The Men Who's Wives Have No Sex Drive Support Club

[newhere2learn]

I agree with that , our partners have no right to enforce celebacy , should have a lit meet up , imagine the orgy lol I have had offers to meet up but of course ive turned the guys down , it's getting m6ch harder to say no the longer none of my needs are met,
mm train trip to Bournemouth then ? Lol

Bournemouth? Bit posh. Skegvegas?

 

[pikmin1388]

Bournemouth? Bit posh. Skegvegas?[/QUOTE
Okay there as well lol I have very high sex drive more the better lol

 

[nowisthetime]

I VOW to never be that chick!

 

[SlutAddicted]

Unfortunately I think that sex is far down the priority list of marriage criteria for lots of women. Some never did see their husbands as particularly sexually appealing. That doesn't mean she has no sex drive - just that she has no sex drive for her husband.

I know that sounds shitty but each person has different expectations of marriage. Sacrificing sex appeal for other characteristics and accepting the trade-off has been happening for thousands of years. And women know it is a lot more palatable to say "I don't crave sex" than to say "I don't want sex with you".

Personally I think we should consider what we as well as our partner wants in marriage. We are far too inclined to defer to an accepted standard of what each should or shouldn't want. Whether your partner simply wants to be sexually desired or wants to be bound in latex and spanked, we owe it to one another to be honest about whether we are truly willing to embrace their desire.

 

[xhxhxh]

Unfortunately I think that sex is far down the priority list of marriage criteria for lots of women. Some never did see their husbands as particularly sexually appealing. That doesn't mean she has no sex drive - just that she has no sex drive for her husband.

I know that sounds shitty but each person has different expectations of marriage. Sacrificing sex appeal for other characteristics and accepting the trade-off has been happening for thousands of years. And women know it is a lot more palatable to say "I don't crave sex" than to say "I don't want sex with you".

Personally I think we should consider what we as well as our partner wants in marriage. We are far too inclined to defer to an accepted standard of what each should or shouldn't want. Whether your partner simply wants to be sexually desired or wants to be bound in latex and spanked, we owe it to one another to be honest about whether we are truly willing to embrace their desire.

I certainly agree with your well written post. My question is do you believe that today this is more of an american issue than it is in other places, based on our archaic divorce laws? Im not up to date on what takes place in other countries but i know that in the US people are financially punished when they fall out of love and i dont believe thats right.
I think the other problem too is that people are well into their marriage before they feel completely comfortable with sharing things they want or desire from their partner. Some people even experience a change in what they desire sexually from a partner.

By no means am i trying to bash women but i agree with your points about it not always being a top priority.

 

[LanguageOfLove]

Unfortunately I think that sex is far down the priority list of marriage criteria for lots of women. Some never did see their husbands as particularly sexually appealing. That doesn't mean she has no sex drive - just that she has no sex drive for her husband.

I know that sounds shitty but each person has different expectations of marriage. Sacrificing sex appeal for other characteristics and accepting the trade-off has been happening for thousands of years. And women know it is a lot more palatable to say "I don't crave sex" than to say "I don't want sex with you".

Personally I think we should consider what we as well as our partner wants in marriage. We are far too inclined to defer to an accepted standard of what each should or shouldn't want. Whether your partner simply wants to be sexually desired or wants to be bound in latex and spanked, we owe it to one another to be honest about whether we are truly willing to embrace their desire.

I will just repeat my message, one that I hold dear to my heart:

I agree with this post. Since my husband and I have been intimate again, it has spilled into our daily lives, every aspect of it. We are much better communicators, we haven't fought over those trivial things that come up, like future things, money, misunderstandings. I cried the other day because we had to talk about something serious and we didn't argue. We were able to have a really good conversation about it.

I put the blame on both of us, but instead of waiting for him to change, I started to change, realizing what he's done for us, he does so much and doesn't complain. He is kind and supportive. I had the lucky chance of showing my love to him and will continue to do so.

Its never too late.

 

[newhere2learn]

Unfortunately I think that sex is far down the priority list of marriage criteria for lots of women. Some never did see their husbands as particularly sexually appealing. That doesn't mean she has no sex drive - just that she has no sex drive for her husband.

I know that sounds shitty but each person has different expectations of marriage. Sacrificing sex appeal for other characteristics and accepting the trade-off has been happening for thousands of years. And women know it is a lot more palatable to say "I don't crave sex" than to say "I don't want sex with you".

