I think you have to take the context into account here though. Lila was interviewing a woman who had six kids in seven years with an NFP failure already who had developed serious health problems after delivering multiple 10+ pound babies. The Mom was saying she and her husband abstained for six months after her sixth because of the previous NFP failure. The Mom talked about how hard this was for both of them and how much they love physical intimacy and that it was made harder by people asking how she was satisfying her husband if they were abstaining. That’s why Lila said sex isn’t a *need*.
I can appreciate why it’s frustrating for men to hear this or feel like their sexuality is maligned everywhere, but that’s really not what Lila was doing. Many women feel pressure and fear around postpartum sex because of this cultural messaging (and sometimes religious messaging) that their husbands will “get it from somewhere else” if they don’t do enough, soon enough. I have a nurse friend said this is a common problem she sees OFTEN and that women physically suffer because they think they can’t say no. That’s really tough to deal with if you’re recovering from many pregnancies close together and raising a lot of little kids already.
I think the way Lila discusses this makes more sense from the female perspective because I think it’s hard for men to understand how young girls are when our culture starts telling them they need to be sexually available at all times to “keep” a man. Just as a woman can’t understand the male sex drive, a man can’t understand how vulnerable a woman is when she has just given birth.
"It's not about need in any utilitarian sense, but about desire for the beloved. This desire reflects something higher and more beautiful than mere biological drive or pleasure-seeking."
I get what the author of this piece is saying here, but you raise a very important point. The outcomes of sex and our natural bodily hormones are a very different experience for a wife as opposed to a husband. I get "desire for the beloved" but many husbands forget "desire for the beloved's good." Sometimes that means a lot of sacrifice of his desire for the sexual act to honor what is best for his wife in terms of her physical well-being.
Pregnancy, labor, delivery, and nursing is a long, physically demanding process for the wife for each child she bears. However, many husbands still pressure their wife for sex long before her body is recovered. Also without regard for her lack of regular sleep and the demands of nursing. Her body internally is always working hard to produce milk which takes a lot of energy, even if it looks like she appears to just sit there relaxing while the baby nurses. To love your wife for her sake is to really take the time to understand what is happening inside her body, not just what you see on the outside. Peri-menopause and menopause are also physically rough for women. Everything might look fine from the outside but inside is a cascade of physical changes (not just hot flashes) that the husband should make room for despite his desire.
Christ laid down His life for His Bride, the Church. Husbands should be looking beyond their desire for their wife and take into account what is good for her sake. It means respecting the physical make-up of their wives as God made them. It means considering the potential of what they are asking of her with each sex act.
A principle of the Cross is that to love is to suffer. Wives are intimately acquainted with this fact due to their biology. Men suffer differently in that they have to sacrifice the consummation of their constant biological desire out of deference to their wife's biology and what would be good for her. Women carry the bigger burden of the sexual act. Men's burden is to look beyond himself to consider deeply and ask himself 'How is my wife is today?" He should observe her and listen to her talk about her day. If she seems tired, distressed, mentions needing a break, mentions bodily symptoms that are bothering her, then he should make the determination on his own to not request sex for her sake. He shouldn't give her the additional burden of gatekeeping which causes feelings of unnecessary guilt about her own bodily processes. She longs for her husband to notice and care for her without having to give and justify a "not tonight."
I think many men go into marriage very excited about having access to what they think will be unlimited amounts of sex and are not prepared for the reality of the amount of sacrifice of their desires that will be required of them. It's the full nature of the reality of our sexuality, men's and women's together, as God made it. Suffering is a big part of loving. When we fight that reality instead of surrending to it we increase the suffering all the more.
Exactly this! Before I converted to Catholicism, I saw so many people and resources outright say “men need sex” as a way to basically tell women that they either have sex or their husbands will find satisfaction elsewhere. They describe it as a physical need and discuss it in ways that imply men truly have little control over it. “Men don’t need sex” isn’t a response from women who simply aren’t being clear with their words, it’s a response to people who are literally saying “men need sex!” The men saying “well obviously we all know men don’t need sex like they need water” are missing the vast amount of people who very heavily imply, if not outright state, that men need sex in an uncontrollable way.
