# LD's enjoying but not wanting sex



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
A post in another thread made me aware of something strange in my wife's sexual behavior. She rarely wants sex, but when she does, she physically enjoys it, often very enthusiastically. 

That could be explained by her just rarely wanting sex, but I think there is more. The last couple of years she has given me a BJ as a "gift" for my birthday (a practice I'm going to stop). She really dislikes doing that, and won't do it any other time - but doing it gets her so aroused that she wants me to give her an orgasm afterwards (which I always do). 

At times when we are lying in bed, if I say something vaguely sexual, she will tell me to stop because she doesn't want to get aroused. 

But at the same time moderate intimacy - naughty notes at work, hugs, intimate kisses etc, she loves. 

As I see it, its very strange, she seems to actively not want to become aroused - except on the rare occasions when she wants sex - and then it is always planned. 

It is as if she sometimes wants sex - and then she will be sure to get it (not that I object, but she will make a real effort to overcome obstacles). At other times, she not only doesn't want sex, she doesn't want to want sex. Its almost as if having sex when she didn't plan it in advance is somehow giving in. Its as if she thinks spontaneous sex is wrong. 


Anyone else seen similar behavior?


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

It may be that she wants the non-sexual intimacy but feels that you feel EVERY non-sexual intimate moment needs to lead to a sexually-intimate moment so that's why she stops you.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
that might have been true in the past but recently (several years) I've been very careful not to try to escalate non sexual intimacy to sexual intimacy. 




Chris Taylor said:


> It may be that she wants the non-sexual intimacy but feels that you feel EVERY non-sexual intimate moment needs to lead to a sexually-intimate moment so that's why she stops you.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> At other times, she not only doesn't want sex, *she doesn't want to want sex.*


That line is kind of funny, and I can relate to it when I am busy and need to get stuff done. In my opinion this seems to be something like sticking to a mental plan you have in your mind for what will and will not happen that day. 

Let's say you really like pizza, but you are already planning to eat something else that has taken time to plan out the ingredients. You get a coupon for a free pizza that is good for today only, and it will likely frustrate you. 

Regarding sex, there must be some negative things associated with preparing for sex that your wife has to mentally overcome, and therefor she tries to avoid it until it is planned. 

My wife says she feels inadequate because I complain she never gives me enough, and I tell her that she should instead take that as a compliment. She will then proceed to tell me I can't have anymore this week and she will put her boobs in my face and laugh at me! She knows this gets me aroused at a moment I have to run take care of work. While I do find it a bit frustrating, I don't mind being crazy for my wife AND having to get my work done. If only our wives would have the opportunity to enjoy the same state of mind every once and a while so they know what we go through!

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

This is the most puzzling case of "sexless marriage". Yet it would seem to be the most easily solved.

If the wife just hates sex or isn't attracted to her husband, then it's a bigger hill to climb (and I have no idea what's up when the guy is LD).

But, I hear all the time about wives that "always enjoy sex when they have it" but don't have it.

In the previous thread, UMP referred to the analogy of going to the gym; sure it's hard to get off the couch and go but you know that you need to do it and you'll feel great when you do.

In the real gym situation, that's my wife. In the sex dept, my wife knows how important it is and makes sure it happens. 

So, this seems easy enough to fix; tell your wife how important this is to you and (assuming you're a good guy), if she loves you and cares about you're happiness she'll put out the effort to get started especially when she knows that she will enjoy it once it gets started. One reason why this might not happen is if the husband has never really made clear just how important this is to him (although I know that's not your situation Richard).

So, if she doesn't what does that mean? 1) She's completely selfish and simply doesn't care about your happiness or 2) She's somehow gotten the message that it's morally wrong for her to have sex unless she really wants to. The second is absurd. I'd suggest not doing what she enjoys unless you really, really want to and see if that gives her any insight to the situation.

I had a related situation. I love blowjobs. My wife, at worst, doesn't mind giving them. I know that my wife loves me. I know that my wife is self-centered but I also know that she cares enough about my happiness to put herself out for me. So, for 20 years, I made it clear how much I appreciated this. It happened from time to time but not very often. I was convinced that she knew how much I enjoyed this but, still, nothing. I didn't ask often (my problem) but there were plenty of situations where I'd get "I'll blow you tomorrow" and then, nothing.

Finally, over the course of a week or so, I succeeded in letting her know how very important this was to me. After a couple of false starts, she finally understood. 

So for the last couple of years, I just walk into the room with an erection and she smiles, drops to her knees and sucks me dry.

Sex in general is far better these days, she's more aroused than ever and having the best orgasms of her life. The spark in our previously excellent marriage is better than ever, there's just an zap in the air whenever we're alone together.

She claims she never really knew how much it meant to me. She regrets all the years when it wasn't this way.

So, I came on to TAM to tell guys that they have to be VERY clear in telling their wives what they want and figured that would solve all kinds of problems.

Unfortunately, it hasn't been that easy for others it seems.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

My wife always enthusiastically enjoys it. Just not frequently enough. I understand what the op is saying.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Well, 
Sex is very carnal. It's sloppy, emotional, almost painful in it's pleasure. I can very much see people, male and female having a hang up on this. 
My wife was very similar. Never wanting to talk about sex, never wanting to try something new, difficult letting herself go in the moment.

Perhaps it's just years of false conditioning thinking that sex is somehow dirty or wrong, even in marriage. It's taken me 24 years to figure my wife out, and I am still learning.

At the moment there is nothing a couple glasses of wine can't fix 

The ultimate is out of town hotel, alone, wine, hot tub, and pay per view porn.
In time I hope it gets easier and cheaper to produce the same hot results.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

UMP said:


> Well,
> Sex is very carnal. It's sloppy, emotional, almost painful in it's pleasure. I can very much see people, male and female having a hang up on this.
> My wife was very similar. Never wanting to talk about sex, never wanting to try something new, difficult letting herself go in the moment.
> 
> ...


We take our own porn with us on a USB. Cheaper and more attuned to our tastes.

Left one attached in a hotel room once. Hope the next guest enjoyed it.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

We like soft core porn. Not as much in your face so to speak. lol


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> We take our own porn with us on a USB. Cheaper and more attuned to our tastes.
> 
> Left one attached in a hotel room once. Hope the next guest enjoyed it.


I have noticed that my wife will never admit to wanting to watch porn. Just last week we were out of town and I was thumbing through the "adult" pay per view section and then left that section for regular tv. Wife could see the tv from the hot tub. After awhile she says "I thought you were going to watch porn." To which I immediately replied "I am."
She acted like she was not watching, but she did.

She just cannot admit to herself that sex and watching sex turns her on. Something in her brain cannot allow herself to admit this. 
The other thing I noticed is that if I show ANY reluctance to watching porn or while trying a different "move" on her, it will immediately alert that strange part of her brain which stops things moving forward. It hampers sexual success.

Result: Do what you want with confidence. She needs your confidence and brash maleness in order to combat her "good girl" brain function.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I wouldn't rule out your #2. It seems to fit the pattern - maybe she has the idea that doing anything sexual that she doesn't actively want at that moment is somehow wrong or degrading. Even if she enjoys it once she is doing it, maybe she feels "used". 

I did have a very clear talk with her about how important sex and BJs are to me. As with all previous talks she got very upset, Then a week later things improved a lot, then after a couple of months declined again.

I could model it as selfish - that she only does what she thinks she has to in order to avoid divorce (a miserable thought), but she really does seem to enjoy sex once it starts. 

Possibly she thinks sex is wrong. She sometimes gets aroused and can'r resist, but then feels guilty afterwards? She did seem to come from an unfortunate household - In all the time I visited I don't think I ever saw a sign of affection between her parents. (but thats true for me too....)



I'm very glad you improved things with your wife.




Buddy400 said:


> sinp
> So, if she doesn't what does that mean? 1) She's completely selfish and simply doesn't care about your happiness or 2) She's somehow gotten the message that it's morally wrong for her to have sex unless she really wants to. The second is absurd. I'd suggest not doing what she enjoys unless you really, really want to and see if that gives her any insight to the situation.
> 
> I had a related situation. I love blowjobs. My wife, at worst, doesn't mind giving them. I know that my wife loves me. I know that my wife is self-centered but I also know that she cares enough about my happiness to put herself out for me. So, for 20 years, I made it clear how much I appreciated this. It happened from time to time but not very often. I was convinced that she knew how much I enjoyed this but, still, nothing. I didn't ask often (my problem) but there were plenty of situations where I'd get "I'll blow you tomorrow" and then, nothing.
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Young At Heart's wife was like this...perhaps he will find the thread or you could PM him to ask for his input.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

What would the response be to the following:

"I'm having a problem with the knowledge that, even though you know how happy sex makes me and believing that you enjoy having sex when we have it; you are still reluctant to have sex with me. 

I find myself having to think that either you don't care about my happiness or that you find having sex with me repulsive.

I don't think I can be happy in this marriage while believing either of the above"


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Richard--does she exhibit tendencies of needing to be in control of situations? It kind of sounds to me like she may not want to allow herself to become aroused because that represents a loss of control.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I've tried almost exactly that. It results in apologies and tears, and emotional upset. Then an endless list of excuses (too tired, can't sleep after sex, etc etc). The excuses are in themselves completely valid, but inconsistent with other behavior - lack of sleep makes her not want sex, but she is perfectly happy to spend the day hiking in the jungles of Borneo.

After a discussion like this things get briefly better then decline again. As they decline she gives excuses (without my asking) and apologizes for the lack of sex. She will even offer to "do something for me" by which she means a handjob - but I know that she will then complain the next day that she didn't sleep, and a non-enthusiastic HJ where she is just waiting for me to get off is not really worth much to me anyway. I think she offers because she knows I won't accept. 

I'm just not willing to upset her that much, that often so that I can get sex. 





Buddy400 said:


> What would the response be to the following:
> 
> "I'm having a problem with the knowledge that, even though you know how happy sex makes me and believing that you enjoy having sex when we have it; you are still reluctant to have sex with me.
> 
> ...


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I've tried almost exactly that. It results in apologies and tears, and emotional upset. Then an endless list of excuses (too tired, can't sleep after sex, etc etc). The excuses are in themselves completely valid, but inconsistent with other behavior - lack of sleep makes her not want sex, but she is perfectly happy to spend the day hiking in the jungles of Borneo.
> 
> After a discussion like this things get briefly better then decline again. As they decline she gives excuses (without my asking) and apologizes for the lack of sex. She will even offer to "do something for me" by which she means a handjob - but I know that she will then complain the next day that she didn't sleep, and a non-enthusiastic HJ where she is just waiting for me to get off is not really worth much to me anyway. I think she offers because she knows I won't accept.
> ...


I completely stopped talking about sex with my wife. I simply do. If she declines I do try to be reasonable about it. For example, she knows my perfect frequency is twice a week. If her "no" still falls in line with that, I am completely OK with it. However, if the "no' still happens after 1 week or more and there are no other obvious road blocks (period, major stress, etc) I will choose to do something fun by myself.

For example, one week has gone by, wife is for whatever reason not interested and I know it's just an excuse for excuse sake, I say "no problem, I'm going to the mall to buy some clothes for myself, I'll be home in a couple hours."

In other words, if she is not interested in having "fun" with me, I'll go out and have fun by myself. The other part which is not really fair to my wife is the fact that she knows women hit on me all the time. Sometimes they even do it in front of her. This added reality of other women possibly hitting on me when she has just said "no" to my initiation only helps to reinforce her rebuff as empty and unconducive to a happy marriage.

BTW: I ALWAYS tell my wife if a women hits on me, always. Some may say I am crazy, I say I am simply stating the truth. It's my way of saying "you may not be interested in having sex with me, but just so you know, there are plenty of other women that are interested in me." On the flip side, she tells me when men hit on her. It's like we're both still in high school after 24 years of marriage


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

You do it twice a week? Wow


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I've tried almost exactly that. It results in apologies and tears, and emotional upset. Then an endless list of excuses (too tired, can't sleep after sex, etc etc). The excuses are in themselves completely valid, but inconsistent with other behavior - lack of sleep makes her not want sex, but she is perfectly happy to spend the day hiking in the jungles of Borneo.
> 
> After a discussion like this things get briefly better then decline again. As they decline she gives excuses (without my asking) and apologizes for the lack of sex. She will even offer to "do something for me" by which she means a handjob - but I know that she will then complain the next day that she didn't sleep, and a non-enthusiastic HJ where she is just waiting for me to get off is not really worth much to me anyway. I think she offers because she knows I won't accept.
> ...


It looks like something I've said about my wife in the past.

"We're both very interested in each other's happiness. She's just not all that willing to actually DO anything about mine".

Or, 

"My wife and I have a common interest. I'm interested in her happiness and she is also interested in her happiness".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> You do it twice a week? Wow


If you tried what UMP did (or Young at Heart or several others on this board did), you might be having sex twice a week as well.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Okguy said:


> You do it twice a week? Wow


If you think that is crazy, I keep track of every single sexual encounter I have with my wife. I also rate each and every encounter. If this thing called monogamous sex is important to me, and it is, I may as well keep track of it and nurture it as best as I can.

Good sex with my wife is probably one of my greatest joys in life.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I think charting sex is a bit out there but I have heard stranger things


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I don't think so Buddy. Everyone is different.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Okguy said:


> I think charting sex is a bit out there but I have heard stranger things


Idk. A lot of people are obsessed with following and charting everything about their favorite sports team. The great thing about keeping stats is that when charted you can see things you wouldnt normally notice that may help you in the future to have a better approach or prediction. I E If u charted everything about sex for one year, including frequency, rating, etc. You may find a pattern. Maybe the rating went down in the beginning of every month. Or the frequency is less during 'x', etc. Sounds smart to me


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

LostinNE said:


> Idk. A lot of people are obsessed with following and charting everything about their favorite sports team. The great thing about keeping stats is that when charted you can see things you wouldnt normally notice that may help you in the future to have a better approach or prediction. I E If u charted everything about sex for one year, including frequency, rating, etc. You may find a pattern. Maybe the rating went down in the beginning of every month. Or the frequency is less during 'x', etc. Sounds smart to me


Just don't let your wife know that you're doing it :smile2:


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> I don't think so Buddy. Everyone is different.


So it's hopeless. Focus on getting used to it then.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
yes, very much so - compulsively so. I agree that this is likely part of what is going on.



Fozzy said:


> Richard--does she exhibit tendencies of needing to be in control of situations? It kind of sounds to me like she may not want to allow herself to become aroused because that represents a loss of control.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This is a relatively common 'pattern'. 

The LD gradually deprioritizes sex until the HD reaches a breaking point and destabilizes the marriage via a conversation about frequency and/or quality. 

Unfortunately those conversations - produce relatively short lived change because their focus is on the mechanics - the what and how often. Instead of on the 'why'. 

To be fair, it's difficult for most LD's to talk about the 'why'. Often they aren't really comfortable talking about sex at all - and they know that if this type discussion goes off the rails it could take the marriage down with it. 

And this approach - focusing on the 'why' is inherently dangerous. It's possible the HD will hear stuff they can't accept/live with. 

That said, it's also possible to find out how to make things better. 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> yes, very much so - compulsively so. I agree that this is likely part of what is going on.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

I can only speak for myself. No Idea How It Works For Others. 

There are three types of "arousal" for me (this is how I classify them in my head):

1. Would do anything for sex. (A definite 3-4 day window around ovulation for me...5% of the time)

2. Meh, could be convinced but take it or leave it. (75% of the time)

3. Psh, No way. (20% of the time...I suffer from health problems and during a flare I am sick and can't handle it)

It sounds like you may be describing stage 2 to me. I'll try to give a little background on what is going through my head at that time. 

First, physically sex never feels as good then as during stage 1. I am also very slow to warm up. That means that I have to put a large time commitment in to get real satisfaction out of an encounter, to warm up and even have a hope of climax for myself. Your going to have to take me from zero all the way to the top. In stage 1 I am coming to you already about 50% there, with an internal desire. 

Because of this time commitment and even being unsure if I will truly be able to physically respond and enjoy it fully, it is easy to become overwhelmed with reasons "not to" do it. 

For example: it is late and I was already only going to get 5 hours of sleep. If we do this it means I am down to 4 hours of sleep. 

Another example: a perceived impatience on his part. If it looks like he just wants a quickie and I know I need an hour, I know I'm not going to get anything out of this. It can be intimidating when he is obviously super charged with arousal when he approaches me and I'm 50 steps behind him. (This is usually just giving HJ or BJ as I decide that there's no way I can keep up with him that time.)

Or: Some other physical feeling is overwhelming my ability to relax. Not feeling well. Stress. Anxiety. (These can usually be helped by H either offering to listen to me or a few beers, but it is incredibly infrequent that he wants to listen to me vent!) It makes it seem like an even more insurmountable effort to get pleasure out of it. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Kag: Thanks for sharing your inner reality.

This is the crux of marriage. Most people want to be married to someone whose response to "I am at 0 and I don't want to start sex unless I am already at 50" is along the lines of "OK, thanks for letting me know. Let me know the next time you are at 50" instead of "but I am already at 99, what about me?"

However, as Mem said the problem with admitting "I don't like sex when I start at 0 and you start at 50 or higher" is that this is often countered by "that would be OK if you get to 50 several times a month. If you only start at 50 once a month, that isn't enough for me and we need to find a way to either get you to 50 more often or get you to be OK with consenting to sex more often even when you are at 0".

In many cases, there is no way to get the person from 0 to 50 more often. There may be no way for them to feel good about frequent sex sessions that start at zero. And there may be no way to get their partner to be happy with only having sex the single time each month their partner is at 50.

As always, the "solution" for the HD is not to mope but to become the best person you can be. That will maximize both the number of occasions when your spouse gets to 50 on their own and the number of times when they will be OK with having sex even though they are at zero. When you have consistently gotten yourself to a good place, if your spouse can't get themselves to 50 very often, and still isn't comfortable having sex when they start at 0, then you have some difficult choices to make. Leaving on account of the mismatch should definitely be on the list of choices.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Kag,

Can I make this a sticky? It's perfect. 




kag123 said:


> I can only speak for myself. No Idea How It Works For Others.
> 
> There are three types of "arousal" for me (this is how I classify them in my head):
> 
> ...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Mem I think you are correct.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Kag: Thanks for sharing your inner reality.
> 
> This is the crux of marriage. Most people want to be married to someone whose response to "I am at 0 and I don't want to start sex unless I am already at 50" is along the lines of "OK, thanks for letting me know. Let me know the next time you are at 50" instead of "but I am already at 99, what about me?"
> 
> ...


I think your summation is fair. It's fine for a HD partner to say that they cannot accept that the LD partners baseline desire is not going to match theirs and they need someone with a more closely matched baseline to be happy. 

The hardest part is that the baseline is so fluid in women. From my experience at least. I am not the same baseline as when I was in my early 20s (when I met my H), or before I had kids. It's not better or worse, just different. I suspect it will change through out my life. How do you cope with that for the duration of a marraige? How do you "sell" yourself to a partner when you really don't know what your drive is going to be in 5 years or 10 years or 20? It's not wanting to bait and switch but also truly not being able to predict the future. 

To me, my baseline is largely unaffected by outside influences. It is just my physiological makeup (hormones?). Sure, if he's being a complete asshat I could lose my desire. But that is very rare. What he doesn't understand is that it really has nothing to do with him. Sure, there are varying things he could do to help me get from zero to maybe a 10 or 20 on the scale before we are in the bedroom. But you're talking about 10 points on the 100 point scale. Marginal differences at best. 

New relationship happy chemicals can override the baseline for a short while - if they could find a magic pill that would allow you to continue to ride that wave indefinitely how great would that be. But eventually no matter who you are with you will settle into your normal state again. 

Fwiw - in my personal case, I have some compounding issues. I take SSRIs. But I also have a good relationship with my doctor and see her regularly and have spoken to her many times about wishing for a stronger libido. I know it's controversial but I am planning to ask her at my next visit about the new female "viagra" to see if I am a good candidate. Not sure if it would be given to me with my medical history though.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

kag123 said:


> I think your summation is fair. It's fine for a HD partner to say that they cannot accept that the LD partners baseline desire is not going to match theirs and they need someone with a more closely matched baseline to be happy.
> 
> The hardest part is that the baseline is so fluid in women. From my experience at least. I am not the same baseline as when I was in my early 20s (when I met my H), or before I had kids. It's not better or worse, just different. I suspect it will change through out my life. How do you cope with that for the duration of a marraige? How do you "sell" yourself to a partner when you really don't know what your drive is going to be in 5 years or 10 years or 20? It's not wanting to bait and switch but also truly not being able to predict the future.
> 
> ...


If you're at 0, happy with your husband, you could make the time without too many bad consequences and your husband approaches you, what do you do?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

We were doing it every day in our 40s too.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> We were doing it every day in our 40s too.


I'm 60


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

You do it every day?


----------



## bc3543 (Aug 24, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> I'm 60


And your wife gives you BJs on her knees? You are my hero!


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Please post bj pics


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> Please post bj pics


Old people porn is almost as bad as child porn!


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

kag123 said:


> I think your summation is fair. It's fine for a HD partner to say that they cannot accept that the LD partners baseline desire is not going to match theirs and they need someone with a more closely matched baseline to be happy.
> 
> The hardest part is that the baseline is so fluid in women. From my experience at least. I am not the same baseline as when I was in my early 20s (when I met my H), or before I had kids. It's not better or worse, just different. I suspect it will change through out my life. *How do you cope with that for the duration of a marraige? How do you "sell" yourself to a partner when you really don't know what your drive is going to be in 5 years or 10 years or 20? * It's not wanting to bait and switch but also truly not being able to predict the future.
> 
> ...


I think for a lot of HD spouses, just knowing that you're able/willing to be available with a cheerful heart would be enough to get through those rough years (provided of course that the HD doesn't abuse it). The cheerful heart and giving attitude is of paramount importance though. Being available for sex while staring at the clock or openly resenting it is probably the worst thing an LD could do.

Mem and his wife are a great example of how this dynamic can play out.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Kag,

Your post shows exactly why pacing, affect and connection matter so much. 





kag123 said:


> I can only speak for myself. No Idea How It Works For Others.
> 
> There are three types of "arousal" for me (this is how I classify them in my head):
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
If you are at 0, but there is plenty of time and your partner is willing to take the time, are you still not interested? Is it that it takes time to get to 50, or that you don't want to get there?





kag123 said:


> I can only speak for myself. No Idea How It Works For Others.
> 
> There are three types of "arousal" for me (this is how I classify them in my head):
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Goo evening
A close second for bad is the "I'm not in the mood but I can do something for you if you want". Basically an offer of a unhappy, boring handjob, that puts you in the position of having to either turn down sex, or as for what will be bad sex as your partner doing their "duty". 





Fozzy said:


> snip Being available for sex while staring at the clock or openly resenting it is probably the worst thing an LD could do.
> snip


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Apparently so Personal. But I would guess not the majority of them.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> I think charting sex is a bit out there but I have heard stranger things



Charting human behavior was a fairly good prognosis of things in my marriage (wife's personality disorder). It's also part of what I do for a living so it wasn't too hard 

Richard, you're running into what I call SLA - service level agreement. Your wife has a set SLA of x per time unit. That's her natural SLA. Wanting to want sex risks changing the SLA. Some people can handle it, others can. 

The more BS the excuses the more likely they're manufactured. Stop initiating for a good while and see if she notices. If she doesn't then she's ok with SLA of none...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Helen Mirren huh?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I personally prefer Annie Haslam


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
tried that. She was still happy without sex for 3 months. My guess is that once every month or two is about right for her. 





john117 said:


> snip
> 
> The more BS the excuses the more likely they're manufactured. Stop initiating for a good while and see if she notices. If she doesn't then she's ok with SLA of none...
> snip


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> If you are at 0, but there is plenty of time and your partner is willing to take the time, are you still not interested? Is it that it takes time to get to 50, or that you don't want to get there?


A couple posts asked me this so I wanted to respond. 

First, understand that the scenario above pretty much never happens IRL. We have incredibly hectic lives, and there's really no such thing as "plenty of time". In our lives, sex pretty much must be a purposeful decision to pursue at least several hours ahead of when it happens. There is no spontaneity really because we don't have that opportunity often. This is hard for me, but a dynamic of our life that cannot be changed much right now. 

However, if all the stars aligned and the scenario above really presented itself, and I was at a stage 1 or 2 on my own scale, I'd happily partake. We tend to have lots of sex when on vacation for this reason. 

A Stage 1 means I am hunting you down and i dont really care if we have to run into a closet somewhere. Stage 2 means you have to do something to get it on my radar... (responsive desire). Stage 3 on my scale means sex ain't happening no matter what. (99% spurred by some physical condition like illness)

Another female poster mentioned they do not relate to my scale as much because they seem to have a higher baseline drive > that is my personal goal. I would like to achieve that for myself because I know that I feel good when my drive is high and I want to extend that feeling as much as I can. 

Another issue in my marriage is that my H will not approach me for sex 99% of the time. I have very rarely denied him (bc he pretty much never asks), but he's just a timid personality and would prefer to wait until I hunt him down for it. That means there are gaps of time when I'd probably be having sex with him that are passing by because he is averse to my responsive desire. Not sure why he's averse and have never been able to really figure it out (can't tell if he just doesn't know what to do? Is seriously afraid of rejection? Doesn't understand that I'd be game if he tried?) 

As a result I tend to schedule sex. Like I schedule everything else in my life. Not too strictly but after 7-10 days it's on my radar that yikes, better try to get that done (like if you let the laundry pile up and were at the point where you realized you were about to run out of clothes). Sounds so unsexy right? It's not begrudgingly though, more that I want to keep things good between us. It's double hard to be at Stage 2 and know I have to get myself from a 0 to 100 with no prodding from him to do it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Fozzy,

The reason Kag's post resonated with me so much is that she hit the magic three: pacing, affect and mutuality

Mutuality is the most complicated of the three. In a way it can be broken into three bands:
1. Too cold: This is the - oh ok - can you just give me a hj, bj whatever. It is an overt request for a one way experience. Too little reciprocity. 

