Here’s the situation: You’re married. At some point, your wife tells you — not negotiable — that she’ll never do anal sex with you again. That’s it. Doesn’t matter if it was part of the sexual repertoire before, or even a stated expectation. She’s just “not into it anymore.”

So, at what point has she broken the marriage pact? Isn’t part of the deal of marriage supposed to be sexual access, within reason? (Don’t start with the “just be happy with what you get” cope; there’s always a line somewhere.)

Divorce is not an option you want: it’s financially and emotionally devastating for both sides and the kids. You still care about your wife, you still want to stay married, but you’re now permanently sexually frustrated because she unilaterally changed the rules.

So, why is cheating the less immoral option here? Is it really more unethical to quietly fulfill your needs elsewhere (with zero intention to get caught, no desire to destroy the family), than to start the slow death spiral of resentment or to blow everything up via divorce? What’s the actual moral infraction here — the infidelity, or the breach of contract?

Is there any honest, non-feelgood answer to this? If you’re being denied, is cheating not the rational path?

Let’s hear the philosophical takes. No moral grandstanding, please — you’d do it too if you were honest.

there's no secret answer to the question you are looking for, more like an uncomfortable truth waiting to be revealed to the both of you, you just need to make a decision and learn to accept the consequences

Generally speaking, if someone breaches a contract and you don’t claim your rights (ie initiate a court proceeding to secure some remedy, and here that would be divorce) then you have acquiesced to their unilatr amendment of the agreement. her refusal to engage in sodomy (which under public policy in the entire USA until ~1970 could not have been part of the marriage contract anyway, but I understand that times have changed) isn’t breach anymore. That you continue to represent that the marriage continues under her unilateral amendment while breaching it yourself means that you are the only party in breach. She has clearly articulated her position and you have fraudulently represented that you acquiesced.

you sound mentally underage

>>24504120
so you have to explicitly say 'no butt sex? then imma hit thailand'?

>>24504120
You're being a bit too technical, anon. Divorce is a nuclear option: it ruins everyone, especially kids, and often leaves both partners worse off. But just rolling over and “accepting” it means one partner’s needs are permanently, totally neglected. How is that not a betrayal too? If you’re supposed to be in a partnership but only one side gets to draw hard lines, the other is forced into an impossible choice: nuke the marriage or suffer in silence for life.

In that context, cheating—if it’s done purely to fulfill a need that’s been withdrawn, without intent to blow up the family—becomes the most rational and actually least destructive option. You’re not looking for new love, not trying to leave; you’re patching a hole the other person made, while keeping the family and everything else intact. Is it “fraudulent”? Maybe technically, but so is pretending everything’s fine while resenting your spouse on the inside. At least with cheating, nobody else is hurt unless you get caught, and the primary partnership survives.

The real world isn’t a contract dispute court. It’s people trying to live with shifting desires, aging bodies, changing minds. Sometimes the only way to save the bigger picture is to break a rule in secret. Cheating, in this scenario, isn’t the “immoral” move. If anything, it’s the path that leaves the least collateral damage, and anyone pretending they’d happily torch their entire life for the sake of “integrity” probably hasn’t faced the actual dilemma.

I already have a few secret habits I keep from my loved ones that help me stay happy and grounded, that they wouldn't like if they knew; I think many of us do. If my wife knew I spend the days she is with her family smoking weed and watching homemade interracial anal porn, she would blow up at me. But she doesn't know, and I can be temporarily content with my no-anal marriage.

What a disgusting thread.

Marriage is about compromise and mutual support, not ‘getting everything I want, all the time’. If that’s what you want, don’t get married and spend the money on whores.

>>24504094 (OP)
>sexual access, within reason?
Anal sex lies outside reason

>>24504212
Exactly. I like to reenact that Insex scene where they tie Tia Ling to the spreader bars and put a plastic bag on her head and piss in the bag until she’s forced to drink it and it would be a breach of her marriage vows if my wife were to refuse

>>24504094 (OP)
>>24504154
This is a discussion you should be having with your wife. Explain that buttsex is a non-negotiable requirement for you, and that divorce is an option you'd rather not pursue for the reasons you've stated. The most expedient options here are either an open marriage or for her to put out even though she'd rather not. If those don't work for her, maybe she might have another suggestion, and if not then there's always the option of a friendly divorce.

Going behind her back is exactly the way to cause the explosive, bitter divorce you say you want to avoid.

sex addicts have a very strange world view
I cannot imagine a circumstance where I evaluate a person worthy of my entire devotion and respect, and commit my entire being to them for the rest of my life, then abandon that commitment because they won't let me fuck them in the ass

>>24504295
It's not just sex addicts, it's the majority of people. The overwhelming majority of people get married out of convenience and not because they feel anything in particular toward their partner. In the same way, basically everyone has children either accidentally or for selfish reasons and not because they feel any sort of empathy for their potential future children.

>>24504094 (OP)
Women should just not have a decision whether sex is going to happen or not. This is not up for debate.

Stop being a degenerate sodomite and repent. This sort of transactional thinking precludes having a good marriage in the first place BTW.

Genuinely do not understand what male libido is like. Is it really such suffering to not be able to stick your dick where you want to?

>>24504277
this deceptive comment is trying to trick you into thinking that the worst case scenario is just a friendly divorce if you dont cheat. that aint true

>>24504419
Suffering? No. But men like to conquer and another hole pounded out provides that feeling.

cheating is too messy you should patronise prostitutes

>>24504464
Huh. So it's less about the literal physical sexual gratification and more of an intrinsic self-fulfillment kind of thing? I guess that makes sense... I feel like when women cheat it's usually out of some notion of wanting to feel desired and cared for. I've never understood the necessity of sex for men (to the point of married men scratching the itch by cheating with prostitutes) but can understand it a bit more if it's just the flip side of the coin of the biological drive they need to feel whole..?

>>24504094 (OP)
anal sex was illegal when marriage was an enforceable contract, and punishable by death when the christian conception of it started. your wife doesn't owe you anal you fucking degenerate faggot. also your dick doesn't go there and it's horrible for your wifes health. i think you should divorce her just so you're out of her life.

>>24504094 (OP)
This belongs on /adv/ not /lit/

>>24504419
Think of it this way: if you stop masturbating and having sex, you start dreaming about it and cumming in your sleep. That's how strong the libido is.

>>24504094 (OP)
youre honestly retarded for even asking this. how did you even manage to get married in the first place? your wife should have picked better.

>>24504295
Most men don't love their wives
They just see them as a sex object they can use as a free food dispenser every once and a while.
This is why in the past before spinsterhood was economically convenient thousands of women chose to become nuns and vestal virgins. The most common time for a man to leave his wife is right after a C-section
>>24504571
This; its a painful, degrading and unhealthy sex act that only homosexuals engage it. You should not even consider doing it to your kid's mom, much less abandoning your children because of it.

>>24504725
>Most men don't love their wives
>They just see them as a sex object they can use as a free food dispenser every once and a while.
It goes both ways. Most women see men as a source of income and status.

I don't get the appeal of anal.

>>24504094 (OP)
You're better off becoming a faggot OP, just leave your wife so she can find a decent man, and I say this as the biggest misogynist in this board

lol a lot of judgey chudersons itt

I married my wife not because she's the hottest ass I ever tapped, nor is she the richest girl I've dated.

I married her because she's the nicest person I've ever met, and I've been able to carry the best conversations with her everyday for 7 years. I married her because I know when I wake up and we make coffee and breakfast together, it will be another pleasant morning conversation. She's also the funniest person I've ever spoken too.

