Not everyone exists on the same end of the spectrum. Probably most people are in the middle and are motivated by sex and even need it, too, to some extent. I suspect there are those who are more asexual and don't really need it. And then there are those who are much more sexual and really do need it.

I needed it and didn't get it for years and years. I repressed myself to the point of real psychic pain.

Sexual development is important to normal development and if it is curtailed artificially, I don't think anything good can come from it.

I'm figuring out my sexuality and what it means to be a sexual person, thank whatever gods may be.

But there are plenty in the Church who need sex and aren't getting it (or are artificially repressing themselves).

I don't think it is wise. Doesn't the Church itself teach balance in all things?

In any case, to those who say that sex is not a need, I disagree. While it may not be like water or food, it is important to normal development and I don't think it should be disregarded so lightly.

Balance. That's the key...

What thread did I miss? Sex is definitely a need. I mean, I'll give asexuals a pass but... Gosh, I have to find the previous thread!

Even sex with yourself, that's why we can reach the fun bits, like another poster below mentions.

I thought this was about the morg controlling all sex, but I see it is more complicated than that. You can masturbate and get your physical closeness needs met by snuggling.
You did vow something about in sickness and in health(that's what marriage IS), so have some respect(come to an arrangement) or divorce the poor lady already.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2013 08:39PM by WinksWinks.

I agree to an EXTENT. I was the one who said "Sex is not a need like food or water" and I'm sure this came from my post and I'm sure I stand by what I said. In that context, OP was trying to convince him/herself that they NEED sex and therefore cheating is justified.

Go get stranded on an island for 10 years, see how long you can survive without sex.

That's all my argument is composed of. I did not intend to expand beyond that single point.

In a perfect world, everyone gets all the sex they "need", all the social interaction they "need", and all the fame, fortune, love, attention, and gratitude they "need"...but this isn't a perfect world. Sometimes we just have to fucking suck it up.

If I'm stranded on a desert island for ten years you better believe I'd be painting lipstick on a coconut by year two.

+1--Sure sex is great, but people do not NEED it to survive. That makes it a desire.

I agree. He's trying to convince himself that it is alright to cheat. And it is NOT!
He should reverse it. He should take a look in the mirror and see himself as the one who is having surgeries and suffering with the loss of his manhood and having fears that his spouse will no longer need or desire him or that he will be Ugly to her. And put his wife in his place...you know the place where she sais, "Well, I need sex so I'm going elsewhere." SLAP IN THE FACE selfishness is all that is! He is totally being non empathetic to the person he claimed he would love, honour and cherish! I say grow up and get some balls man!

It's strange..he/she (don't know which yet) says "getting a divorce because of this is like knocking down an anthill with a bulldozer." Maybe, but if you cheat and get caught, I can guarantee you that anthill will grow in size quite proportionately. Go to a counselor first, together if possible, alone if that's your only option. Look at all other possible opportunities, and try to fix things. If you end up cheating, you're basically giving up on the marriage, and divorce is warranted. That's my belief.

Or, take Tupperwhere's approach and advocate the possibility of an open marriage :D

Often times a willing partner can't be found. That's why our hands can reach our happy parts.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2013 03:24AM by wine country girl.

Maybe you won't die without it but neither will you reach self actualization.

I totally agree. On a different, er.. "forum", a gal posted this:

"I think sex performed in a happy, healthy, and well adjusted way is very close to a need. However, I think realizing that your sexual shenanigans are negatively affecting your life, a period of celibacy/abstinence is a very good way to get your shit together and figure out how to reintroduce sex as a very positive aspect of your life."


It's the argument "sex is a need" when used to justify "sexual shenanigans" that kind of irks me, but who am I to judge? *shrug*

Sleep isn't a need like food or water, either. You can go without it for a while, but the lack will make you unhappy. I don't think there is an easy answer to the poster whose wife is hurting. I suspect there is a lot more to the issue than sex--fear,hurt, disappointment, loneliness on both sides.

My first wife suffered from severe emotional/psychological problems and without warning told me she was not having sex with me anymore. I was in my 30s. It was pretty devastating. Besides the fear, hurt, disappointment, and loneliness, I felt like something important in my life was taken away from me and I had no control of it. My wife told me that "sex isn't a need. You don't really need sex."

