That part wasn't the initial offensive part. It was the initial statement of... " What does sex really take? You are asking her to lie on her back for less than 10 minutes and let you have her to show you that she cares for you? it is nothing."
It seemed to trivialize the act on the part of the spouse. Sounded more like a hooker than a spouse.
I took his point to be that the act is not particularly time consuming or physically arduous and in that context I did not find it offensive.
If you are reading into it that sex is a trivial obligation then I would agree that's offensive but that's not how I took it.
WRT people posting here saying they misunderstood the importance of sex, yes I've seen that but it's usually not in the context of a completely sexless marriage. What I read more often is that people withhold sex because they are resentful, angry, feel unappreciated or otherwise are not having their needs met. I understand that -- in the context of a failing relationship sex is not owed as an obligation.
Reading SSMguy and The Captain, they report that their wives are satisfied in the marriage and their needs are being met, but they still choose to *completely* deny any sex. Not just constrain it, unilaterally declare that there will be no more ever no matter what.
In what way can that be justified?
To me it's the same as unilaterally declaring there will be no more conversation in the relationship ever again for any reason but still expecting to have your needs met by the other person.
Doesn't that seem profoundly selfish and completely unacceptable?
Married 18, Together 20, Now Divorced M: 48, W: 50, D: 18, S: 16, D: 12 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 7/13/11 Start Reconcile: 8/15/11 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 5/1/2014 (Divorced) In a New Relationship: 3/2015