Sex is important and I admit my needs are necessary, but I don't have any requirements. infact I like her because the sex is simple. Other girls watched too much porn, so they think choking, kink play and god forbid, anal, is a necessary addition. I hated dating before my wife. Frankly most women are disgusting. If she offered to do anal I wouldn't be interested, it's fucking disgusting.

>>24504735
Most women are still groomed to believe that marriage is a spiritual bond and to see men as heroes through fairy tales.
There's golddiggers and prostitutes of course, but you can't challenge statistics. Women overwhelmingly don't leave when men are sick with cancer, but men do. There's really no way to circumvent that.

>>24504094 (OP)
>You still care about your wife, you still want to stay married, but you’re now permanently sexually frustrated because she unilaterally changed the rules.
Your husband demanding to stick his cock up your exit-only door when it only causes pain and delivers no pleasure to the woman is also frustrating. How do you resolve a situation which causes frustration to both parties? A compromise. The husband can fuck the dog in the ass

>>24504787
Post the statistics

>>24504787
well ya if he's about to croak why not wait it out and inherit the whole stack instead of divorcing for half

>>24504792
>https://www.confidenceaftercancer.co.uk/blog/105530-love-loyalty-and-illness-why-women-are#:~:text=However%2C%20when%20the%20husband%20was,been%20diagnosed%20and%20undergone%20treatment.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19645027/
The British men left their sick wives the moment they could not use them as sex objects any longer, but the women took care of the men till they died. I have known women who did this. You don't do this for money, its years that you have to dedicate to the ill person, very painful to watch and involves lots of dirty work and no sex

>>24504798
Post some literature works that explore this theme

>>24504586
Oh yeah, I understand that much. (When I was younger I was envious that guys got to experience this mysterious amazing orgasm thing universally.. involuntarily, even, when it took me years of active frustration to figure it out.)

But even objectively knowing that male libido can be so intense that it can drive some to like, rape or become murderous incels or whatever does little to help me understand what that experience is like. If anything, masturbating sounds like a lot less effort and interpersonal messiness than cheating on your wife (and presumably, feels better? costs less? gets the job done quicker?). It's compounded by the.. apparent hypocrisy of a lot of men being generally antisocial and "above" shallow selfish feelgood sensory indulgence.

>>24504787
Like 80% of divorces are initiated by women.

>>24504828
A lot of women's literature focuses on the death of the dream of romance
>>24504833
A follow-up study showed that it was partially skewed by nasty liberal boomers who ran away with younger lovers and left the wife to fill the paperwork. The rate of divorce initiation is actually closer to equal

>>24504833
That's why making divorce illegal makes them squirm. I need to make sure my wife doesn't leave me for someone else, and by making her property that's a way to prevent that.

>>24504798
Well in all fairness its because women age like milk. Kind of hard to get an erection with someone who looks like a horse's ass

>>24504570
Sinners reach out blindly to fill the God-shaped hole in their being.

>>24504094 (OP)
>So, why is cheating the less immoral option here?
>wife
The only moral sexual option is being fucked by men.

>>24504798
How do you know this isn't just britniggers being britniggers tho

>>24504154
There’s a wide range of actions between divorce and infidelity, but if I assume for the sake of the argument that nothing under the sun would move your wife to engage in sodomy again and that her refusal would make you endlessly frustrated, them divorce is certainly the best path forward for all parties.
>muh kids
This is moral fagging desu, the kids of a sodomite probably wouldn’t grow up to be much anyway so there’s no harm in disturbing their development with divorce
> The real world isn’t a contract dispute court.
You’re the one that made the comparison to contract law. I followed it through and now you’re running from it. You didn’t think this through.

Also, if you are a sodomite, why not just become a swinger. You’re wife already knows something worse about you than infidelity

>>24504798
Women who see men as a source of income have no reason to divorce them because they get ill. Men who see women as a source of sex have a reason to divorce them because they get ill. These are not equivalent situations and that's why there's such a large difference in this scenario.

>>24504834
>The rate of divorce initiation is actually closer to equal
And there you go. Women initiate half of divorces, despite only a fraction of the divorces resulting from their partner falling ill. Let's see the statistics on men vs women initiating a divorce because their partner was fired from their job and took a lower paying one.

>>24504829
Masturbation isn't as good. It's not the orgasm that's the goal. It's having complete control over a woman. Touching her anywhere you want. Places she won't let anyone else touch. Picking her up like a doll and playing with her legs. Kissing her. Making her squeal and moan because it feels so good. And then there's the intimacy. Masturbation is like the victory of Nike. No head and no arms. Sex is like Nike in full. The way it was meant to be.

>>24505133
>random product placement
ASSOCIATE SEX AND CONSUMER GOODS
BUY BUY BUY

>>24505148
nike the god u utter and irredeemable pleb

>>24505133
So ideally sex with your wife who is singularly devoted to you would be preferable to cheating on her with a prostitute? Or is it because the wife refuses complete control, that one soothes their ego by cheating on their wife with a more easily controllable woman? How does the libido veering into forceful territory play into it... is the object of that lust viewed with adoration or contempt? Or is sex for most men purely a thing of opportunity. In general I feel like there's a lot of mixed social messaging that makes existing as a woman utter confusion (or maybe I just don't Get It because autism).

>>24504419
It's not like that at all if u do heavy exercise like running ,my inner wolf keeps quiet like 99% of the time. Fags here are fucking gooners coomers tards who should just chop their monkey off

>>24504094 (OP)
It's actually a very new thing, and admittedly an unfair thing, that wives are expected to satisfy their husband's every sexual whim.

On the other, so is the expectation of physical fidelity from men. None of your female ancestors from before WW2 really expected your paternal ancestors to never have sex with any woman that is not them ever again after getting married. What they expected was to be provided for, and as long as your paternal ancestors didn't make your female ancestors lose face, they couldn't care less that they fucked a whore now and then or that they had sex with the housemaid.

>>24505026
no woman on earth thinks liking anal is worse than cheating on her. having parents do kinky shit in the privacy of their bedroom is not worse for a child than the drama of divorce. you're ruining your ability to reason about the world with delusional moralfaggotry

>>24504751
Phyiscal and mental domination. The sensation of power that it gives you. It being the ultimate act of submission that a woman can offer a man.

>>24504419
>Genuinely do not understand what male libido is like
Like a steam engine right below the surface of your taint that never runs out of coal.
>Is it really such suffering to not be able to stick your dick where you want to?
It's more about being told what to do and what not to do. If your partner tells you to not do anal, you'll instinctively desire anal more than anything because as the man in the relationship, you naturally desire absolute obedience from your partner, and anal with her from then on becomes the symbol of having broken her in, like a wild mustang that you tamed into eating from your hand. You always want what you can't have or can't get easily, anyway.

>tfw you are a healthy adult male whose perceptions and ability to build a healthy relationship have in no way been warped by constant exposure to pornography

>Bill Burr
Definition of "unfunny"

>>24505408
They are just perverts who hate you anonette, that's the only thing you need to understand when you try to understand men
>adoration or contempt
If you have ever seen the way men talk about women they consider unfuckable it is 100% contempt; once the desire to have sex falls away they don't hide their hate any more. Sex itself is viewed as submission and submission is the worst thing that can happen to a man. They aren't dishonest about what sex is to them; throughout human history the holiest women were the virgins

>>24504154
I don't see how lying to your wife can be ethical. In this circumstance she's
refused sodomy and you've turned to cheating on her without further discussion.
Does she know that sodomy is required for you to live a full life? If she hasn't
your cheating without regards to a solution devised from both parties.