*That* made me feel desperate and willing to consider infidelity. To think I wasn't going to have sex because I had agreed another person had to give me permission, especially after I had finally stopped getting permission from the Mormon Church, felt fairly intolerable.

There is a lot more to the issue than sex or whether sex is a "need." There are a number of values set against one another. I don't think the poster with the sick wife is being trivial or even selfish. It's a very hard situation to which there may not be a good answer. I certainly don't have a good answer. I believe, though, we can be kind enough to recognize the degree of difficulty and pain he's experiencing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2013 08:11AM by robertb.

A lack of sex may not be life-threatening to an individual, but it is to the species. Ever wonder why it's so god-damned important to most of us? Because without it NONE of us would be here. And don't give me any bullshit about artificial insemination. Millions of years of evolution have given us sex for the propagation of the species. Don't fucking argue with it.

And I didn't read the original post about someone wanting to "cheat", but I don't believe it's fair for a spouse to refuse sex to their partner, and forbid them to get it elsewhere. If you don't want to provide something as basic as sex for your partner, have the balls and the decency to support them in getting it elsewhere and don't whine about it.

I think you meant real psychological pain

hell no they don't teach "balance" If they did, I would still be a member lol. Sex is SO important. For me, any "religion" that doesn't teach so just can't be a part of my life. There are some people that don't need sex. They are perfectly happy doing other things and that's fine with me, whatever makes them happy... but I am not one of them. I need and want it and any religion that says it's "wrong" is "wrong" to me.

I would agree that sex is a need for most people, but only in the sense that it is required for them to be fully happy. A person can live without it.

Heck, I'm in my twenties and I've somehow survived all this time without it...somehow.

It is necessary for the survival of the human race.

My husband and I have been on opposite sides of the world for over a year...and for the three years before we got married, too. We both survived without having to find other partners. It's not easy, but we care more about our relationship than about sex.

What about all our married military who get deployed? Should they have the right to cheat, or should they consider divorce, because they know they can't have sex for a year or more? For the most part, they're young and not at all asexual. But somehow, most of them manage to make it work.

Deployments cause a lot of stress in military marriages, including problems with sex. It's not easy, as you say. I hear a lot about "Jody" from the veterans I talk to and those with combat trauma often have the added burden of having difficult sex lives. I don't know how our military people do it. They often pay a huge price beyond the obvious.

Sex is absolutely a basic human need. Evolution has programmed it that way.

If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs the very first layer is physiological - sustaining basic life - thinks like eating, breathing. Sex is actually often listed on this level.

Then when you get to the 3rd level. The need of belonging - loving sex again is listed.

In order to have self-esteem and self-actualization, loving sex is a requirement.

However that doesn't mean you need to have sex. The need for sex can be temporary or permanently curtailed and it can be met without actually having intercourse. And it varies from individual to individual.

bc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
and it can be met without actually
> having intercourse.

That's the point I was trying to make. You don't have to sacrifice a good relationship because circumstances prohibit sexual intercourse. Many people have found ways to make it work without finding another partner.

The church is anything but balanced in this regard. Celibacy IMO is not meant for all, and the church tries to make everyone conform to the same set of rules, not recognizing individuality.

There are and were many catholic priests who were most certainly not wired for celibacy. They chose that path in the hopes that they could conform, but later discovered they could not. Look at the consequences in all too many cases.

Even if a person has a very strong sex drive, the way you're taught in the church growing up is that you are to control it, cause you know, god never gives commandments to the children of men without providing a way for them to obey. As a teen growing up, it was impossible to be 100% "morally pure", for me anyway, and for the vast majority of male youth. But I always thought that all problems would be solved with marriage and that when married, all sexual desires would be forever fulfilled with my wife until the day I die. Need I say more?

No, sex isn't on the same level as food and water. It's not on the same level as self preservation. But once we get past the survival level needs, we still have needs. Can we live without sex? Sure. And we can live without love, or beauty or knowledge or happiness. Billions of people are doing that right now. But we can't thrive without those things.

Actually sex is listed on the same level as self-preservation in the hierarchy of needs. Without sex you really don't continue to exists, evolutionarily speaking. (That's not to say that individually people have a mandate to reproduce - but it's to say that evolution has wired into humans in general a very, very strong drive to reproduce - evolution also, does not account for birth control.)

Yes, our genes scream "Replicate us! Replicate us!" But other genes sometimes say, "Eh, not so much." Or, "Eh, not right now." Or, "Eh, not with him/her."