2. Too hot/needy: This is the partner who gets agitated when their LD partner is slow to arousal or doesn't orgasm. They put too much pressure on their partner to 'match' their response pattern. 

3. Just right - AKA the Goldilocks zone: This is the partner who makes sure it's as good as possible for you. If they can get you to the rapture they happily do. If not, they accept that without comment or complaint. 

----
Affect/synchronicity 

Doesn't matter if I'm at 50 or 75 or 99 - I don't express arousal much more than M2. I'm intentionally low affect until she gets ramped up. This is too avoid that scenario where the puppy dog is humping your leg. The only deviation from this is the involuntary hyperventilation when I rapture. 

----
Pacing
If we don't have at the very least a half hour, I'm not interested. I prefer a full hour. There's no tension over this. We either have time or I say: tomorrow

The consequence of all this is - M2 knows she can start at zero and have at minimum a 'good' experience. The result is that M2 radiates happiness when we start. And that is both a good and necessary thing since I couldn't 'play' if she seemed unhappy or indifferent. 


QUOTE=Fozzy;13547010]I think for a lot of HD spouses, just knowing that you're able/willing to be available with a cheerful heart would be enough to get through those rough years (provided of course that the HD doesn't abuse it). The cheerful heart and giving attitude is of paramount importance though. Being available for sex while staring at the clock or openly resenting it is probably the worst thing an LD could do.

Mem and is wife are a great example of how this dynamic can play out.[/QUOTE]


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

john117 said:


> Charting human behavior was a fairly good prognosis of things in my marriage (wife's personality disorder). It's also part of what I do for a living so it wasn't too hard
> 
> Richard, you're running into what I call SLA - service level agreement. Your wife has a set SLA of x per time unit. That's her natural SLA. Wanting to want sex risks changing the SLA. Some people can handle it, others can.
> 
> The more BS the excuses the more likely they're manufactured. Stop initiating for a good while and see if she notices. If she doesn't then she's ok with SLA of none...


I got a smile out of this, because this is how I think too. I'm an engineer.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

kag123 said:


> I think your summation is fair. It's fine for a HD partner to say that they cannot accept that the LD partners baseline desire is not going to match theirs and they need someone with a more closely matched baseline to be happy.
> 
> The hardest part is that the baseline is so fluid in women. From my experience at least. I am not the same baseline as when I was in my early 20s (when I met my H), or before I had kids. It's not better or worse, just different. I suspect it will change through out my life. How do you cope with that for the duration of a marraige? How do you "sell" yourself to a partner when you really don't know what your drive is going to be in 5 years or 10 years or 20? It's not wanting to bait and switch but also truly not being able to predict the future.


While I really appreciate your posts, what you describe is bait and switch. I'm sure it's unpleasant to think of it that way but it doesn't change the change in behavior.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Anonmd, 

I disagree entirely. 

What Kag is doing is sharing with us in a highly transparent manner despite the board having a fairly large population of frustrated HD folks. 




anonmd said:


> While I really appreciate your posts, what you describe is bait and switch. I'm sure it's unpleasant to think of it that way but it doesn't change the change in behavior.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Which part do you disagree with, the bait? Or the switch? If the switch 'just happened' and wasn't intentionally thought out does it make it not a switch?

I do like her thoughts ALOT, they make sense to me.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Anon,

Raw desire sans the rocket fuel of testosterone is an unpredictable thing. 

I'll frame this differently. Do you believe Kag is making a good faith effort to sustain their sex life despite a lack of raw desire?

I think she is. 

As for her H, I honestly believe he's mostly unable to 'read' her, and isn't terribly skilled at the initiation sequence. So he's contributing to there situation. On top of all that, they seem to have created a situation where they are chronically over scheduled. 

The term 'switch' implies she has consciously done something that isn't very nice. I don't think it applies. 




anonmd said:


> Which part do you disagree with, the bait? Or the switch? If the switch 'just happened' and wasn't intentionally thought out does it make it not a switch?
> 
> I do like her thoughts ALOT, they make sense to me.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

We disagree on your last sentence, that's ok 

As for the rest, sure I'll go along with that with the limited info at hand. Not even sure he is unhappy, yet she says 'yikes' to herself after a period of time so there must be some restlessness I'd think.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Anon,

Agreed that we don't have the full picture. 

If I was K2 the first thing I'd do is work towards not being 'over scheduled'. Trying to 'squeeze' sex into a jam packed life just wouldn't work for me. And frankly I have a strong aversion to sleep deprivation so I wouldn't initiate if I knew that doing so would result in M2 being shorted on a good nights sleep. 

I did have a firm stance on the schedule which was: You don't have to work, or worry about money. I'm not ok with being squeezed out of the schedule. 

M2 was overall good about that. 



QUOTE=anonmd;13549026]We disagree on your last sentence, that's ok 

As for the rest, sure I'll go along with that with the limited info at hand. Not even sure he is unhappy, yet she says 'yikes' to herself after a period of time so there must be some restlessness I'd think.[/QUOTE]


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

So kag123, are you interested in understanding what may be going on in hubby's mind and / or changing the current situation? If not it's fine, I for one am enjoying your contributions. Any speculation on what is going on with him without further info would be more along the lines of personal projection, unlikely to be accurate


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

LostinNE said:


> Idk. A lot of people are obsessed with following and charting everything about their favorite sports team. The great thing about keeping stats is that when charted you can see things you wouldnt normally notice that may help you in the future to have a better approach or prediction. I E If u charted everything about sex for one year, including frequency, rating, etc. You may find a pattern. Maybe the rating went down in the beginning of every month. Or the frequency is less during 'x', etc. Sounds smart to me


Exactly.
If I review the chart and see lower scores during a specific period I can go back and see what I was doing or how I was acting, etc. I can also see how long it takes to get back to a higher quality score.
In other words, if I act like X or do Y, I know how it will effect our sex life. It's clear feedback that helps me operate in such a way that will positively effect our sex life and learn what negatively effects our sex life.

Is it anal of me? Sure it is, but honestly I don't care. My wife even knows I keep track of our sex life and her period.(I won't actually show her the chart) She thinks I'm strange, but that's one of the things that makes me unique, to her.
Hell, every month she asks me "honey, when am I supposed to start my period?"


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I would speculate that most women would not enjoy their sex lives being charted. But hey I am glad it works in your house.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

UMP,

You've nailed two seemingly contradictory behaviors.

Extreme transparency - or what I call the ballsy approach to just saying what's true. You do that here, and at home and it produces the same effect in both contexts - people respect you for it.

Restraint - You know when it's counterproductive to speak and are comfortable letting your actions deliver the message. 





UMP said:


> Exactly.
> If I review the chart and see lower scores during a specific period I can go back and see what I was doing or how I was acting, etc. I can also see how long it takes to get back to a higher quality score.
> In other words, if I act like X or do Y, I know how it will effect our sex life. It's clear feedback that helps me operate in such a way that will positively effect our sex life and learn what negatively effects our sex life.
> 
> ...


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> This is a relatively common 'pattern'.
> 
> The LD gradually deprioritizes sex until the HD reaches a breaking point and destabilizes the marriage via a conversation about frequency and/or quality.
> 
> ...


In my personal dynamic and in my opinion most all the burden falls on myself. I take 100% blame that my wife was LD for all those years. 
Why? Because when I changed certain things, she became much more interested in sex and enjoyed it so much more.
In our marriage I am supposed to be the leader. The leader in everything, including sex. If my wife is LD, if figure it's my fault.

I look at my wife as a hidden treasure of sleezyness. It is my lifelong goal to operate in such a way that produces the nastiest, sexiest, nympho of all time. AND, she's all mine and ONLY mine.
Heaven on earth, I say.

IMO, too much emphasis is placed on fixing the LD partner. It is my contention that the HD's way of operation is the main reason why the other partner is LD, not the other way around. 
Now granted, I am a male HD dealing with a female LD and can only relate specifically to that particular dynamic. 

Don't get me wrong, it's one of the hardest things I have ever had to do in my life. However, the reward exceeds the effort.

Also, you can more easily change yourself than someone else.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok guy,

I think that's true and I have a theory as to why that is and it relates to why Umps wife just rolls her eyes on this.

It's a directionality thing. 

Most guys - they'd use the chart as the basis for assessing how good a wife they have.

That's absolutely not the case here. Ump uses the chart to assess how good a husband he's being. He has sort of a simplified viewpoint which is: when I'm nailing my part in the marriage, U2 is responding to that physically

He's figured out 'what works' and he does that. 




Okguy said:


> I would speculate that most women would not enjoy their sex lives being charted. But hey I am glad it works in your house.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Hand on the bible I did not read this - before writing my most recent post - which immediately followed this. 




UMP said:


> In my personal dynamic and in my opinion most all the burden falls on myself. I take 100% blame that my wife was LD for all those years.
> Why? Because when I changed certain things, she became much more interested in sex and enjoyed it so much more.
> In our marriage I am supposed to be the leader. The leader in everything, including sex. If my wife is LD, if figure it's my fault.
> 
> ...


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Ok guy,
> 
> I think that's true and I have a theory as to why that is and it relates to why Umps wife just rolls her eyes on this.
> 
> ...


I cannot tell you how gratifying it is when you see your wife of 24 years blowing you like she is a porn star. It sends chills up my spine just thinking about it.

No asking, no begging, no demanding, it just happens. Why does it happen? It happens because I spend every friggen second interacting with my wife thinking this thought................"if I do or say x, y or z, how will it effect my wifes desire to have sex with me?" Everything and I mean EVERYTHING I say or do 24 hours a day is FIRST sifted through that initial question BEFORE I say or do anything.

One may say I am literally insane. Maybe so, however, as I sit and watch her blow me, I laugh at the naysayers, all the way to the bank:grin2:


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I would not want my every move to be filtered through is this going to get me laid?


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Okguy said:


> I would not want my every move to be filtered through is this going to get me laid?


"Foreplay starts right after your last orgasm" (quote unknown)

Okguy, 
That's fine, do what you will. In turn I'll do what I think is best for my marriage.

Sometimes I will have to make a decision that is best for our family, long term that might negatively impact our sex life in the short term.
However, even in that situation, in time, my wife will eventually understand why I had to decide that way and the sex will keep getting better anyway.

I do not dance around my wife. I simply act in such a way that causes her to be attracted to me.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Shifting every aspect of ones interaction with their spouse thru any kind of filter with a single end result does not have the applicability one may think. 

People are multidimensional - focus too much on any one dimension and you may not get a holistic view of your partner - or, what you get may impact your view of your partner in other ways. 

If you don't believe me substitute sex for any other objective and see how that works out. Say, switch roles and substitute sex for security.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> Shifting every aspect of ones interaction with their spouse thru any kind of filter with a single end result does not have the applicability one may think.
> 
> People are multidimensional - focus too much on any one dimension and you may not get a holistic view of your partner - or, what you get may impact your view of your partner in other ways.
> 
> If you don't believe me substitute sex for any other objective and see how that works out. Say, switch roles and substitute sex for security.


Good point, John. I remember Blonde saying that she and her husband never had problems in their sex life. That aspect of their marriage was always very good. It was his other behaviors that pulled the marriage under.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> Shifting every aspect of ones interaction with their spouse thru any kind of filter with a single end result does not have the applicability one may think.
> 
> People are multidimensional - focus too much on any one dimension and you may not get a holistic view of your partner - or, what you get may impact your view of your partner in other ways.
> 
> If you don't believe me substitute sex for any other objective and see how that works out. Say, switch roles and substitute sex for security.


Sex is the ultimate goal and the ultimate barometer of my interaction with my wife. I focus on ALL dimensions because ALL dimensions EFFECT sex.
You cannot separate the desire for sex from a woman separate from all other dimensions. They are all intertwined. (IMO)

Give me an example and I will walk you through MY thought process.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

jld said:


> Good point, John. I remember Blonde saying that she and her husband never had problems in their sex life. That aspect of their marriage was always very good. It was his other behaviors that pulled the marriage under.


In MY marriage EVERYTHING effects our sex life.
Sex is simply the fruit of all other interaction.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

UMP said:


> In my marriage EVERYTHING effects our sex life.
> Sex is simply the fruit of all other interaction.


You see sex as the barometer of the health of your marriage. Everything revolves around sex. Is that correct?

I think John is saying that while that may be true in your marriage, it may not be true in every marriage. 

Or did I misunderstand your post, John?


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

jld said:


> You see sex as the barometer of the health of your marriage. Everything revolves around sex. Is that correct?
> 
> I think John is saying that while that may be true in your marriage, it may not be true in every marriage.
> 
> Or did I misunderstand your post, John?


I see sex or the quality and frequency of sex as the fruit of all other interaction with my wife. I guess that cannot be universal for all others, as you stated. I am certain there are couples that may have a great sex life which is not effected by other negative interaction.
However, I think that group is a minority.

For example. Maybe there are porn stars that love having sex with one particular individual, male or female. However, after the set, maybe they can't even stand to be in the same room with each other.
That is NOT my marriage.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I don't know how to apply this in my case:

Yesterday I sent my wife a love note at work, she responded. That evening after dinner we sat out on the deck to watch the sunset. Later she asked for a massage so I happily gave her one. At the end she said she was sleepy and went to be to sleep.

This morning she told me that she slept poorly. (this is her code for not chance of sex today). I may take her out for a dinner date if I can get off work in time.

Tomorrow we are spending with friends. Sunday is chore day - though one of those chores for here is sex - maybe half the time.

I am constantly affectionate - touches, kisses etc. 

For a true LD / asexual they just don't want sex. 



UMP said:


> Sex is the ultimate goal and the ultimate barometer of my interaction with my wife. I focus on ALL dimensions because ALL dimensions EFFECT sex.
> You cannot separate the desire for sex from a woman separate from all other dimensions. They are all intertwined. (IMO)
> 
> Give me an example and I will walk you through MY thought process.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I don't know how to apply this in my case:
> 
> Yesterday I sent my wife a love note at work, she responded. That evening after dinner we sat out on the deck to watch the sunset. Later she asked for a massage so I happily gave her one. At the end she said she was sleepy and went to be to sleep.
> ...


Maybe that's a clue for you to stop what you are doing, for the moment. If I am not getting regular sex from my wife, the back rubs are going to stop, now.
Maybe you're too effectionate. When I first started doing this sort of thing I was doing what you are doing and it really turned my wife off.

Your wife get's what she wants and you get blue balls? No thanks.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I've also gone long periods of not being affectionate. I've made efforts to spend lots of time with her, and efforts to stay away. 

As a LD poster said long ago "there is no sex in the maze".

With a true LD, nothing, absolutely nothing you do will make them want sex. You may get them to have sex, but not want it. 



UMP said:


> Maybe that's a clue for you to stop what you are doing, for the moment. If I am not getting regular sex from my wife, the back rubs are going to stop, now.
> Maybe you're too effectionate. When I first started doing this sort of thing I was doing what you are doing and it really turned my wife off.
> 
> Your wife get's what she wants and you get blue balls? No thanks.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I've also gone long periods of not being affectionate. I've made efforts to spend lots of time with her, and efforts to stay away.
> 
> As a LD poster said long ago "there is no sex in the maze".
> ...


I still think there is a special key for your wife. You just haven't found the right combination, yet.
For example, maybe you can't get your wife to want sex, but maybe you can get her to enjoy it more when she does have sex.
In turn, that greater satisfaction with sex may eventually produce the "want"


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

UMP said:


> I cannot tell you how gratifying it is when you see your wife of 24 years blowing you like she is a porn star. It sends chills up my spine just thinking about it.


It is (substitute 26 for 24). But I didn't get there the way you did, planning every interaction with my wife with this goal in mind. If I had to do that, it wouldn't be worth it to me. However, I'm very glad it works for you and your wife.

My route was different. It is very immodest to say this (and I wish I could make my point without mentioning it), but I am a fantastic husband. Now that means fantastic for *my* wife, it doesn't by any means mean that I would be seen this way by other women.

I am her emotional rock. I'm funny and interesting. I am caring and supportive. I'm kind and giving without being a doormat. I don't particularly want to lead but I do when it's needed. She claims that I'm the best lover she's ever had (although I only believe that in a non-technical sense).

My problem is that I'm self reliant and very uncomfortable with being vulnerable. 

My needs were for words of affirmation (which I received often) and blowjobs (which I received rarely even though I knew that, at worst, she didn't mind giving them). Why blowjobs? No idea.

It took my a while to realize that by not asking for my needs (the few that there are) to be met, I succeeded in keeping myself from being vulnerable but I also deprived my wife of the joy of making me happy.

So, I kept my needs to myself, expected her to read my mind and built up resentment when those needs were not met. I wondered how this woman who seemed so deeply in love with me could not trouble herself to care about my happiness. 

It was eating away at me so I finally made it an issue (and it took a while to sink in). It took a while (women seem to have a very hard time believing how important this is to most men), but eventually she understood. 

We're happier than ever.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
but that was part of the original part of this post. She does enjoy sex when it happens. She almost always has an orgasm - often very intense ones. (she never wants a second). She has given herself mild whiplash from flailing about. She gets so aroused once we start that I have to be careful that she doesn't hurt herself - she wants penetration much too early and will climb in top to ride me before she is ready- making herself very sore. (which she complains about later).

When we do have sex she is always in a rush - she wants me to do things to give her an orgasm quickly, and she tries to do the same for me. 

After sex we lie in each others arms, and she says how wonderful it was. 

But the next day she will complain that sex kept her from sleeping. That she is sore, etc. 


That combined with her completely inability / unwillingness to talk about sex makes things really difficult. 






UMP said:


> I still think there is a special key for your wife. You just haven't found the right combination, yet.
> For example, maybe you can't get your wife to want sex, but maybe you can get her to enjoy it more when she does have sex.
> In turn, that greater satisfaction with sex may eventually produce the "want"


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Ump I don't dance around my wife either but I know I am a kind loving caring husband regardless of how much sex I may be getting. I will say that while the sex is not the frequency I'd like the quality is outstanding!


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> but that was part of the original part of this post. She does enjoy sex when it happens. She almost always has an orgasm - often very intense ones. (she never wants a second). She has given herself mild whiplash from flailing about. She gets so aroused once we start that I have to be careful that she doesn't hurt herself - she wants penetration much too early and will climb in top to ride me before she is ready- making herself very sore. (which she complains about later).
> 
> When we do have sex she is always in a rush - she wants me to do things to give her an orgasm quickly, and she tries to do the same for me.
> ...


I don't know, Richard. I'm sure you know your wife better than I do, but, generally, a woman who rushes through every sexual encounter sounds like a woman who wants to get it over with, and the rest is an act. 

Otherwise, I'd say she doesn't "want to want to get aroused" because she has responsive desire, if anything. Meaning, if she has no desire for sex unless she is already aroused, the idea of getting aroused isn't appealing when she isn't aroused. It's a catch-22 for sure.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Richard,
I only read the original post. My situation is so similar to yours only completely opposite. My wife only wants spontaneous sex and refuses to plan anything. The trouble with that is that if she doesn't do the things that lead up to it her desire never turns on. She is getting better at stretching out the planing phase. She has gone as far as a whole day lately. Generally an hour or two is as long as her interest will hold.
MN


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I don't know how to apply this in my case:
> 
> Yesterday I sent my wife a love note at work, she responded. That evening after dinner we sat out on the deck to watch the sunset. Later she asked for a massage so I happily gave her one. At the end she said she was sleepy and went to be to sleep.
> ...


You're doing things for her that *you* think should make her receptive to sex. 

If you are the husband you seem to be and she does love you and appreciate you, and she does enjoy sex when she has it, she owes it to you to find a way to motivate herself to get started. And, she should be tossing in a blowjob a week on top of it. If she doesn't, then I question her love for you. Sorry.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Its certainly possible its an act. I've tried asking as nicely as I can whether she really enjoys sex - she says she does. I've asked what he likes (she never says) and offered to do anything she wants. She *seems* to enjoy it. She could have been very expertly faking all these years - but if she is willing to engage in a decades long program of fakery, there really is nothing I can do. 

My previous long ago lovers seemed quite happy with my bedroom activities. 





norajane said:


> I don't know, Richard. I'm sure you know your wife better than I do, but, generally, a woman who rushes through every sexual encounter sounds like a woman who wants to get it over with, and the rest is an act.
> 
> Otherwise, I'd say she doesn't "want to want to get aroused" because she has responsive desire, if anything. Meaning, if she has no desire for sex unless she is already aroused, the idea of getting aroused isn't appealing when she isn't aroused. It's a catch-22 for sure.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

anonmd said:


> So kag123, are you interested in understanding what may be going on in hubby's mind and / or changing the current situation? If not it's fine, I for one am enjoying your contributions. Any speculation on what is going on with him without further info would be more along the lines of personal projection, unlikely to be accurate


I think she'd* love* to know what's going n in her husband's mind. But he's not about to tell her.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> You're doing things for her that *you* think should make her receptive to sex.
> 
> If you are the husband you seem to be and she does love you and appreciate you, and she does enjoy sex when she has it, she owes it to you to find a way to motivate herself to get started. And, she should be tossing in a blowjob a week on top of it. If she doesn't, then I question her love for you. Sorry.


No one owes anyone anything. People can love each other without wanting to have sex with each other.

As a spouse, if we don't like what we are getting from our partner, we can ask them for some change. If they don't, won't, or can't do it and if we stay with them anyway, then we've accepted their actions.

If you don't like it, it is on you to leave.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

So a blowjob equals love now?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Yes, and sometimes I do. But the "If you loved me you would do XYZ" is considered an obnoxious position to take. 

She is LD, sex just means something utterly different to her. Perhaps love does as well. 



Buddy400 said:


> snip
> . If she doesn't, then I question her love for you. Sorry.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> but that was part of the original part of this post. She does enjoy sex when it happens. She almost always has an orgasm - often very intense ones. (she never wants a second). She has given herself mild whiplash from flailing about. She gets so aroused once we start that I have to be careful that she doesn't hurt herself - she wants penetration much too early and will climb in top to ride me before she is ready- making herself very sore. (which she complains about later).
> 
> When we do have sex she is always in a rush - she wants me to do things to give her an orgasm quickly, and she tries to do the same for me.
> ...


How long are we talking about here? (length of sex act)
Are you certain the orgasms are real? In the past, I would have bet the farm that my wife was not faking. Not until I saw her real orgasm did I know the difference. Yes, my wife did fake. She will not admit this to me, but I know.
It was very hard for me to come to grips with this, but when I did, it helped a bunch.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> No one owes anyone anything. People can love each other without wanting to have sex with each other.
> 
> As a spouse, if we don't like what we are getting from our partner, we can ask them for some change. If they don't, won't, or can't do it and if we stay with them anyway, then we've accepted their actions.
> 
> If you don't like it, it is on you to leave.


Agreed. 

We can argue about what "owe" means and come up with a mutually agreeable term. 

How about "reasonably expect"? (I'm pretty sure that won't be acceptable either).

Anyhow, if you need something from your partner, you ask for it and they are unwilling to provide it, you should either leave or learn to deal without getting it.

If you stick around anyway, it's on you.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> But the "If you loved me you would do XYZ" is considered an obnoxious position to take.


Usually only when sex is involved.

If it's "If you loved me you wouldn't leave your underwear on the floor for me to pick up", that's ok.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> So a blowjob equals love now?


Is there anything that you would do only for your wife? And only because you love her?

If so, then doing that is an indication of your love for her.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> Usually only when sex is involved.
> 
> If it's "If you loved me you wouldn't leave your underwear on the floor for me to pick up", that's ok.


I don't enjoy many things. But I actually enjoy pleasing my wife with those things. Cleaning , giving her massages ( painful for my fingers ), etc. That gives me pleasure in a way. Fulfilling her needs. 

What I don't understand is the other side of the coin. Baffles me.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Until you can get R2 to open up - really open up - she's going to continue to have as little sex as she can get away with. 

Because there is something about the experience - that is causing her to avoid it. Clearly it's something she doesn't want to share. I'm certain you've asked her on numerous occasions. 

The thing is until you know, you'll remain stuck in this situation. 




richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> but that was part of the original part of this post. She does enjoy sex when it happens. She almost always has an orgasm - often very intense ones. (she never wants a second). She has given herself mild whiplash from flailing about. She gets so aroused once we start that I have to be careful that she doesn't hurt herself - she wants penetration much too early and will climb in top to ride me before she is ready- making herself very sore. (which she complains about later).
> 
> When we do have sex she is always in a rush - she wants me to do things to give her an orgasm quickly, and she tries to do the same for me.
> ...


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> It is (substitute 26 for 24). But I didn't get there the way you did, planning every interaction with my wife with this goal in mind. If I had to do that, it wouldn't be worth it to me. However, I'm very glad it works for you and your wife.
> 
> My route was different. It is very immodest to say this (and I wish I could make my point without mentioning it), but I am a fantastic husband. Now that means fantastic for *my* wife, it doesn't by any means mean that I would be seen this way by other women.
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying, and I agree, to a degree.
If I asked my wife for a bj daily, she would do it. However, she would do it out of duty, not passion or lust.

What I want is not necessarily the bj itself, I am looking for the passion BEHIND the bj. That is the holy grail.

Sexual acts without passion are not very interesting to me.
Granted, maybe your wife really gets into it, I don't know.

I am trying to create attraction which fuels passion. Also granted that my wife is very much responsive desire. However, even if we start slowly with not very much passion, if it ends well, I feel I have succeeded.

That is why I think a stand alone bj with passion is very difficult to produce if you are a responsive desire LD wife.

I think if you get unsolicited, passionate stand alone BJ's you're very much on the right track! I must confess that in that department, I'm not quite there, yet.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

UMP said:


> I understand what you are saying, and I agree, to a degree.
> If I asked my wife for a bj daily, she would do it. However, she would do it out of duty, not passion or lust.
> 
> What I want is not necessarily the bj itself, I am looking for the passion BEHIND the bj. That is the holy grail.
> ...


Seems like she does.

She claims that she does.

If done without enthusiasm, it wouldn't interest me.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Seems like she does.
> 
> She claims that she does.
> 
> If done without enthusiasm, it wouldn't interest me.