Your wife has already announced that sodomy is unpleasant so here are the
outcomes. Either,

a). She puts up with sodomy, it feels more like rape than an act between two
lovers.
b). She suggests you see a prostitute for butt sex, the marriage breaks as
the inevitable distress of an affair weights down on her.
c). She suggests a divorce so you can find a new woman that's interested in
anal.

How are any of these outcomes better than living a life without anal? Surely the
emotional intimacy of your relationship are more important than sodomizing a
woman?

itt: normies

>>24506538
>muh sekrit club
Shut up nigger. It's not 2003 anymore.

Witholding sex is a legitimate grounds for divorce; witholding buttstuff is not. You shouldn't be doing buttstuff anyway.
>Let's hear the philosophical takes
>no moral grandstanding, please
these two directly contradict

>>24506820
Your wife doesn't owe you sex.

>>24506821
She absolutely does. Sex is the defining feature of the (hetero)sexual relationship. In a relationship you belong to eachother; depriving your spouse is a form of not just abuse but cheating.

>>24504094 (OP)
You're right but this goes both ways. I know many men who in their depths of their marriage have stop pleasuring their wives simply because they work too much and when they don't work they spend their time on hobbies or their children. Would it not be as immoral for the woman to cheat there?

>>24506799
What secret club? I don't care about that. Simply put, this is the kind of thing only normie faggots care about. Am i wrong? There are women in the thread, that is how filthy this is.

>>24506836
Only incels say shit like this

>>24506841
>There are women in the thread
I assure you, no there aren't. lmao.

>>24504094 (OP)
>Isn’t part of the deal of marriage supposed to be sexual access, within reason?
this would vary from state to state, country to country. show us the law or code which specifies what you're talking about. also... "within reason" would vary from person to person. you'd need to discuss the specifics with your spouse. i doubt there's any marriage code or law that specifies "your wife must provide you with anal sex." so unless you've drawn up some other contract which included that, no she wouldn't be breaking a marriage pact by denying this.
>What’s the actual moral infraction here — the infidelity, or the breach of contract?
the infidelity is a breach of contract. not wanting anal sex isn't. you're creating a false equivalent here and changing definitions of words to fit your "argument."
>If you’re being denied, is cheating not the rational path?
okay, let's say your wife became addicted to porn and the only way she could be sexually satisfied was watching you get gang raped. if you deny her this, she has a right to cheat on you, right? of course not. or how bout you get penile cancer and can't fuck her with your penis anymore. she can just ditch you right and let you take care of yourself. that's the higher moral path, no?
>you’d do it too if you were honest.
nope. not everyone cheats. if you were honest, you wouldn't cheat. if you were being honest with yourself, you'd realize that cheating is having your cake and eating it too, so to speak. the non feel good answer is that marriage is an agreement that two people come to, in which they give up some things to have a better thing that's greater than the sum of its parts. kinda like how it would be more fun to just do heroin than go to the gym, but the healthy lifestyle will be more rewarding in the long run.

>>24506847
no howeverthoughbeit the finest of incels have also said it

>>24506852
this board is filled to the brim with women, i would bet my balls on it

>>24504094 (OP)
>no anal -> the slow death spiral of resentment
the thread

>>24504094 (OP)
>>24504154
easy on the prompting, faggot.

>>24506910
—— —— —— — —— —— — — — —— — — —— —— —— —

>>24504094 (OP)
Anon you're falling for the midwits trap here, you're using your intellect to rationalize why something you know to be wrong can actually be right. You can reason any inhumane and cruel action in history into a moral one if the your desire for that action is your primary interest. You mentioned here>>24504154 you watch anal porn, that is the real problem anon. You're brewing unnatural desires by doing that, your wife has no obligation to fulfill those desires and it definitely was not what she signed up for. If say your wife was fat and your sexual frustration arose from that, you would not be immoral for putting down a ultimatum that you want to have sex with the beautiful wife you once married. Again anon, your desires are unnatural and your sexual drive has been malformed by porn and that is your problem. I mean that in a completely non judgemental way because I don't want you to pull through with this shit idea and ruin your marriage which could otherwise be your greatest source of happiness.

>>24504094 (OP)
Based thread

>>24504094 (OP)
If you desire to behave like a sodomite why didn't you marry a man. It's legal for a man to marry another man in the United States at least as far as the law sees it. Think about it, women don't think about getting sodomized. They think about things that have to do with their nature. I know this seems to be a hypothetical, sir, but it's not reasonable to expect a sound woman to heed your sodomy proposition. A charitable one might think you are joking, or maybe play along but good-heavens you'd hurt her. She probably won't even be able to stand to look at herself in the mirror afterword, let alone respect you. We mustn't forget women have certain instincts and expectations pertaining to men. They want men to exemplify their manly nature. Sodomy isn't understood to be natural. Fetish is commonly understood to be forceful and artificial;--even if effeminate men naturally occur, that only means their temperament makes them more susceptible/or amenable to the aforementioned crude act. But twixt a man and women there is a whole lot of confusion to be expected here to say the least, and that's being generous. Mind the things you want.

Look, I’m tired of all you simps and christcucks here trying to guilt-trip me about wanting anal. You all sound like a bunch of prudes parroting some outdated Christian nonsense about what’s “natural” sex. Newsflash: sex isn’t about some “natural order” or whatever fairy tale you’re preaching—it’s about fulfillment.

You think there’s a difference between a man wanting anal and a man or woman wanting oral? There isn’t. If oral sex is considered “normal” and necessary for a satisfying sex life, then why the hell is anal somehow a sin or taboo? You’re all just parroting the same boring, repressed moral code that Christianity shoved down everyone’s throat for centuries.

Human sexuality is diverse, complex, and personal. It’s not about fitting into some vanilla mold of what’s “natural.” It’s about what brings pleasure and connection. If my wife refuses something that’s important to me—whether that’s anal, oral, or anything else—that’s emotional neglect, plain and simple. Don’t come at me with your self-righteous bullshit.

I’m not here to be shamed for wanting to live a fulfilling sex life. If that makes me a “degenerate” in your eyes, so be it. But don’t expect me to buy into your sanctimonious, Christ-infested idea of “natural” when it suits you. This is about respect, desire, and honesty—things a lot of you clearly don’t understand.

>>24509524
Not a christcuck and I don't really have a horse in this race but I'll just point out that oral sex is not typically painful or injurious the way that anal sex often is.

>>24509552
Oral sex can be painful and disgusting, and anal doesn't have to be. The reverse is also true. You could compare the two with ease. If it were a question of painful anal or painful deepthroat oral, I would obviously not say that is something a spouse should be expected to endure. We are talking about non-painful, maybe just not enjoyable anal here. I expected this board to be able to compare apples to apples.

>>24509524
if you desire something that requires your wife to do something that she finds unpleasant or reprehensible, why is your desire more important than her wellbeing? Again, if your wife wanted to watch you get gang raped because that was her "desire", and she cheated on you because you refused to give her that, is she morally justified?

>>24509524
So if your wife decides she wants to double fist you, it’s emotional neglect if you refuse? Or if she wants to shit in your mouth and make you eat it? Does she get to have a diverse, complex and personal sexuality is that only for you?

>>24509584
For me, it’s sounding. Chicks don’t realise they’ll be into it, and are reluctant to try at first, then they find they love it and want to do it every time you fuck and you want to go to sleep and she’s got a butter knife or something and wants to see if it’ll fit

I'd bank ripping off a testicle (okay, not really) on OP having used Deepseek R1 to prompt all his bullshit. Prompted and then fine-tuned.