I appreciate your take on this topic, though I, personally, felt the comments were completely missing the point made by the women on the podcast. Ultimately, this is a lot of finger pointing like in the garden of Eden. "It's the man's fault" or "it's the woman's fault"...this won't create thriving marriages!! Solid prayer lives (individually and as a couple) and good communication would solve these issues. (Along with assuming that your spouse always desires what's best for you, rather than assuming they are evil as you mentioned in this post.)
There's a lot we don't need. Why are we in a race to achieve the absolute bare minimum to technically not die? "What's the least I can do and still technically meet my partners needs?" Is a hell of a way to build a marriage.
This is a great piece. Also I think you're right with the implicit point that perhaps what people are really triggered about is the political imbalance of women telling men how to feel VS men telling women how to feel.
Ironically, that male-female societal conflict itself represents a macrocosm of the destructive, "you go first" micro-level male-female relationship dynamic.
When people argue whether men “need” sex, they often slip into materialist categories: survival vs. pleasure.
But in the older vision of the world, "yearning" was not just animal drive but a meeting of heaven and earth - meaning embodied in matter.
Adam "knowing" Eve isn’t just a polite way to avoid saying what really happened.
It’s because the act itself IS knowing. The sexual union is a fusion of meaning and matter, where physical connection becomes the revelation of purpose.
Call it co-incidence I saw this video yesterday .. A lot insights on Catholic Marriage and the difference in the minds of man and woman learnt .. see link below https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR8zyrLuYOk
I think you misunderstand the statement. It is a correct and CLEAR statement. Men do not need sex. If they did, God would not require sex to be restricted to marriage. Priestly celibacy would not ever be required. We clearly don’t need sex to survive. And in marriage, we do not need sex is correct. Obviously there is nuance and caveats to that. A thriving marriage as you correctly point out needs sex to thrive. But that is different. You are looking at the WHOLE of a marriage, and how intimacy is needed in said marriage. Sex helps build intimacy (but is not the only factor). But in the marriage, sex cannot always be. A wife who is pregnant cannot have sex. A wife bedridden with cancer in a hospital can’t have sex. There will be times, even long periods of time outside of contexts like fasting and prayer where sex may not happen. The man does not need sex in marriage everyday or every single moment. That is the point. In EVERY individual moments, men don’t need sex. Not to survive, and not to thrive. That is a universal and factual truth. That does not mean women can reject sex for reasons outside of obvious circumstances like pregnancy or illness, or temporary times of prayer. They definitely shouldn’t use rejection as a way to spite her husband. That is unbiblical and wicked behavior. No one is advocating for sexless marriage. We are making the obvious point that NO MAN NEEDS SEX. Giving your husband what is promised and expected in marriage and builds intimacy is required. That isn’t being questioned.
Sex and emotional intimacy/affection is comparing apples and oranges dude. EVERYBODY needs emotional intimacy. Not everyone needs sex. Maybe give actual substance to why you disagree with anything I said. Quote something I said and say why you disagree. Otherwise, I am saying I like apples, and you are saying apples are bad because oranges are sweet. You are not actually addressing what is said by me. You give a strange "whataboutism" that isn't even equivalent.
No disagreement but you’re making statements that the women in the podcast did not make or assert.
No issue… But that’s not what the women were stating, which is an issue.
What they were stating was significantly more along the lines of my prior comment… **doing so while cough cough, wink wink @ Mike Schmitz.. rather interesting to say the least**
Not whataboutism, and not apples oranges.
Convo was as ludicrous as it would be men having that convo about women “needs” that aren’t REALLY needs.
They do not need to outright say what I said. It is obvious what Lila meant. Men do not need sex.
The whole reason the post was made was because Lila said men don't need sex. And they don't. That is obvious.
They were not stating in the lines of your prior comment. And your comment is also flat out wrong. All people do need emotional intimacy. No one needs sex. Men do not need sex. Women do need emotional intimacy.
So, it is apples and oranges, as the statement that men do not need sex is clearly true, and the statement women do not need emotional intimacy is clearly false.
The convo was not ludicrous. Also, the statement "women need emotional intimacy" is also true of the opposite sex "men need emotional intimacy." Both need it. If we want a true equivalent statement, it would be like men saying women do not need sex. And I hear men speak about OF models, the evils of porn, or women's modesty all the time. Truth is truth. Maybe it is uncomfortable to hear a man speak on women's modesty. But truth is truth. And since men and women interact with each other in these ways on a regular basis, these are important topics to discuss
No women don’t need emotional intimacy from their husband.