That's awesome !! But I'm sure you already know that:grin2:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

LostinNE said:


> I don't enjoy many things. But I actually enjoy pleasing my wife with those things. Cleaning , giving her massages ( painful for my fingers ), etc. That gives me pleasure in a way. Fulfilling her needs.
> 
> What I don't understand is the other side of the coin. Baffles me.


Here's a way for you to understand it:

"I feel this way therefore others should feel this way" is not a true statement. It seems logical, but it isn't true.

No one feels the same. No one has the same idea of what is fair or right. No one values the same things in the same ways.

So you cannot view the actions and choices of others and conclude you know why they made those decisions just based how YOU would make decisions.

None of us can do this.

It is futile to try.

We should spend more time figuring ourselves out. Things like, "why am I with someone I say I love yet I have a complaint about the way they do everything and I'm trying to change them."

Love them as they are, or stop pretending you love them while you actually want them to be a totally different person than they are.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> You see sex as the barometer of the health of your marriage. Everything revolves around sex. Is that correct?
> 
> I think John is saying that while that may be true in your marriage, it may not be true in every marriage.
> 
> Or did I misunderstand your post, John?



Not at all.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I have had many blowjobs that had no love involved. I have gone down on many women with no love there. Granted love makes it better


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

UMP said:


> I still think there is a special key for your wife. You just haven't found the right combination, yet.



I thought so too. Remember I read minds for a living )). Didn't work. 

Worked great when we were teenagers in the village. If there was a key I would be very disappointed in my wife's inability or unwillingness to elaborate or be upfront about it.

This isn't Zork.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's a way for you to understand it:
> 
> "I feel this way therefore others should feel this way" is not a true statement. It seems logical, but it isn't true.
> 
> ...


I hear you. 

I am naturally lazy and irresponsible. Among other things. I don't view my wife as trying to 'change me' though when she complains about things I do or don't do. Will actually be working on these things. Of course, sexuality can be more complicated than that.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Budy400, and others, 
When I say that everything I say or do is done in order to produce sex, it's not that difficult or strange, really.
For example, if we just had sex the night before and we're sitting on the couch, more than likely we will not be having sex tonight. We rarely have sex two nights in a row. Typically we are both worn out. However, I look at us on the couch as an opportunity to rub her arm and hands. It shows her that even though I know that we will not be having sex tonight, I still care for her in a non sexual way. In the past, I would RARELY, if ever do something like this.

I do care for my wife, I do love her even when we don't have sex, but it would never even occur to me to rub my wifes hands and arm the day after we had sex. Now, given the question I ask myself before I say or do something, I know that showing her this without expecting sex is going to get me more and better sex in the future.

It's simply a way to learn about my wife and what makes her tick, sexually speaking 

It's a way to constantly stay in tune with her feminine mind. As a male, figuring out my wifes feminine mind is quite fun and interesting. At this stage, I don't find it a chore, anymore.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Love them as they are, or *stop pretending you love them while you actually want them to be a totally different person than they are*.


Especially this.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> I thought so too. Remember I read minds for a living )). Didn't work.
> 
> Worked great when we were teenagers in the village. If there was a key I would be very disappointed in my wife's inability or unwillingness to elaborate or be upfront about it.
> 
> This isn't Zork.


Read "crickets" op from yesterday. She does not even know what opens her own lock. My wife is the same way. Having to articulate something to someone when you don't even know you yourself is impossible.
That's what husbands are for :grin2:

If you read it try to forget her past baggage while doing so.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

So after sex your normal pattern was not to show affection for your wife after sex? Is this correct? And now you do it so you can have more sex later? Correct again?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UMP said:


> Read "crickets" op from yesterday. She does not even know what opens her own lock. My wife is the same way. Having to articulate something to someone when you don't even know you yourself is impossible.
> That's what husbands are for :grin2:


I thought what opened Cricket's lock was an OM.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I've never timed it. We probably typically spend an hour. Actual intercourse is short because she wants me to use a vibrator when we do it and that gives her an orgasm in a few minutes. She gets uncomfortable (bored?) if I continue after that so she then just tries to get me off quickly with her hands.

The timing makes me suspect she isn't faking. Sometimes she will finish very quickly - and she prefers if we finish together which sometimes works. If she were faking, I'd expect she would make the timing work better.

Occasionally she takes a long time and again if she were faking, I see no reason she would delay it. 

We use toys a lot and the speed and intensity of her orgasm depend on what I use and how. Again seems inconsistent with her faking.

Particularly strange is that she cannot sleep well on a day when we have sex - even if we did it in the morning. (does it leave her stressed - she claims not).

I don't want to make this sound too negative. We do have sex on average every week or two - though sometimes with much longer gaps. Its very nice when we do. She is though rather limited in what she is willing to do in bed and sex is when and only when she is particularly interested. 










UMP said:


> How long are we talking about here? (length of sex act)
> Are you certain the orgasms are real? In the past, I would have bet the farm that my wife was not faking. Not until I saw her real orgasm did I know the difference. Yes, my wife did fake. She will not admit this to me, but I know.
> It was very hard for me to come to grips with this, but when I did, it helped a bunch.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Give her oral and she won't need the vibrator.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I thought what opened Cricket's lock was an OM.


Yes, I know.
Try to read it as a stand alone post and forget all her baggage.
You can see she really wants her husband to step up. She really wants to want her husband but she herself does not even know what to tell him to do, exactly.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UMP said:


> Yes, I know.
> Try to read it as a stand alone post and forget all her baggage.
> You can see she really wants her husband to step up. She really wants to want her husband but she herself does not even know what to tell him to do, exactly.


I'm not a fan of the idea that all or even most women react the same way to the same things. 

Therefore, if Cricket doesn't know what to tell him, why would that be something that will teach us something by reading it?

I sense you have the feeling that what has worked for you will work for others, and you are probably correct it would work for SOME others, but not all and not even most.

There are some LD people who will not respond to ANYTHING their spouse does. Of course you don't know until you've tried everything...but what I'm getting at is that people should stop trying to sell anything close to "here's what worked for me, it will probably work for you".

People are far too individual for that.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Amen Faithful Wife. Amen.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not a fan of the idea that all or even most women react the same way to the same things.
> 
> Therefore, if Cricket doesn't know what to tell him, why would that be something that will teach us something by reading it?
> 
> ...


True, but what else have I got to offer?
Nothing, other than conjecture.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I've never timed it. We probably typically spend an hour. Actual intercourse is short because she wants me to use a vibrator when we do it and that gives her an orgasm in a few minutes. She gets uncomfortable (bored?) if I continue after that so she then just tries to get me off quickly with her hands.
> 
> The timing makes me suspect she isn't faking. Sometimes she will finish very quickly - and she prefers if we finish together which sometimes works. If she were faking, I'd expect she would make the timing work better.
> ...


Here is what I would do. Keep in mind that just because I think it would work for me does not mean it will work for you. 

It sounds to me that you need to take more of a lead role in the bedroom. I would tell my wife "honey, I'm going to lead today, sit back and relax and let me take you on a journey."


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UMP said:


> True, but what else have I got to offer?
> Nothing, other than conjecture.


That's all any of us have. Including me.

What I'm trying to do (and I'm not saying this is helpful to anyone, but I hope it is) is encourage people to look at themselves and stop spending energy on trying to change their spouse or figure them out.

Most people here seem to really love their spouse, yet they also hate them "for doing this to me". Instead of spending that energy on conflicted emotions, it would serve most people well to ask themselves WHY they are making the CHOICE to remain in this inner conflict. And the reasons they think they are making that choice (ie: obligation) are typically not the real reasons....but most of us don't know that until we stop examining our spouse and instead examine ourselves.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

Just now getting back to this thread, and wow - things take off quickly and I feel very behind. Also, my first time posting from an actual computer and not a phone and I did not even know that there were private messages on this forum, "likes" and multi-quote function. So bear with me...

I wanted to come back and address some comments that were aimed my way...sorry to hijack for a few.

Regarding "bait and switch":



MEM11363 said:


> The term 'switch' implies she has consciously done something that isn't very nice. I don't think it applies.


Again, I can only speak for myself. One of my personal tenants of being a decent human is trying to live my life honestly and without malicious action (intentionally or unintentionally) towards others. 

When I used the phrase "bait and switch", I meant an intentional portrayal of yourself as something that you are not. Overselling of your capabilities - or in this case - drive.

To me, this implies you are conscious of your present and future condition. I cannot predict my future hormones or drive, therefore I cannot make a promise to anyone that I will be able to behave a certain way in the future. I can promise to try to fulfill my partners needs regardless of my state of being - but cannot promise that I will have an innate drive for sex for the duration of my lifetime.

The way that you used "bait and switch", would complicate the basis of almost every long term relationship. I could be in a horrific accident tomorrow that leaves me paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of my life - and never be able to engage in sex again. My husband would not have known that was going to happen when he married me, but now he's with me "in sickness and in health". Does that mean I baited and switched him?

Also - my personal situation is complicated by health issues that I did not have at the beginning of our relationship/marriage. I often feel very guilty for my husband having to be married to me - when he could be with someone who didn't suffer from mental illness. This is not a burden I want to put onto anyone. Had I known how bad my mental state would get after we were married, I would not have married him. But I didn't know - couldn't have known - and here we are today.



anonmd said:


> We disagree on your last sentence, that's ok
> 
> As for the rest, sure I'll go along with that with the limited info at hand. Not even sure he is unhappy, yet she says 'yikes' to herself after a period of time so there must be some restlessness I'd think.





MEM11363 said:


> Anon,
> 
> Agreed that we don't have the full picture.
> 
> ...





anonmd said:


> So kag123, are you interested in understanding what may be going on in hubby's mind and / or changing the current situation? If not it's fine, I for one am enjoying your contributions. Any speculation on what is going on with him without further info would be more along the lines of personal projection, unlikely to be accurate


Again, my particular situation is complicated. I have a host of my own health issues and a husband who is very closed off. To be perfectly honest, I have zero idea what makes him happy and unhappy. I would LOVE to know more about what goes through his mind. I would LOVE to have more "power" to change our situation. Without his participation, I have no ability to affect change.

I am a very observant person by nature and have a desire to be a good partner (do not always succeed in that, but I believe my intentions are good). I think it's a reasonable assumption to believe his drive is higher than mine. I know he enjoys sex. I know he cannot go somewhere else to get sex. I know he acts a bit nicer the next day when we do have sex. He says he enjoys it. He does not ever complain when we don't have it for awhile. He won't say a word. But, his mood gets worse. A reasonable person would connect the dots and think, ok I guess I need to do something about this.

Unfortunately this doesn't go both ways in my marriage, from my point of view at least. I have a very big need to be emotionally echoed and understood. He either does not have that capability, or chooses not to provide that service to me. I do not know which - for awhile I tortured myself with wanting to know which it was. He CAN'T or he WON'T? After years I have decided, it doesn't really matter which one it is. 

I have cycled through periods of being angry, despondent, sad, and so on because of this - but in the end that all does nothing to fix the problem. The only thing you can control is yourself, right? So I work on me. I work on meeting my own needs within the marriage in appropriate ways that do not detract from my marriage. One of the "work on me" items is to foster an atmosphere in my marriage of "safety" and comfort. Hoping this will one day help to foster more emotional intimacy. The same could be said for having a better sex life.

I believe that it is my personal responsibility to be the best version of myself that I can be. That means taking care of myself, and also balancing the nurturing and growth of my marriage by taking care of my family. H and I chose to be in this union and we brought kids into this world who did not choose to be born to us. We have a shared responsibility to be good to each other and be the "bigger" person even when we do not want to be. Hopefully that does not come across as martyrdom - because I don't mean it in a pitiful "woe is me" sense. 

I'm not always good about it. I make mistakes. I get angry and lash out. I get sad and cry. I'm human. I try to teach my children the same standard I hold myself to - just because someone else has treated you poorly, it does not give you an excuse to return the same treatment. Boundaries are good and healthy. Enforcing them only requires you to walk away when there is a violation. There's no excuse for being mean, rude, passive aggressive or intentionally hurting someone. That behavior is on you and only reflects poorly on you.

Anyway - hijack over. I am not offering anything constructive in terms of advice for the OP!


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> That's all any of us have. Including me.
> 
> What I'm trying to do (and I'm not saying this is helpful to anyone, but I hope it is) is encourage people to look at themselves and stop spending energy on trying to change their spouse or figure them out.
> 
> Most people here seem to really love their spouse, yet they also hate them "for doing this to me". Instead of spending that energy on conflicted emotions, it would serve most people well to ask themselves WHY they are making the CHOICE to remain in this inner conflict. And the reasons they think they are making that choice (ie: obligation) are typically not the real reasons....but most of us don't know that until we stop examining our spouse and instead examine ourselves.


Self examination is the core of what I believe changed my marriage for the better. Along with that self examination was the belief that I needed to try and understand my wifes feminine mind as well.
I can self examine from now till the cows come home, but if I don't apply that with a genuine desire to fully understand my wifes mind, I'm just kicking against a 10,000 pound rock.

I think people are smart enough to decide for themselves. That's why TAM is so great. People can read what you say and read what I say, apply what they think is correct for them and make their own decision.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening

I do. I can get her off that way (well with fingers too), but it takes a long time because she is accustomed to the vibrator. She only likes me to give her oral for a brief time then switch to the vibrator.

She is so sadly "goal" driven. She wants me to give her an orgasm quickly an get it over with. A vibrator and PIV (or toy or fingers) does that quickly and that is what she always wants.

She seems to feel that there are 2 things:
1) casual intimacy - touching, stroking, kissing - even deep passionate kissing. She is happy to do this for a long time

2) sex: Anything that involves genitals in any way. The goal of this is to orgasm a quickly as possible. 

She says she gets bored if I do mildly sexual foreplay for very long. (more that 10-15 minutes). 





Okguy said:


> Give her oral and she won't need the vibrator.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I've tried that too. (believe me, I'm a pretty inventive person and I've had 30 years to work on this).

She will go along if I am doing the things she normally wants ,but tell me to stop if I diverge too far from one of our normal plans.





UMP said:


> Here is what I would do. Keep in mind that just because I think it would work for me does not mean it will work for you.
> 
> It sounds to me that you need to take more of a lead role in the bedroom. I would tell my wife "honey, I'm going to lead today, sit back and relax and let me take you on a journey."


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
For many people (myself included) a long term relationship forms a very strong emotional bond. Because of that my wife's happiness is very important to me and it hurts more than anything when she is unhappy.

Leaving would make her miserable - I really can't bring myself to do that - that bond is too strong. (which is why I encourage people to get out early). Also, I very much enjoy our non-sexual life together.

It is just frustrating that it feels (from my HD point of view) that it would be so easy for her to make me an extremely happy man. Instead I feel trapped, used and resentful. 

I'm NOT saying she is intentionally trapping and using me - I don't believe there is any malice, just that I *feel* that way. I know intellectually that what is "so easy" for me is impossible for her. I know it intellectually, but the method of thought is so alien that I can't emphasize with it.

There is no way out. I really am just venting - and providing myself as a cautionary tale to others.






Faithful Wife said:


> That's all any of us have. Including me.
> 
> What I'm trying to do (and I'm not saying this is helpful to anyone, but I hope it is) is encourage people to look at themselves and stop spending energy on trying to change their spouse or figure them out.
> 
> Most people here seem to really love their spouse, yet they also hate them "for doing this to me". Instead of spending that energy on conflicted emotions, it would serve most people well to ask themselves WHY they are making the CHOICE to remain in this inner conflict. And the reasons they think they are making that choice (ie: obligation) are typically not the real reasons....but most of us don't know that until we stop examining our spouse and instead examine ourselves.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard
I have a good friend at work who is happily married going on 15 years. One day we compared notes. 

He is exactly like your wife. He used the phrase 'goal driven' and said that his preference is to reach orgasm as fast as possible.

I refrained from asking how his wife felt about that.

I do think this is a key aspect of sexual compatibility.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,
You are a class act.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

Richard -

I feel like I hijacked your thread and should try to give you some advice, or maybe just empathy. 

Having been with your wife as long as you have, I am sure you've tried a litany of things to get her to want it more. I personally think that this has to be on her to make the change. 

She needs to know how important this is to you, and why, and what you want from the marriage, and why. Notice I didn't say what you want from HER. I would frame these talks as what you want in the marriage. Women tend to think in terms of how their actions make another person feel. (In my experience at least.) Men rarely seem to express things this way. I am 100% woman with all of the emotion that comes with it, while happening to have chosen a male dominated career so I have plenty of experience working around the male brain.

Example: 

My H and I fight about money. It's the biggest issue in our marriage. It's the only thing that can get him visibly frustrated and elicit a reaction. I'm the spender and he's the saver. I'm still not good at doing things as he wants them, but I am getting better. For a long time it didn't really resonate with me how upset my spending made him. He would tell me "I wish you wouldn't do that..." and then go on like nothing had happened. No emotion. No more words. This is the same reaction I have when someone puts a dirty dish in the sink without scraping the food into the trash first. Ugh I wish you hadn't done that. Fix the mess and get on with my day. 

One day he actually got upset and let it pour out of him. My normally stoic husband was actually angry and at me! It clicked that wow this is actually really important to him. I don't know why I didn't pay attention before. As I said, I am admittedly still not up to his standards in this department but better than I used to be. He actually asked me that day, what can I do to get you to stop spending money like you are now. Why do you spend all of this money on Starbucks and trips to Target for crap we don't need?

Because I lead an insanely busy and mostly stressful life, I have a career and a paycheck that is equivalent to his, and I feel I deserve to spend money on myself whenever I want with no questions asked. When I have a bad day, a purchase is the one thing for ME only. A little chance to indulge myself in an otherwise crap day. 

So the spending is a symptom of a larger problem > being that I feel stressed and unfulfilled and I'm turning to spending money to fill that gap. 

The same can be done for any issue really. What is your wife's reason for viewing sex negatively? Is it a burden to her? What about the sex makes it feel like a burden? Is it being piled onto an already full plate? How would she approach sex if there were no competing responsibilities or giving of herself to other efforts? 

Women often feel that they are needed too much. Especially in the career or child rearing stages of life. There are plenty of times when I've felt I cannot possibly give of myself anymore and just want to be left the F alone at the end of the day! In this way it is easy to view sex as just another "need" that someone else has that requires your effort and time. That's not the correct way to view it, but it's almost a knee jerk response. I have since thought more deeply about it and decided that sex cannot be lumped into the same category as all of the other chores. The rewards for having frequent sex with my husband outweigh any immediate relief I may have had for having a bit of down time in its place. But how many times do you take a long term look at each decision you make vs focusing on your immediate gratification in that moment? (And this is what my H would say to me re:the spending. Forgo the coffees and save for a future purchase that could be something nicer. An investment in the future. I am slowly getting it.)

Sex starts in the mind. If you can get her mentally on board with the goals of your marriage and the vision statement you want to live by, I think you'll be about 50% there. It still may do nothing, but I would think anything that can bring the two to a closer understanding of each other would be worth the effort to try.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not a fan of the idea that all or even most women react the same way to the same things.
> 
> Therefore, if Cricket doesn't know what to tell him, why would that be something that will teach us something by reading it?
> 
> ...


The thing is that, to me, it often sounds like you're saying "If this person isn't perfect for you, give it up and look for someone else". Or "it's wrong to ask for any effort from your partner".

I think putting some degree of effort into changing one's behavior for the benefit of one's spouse should be made / expected. Perfect matches that don't require any changes in either partner are rare.

How much effort should / can be expected? That's the question. 

A problem seems to be that people willing to put in a great deal of effort often end up with those who are not willing to put in any. 

But it's very true that, once they have demonstrated that they are unwilling to try, you've got to leave or quit complaining.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> A problem seems to be that people willing to put in a great deal of effort often end up with those who are not willing to put in any.
> 
> But it's very true that, once they have demonstrated that they are unwilling to try, you've got to leave or quit complaining.


These are the people I'm speaking to in these last few posts.

People who try different things and it works rarely end up here. And when they do, they seem convinced what they tried will work for everyone. But it doesn't.

When you get to the point where you've tried what you can, but you still find yourself ruminating on how you can change your partner, you are at a dead end. This is when you should look at yourself instead. Try to figure yourself out. Try to find out why you are making the choice to stay. If you are staying out of "obligation", yet you are not happy and you secretly hate your spouse for "doing this to you", then you if you can be honest with yourself about this, you might actually find some ways to improve your life. If instead you will just continue blaming the other person for your unhappiness, then you'll end up on TAM with the same story for decades.

I have never once spoken or written the word "perfect" when discussing anyone's relationship.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I appreciate the insights and suggestions.

Below is the big mystery. Unfortunately I think there is more going on than she tells me. The reasons given tend to revolve around her tiredness / lack of sleep. She always sleeps badly after sex (she doesn't know why either). 

She claims that she wants and enjoys sex - but at any give time there is always a reason not to - usually having to do with being tired.

The thing is, her tiredness rarely gets in the way of other activities. Despite sleepless nights she is happy to go hiking, exploring exotic cities, go out with friends, do chores. The only think that is ever prevented by tiredness is sex.

Any attempt to let her know that she is always tired but that it only affects sex results in her getting very upset - but no information. Sometimes with offers of unhappily doing something for me (which is not what I want at all).

Last weekend we didn't have sex on sunday because she was having difficulties with iTunes on her computer. She didn't need it, but somehow she was up for hours of computer hacking, but not having sex.

Its not lack of time. We spent our 25th anniversary in Venice for a week. We'd been there before so it was a wonderful relaxing romantic trip with no pressure to see anything. But she wanted to explore the city until it was too late for sex in the evening. 

It is clear that most of the time she simply doesn't want sex. She probably herself doesn't know why. Once or twice a month she does - and she enjoys it. But it seem more like she needs an orgasm, not that she wants to spend a long time making love. 

I'm not aware of any significant negative sexual experiences in her past, though she might not have told me. 

Her giving me oral sex on my birthday is very strange. She won't do it otherwise, says she doesn't like it. She knows I enjoy it a great deal. When she does it (to completion), she doesn't seem at all unhappy, just rinses her mouth then comes back, quite aroused and wants me to give her an orgasm. There is no indication of anything beyond very mild dislike, but she won't do it any other time. 

She is genuinely affectionate (in non sexual ways) and I think loves me. 


My best model is that she has completely internalized the idea of not doing anything sexual she doesn't want at that moment. Since she has responsive desire, at any given time she is unlikely to want sex, and therefor won't engage in any sexual behavior - even knowing that it would get her aroused and that she would enjoy sex later. 






kag123 said:


> Richard -
> snip
> The same can be done for any issue really. What is your wife's reason for viewing sex negatively? Is it a burden to her? What about the sex makes it feel like a burden? Is it being piled onto an already full plate? How would she approach sex if there were no competing responsibilities or giving of herself to other efforts?
> snip


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

The grass always looks greener. Most of the time it is not. Assuming you are doing what's necessary for a healthy lawn


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

kag123 said:


> In this way it is easy to view sex as just another "need" that someone else has that requires your effort and time. That's not the correct way to view it, but it's almost a knee jerk response. I have since thought more deeply about it and decided that sex cannot be lumped into the same category as all of the other chores. The rewards for having frequent sex with my husband outweigh any immediate relief I may have had for having a bit of down time in its place. But how many times do you take a long term look at each decision you make vs focusing on your immediate gratification in that moment?


I'm going to marry an engineer in my next life.

Although I am married to a Systems Analyst, so maybe that explains it.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Richard if you come in her mouth you are doing something right


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> Is there anything that you would do only for your wife? And only because you love her?
> 
> If so, then doing that is an indication of your love for her.


Yes.

I know that my wife's languages of love are acts of service and quality time.

Because I love her, I will do multiple acts of service and provide multiple times at which she gets quality time each day so SHE FEELS loved and cherished. 

I don't enjoy getting up a half hour early each morning to make and bring my wife coffee in bed so we can talk about our coming day while she wakes up, but I do it so she feels loved and cherished. I do enjoy making her feel loved and cherished.

When we had a nephew as a house guest for several months, I certainly didn't bring coffee to his bedroom door.

I don't really enjoy doing the dishes each night, helping with the cooking, bringing her a glass of wine after dinner as we discuss what happened to us that day. I do enjoy her company, but I mostly do it to make sure she feels loved and cherished in HER LOVE LANGUAGES.

I have taken the time to learn my wife's love languages (Chapman's 5 LL) that make her feel loved and cherished. Because I love her, I will communicate my love for her in these languages that are totally foreign to me (I am a touch and words of affirmation or praise kind of guy).


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Young,

This is a core 'theme' in happy marriages.

Its acceptance of our spouse's differences coupled with the idea that we signed up to love THEM. 

And loving them in our love languages isn't the spirit of the vow.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
you'd think so - but more and more it feels like she could do it, she doesn't much mind doing it, she knows how much I enjoy it - she just won't do it except once a year. 




Okguy said:


> Richard if you come in her mouth you are doing something right


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

kag123 said:


> ...regarding "bait and switch":
> 
> Again, I can only speak for myself. One of my personal tenants of being a decent human is trying to live my life honestly and without malicious action (intentionally or unintentionally) towards others.
> 
> ...


You offered a lot that was very constructive.

We are all human and all we can do is try to do our best.

Fixing ourself is very important.

I will use some different words than you used, but finding an inner ability to provide your spouse with constant and unconditional love is a goal we should strive for. We won't always achieve it, sometimes some of us will seldom achieve it, but when we can fix ourself, make ourself happy and proud and then provide our spouse with unconditional love that is great.

Now as to bait and switch. My wife and I discussed sex before marriage. She promised me BJ's and allowing me to go down on her. She told me that the nun's had told her that after marriage anything that a husband and wife did was OK and proper, before marriage not so.