>it's not about abc—it's about xyz
>newsflash
>emdash spam
>wellness blog tier vocabulary ("Human sexuality is diverse, complex, and personal.")
>you think abc? there isn't
>if you abc so be it. but don't xyz
At least try to make it less obvious, dipshit

>>24509524
If seggs was about 'fulfillment'(as gratification) primarily there would only be amoebas on planet earth;--because they don't screw they just split. Sexual relations is for making babies, the pleasure we know to be derived from sex is incentive you dumb dumb. So the only 'fulfillment' quality to do with sex is fulfilling posterity. And that must always entail fulfilling some of both yours and your partner's Eros in-so-doing. But sex is not sex when you leave the bounds of the sex organs union. Why would you proliferate the conflated and obviously wrong idea that sex occurs with only one half of the sex organs in the picture? Sodomy hasn't much at all to do with sex; even the 'pleasure' that may come along with it is just a counterfeit of the gratification that comes from the marital act, which is the bond of man and woman, and is the building block of civilization, spiritually and carnally. How is something that is life-depriving gratifying?

>>24509747
How could anything done between husband and wife that is enjoyable to both be bad or wrong? Sex can and should be about so much more than mere procreation. Nothing that fosters joy and intimacy between a man and a woman in a long term monogamous relationship is foreign to being healthy.

>>24510271
If sodomy and its 'pleasure' fostered bonds, gays would stay together in committed relationships and not be loose tramps. Dykes wouldn't have domestic violence at higher rates. If men wanted to show love to a woman he would embrace her in her fullness of her creature. Not misuse her face while she was bent over to "pleasure" himself, or heaven forbid do some other gross thing. Please.

>>24504094 (OP)
yes, monogamy is a charade built upon selfishness and neurotic possessiveness with roots in feudal lords and kings marrying their daughters off to other lords and kings. more news at 11

>>24504419
every strand of DNA in our body tells us to shoot our DNA into womens vaginas (or the case of OP, assholes). blame evolution

>>24510326
*as many womens vaginas as possible

>>24504419
every strand of DNA in our body tells us to shoot our DNA into absolutely as many vaginas as physically possible (or the case of OP, assholes). blame evolution

>>24506820
this, OP is fag for being a sodomite about it and consequently preventing a discussion about the actual in and outs of marriage and its history as an institution, sex, loyalty, biological compulsions, etc etc etc

>>24506847
They're not wrong

>>24504094 (OP)
>that she’ll never do anal sex with you again
But I don't like anal, or butt stuff in general.
>but you’re now permanently sexually frustrated
Can I still fuck her pussy, mouth, hands, boobs, armpits, legs, feet, belly, etc.?
Hell, she can just lay there naked and let me perv on her for a bit, maybe with some masturbation in front of her, and I am good for awhile.
I don't need or want anal to be satisfied. Really I mainly need regular skin to skin contact/skinship and touch otherwise I feel unconnected to the person and unloved. So even regular nonsexual touch can tide me over for a very long while, and I handle sexual urges myself.
Cuddles, hugs, even some hand holding to FEEL love is what I need in a ongoing relationship. It's one of the reasons I can't do long distance relationships. I just lose all emotional connection without that physical contact being there.

>So, why is cheating the less immoral option here? Is it really more unethical to quietly fulfill your needs elsewhere (with zero intention to get caught, no desire to destroy the family), than to start the slow death spiral of resentment or to blow everything up via divorce?
You could just talk to the person instead of being sneaky and betraying. Ether come to a arangement, such as ethical non-monogamy, or learning to see her perspective and doing something you both enjoy, or hell even a compromise like buttjobs if there is just something about butts that you are assbsessed with.

> If you’re being denied, is cheating not the rational path?
No, communication and negotiation to reach a mutually satisfactory understanding is the rational path.
Doing sneaky totally selfish things in a committed relationship as well as breaking your word is not a good option.

How is this literature?

Alright, so let me get this straight: anyone who doesn’t want to live out the 1950s missionary-only Christian fantasy is a “degenerate,” a bot, or some kind of plant? I see a lot of you screeching about “natural” sex, “the purpose of sex is babies,” and whatever, but none of you can actually argue against the main point: if a relationship is supposed to be based on mutual desire and satisfaction, why is it so outrageous to expect that your needs get met—especially when we’re talking about something consensual between adults?

If you don’t want to do anal, fine. But don’t act like that makes you morally superior, and don’t hide behind your dusty theology books. You sound like a broken record—“it’s not natural, it’s not for making babies!” as if everyone’s marriage is just a baby factory and nothing else. What about pleasure? What about intimacy? What about not quietly resenting your partner because you’re stuck with someone who treats your desires like a disease? No one is saying you have to do what you don’t want, but don’t pretend “emotional neglect” isn’t a thing just because your preacher never told you about it.

And to all the “you sound like an LLM”/“prompt detected” people: sorry if I can actually articulate a coherent argument instead of just spamming memes and “faggot” in every other line. If my paragraphs and em-dashes frighten you, go back to Twitter or just admit that you have nothing substantive to say. Yes, sexuality is “diverse, complex, and personal”—sorry that’s not a phrase you hear from Andrew Tate or your favorite Twitch streamer.

Also, wild that I get called selfish for wanting to be honest about what I want, but somehow you’re not selfish for demanding your partner just live with frustration and “communicate” (i.e. never get what they want, but smile about it for 30 years). I’d rather be a so-called “degenerate” than a martyr for some joyless monogamy you all pretend is so noble.

If you want to live in a sexless, passionless marriage, you do you. But don’t come in here with your stale shaming tactics, your bot accusations, or your kneejerk reactions and pretend you’re the voice of reason. At least I’m honest about what I want, and I don’t hide behind 2000-year-old rulebooks or Reddit-tier moralizing.

And no, I wasn’t prompted or fine-tuned or whatever—you just can’t handle a real argument unless it’s spelled out in green text and has a reaction image at the bottom. Cope harder.

>>24504094 (OP)
Sodomy is inmoral, therefore cheating on your wife to perform sodomy is immoral.
/thread

>>24511975
And another thing—let’s address the intellectual dishonesty head-on. A bunch of you keep treating anal like it’s this dark, demonic outlier among sexual acts, while you conveniently ignore—or worse, justify—plenty of other non-procreative sex acts. So oral sex is fine? Foreplay is fine? Handjobs, titjobs, intercrural, toys, dirty talk, all good? But anal—that’s the line? Why? Because some medieval monk told you a female butthole is a one-way street? Because the Bible doesn’t mention deepthroating, so you get to do that with a clean conscience?

You want to talk about what’s “natural”? Tell me how licking genitals evolved in a reproductive sense. Tell me how blowing a load on someone’s face is any more sacred or natural than doing it in their ass. The truth is you’ve internalized a weird, selective shame hierarchy where only certain acts are evil—and, surprise, it always seems to center on the ones you personally find gross. That’s not morality, that’s personal disgust dressed up in dogma.

If you’re going to call anal degenerate, then at least be consistent: ban everything that doesn’t lead to a baby. No more BJs, no more mutual masturbation, no more sexual experimentation, period. Because if your whole system of values hinges on “what’s natural” or “what was intended,” then foreplay itself is suspect. You’re just cherry-picking what makes you uncomfortable and preaching it as gospel, while you go home and expect your wife to swallow. Hypocrites.

