If your partner broke up with you because you felt sex was a chore or were just often unwilling would you think they were with you "only for the sex"?

Question is in the title. I don't really have anything more to add. I mean, I've seen people claim that they think their partner is with them only for the sex... but if you're not willing to have sex with your partner pretty much ever, and they left, and you claimed "they left because you wouldn't put out", would you actually believe that the ONLY reason why they ever wanted to be with you was for sexual gratification?
  • YES, if they left because I was not willing to have sex with them often enough, then clearly the only reason why they were with me was for the sex, and nothing else
    Vote A
  • NO, sex is only one of multiple reasons why they chose to be with me, but the general dissatisfaction caused them to break up instead.
    Vote B
  • ACTUALLY, the sexual dissatisfaction and frustration on both sides is just an underlying symptom of a bigger problem with the relationship, the bad sex is an indicator of the relationship itself being unsatisfying and stressful; but not the direct cause itself.
    Vote C
  • I DON'T KNOW, I've never been in a relationship where I didn't want to have sex with my partner because I felt it was a chore.
    Vote D
  • OTHER, none of the upper answers describe what I think.
    Vote E
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy


Most Helpful Girl

  • It would definitely cross my mind but I would like to think that sex was just a part of our relationship, but it was more important to them than it was to me. I would like to work it out with them though. I would not like it if they left me before even telling me they had an issue and we didn't ever try to rectify it. If they didn't let me work it out with them, I would assume they were using it as an excuse just to leave. I would prefer it if they gave me the honest reason though.


Most Helpful Guy

  • "If you care about what others think of you, then you will forever be their prisoner."
    - Lao Tzu.

    Do you know how much effort it takes for me to say that I supposedly genuinely feel or think that, "If he did X, then it must mean Y"? As many kilojoules as it takes for my brain to go into emotional manipulation mode and move my lips and exhale air from my lungs.

    Why is it emotionally manipulative? Because I'm "reframing" someone's behavior as something "negative." I'm trying to make them "feeling guilty or ashamed" for acting in a way that's contrary to what my interests are.

    And, if my interests are to have them be in a relationship with me without me having sex with them (either because I don't like sex, I have issues with men and sex, I'm not that strongly sexually attracted to him, or I have a system of beliefs that emotionally gives me pleasure the longer a guy waits - for me - ideally until marriage), then I have plenty of incentive to try to "reframe" his behavior (the parts that don't cater to my interests) as "negative."

    So, if your "litmus test" of whether your behavior is or is not something (or whether it's something "negative") is based on the opinions of someone else who has a direct and immediate interest in the way YOU BEHAVE (especially TOWARDS THEM), I'm not sure how valuable, objective, unbiased, or disinterested that opinion would be - or what information you're really getting about YOUR BEHAVIOR from THAT PERSON'S OPINION REGARDING YOUR BEHAVIOR.

    • When monkeys are "angry" at another monkey, they sometimes throw poop at the monkey they are angry at. Well, launching the following suggestion, "if they left because I was not willing to have sex with them often enough, then clearly the ONLY reason why they were with me was for the sex, and NOTHING ELSE," is "sh*tting on your soul" (so to speak). It's suggesting a "rule" that if violated should make a person feel "bad, guilty, ashamed," because it reflects "negatively" on their character (i. e., identity). Yet, the rule is not actually based on reality based on objective, unbiased, and disinterested observation and analysis. It's just a statement created in the hopes of it being accepted by the listener as true, and inducing negative emotions regarding the listener's identity.

      It's spoken in the hopes of causing emotional distress. It's simply just a slightly advanced version of monkeys throwing poop to other monkeys they feel anger towards.

Recommended Questions


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 5

  • I'm starting to think you're a sex addict with all of these sex questions lol

    I think it depends, if he tried to talk to me about the situation multiple times first, then I would always be open to improving/fixing any issues in my relationship, I want my boyfriend/husband to be happy and he should want the same for me.

    But if it turned out that we just weren't compatible then I wouldn't expect someone to stay in a relationship where they needed more from someone.

    Also i'm waiting to have sex but plan on having lots of it when I do, so i'm not sure how much my opinion really matters.

  • I do not have sex outside of marriage. So if he broke up with me for a sex related issue it'd be because I don't put out. So yeah, I would think he broke up with me because he just wanted the sex. Which, in my case, good riddance. I don't need that nonsense in my life. I'm looking for a husband here, folks, and if he isn't on board with my value system then he'd make a pretty shitty husband anyway.

    • I think he would have wanted a balanced relationship based on his idea of what a relationship is supposed to be like, which also includes desiring sexual intimacy with your partner. If a female "isn't willing to put out", that just means they're not as interested in you as you'd like them to be.

    • Show All
    • Be that as it may, that doesn't mean that:

      1. The "value" of "no sex until marriage" is not just simply grounded on avoiding the emotional distress caused by basic self-esteem on body image and sexual attractiveness (i. e., a defensive coping mechanism), and additionally avoiding the risk of emotional distress caused by anxiety and fear of abandonment (e. g., "Will he leave me 'after' I have sex with him?").

      2. The "value" of "marriage is more than just a piece of paper" is based on purely conscious-level thinking (i. e., it's not really a "core belief," it's an "intermediate belief" - a means to an end). The fear is "abandonment," and so, "marriage" is an arrangement that helps alleviate the anxiety of abandonment, and also supplements the need for comfort on the issue of sex and body image being linked to self-esteem. So, it's expected and natural to place an idealized or utopian-like weight or important towards "marriage."

    • Those "values," however, are not based on "realism," or even "constructivism." They're based solely on "expressivism" (Google "moral philosophy" or "moral reasoning").

      They are simply justifications for continuing to hold onto a set of "intermediate beliefs" that support your own set of "core beliefs" that were formed during early childhood as defensive coping mechanisms to held avoid emotional distress or pain.

      The two choices are to either (a) continue to maintain defensive coping mechanisms, or (b) explore the causes of the emotional distress, re-examine the core beliefs formed during early childhood through the lens of your more experienced and more rational "adult" self, and look to see which "core beliefs" are really in line with "objective reality," and which alternative or new beliefs are more accurately or truthfully in line with reality.

      Yet, the later involves work, compromise, and painfully admitting that what WE BELIEVE is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT and NEVER WRONG.

  • I said C. I think 2 people can be sexually incompatible and that can be bad for a relationship. I also do agree with the rest of the answer - if sex is a "chore" that's a sign of bigger issues.

  • If you both care about each other then you should get to the root of why you do t enjoy sex with your partner. If it's something that can't be changed then it's the fairest decision to end things.

  • I think it's acceptable to break up with someone who has a different libido/sex drive to you. If they're THAT different, it's perfectly fair to break up because neither of you will be completely satisfied in the relationship, one person shouldn't have to compromise their happiness so that the other person is happy, it's not fair on either party.

    So I wouldn't say they were using them for sex, because sex IS an important part of a relationship and if you're just not sexually compatible, it can't work.

    • Like, if someone was interested in ONLY sex, they wouldn't have a relationship with that person. Relationships are more than just the sex, but still a very important factor which can contribute majorly to the state of the relationship, but you wouldn't be in a relationship just for sex because you don't need a relationship to get it.

What Guys Said 2

  • No. Everyone has the right to be satisfied sexually in a relationship. Sex is one of the three or so main pillars of a successful relationship - alongside with love and respect. You can't have a house when you are missing a pillar.

  • No, I don't that shows that they were there only for the sex.

    I think a healthy sex life is necessary for a good relationship, but it's not sufficient in itself. So without it the relationship won't be great, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing which matters.

    • *I don't think that shows

Recommended myTakes