Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just glanced at a thread about divorces and lack of sex being a main reason. And so I wonder:
Does a lack of chemistry/interest in the relationship lead to less sex? Or does a lack of sex (for whatever reason, libido, time, distance) lead to a downward spiral in the relationship?
Obviously sex can be a huge make it or break it for a relationship (I realize this isn't true for everyone). Which situation do you think would be worse?
The men might not agree but the bond has to be there-ie, the interest and chemistry - before the sex. If you only talk to your wife when you need food or sex, then don't be surprised if you are left out in the cold. I think quite a lot of INTROVERTED men are like that, thinking that they are good providers and that is all that matters (as if women themselves never worked).
The men might not agree but the bond has to be there-ie, the interest and chemistry - before the sex. If you only talk to your wife when you need food or sex, then don't be surprised if you are left out in the cold. I think quite a lot of INTROVERTED men are like that, thinking that they are good providers and that is all that matters (as if women themselves never worked).
Got to agree Interest and chemistry for women, or the sex ain't happening. And most men aren't interested in sticking with a relationshipo if the sex isn't happening!
Men see the lack of sex as the point where the relationship is in trouble. Women see it when the men stops being respectful and considerate. Men will leave or stray when sex is gone, since they might assume the woman is having sex with someone else. But many won't seek a divorce if there are finances involved, and he is materialistic.
I agree with temptation001.
The OP asked which was worse? ... lack (or loss) of chemistry or lack of sex..
I think it's more sad to find the chemistry has been lost. ...and that will lead to a lack of sex. Assuming there was chemisty (or there would have been no relationship), at some point early on things were good and then the relationship slowly dies = It would be a sad thing to loose the chemisty.
I think there r a lot of reason couples stop having sex. Work... for example being too busy with careers and conflicting schedules add kids into the mix and their needs... It is easy to be too tired for sex. Now once there is no sex or intimate relations on some level it is easier for the relationship to break down and couples grow apart. Marriage is more than sex. It's a lot of really big things, small things, and other loving things too. Statistically money is a bigger factor in divorce or separation than sex - so I have read...
Lack of chemistry/interest will lead to less sex. That is usually the beginning of the downward spiral. But I would have to consider the cause of the lack of interest. Medical issues are far different than just being complacent and neglecting your partner. Then you have those who lose interest with good reason - a whole other set of issues to overcome along with a decision as to whether or not it's even worth it.
swmrbird: It's probably a vicious cycle. Small resentments build up and cause a drop in the amount of sexual activity, which in turn deepens the resentment and creates another major area of tension.
I would say love making plays a 80% factor in the relationship, followed by quickies at 10%, fondling and foreplay at 5% and kissing & cuddling at 5% also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.