There are plenty of women who are unmarried, widow, etc., and do not see receive this emotional intimacy.
Thus married women also don’t need it to survive. The same way of unmarried men and married men don’t need sex.
But the value in older women talking about how men don’t need sex, again WHILE IN THE SAME BREATH quasi-sexualizing a priest… brings little to no value.
The same way, a bunch of older men sitting around talking about how women really don’t need emotional intimacy, and there are plenty of women who don’t receive it and survive… brings little value and would be shot down immediately.
Your assertion that men don’t need sex, but women need emotional intimacy as being truth is a strawman.
You can crumble that one up in a bowl and toss it. Knife cuts both ways.
No, it wouldn’t be like women don’t need sex.
The desires of men and women are very different… If you don’t understand this, we’ve got some work to do before even having this conversation lol.
First off, one reply is enough. I will not be replying to three different threads, so if you want me to actually reply to what is said, you need to fit it in one thread. With that said, I will only be replying to your main one as that is where the most content is.
Women do need emotional intimacy. They need it from their husbands. But they also need this in general. Men need it in general. Being married is irrelevant.
Women can survive without receiving emotional intimacy from a spouse. But they cannot survive without emotional intimacy. We see this with Adam in the garden being alone, and God creates Eve. No one is meant to be alone. We need emotional intimacy in all of our relationships, whether it be father, mother, brother, sister, friend, spouse, child, etc. Try looking at a child who does not receive emotional intimacy from their parents and tell me they don't need emotional intimacy. It is not the same as men not needing sex in general, as we need emotional intimacy in general as a human species to thrive and survive. We need this in all of our relationships constantly. Sex is not needed constantly by men, married or not. Apples and oranges.
I don't know what you are talking about with sexualizing a priest, but that is not relevant to this discussion, so I have no need to address that. I am here to address the claim "men do not need sex." It also brings value to the women listening to the podcast, as it is primarily targeted towards women.
Men saying women do not need emotional intimacy is just flat out wrong, so it is not the same. The reason people would be correctly upset at these so-called men, including me as a male, is because the statement just is not true. It is beyond survival. It is the ability to be a healthy and functioning human being. Men do not need to have sex to do this.
I am not sure if you know what a straw man is, as it is not clear to me how it is. Me stating two true facts is not a straw man, as those are my beliefs. I am not misrepresenting a view to make it easy to refute. If you are going to claim a fallacy, you must show why it is that fallacy. But you clearly do not know what it means, as apparently me stating two facts I believe is a straw man?
It does not cut both ways. We as people need emotional intimacy in all of our close relationships to thrive. If men needed sex, they would need to have sex with their spouse every time they see them. Emotional intimacy is necessary every time you see your spouse, or for any deep friendship or familial bond. Apples and oranges.
It is like "women don't need sex." It is the same.
The desires of men and women are not relevant to this discussion. I understand the differences in men and women. There are women with higher sex drives that match many males I know, and males who have lower sex drives. So, even then with sex there is a lot of nuance. I would say a woman with a higher sex drive does not need sex in the same way a general male does not need sex. The desires of men are not relevant. The husband is not entitled to sex whenever his penis gets the itch, forgive my boldness. He does not need sex in every single moment he sees his wife. If that hurts your feelings, then I am sorry. Yet you said you agreed with everything I said in my original response, so I am not sure why you are arguing like this. Men do not need sex. That is a fact. They do not need it to survive, they don't even need it to thrive emotionally or in any other sense. Marriages for BOTH sides, for male AND FEMALE should have sex together, as to be married and not have sex EVER would be unhealthy. Yet no one, not Lila or I are advocating that women and men never have sex in marriage. In the individual moments, the man does not need sex. The woman does not need sex. However, the married couple as a group does need to have sex in the years of their marriage to thrive and be healthy. That is for the health and intimacy of the couple.
I think you have to take the context into account here though. Lila was interviewing a woman who had six kids in seven years with an NFP failure already who had developed serious health problems after delivering multiple 10+ pound babies. The Mom was saying she and her husband abstained for six months after her sixth because of the previous NFP failure. The Mom talked about how hard this was for both of them and how much they love physical intimacy and that it was made harder by people asking how she was satisfying her husband if they were abstaining. That’s why Lila said sex isn’t a *need*.