Let’s call it what it is: fear. You’re afraid of desire that isn’t pre-approved. Afraid that the line between sacred and profane is blurrier than you thought. Afraid that maybe what you were taught isn’t a universal truth but a cultural hang-up. So rather than admit you’re insecure, you moralize. You frame it as a crisis of civilization. But it’s not. It’s just sex. You can call it degenerate all you want, but what you’re really afraid of is someone else being fulfilled in a way you’re too ashamed to ask for.

>>24504094 (OP)
Why is this in the LITERATURE BOARD

Why is this post STILL HERE

GET A LIFE PERVERT

You are supposed to "rape" (of course it's not actually rape when she's your wife) her not cheat on her.

>>24511975
Your definition of sodomy surely includes all forms of oral sex, correct? That is, of course, not procreative.

>>24512171
I mean excrement is pretty gross.

>>24512171
I mean excrement is pretty gross. The whole thing about Nietzsche saying that aesthetics is prior to ethics rings true here.

>>24512194
Gross

>>24504094 (OP)
>anal sex
>sexual access within reason
Sodomy has never been, is not, and never will be within reason.

>>24514490
based

Cheating isn't worth it because you must have righteousness to keep a woman in line. If you have guilt she will find it and exploit it. You will lack the strength you need if you have guilt in your heart. Unless you are a psycho and can truly be unaffected and at that point you wouldn't be interested in this book because you have been cheating already.

>>24504094 (OP)
Okay. Let me present you with an argument against what you’re saying that has nothing to do with religion or conservative sexual morality.

> She’s just “not into it anymore.”
Interesting that you start it off with this dismissive framing. Did your wife actually say this to you? Because you never consider what she actually might have meant by that. Did you ever ask her why she is no longer into it? Even if you did, it’s very possible she didn’t elaborate for fear of your reaction.

Let’s think about this: why would someone want to stop participating in a sex act they have consented to in the past? I can think of a few very good reasons: It is not pleasurable for her anymore, and possibly never was. In fact, it is very likely painful or uncomfortable. It requires extensive and often unpleasant preparation that she sees as not worth it for an act that she does not enjoy. She finds it degrading or humiliating, and sees it as demeaning to her dignity. She feels that you fixate on it and base your sex life around it, at the expense of other sexual acts that would be mutually pleasurable and would facilitate greater emotional intimacy. These are all valid reasons for her to not want to engage in anal anymore, and yet you never offer them any thought. She is a human being with thoughts and feelings, not an anal sex vending machine.

>So, at what point has she broken the marriage pact? Isn’t part of the deal of marriage supposed to be sexual access, within reason?

This is unhinged. As has already been stated in this thread, when marriage initially began to be understood as a legal institution, anal sex was against the law, and certainly would not have been seen as a marital right. But let’s put that aside, and talk about the idea of what is reasonable.

Anal sex is not something that can be fairly stated to be a reasonable expectation within marriage. There are plenty of reasons as to why anal is objectively an outlier among sexual acts that have nothing to do with religious prohibition, or puritanical conservatism, or the fact that it is non-procreative, or fallacious appeals to nature. I don’t believe the female anus is a “one way street” because (as you so disingenuously claim later on) a fucking medieval monk told me so. I believe it because it is an obvious fact if you have any sort of understanding of human anatomy. The fact that it is not “natural” does not make it inherently suspect—plenty of unnatural things are benign. What makes it problematic is that the anus has the biological characteristics of an orifice that is intended to expel waste, and these same characteristics make it fundamentally incompatible with repeated sexual penetration.

>>24504094 (OP)
>>24515339
The anus is not self-lubricating like the vagina or the mouth. It is extremely tight, unlike the mouth, and, unlike the vagina, it cannot safely endure repeated stretching. It has thin delicate skin that is easily damaged during penetration, and it often contains residual fecal matter, meaning that it is very vulnerable to bacterial infection. Anal sex can cause serious physical trauma—the anal lining can be torn, causing painful anal fissures, and the sphincter itself can be damaged, possibly leading to incontinence. Anal can even tear the rectum, leading to perforation, which is a serious medical emergency. It also has a significantly higher risk of spreading STIs due to much greater potential for tearing than with vaginal sex.

In order to “safely” have anal sex, you need to engage in pretty significant preparation, which a lot of the time involves laxatives/enemas, stretching with a plug, and extensive lubrication. Even with preparation, it can be incredibly painful and unpleasant, and there is the risk of feces still being present, a prospect which the receiver can find unhygienic and humiliating. To add to that, because women do not have a prostate, it is not sexually stimulating for them in the same way that it can be for men, and many women do not feel any pleasure from it.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with engaging in anal if you and your partner both enjoy it and take measures to prep properly and lower the risk of harm, but it cannot be treated as an expectation. Because it is risky, effortful, and frequently painful for the woman, and is rarely mutually pleasurable, it’s not fair to deem anal a part of reasonable marital sexual access. To demand it is to prioritize your own pleasure over your wife’s dignity, comfort, safety, and autonomy. Refusing anal is a much more valid and justifiable sexual boundary than refusing other sex acts within marriage.

>(Don’t start with the “just be happy with what you get” cope; there’s always a line somewhere.)
This is fucking ridiculous, and a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy. “Refusing anal? What’s next—no sex at all? A man’s got to draw the line somewhere!” is an incredibly embarrassing and pathetic way of thinking. Your current expectations of her are unreasonable. Preemptively dismissing any suggestion that you content yourself with other forms of mutually pleasurable sex instead of yearning for anal as “cope” is a transparent evasion.

>>24504094 (OP)
>>24515354
>So, why is cheating the less immoral option here? Is it really more unethical to quietly fulfill your needs elsewhere (with zero intention to get caught, no desire to destroy the family), than to start the slow death spiral of resentment or to blow everything up via divorce? What’s the actual moral infraction here — the infidelity, or the breach of contract?

Anal sex is not a “need”—it is a “want.” It If anal is the only thing that you enjoy sexually, and vaginal or oral sex will not satisfy you, I suspect that you are addicted to pornography. You’ve already confirmed that you watch anal porn frequently behind your wife’s back, which obviously is only going to further entrench your fixation on it, and you probably have “death grip” desensitization from frequent and intense masturbation, and therefore need the added tightness from anal to feel pleasure. Your obsessive desire for anal sex (to the point that you are “permanently frustrated” and are considering being unfaithful to your wife over it) is a porn-induced fetish that is detrimental to your relationship, not a healthy and reasonable manifestation of the sex drive.

No cheater intends to get caught, but many do. And being sexually intimate with others will impact your relationship with your wife even if she doesn’t know, because you will always feel the need to be secretive and deceptive with her about your double life, which precludes the honest communication and genuine emotional intimacy that sustain a healthy marriage.

Assuming that your wife is still otherwise sexually available and affectionate, she hasn’t “broken the marriage pact” or committed a “breach of contract.” If no anal is a dealbreaker for you (and being willing to destroy a marriage over that is a sign of moral rot in and of itself), the ethical response would be to either be honest about your desires and ask for an open marriage, or file for divorce. The only one breaching the contract in this scenario is you.

>Is there any honest, non-feelgood answer to this? If you’re being denied, is cheating not the rational path?

Here is the honest answer: Wanting something does not justify any action you may take to get it. That’s like saying: if I want a TV and don’t have the money to buy one, is breaking into my neighbours’ house and stealing theirs not the rational path? Any action, no matter how depraved, can be justified through this rationale.

>>24504094 (OP)
I discovered O&A last year and have been binging it ever since. I've learned so many things, much of which is how to actually be a man. Patrice O'Neal enlightens you on how all women operate, and the difference between being a dude vs being a girl.
Speaking of Patrice and Bill Burr — Bill stole so much of Patrice's material.
Anyway, if your SO is guarding her pussy for girl-tier reasoning, get some side pussy. I learned this the hard way. You own the girl you're with, and she wants to be owned.

