she's making assumptions that he's happy.

It’s not ‘none’ @IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos - see above ^^

I still don’t understand why everyone continues to infantilise the poor old man, and insist the OP, who’s fine with the status quo, be the one to raise the subject.

If he has an issue - why can’t HE raise it….? If he has an issue?

Oh he certainly could/should @GodDammitCecil

But he's not the one who started the thread and then came back to it to update. I'm not sure why op came back to fire up the thread again if everything is fine?

I just thought it was bizarre that neither of them discusses it and it's this elephant in the marriage, whether a tiny model elephant or looming great mammoth to him, who knows?! And neither does the op.

It seems utterly mind boggling to many that the OP’s DH just might be OK with how it all stands - even though there are many threads on here from women at their wits end due to their partner having zero sex drive.

There are men out there with low libidos.

The OP’s DH might be secretly unhappy. In which case, he should use the voice God gave him, and speak up.

Or, he might be just fine with things as they are.

@GodDammitCecil OP has also said its been nothing since Halloween and that he's now stopped even trying to initiate anything. And that she knows he would like it more often. All of this screams that they're incompatible in this area and should probably talk about it.

She's started a thread on MN trying to justify her stance in not wanting to have sex with her husband. If she knew, for an absolute fact, that both of them were happy with the set up, she wouldn't have felt the need to tell a bunch of Internet strangers they're all wrong about people feeling the need to have sex with their partners.

OP needs to have this conversation with her husband, not us. Because she's not sure he's ok, or else this wouldn't have been brought up. That's what people are saying.

I must admit I have never felt it as a need- but an occasional want - that was until menopause- which killed it did. We did have an honest chat about it and I said that I did understand if he felt that it was something he needed frequently then it would be better to remain friends and split- we were mid 50s by then and he didn't want to split.

I agree IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos

A couple who are mutually happy with an almost non-existent sex life would not be prompting a thread on MN about sex because their needs are being met so they'd both be happy and fulfilled.
A couple who are mutually happy with lower sex drives wouldn't be posting on here because they'd both feel their needs in that area of their relationship are being met.
A couple who both have higher sex drives who are happy aren't going to be posting about sex on MN because their needs are also being met.

People who are happy and secure that their relationships are mutually satisfying and fulfilling generally aren't the people asking online to validate their relationship dynamics.

I think it is reasonable for someone to express their issues in a relationship around the lack of sexual intimacy and how they did not "sign up to that", but ultimately the answer everyone on those Reddit forums needs is "leave the relationship".

However, just because some people choose to behave poorly and rationalise sexual violence in response to an unmet need doesn't mean it is not a need or that referring to it as such is the cause of those problematic behaviours.

I should add that the issue of sexual consent is not a shield that allows you to behave poorly towards your partner/spouse. Having bodily autonomy does not give you the right to gaslight, stonewall and mislead your partner/spouse about the true status of your sexual relationship or the legitimacy of their needs within that relationship.

I appreciate that many raising consent and bodily autonomy are not doing so to justify such behaviour but it is often the way that these discussions go that they are devolved down to this fundamental of sexual interactions as if it is all that matters in a long term relationship.

As such denying that sexual intimacy can be classified as a need because some people use that terminology to justify ignoring of consent and bodily autonomy is coming too far down on the other side. There is nothing wrong with it being a need but a need that does not override someone else's bodily autonomy or right not to be coerced or abused. Complexity and nuance are reality.

What you said there in your first 2 paragraphs is what I always said about people in these situations, because I genuinely thought that people would leave and find someone who wanted to have sex with them, and I always thought the one who didn't want to have sex should be completely honest so their partner knew what the situation was.

However the more I read about this elsewhere, I saw that that's not the case at all, and a huge amount of people in sexless relationships have "the talk" over and over or try to, even when it's absolutely crystal clear that their partner doesn't want to have sex with them.

Often it gets to the point where the other person won't speak about it and it's fairly obvious why that happens once you read the stories, there were many arguments or discussions about it, their reasons are considered to be 'excuses' and not accepted. Reasons such as "I have no libido since I had a baby" or "I'm exhausted". People complain their partner kept coming up with new excuses, it's clear to see that that was most likely because their other reasons weren't accepted.

Add in the fact that many people go through with some sex they don't want at some point to try to get their partner off them back/keep them happy and there's a real recipe for disaster because many develop an aversion, and most people don't even understand that they have an aversion so they don't have the words to describe their experience, but are made to feel like the bad guy and that they're doing something awful.

In the OPs case, she said sex was always sparse and infrequent from the very start, she always had a low libido. It's not zero, it's still just sparse and infrequent. She said in the early years he said he'd like it more but now he doesn't comment on it. Perhaps he's one of the rare people who seem to have a healthy view on this, he'd like more, but doesn't want more from someone who doesn't want it, that's really the only healthy attitude to have if you choose to stay in a relationship like this.

I have a high libido, I wouldn't get into a relationship with a man who only wanted sex very infrequently, and if I did then it's not on him to keep checking if I'm alright with it or to 'let me go'. He wouldn't be doing something wrong to me, the onus is not on him to free me from a situation I chose to be in.

You said if you didn't want DC and your partner did, you should let them go? If the partner knew from the start you didn't want DC then there is no responsibility on you to 'let him go'.

As I said, I used to always say exactly what you said about people not getting into or staying in incompatible relationship. If the sexless relationship is problematic then they tend to follow a pretty universal experience, and it doesn't sound like OPs relationship is like that at all.