I can appreciate why it’s frustrating for men to hear this or feel like their sexuality is maligned everywhere, but that’s really not what Lila was doing. Many women feel pressure and fear around postpartum sex because of this cultural messaging (and sometimes religious messaging) that their husbands will “get it from somewhere else” if they don’t do enough, soon enough. I have a nurse friend said this is a common problem she sees OFTEN and that women physically suffer because they think they can’t say no. That’s really tough to deal with if you’re recovering from many pregnancies close together and raising a lot of little kids already.
I think the way Lila discusses this makes more sense from the female perspective because I think it’s hard for men to understand how young girls are when our culture starts telling them they need to be sexually available at all times to “keep” a man. Just as a woman can’t understand the male sex drive, a man can’t understand how vulnerable a woman is when she has just given birth.
"It's not about need in any utilitarian sense, but about desire for the beloved. This desire reflects something higher and more beautiful than mere biological drive or pleasure-seeking."
I get what the author of this piece is saying here, but you raise a very important point. The outcomes of sex and our natural bodily hormones are a very different experience for a wife as opposed to a husband. I get "desire for the beloved" but many husbands forget "desire for the beloved's good." Sometimes that means a lot of sacrifice of his desire for the sexual act to honor what is best for his wife in terms of her physical well-being.
Pregnancy, labor, delivery, and nursing is a long, physically demanding process for the wife for each child she bears. However, many husbands still pressure their wife for sex long before her body is recovered. Also without regard for her lack of regular sleep and the demands of nursing. Her body internally is always working hard to produce milk which takes a lot of energy, even if it looks like she appears to just sit there relaxing while the baby nurses. To love your wife for her sake is to really take the time to understand what is happening inside her body, not just what you see on the outside. Peri-menopause and menopause are also physically rough for women. Everything might look fine from the outside but inside is a cascade of physical changes (not just hot flashes) that the husband should make room for despite his desire.
Christ laid down His life for His Bride, the Church. Husbands should be looking beyond their desire for their wife and take into account what is good for her sake. It means respecting the physical make-up of their wives as God made them. It means considering the potential of what they are asking of her with each sex act.
A principle of the Cross is that to love is to suffer. Wives are intimately acquainted with this fact due to their biology. Men suffer differently in that they have to sacrifice the consummation of their constant biological desire out of deference to their wife's biology and what would be good for her. Women carry the bigger burden of the sexual act. Men's burden is to look beyond himself to consider deeply and ask himself 'How is my wife is today?" He should observe her and listen to her talk about her day. If she seems tired, distressed, mentions needing a break, mentions bodily symptoms that are bothering her, then he should make the determination on his own to not request sex for her sake. He shouldn't give her the additional burden of gatekeeping which causes feelings of unnecessary guilt about her own bodily processes. She longs for her husband to notice and care for her without having to give and justify a "not tonight."
I think many men go into marriage very excited about having access to what they think will be unlimited amounts of sex and are not prepared for the reality of the amount of sacrifice of their desires that will be required of them. It's the full nature of the reality of our sexuality, men's and women's together, as God made it. Suffering is a big part of loving. When we fight that reality instead of surrending to it we increase the suffering all the more.
Exactly this! Before I converted to Catholicism, I saw so many people and resources outright say “men need sex” as a way to basically tell women that they either have sex or their husbands will find satisfaction elsewhere. They describe it as a physical need and discuss it in ways that imply men truly have little control over it. “Men don’t need sex” isn’t a response from women who simply aren’t being clear with their words, it’s a response to people who are literally saying “men need sex!” The men saying “well obviously we all know men don’t need sex like they need water” are missing the vast amount of people who very heavily imply, if not outright state, that men need sex in an uncontrollable way.
Brilliant work, deeply insightful for both men and women. Nice to see the theology of the body applied to a real-world issue, as it can and should be.
Thanks! I almost wrote a book on this topic but I don’t think it was fleshed out enough. Maybe one day haha
Sounds interesting! I actually wrote an article related to this topic for Missio Dei which you might enjoy: https://www.missiodeicatholic.org/p/the-gift-of-shame-rediscovering-dignity?r=yrfw6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I appreciate your take on this topic, though I, personally, felt the comments were completely missing the point made by the women on the podcast. Ultimately, this is a lot of finger pointing like in the garden of Eden. "It's the man's fault" or "it's the woman's fault"...this won't create thriving marriages!! Solid prayer lives (individually and as a couple) and good communication would solve these issues. (Along with assuming that your spouse always desires what's best for you, rather than assuming they are evil as you mentioned in this post.)
