The question wasn’t posed at you. I was judging how much of a role gender played in his statement.
If I said I would leave, I’d be a raving hypocrite, because my husband has chosen to stay with me despite the fact that he gets nookie an average of once every three months, with dry spells up to a year (in fact I think we are going on a year right now.)
I am the person causing the problem, but it’s due to a condition that is not my fault. We’ve done our best to deal with it, we’ve tried couples therapy, etc, it’s not like we ever give up hope (I’m trying to get more help as we speak), but it’s something we have been forced to regard as a lower priority in our relationship. We struggled a lot to accept it in the beginning, because I kept blaming myself and feeling like it was something I alone was dealing with, but once we addressed the fact that it affects him just as much as it affects me, we were able to come together and address it as a problem we both face. Thus when we find ourselves going through a dry spell, we can come together and say ‘‘Damn this issue!’’ instead of ‘‘Damn you!’’ or ‘‘Damn me!’’
We have a very physically affectionate relationship in all other regards, very cuddly and close in a lot of ways. Lots of hugging and kissing and flirting. I do feel that touching and canoodling is necessary for a good relationship, and I would struggle to be in one where I could not touch my partner.
I consider this a rather painful circumstance, but not anything that significantly impacts the quality of my marriage. And he would agree. In fact, he gets kind of pissed off when I start the whole ‘‘I’m sooooorrry I’m not a better wife’’ stuff. He doesn’t blame me, he doesn’t resent me, he doesn’t push me, he just loves me.
Male–I would stay, no matter what.
Believe it or not, I don’t find sex to be the panacea that most others do.
I’d stay with Mig, no doubt about it. I’d be more than happy to stay. I’ve had more than enough sex to keep me satisfied in my life. I don’t even care about it anymore.
I can’t say Mig would stay though. I doubt he would unless it was physically impossible for me.
I won’t be in another relationship without sex. Did that for 10 years. If my current wife couldn’t have sex, I’m sure she’d suggest I get it elsewhere, and I’m pretty sure I’d stay under those circumstances. (And yes, I’d suggest the same for her if the roles were reversed)
The way I look at it, no relationship is perfect. Every one has some cross to bear, some part where things just don’t quite work out to be ideal. Maybe for some it’s having to deal with a partner with a high-demand career, maybe for others it’s having to deal with a mother-in-law who hates your guts. I just view this as the inevitable cross we have to bear – the part of our relationship that’s not ideal. That’s just the way life is. We don’t make it out to be more than it is but we don’t sugar-coat the reality either.
I voted leave no matter what, since mess around with other people is not given as an option. There are lots of ways to do it besides the normal one, way which even injured people can participate in. An absolute refusal to be interested would drive a relationship right over the edge in short order.
I’m assuming here the conditions of the OP, that this was for more or less over. There are periods of time in which things don’t work out - like long trips and childbirth and young kids. Going without during them is no problem.
My wife and I have had this discussion, inspired by the frequent no-sex letters in Dear Abby, and we’re on the same page.
I understand that your situation sucks, Olive. But sex is too important to me. If I were with a woman who was perfect for me and I’d been with her for years and suddenly she couldn’t have sex anymore but was willing to let me get it elsewhere I’d stay with her.
If I were paralyzed and couldn’t have sex anymore I would not be able to handle the woman I love fucking another man. That’s just how it is. I wouldn’t lie about that when it came to having that discussion with my hypothetically paralyzed girlfriend.
I would rather be single than deal with what that would do to me.
I wasn’t under the impression that the OP was excluding all affection – just sex. Of course, we can define sex a number of ways, but I choose to see it as a lack of intercourse for this discussion.
Well he said “Sorry; I should have defined that better. Let’s say. . .nothing beyond kissing and cuddles” as the definition of no sex. If the guy were injured, but could make some magic happen in another way, I’d stick around if I really loved him.
Nm.
I wouldn’t leave right away. If I really loved the person, I’d start cheating. I know that sounds weird, but since I can’t not have sex, I need to either get it from somewhere else and stay with my partner, or I need to get it from somewhere else and leave my partner. I figure that the first option would be what she’d want.
Mind you, I’m only doing this because you said we’re married or together for a long time. If it was a new relationship, I’d just drop her right from the start.
I LOL’d at this.
It took my reading this for me to start LOLing.
I respect that. I’m sure there is some conceivable relationship somewhere where ‘‘spends too much time at work’’ would be a deal-breaker too. Some people might not like your double-standard, but, then again, those people are free to not have a relationship with you. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.
Not only that, but there is concrete scientific evidence that indicates that the quality of most relationships is significantly affected by lack of sex. It’s a perfectly rational thing to value, and is a key facilitator of that bonding chemical oxytocin.
Who knows? If I had a normal sex life, maybe I’d be in the ‘‘absolutely must have’’ category myself. Sometimes experiences change your priorities whether consciously or not. I can only say that for me in my relationship, we’ve learned to adapt. And I do consider myself very fortunate to be with someone as understanding as my husband.
ETA: However, I do want to stress, he DID know what he was getting into at the start of the relationship. He was very aware and still very willing to make the commitment. So that’s slightly different than the scenario the OP is envisioning.
I’ve been in a few (read: like one and a half :P) relationships where things were pseudo-open. As in, I could see other girls but they couldn’t see other guys. I never forced this type of relationship on anyone but I’ve gotten some outraged responses from people I’ve told this to. My response is always the same: “You’re right, it is a double standard. But so’s not wanting my girlfriend to fuck me with a strap-on.”
Sex is important to me. But there are so many other aspects I would prioritize more - interests that are of an oddball sort (like bicycling to a special spot in the wilderness just to see some unusual wildflowers, for example) and as a person who isn’t into sooo many things that the mainstream seems to be (like nascar, cigarettes, tattooing, harleys, horses, going to bars and clubs) I could go without the sex to be able to connect with someone on other levels.
The lady friend I have now just turned 60 (I am 47) and she isn’t as interested in sex as she used to be when a lot younger. But it’s great just to hang out together since there’s a high level of mutual understanding on many various topics - the ability to discuss issues, (agreeing most of the time but also able to agree to disagree without getting too pissed off at each other) - have similar interests in movies, cooking, nature scene.
And she even owned her own kayak before we met! Now how cool is that?!
It’s all about compromise for me. And as much as I miss some things that I have experienced in my life, there are just too many other things I would prefer to connect on that have been difficult to find.
After twenty years and three kids I’d stay for almost anything short of just “I don’t wanna.”
Ew. 
Oh, cut it out.
20 years old and he thinks he knows everything. Why, it’s almost cute. Now get off my lawn, you whippersnapper.