Well I bought into that. Later in our marriage, when she didn't deliver on her promises, I asked why and she told me that the nun's had no idea how perverted men could be. In reality, she has always wanted to please me, she just can't get past her inhibitions. As you pointed out, she didn't realize it at the time. She thought she could change, she thought she would change, she tried, but just couldn't do things. Afterwards she made excuses. Then she told me she was saving it to keep the fire of passion alive for when we were older. Then she blamed me for being perverted on wanting oral sex. In counseling, she said she felt like a sex failure in her inability to do things other women did and that she had promised me, but she just couldn't do it.

Your comment was well stated. My wife really intended to not do a bait and switch, but she didn't know her future mind. She thought marriage would change everything, but it didn't and then she couldn't get past her own inhibitions.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Young,
> 
> This is a core 'theme' in happy marriages.
> 
> ...



It's also acceptance of selves. Allowing ourselves to receive love and intimacy; opening ourselves to that kind of vulnerability. 

If there's a reason unrelated to our spouse that prevents that from happening, from our own issues of avoidance, self-esteem, self-destruction etc... then even if the love languages were being expressed to that person, they may (unintentionally) prevent that love from being received. The only change can be from the person themselves; to face themselves, to own it, to want to alter their way of being. 

We can learn so much about ourselves within the dynamic of marriage. Granted, sometimes we need to face our own positions of the dynamic to potentially inspire growth (preferably together) in the first place. 


Then again... whadda I know?! Love yer work, MEM!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The "you are responsible for your happiness" part is not quite right in my view. Some things yield a happy outcome without collaboration with others. Some require collaboration with others by definition. 

Unless the meaning includes "walk" or other faster forms of extrication


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> It is as if she sometimes wants sex - and then she will be sure to get it (not that I object, but she will make a real effort to overcome obstacles). At other times, she not only doesn't want sex, she doesn't want to want sex. Its almost as if having sex when she didn't plan it in advance is somehow giving in. Its as if she thinks spontaneous sex is wrong.





I was thinking it is as if she doesn't want to want sex specifically when you are showing an interest in having it. She prefers to withhold it from you, when you want it from her. What you described felt like passive aggressive withholding to me, perhaps below her conscious awareness. (Of course, I have no idea if that is the case.)







> Anyone else seen similar behavior?




My first sexual experience with my wife, and for the most part the first in my life, was a bj after a few months of dating. She would not let me touch her sexually at all before, during, or after that evening. To this day I have no idea why, but I suspect it was about control of me, sexually, or, now that I read this thread, her resisting getting aroused herself.



I mentioned this a year or so ago, and she says she does not remember it that way, but maybe she was on her period at the time. I'm pretty sure I had ruled that out in the weeks that followed.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

PieceOfSky said:


> I was thinking it is as if she doesn't want to want sex specifically when you are showing an interest in having it. She prefers to withhold it from you, when you want it from her. What you described felt like passive aggressive withholding to me, perhaps below her conscious awareness. (Of course, I have no idea if that is the case.)



Some LD's may find that appearing to enjoy sex may send the wrong signal to their "partner" and that's not such a good thing because the "partner" may get the wrong idea and want more sex... Just a personal hunch from personal experience


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

my wife doesn't think about sex... she has to condition herself mentally in order to have it and then, we she has it, enjoys it very much... basically, she is missing the link between enjoying sex and wanting more... but her libido is zero. When we had "the talk", she explained this to me and she said there was nothing she could do about it. It was what it was and she understood if I left because of that. She didn't want to go to therapy for it, so I was stuck. To be honest, after years of torture, I have accepted it and I don't care abut it much these days... my exit is planned. It's not her fault and I understand she doesn't want therapy in her fifties just for "sex"... :smile2:


----------



## GrannyMildew (Aug 15, 2013)

jld said:


> Good point, John. I remember Blonde saying that she and her husband never had problems in their sex life. That aspect of their marriage was always very good. It was his other behaviors that pulled the marriage under.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> That's all any of us have. Including me.
> 
> What I'm trying to do (and I'm not saying this is helpful to anyone, but I hope it is) is encourage people to look at themselves and stop spending energy on trying to change their spouse or figure them out.
> 
> Most people here seem to really love their spouse, yet they also hate them "for doing this to me". Instead of spending that energy on conflicted emotions, it would serve most people well to ask themselves WHY they are making the CHOICE to remain in this inner conflict. And the reasons they think they are making that choice (ie: obligation) are typically not the real reasons....but most of us don't know that until we stop examining our spouse and instead examine ourselves.


This is something that many do not and may never understand. It is under the banner of taking responsibility for your own actions, taking responsibility for where YOU (general) have ended up in life so far.

I learnt this after the fact, I loved the ex (and still do in a different way) but it was not till I spent a year healing post divorce that the above was clear to me. I took responsibility for where I ended up, there are always two people to share the blame.

When people start with the "all women/men are the same" type of sentiments it become apparent that they take no personal responsibility for their own misery.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I think acceptance is a big factor... I understand trying to change your spouse when things start going wrong, but at the end of the day, you just have to accept your spouse for what he/she is... there is no point in persevering for years... and I've been guilty of that. I wasted years trying to understand and trying to make things better... accepting the situation has brought a new level of calm and relaxation in the marriage. No more tension. Is it what I really want? No. But I can't change it and I'm appreciating my wife for her qualities, more than her faults, which, I know, she can do little about.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I can only imagine what it is like being LD. An analogy is all I can come up with. 

I like hamburgers, and when I was a kid that was all I wanted when we went out to eat. I still like hamburgers, but only occasionally. There are many things (read: FB, a good book, shopping, etc.) I like a lot more than hamburgers (read: sex) even though I thoroughly enjoy each bite (read: orgasms) when I have one. As much as I like them now and then, I can easily do without most of the time until that rare mood strikes. Once I've had one, it's at least a month or two before I'll want another. Nobody can tempt me with a hamburger even if they make great ones, unless I'm in the mood or at least not opposed at the time (read: the essence of LD). Oh, and only certain hamburgers will do: plain, no condiments (especially mayo, as it's too messy) or onions or tomatoes, etc. (read: starfish sex), especially if I have to add them. A sesame seed bun is getting adventurous.

So if LDs are like someone with an occasional hamburger craving, only a small number will come to want hamburgers frequently, and fewer still will want condiments.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> As a LD poster said long ago "there is no sex in the maze".


Wow. That is profound. Sadly.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,

100% agree with this. I look at it like you do, just because I'm happy with ME, doesn't mean I'm happy with 'US'. 

M2 is every bit as responsible as I am for ensuring I'm happy with 'US'. 

If your partners view is: even where 'US' is concerned you are 100% responsible for how you 'feel' about it, my belief is there is no 'US'. 

Because I see the statement: You are 100% responsible for how you feel about 'US' regardless of what I do/don't do. 

As the equivalent of: I don't give a damn how you feel. 




john117 said:


> The "you are responsible for your happiness" part is not quite right in my view. Some things yield a happy outcome without collaboration with others. Some require collaboration with others by definition.
> 
> Unless the meaning includes "walk" or other faster forms of extrication


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Hearts,

That is a keen observation. It took a long time to learn to accept M2's overall approach to loving me. 





heartsbeating said:


> It's also acceptance of selves. Allowing ourselves to receive love and intimacy; opening ourselves to that kind of vulnerability.
> 
> If there's a reason unrelated to our spouse that prevents that from happening, from our own issues of avoidance, self-esteem, self-destruction etc... then even if the love languages were being expressed to that person, they may (unintentionally) prevent that love from being received. The only change can be from the person themselves; to face themselves, to own it, to want to alter their way of being.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> If your partners view is: even where 'US' is concerned you are 100% responsible for how you 'feel' about it, my belief is there is no 'US'.


Well, how can it be any different?

Let's say we've got two people, one is in love with the other, the other isn't into it anymore.

The one in love thinks "US" is just great.

The one not in love thinks "US" isn't great at all.

Is the one in love responsible for how the other one feels? Can you make others feel anything? Should the one in love continue to try and try to make the other in love so their view of "US" will match?

We're always 100% responsible for how we feel about everything. I don't see how anything else could be true.

Our feelings are based on what is happening, our choices, and the consequences of those choices....yet feelings are not something that can be lined up and measured equally, they are individual things.

So you can be the best spouse in the world and your spouse may still disrespect, dislike or even despise you.

I don't think it is right to try to apply how we feel to others and expect them to feel the same way, "or else". Instead, if you know how they truly feel (ie: they are being honest about their feelings) then you can try to work on things that would increase their love for you. No guarantees, though.

Yet there's still those dead end situations, where one person is doing all the trying, and the other person just isn't feeling it. Are you saying the one who is doing all the trying can demand that the other one feels the same way about them? About duty? About love? About commitment?

And that if you can't, you are a good person and they are not?

Are you really going to try to convince someone to love you when they don't?

There are relationships where you are responsible for how you feel, and I am responsible for how I feel, and yet we DO both feel the same way about "US". It really is not a problem, it just requires two people who are on the same level of "in love" and feelings and who mutually want to be only with each other.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> *No one owes anyone anything. People can love each other without wanting to have sex with each other.
> 
> As a spouse, if we don't like what we are getting from our partner, we can ask them for some change.* If they don't, won't, or can't do it and if we stay with them anyway, then we've accepted their actions.
> 
> If you don't like it, it is on you to leave.



I agree wholeheartedly with the words I [EDITED! -- it's the first part I was saying I wholeheartedly agree with. ] made bold. The rest I respectfully do not (unless, FW, you mean "it is up to you to leave or not, but you do have that option." -- I'd agree with that.)

Relationships take time. They are time. And there is no way for any of us to know ahead of time what is going to happen in the next instant (or week, month, or year).

Staying with a partner in relationship that is not working means only that, for the time being, we have chosen not to end the relationship. It does not imply "acceptance" has been achieved. Disliking the status quo (or the status over the last 20 years) does not come with an imperative to leave.

For many, it takes a very long time to reach a healthy state of awareness of reality and then acceptance (acceptance, in his sense: "what is, is"). 

Staying, for the time being, can be motivated by healthy as well as unhealthy parts of us. Staying may work out for the best, worst, or something in between. I'd guess, at the end of our lives, most of us never know the score.

It's inescapable that we live our lives once and in real time, where outcomes are impossible to predict and there are no "do overs". The best we can do is learn as we go, adjust as quickly as we can, and act courageously and consistent with our highest values.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with the words I did not make bold. The rest I respectfully do not (unless, FW, you mean "it is up to you to leave or not, but you do have that option." -- I'd agree with that.)


Yes this is what I meant.

And I guess I have to put it into my signature line or something but....YES EVERYONE SHOULD TRY THEIR HARDEST to create the best marriage they can. I have never suggested anyone just abandon their marriage at the first hint of trouble.

I had been addressing the dead end, mismatched, this is never going to change type of marriages...the ones where everything has been tried already and no changes have occurred.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes this is what I meant.
> 
> And I guess I have to put it into my signature line or something but....YES EVERYONE SHOULD TRY THEIR HARDEST to create the best marriage they can. I have never suggested anyone just abandon their marriage at the first hint of trouble.
> 
> I had been addressing the dead end, mismatched, this is never going to change type of marriages...the ones where everything has been tried already and no changes have occurred.


Thanks for clarifying. (My mistake for jumping in in the middle of a thread.)

Btw, I really messed up my first sentence in my post! I meant to say I agreed wholeheartedly with the lines I made bold, not "not bold". In other words, I was agreeing with most of FW's post, starting from the beginning.


I think it boils down to this -- the easiest and best relationships are those comprised of healthy *individuals*, who each happen to have something the other admires and is drawn to, and who each find pleasure in giving the other what makes that other feel loved.

Trying to make a relationship work with other sorts of participants is harder, more painful, and sometimes proves futile.

Considering that over time, people and circumstances change, there are no guarantees love will flow so easily as it did earlier.

All you can do is face the facts, and act. Rinse, repeat. And make sure you are paying attention to how you feel, and the passage of time.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I will never look at a hamburger in the same way ever again.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

In my experience, the way folks feel about us is driven by two distinct but related components.

- Who we are 
And
- How we treat them

An emotionally mature person is actually able to gauge about how much is one vs the other. The person who loves how you treat them, but isn't enamored with who you are, generally doesn't treat you that well over time. 

I won't speak for anyone else, but for me, if I love someone who doesn't love me back it's equally obvious, painful and unacceptable. So there is no scenario where I love someone, they don't love me back and I'm 'happy'. 

And if someone doesn't love who you are, that's absolutely not fixable. 

If however, someone loves who you are, but not how you treat them, that's potentially fixable. 






Faithful Wife said:


> Well, how can it be any different?
> 
> Let's say we've got two people, one is in love with the other, the other isn't into it anymore.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> And if someone doesn't love who you are, that's absolutely not fixable.


Exactly. 

That's why I'm saying, you are responsible for how you feel, and I am responsible for how I feel. That was what my post was about, which was in response to yours.

I don't see how any of us can be responsible for how anyone else feels, since they can love you or hate you, regardless of your behavior.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

And that is simply not correct. 

M2 loves who I am. And I love who she is. 

It's also true that when I'm drinking alcohol I am a lesser partner. Less patient, less emotionally stable, less effective at problem solving and woefully less considerate of M2. 

I like alcohol - too much. And when I had that lightbulb moment I stopped drinking entirely. 

I did that as part of my commitment to treating M2 well. 

How I treat M2 is a choice. When I treat her badly she feels bad. When she treats me badly I feel bad. 

So when a pattern emerges it gets addressed in a mutually acceptable manner. 

If I were to say: If M2 chooses to feel bad when I drink and treat her poorly, that's her problem. She's choosing to feel bad. 

That would be:
- Totally self serving bullshlt
- The basis for her starting to wonder whether or not I really love and care about her


QUOTE=Faithful Wife;13568090]Exactly. 

That's why I'm saying, you are responsible for how you feel, and I am responsible for how I feel. That was what my post was about, which was in response to yours.

I don't see how any of us can be responsible for how anyone else feels, since they can love you or hate you, regardless of your behavior.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

So now to summarize the basic theme.

If someone doesn't love who you are, there's no solution to that. You can either accept what will be a one way relationship with you loving them and your partner accepting / tolerating that love or the aspects of it they value:
- Financial support 
- Acts of service 
- Etc.

Probably not going to accept/tolerate much if any of your offers to love them sexually. 

If someone loves who you are, but not how you are treating them, that's a different story. That is potentially fixable assuming the things they need from you fall into the realm of what you want or are willing to give. 

I mentioned my choice to give up drinking, which I made sans any threats of any sort by M2. 

Way back - about 15 years ago - M2 started volunteering with our daughters theater group. After a year she took on a position that was near full time for a play - 3 months duration. I wasn't real happy about it, but shrugged and said: if this doesn't disrupt my / our life it can continue. Otherwise not. 

It was disruptive. It was the equivalent of having a full time working spouse who was doing a job that had some expenses (a lot of driving) and zero income. A job that would always be a volunteer position. 

And at the end of the play she was ready to sign up for the next one. And I told her that would be the end of our marriage, immediately. In hindsight, I should have taken a softer tone as I believe I could have gotten her to accept my position without threatening divorce. But it doesn't change the fact that M2 was choosing to pursue a path that was good for her at my expense. 

So yes - that choice was making me unhappy. Enough so to do what I did. And she didn't sign up for the next play. 

Sure, she could have said: If my choice to take a full time job
that has a negative income upsets you, that's not my problem. You are choosing to be unhappy about it, and that's your problem. 

And my reaction to that would have been: If you feel free to do whatever you want regardless of its impact on me, than I will officially free you from your vows. Because I'm not interested in a marriage like that. 






Faithful Wife said:


> Exactly.
> 
> That's why I'm saying, you are responsible for how you feel, and I am responsible for how I feel. That was what my post was about, which was in response to yours.
> 
> I don't see how any of us can be responsible for how anyone else feels, since they can love you or hate you, regardless of your behavior.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

I think we are responsible for our actions. Are we 'responsible' for how we feel... well, we may be responsible for our inner dialogue that can influence those feelings; our actions (or in-actions) then become a result of those feelings. And that, we absolutely can take responsibility for if we are willing to. The way I see it, that's just an ongoing relationship with life. 

Correct me if I'm wrong MEM but no doubt part of the reason you stopped drinking was for yourself - in order to treat M2 in a way that you felt was more congruent with how you wanted to treat her and continue a healthy marriage with her? Isn't life in general a series of of micro-choices? 

If you were to say how M2 chose to feel was her problem, that would be evading responsibility. And if she continued on unhappy, that would be a result of her own in-actions. However I'd hope that it would be a rarity that one could state they knowingly treated their spouses poorly and have the response of, 'oh well..' Just as I'd hope that it would be a rarity that one could state they knowingly accepted such treatment and have the response of 'oh well..' 





MEM11363 said:


> And that is simply not correct.
> 
> M2 loves who I am. And I love who she is.
> 
> ...



QUOTE=Faithful Wife;13568090]Exactly. 

That's why I'm saying, you are responsible for how you feel, and I am responsible for how I feel. That was what my post was about, which was in response to yours.

I don't see how any of us can be responsible for how anyone else feels, since they can love you or hate you, regardless of your behavior.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> And at the end of the play she was ready to sign up for the next one. And I told her that would be the end of our marriage, immediately.


I get the point of your story in context of this discussion.

But gosh, it seems like you sure have threatened divorce a lot of times. And your wife has, too. I don't really get that.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Hearts,

Yes, I agree with you. I think everyone is responsible for their choices, their actions. 

So if someone treats you bad and you choose to remain married to them over time, that is 100% on you. 

The reason I'm allergic to this - if you feel bad that's on you - is that it seems like a recipe for indifference. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. 




heartsbeating said:


> I think we are responsible for our actions. Are we 'responsible' for how we feel... well, we may be responsible for our inner dialogue that can influence those feelings; our actions (or in-actions) then become a result of those feelings. And that, we absolutely can take responsibility for if we are willing to. The way I see it, that's just an ongoing relationship with life.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong MEM but no doubt part of the reason you stopped drinking was for yourself - in order to treat M2 in a way that you felt was more congruent with how you wanted to treat her and continue a healthy marriage with her? Isn't life in general a series of of micro-choices?
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I get the point of your story in context of this discussion.
> 
> But gosh, it seems like you sure have threatened divorce a lot of times. And your wife has, too. I don't really get that.


But they have / had a very good, fulfilling marriage.

If they had each made no requests of the other, had they split when the first problem came up; would that have been preferable?

One would hope to keep the divorce threats to a minimum. But, if you go through your marriage never making your needs known, that's not usually going to end well.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> The reason I'm allergic to this - if you feel bad that's on you - is that it seems like a recipe for indifference.


I get what you're saying MEM, at least I think I do. At some level, of course we bear responsibility for someone else's feelings. If, for example, I were to hit my SO and give him a black eye, it would be absolutely nonsense for me to say "You are responsible for your own feelings.' His simple retort would be "I felt just fine, until you came along."

And that is but one example in a long line of examples where one person is clearly, knowingly, doing something that will cause pain to another, and holds responsibility for that.

The idea that we are responsible for our own happiness is not, IMHO, to say that we have no moral obligation to treat others well, nor is it to assure that we feel happiness each and every moment of every day. Life just ain't like that.

It is to say that what we do with our respective situations is completely on us. I can't make anyone love me or want to be with me, no matter how wonderful I think I am. And if I routinely give out black eyes or am insufferably controlling, well, guess what? Even fewer people will want to be around me. Those who are close to me will be driven away. That's all on me. 

The best I can do, the *only* thing I can do is be the best possible me, and hope that it's enough. And even that won't guarantee any happiness at all, just make it easier for me to look at myself in the mirror and say that I tried.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> If they had each made no requests of the other, had they split when the first problem came up; would that have been preferable?
> 
> One would hope to keep the divorce threats to a minimum. But, if you go through your marriage never making your needs known, that's not usually going to end well.


There's a pretty huge difference between saying "If you do that, we're through," and making a request or making your needs known.

What if M2 had pushed back and said: "this is fulfilling to me, makes me feel like I'm making a contribution, and I'm not giving it up"?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> One would hope to keep the divorce threats to a minimum. But, if you go through your marriage never making your needs known, that's not usually going to end well.


I dunno, I just find it strange when people threaten divorce over stuff like this. Especially multiple times. I don't think that's the same as making your needs known.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I dunno, I just find it strange when people threaten divorce over stuff like this. Especially multiple times. I don't think that's the same as making your needs known.


The frequency of the threat as well as whether or not it is a bluff is what matters here I think.

I can see it as a form of escalation, with the honesty of the threat varying as much as the individuals issuing the threat/ultimatum.

I have only used this tactic over one time period, probably three times through it, in 2014. It started with sexlessness and a general lack of respect, and over a period of a year led to me putting my foot down. At that point it was "either the situation gets fixed or I will find someone who does have an interest in meeting those needs after we divorce". It has a place when trying to communicate the gravity of the situation. But at some point can be akin to emotional abuse. 

My wife used to use the threat on me when I was legitimately being an @$$ as well as when she was genuinely being one as well. Probably 50 times in the course of our relationship. I finally had enough early this year and told her I would miss her if she left, and would probably not find someone I loved as much as her, but would settle for someone who actually wanted to meet my needs, and I would not stop her. I have not heard it since. But I knew she was bluffing. I just simply called her on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> My wife used to use the threat on me when I was legitimately being an @$$ as well as when she was genuinely being one as well. Probably 50 times in the course of our relationship. I finally had enough early this year and told her I would miss her if she left, qnd would probably not find somwone I loved as much as her, but would settle foe someone who actually wanted to meet my needs, and I would not stop her. I have not heard it since. But I knew she was bluffing. I just simply called her on it.


I guess if you say it so much that it is obviously a bluff, it changes in meaning.

I've never said it, in either of my marriages. Neither as a bluff or an ultimatum. 

When my ex-h and I did actually reach the point of breaking up, that was the first time either of us ever spoke those words. We knew we were headed there and had been trying to avoid it, but when it became inevitable we sat down and discussed how we were going to have to do it.

The only times I've said the words during this marriage was when we were separating and not sure what was going to happen. And it was not said in a threatening way, it was a discussion about our future and what we both wanted.

So it is just odd to me, that's all. It is not something I would ever say as a threat. I would say it as an ultimatum, I guess, but I still probably wouldn't just toss it out there in a threatening manner.

I would be crushed if my H did that to me. Wow, I can't even imagine it.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess if you say it so much that it is obviously a bluff, it changes in meaning.
> 
> I've never said it, in either of my marriages. Neither as a bluff or an ultimatum.
> 
> ...


It was fairly crushing several times my wife said it as well. This is why that was her "go-to" when she felt emotionally threatened, which was not always legit (csa history). At that time I did not have much self worth. That is what made the difference this year, in that I saw through the b.s. because I no longer feared being alone and viewed myself as worthy of better than what she was demonstrating.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I would not divorce if everything else was going great in my marriage but I was not getting all the sex I needed. I'd rather have that then the other way around.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> It was fairly crushing several times my wife said it as well. This is why that was her "go-to" when she felt emotionally threatened, which was not always legit (csa history). At that time I did not have much self worth. That is what made the difference this year, in that I saw through the b.s. because I no longer feared being alone and viewed myself as worthy of better than what she was demonstrating.


I don't see how I could ever trust someone again after saying this, especially if it was just a bluff.

But again...this is just something I would never do and so I can't imagine it, either doing it or hearing it from someone else. It is so foreign to me. And my H and I have gotten into some really ridiculous, loud and stupid fights. So I'm not saying I don't understand big arguments and stupid fighting. 

I just don't understand those words being said.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> In my experience, the way folks feel about us is driven by two distinct but related components.
> 
> - Who we are
> And
> - How we treat them


I'm glad that's been your experience, MEM. But, in the general case, and especially in those cases where feelings are far from mutually good, there are other possibilities.

Your partner's "current life circumstances", mental health, maturity, patterns of thinking, moral compass and integrity (especially the tendency to think honesty or not), and the ability to think clearly and with a lifetime of perspective... among other things, can greatly -- overwhelmingly -- affect how he or she feels about you.

In my personal case, I believe that before there's a chance my wife would be vulnerable to emotional intimacy and would open her heart with love towards me, she would have to first stop projecting onto me and using those projections to rationalize her bad behavior. It is not me she has (at times) contempt for, it is this impostor she has created in her own head. 

Or so I tell myself. One could try to argue it's all my own doing -- either she sees me accurately and the impostor is my own creation; or, I've sat idly by while she created the impostor slowly over the years. But, I won't partake. Been there, done that. "No. No I'm not."

Btw, I caught a TED Talk recently that left me wondering if our wiring from the factory sets us up for feeling worse towards our partners than the facts demand. The talk was focused on happiness -- and how there are two separate sorts of things that we lump together with the one term "happiness". I wonder "happiness with our partner" would fit in. The riddle of experience vs. memory.



MEM11363 said:


> Hearts,
> 
> Yes, I agree with you. I think everyone is responsible for their choices, their actions.
> 
> So if someone treats you bad and you choose to remain married to them over time, that is 100% on you.


I'm not sure I understand what is meant, in this context, by "that is 100% on you". 

I'm hoping your intent, MEM, was to highlight the power one generally has to make choices affecting his or her own life -- to give spark to the notion that one CAN make the decision to leave, which is the first step towards finding ways to make it happen.

Regardless of intent, though, I suspect some might take it as an assignment of blame, e.g., "it's your fault you haven't left by now; you should have." 

In some cases, I suppose that fits. (Perhaps even in mine!) 

In other cases, folks stay because of the best within them, not from dereliction of duty. 

Folks might also stay because it simply takes time to grasp reality and adjust to it. Or, because as odd as it seems to us, from their perspective and going from what they know, they think/hope/pray/are-willing-to-bet they are making the right choice for now. We are all wired differently, have different experiences, and different information.

Some stay with the best of intentions, following the best judgement of their mind. Not because staying is "the easy way out", or because they are afraid of something -- perhaps change, looking at themselves, whatever. Some stay knowing full well they are not going to loved in they way they want or need to be loved. That's their choice, and they live with the consequences.

Of course, one can hide behind real or imagined complications, out of fear or laziness or something else undesirable. So, I'm not against challenging someone to look inward. But I am saying it's hard to know the difference, sometimes.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always,

It wasn't like there was one conversation which I escalated to a discussion of divorce. 