I agree the comments were being unfair. But I get why they were so emotionally charged
There's a lot we don't need. Why are we in a race to achieve the absolute bare minimum to technically not die? "What's the least I can do and still technically meet my partners needs?" Is a hell of a way to build a marriage.
This is a great piece. Also I think you're right with the implicit point that perhaps what people are really triggered about is the political imbalance of women telling men how to feel VS men telling women how to feel.
Ironically, that male-female societal conflict itself represents a macrocosm of the destructive, "you go first" micro-level male-female relationship dynamic.
Earned yourself a subscriber. Brilliant
This take doesn’t address the obvious opposite that women also like & need sex. Like if a man has sex, by extension, a woman is also having sex
When people argue whether men “need” sex, they often slip into materialist categories: survival vs. pleasure.
But in the older vision of the world, "yearning" was not just animal drive but a meeting of heaven and earth - meaning embodied in matter.
Adam "knowing" Eve isn’t just a polite way to avoid saying what really happened.
It’s because the act itself IS knowing. The sexual union is a fusion of meaning and matter, where physical connection becomes the revelation of purpose.
Call it co-incidence I saw this video yesterday .. A lot insights on Catholic Marriage and the difference in the minds of man and woman learnt .. see link below https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR8zyrLuYOk
I think you misunderstand the statement. It is a correct and CLEAR statement. Men do not need sex. If they did, God would not require sex to be restricted to marriage. Priestly celibacy would not ever be required. We clearly don’t need sex to survive. And in marriage, we do not need sex is correct. Obviously there is nuance and caveats to that. A thriving marriage as you correctly point out needs sex to thrive. But that is different. You are looking at the WHOLE of a marriage, and how intimacy is needed in said marriage. Sex helps build intimacy (but is not the only factor). But in the marriage, sex cannot always be. A wife who is pregnant cannot have sex. A wife bedridden with cancer in a hospital can’t have sex. There will be times, even long periods of time outside of contexts like fasting and prayer where sex may not happen. The man does not need sex in marriage everyday or every single moment. That is the point. In EVERY individual moments, men don’t need sex. Not to survive, and not to thrive. That is a universal and factual truth. That does not mean women can reject sex for reasons outside of obvious circumstances like pregnancy or illness, or temporary times of prayer. They definitely shouldn’t use rejection as a way to spite her husband. That is unbiblical and wicked behavior. No one is advocating for sexless marriage. We are making the obvious point that NO MAN NEEDS SEX. Giving your husband what is promised and expected in marriage and builds intimacy is required. That isn’t being questioned.
Completely, just like women dont need emotional intimacy/affection.
I just cant seem to find the podcast where men sit around talking about that.... im sure it did great numbers
Sex and emotional intimacy/affection is comparing apples and oranges dude. EVERYBODY needs emotional intimacy. Not everyone needs sex. Maybe give actual substance to why you disagree with anything I said. Quote something I said and say why you disagree. Otherwise, I am saying I like apples, and you are saying apples are bad because oranges are sweet. You are not actually addressing what is said by me. You give a strange "whataboutism" that isn't even equivalent.
No disagreement but you’re making statements that the women in the podcast did not make or assert.
No issue… But that’s not what the women were stating, which is an issue.
What they were stating was significantly more along the lines of my prior comment… **doing so while cough cough, wink wink @ Mike Schmitz.. rather interesting to say the least**
Not whataboutism, and not apples oranges.
Convo was as ludicrous as it would be men having that convo about women “needs” that aren’t REALLY needs.
They do not need to outright say what I said. It is obvious what Lila meant. Men do not need sex.
The whole reason the post was made was because Lila said men don't need sex. And they don't. That is obvious.
They were not stating in the lines of your prior comment. And your comment is also flat out wrong. All people do need emotional intimacy. No one needs sex. Men do not need sex. Women do need emotional intimacy.
So, it is apples and oranges, as the statement that men do not need sex is clearly true, and the statement women do not need emotional intimacy is clearly false.