>>24504094 (OP)
>>24515362
You are not entitled to have every single one of your sexual desires gratified at someone else’s expense. It is valid for your wife to deny you anal. The rational path, if you really cared about your wife and children and wanted the family to stay intact, would be to accept that relationships require compromise and to be understanding of your wife’s sexual boundaries. You use all of these high-minded justifications about how you care about her and don’t want to divorce her, but the fact that you are rationalizing cheating over something as base as this fetish proves that you only care about yourself.

You want to stay married, because you like the emotional support and companionship and having full access to your kids, but you also want to indulge in anal sex with others. Life doesn’t work like that. You can be a family man, but you have to be faithful to your wife. You can have anal sex with other women, but you have to get divorced in order to do so without breaking your vows. But you can’t accept this reality: you want to have your cake and eat it too. You are the problem. Your resentment is not the righteous indignation of a man who is being ill-treated—it is the product of profound selfishness and entitlement.

> No moral grandstanding, please — you’d do it too if you were honest.

No, I wouldn’t. And the very fact that you see any objection to this obviously egregious and self-serving narrative as “moral grandstanding” is incredibly damning.

>But just rolling over and “accepting” it means one partner’s needs are permanently, totally neglected. How is that not a betrayal too? If you’re supposed to be in a partnership but only one side gets to draw hard lines, the other is forced into an impossible choice: nuke the marriage or suffer in silence for life.

Again, this is not a need, it is a want. Assuming your wife is an otherwise affectionate and attentive partner, she is not neglecting you or betraying you in any way by setting this boundary. Yes, marriage is a partnership, and that means that the well-being of both partners has to be taken into consideration. You are the only one demanding a risky sex act that your spouse takes no pleasure in, showing a clear disregard for her well-being, which necessitates her being the one to draw a hard line in this case. If she were to demand something similarly risky and distressing of you, you would be entitled to draw a hard line as well. Framing this as some sort of arbitrarily cruel act of deprivation by her is deeply disingenuous. You are not suffering by any reasonable metric, and if you feel that you are, it is a sign that your sexual psychology has been warped by porn addiction. And this is a false dichotomy: you have a third choice, which is to detox from porn and go to therapy in order to change your attitude towards sex.

>>24504154
>>24515374
>you’re patching a hole the other person made
Your wife did not instill you with an insatiable fixation on anal sex. You cultivated that desire yourself, through self-indulgence and the consumption of pornography. The hole in the relationship was made by you, and no one else.

>The real world isn’t a contract dispute court. It’s people trying to live with shifting desires, aging bodies, changing minds.
Fucking ridiculous that you are saying this, and yet you fail to see that it proves the opposite of what you argued in your original post. Someone changing their mind about a sexual act in a marriage does not constitute a breach of contract that entitles you to cheat and lie (as you so egregiously framed it before); it is an invitation to communicate honestly and compromise if necessary.

> Cheating, in this scenario, isn’t the “immoral” move. If anything, it’s the path that leaves the least collateral damage, and anyone pretending they’d happily torch their entire life for the sake of “integrity” probably hasn’t faced the actual dilemma.

This is self-deception. You only think this because you overvalue your unreasonable sexual fixations by construing them as “needs,” while trivializing your wife’s basic right to bodily autonomy, the truth, and fidelity from the man who promised it to her. The path that would cause the least collateral damage would be for you to change your entitled mindset and work on your marriage. Many people face the dilemma of being married to someone who will not indulge every single one of their sexual desires, and still choose to remain faithful.

> I already have a few secret habits I keep from my loved ones that help me stay happy and grounded, that they wouldn't like if they knew; I think many of us do. If my wife knew I spend the days she is with her family smoking weed and watching homemade interracial anal porn, she would blow up at me. But she doesn't know, and I can be temporarily content with my no-anal marriage.
The fact that you comfortably construe “watching interracial anal porn” behind your wife’s back as “something that helps you stay happy and grounded,” and yet don’t see how poorly this reflects on your character is crazy. You willingly married this woman, presumably knowing that she was uncomfortable with you consuming pornography. Watching it in secret is a betrayal of trust. If you want to consume porn that’s your choice, but you don’t get to choose to commit to someone who you know disapproves of it and then act as though you’re a poor hen-pecked man who needs it to de-stress. Find some constructive hobbies.

>>24509524
>>24515383
>Look, I’m tired of all you simps and christcucks
This is so clearly in bad faith. The fact that you see any man who loves and respects his wife as a “simp” is incredibly sad. And people have argued against you from a variety of viewpoints. Many of them are not Christian and make zero religious arguments. There are even people who have no problem with the idea of anal in general, but are critical of your attitude towards this situation. Conveniently, you ignore them.

>You all sound like a bunch of prudes parroting some outdated Christian nonsense about what’s “natural” sex.

Anal is not problematic because it is unnatural; it is problematic because it is potentially medically risky, painful, and psychologically humiliating for the reasons I have elaborated on above.

>If oral sex is considered “normal” and necessary for a satisfying sex life, then why the hell is anal somehow a sin or taboo?

There is a clear difference. As long as you aren’t excessively rough, oral is harmless and not painful, and if it’s given and received by both parties, it can be extremely mutually pleasurable. Anal, on the other hand, has very real risks, and is usually pleasurable for the man and uncomfortable for the woman. All sexual acts are not equivalent: they carry different risks and benefits and can be analyzed as such.

>You’re all just parroting the same boring, repressed moral code that Christianity shoved down everyone’s throat for centuries.

I’m not a Christian, and all of my criticisms of you have nothing to do with religion or a puritanical attitude towards sexuality.

>Human sexuality is diverse, complex, and personal. It’s not about fitting into some vanilla mold of what’s “natural.” It’s about what brings pleasure and connection.

If having anal sex was bringing your wife pleasure and making her feel connected to you, I seriously doubt she would’ve set this boundary. Yet you never consider her perspective.

>If my wife refuses something that’s important to me—whether that’s anal, oral, or anything else—that’s emotional neglect, plain and simple.

This is incredibly fucked up. You are weaponizing psychological concepts to defend your abusive behaviour and sense of entitlement. It’s completely possible to make requests that feel important to you, but are, objectively speaking, harmful to the dignity and autonomy of the other party. And I doubt you actually believe this principle in any sort of mutual way. If your wife insisted that pegging you every night or making you wear a chastity cage or was important to her, would it be fair for her to accuse you of emotional neglect if you refused? Everyone has the right to set sexual boundaries. As long as she’s loving to you in other respects, you are not being neglected.

>>24509524
>>24511926
>>24515398
>I’m not here to be shamed for wanting to live a fulfilling sex life…This is about respect, desire, and honesty—things a lot of you clearly don’t understand.
At this point I’m almost certain that you’re just trolling, but I’ve come this far, so I may as well see this through. I’m not shaming you for wanting a fulfilling sex life or for enjoying sex. I’m shaming you for prioritizing your unreasonable sexual desires over everything else. Face the facts: your wife does not desire anal, and yet you refuse to accept it. You do not respect her boundaries or the sanctity of your marriage vows. You are willing to be dishonest, and to cheat on her to satisfy yourself. That is incredibly shameful.

>Alright, so let me get this straight: anyone who doesn’t want to live out the 1950s missionary-only Christian fantasy is a “degenerate,” a bot, or some kind of plant?
You’re attacking the TradCaths in this thread because they’re an easy target, while conveniently ignoring all of the other critiques that aren’t based in religion.