There were a series of conversations that ultimately tied back to the most difficult issue some couples face: The relationship between love, power and control. 

At the beginning of this venture I said to M2: I know you aren't big on having a 'written to do list', given what you're about to do, it may end up being hard to keep all these balls in the air without one. Here's the thing, if you choose not to do that, and stuff starts getting disrupted at home, this will be the only play where you take on this role. 

Now before anyone gets too judgemental about my posture, it's important to note a few key elements of context. 

I would have been happy with one child. I was ok with having two children. I did not want a third child. I agreed to a third child because it was very important to M2. At no point in our discussion about child three did I apply any pressure on M2 to find a way to contribute directly to our family finances. I expected our existing arrangement to continue: I would work long hours and travel as needed as an IT consultant and she would run the house and make life at home easy for me. 

Occasionally M2 would directly ask me a question regarding her contribution and my answer was unvarying.
M2: Do you want me to get a job?
MEM: I am grateful for your contribution as is. If you WANT to get a paying job, I'll support you. Totally your call. 

So when the volunteer job came up, my one big theme was: either be organized enough to make this minimally disruptive or accept that this will be a one time thing. If this truly is important to you, you'll do that, and if not, than not. At this time our kids were 9, 5 and 3 years old. 

M2 was of the view that she shouldn't have to keep a to do list. She chose not to use one. The consequence was a lot of stuff started falling through the cracks and landing on me. 

As far as whether M2 had chosen to divorce over this, I would have accepted that. Because I matter too. 

As to why she chose not to keep a to do list, she was unable to explain it other than to say: I don't want to






always_alone said:


> There's a pretty huge difference between saying "If you do that, we're through," and making a request or making your needs known.
> 
> What if M2 had pushed back and said: "this is fulfilling to me, makes me feel like I'm making a contribution, and I'm not giving it up"?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Piece,
My intent was not to be judgmental and I'm sorry if I came accross that way to you. 

I agree that many factors including environmental factors beyond your control can impact your partners view of you. 

And I'm definitely sympathetic to that type situation having experienced some of it myself. M2 is closest to the sister nearest her in age. I remind that sister of her first husband. He dumped her. I can't help it that I remind her of him. It's made things more complicated during some family visits. 

That said at a certain point, if someone doesn't love who I am, I'd accept that even if I thought it was based on misperceptions. Of course I'd try to correct those misperceptions first, but if I failed I'd walk. I'm not suggesting that would be a quick process. 

And I'm not criticizing anyone for being - committed and/or determined to try every avenue before giving up. 



PieceOfSky said:


> I'm glad that's been your experience, MEM. But, in the general case, and especially in those cases where feelings are far from mutually good, there are other possibilities.
> 
> Your partner's "current life circumstances", mental health, maturity, patterns of thinking, moral compass and integrity (especially the tendency to think honesty or not), and the ability to think clearly and with a lifetime of perspective... among other things, can greatly -- overwhelmingly -- affect how he or she feels about you.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Far,

That's also how I see it. M2 sometimes felt that was the only way to get my attention. I'm certainly partly to blame for that. Just as she's guilty for overusing the nuclear threat. 

No actual harm done, no foul. 




farsidejunky said:


> The frequency of the threat as well as whether or not it is a bluff is what matters here I think.
> 
> I can see it as a form of escalation, with the honesty of the threat varying as much as the individuals issuing the threat/ultimatum.
> 
> ...


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> 
> That's also how I see it. M2 sometimes felt that was the only way to get my attention. I'm certainly partly to blame for that. Just as she's guilty for overusing the nuclear threat.
> 
> No actual harm done, no foul.


In fairness, that was your line, Mem. I only take credit for reaching a point where I was healthy enough to use it.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

good evening
(on the original topic - though please continue others).
I am leaving on a long business trip today. My wife was feeling a bit tired but offered to take care of me sexually. In the past I'd always say no, but as an experiment I said OK. She said she wasn't up to wanting anything in return, but would give me a HJ. She did - and in doing so got so aroused that she wanted me to do things for her - which of course I did and she enjoyed. 

Later I mentioned that it seemed that even when she wasn't really interested in sex, once she started she really enjoyed it. She agreed - but didn't seem to understand why that mattered. I didn't want to create stress before leaving, but I'll see if I can talk to her more when I'm back.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

That is great news. I understand your hesitance in those types of situations as I share it when faced with similar choices. 

Perhaps the best thing to do is provide direct positive feedback and then say yes the next time R2 offers to take care of you. Maybe her responsive desire will continue to kick in during these types of encounters. They will start out as 'all about you' and morph into fully mutual experiences. 

And thanks for being gracious about the thread jack.




richardsharpe said:


> good evening
> (on the original topic - though please continue others).
> I am leaving on a long business trip today. My wife was feeling a bit tired but offered to take care of me sexually. In the past I'd always say no, but as an experiment I said OK. She said she wasn't up to wanting anything in return, but would give me a HJ. She did - and in doing so got so aroused that she wanted me to do things for her - which of course I did and she enjoyed.
> 
> Later I mentioned that it seemed that even when she wasn't really interested in sex, once she started she really enjoyed it. She agreed - but didn't seem to understand why that mattered. I didn't want to create stress before leaving, but I'll see if I can talk to her more when I'm back.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

You and I see this the same. The marriage is overall happy. We've had some rough spots. 

Typically M2 and I have both chosen conflict as opposed to withdrawal when we've had a major issue with each other's behavior. 

I do think it's manipulative to threaten divorce when you don't mean it. I absolutely wasn't doing that. I did mean it. Like I said earlier, if I had a time machine, I would have attempted more persuasion before putting the nuclear option in the table. 

The truth is that I mostly accommodate M2's requests - happily. Sometimes she gets confused about what that means. What it really means is that I love her a lot. It doesn't mean she's entitled to whatever she wants.

In this case, she repeatedly attempted to compare her supporting me doing my job, with me supporting her doing this new job. She was unwilling to accept the notion that my job directly benefited all of us. And this volunteer job directly benefited her at my expense. 




Buddy400 said:


> But they have / had a very good, fulfilling marriage.
> 
> If they had each made no requests of the other, had they split when the first problem came up; would that have been preferable?
> 
> One would hope to keep the divorce threats to a minimum. But, if you go through your marriage never making your needs known, that's not usually going to end well.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Hearts,
> 
> Yes, I agree with you. I think everyone is responsible for their choices, their actions.
> 
> ...


I would never suggest 'if you feel bad that's on you' as an approach to life and relationships. Having empathy, compassion and understanding, is a huge aspect in developing meaningful connections, relationships, and a marriage. Anything void of that would be completely foreign to me, to be honest. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding you and how this came to be in the discussion?


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

always_alone said:


> The idea that we are responsible for our own happiness is not, IMHO, to say that we have no moral obligation to treat others well, nor is it to assure that we feel happiness each and every moment of every day. Life just ain't like that.
> 
> The best I can do, the *only* thing I can do is be the best possible me, and hope that it's enough. And even that won't guarantee any happiness at all, just make it easier for me to look at myself in the mirror and say that I tried.


*high five*


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> good evening
> (on the original topic - though please continue others).
> I am leaving on a long business trip today. My wife was feeling a bit tired but offered to take care of me sexually. In the past I'd always say no, but as an experiment I said OK. She said she wasn't up to wanting anything in return, but would give me a HJ. She did - and in doing so got so aroused that she wanted me to do things for her - which of course I did and she enjoyed.
> 
> Later I mentioned that it seemed that even when she wasn't really interested in sex, once she started she really enjoyed it. She agreed - but didn't seem to understand why that mattered. I didn't want to create stress before leaving, but I'll see if I can talk to her more when I'm back.


In the past you'd always say no.... I'm so glad for you and your wife that you said YES! (or rather, 'okay'). Leave the past behind, sure learn from it what you can, but you took that moment and together you were able to enjoy. Hoozah!

Why does it matter whether she's interested beforehand? Once you both began connecting, she was feeling it too. You wrote 'she wanted me to do things for her'... the key part to that, in my very humble opinion, is SHE WANTED ME. (not me, but you, I mean. You know what I mean).


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

You sound like a really sensitive guy Richard. Kind of like me


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> You sound like a really sensitive guy Richard. Kind of like me



You need to fix that


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Fix what?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> Fix what?



Being a sensitive guy 

View attachment 38410


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I am a sensitive guy.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

May I suggest a career in applied or creative arts like product design, writing, architecture, photography, industrial design, etc? That thickens the skin considerably


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Or perhaps I could take up sarcasm?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> Or perhaps I could take up sarcasm?



That too.

I've had the pleasure of experiencing my BPD wife's rages for a while. I've also had my team's design handiwork work shown at many consumer electronics shows including the annual CES in Las Vegas since 2000.

Neither is for the faint at heart. Not quite Delta Force boot camp but pretty close


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Bpd wife? Electronics shows?????


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Think of these as skin hardeners :lol:


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

John you lost me


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Sorry, you must not have followed the Saga of Dr. John  on TAM.

I work in a field that is high stress and high profile - consumer electronic product analysis and design. Any design job requires a thick skin from college freshman year to retirement. Needless to say my skin is quite thick after 30 years in the corporate world - I can take criticism quite well and can give it just as well. No hard feelings. 

At home I have a wife with diagnosed and untreated BPD. That too requires seriously thick skin among other things. 

I'm as sensitive as the next guy but can filter what gets to my head. It's hard because I'm very good at reading people / emphatic and thus I know what people think of me. No ignorance is bliss thingie for good ole John.

Try a similar approach. Not necessarily the alpha - beta krap but learn to use what you can and ignore the rest.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife wrote:


> Most people here seem to really love their spouse, yet they also hate them "for doing this to me". Instead of spending that energy on conflicted emotions, it would serve most people well to ask themselves WHY they are making the CHOICE to remain in this inner conflict. And the reasons they think they are making that choice (ie: obligation) are typically not the real reasons....but most of us don't know that until we stop examining our spouse and instead examine ourselves.


That is why I no longer tell my wife I love her. She has said "I love you" several times recently. I am sure she is not thrilled that I do not say it back.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

This is why I was so determined to inject that theme where we take some responsibility for caring for our partner. 

I believe this sleep disruption - could be a big factor in R2 avoiding sex. Has she ever tried ambien? 

Because if I was in her shoes, I would make a good faith effort to address the barriers to sex. And ambien is very effective. And taking it once or twice a week seems like a small sacrifice for a happy H. 







richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I've never timed it. We probably typically spend an hour. Actual intercourse is short because she wants me to use a vibrator when we do it and that gives her an orgasm in a few minutes. She gets uncomfortable (bored?) if I continue after that so she then just tries to get me off quickly with her hands.
> 
> The timing makes me suspect she isn't faking. Sometimes she will finish very quickly - and she prefers if we finish together which sometimes works. If she were faking, I'd expect she would make the timing work better.
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

If sex causes anxiety worthy of Ambien, I would switch to something more suitable like Maker's Mark...

Richard, how is her attitude - not sleep - the day after sex? That's by far the biggest issue... Is it joy, disgust, remorse, cloud nine, bouncing, or what?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I really don't like sleep aids. 

In any case I don't think tiredness is really the issue, just an excuse. She is not to tired to engage in a wide range of energetic non-sexual activities. I think she doesn't understand why she doesn't want sex, so she uses the term "tiredness". 

There have been many occasions when on vacation I've suggested going back to the room to go to bed and she has said she was too tired for sex and instead we walked for the next several hours and several miles. 



MEM11363 said:


> Richard,
> 
> This is why I was so determined to inject that theme where we take some responsibility for caring for our partner.
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
She is usually very happy, unless she slept too badly. But she never wants it again for several days afterwards. 

She talks as if we have a great sex life -it just seems that she is only comfortable with a couple of times a month, and with a rather limited set of activities. 





john117 said:


> If sex causes anxiety worthy of Ambien, I would switch to something more suitable like Maker's Mark...
> 
> Richard, how is her attitude - not sleep - the day after sex? That's by far the biggest issue... Is it joy, disgust, remorse, cloud nine, bouncing, or what?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> 
> She is usually very happy, unless she slept too badly. But she never wants it again for several days afterwards.
> 
> ...



Perception vs reality... And SLA's...

Not a good way around it. Her SLA is such that she will resist more even if it feels good because, drumroll, you will want more.


----------



## RAYMOND (Feb 5, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> A post in another thread made me aware of something strange in my wife's sexual behavior. She rarely wants sex, but when she does, she physically enjoys it, often very enthusiastically.
> 
> That could be explained by her just rarely wanting sex, but I think there is more. The last couple of years she has given me a BJ as a "gift" for my birthday (a practice I'm going to stop). She really dislikes doing that, and won't do it any other time - but doing it gets her so aroused that she wants me to give her an orgasm afterwards (which I always do).
> ...


I'm a bit like that and I'm the husband. I suppose it is like sef control. I want it when I decide not when my body does. When the two come together the will and the body that is the right time. Otherwise one is just a slave to their sexual desires. If my wife obviously wanted it then I would do it for her. When I want it she always submits to it.

Therefore whilst I have self control we give in to the other when they want it if that makes sense.

Your wife could be like that. I don't know. But I think she should submit when you want it. That's part of marriage.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

If all spouses submitted when the other spouse wanted it there would be no frequency issues.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> If all spouses submitted when the other spouse wanted it there would be no frequency issues.



In some marriages it works like that. But not around here for many people.

I'm not even sure it should in all cases - people have selfish streaks and may use the opportunity for less than wholesome motives


----------



## Giro flee (Mar 12, 2013)

Regarding the "I'm tired" excuse. As a woman with mainly responsive desire I find it very difficult to get the engine running so to speak. I have to really concentrate on switching mental gears from regular life to sexy thinking. It can be mentally exhausting, it doesn't just happen for me. 

When Mr. Giro. would plop into bed and waggle his eyebrows at me without any flirtation throughout the day it was almost impossible to get into the swing of things. This led to duty sex, painful sex, and resentment. For both of us.

We have much better communication these days, and sex starts way before we hit the bedroom so I have time to do the mental work I need to do to get in the mood. So while it may not look like I'm exhausted as I'm running around working or cleaning, the mental work required for sex for me can sometimes be daunting. It doesn't take a lot of intellectual energy to clean a bathroom, watch tv, or play on your phone.

And as always, if a spouse is unable or unwilling to work at this and communicate about it there won't be improvement.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Very insightful Giro. Well put.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Sex requires that much mental effort? I must have missed the lecture where they discussed that.

But let's play along - what kind of mental effort? Relaxation? Getting in the mood? Opening up to your partner? Getting physically prepped? Finding the time?

I'm sorry, but knowing what I know about mental effort it sounds to me like the mental effort is to convince oneself to have sex, not to actually have sex..


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Responsive desire plays a big role.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

john117 said:


> Sex requires that much mental effort? I must have missed the lecture where they discussed that.
> 
> But let's play along - what kind of mental effort? Relaxation? Getting in the mood? Opening up to your partner? Getting physically prepped? Finding the time?
> 
> I'm sorry, but knowing what I know about mental effort it sounds to me like the mental effort is to convince oneself to have sex, not to actually have sex..


It is to convince yourself to have sex. That's exactly what it is. 

We don't have a supercharge of testosterone running through our bodies 24/7 keeping us primed at a moments notice. It is, in most cases, a deliberate feat to turn ourselves on enough to have sex (or to allow our husbands to attempt to get us there). I think some women have mastered this better than others, and some likely have a good hormone balance that keeps them more "in the zone" than others. 

It's a bit like being a master of meditation. Meditation is really a training and control of your brain. The ability to choose and control when your body goes into a relaxed state. It has to be practiced and by nature will be more difficult to some than others. (I would argue a naturally uptight nervous person would find it more difficult, for example) 

There are certain things that husband's can do to help, which will be different for every woman. Flirting through out the day and so on. However, it still requires a mental effort on the woman's part to translate all of those gestures from her husband into physical arousal.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Ok, I can see that. But I'm not talking about having sex twice a day for a month. 

If one needs the Kaplan SAT prep class to prepare mentally for sex, then they need to look deep into themselves and ask why.

I'm not saying it's wrong - people are different - but I can't see one steeling themselves for a roll in the sheets. This isn't Rocky Balboa vs the Russian giant dude. 

I can understand relaxing and getting in the mood. Music, walk in the garden, etc. But what's more into it? What mental blocks are we erecting that have to be taken down?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Anyone with an ld partner understands


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm really trying hard here. Why would one need convincing to have a mutually beneficial experience? 

Unless, of course, they don't perceive it as such.

Remember the basis of human behavior - humans are reward seeking and risk averse. From a purely risk / reward model point of view why would one view sex with a committed partner as a "risk"???


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I never said risk.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> I'm really trying hard here. Why would one need convincing to have a mutually beneficial experience?


I have to convince myself every morning to get up when the alarm rings. I know that once I get up, it will be fine and the best thing for me. But I'm not a spring-out-of-bed type, and would rather sleep and sleep and sleep, so I have to talk myself into actually getting up.

Another example - my SO's family has a cottage on the lake. I love the cottage, love the lake, love the beach, it's always a fun, relaxing and romantic time for the two of us. The drive is 3 hours on Friday nights at the end of a long workweek, though, so on cottage weekends, I have to psych myself up for going away.

An LD with responsive drive may know they will enjoy sex once they get aroused, but since they are NOT aroused before and are NOT aroused when the idea is presented, they have to mentally get psyched up to actually do it.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Amen Nora Jane.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

QFT




norajane said:


> I have to convince myself every morning to get up when the alarm rings. I know that once I get up, it will be fine and the best thing for me. But I'm not a spring-out-of-bed type, and would rather sleep and sleep and sleep, so I have to talk myself into actually getting up.
> 
> Another example - my SO's family has a cottage on the lake. I love the cottage, love the lake, love the beach, it's always a fun, relaxing and romantic time for the two of us. The drive is 3 hours on Friday nights at the end of a long workweek, though, so on cottage weekends, I have to psych myself up for going away.
> 
> An LD with responsive drive may know they will enjoy sex once they get aroused, but since they are NOT aroused before and are NOT aroused when the idea is presented, they have to mentally get psyched up to actually do it.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Qft?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> I never said risk.



It's risk / reward. I'm sure behavioral psychologists call it different names  but we cognitive psych types prefer the more straightforward definition.

People seek to maximize rewards - get rich, eat ice cream, etc. Likewise they're afraid of the unknown, bad things happening, losing money, etc. It's called risk aversion. 

If sex involves that then we are done


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Apples and oranges - getting up in the morning offers no reward of it's own - or risk. Sure you can sleep in but people have obligations and things to take care of - it's not a choice. it's something people do. Don't go to work - bye bye job. Should I get all psyched up to go to Costco because I ran out of cereal?

Driving to the lake house involves a tradeoff of some kind - balancing the reward of the lake house vs the chore or hassle of the drive. 

Is that how some people see sex?

I can understand responsive desire but "mental conditioning" is a bit stretching it. Rationalizing, even.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> Apples and oranges - getting up in the morning offers no reward of it's own - or risk. Sure you can sleep in but people have obligations and things to take care of - it's not a choice. it's something people do. Should I get all psyched up to go to Costco because I ran out of cereal?


On the weekends, when I don't have obligations, I still have to talk myself into getting up. My SO is the opposite and jumps out of bed without an alarm and hours before I do.

I have to talk myself into grocery shopping, too. 



> Driving to the lake house involves a tradeoff of some kind - balancing the reward of the lake house vs the chore or hassle of the drive.
> 
> Is that how some people see sex?
> 
> I can understand responsive desire but "mental conditioning" is a bit stretching it. Rationalizing, even.


For people who aren't spontaneously and naturally aroused at the drop of a hat, yes, it's like that. They have to switch gears mentally, let go of the thoughts running around their brains, make the time for it, and get into sexy mode, and, yes, it's hard to do that when they aren't aroused. 

Consider how some things are highly erotic when you are aroused and in the middle of sex, but if you aren't aroused, the idea isn't a turn on.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

Can you accept that your definition and experience of "reward" is intrinsically different than those around you? (I.e. your wife)

To attach negative connotations such as "rationalization" is to deny that others have a different experience than you do. You are approaching your quest for understanding through your own bias and expecting that everyone experiences sex the same that you do. 

I do not find sex as intrinsically rewarding as my husband does. I can promise you that. Or perhaps it is more accurate to just say the perceived reward is different. 

For one, I do not attach feeling loved to having sex. Sex is a physical act to me. I feel loved by emotional bonding via talking and feeling understood. Sure sex physically feels good. So do a lot of other things. 

I see sex as something important to him so I extend the olive branch of good will because I love him. If one day he stopped needing sex to feel loved, and instead told me he felt loved when I washed his car. I would begin washing his car. Because I love him and want him to feel that from me. But I would not derive enough pleasure from washing the car to want to do it all day every day.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Q.E.D then 

Rationalizing is not a negative term. It's a natural process humans use to make decisions.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Nora Jane are you my wife?


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

kag123 said:


> I do not find sex as intrinsically rewarding as my husband does.







> For one, I do not attach feeling loved to having sex. Sex is a physical act to me.




When we first began our relationship together 20+ years ago, my wife revealed it works for her that way too. I was surprised.



I wonder if my wife was wired to experience it as a loving act, we would not now be so far apart and sexless. I wonder how frequently such a difference factors in to the sex-starved marriage equation.






> I see sex as something important to him so I extend the olive branch of good will because I love him. If one day he stopped needing sex to feel loved, and instead told me he felt loved when I washed his car. I would begin washing his car. Because I love him and want him to feel that from me. But I would not derive enough pleasure from washing the car to want to do it all day every day.




You are a loving wife.

ETA: 

Just wanted to add, no wonder if he feels loved by it _because it *IS* and act of love on your part._


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Kag and Norajane,

The way you two describe this is exactly how M2 explained it to me way back in the beginning. And I don't mean in the first year, but after the glow of limmerance faded. That was about 23 years ago. 

One thing I've always liked about M2 is she says what's true. 

If I had not believed her - or referred to her depiction as a rationalization - that would have been a train wreck. 

I immediately knew she was telling the truth - as I know that you are. 

And I especially like the comment one of you made about picturing or thinking about certain activities when you aren't turned on. How those acts, can be unappealing in that context. 




kag123 said:


> Can you accept that your definition and experience of "reward" is intrinsically different than those around you? (I.e. your wife)
> 
> To attach negative connotations such as "rationalization" is to deny that others have a different experience than you do. You are approaching your quest for understanding through your own bias and expecting that everyone experiences sex the same that you do.
> 
> ...


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Kag and Norajane,
> 
> The way you two describe this is exactly how M2 explained it to me way back in the beginning. And I don't mean in the first year, but after the glow of limmerance faded. That was about 23 years ago.
> 
> ...


That's probably why you two have been able to work things out so that things _work _between you. A partner's reactions and subsequent actions make a huge difference.

I'm not LD, but I do have responsive desire for the most part, with some exceptions. If my SO were to continually hound me to initiate more, I'd believe he's simply not hearing what I'm telling him or he doesn't believe me or he doesn't care how I feel. That will lead to the opposite of me initiating. But he hasn't once ever said anything about it, he accepts if it's not the right time without fuss, and thus the door always remains open to sex without any stress, just good times. 

If I were LD on top of that, though, it might be a lot harder for him to accept because he'd be getting turned down a lot, so I can see the other side of the coin and how difficult it is for couples who have to find ways to deal with that.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

john117 said:


> Q.E.D then
> 
> Rationalizing is not a negative term. It's a natural process humans use to make decisions.


It has a negative meaning that folks often use when discussing human behavior:

You can see the relevant Oxford English Dictionary here, especially entry "c".



The Wikipedia describes the negative use of the word in the context of psychology:
.
.
In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)​
No doubt there are non-negative meanings of the word, but IME folks tend to use the negative.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Norajane,
I think there are a few aspects to this. Certainly mutual understanding and mutual acceptance are a big deal. 

Sometimes people lose sight of how powerful it can be to reward and reinforce transparency. 

Your partner shares something - private - about themselves. That is a moment of vulnerability. In that moment, the worst thing you can do is 'make it about you'. 

For example if it's different than your personal experience, you can express skepticism or disbelief. It's kind of a: well that's not true for me, so I doubt it's true for you. 

I've found the phrase: Thank you for telling me that

Is invaluable in these situations. 




norajane said:


> That's probably why you two have been able to work things out so that things _work _between you. A partner's reactions and subsequent actions make a huge difference.
> 
> I'm not LD, but I do have responsive desire for the most part, with some exceptions. If my SO were to continually hound me to initiate more, I'd believe he's simply not hearing what I'm telling him or he doesn't believe me or he doesn't care how I feel. That will lead to the opposite of me initiating. But he hasn't once ever said anything about it, he accepts if it's not the right time without fuss, and thus the door always remains open to sex without any stress, just good times.
> 
> If I were LD on top of that, though, it might be a lot harder for him to accept because he'd be getting turned down a lot, so I can see the other side of the coin and how difficult it is for couples who have to find ways to deal with that.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

PieceOfSky said:


> It has a negative meaning that folks often use when discussing human behavior:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*ouch

You go girl


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Are we now lumping sex with other "unappealing" activities? 

Let's see. I find maintaining the immaculate landscaping in my house unappealing. Too bad if my neighbors put up with me mowing once a month.

I have to talk myself into exercising because, like, it's a PAIN to cycle 20 miles after work in hot weather. But I don't rationalize/prepare mentally for it...

If sex is this much of a chore be honest with your partner and be done with it.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Interesting. It sounds like you actively want to decide on sex rationally, not just because you are physically aroused - that you want to control your body's desires. 

The could fit the way my wife thinks about it.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else?


For me it is difficult to grok. To me sex is basically an irrational, emotional act. It is the one rare situation where I allow myself not to be in control. 







RAYMOND said:


> I'm a bit like that and I'm the husband. I suppose it is like sef control. I want it when I decide not when my body does. When the two come together the will and the body that is the right time. Otherwise one is just a slave to their sexual desires.
> snip
> .