The convo was not ludicrous. Also, the statement "women need emotional intimacy" is also true of the opposite sex "men need emotional intimacy." Both need it. If we want a true equivalent statement, it would be like men saying women do not need sex. And I hear men speak about OF models, the evils of porn, or women's modesty all the time. Truth is truth. Maybe it is uncomfortable to hear a man speak on women's modesty. But truth is truth. And since men and women interact with each other in these ways on a regular basis, these are important topics to discuss
No women don’t need emotional intimacy from their husband.
There are plenty of women who are unmarried, widow, etc., and do not see receive this emotional intimacy.
Thus married women also don’t need it to survive. The same way of unmarried men and married men don’t need sex.
But the value in older women talking about how men don’t need sex, again WHILE IN THE SAME BREATH quasi-sexualizing a priest… brings little to no value.
The same way, a bunch of older men sitting around talking about how women really don’t need emotional intimacy, and there are plenty of women who don’t receive it and survive… brings little value and would be shot down immediately.
Your assertion that men don’t need sex, but women need emotional intimacy as being truth is a strawman.
You can crumble that one up in a bowl and toss it. Knife cuts both ways.
No, it wouldn’t be like women don’t need sex.
The desires of men and women are very different… If you don’t understand this, we’ve got some work to do before even having this conversation lol.
Good luck
First off, one reply is enough. I will not be replying to three different threads, so if you want me to actually reply to what is said, you need to fit it in one thread. With that said, I will only be replying to your main one as that is where the most content is.
Women do need emotional intimacy. They need it from their husbands. But they also need this in general. Men need it in general. Being married is irrelevant.
Women can survive without receiving emotional intimacy from a spouse. But they cannot survive without emotional intimacy. We see this with Adam in the garden being alone, and God creates Eve. No one is meant to be alone. We need emotional intimacy in all of our relationships, whether it be father, mother, brother, sister, friend, spouse, child, etc. Try looking at a child who does not receive emotional intimacy from their parents and tell me they don't need emotional intimacy. It is not the same as men not needing sex in general, as we need emotional intimacy in general as a human species to thrive and survive. We need this in all of our relationships constantly. Sex is not needed constantly by men, married or not. Apples and oranges.
I don't know what you are talking about with sexualizing a priest, but that is not relevant to this discussion, so I have no need to address that. I am here to address the claim "men do not need sex." It also brings value to the women listening to the podcast, as it is primarily targeted towards women.
Men saying women do not need emotional intimacy is just flat out wrong, so it is not the same. The reason people would be correctly upset at these so-called men, including me as a male, is because the statement just is not true. It is beyond survival. It is the ability to be a healthy and functioning human being. Men do not need to have sex to do this.
I am not sure if you know what a straw man is, as it is not clear to me how it is. Me stating two true facts is not a straw man, as those are my beliefs. I am not misrepresenting a view to make it easy to refute. If you are going to claim a fallacy, you must show why it is that fallacy. But you clearly do not know what it means, as apparently me stating two facts I believe is a straw man?
It does not cut both ways. We as people need emotional intimacy in all of our close relationships to thrive. If men needed sex, they would need to have sex with their spouse every time they see them. Emotional intimacy is necessary every time you see your spouse, or for any deep friendship or familial bond. Apples and oranges.
It is like "women don't need sex." It is the same.
The desires of men and women are not relevant to this discussion. I understand the differences in men and women. There are women with higher sex drives that match many males I know, and males who have lower sex drives. So, even then with sex there is a lot of nuance. I would say a woman with a higher sex drive does not need sex in the same way a general male does not need sex. The desires of men are not relevant. The husband is not entitled to sex whenever his penis gets the itch, forgive my boldness. He does not need sex in every single moment he sees his wife. If that hurts your feelings, then I am sorry. Yet you said you agreed with everything I said in my original response, so I am not sure why you are arguing like this. Men do not need sex. That is a fact. They do not need it to survive, they don't even need it to thrive emotionally or in any other sense. Marriages for BOTH sides, for male AND FEMALE should have sex together, as to be married and not have sex EVER would be unhealthy. Yet no one, not Lila or I are advocating that women and men never have sex in marriage. In the individual moments, the man does not need sex. The woman does not need sex. However, the married couple as a group does need to have sex in the years of their marriage to thrive and be healthy. That is for the health and intimacy of the couple.
“it would be like saying women also don’t need sex…”
Go ahead and go to a couples counselor and ask them what men’s/women most complain about in their relationship… guarantee you it’s not the same thing
Excellent!