Maslow's heirarchy of needs places sex right there with food, water, breathing, sleeping, and pooping. One of the most basic needs you have.

Cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Note, sexual intimacy, love, friendship is two levels above that, right after safety and security.

Interesting distinctions between "sex" and "sexual intimacy".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2013 10:06AM by robertb.

Mormonism is unfriendly to eroticism, which causes brittleness about sex.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2013 10:04AM by robertb.

Which is hilarious, since its founder especially recognized how needful it was for him.

Despite nobody bothering to link to the original thread, I've finally managed to find it. There's a couple things which I don't think are being addressed.

• The OP just gave some vague information: the wife had surgery and now is unable to have sex. We don't have any concrete information that this wife has been instructed by her doctors that she can never have sex again. The OP has leapt to the conclusion that his sex life with his wife is over. Did anyone actually SAY that?

• I think it would be unfair to go cheating just because the wife is out of commission for a short period of time. I am making assumptions here as well -- unless the doctors sewed her vagina shut, we still don't know if this no sex thing is temporary or intended to be permanent.

• It sounds like the wife MIGHT be using the surgery as an excuse and perhaps she would like to retire the vag. It is rather controlling to simply lay down the law and leave it at that.

• Both the husband's AND the wife's needs should be addressed. Sex is a need, at least according to Maslow. So is sexual intimacy, although that one is at a higher level. Masturbation can address the lower level need.

• I'm simply not understanding why the OP isn't willing to give his wife some support during the healing process. I also don't understand why oral or handjobs aren't on the table. If I were ill and unable to handle P-I-V sex, I would be looking at other avenues to meet my best friend and partner's needs. I also don't understand why the wife isn't willing to do this -- not that we know she isn't willing to do this. The OP said she doesn't want him touching her; he didn't say anything about she doesn't want to touch him.

In general, I am against cheating on principle. I also don't believe that marriage must absolutely be for life. People split up all the time. Why doesn't this couple try sex therapy and talk therapy, and perhaps even some physical therapy and THEN throw in the towel? So I agree with the general consensus that the OP is looking for an excuse to justify adultery. I can't make a case for that. I can't even make a strong case for divorce, given the lack of details posted here. People make marriage commitments based on whatever terms of the relationship were negotiated at the time of committment. When the circumstances change with any other type of contract, the contract can be reopened for renegotiation. If the couple is unable to re-work the terms of the relationship, then and only then would I advocate divorce.

So let's pretend for a moment that the OP goes to therapy with the wife, sexual, psychological, and physical. Effort is made but perhaps is not enough and the couple decides together that it is in everyone's best interests to part ways. Then what? Does this OP really think he's going to get the same quality and quantity of sex on the singles dating scene as he did over 30+ years of marriage? I have news for you buddy, most women your age are already married, so your potential hookup/dating pool will be much younger women... who aren't all that interested in older men. You will have much more trouble getting sex as a single man over 50 than you did staying with a 30+ year marriage. Just saying. The OP hasn't been out in the dating world in forever. It is a very, very different world than it was 30-some years ago. Just look at the whining and whinging posts from those of us who are single. This is a case of "Step one and two look bad, so I'm going to just skip ahead to step 234 because the grass is much greener on that side of the fence."

Original OP: good luck with that.

No, it's an urge. People choose whether or not to act on it. Some people choose to abstain for whatever reasons.

Interesting...

Do you think the OP can satisfy his need for sex with masturbation or a surrogate?

What about his need for sexual intimacy? (According to Maslow's Hierarchy, as others have pointed out, these two are different.)

This raises another interesting question:

Can one maintain exclusive sexual intimacy with a spouse, or is it possible to have sexual intimacy with more than one partner at a time (such as you might find in the case of one who swings or engages in threesomes)?

Perhaps more temporary relationships of the latter sort only satisfy sexual need, but not necessarily the need for sexual intimacy...

Do you think that the OP's relationship with his wife would suffer if he began to satisfy sexual intimacy with someone else?

I haven't seen this brought up. Is prostate cancer more common in old lds guys? Anyone seen any studies or have personal observations? I think it's more common in my ward than what I would normally expect.

There's also the problem afflicting the old solider in Dances with Wolves "I just pissed my pants and nobody can do anything about it" ....bang.