Personally I think we should consider what we as well as our partner wants in marriage. We are far too inclined to defer to an accepted standard of what each should or shouldn't want. Whether your partner simply wants to be sexually desired or wants to be bound in latex and spanked, we owe it to one another to be honest about whether we are truly willing to embrace their desire.

Funny you write this. I've been speaking to a platonic friend of late who's 2 year relationship has failed. One of her and her BFs sticking points was.... Sex.


In her own words; "I don't really like it or need it, and once a month is enough. Snuggles and stuff are far more important. The longer I'm in a relationship, the less I want"

She's 31.

Apparently her BF was the opposite. As the relationship progressed, he wanted more and to try an array of "kinks" such as; face sitting, rimming, snowball, anal and such.

It seems she labelled him a "pervert" and enforced a sex ban.

 

[live4thebj]

She had an awesome sex drive and then it went somewhere. Still trying to find it. Isn't your 40's when they are supposed to be super horny?

 

[eroticspank]

I will just repeat my message, one that I hold dear to my heart:

I agree with this post. Since my husband and I have been intimate again, it has spilled into our daily lives, every aspect of it. We are much better communicators, we haven't fought over those trivial things that come up, like future things, money, misunderstandings. I cried the other day because we had to talk about something serious and we didn't argue. We were able to have a really good conversation about it.

I put the blame on both of us, but instead of waiting for him to change, I started to change, realizing what he's done for us, he does so much and doesn't complain. He is kind and supportive. I had the lucky chance of showing my love to him and will continue to do so.

Its never too late.

Great comments. I really feel like intimacy in the form of sex does spill over into other aspects of life. They touch each other more, see each other in a more intimate light. And orgasm releases a lot of tension for both, which can result in emotional release as well. That is why arguments, irritability, and tension seem to disappear.

ES

 

[eroticspank]

Funny you write this. I've been speaking to a platonic friend of late who's 2 year relationship has failed. One of her and her BFs sticking points was.... Sex.

In her own words; "I don't really like it or need it, and once a month is enough. Snuggles and stuff are far more important. The longer I'm in a relationship, the less I want"

She's 31.

Apparently her BF was the opposite. As the relationship progressed, he wanted more and to try an array of "kinks" such as; face sitting, rimming, snowball, anal and such.

It seems she labelled him a "pervert" and enforced a sex ban.

I can't speak for this guy, but I feel like it would help women to understand that some men see sex with their woman as being close. In other words, companionship, closeness, and intimacy in my head comes in the bedroom. I feel close to my partner by having sex with her. If she wants to have sex with me and even indulge my fantasies, I feel even closer. The aftercare, cuddling, and holding is also part of my craving for my partner but it comes after the sex, and feels better if there is intense sex and play.

Once I feel close, I get more emotional with her, want to touch her more, even tell her I love her more. Take away the sex and I feel like she is not interested in me and I start to lose my closeness feeling.

But there is the controversy about sexual favors and what one "should" or "should not" do in the bedroom. I can imagine a gf of many years ago giving me a BJ just because she wanted me to feel good. But if I am married, I can't tell my wife I love her because she did something purely sexual just for me? A non-selfish act that was just meant for my pleasure and happiness? IF I tell her I love her, is she to assume it is ONLY because she gave me a BJ and all our years together mean nothing in this instance?

It is all very complicated.

ES

 

[newhere2learn]

I can't speak for this guy, but I feel like it would help women to understand that some men see sex with their woman as being close. In other words, companionship, closeness, and intimacy in my head comes in the bedroom. I feel close to my partner by having sex with her. If she wants to have sex with me and even indulge my fantasies, I feel even closer. The aftercare, cuddling, and holding is also part of my craving for my partner but it comes after the sex, and feels better if there is intense sex and play.

Once I feel close, I get more emotional with her, want to touch her more, even tell her I love her more. Take away the sex and I feel like she is not interested in me and I start to lose my closeness feeling.

But there is the controversy about sexual favors and what one "should" or "should not" do in the bedroom. I can imagine a gf of many years ago giving me a BJ just because she wanted me to feel good. But if I am married, I can't tell my wife I love her because she did something purely sexual just for me? A non-selfish act that was just meant for my pleasure and happiness? IF I tell her I love her, is she to assume it is ONLY because she gave me a BJ and all our years together mean nothing in this instance?

