Yes, like I said, it may sound perverse to some. The story was told to me in a therapy context, with the point being that what is sometimes important is to get to a stage that works for the couple in the context of their needs and turn-ons, and that it was more typical of younger and untrained therapists to try to first "normalize" both couples to like what is standard and normal. Which they might find boring and ineffective.
Just like only a naive therapist would insist on "treating" a couple where both partners were happy with no sex. If healthy people all had the same "standard" desires and needs, healthy people would all be sexually interchangeable. Which is surely not the case.
My wife works hard to make me happy and fulfilled in many other ways. It's not just about sex, and not everybody's relationship entirely hinges on sex. And it doesn't have to be because of children alone.
I really do find it curious how this point keeps coming up, especially the conclusion "how could there be anything worth it in the marriage if there's no sex". And in the very same context where the same people would make the point that marriage is not just about sex. You really can't have it both ways.
DanceQueen came to the same conclusion. She emphatically proclaimed my marriage a sham, apparently entirely based on sexual issues.
So then people say, well, I must be happy with no sex. No. Not at all. So which is it? Well, isn't that about as dumb as insisting you must have been unhappy as a teenager when you didn't have a sexual partner? No? Does that mean you were happy without sex? No. Inconsistent? No!