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> Are we now lumping sex with other "unappealing" activities?
> 
> Let's see. I find maintaining the immaculate landscaping in my house unappealing. Too bad if my neighbors put up with me mowing once a month.
> 
> ...


Sex is not a chore. It's a delight, and it's passionate and wonderful.

Mentally shifting gears is a process, and it's not automatic.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Elizabeth001 said:


> *ouch
> 
> You go girl



Wasn't meant to cause an *ouch. (Neither likely with John, nor useful.) It just is, and seemed worth noting.

And, oh, that girl thing... ouch  (Not that there's anything wrong with being a girl, mind you, I just happen to not be one. )


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

norajane said:


> Sex is not a chore. It's a delight, and it's passionate and wonderful.
> 
> *Mentally shifting gears is a process, and it's not automatic.*


That's easy for me to understand. The work I do for a living is pointless for me to attempt if I am not in the right state of mind or have interruptions, internal or external. Far better to get up and go for a walk, rather than sit at my keyboard with a cluttered mind.

Over the years, I've gotten better at being able to get "in the zone", and shut out distractions. It's easier when I happen to like what I'm about to sit down and work on.

I've also moonlighted over the years, doing consulting work on the side. I recall dreading working on some of those projects, for various reasons, and in those cases getting in "the zone" was extremely hard to come by, and I frequently procrastinated.


Btw, I wonder how "responsive desire" might relate to attaining the mental state/experience of flow", in Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's definition of the term.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

If you were to google 'responsive desire' you will quickly find a lot of specialists who believe that:
- responsive desire is very very common
- can absolutely be worked around provided the person who has it makes the conscious choice to do so

I absolutely believe that a happy marriage is one where both folks make a good faith effort to respond positively to their partners attempts to 'connect' with them. And that sometimes means suppressing our internal reflexive response to decline. 

This is especially important when the activity in question is important to your partner, and one which you enjoy once you get going. 

There is a reason R2 acts the way she does. Until you discover that I seriously doubt you will make any real progress with her. 






richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Interesting. It sounds like you actively want to decide on sex rationally, not just because you are physically aroused - that you want to control your body's desires.
> 
> The could fit the way my wife thinks about it.
> ...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Makes sense French Fry


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

norajane said:


> Sex is not a chore. It's a delight, and it's passionate and wonderful.
> 
> Mentally shifting gears is a process, and it's not automatic.



This is getting interesting.

Mental gear shifting involves the executive part of the brain. It happens when we change what we are going to do (goals) or how we are going to do our current goal (rules).

Y'all are referring to goal shifting. Clearly there's no rule shifting. So the brain has to decide if it wants to have sex or watch TV. 

The "conditioning" simply refers to changing enough of the model parameters to select sex over TV.

Now, sex isn't too difficult to do with a willing partner. So, what are those model parameters?

Are you (y'all) going to rehash every negative event since Katrina to convince yourself enough to NOT have sex? Or are you going to simply get on with the program?

It's not a mental gear shifting issue (unless you play Candy Crush while having sex) but a conditioning issue. 

But wait.

Mental conditioning is generally used when you are facing a difficult or unpleasant situation. Athletes, soldiers, kids taking the SAT... Surely sex isn't in here 

General conditioning? Stimulus response? Whoa. Let's not get carried away. It's not conditioning either.

Let's call it emotional preparation. The mind plays a mental movie of you and your partner... Ok let's keep it pg13 . But it's a pleasant experience. 

Or is it?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Elizabeth001 said:


> *ouch
> 
> You go girl



There's a fine line between an explanation and an excuse... I don't see either as negative in a committed relationship.

"I can't mow the yard" is one or the other or both. Honesty is the distinguishing factor.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

It is interesting to me, John, how you think that sex is always good all of the time, and there are never "risks" or downsides.

A testament to your experience, no doubt. But not one that everyone shares.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

always_alone said:


> It is interesting to me, John, how you think that sex is always good all of the time, and there are never "risks" or downsides.
> 
> A testament to your experience, no doubt. But not one that everyone shares.


Just because I had an orgasm, doesn't mean it was good or that I'm happy. 

I always want my wife to initiate and such. Makes me feel like she 'wants me'. Alas, she never does initiate. So I would try to wait it out . Wait for her to. I would always just do it anyway and then afterward feel like crap about myself. One time, I waited as long as I could. 7-8 months went by before I caved and initiated. Sex became something negative to me for a long time.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> It is interesting to me, John, how you think that sex is always good all of the time, and there are never "risks" or downsides.
> 
> 
> 
> A testament to your experience, no doubt. But not one that everyone shares.



Lolz.

It's not a question of "good and bad". It's a question of communicating to your partner if it's good or bad and why.

I've heard every rationalization / excuse / tinfoil hat story about why my dear wife is not "in the mood". I think the one about moths and mice took the cake. 

If I knew she was honest I would accept it as an explanation. 

There are risks to any activity but as long as the risks are communicated and understood things are peachy.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I don't really care who initiates as long as one of us does


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

John: I respect you but I think you are way off base here.

I used to love and desire sex. I was constantly initiating with my wife. I could never have imagined that sex was anything other than fun and enjoyable.

Then came 20+ years of being rejected. Then came age and poor performance on my part on those rare occasions when H2 would consent. Now, as with LinNE, sex has become a negative for me. What was once joyful is now tainted with risk that I will feel shame and regret when we have sex. For a while my wife would initiate because she knows I used to enjoy sex and when I treated her well and it has been a while since our last session she would ask me if I wanted to. But after a couple of times of me turning her down by telling her I no longer reliably enjoyed sex with her, she stopped initiating.

And I have no desire to initiate. I do not fantasize about her when I masturbate. It feels to me when I try to fantasize about sex with her that I am violating her. I know she does not enjoy sex with me. So I feel it is a betrayal for me to fantasize about a version of her that does enjoy sex with me. More of a betrayal than fantasizing about having sex with other women (about whom I do not know for sure that they wouldn't desire sex with me).

So please try to understand that I went from being a HD who was constantly pursuing my wife for sex into a LD who rejects offers of sex almost entirely as a result of increased mental effort required to get in the mood. Increased mental effort required to overcome the memory of my wife's rejection, her lack of enjoyment, and my own poor performance. Very little changed in what I or my wife did when we had sex. It was mostly about a change in how I viewed and felt about what we did.

I used to not be able to understand someone who said "it takes a lot of mental effort to get myself into the mood to have sex with my spouse." Now I understand. In some cases, it does.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Fair point.

But.... To the untrained observer, how much difference is there between what you're doing and revenge? 

I'm likewise not interested in sex with my wife. Not because of emotional frou frou issues but because it's pointless. As I told her the last time she tried to initiate, "think of the lawn during a heat wave. I can run the sprinklers once a month and see if it helps." I told her that it's pointless and it's not going to save our zombie marriage. 

Do I echo resentment??? Some. Indifference? Plenty. But I did not use Jedi mind games with her. I did not become LD. I still like the way my wife looks. If circumstances were different I would love to go back to where we were before it all hit the fan. 

But I'm not going to mentally condition my self for infrequent sex with her any more than I'm going to join the Tour De France . It doesn't mean I don't want sex with her or otherwise. It means I'm not going to participate in a travesty of a marriage. 

And she knows it. 100%. And can hear the clock ticking. She knows that too.

Sex with her is not painful or bad or anything. It's just something I choose not to get into at this time.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

john117 said:


> Fair point.
> 
> But.... To the untrained observer, how much difference is there between what you're doing and revenge?
> 
> ...


NOW your responses on this thread are making sense. 

I did not know your back story. 

Quite honestly, the resentment seeps through every post. I was wondering where it was coming from. 

I could not see myself getting it on with my husband if he was projecting as much suspicion of my motives onto me as you are to those in this thread. 

Sorry to hear about the situation you are in.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> There are risks to any activity but as long as the risks are communicated and understood things are peachy.


Peachy? All this comment does is completely reinforce my point: you have absolutely zero understanding of the risks and downsides that some people face.

As much as you would like it to be all rainbows and pleasure, sex can be quite fraught. And communication about it will in some cases only makes everything worse -- because you've also managed to damage someone's ego in the process.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's not resentment - it's cynicism 

But I'm not complaining. I got two wonderful daughters out of the marriage and enough money to send both to top 10 universities. But every tragedy has an ending.

But enough about me . Here's my daughter's cat. 

View attachment 38474


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Peachy? All this comment does is completely reinforce my point: you have absolutely zero understanding of the risks and downsides that some people face.
> 
> 
> 
> As much as you would like it to be all rainbows and pleasure, sex can be quite fraught. And communication about it will in some cases only makes everything worse -- because you've also managed to damage someone's ego in the process.



Nobody can understand the risks that *everyone* else faces. For all I know Bob in Marketing may suffer from penile thrombosis and he can keel over while... 

That doesn't mean one is unaware of the risks that *most* people face or not face. 

Most people in committed relationships don't face clear and present danger over sex. If they do, they have bigger fish to fry than getting laid.

If you're talking risk, tho, my wife's sister died while on a PA. OM was driving the car, he rolled it... Am I to assume that PA's are fraught with danger? And that in a country where infidelity is a crime punishable by... You get the idea. Damaging someone's ego is the LEAST of ones concern.

Maybe you're talking about village girl / city boy sex followed by shotgun weddings, a tradition in my birth country. That's dangerous too. 

But we aren't talking about such people.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Somehow this discussion has gotten way off topic. Interesting though.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

john117 said:


> This is getting interesting.
> 
> Mental gear shifting involves the executive part of the brain. It happens when we change what we are going to do (goals) or how we are going to do our current goal (rules).
> 
> ...


I find this easy to understand. There are plenty of things that I know I will enjoy but I can sometimes have a hard time getting myself motivated to do them. 

I always feel better after going to the gym, but often have a hard time getting myself to go, especially if I haven't gone in a while.

I know I'll feel good if I complete a significant household project.

I know I'll feel good if I knuckle down at work and get something great done. Sometimes I just can't get myself going so I noodle around on TAM. That doesn't make me feel nearly as good at the end of the day.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> Somehow this discussion has gotten way off topic. Interesting though.



It hasn't.

It's always about the "need" of the LD to avoid intimacy vs the "need" of the non LD to seek intimacy.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> This is getting interesting.
> 
> Mental gear shifting involves the executive part of the brain. It happens when we change what we are going to do (goals) or how we are going to do our current goal (rules).
> 
> ...


What? No. It's not like that.

Let me try to explain it this way:

When I'm on vacation, mentally changing gears into sexy mode is a fast and easy process because I'm already in relaxation and pleasure mode. Feeling sexy is easy because I'm already feeling good and left the stress at home.

On a Tuesday after a long workday, dinner that does not magically appear, an early meeting in the morning with a spreadsheet that needs a final review, and oh yeah, the a/c went out...the process of mentally getting into sexy mode takes longer and may not be an option at all. 

On a Friday night, I might be tired from a long week, but I've got a weekend ahead of me to relax. That's a great time for a couple of tasty beverages with dinner, and whether we go out or stay in, watch Game of Thrones or dance around the living room, sexy mode is easy for me to transition into because we are flirting, and having fun and making stupid jokes. It's an hours long build-up that we both enjoy. Without that build up, I'd probably want to just cuddle and fall asleep, and we'd both miss out on the fun of the build up as well as the sex.

Weekend mornings are great for getting into sexy mode because I've had plenty of sleep, and I can wake up in sexy mode with the right touch. Try that on a random Thursday, and no, just no.

It's more like that.

It's not some nefarious plot to confound my lover, or to make excuses, or to weigh pros and cons. It's how my responsive desire works.

I'm describing responsive desire as a person who enjoys sex, not as someone who is trying not to have sex.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The last two paragraphs are the key.

Once you hit low digits frequency per month responsive desire is like world peace. A great idea and nothing else.

Responsive desire is not LD and nobody's arguing that....


----------



## MissouriGuy (Sep 10, 2015)

Before my wife & I were married, sex seemed to be a future wonderful part of our life together. While living far apart, we had many sexual "encounters" via phone or web. When we were together, it was HOT. 
Now that we are married, I found out a few things. First, my wife drank almost every we had phone or web sex. Second, she doesn't like to give BJ's, even though by talking to her previously, you wouldn't have known that. She uses the excuse that she has to "wooed" into having sex. Most of the time it is very formal. Go in the bedroom, remove clothes, missionary or cowgirl style, no frills involved/ That spontaneous hot sex stopped after a few months of marriage. Tonight, my attempts to seduce my wife was upstaged by Season 2, episode 2 of Chuck re-runs. 
I love sex with my wife. I adore her. I absolutely enjoy pleasing her in every way. Rarely does her lips make contact with anything else other than my lips. I guess by the time I met my wife, she had already had all the actual sex she really wanted. 
Now it seems to just be a chore to her. If I could get her to be half as enthusiastic about sex as she is about her job, I'd be the luckiest guy in the world.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Any input helps - I appreciate it. It is clear different people view / feel very differently about sex, so input / discussion is valuable - maybe for everyone.

Imagine you are in a situation where nothing in particular is standing in the way of sex: No critical chores to do. You are not unusually tired. The environment is OK. (a typical vacation, and possibly weekend scenario).

What sort of mental chores are needed? Is it something you *decide* to do, or something that happens in response to your partners activities? Do you ever decide you just don't want sex even if there is no external reason not to? In other words, can you not be "in the mood" for reasons that are mentally internal to you?

As a HD person, sex is something I am always happy to do if there is not some external reason not to. Sex is also always emotionally satisfying (assuming no horrible problems). After sex, lying curled up next to my wife is the only time in my life I am fully relaxed. 

Note, I'm including problems with your own physical health as "external" for the sake of this question. So if you are feeling physically poorly, I consider that an "external" reason not to have sex. 

I'm also considering your partner's actions to be "external". If you are mad at them for something they did - that's external too.






FrenchFry said:


> Thinking about it even further--
> 
> Sex for me is usually rewarding for me physically, but not emotionally unless certain mental "tasks" have been completed.
> 
> ...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Giro flee said:


> Regarding the "I'm tired" excuse. As a woman with mainly responsive desire I find it very difficult to get the engine running so to speak. I have to really concentrate on switching mental gears from regular life to sexy thinking. It can be mentally exhausting, it doesn't just happen for me.
> 
> When Mr. Giro. would plop into bed and waggle his eyebrows at me without any flirtation throughout the day it was almost impossible to get into the swing of things. This led to duty sex, painful sex, and resentment. For both of us.
> 
> ...



Are you my wife? :grin2:


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Nora Jane are you my wife?


I found another one on this thread too! :smile2:


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

norajane said:


> What? No. It's not like that.
> 
> Let me try to explain it this way:
> 
> ...


I'm sure you do, but, to me, it is essential that the frequency is there... I can understand the mechanism, but the HD's partner mechanism should be taken into consideration too...
Being on the "receiving end" of a wife with such mechanism, I wonder why she needs a whole month to get into the mood... maybe she needs her cogs oiling? :smile2:

Seriously, it's all very well, but a marriage is a partnership and both spouses' needs should be valued... as usual, compromise is the trick... the problem is, we all have different concepts of what constitutes the right frequency.

I have accepted that from my wife... only that the compromise is very one-sided... but understanding the mechanism, I'd rather have sex when she wants it. Unfortunately, the low frequency has its collateral effects: it creates a gap, which widens further and further, until you can't bridge it any more.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I can put up with low frequency awesome sex. Still would like high frequency awesome sex though


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Another problem is that, sometimes, is not even mind-blowing sex! It's been 10 days for me (from sex) and I'm ready... :smile2: I know I'll have to wait at least another 2 weeks before I get the "nod" from my wife... she now thinks I'm ok with it. Well, I'm not. But I can't bring it up... she will say that I'm putting pressure on her again and that I'm going back to the old ways. Basically, it's on her terms or nothing... of course, I'm free to go, if I don't like it. She never says it in a nasty way... just "this is the way I am" kind of statement...

I would like to know what kind of frequency Nora Jane and Giro flee are aiming for, knowing how their mechanism works...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I hear you in absentia. I am in the same boat re frequency but as I said the sex is always worth waiting for.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Okguy said:


> I hear you in absentia. I am in the same boat re frequency but as I said the sex is always worth waiting for.


well, I have to wait so long that I would have sex with anything... :grin2::grin2: there goes my 1,000th post... I was hoping it would be more optimistic...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> If you're talking risk, tho, my wife's sister died while on a PA. OM was driving the car, he rolled it... Am I to assume that PA's are fraught with danger? And that in a country where infidelity is a crime punishable by... You get the idea. Damaging someone's ego is the LEAST of ones concern.
> 
> Maybe you're talking about village girl / city boy sex followed by shotgun weddings, a tradition in my birth country. That's dangerous too.
> 
> But we aren't talking about such people.


No, we are not talking about such people at all. But we are talking about sex. Lucky you that you have never experienced performance anxiety, ED, or had your mind on other things, unable to concentrate or connect. That you are always absolutely ready to go, no matter the circumstances, and are absolutely confident in the beauty of your body and desirability, and sexual acumen, not a whit of self-doubt, no negative feedback, and never had your boundaries challenged, let alone breeched.

Lucky you that you've never felt like the sex you just had was hollow, unfulfilling, or left you sexually hanging, with no orgasm, or a weak orgasm from lack of foreplay, or insufficient attention to your pleasure. That you always get off, that you always expect to get off, that it always feels good, and that you can't even bring yourself to imagine a downside that doesn't involve death or a shotgun wedding.

All of these situations (and more) might be someone who claims (with perhaps some greater and lesser degrees of honesty) that the sex is pleasurable, but they don't really want to have lots of it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Earth to always_alone... You keep throwing legit / non mental issues into the picture.... ED is a physical issue and PA is a legit issue...

We are not talking about those either. 

The rest of your post as it relates to me is completely off base... But whatever rocks your boat I suppose. 

Last night I got 4 hours sleep and still came to work. The only mental gear shifting was to turn on the coffee maker. Am I always ready for work? No, but I don't need a Zig Ziglar pep rally to wake up either.

Tell me this... While dating, how many people would NOT freak out if told that their partner "needs to mentally be ready" for sex? As in, dread?

I can understand special circumstances but every time?


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> Earth to always_alone... You keep throwing legit / non mental issues into the picture.... ED is a physical issue and PA is a legit issue...
> 
> We are not talking about those either.
> 
> ...


Ah, that's the rub of the green called "marriage." :grin2:

24 years and I still have not cracked the code. I think I'm getting close though.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

UMP said:


> Ah, that's the rub of the green called "marriage." :grin2:
> 
> 
> 
> 24 years and I still have not cracked the code. I think I'm getting close though.



I've cracked the code. One of the few cases where my education paid off . Hasn't done any good.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Dating is very different from married life in so many ways.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Based on some of the helpful comments from the responsive desire folks, is it a fair assessment to say that y'all may be less mentally flexible? Or don't deal as well with change or a lack of predictability? Does this happen in other areas of life or just with sex?

I never considered it until now, but when my wife is blind sided by life by even the smallest things, she has to work her way through it. Sometimes painstakingly so over said small things, whereas I just roll with it. Rolling with it is rarely in her wheel house. I am the HD and she is the RD/LD.

Thanks for giving us the insight BTW.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> I've cracked the code. One of the few cases where my education paid off . Hasn't done any good.


The combination keeps changing. That's the part that's really f$cked up. :surprise

Remember that OLD Twilight Zone episode where the guy is crazy for this girl and she will not give him the time of day?
He get's a magic potion and gives it to her. She becomes his worst nightmare, wanting him constantly. His dream has become his hell.

Maybe it's Gods way of keeping us hungry for our wives?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Based on some of the helpful comments from the responsive desire folks, is it a fair assessment to say that y'all may be less mentally flexible? Or don't deal as well with change or a lack of predictability? Does this happen in other areas of life or just with sex?
> 
> I never considered it until now, but when my wife is blind sided by life by even the smallest things, she has to work her way through it. Sometimes painstakingly so over said small things, whereas I just roll with it. Rolling with it is rarely in her wheel house. I am the HD and she is the RD/LD.
> 
> Thanks for giving us the insight BTW.



Yes.

I wear multiple hats at work and context switching is natural to me (ADHD helps). Other people dread change - I thrive on it because I like to predict things and see them play out...

Mental flexibility is related to one's availability and willingness to use their mental models and experiences. Some people do it, some don't.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

To me, responsive desire is equivalent to LD... I know, I know... but if you have to think and decide if, when and why to have sex, you definitely have little libido or zero libido... I'm saying this because I've read many responsive desire women stating they are HD... I can't put the two together...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

In Absentia said:


> Are you my wife? :grin2:


Seems like you'd be ok if she was.

She's conscientious, she enjoys it, she cares, she's not selfish.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

farsidejunky said:


> Based on some of the helpful comments from the responsive desire folks, is it a fair assessment to say that y'all may be less mentally flexible? Or don't deal as well with change or a lack of predictability? Does this happen in other areas of life or just with sex?
> 
> I never considered it until now, but when my wife is blind sided by life by even the smallest things, she has to work her way through it. Sometimes painstakingly so over said small things, whereas I just roll with it. Rolling with it is rarely in her wheel house. I am the HD and she is the RD/LD.
> 
> Thanks for giving us the insight BTW.


From what women say here (i.e. Anon Pink) their orgasm is more in their head. They need to be in a peaceful place mentally to really be into it. Guys, for the most part, don't have that problem. 

So I suspect it's largely a gender difference.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Not to be stereotypical  but I find the above to be true for women in general. They need to be a lot more in the "right state of mind", whatever that means, for many things. In contrast, men are more "just do it" types. I think both approaches have merit and a fusion of the two is the best.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Earth to always_alone... You keep throwing legit / non mental issues into the picture.... ED is a physical issue and PA is a legit issue...


I see, so when my SO is feeling stressed out and can't get it up, this is a legitimate issue. But if a woman is stressed out and having trouble getting her head into the game it is mental and she should just get over it?

And that makes sense ... because?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

What I find most interesting about these discussions is that they always devolve into gender stereotypes assuming that it is always the woman who is LD, never the man.

And from those gender stereotypes comes all sorts of lack of empathy and blaming of people for being "selfish" and "one-sided" because they won't put sufficient effort into overcoming their own predilections to cater to those of their spouse.

But really it goes both ways. And so does the selfishness and one-sidedness.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Buddy 400 my wife is just like that yes.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> Not to be stereotypical  but I find the above to be true for women in general. They need to be a lot more in the "right state of mind", whatever that means, for many things. In contrast, men are more "just do it" types. I think both approaches have merit and a fusion of the two is the best.


NO SOUP FOR YOU! :grin2:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I see, so when my SO is feeling stressed out and can't get it up, this is a legitimate issue. But if a woman is stressed out and having trouble getting her head into the game it is mental and she should just get over it?



Already covered in the legit issues post.

If someone is so stressed out that it interferes with physical activities sex should be the least of their concerns.

I have a customer delivery tomorrow that barely works on our lab bench - should I freak out due to anxiety?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

John, one day soon I hope you realize not everyone sees the world through the same prism as you.

People are so much more than a statistical analysis of their behavioral patterns.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Already covered in the legit issues post.
> 
> If someone is so stressed out that it interferes with physical activities sex should be the least of their concerns.
> 
> I have a customer delivery tomorrow that barely works on our lab bench - should I freak out due to anxiety?


See that's the thing though. You've arbitrarily determined what counts as sufficient anxiety.

You say here (and perhaps in some other posts) that it's a legit issue, but then repeatedly and constantly dismiss it as a legit issue. Because, according to you, that person has no "right" to be anxious. 

My SO doesn't actually have anything to be stressed out about, as far as I can tell. Are you still going to say his issue is "legit", but any woman's who needs to get into the right headspace is not?


----------



## Giro flee (Mar 12, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> Another problem is that, sometimes, is not even mind-blowing sex! It's been 10 days for me (from sex) and I'm ready... :smile2: I know I'll have to wait at least another 2 weeks before I get the "nod" from my wife... she now thinks I'm ok with it. Well, I'm not. But I can't bring it up... she will say that I'm putting pressure on her again and that I'm going back to the old ways. Basically, it's on her terms or nothing... of course, I'm free to go, if I don't like it. She never says it in a nasty way... just "this is the way I am" kind of statement...
> 
> I would like to know what kind of frequency Nora Jane and Giro flee are aiming for, knowing how their mechanism works...


I pretty much just have sex whenever Mr. Giro would like. We communicate much better, we understand each other, and we have gotten past our resentments. I can still tell when my body just is not going to cooperate and we will either spend more time on just his pleasure or he will decide to wait until I'm more likely to be able to receive pleasure. Ironically now that we have solved this problem, I'm more likely to push for sex for just him, he's more likely to want to wait for me to be able to enjoy sex fully.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

You have sex whenever mr giro wants? Really? Then there should be no issues from his end at all.  We all should be so lucky.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Giro,

I love posts like yours below. You have both reached a beautiful place. 





Giro flee said:


> I pretty much just have sex whenever Mr. Giro would like. We communicate much better, we understand each other, and we have gotten past our resentments. I can still tell when my body just is not going to cooperate and we will either spend more time on just his pleasure or he will decide to wait until I'm more likely to be able to receive pleasure. Ironically now that we have solved this problem, I'm more likely to push for sex for just him, he's more likely to want to wait for me to be able to enjoy sex fully.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> People are so much more than a statistical analysis of their behavioral patterns.



Which is good because we are talking about populations and not about individuals. 

Hopefully y'all understand the difference


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

I have only made it through the first 9 pages so far, so this may be redundant. For those of you who L don't know my story - I have been on both sides of the coin - Very low drive for almost 30 years, the very HD for the last 9 years, and now back to LD for past 9 months or so. At one point, while doing hormone therapy - my testosterone levels skyrocketed for about 6 months and I believe I actually got a small taste of what it is like to be high testosterone driven male during that period. And now with this latest bout of being LD again, only this time with my eyes wide open to the issues on both sides of the coin, I should be able to share some important secrets. But not the case. However, I can share some observations about myself during these experiences.