It is all very complicated.

ES

Easy to see why;

Wife's horny, man invariably says yes, no questions asked

Husband is horny, wife says no in most cases

 

[pplwatching]

But if I am married, I can't tell my wife I love her because she did something purely sexual just for me? A non-selfish act that was just meant for my pleasure and happiness? IF I tell her I love her, is she to assume it is ONLY because she gave me a BJ and all our years together mean nothing in this instance?

I think that there are two answers to this question. The first involves the exploring the difference between "I feel loved" and "I love you". There are a lot of things that my wife does that make me feel loved, but then one of my "love languages" is "acts of service" and the other is "touch". It can be argued that my wife shouldn't have to go out of her way to make me feel loved, and I do see that she loves me (and is in love with me) during our every day communication. But there are some things that are especially touching. I really don't care if she buys me a gift, but an unexpected kiss, a back scratch, my favorite meal, and many other things invoke an emotional response that I can say "make me feel loved". In those cases I can (and do) say "That was great, thank you!" or similar to let her know that I appreciated it.

I think the trick is to not imply that "I only feel loved when you do that" or "I expect you to do that", which would turn that act of service / gift into a mandatory act, which is not the same thing. While I think that "I loved that" and "I feel loved because you did <that> for me" are valid emotional reactions on different levels, it doesn't/shouldn't imply that "I don't feel loved because you didn't/won't do <that> for me". There are certain things where the latter might apply, like refusing to hold my hand when we're walking together or even not wanting a hug. Since I know that she loves me, I take those hints as meaning that there's something that we need to resolve rather than "I don't love you". This extends to sex too, but I've written about the difference between rejecting sex at an inopportune moment and regularly rejecting sexual advances so I'll stop there. I will just add that if she refused to hold my hand for 6 months then I might well conclude that she "isn't in love with me" but in general that points to a communication issue or temporary situation.

"I love you" is a different thing, because that is about the things that I do because I love my wife. I say it often and it's not unusual if I say "I love you" after we've had even the most vanilla missionary sex, but my wife and I have had discussions about how sex influences our feelings for each other. I do often express love in terms of my "love languages", but fortunately ours are similar so that works. If we say "I love you" when we are expressing love and doing things *for* our spouse, then the meaning is going to be pretty clear and isn't likely to be confused with what we feel when we receive.

I think that if we only say "I love you" when a spouse does something for us, then perhaps what we really meant to say was "I feel loved" and need to find a way to express that sentiment. If we reserve "I love you" for the times when we do something for our spouse, and instead express gratitude when they do something for us then perhaps we are more likely to have the message received with the intent that we want.

 

[midwestdude]

.......

 

[SlutAddicted]

I certainly agree with your well written post. My question is do you believe that today this is more of an american issue than it is in other places, based on our archaic divorce laws? Im not up to date on what takes place in other countries but i know that in the US people are financially punished when they fall out of love and i dont believe thats right.
I think the other problem too is that people are well into their marriage before they feel completely comfortable with sharing things they want or desire from their partner. Some people even experience a change in what they desire sexually from a partner.

By no means am i trying to bash women but i agree with your points about it not always being a top priority.

I think that divorce has a high "cost" everywhere. The legal terms of separation are more balanced in some places than others but even if terms are financially "fair" all parties lose something of what they had. And laws can't take away the high emotional toll of divorce. I don't see this as being particularly more burdensome in America than elsewhere but I am not an authority.

It often isn't until we are further along in a relationship that we really know one another. But why is that the case? In my view we are encouraged to accept a pre-determined and sanitized view of sex in general. Many of us haven't come to grips with our own deepest desires by the time we reach marriage age. Many of us never really come to grips with those desires. Although society's standards evolve we are always encouraged to comply. And many hide behind those pre-conceptions to avoid things that make them uncomfortable.

These dynamics discourage recognition and communication from both parties. And they frequently become the excuse for ignoring the other party's desire or views. The most egregious and callous disregard for one another often comes from an unjustified certainty of one's own correctness. That certainty often comes from outside stereotypes that are reinforced by those around us. We hide behind them to justify the changes we seek, to disregard the changes our partners may want or deny responsibility for any friction.