>mutual desire and satisfaction
Clearly your wife does not desire anal, nor find it satisfying. There is nothing mutual about what you are demanding.

>why is it so outrageous to expect that your needs get met?
Anal is a want, not a need. And not all wants are reasonable.

>What about not quietly resenting your partner because you’re stuck with someone who treats your desires like a disease?
Setting a boundary around anal is not “treating your desires like a disease.”

>No one is saying you have to do what you don’t want
That is quite literally what you are saying. You are saying that if your wife expects you to remain faithful and honest, she must do something she doesn’t want by letting you have anal sex with her.

> And to all the “you sound like an LLM”/“prompt detected” people
It’s not that you’ve used multiple paragraphs or em dashes, it’s that your posts have literally every hallmark of AI generated writing embedded within them.

>sorry if I can actually articulate a coherent argument
But you can’t. You’ve made a ridiculous number of fallacious and incoherent arguments.

>just admit that you have nothing substantive to say.
Multiple people have given articulate and substantiate responses; you’ve ignored them.

>Also, wild that I get called selfish for wanting to be honest about what I want
Honesty is not an inherent virtue that makes you immune to criticism; it is a neutral baseline expectation. If someone is honest about resenting their spouse’s sexual boundaries, being porn-addicted, and planning to cheat, they can rightfully be called selfish. And why did you ask for philosophical takes if you were just going to dismiss anyone who was critical of you right off the bat?

>>24511926
>>24515405

>but somehow you’re not selfish for demanding your partner just live with frustration
Your wife not wanting to be subjected to risky and uncomfortable anal sex repeatedly is not selfish. Sulking, seething, and complaining about this boundary online is profoundly selfish.

>a martyr for some joyless monogamy you all pretend is so noble.
If you’re so critical of monogamy as an institution, why did you willingly enter a monogamous marriage? Why do you choose to remain married, instead of getting divorced to live a non-monogamous and hedonistic lifestyle? Monogamy is not being imposed upon you—you quite literally signed up for it. Your inability to be happy is a result of your own selfishness.

>A bunch of you keep treating anal like it’s this dark, demonic outlier among sexual acts, while you conveniently ignore—or worse, justify—plenty of other non-procreative sex acts. So oral sex is fine? Foreplay is fine? Handjobs, titjobs, intercrural, toys, dirty talk, all good? But anal—that’s the line? Why?
The problem with anal is not that it is non-procreative. It is inherently risky for reasons that do not apply to any of the other acts you’ve listed.

>The truth is you’ve internalized a weird, selective shame hierarchy where only certain acts are evil—and, surprise, it always seems to center on the ones you personally find gross. That’s not morality, that’s personal disgust dressed up in dogma.
People are critical of anal because it is very often medically risky and painful, meaning that it is not
morally neutral, as it carries a greater risk of harm to the recipient than other forms of sex. And disgust is a valid response to certain acts, and in fact has a protective function. Anal sex involves the risk of contact with feces, which humans are biologically hardwired to be disgusted by, because they smell unpleasant and harbour dangerous bacteria. Finding anal gross isn’t a puritanical hang-up; it’s a valid reaction. It wasn’t normalized among heterosexual couples before the advent of widespread consumption of extreme pornography via the internet.

>You can call it degenerate all you want, but what you’re really afraid of is someone else being fulfilled in a way you’re too ashamed to ask for.
This is cope. People have individuals, and have different preferences. Many people are genuinely disgusted by the prospect of anal, and for good reason. Framing any criticism of you as the result of suppressed desires is a convenient way of evading responsibility.

I hope your wife leaves you and takes the kids.

>>24515354
>To add to that, because women do not have a prostate, it is not sexually stimulating for them in the same way that it can be for men, and many women do not feel any pleasure from it.

I have heard plenty of women claim the opposite in environments where they were under zero pressure to lie about whether they enjoy anal or not. Though it is obviously not the majority experience either.

>>24515644
Yeah, there are definitely some women who enjoy it, but studies show that the majority of women either find it neutral or uncomfortable, and even the ones who enjoy it typically find it less pleasurable than other forms of sex. Also, were these irl conversations with people you’ve dated, or opinions you saw expressed online? If this is based on forum posts you’ve seen, a lot of the replies were very likely men LARPing as part of a kink.

>>24515680
Both, though overwhelmingly the latter. But the online opinions seemed like they were posted by real women in feminine spaces, you know, they posted plenty of things too elsewhere unrelated to sex that men LARPing as women online don't tend to do. Plus you can just tell from the way they type.

>>24504094 (OP)
Marriage sucks but waiting too long to get married is worse.

>>24506799
he said in the chatgpt anal sex thread

>>24515712
where does getting divorced fall in the spectrum? how about staying in a bad marriage vs getting divorced?

All moral and religious considerations aside, I find anal sex repulsive and never have I been tempted by it.
If, God willing, I ever get a wife and she asks for it I’m not sure I’d indulge (though it seems it’s mostly a male fantasy)
t. Virgin male

>>24504094 (OP)
Isn't Bill Burr a comedian? Is this one of those things where people take a joke as serious life advice?

>>24504094 (OP)
Cheating is only bad when women do it. This is because women can bear children and them being willing to mate with another man exposes their husband to potentially raising another man's offspring. There is no such risk for men, and as long as they don't pass on anything to their wife or end up with other children on the side it is harmless

>>24504787
>Most women are still groomed to believe that marriage is a spiritual bond and to see men as heroes through fairy tales
lol

>>24504094 (OP)
imagine being so degen that u would cheat on the mom of ur kids just bc she wouldnt let u stick it in her poop chute

>>24504094 (OP)
>Isn’t part of the deal of marriage supposed to be sexual access, within reason?
is her denying you anal sex all that unreasonable, though?

If i cheat on my girlfriend for not being tight enough i feel like that is as fucked up as if she cheated cuz my dick wasnt big enough. I love her bud idk if she can please me. Not married but dating fir a while. Was able to find was around not cumming from penetrative sex but it's driving me crazy. I talked to her twice, she cried the second time. I feel evil for telling her i was struggeling to cum from how excited she gets.

>>24504094 (OP)
you posted a picture of a book, but the text of your post makes no mention of any book or author.

>>24505148
retarded waste of space get off the board

If anal sex is a non-negotiable part of your life, then you should have thought of that before you got married.

In my current, longest-lasting and most intimate relationship I really quickly disclosed my non negotiable fetishes and it's worked out great because she doesn't mind and even came to like one of them for herself. I mean I got a bit lucky but it's really something you need to disclose as soon as it's possible

Two perverts, two different trajectories

>>24504419
Imagine the horniest you've ever been in your life. That's half as horny as a man is all the time.

>>24521620
I have never been horny in my life so I can't imagine it. Seems like a hellish sort of feeling, never being able to be happy unless you force your genitalia inside someone. I am glad I was made hermaphrodite

>>24516808
It's true; its dudes who convince women otherwise

>>24521643
Just imagine it as intense hunger

>>24521643
Love, lust, and religious ecstasy are the three transformative experiences in a human life
Missing out on these is incredibly sad,
There's a reason people go apeshit for those 3 reasons beyond all others

>>24521664
That coupled with >>24505831 makes it sound worse. I think the motive behind homophobia is that most men know there is a predatory aspect to their sexuality. No one wants to be eaten or "dominated".
I might be a freak, but it is no mystery why the happiest women in history are chaste

>>24521685
Felt the first and felt the last and lust I missed out on due to physical reasons. I think its paradoxical to the other two so I don't feel very upset about it

>>24521694
In that case I'm happy for you, 2/3 is pretty good these days
And lust is probably the least of those as well, even for an extreme coomer like me
Out of curiosity can you explain more about your condition

>>24521707
Don't want to dox myself, but for physical reasons I never developed a libido
I was slow too physically develop as a child but thankfully I look normal as an adult. I am not quite a true hermaphrodite but I definitely almost was one and suffered bullying and adults mistaking me for the opposite sex

>>24521715
fuck those boomers!

