Sure, there's always middle ground. But that wasn't the context of what I commented on, which was about whether or not a partner is required to provide sex, a want, regularly because the other partner believes it to be a need.

Comparably, is my partner requires ro drop everything and provide me with attention whenever I want it just because I believe attention is a basic human need?

What you described, your wife's recovery from surgery is not ongoing. It's a moment in time, but she's not going to be laid up unable to walk forever. That doesn't negate the fact that it's exhausting to take care of someone and will feel onerous and burdensome, no doubt.

Imagine that never ending. Ever. Based on a belief that's not actually true.

That's the kind of onerous and burdensome context I was responding to. And this is thr sexual frustration so many women experience that Simon says doesn't exist. Too many men make sex a chore women would rather just avoid and generally dread because they think they have to have it and they'll "starve" if they don't get it. Meanwhile, the way they approach sex, leaves them "malnourished" because they treat it like a Crack junkie on the street always looking for their next fix.

It's always about that next hit. They don't actually get anything meaningful or nourishing from the experience and they don't care who they hurt to get that next fix.

And it's not like some women don't play a role in this dynamic too. They're like dealers, step ginger men along and cutting the product (a sexual experience) with cheap substitutes. (Meaning they withhold real intimacy and connection, they're transactional).

In that context, there is no halfway. You either treat sex and potential sex partners honorably, or you buy into all this bullshit, and you don't. You use sex transactionally to benefit yourself.