For any given woman who feels disinclined to fuck her husband there is an army of women ready and waiting to offer up a list of justifications for her. Very few of those women will ask "but when did you last fuck him?" Very few will explore just what are the limitations of those justifications. And the same goes for the support system around any given man who thinks his wife should let him fuck her in the ass.

In my view the only reference point is what you and your spouse established and built together. Neither party gets to change the rules on their own and it doesn't matter a single fucking whit if your mom or your buddies agree with you. It is ok if sex is or isn't a top priority. It isn't ok to change the rules and hide behind the premise that "this is the way it is supposed to be."

 

[SlutAddicted]

I will just repeat my message, one that I hold dear to my heart:

I agree with this post. Since my husband and I have been intimate again, it has spilled into our daily lives, every aspect of it. We are much better communicators, we haven't fought over those trivial things that come up, like future things, money, misunderstandings. I cried the other day because we had to talk about something serious and we didn't argue. We were able to have a really good conversation about it.

I put the blame on both of us, but instead of waiting for him to change, I started to change, realizing what he's done for us, he does so much and doesn't complain. He is kind and supportive. I had the lucky chance of showing my love to him and will continue to do so.

Its never too late.

I like this post. Have you ever noticed that all the people we really get along with well are those with whom we don't insist on winning arguments and fights. Sure it happens. But we seem to know intuitively (or learn) that even if we "win" it hurts the relationship to beat the other person down. You can't "win" a friendship or a productive business relationship. You build them by not needing to win all the time, by compromising and by not letting other people meddle.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Funny you write this. I've been speaking to a platonic friend of late who's 2 year relationship has failed. One of her and her BFs sticking points was.... Sex.


In her own words; "I don't really like it or need it, and once a month is enough. Snuggles and stuff are far more important. The longer I'm in a relationship, the less I want"

She's 31.

Apparently her BF was the opposite. As the relationship progressed, he wanted more and to try an array of "kinks" such as; face sitting, rimming, snowball, anal and such.

It seems she labelled him a "pervert" and enforced a sex ban.

On the surface it sounds like they both tried to change the terms of reference. They just aren't the right fit. But importantly in my view, neither is right or wrong and neither is justified in trying to de-legitimize the other's desires. He is no more wrong for wanting to fuck her in the ass than she is for only wanting vanilla sex once a month.

The reference to some universal standard that justifies one or the other is not something any of us should accept.

 

[KimGordon67]

I think that divorce has a high "cost" everywhere. The legal terms of separation are more balanced in some places than others but even if terms are financially "fair" all parties lose something of what they had. And laws can't take away the high emotional toll of divorce. I don't see this as being particularly more burdensome in America than elsewhere but I am not an authority.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree that divorce has a necessarily high cost. It is true that, even in places where there is a totally even split of marital property, no alimony, and utterly reasonable arrangements regarding child support, a two-earner household will always be better off financially than two one-earner households. But this isn't really the 'cost' you're referring to, I think. I think a lot of the 'emotional' cost relates to the social constructed notion of what a marital-type relationship 'should' be like, and one of the biggest markers of 'success' in that respect is longevity.
Personally, I'd strongly dispute longevity as a marker of a 'good' marriage. I've seen a number of situations where people have 'tried to make it work' for years (or, in many cases, not really tried at all but just put up with being miserable because they didn't want their marriage to 'fail'). If they'd had a good honest talk when things started getting tricky, decided then that they wanted to either put work into continuing the relationship, or just own the fact that they weren't really into it any more and gone their separate ways relatively amicably, they would have saved themselves and each other a world of hurt.
I think the 'cost' that's often associated with divorce is often related to the fact that by the time people decide to accept that they're not into each other any more they no longer love each, they usually don't even really like each other, they often really resent each other, and sometimes they actually hate each other. In any of those contexts, it's difficult to draw a marriage to a close in a way that's best for everyone involved.