1 . When my testosterone levels were over 100 x's what they should be, I wanted sex all the time. It did not matter if my husband was being a jerk or wasn't looking his best or anything else. It was like there was slow burning embers throughout my loins, and one small puff of air was all it took to ignite a full flamed fire. 

2. When I am in LD mode, the embers are incompletely out, and in fact my whole body is cold and wet, and the effort it takes to even get a spark let alone a full blown fire going is sometimes daunting. 

3 . When in HD I want sex, I desire my husband, he looks good to me ( even when he shouldn't and doesn't ), and it takes very little effort on my part. I am ready willing and excited about it.

4 . When in LD, it's just the opposite, I have no desire for sex most of the time, and even when I do have some desire, it's more of a meh - take it or leave it feeling. My husband doesn't look good ( even when he does), his touches are annoying, a lot of the time and often having sex can feel like a chore I would just soon ignore. 

I have been trying to analyze what I am feeling and why I don't want to have sex, when I don't want to have it - and while the part of me that wants to feel good about myself comes up with things about my husband that is causing me to feel this say, if I am 100% honest - it really boils down to I just don't want to make the effort - even knowing that if I did I would have an orgasm, that my husband's needs would be satisfied and our relationship would be better, and I would actually be glad I did. Still there seems to be this part of me, that wins out way to often that just can't seem to take to first step of letting go and allowing a spark to be lit. Call it selfishness? Perhaps, laziness - there is some of that, I admit. But honestly - it feels kind of like an emotional/physical tiredness. Kind of like your whole house is a mess and you are standing there, not sure where to start, not wanting to start, and trying to find any excuse to avoid having to do it. 

Now it's not this way all the time, but it is this way often for me. I have learned, and also because of my past experiences, that if I just take that first step of letting go and going with it - it's easier and not so daunting. And I almost always enjoy it and am glad I did. But I am being totally honest with you when I tell you that first step is often a very difficult one to make. I can't tell you why, I have tried and tried to figure it out. I can only tell you what I feel at that moment.

So just perhaps, this is what some of your wives are feeling when they tell you they are tired. 

I am not sure knowing and understanding it helps you HD spouse's in any way. Because when I was HD, I just wanted the sex and the sexual connection, not reasons why we couldn't.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

john117 said:


> Which is good because we are talking about populations and not about individuals.
> 
> Hopefully y'all understand the difference


Do you?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> See that's the thing though. You've arbitrarily determined what counts as sufficient anxiety.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you communicate about this anxiety with him? Does he respond?

Does this anxiety prevent him from dealing with mowing the lawn, enjoying a movie, doing his job, or walking the dog? 

Does he have stress over non sexual intimacy?

Does he handle close personal relationships well (immediate family, kids)

Don't be too quick to make a decision - this is not like buying a coffee maker. 

I'm more teed off with the "my spouse is my best friend, we are happy but we don't have sex" crowd. There is where my skepticism maxes out. As I said I can understand occasional reluctance but repeat performances of reluctance and dread are more like it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Do you?



Considering what I studied for a decade and practice for thirty years, yea. It was in a graduate statistics class that I met my wife, too :lol:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Mary,

This type of post is as rare as it is helpful. 




mary35 said:


> I have only made it through the first 9 pages so far, so this may be redundant. For those of you who L don't know my story - I have been on both sides of the coin - Very low drive for almost 30 years, the very HD for the last 9 years, and now back to LD for past 9 months or so. At one point, while doing hormone therapy - my testosterone levels skyrocketed for about 6 months and I believe I actually got a small taste of what it is like to be high testosterone driven male during that period. And now with this latest bout of being LD again, only this time with my eyes wide open to the issues on both sides of the coin, I should be able to share some important secrets. But not the case. However, I can share some observations about myself during these experiences.
> 
> 1 . When my testosterone levels were over 100 x's what they should be, I wanted sex all the time. It did not matter if my husband was being a jerk or wasn't looking his best or anything else. It was like there was slow burning embers throughout my loins, and one small puff of air was all it took to ignite a full flamed fire.
> 
> ...


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

mary35 said:


> I have only made it through the first 9 pages so far, so this may be redundant. For those of you who L don't know my story - I have been on both sides of the coin - Very low drive for almost 30 years, the very HD for the last 9 years, and now back to LD for past 9 months or so. At one point, while doing hormone therapy - my testosterone levels skyrocketed for about 6 months and I believe I actually got a small taste of what it is like to be high testosterone driven male during that period. And now with this latest bout of being LD again, only this time with my eyes wide open to the issues on both sides of the coin, I should be able to share some important secrets. But not the case. However, I can share some observations about myself during these experiences.
> 
> 1 . When my testosterone levels were over 100 x's what they should be, I wanted sex all the time. It did not matter if my husband was being a jerk or wasn't looking his best or anything else. It was like there was slow burning embers throughout my loins, and one small puff of air was all it took to ignite a full flamed fire.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that honest post.
One question. During your LD spells, other than just trying to have sex, was there anything your husband could say or do to change your feelings of "tiredness?"

In other words, is your LD completely separate from your interactions with your husband?

It sounds like to me, it would make absolutely no difference what your husband says or does. You either want sex or you simply do not. End of story. Correct?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

mary35 said:


> I have only made it through the first 9 pages so far, so this may be redundant. For those of you who L don't know my story - I have been on both sides of the coin - Very low drive for almost 30 years, the very HD for the last 9 years, and now back to LD for past 9 months or so. At one point, while doing hormone therapy - my testosterone levels skyrocketed for about 6 months and I believe I actually got a small taste of what it is like to be high testosterone driven male during that period. And now with this latest bout of being LD again, only this time with my eyes wide open to the issues on both sides of the coin, I should be able to share some important secrets. But not the case. However, I can share some observations about myself during these experiences.
> 
> 1 . When my testosterone levels were over 100 x's what they should be, I wanted sex all the time. It did not matter if my husband was being a jerk or wasn't looking his best or anything else. It was like there was slow burning embers throughout my loins, and one small puff of air was all it took to ignite a full flamed fire.
> 
> ...


Perfectly put.

I'm sure that this is what happens in a majority of LD wife situations.

The only solution is, if she loves her husband, she needs to do whatever it takes to make that difficult first step.

I find that selfless women make the effort and selfish women don't. 

I hate to seem unsympathetic (I'm not). But that's the only way to solve it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

I do think that the "difficult first step" is easier if done regularly.

The more I go to the gym, the better I get at getting off the couch.

It starts to feel normal and not so difficult.

I think this is a lot of what is meant with the "fake it until you make it" approach.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Nike would say just do it.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

French fry. A couple of hours? 7 orgasms? Really?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

In other words, FF, you're following the standard human decision analysis (goal selection) phase - which is not quite the "mental gear shifting" or "mental preparation" for sex, but rather evaluating the current state of things and deciding yea or nay.

Once the rewards are more than the risks you go ahead. If not you don't. That's it.


----------



## Giro flee (Mar 12, 2013)

Okguy said:


> You have sex whenever mr giro wants? Really? Then there should be no issues from his end at all. We all should be so lucky.


I'm pretty sure there are tons of men who would not be happy. I can't always be aroused and initiating is problematic because we both know I'm not anywhere near ready for sex until well into foreplay. I've seen enough posts from men here who want to be chased to know that my husband is a very kind, compassionate, understanding, accepting man.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

FrenchFry said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And while there are things my husband can do beforehand to make one outcome seem more tempting than the other, it's actually based more on likely outcomes based on xyz.
> 
> Which is why I stress more about negative connotations than getting in the mood. If I have sex and then we fight, I don't want to have sex.


What are some common negative connotations associated with sex for any LD people here?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Have you felt sex was hollow / unfulfilling if it was physically good? If your partner did take their time and do the things you enjoy, does it still sometimes feel hollow?

I can certainly understand that if the sex was bad due to your partner's actions, it could leave you unhappy



always_alone said:


> snip
> Lucky you that you've never felt like the sex you just had was hollow, unfulfilling, or left you sexually hanging, with no orgasm, or a weak orgasm from lack of foreplay, or insufficient attention to your pleasure. That you always get off, that you always expect to get off, that it always feels good, and that you can't even bring yourself to imagine a downside that doesn't involve death or a shotgun wedding.
> snip


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think the question is if the man with ED is willing to do other sexual things for his wife. That way we can separate the physical from the psychological. 

Similarly if a woman is not physically aroused, intercourse will be uncomfortable, so the symmetric question would be if she is willing to to other things for her partner in that situation. 




always_alone said:


> I see, so when my SO is feeling stressed out and can't get it up, this is a legitimate issue. But if a woman is stressed out and having trouble getting her head into the game it is mental and she should just get over it?
> 
> And that makes sense ... because?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

So my view of this is a bit more complicated. It starts with a communication style that is 'ego neutral'. Meaning that whether I'm cooking, or having sex with M2, or bantering with her, the question I ask isn't: 

How well am I doing this? Because that's an ego focused question. 

Instead the question is:

How much does M2 seem to like this? 

The former is self focused, the latter is partner focused. 

While it's true that I can read M2 very well, it would be foolish to think she doesn't sometimes err on the side of kindness, and do so convincingly. 

So to keep this analogy as tight as possible: If M2 says she loved something I cooked, but over time when presented with the option of the dish she claimed to love, and a good alternative, she consistently chooses the alternative, the realist in me accepts she either didn't like how it tasted or it left her feeling bad afterwards.

Typically in that situation, after she declines it a few times, I simply remove that menu item from the list of 'stuff M2 likes to eat'. 

So here's the thing. John represents the typical HD mindset on TAM. He assumes the experience is similar for J2 as it is for him. 

That mindset is a huge barrier to communication. 

And the HD model of pushing for more variety or frequency without trying to understand WHY their partner is avoiding sex, is a very self centered communication style. 

Imagine I say to M2: 
What do you think about the idea of fooling around for a while and see what happens? If nature 'takes its course', great, if not that's ok too, we've got an unwatched episode of 'Bosch' on the DVR. 

That suggestion is an explicit acknowledgement that her experience of sex is very different than mine. And it helps that she believes me. That she knows - that if its not working for her I'll shrug and we can do something else. 





Buddy400 said:


> Perfectly put.
> 
> I'm sure that this is what happens in a majority of LD wife situations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Giro flee (Mar 12, 2013)

LostinNE said:


> What are some common negative connotations associated with sex for any LD people here?


Pressure to perform
Discomfort
Pain
Shame
Guilt
Lack of connection
Feeling broken
Feeling used


That was before therapy and research😀


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
thank you for the input.

If your husband was happy to do what you wanted in bed, how much would your feelings change? If the sex was physically good would you desire it more?

There are many people who don't desire sex because their partners are not good lovers. How many don't desire sex even if their partners ARE good lovers? (by "good" I mean the whole thing - not just physical skill, but the ability to create a nice atmosphere, take time etc.)






FrenchFry said:


> For sure. I don't know whether you consider this internal or external but for example: My husband likes one activity in particular. It's totally mundane, I'm totally willing to oblige and receive satisfaction from it.
> 
> He wants it 90% of the time. I want it 20% of the time.
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM, I think you're making a few leaps of faith regarding my specifics - I don't consider myself to be HD by any stretch of the imagination. And likewise J2 is not merely LD but a card carrying member of NFD, no fvcking desire.

I understand her position quite well and yet she does not understand or care to understand mine. Compromise is out of the question so there's no point in pretending. 

I also know why she's avoiding sex. Nothing I can do about it. Mental illness is not fun to deal with. If things were better and she was receptive to therapy I could give it a shot but it's simply not worth my effort. 

I wish things were better but then I wish for a lot of things...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> So my view of this is a bit more complicated. It starts with a communication style that is 'ego neutral'. Meaning that whether I'm cooking, or having sex with M2, or bantering with her, the question I ask isn't:
> 
> ...


Hmmm... 

One of the rare times when I don't get what you're talking about.

My comments only related to Mary's situation of enjoying sex when it happens but having a hard time making the decision to go for it rather than be lazy. In this situation it seems to be fixable by a conscious decision on the wife's part.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

I guess what I heard her say was: 
- It requires a conscious effort 
AND
- Typically it doesn't feel nearly as good as when she is in HD mode






Buddy400 said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> One of the rare times when I don't get what you're talking about.
> 
> My comments only related to Mary's situation of enjoying sex when it happens but having a hard time making the decision to go for it rather than be lazy. In this situation it seems to be fixable by a conscious decision on the wife's part.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

FrenchFry said:


> For sure. I don't know whether you consider this internal or external but for example: My husband likes one activity in particular. It's totally mundane, I'm totally willing to oblige and receive satisfaction from it.
> 
> He wants it 90% of the time. I want it 20% of the time.
> 
> If this ratio is too far out of wack over a period of time, sex is less rewarding than whatever else I have going on in my head and I don't want to do it.


I'm confused. Is the thing one activity that your husband "wants and that you are totally willing to oblige and receive satisfaction from" sex? If so, what's the problem?



Giro flee said:


> I pretty much just have sex whenever Mr. Giro would like. We communicate much better, we understand each other, and we have gotten past our resentments. I can still tell when my body just is not going to cooperate and we will either spend more time on just his pleasure or he will decide to wait until I'm more likely to be able to receive pleasure. Ironically now that we have solved this problem, I'm more likely to push for sex for just him, he's more likely to want to wait for me to be able to enjoy sex fully.





FrenchFry said:


> I used to be into doing this but not so much anymore. Too little reward for so the risk. So at this moment, I only have sex when I really want it and the reward outweighs the risk.


Sorry, but I don't see how this is anything other than selfish. You only do something when you really want it. What your husband wants doesn't matter. Now, if you're not all that happy with your husband (and it seems from past posts that you might not be) maybe his needs don't matter much (which would be understandable). But in my marriage, I don't just blow off my wife and only do what I really want to do.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> I guess what I heard her say was:
> - It requires a conscious effort
> ...


What I heard was that sex was enjoyable when she was in LD mode, it was just very hard to get started.

If it's not enjoyable, that's a different situation.

Guess need Mary back to clarify:smile2:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

And I will add a few other pieces to this puzzle.

There's this very common theme on TAM. It goes like this: my partner orgasms 99.9 percent of the time when we have sex. But rarely wants to have sex with me. 

The subtext is: I'm good in bed, my partner is broken 

It's a binary view of sex that implies: If orgasm occurs then sex was good

It ignores the wide range of intensity in orgasm and worse ignores the rest of the experience entirely. 








Buddy400 said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> One of the rare times when I don't get what you're talking about.
> 
> My comments only related to Mary's situation of enjoying sex when it happens but having a hard time making the decision to go for it rather than be lazy. In this situation it seems to be fixable by a conscious decision on the wife's part.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> And I will add a few other pieces to this puzzle.
> 
> ...


Agreed. But then I didn't get that from Mary. My thoughts only apply in cases where the wife claims to enjoy sex. She might not be telling the truth, but I've got to trust the self reporting if nothing else seems to conflict with it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Giro flee said:


> I pretty much just have sex whenever Mr. Giro would like. We communicate much better, we understand each other, and we have gotten past our resentments. I can still tell when my body just is not going to cooperate and we will either spend more time on just his pleasure or he will decide to wait until I'm more likely to be able to receive pleasure. Ironically now that we have solved this problem, I'm more likely to push for sex for just him, he's more likely to want to wait for me to be able to enjoy sex fully.





FrenchFry said:


> I used to be into doing this but not so much anymore. Too little reward for so the risk. So at this moment, I only have sex when I really want it and the reward outweighs the risk.
> 
> Example: Have mediocre (on my end) sex at night, get in an argument in the AM. So, what was the point of sex again?


My marriage falls somewhere in the middle. I'm the LD and H is the HD in our marriage; however, he won't settle for mediocre sex even though he knows that I'll enjoy it at some level. He needs to know that I desire him as much as he desires me for it to carry any weight. 

We learned this about ourselves after I lost my very healthy libido soon after the birth of my son. We went through a period of time where I literally 'faked it to make it'. It was quite a shock to H when I dropped the act and just went with the flow. It was not starfish sex by any means, and I did orgasm about half the time, but it was missing the genuine passion that we formerly _shared_. H finally admitted to me that without mutual desire, he just didn't see the point of sex. It was a scary time in our relationship but we weathered the storm. Hormones rebalanced and things got back to 'normal'.....sort of.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dang it - I just wrote a very long response - trying to answer your questions and misunderstandings, in between trying to do my "work" - and lost it!! Insert swear words here!!!!

Sorry - now you all have to wait till I get home. ggrrr!!!! But carry on anyways - not sure what I have to say will help anyone in any way. We LD's are way too complicated and varied. No one has a chance to figure us out - not even us!!!


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

In some cases LD arises because the HD is lousy in bed and sex with the HD is not doing anything positive for the LD. Totally understandable why the LD is LD with that HD. Solution is for HD to up their game. Good luck getting HD to accept this.

In some cases LD arises because LD has negative associations with sex (abuse, FOO, religion) so all sex with anyone is unpleasant. Solution is for LD to work on their issue. Good luck getting LD to accept this.

Some cases are far more complex. LD is situational. Might be hard to pin down what is causing it. Might require substantial chance in lifestyle to reach a stable environment in which LD is in the mood more often. Good luck locating stability point and getting both HD and LD to agree to make the changes required to get there.

Sex is not always wonderful. Not for LD. And not even for all HD all the time. Sometimes sex is good for the LD while it is happening, but triggers lousy feelings after it ends. Good luck getting HD to accept this.

This stuff is not easy!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

In nearly all of the above cases communication and willingness to work are paramount otherwise nothing ever gets done.

It's really a matter of communication and compromise for mutual gain. But if we are talking major difference in attitude aka hardcore LD's good luck there...


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

It is typical for the HD to feel that if the sex was better then the ld would seek it out more. Not the case , in fact this theory is what causes the HD to seek out new positions, books, love techniques, etc. because good sex is always good and everyone always wants it....

Right?

Except for the ld. No matter how many orgasms or how wet she is, she will only want it once a month. Or, no matter how hard he is he would only want it once a month. Or less.

No matter, for most ld's I speak to online and IRL, sex is like a very rich desert which you savor only once in a while. And you have to absolutely crave this desert in order for it to be absolutely enjoyable. Having it every day will kill the enjoyment and you will grow to loathe this treat.

For HD's, it seems like sex is the air they breathe, so they would need much more of it. This is what leads to the frustration on both sides, it is frustrating to have your partner try to feed you a rich desert everyday or too often. And it is probably very frustrating to have your oxygen cut off every week for 2 days at a time.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

mary35 said:


> Dang it - I just wrote a very long response - trying to answer your questions and misunderstandings, in between trying to do my "work" - and lost it!! Insert swear words here!!!!
> 
> Sorry - now you all have to wait till I get home. ggrrr!!!! But carry on anyways - not sure what I have to say will help anyone in any way. We LD's are way too complicated and varied. No one has a chance to figure us out - not even us!!!




Mary,



Your perspective is very helpful, and as Mem said, of a sort that is fairly rare around here. Please don't discount it.



Your post and some others here remind me how valuable empathy can be, and how difficult it can be to come by. Even when there us not psychological resistance to having it, some experiences are hard to understand if one's wiring and history are simply different.



If and when you have time and interest...



I'm curious if generally you have found sex makes you feel connected to your lover, or if it has mostly just been a means to have physical pleasure (or, maybe not even that).



I'm also wondering if that "connectedness factor" changed at all for you as your testosterone levels changed.



And, finally, did your husband keep up with your increased desire, or did he start seeming relatively LD? If so, besides not wanting to hear reasons for not having sex, did you find his relative disinterest -- at the time -- hard to understand, and did you feel diminished by it in any way?



Of course, please don't let me be too nosey.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Giro flee said:


> Pressure to perform
> 
> 
> Discomfort
> ...




I'm sure my wife felt all those things, an I put what energy and care I could muster to avoid it. Insufficiently so, I am sure. And, at times despite who I normally intend to be, I'm sure I was a cause of some of those things.



The sadly ironic thing is, all I ever wanted from her ever was to feel accepted, connected, and loved, and for her to feel the same.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

techmom said:


> It is typical for the HD to feel that if the sex was better then the ld would seek it out more. Not the case , in fact this theory is what causes the HD to seek out new positions, books, love techniques, etc. because good sex is always good and everyone always wants it....
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...


This is good TechMom and having experienced both of these realms, I think your analogy for the HD describes accurately how I felt most of the time when I was HD. 

The LD analogy describes how I feel some of the time now, but other times, it's more like I am being offered liver and onions. And while I know it's good for me (and my marriage) in the long run, even the thought of partaking is not even the least bit appetizing. And sometimes I can make myself partake and it tastes just as bad as I thought it would, so I just want to get it over quickly, and other times, it's not so bad, and actually tastes kind of good. But seldom, does the experience feel as good or even anywhere near what it felt like when I was HD.

I honestly miss that feeling. I do recognize that while I was in that state, most of the time I had a willing partner so I rarely had to deal with the frustration of having my oxygen cut off frequently.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Lila said:


> My marriage falls somewhere in the middle. I'm the LD and H is the HD in our marriage; however, he won't settle for mediocre sex even though he knows that I'll enjoy it at some level. He needs to know that I desire him as much as he desires me for it to carry any weight.
> 
> We learned this about ourselves after I lost my very healthy libido soon after the birth of my son. We went through a period of time where I literally 'faked it to make it'. It was quite a shock to H when I dropped the act and just went with the flow.  It was not starfish sex by any means, and I did orgasm about half the time, but it was missing the genuine passion that we formerly _shared_. H finally admitted to me that without mutual desire, he just didn't see the point of sex. It was a scary time in our relationship but we weathered the storm. Hormones rebalanced and things got back to 'normal'.....sort of.




If you don't mind me asking, did you breastfeed and if so for how long, and did you notice a change in libido or capacity to enjoy it after ceasing to breastfeed? 



My wife's ability to orgasm, for a very long time (a few years?) after birth #1, went to zero, having not been much of a problem before. That zero was even when trying on her own, alone.



I suspect my wife's hormones never rebalanced. There was never an attempt to rebalance via any sort of treatment.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

techmom said:


> Having it every day will kill the enjoyment and you will grow to loathe this treat.




For those LDs here, do you think there is a significant risk that an LD might become less available for sexual intimacy in response to too much interest in sex expressed by the partner, ir too frequent attempts at initiating, or too often choosing to go along with the partner's initiation or....



It just seems, a dynamic is inherent in the system where the partner with the higher drive -- just by being him or herself -- can eventually push a lower drive partner towards having less and less interest. LDs, I'm wondering if that sounds right to you.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

UMP said:


> Thank you for that honest post.
> One question. During your LD spells, other than just trying to have sex, was there anything your husband could say or do to change your feelings of "tiredness?"
> 
> short answer - 1 st period of LD, there was very little he did that helped, and he tried just about everything, but there are a lot of things he did that guaranteed that I would NOT take the first step. Because I now am fully aware of the benefits and rewards of a healthy frequent sexual relationship in it marriage, I am way more willing to consider pushing through the discomfort, especially if things are good between us, when he looks and acts attractive and when he seems to be willing to take the time to make it worth my while. Do I need to add that negative behaviors are still an almost guaranteed negative response from me now? For some reason, when I was a HD, I was way more forgiving and tolerant of his negatives.
> ...


since I don't believe in absolutes in human behavior, no that is not correct. lol. However as as explained above - that was more the case the first time, but not at all the case this time. But, it's complicated and confusing to me in that positive interactions does not guarantee that I can make myself take the first step, there are many many other factors in play as well, like health, stress, the alignment of the stars ... lol. Negative interactions, on the other hand, 99% guarantees a no


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> Perfectly put.
> 
> I'm sure that this is what happens in a majority of LD wife situations.
> 
> ...


There was a time I would agree with this, but this last bout of LD has taught me this whole Ld/HD issue is way more complicated and varied than you can imagine, and there are so many factors th a can be in play with a LD, so I think it is way to simplistic to say that. However, I think it might be more accurate and fairer to say - a less selfish spouse is more likely to try to make an effort for the benefit of their spouse than a more selfish one is. We are all selfish in some form or another, aren't we?


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> I do think that the "difficult first step" is easier if done regularly.
> 
> The more I go to the gym, the better I get at getting off the couch.
> 
> ...


This is often the case for me, but there is also a fine line that when crossed, if I am not careful, I can become resentful for feeling the need to fake it too often, meaning I go with the flow even though I don't really want too, and to many of the experiences in a row don't result in a make it ending. There has to be some benefits or rewards regularly intersperced or I start dreading it or become resentful about it. Again, being totally honest here.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

john117 said:


> In other words, FF, you're following the standard human decision analysis (goal selection) phase - which is not quite the "mental gear shifting" or "mental preparation" for sex, but rather evaluating the current state of things and deciding yea or nay.
> 
> Once the rewards are more than the risks you go ahead. If not you don't. That's it.


This is a good way to say it and I would say applies to me when I substitute the word discomfort for the word risk.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Have you felt sex was hollow / unfulfilling if it was physically good? If your partner did take their time and do the things you enjoy, does it still sometimes feel hollow?
> 
> I can certainly understand that if the sex was bad due to your partner's actions, it could leave you unhappy


Yes, I sometimes feel this way. I can't tell you why or what makes one time feel good and the exact sceneries sometimes leave me feeling not so good inside. That's why I say this is very complicated with myriads of things that can affect it. At least for me, anyways.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

mary35 said:


> This is a good way to say it and I would say applies to me when I substitute the word discomfort for the word risk.



Risk is the general term used in Decision Analysis and the like, it generally means bad things


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> So my view of this is a bit more complicated. It starts with a communication style that is 'ego neutral'. Meaning that whether I'm cooking, or having sex with M2, or bantering with her, the question I ask isn't:
> 
> ...


I like how you think and how you phrase things. 

This works for me most of the time, and hubby actually is good about doing this more often these days, although he does not phrase it quite as eloquently. He wasn't so good at offering this alternative during my first period of being LD. I believe that is because now he KNOWS that more often than not nature will take its course. That was NOT the case during my first LD period. I had too much other baggage that interfered with nature back then.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> I guess what I heard her say was:
> - It requires a conscious effort
> ...