>>24521719
I can't really blame them...
Better boomers than modern day tumblrinas
They get turned on by this shit.

>>24504612
I was asking myself the same shit
Women are quite stupid when it comes to choosing a partner

>>24521687
>No one wants to be eaten or "dominated"
Women definitely want to be dominated. But only by a man who they think to be worthy of their submission. Male sexuality isn't predatory as much as it is like peg and hole under the ideal circumstances with female sexuality. Like, have you ever read the sort of smutty books women read?

>>24504189
This. The fact is you'll never fully know someone until you've spent some years living with them and you will both have to compromise on certain things. That's what marriage has always been about. Otherwise, you can do what zoomers do and move in with your "long term gf" and play pretend for 2 years before either of you finds someone new.

>>24522215
Only retarded pornbrained whores like being dominated.

>>24504094 (OP)
Infidelity and breaking contract are both moral breaches dumbarse. Just take what you're given and have a wank about it you fucking dumb seppo trash.

>>24510313
This is a hard read, but nothing that you've said is necessarily wrong. Though, I believe what you're missing is the ability, nay, the tendency for some people to build an emotional bond with someone through sexual acts - to solidify an existing intimate relationship, even. What is painful for me about your statements is how they fundamentally don't apply to me. I'm gay, and I have no intention, nor have ever had any intention of being a "tramp" or sleeping around. I'm wholly monogamous, and I dream of a man who feels the way that I do, that we can share and foster a lifelong relationship with sexual acts as something that both fulfills us physically and emotionally, but not being the basis for our relationship. Sex is wholly practical. It's the act that births society and continues on humanity. This is sex sanctified. But, I believe if it's anything other than that, it should be an enjoyable, intimate utility of an already joyful union of people. A union that could exist and fruitfully be sustained without such a utility.
It's a sad, terribly lonely thing to me that I cannot find anyone else in the world who thinks this way. Perhaps Mishima, to more or less an extent. The issue with my school of thought is that I've drawn a line within sodomy, a sort of border in an abyss of chaos, that two men could love each other. And I mean truly, truly love each other, only using physical relations as an emotionally-driven expression of love to one another - again, not the whole basis for why they are together, because that wouldn't be love.
And I should like to say that, without an intended microcosm of irony in the world, that, OP is a massive fucking faggot. So are a great number of "people" (I'm looking at you, promptfags) in this thread. The notion that any man would even CONSIDER betraying the contract of his marriage on the grounds that he isn't "fulfilled" due to a lack of satisfying his carnal desires is utterly abhorrent, and it indicates that the man in question has no real understanding of what marriage encompasses. It encompasses many things, but it is contractual, meaning that there is an innate level of discipline needed to uphold the contract - a sort of asceticism wherein your servitude is to the marriage itself, and you have to set aside your carnality for the sake of it.

>>24504094 (OP)
sex is for procreation every other opinion is Jewish.

>>24504313
>>24504313
but shouldn't we try to rise above the herd on these issues?

>>24516808
anyone who is attractive and over 6 foot knows that what that anon said is true your just an incel

>>24522535
>The issue with my school of thought is that I've drawn a line within sodomy, a sort of border in an abyss of chaos, that two men could love each other. And I mean truly, truly love each other, only using physical relations as an emotionally-driven expression of love to one another - again, not the whole basis for why they are together, because that wouldn't be love.

The sort of physical relations homosexuals have are not even remotely comparable to the divinely created sexual union of man and woman. Gay sex is a base parody of it, a perversion, an act of desecration and nothing more. There is nothing transcendent or loving about inserting your penis into another man’s hairy, shit-riddled, gaping asshole.

>>24504834
>A lot of women's literature focuses on the death of the dream of romance
such as?

>>24522582
I don't think you're quite getting my narrative, and I apologize if I've made it unclear. You're absolutely right in what you've said; I agree with all of it. Gay sex is, indeed, a perversion. And so is homosexuality, by extension. I'm not denying that. Nor would I ever deny the divinely created sexual union of man and woman.
What you're incorrectly homing in on is the innate "unlovingness" of the act of gay sex. The act is, indeed, when isolated as an act without anything further than carnal intent, an unloving act. That's why nearly all homosexuals are definitively promiscuous. They engage in sodomy because it feels good to them. My difference in perspective, which I previously expressed, is that the act itself, I believe, should proceed *from* an already-existent love between two men. Real love, not mere lust which I hope to distinguish from. I understand how such a concept can seem so laughably far away from reality, both physically and spiritually. But, seeing as I am capable of expressing the existence of such a thing, then clearly there is some basis in reality for the existence of loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship wherein sex is a gratifying utility of that love.
Such a utility will never be sanctified. I won't deny that. But, you've failed to properly express that heterosexual relations are not innately sanctified either. It is the marital bed between man and woman that is sanctified. Holy Tradition, which I am guessing to be the basis of your argument, makes this quite clear. That's why you can't go out and have normative sex with a hooker and call it sanctified.
I should like to reiterate one last time: Sex, in the case of a monogamous homosexual relationship should proceed from an already-existent, purer love, between two men, that supersedes carnality. This is my view on the matter.

If you've contributed to this thread - that has nothing to do with literature and is entirely perverted and depraved - in any way other than denouncing it you're filtered by your own sexual perversity and will never be able to aim above the lusts of the flesh and gain any true insight on the nature of things as they are

>>24504419
Imagine being disallowed from talking about your little life problems to your friends or boyfriend for months at a time and they give you get 5-10 minutes on your birthday as a present.

>>24504725
Then why did they marry them? Falling out of love with an ingrate is one thing but the only reason to marry a woman is solely for her benefit and maybe his moms a little.

>>24504612
In general women are more attracted to retards. The higher the IQ a man has the less he tends to breed over all.
Which makes sense. It’s totally unnecessary now that winter isn’t a threat anymore. Nerds about to lose harder and harder now.

>>24504829
It’s at least as strong as baby fever

>>24504798
And the more money a woman makes the higher the chance of cheating and divorce. Up to 90%.
Women look at men as a resource. This is fine and natural and most men take pride in doing so. What men take issue with is the government helping women do this to such a degree it’s unbalanced society to the point of breaking it.

>>24505941
Cause? Vagina.

>>24506821
This. Don’t get married bros. She’ll never reciprocate the effort you put in.

>>24507007
Buddy this is so natural ancient prophets had to code it into their very religions telling all the men to stop trying to put it in her butt for hygienic reasons

>>24517516
I can barely read this illiterate post but let me give you a no-context-needed fact that might at least build your appreciation.
Women loosen up when they get turned on. So it’s possible you turn her on and her looseness is not JUST from her getting railed by how ever many dudes came in her before. If she gets slick enough she can say, “I can’t even feel you” try to take it as a compliment

>>24522241
Only extraordinary woman don’t feel good under the arms of a loving beast. What woman wants a wimp? And even if she did for monetary reasons, what man wants to be what a woman thinks is a wimp? Simp I remember is the new better word for it.
I wouldn’t want a woman that didn’t feel at least a little threat from me. Because if I don’t scare her, I certainly don’t scare what could actually threaten our family.