 

[xhxhxh]

I'm not entirely sure that I agree that divorce has a necessarily high cost. It is true that, even in places where there is a totally even split of marital property, no alimony, and utterly reasonable arrangements regarding child support, a two-earner household will always be better off financially than two one-earner households. But this isn't really the 'cost' you're referring to, I think. I think a lot of the 'emotional' cost relates to the social constructed notion of what a marital-type relationship 'should' be like, and one of the biggest markers of 'success' in that respect is longevity.
Personally, I'd strongly dispute longevity as a marker of a 'good' marriage. I've seen a number of situations where people have 'tried to make it work' for years (or, in many cases, not really tried at all but just put up with being miserable because they didn't want their marriage to 'fail'). If they'd had a good honest talk when things started getting tricky, decided then that they wanted to either put work into continuing the relationship, or just own the fact that they weren't really into it any more and gone their separate ways relatively amicably, they would have saved themselves and each other a world of hurt.
I think the 'cost' that's often associated with divorce is often related to the fact that by the time people decide to accept that they're not into each other any more they no longer love each, they usually don't even really like each other, they often really resent each other, and sometimes they actually hate each other. In any of those contexts, it's difficult to draw a marriage to a close in a way that's best for everyone involved.

Marriage is a government sponsored union. It is regulated by the state. Divorce has become a profitable entity for many folks (certain individuals, LAWYERS, mediators, childcare givers, etc). The court systems have become inundated with divorce proceedings, child custody, asset dividings. Who pays for the governemnt to operate? We do. The people. With our taxes. So in essence, We ALL pay a heavy price. Just because two people decided they no longer love each other.

Ive been on both sides; married and divorced. Fortunately i was one of the lucky ones who made it through the system nearly unscathed. (Notice i said nearly But i did some research and i educated myself on the subject to some degree. In my opinion the procedure to end a marriage in this country is appalling. Like i said earlier it has become an industry and sadly we all pay for it in one way or another.

Just my two cents....

 

[KimGordon67]

Marriage is a government sponsored union. It is regulated by the state. Divorce has become a profitable entity for many folks (certain individuals, LAWYERS, mediators, childcare givers, etc). The court systems have become inundated with divorce proceedings, child custody, asset dividings. Who pays for the governemnt to operate? We do. The people. With our taxes. So in essence, We ALL pay a heavy price. Just because two people decided they no longer love each other.

Ive been on both sides; married and divorced. Fortunately i was one of the lucky ones who made it through the system nearly unscathed. (Notice i said nearly But i did some research and i educated myself on the subject to some degree. In my opinion the procedure to end a marriage in this country is appalling. Like i said earlier it has become an industry and sadly we all pay for it in one way or another.

Just my two cents....

I guess that's partly my point - if you divorce when you realise that the relationship has fundamentally finished, but before you actively dislike each other, a lot of those costs can be minimised, if not dispensed with entirely. I'm not in the US, so possibly we function under a different system, but you can end a marriage with a minimal degree of legal fuss if you're still getting on.

 

[HornyHal]

I VOW to never be that chick!

That's why we're on here looking to have fun with ladies like you.

 

[xhxhxh]

I guess that's partly my point - if you divorce when you realise that the relationship has fundamentally finished, but before you actively dislike each other, a lot of those costs can be minimised, if not dispensed with entirely. I'm not in the US, so possibly we function under a different system, but you can end a marriage with a minimal degree of legal fuss if you're still getting on.

Absolutely, it is a possibility. Unfortunately it's becoming less likely to happen. People see then end of a marriage as an opportunity to "get theirs" it disgusts me to no end...

 

[KimGordon67]

Absolutely, it is a possibility. Unfortunately it's becoming less likely to happen. People see then end of a marriage as an opportunity to "get theirs" it disgusts me to no end...

Exactly what I mean ... it's made me really sad seeing friends do that to each other. Someone I've known a long time sat at my kitchen table and literally said 'I don't care if the lawyer ends up getting it all, just so long as she suffers financially'. And they have a kid ... how is that making their kid's life any better?

 

[xhxhxh]

Exactly what I mean ... it's made me really sad seeing friends do that to each other. Someone I've known a long time sat at my kitchen table and literally said 'I don't care if the lawyer ends up getting it all, just so long as she suffers financially'. And they have a kid ... how is that making their kid's life any better?

It's definitely not. The lawyers only encourage this behavior because they profit the most. They drag everything out and actually stoke the flames of animosity between the former couple. They portray themselves as helping you in your darkest hour and time of need.... Please! Makes me sick. They push the whole deal. They get together and laugh at the couple, all the while each side is draining their respective bank accounts. Wish we could could put an end to this mentality

 

[pplwatching]

Marriage is a government sponsored union. It is regulated by the state. Divorce has become a profitable entity for many folks (certain individuals, LAWYERS, mediators, childcare givers, etc). The court systems have become inundated with divorce proceedings, child custody, asset dividings. Who pays for the governemnt to operate? We do. The people. With our taxes. So in essence, We ALL pay a heavy price. Just because two people decided they no longer love each other.

I think that the idea that marriage is a 'state sponsored union' misses the mark considerably. In the US and societies with roughly the same marriage structure, if we strip away the emotional premise then what we are left with is fundamentally a business arrangement. The state formally acknowledges the the financial ties between two people and provides a framework of laws under which the 'business' can operate and, eventually dissolve. Dissolving a financial union is a messy business when there are multiple types of assets and liabilities.

As much as we love our kids, they are liabilities. They cost money to feed, clothe, educate, and provide for while requiring time and attention. This raises the issue of specialization of labor. Is a spouse that gives up years of earnings and earning potential to raise kids and to enable the other spouse to advance their own career and increase their earning potential due some kind of compensation? These are questions that the courts are asked to answer along with questions about the best interests of minor children, and since there are few clear cut answers the courts end up spending a lot of time to resolve these issues.

Without this formal acknowledgement and framework, couples who develop financial and family ties are left to work out a patchwork of agreements that they may not be prepared to negotiate for themselves through the rose colored glasses of emotions, and that may not hold up under legal scrutiny. There are cases where the state will step in anyway, such as common law marriages here in the US and eventually probate court when disposing of assets and debts when we die.

In the end whether or not a couple is married the same issues are in play, so I don't think that doing away with marriage will do anything to unburden the legal system. I think that it's wishful thinking to think that individuals can navigate all of the complex issues involving assets, liabilities, children, and everything else that is a part of marriage without some kind of legal framework. The 'edge cases' or unforeseen circumstances will always require 3rd party assessment if people can't agree on how to handle them.

For the flaws that it has, the state framework seems to work pretty well in most cases until people no longer want to be married - however, if we take away 'marriage' and just look at people dissolving less formal relationships the same problems exist. It seems like without marriage there is a much greater potential for abuse, since people can walk back verbal agreements and do whatever they want regardless of the impact on the other person.

 

[KimGordon67]

I think that the idea that marriage is a 'state sponsored union' misses the mark considerably. In the US and societies with roughly the same marriage structure, if we strip away the emotional premise then what we are left with is fundamentally a business arrangement. The state formally acknowledges the the financial ties between two people and provides a framework of laws under which the 'business' can operate and, eventually dissolve. Dissolving a financial union is a messy business when there are multiple types of assets and liabilities.

As much as we love our kids, they are liabilities. They cost money to feed, clothe, educate, and provide for while requiring time and attention. This raises the issue of specialization of labor. Is a spouse that gives up years of earnings and earning potential to raise kids and to enable the other spouse to advance their own career and increase their earning potential due some kind of compensation? These are questions that the courts are asked to answer along with questions about the best interests of minor children, and since there are few clear cut answers the courts end up spending a lot of time to resolve these issues.

Without this formal acknowledgement and framework, couples who develop financial and family ties are left to work out a patchwork of agreements that they may not be prepared to negotiate for themselves through the rose colored glasses of emotions, and that may not hold up under legal scrutiny. There are cases where the state will step in anyway, such as common law marriages here in the US and eventually probate court when disposing of assets and debts when we die.

In the end whether or not a couple is married the same issues are in play, so I don't think that doing away with marriage will do anything to unburden the legal system. I think that it's wishful thinking to think that individuals can navigate all of the complex issues involving assets, liabilities, children, and everything else that is a part of marriage without some kind of legal framework. The 'edge cases' or unforeseen circumstances will always require 3rd party assessment if people can't agree on how to handle them.

For the flaws that it has, the state framework seems to work pretty well in most cases until people no longer want to be married - however, if we take away 'marriage' and just look at people dissolving less formal relationships the same problems exist. It seems like without marriage there is a much greater potential for abuse, since people can walk back verbal agreements and do whatever they want regardless of the impact on the other person.

I'd definitely agree with that - owning property together and/or spawning immediately ties you together financially, regardless of the nature of the relationship.

I know you weren't responding to me, but I guess my point was that if you don't try to drag the relationship out, there's a higher likelihood the people will agree on how to handle those things. (Although I'd still suggest some form of documentation, even if not a legal one, because people's memories of such agreements can vary wildly.)