This is close, plus I was also trying to point out that sometimes there is an actual physical/emotional discomfort, feeling, or perhaps you could even say adversion or whatever, that I have to overcome first when making a conscious choice to go ahead. 

An analogy might be something like deciding to swim in a cold lake. Hubby jumps in, not at all bothered by the cold water. He invites me in, but as I dip my toe in, the cold water does not feel good to me and the thought of getting in does not seem at all appealing. Plus I think about all the work after of having to shower and redo my hair. As I look at the lawn chair, and feel the warm sun, I realize I would be perfectly fine not going swimming and would enjoy just laying in the sun doing nothing even more than getting in the cold water. Hubby keeps enticing me, and I think about the good times we have had swimming together and how much I enjoyed it many times before. But still that cold water is so cold and my mind starts to think about the times I swam in cold water and it wasn't enjoyable at all. Hubby is convinced I will enjoy it after I get in and move around and get use to the water. I really don't want to get in. Sitting in the sun is way more appealing. But I know hubby really wants me to swim and play together in the water, so I have to make a decision. What I want to do or what hubby wants me to do. If I jump in and the water stays uncomfortable, I am not going to enjoy it at all, but I will make hubby happy. On the other hand I might possibly enjoy it after the initial shock and have a good time ith hubby. Or my other choice is I could lay in the sun knowing I will enjoy myself and stay in comfortable - and hope hubby understands or if he doesn't, make him mad at me, but hope he gets over it quickly. I even consider that next time, when the water temp is more favorable, I make it up to him. But I know chances are the temps won't improve for several months. 

While two outcomes are good for me, one involves an initial discomfort that I have to overcome. If there is not a reward or benefit that overcomes or outweighs the discomfort it is hard to not choose the outcome that does not involve the initial discomfort and also has the risk of not being enjoyable at all. Hubby being happy might be the reward, but sometimes that reward doesn't cut it. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

​


PieceOfSky said:


> Mary,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Mary,

That right there is the heart of the matter. The cold lake. What a perfect analogy. 




mary35 said:


> This is close, plus I was also trying to point out that sometimes there is an actual physical/emotional discomfort, feeling, or perhaps you could even say adversion or whatever, that I have to overcome first when making a conscious choice to go ahead.
> 
> An analogy might be something like deciding to swim in a cold lake. Hubby jumps in, not at all bothered by the cold water. He invites me in, but as I dip my toe in, the cold water does not feel good to me and the thought of getting in does not seem at all appealing. Plus I think about all the work after of having to shower and redo my hair. As I look at the lawn chair, and feel the warm sun, I realize I would be perfectly fine not going swimming and would enjoy just laying in the sun doing nothing even more than getting in the cold water. Hubby keeps enticing me, and I think about the good times we have had swimming together and how much I enjoyed it many times before. But still that cold water is so cold and my mind starts to think about the times I swam in cold water and it wasn't enjoyable at all. Hubby is convinced I will enjoy it after I get in and move around and get use to the water. I really don't want to get in. Sitting in the sun is way more appealing. But I know hubby really wants me to swim and play together in the water, so I have to make a decision. What I want to do or what hubby wants me to do. If I jump in and the water stays uncomfortable, I am not going to enjoy it at all, but I will make hubby happy. On the other hand I might possibly enjoy it after the initial shock and have a good time ith hubby. Or my other choice is I could lay in the sun knowing I will enjoy myself and stay in comfortable - and hope hubby understands or if he doesn't, make him mad at me, but hope he gets over it quickly. I even consider that next time, when the water temp is more favorable, I make it up to him. But I know chances are the temps won't improve for several months.
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
The "cold lake" is an excellent analogy. It is difficult for a HD to internalize though - for us there is almost nothing negative about sex - the lake isn't cold - its a hot spring, immediately more pleasant than sitting in the sun.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I understand LDs point of view... well, I do now... I didn't in the past. The root problem for me is that having sex once a month widens the emotional gap. It's not just sex. It's the physical and emotional connection. The less sex I have with my wife, the more disconnected I become. It's difficult, because I don't do it on purpose, it happens naturally. So, whilst I accept that my wife is in the mood only once a month, the frequency has a huge impact on our relationship... and I'm not talking about having sex every day - I couldn't keep up with that! Once a week would be great. Not sure if my wife is selfish or lazy or whatever... all I know is that she is ignoring my needs. I find it difficult to understand that she can't find half an hour once a week for a bit of sex. I understand she needs to decide, but why she decides only once a month? I guess she is doing it to keep me there... she would probably do without it for the rest of her life.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Maybe my decade of liberal arts education is egging me on here but I'm not buying the cold lake analogy. Not on a permanent basis.

The cold lake has physical properties of temperature and associated initial discomfort that are known and accepted. Sex with your partner doesn't for most people and if it does that needs to be resolved first. 

You see, the lake is cold for everyone - sex is not "cold" for everyone.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

In absentia. I understand exactly what you are saying. It happens to me too just like you described. The only saving grace is the fantastic quality of the sex when we do share it.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> The cold lake has physical properties of temperature and associated initial discomfort that are known and accepted. Sex with your partner doesn't for most people and if it does that needs to be resolved first.


John, I think the first part is simply false empirically and the second part minimizes the time / cost / effort often required to resolve the discomfort. 

Maybe sex is almost universally pleasurable or at least never uncomfortable for you. For many people sex is often or even usually UNcomfortable either physically or psychologically. Yes, if that is the case, then resolving the source of the discomfort would assist in resolving a libido mismatch. But you say that as if there is a magic wand that resolves all sources of discomfort. You must know there isn't. Because if there were, we would all know about it.

There is erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation and vaginal dryness and irritation as well as a whole host of psychological issues that combine to cause sex to be unpleasant for many people. Some of which, especially on the psychological side, have no accepted medical treatment. To take the attitude that all of those can be simply and easily and quickly resolved is, in my view, quite insulting toward the people who suffer from those conditions.

Come on John, you are better than that.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

mary35 said:


> We LD's are way too complicated and varied. No one has a chance to figure us out - not even us!!!


Don't worry, Mary. No one has figured out HDs either, but for some reason we are not endlessly called out to explain or justify ourselves. We just want it and want it now!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Have you felt sex was hollow / unfulfilling if it was physically good? If your partner did take their time and do the things you enjoy, does it still sometimes feel hollow?


Define "good". If it met my standards of good, then no. If it met his standards of good, then yes, at times.

I can and have been completely disengaged in sex while still going trough the motions and achieving orgasm. It doesn't make me feel good at all to do this.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> John, I think the first part is simply false empirically and the second part minimizes the time / cost / effort often required to resolve the discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am.

But the issues you listed have legit physiological or mental health issues associated with them and often present with other symptoms. And they can often be mitigated by intervention.

I feel our discussion is NOT about a postpartum depressed new mom or aN ED guy. Y'all are throwing condition after condition my way.

You can't "mentally shift gears" out of ED or PPD. You can't "steel yourself" to get in the mood. You can give it your best and if it works then fine. Or you can try medical interventions.

You can communicate with your partner and see what happens, but it is this lack of communication and expectation that your partner will somehow divine it out of thin air that permeates the halls of TAM. 

I can understand occasional special events that cause us to not be in the mood, whatever that means. But to accept that one is never in the mood unless the planets align as the status quo requires a pretty good rationalization hamster in my view...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Always alone how do you detach like that and still orgasm? Are you faking it?


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

john117 said:


> Maybe my decade of liberal arts education is egging me on here but I'm not buying the cold lake analogy. Not on a permanent basis.
> 
> The cold lake has physical properties of temperature and associated initial discomfort that are known and accepted. Sex with your partner doesn't for most people and if it does that needs to be resolved first.
> 
> You see, the lake is cold for everyone - sex is not "cold" for everyone.


1. Your right, the analogy is not perfect and does not apply to all LD situation.

2. Some people react differently to temperatures. Cold water can cause me actual physical discomfort sometimes and other times I can tolerate it and even enjoy it. My husband can tolerate and enjoy much colder temps than I can So the analogy works for what I am describing happens to me sometimes. There are times that I have a very real level of physical or emotional level of discomfort that I have to decide to 
Ignore to move on. It's not there all the time. I don't know why it's there when it's there. Perhaps a form of anxiety caused by a hormonal or brain chemical problem or something similar. I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to me either. It's not logical nor rational. 

3. Some things can't be worked through. They just are.

4. You are definitely egged on by your liberal arts education. (I'm joking here, in case you don't get it) .

I don't have answers/solutions to offer. For the past 8 or 9 years I have researched this topic, participated on forums like this discussing and reading, hoping that my unique situation of experiencing both tells would allow me to formulate some helpful advice. That is not the case, so all I have to offer is a glimpse into one LD' s mind. And my mind and experiences may not mirror any other LD' s exactly or even at all.

I never expected to return to this LD state but thought if I did I would have complete control over it, because I understood it and myself better, but that has not been the reality. I hate being LD and I greatly miss the high (for lack of a better word) that I felt most of the time when I was HD. But this is my reality now. I am trying to work through it the best I can. I am handling it way better than I did the first time, mostly because many of the issues I had then, don't exist any more or have lessened. Plus I now have a full recognition of the benefits and rewards to my relationship with my husband that I truly did not know before. And I also have awareness and empathy for my husband and what he feels about sex, which I also did not have before.

I just wish there was some way you all could experience your wives world for awhile.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Mary, the reaction to cold water is universal - there's not a LOT of variance in tolerance. It's not quite the same. Most everyone finds it uncomfortable. Do we want to classify sex in the same way?

I do know what my wife is "going through" but feel it's not reciprocal. One person cares about the marriage - or used to - while the other doesn't. No amount of discourse can take this out of the picture. 

The most important thing is to communicate this and take action. Most people that subscribe to the "shift mental gears" approach don't seem to do either, because communicating and dealing with an intimate issue is a lot harder than playing video games or watching TV.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> I am.
> 
> But the issues you listed have legit physiological or mental health issues associated with them and often present with other symptoms. And they can often be mitigated by intervention.
> 
> ...


But that is at the heart of the HD/LD mismatch. LD's *aren't* in the mood most of the time while HD's are in the mood most of the time. 

So "just do it" can and does often mean physical discomfort for a woman who isn't aroused for PIV sex. If she gives a bj or hj instead, then she is getting nothing out of it, and if she keeps doing that to try to please her partner, at some point, she grows to dread it, again, because it doesn't feel good for her and now it's becoming a chore. 

For an LD guy, I dunno, how uncomfortable would it be for him to give oral multiple times a week so his higher drive W can have what she wants when there's no pleasure in it for him because he isn't in the mood? After "just do it" for a while, wouldn't his tongue start to feel tired at the mere mention of sex? Wouldn't he start to resent that she wanted something that was uncomfortable for him?

It sounds like you think LD people are just making it up that they have a LD. Either that, or you've never experienced having sex when you had no desire to. Because it's uncomfortable and sometimes painful and often hollow if you "just do it" for long periods of time.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Mary you are a most insightful person. I appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Nora Jane again very well said


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

john117 said:


> I am.
> 
> But the issues you listed have legit physiological or mental health issues associated with them and often present with other symptoms. And they can often be mitigated by intervention.
> 
> ...


I disagree John. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not the LD' s reality. I honestly don't believe most LD' s lack of communication is because they expect you to Devine it out of them. I think most of them don't understand any more than you do and have no words to explain it. When they try, they are not believed, or their very real feelings are minimized, or they are patted on the head and told, it's simple just do it anyways. It's not simple, it'd not logical and it'd not rational. If it was, solutions and answers would abound. All we have is theories right now, which may work or apply to one, bot not the millions of others.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

Believe me, I am as frustrated with this LD carp as you guys are. And every time my husband asks me what's wrong or what I am feeling or is there anything he can do - I want to answer him. I just don't have the f...ing answers to communicate to him. Pun intended.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

norajane said:


> But that is at the heart of the HD/LD mismatch. LD's *aren't* in the mood most of the time while HD's are in the mood most of the time.
> 
> So "just do it" can and does often mean physical discomfort for a woman who isn't aroused for PIV sex. If she gives a bj or hj instead, then she is getting nothing out of it, and if she keeps doing that to try to please her partner, at some point, she grows to dread it, again, because it doesn't feel good for her and now it's becoming a chore.
> 
> ...



Exactly - this is how it is for me. I can try to go along for his sake, but if I don't enjoy it in some way - that way could include just giving my guy some pleasure and being with him -not enjoying it in any way for too long is just breading grounds for resentment or a dislike of the activity. Just a fact.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I don't deny anything. But I disagree that one needs to prepare as if for the SAT. 

That's all. If you like sex have sex. If not then talk about it and work on it. And if it gets to the point that your stance becomes an issue them REALLY work on it.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

john117 said:


> I don't deny anything. But I disagree that one needs to prepare as if for the SAT.
> 
> That's all. If you like sex have sex. If not then talk about it and work on it. And if it gets to the point that your stance becomes an issue them REALLY work on it.


I am fine with this, but the same applies to the HD. Many HD' s are poor communicators too. Most are good with asking for sex, many are very poor with expressing their feelings or reactions to not getting it or why it's so important to them. So same rules apply.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

My wife recently screamed at me "Don't you think I feel bad not having the same sex drive you do?" " I know you want it. You don't have to keep telling me. "


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

mary35 said:


> Exactly - this is how it is for me. I can try to go along for his sake, but if I don't enjoy it in some way - that way could include just giving my guy some pleasure and being with him -not enjoying it in any way for too long is just breading grounds for resentment or a dislike of the activity. Just a fact.


Then, I believe you should set him free...


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

Okguy said:


> My wife recently screamed at me "Don't you think I feel bad not having the same sex drive you do?" " I know you want it. You don't have to keep telling me. "


She is being honest and is frustrated too. It's a quandary, for sure. And sucks big time for both partners. 

Have you shown her any of these discussions and asked her if she can relate.? Not saying it will do any good, but perhaps can help some dialogue along in a less threatening way. Or not!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Always alone how do you detach like that and still orgasm? Are you faking it?


No. I never fake, although it would be pretty half-hearted one that leaves me feeling quite unfulfilled. How? I dunno, it isn't very hard for me and doesn't require a whole lot of engagement.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

In Absentia said:


> Then, I believe you should set him free...



Why? He doesn't want to be free and probably has more and better sex with me than he would with someone else.

But I get what you are saying, I just disagree with your choice of words and whose decision it is. Most spouse's are not being held captive. If someone is totally miserable or finds their situation intolerable, leaving the marriage is always an option, although it may not be the best option, but that is something they have to determine themselves.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

mary35 said:


> Why? He doesn't want to be free and probably has more and better sex with me than he would with someone else.
> 
> But I get what you are saying, I just disagree with your choice of words and whose decision it is. Most spouse's are not being held captive. If someone is totally miserable or finds their situation intolerable, leaving the marriage is always an option, although it may not be the best option, but that is something they have to determine themselves.


Not sure how often you have sex with him... not sure if you have kids... but did you ever tell him that if he didn't like the situation you would understand if he left?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I think my original theory on SLA's stands - most people have an idea of what sex means to them (physically mentally and emotionally if any) and adjust accordingly. This is perfectly fine as long as it is communicated clearly and not hidden or obfuscated or explained away. 

I don't think most people - LD or HD - communicate needs and expectations as well as they should. That's why you see a lot of resentment going around.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

what I was getting at is that you might feel "captive" if you are in a situation where divorce would mean sacrificies for your kids or financially impossible... I'm in that situation... I appreciate my wife telling me that, but I'm sure she knew very well that I couldn't/didn't want to leave... of course you have a choice, but sometimes that choice is impossible. No disrespect to Mary...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> My wife recently screamed at me "Don't you think I feel bad not having the same sex drive you do?" " I know you want it. You don't have to keep telling me. "


Feeling bad about it isn't good enough. It's not a good enough reason to not be willing to work on it.

I've been racking my brain to come up with an analogy. I came up with one. It's a bit extreme, but I think it works.

A husband beats his wife from time to time. Afterwards (and I think this happens often), he feels bad. He begs forgiveness. He says "I feel bad about hitting you. I wish I could stop. I don't want to be like this."

Is the fact that he feels bad about it make it okay? Is that enough? Is that all that's required from him? 

Now, I know that not having sex with your husband isn't anywhere close to beating your wife.

But, when you feel bad about doing something, that's usually an indication that you should try to do something about it. It's not a reason to stop trying.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

As far as the idea of only having sex when my wife wanted it; not a chance.

I'd say no and give up sex before I went along with that.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> For an LD guy, I dunno, how uncomfortable would it be for him to give oral multiple times a week so his higher drive W can have what she wants when there's no pleasure in it for him because he isn't in the mood? After "just do it" for a while, wouldn't his tongue start to feel tired at the mere mention of sex? Wouldn't he start to resent that she wanted something that was uncomfortable for him?


Assuming that my wife cared about my happiness. I wouldn't be the least bit uncomfortable giving my wife oral multiple times a week if it made her happy even if I wanted nothing in return. Wouldn't think twice about it.

As far as non-sexual things, I'd give her 30 minute massages three times a week if that made her happy even though it would do nothing for me and my hands would get sore.

I'm a selfless person and, as long as the relationship isn't one sided, I do whatever I can to please her.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> As far as the idea of only having sex when my wife wanted it; not a chance.
> 
> I'd say no and give up sex before I went along with that.


To me, that is mind-boggling. I would ONLY want to have sex when my partner wants, and never when he doesn't.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

In Absentia said:


> Then, I believe you should set him free...


The problem is (although a couple of the usual female posters will, of course disagree), women are far more likely to have responsive desire and, after the honeymoon phase is over, he's likely to just find himself in the same situation with the next woman. 

At least now he has a wife that understands, cares and is trying to find solutions.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

norajane said:


> To me, that is mind-boggling. I would ONLY want to have sex when my partner wants, and never when he doesn't.


For the most part I agree with this. My exception would be if my wife only wanted sex a few times a year. Then that line would start to become a little bit murky.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Assuming that my wife cared about my happiness. I wouldn't be the least bit uncomfortable giving my wife oral multiple times a week if it made her happy even if I wanted nothing in return. Wouldn't think twice about it.


You say that...but have you ever done it? When you didn't want to have sex? Over a long period of time?

How would you know if she cares about your happiness or if she just wants to get off? If you were chronically not interested in sex and she always was and always hounded you for it?

Have you ever had sex without an erection and without desire?

I've had sex just to please a partner, and it's ok once in a while, but when it's like that for even just a month or two, it becomes more like I'd rather get a root canal.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Buddy 400 you would never survive with an ld wife. You figure if you want sex the hell with her if she doesn't. And as we have seen many women change to ld over time for many reasons. So if you divorce you may well end up in a similar situation down the road


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> To me, that is mind-boggling. I would ONLY want to have sex when my partner wants, and never when he doesn't.


Let's say you want something 365 days a year. He wants it once a year. 364 days a year he says no. Then, one day he says "I'd really love to do that today!". I'd be really tempted to say "Where were you for the last 364 days when I wanted to do that?"

If one spouse really wants sex three times a week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the other really wants sex on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, then there's no sex at all right? Because if you both don't *really* want to do it, you shouldn't do it. Right? No need to compromise or think about the other person.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

In Absentia said:


> what I was getting at is that you might feel "captive" if you are in a situation where divorce would mean sacrificies for your kids or financially impossible... I'm in that situation... I appreciate my wife telling me that, but I'm sure she knew very well that I couldn't/didn't want to leave... of course you have a choice, but sometimes that choice is impossible. No disrespect to Mary...


None taken! Are you suggesting that offering him the ultimate sacrifice in giving him an out is a way of letting him know I understand how hard dealing with our situation might be for him?

If you are saying that - then I can understand why I might say it! But the fact is - he is a big boy and can make choices, and while I would have understood if he left me during the first very long LD period, I would not understand if he left me now, especially after sticking it out through the worst part. He has it fairly good now - as do I. 

There are two things I want to claify. 

1. The glimpse I am giving you is a very small glimpse into my total package. And its also me at my worst. I am sharing it with you in hope to foster some kind of understanding and empathy of the other side of the coin. Plus I am hoping to help you understand, its not logical, its not reasonable, but it is complicated and it is also a difficult issue for many LD spouses. 

My hubby and I were granted a gift for whatever reason - when I had a sexual awakening which allowed me to heal some of my issues and both of us to experience an amazing sexual relationship together. Most of you will not get the same gift - at least not with the spouse you have. So I understand that many of you may end up leaving your LD spouse and I completely understand why. 

2. This is important, so pay attention: The one thing many of us lose sight of is that the problems within LD/HD relationships do not arise because of the different drives in and of themselves. In other words having a low drive in and of itself is not necessarily a problem or issue for the LD spouse. And having a high drive in and of itself is not necessarily a problem or issue for the HD spouse. The REAL PROBLEM's in the relationship are CREATED out of poorly handleing the CONFLICTS that occur because in LD/HD relationships there can never be a solution worked out where both parties are 100% happy and satisfied. 

However there can be solutions worked out where both spouses are moderately to even highly satisfied and happy IF and only IF both spouses are willing to make some consessions and sacrifices and accept consessions and sacrifices from their spouse. These compromises have to be worked out with love, empathy, understanding (as much as you can understand the others view without walking in their shoes), and a great deal of patience. Both spouses also need to understand the equal meter is going to sometimes tip in favor of one spouse or the other throughout the marriage - and they may have to speak up if it is tilting way to often in the others favor. 

This is a life long process - and there will be some failures, misunderstandings, even resentments throughout the process on the part of both spouses. Each spouse has to take responsibility for their own part - and not worry so much about the others part. They also have to take responsibility for their own happiness and satisfaction. What I am saying is that they have to be both selfless and self focused. If they have a spouse who won't do their part - or consistently insists the equal meter tip in their favor and stay there most of the time - that is when the spouse has to make some decisions based on what they can live with and tolerate - and what they can't. Yes this gets complicated with having children and your responsibilites towards them. No one understands that better than me - we had six children!! And both hubby and I made many sacrifices concerning our own happiness and satisfaction levels for the sake of our kids. (with no regrets for doing so!).

I think that is what John has tried to point out several times (in his own logical, rational, and sometimes very emotionally charged - non-emotional way - no offense meant John :wink2. I know others have also pointed this out - but I thought it needed to be brought up again! 

Its not easy by any means - and there can be many other issues or circumstances that make it near impossible - but I believe for many it is do-able - and in fact, many - like Mem and his wife have been quite successful at it.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Well said again Mary. Thank you.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> You say that...but have you ever done it? When you didn't want to have sex? Over a long period of time?
> 
> *Not sex. But I've done things for her over a long period of time that bring me no pleasure other than that of knowing I made her happy.*
> 
> ...


We have a routine. Many nights she gets her pjs on, gets in bed and watches TV for an hour or two.

She asks me to get her tea, sometimes a snack. This is pretty much just because she loses a lot of energy at night and is just lazy.

I'm a do everything myself kind of guy. Four days after hip replacement surgery I was snow blowing the driveway and rocking cars out of snow banks. I've got chronic pain issues. She know this and sometimes feels guilty about asking me to get her things. I don't like running up and down the stairs a couple of times a night to get her stuff but I don't mind. It's easy for me. It's tough for her.

She sometimes tells me how bad she feels asking me to do this stuff. I reassure her that it's no big deal; I'm happy to do this for her.

I wouldn't do all this for any woman. She's a spectacular wife who cares about my happiness and does whatever she can for me.

She's come home a couple of times all hot and bothered, said "do me" and I've gone down on her with nothing in return. I wish that happened more often.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> The problem is (although a couple of the usual female posters will, of course disagree), women are far more likely to have responsive desire and, after the honeymoon phase is over, he's likely to just find himself in the same situation with the next woman.
> 
> At least now he has a wife that understands, cares and is trying to find solutions.


That's one of the reasons I think people really need to slow down and wait to get married until that honeymoon period and the first flush of romance hormones dies down and their real drives re-assert themselves. Some people simply are not compatible without that rush of hormones acting on their brains, and I don't mean just sexually but in many other ways, too.



Buddy400 said:


> Let's say you want something 365 days a year. He wants it once a year. 364 days a year he says no. Then, one day he says "I'd really love to do that today!". I'd be really tempted to say "Where were you for the last 364 days when I wanted to do that?"
> 
> If one spouse really wants sex three times a week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the other really wants sex on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, then there's no sex at all right? Because if you both don't *really* want to do it, you shouldn't do it. Right? No need to compromise or think about the other person.


See my comment above - I wouldn't BE with and wouldn't marry someone I wasn't compatible with sexually. I give my relationships YEARS to develop, and I don't care that much about getting married. So if irreconcilable sexual differences present themselves, we both have the option of moving on to find someone more compatible. Having said that, I've never been in one of those relationships where sex was the ONLY incompatibility, so I've never had to make that decision based on sex alone. I've left for BAD sex, though I can't say that relationship got very far off the ground because the sex was BAD.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

norajane said:


> To me, that is mind-boggling. I would ONLY want to have sex when my partner wants, and never when he doesn't.


I think the misunderstandin is with the word want. Someone can do something and not want to do, yet still enjoy doing it and get some satisfaction from doing it. Would it make a difference to you NoraJane if your husband didn't really want to do it - but was willing to do because he did derive some satisfaction and enjoyment from doing it?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

mary35 said:


> I think the misunderstandin is with the word want. Someone can do something and not want to do, yet still enjoy doing it and get some satisfaction from doing it. Would it make a difference to you NoraJane if your husband didn't really want to do it - but was willing to do because he did derive some satisfaction and enjoyment from doing it?


It might, depends on what precisely that means to him. Frankly, the passion and emotional intimacy that goes into sex is as important to me as the orgasm. I'd rather just masturbate if he wasn't into it and was just doing it to please me. Sex is for passion and fun and games. It's not exciting for me if it's not exciting for him, too. It's a necessary component as far as I'm concerned.

But I'm like that with a lot of things. I wouldn't drag him to an event unless he wanted to go, because it's not fun for either of us then. I'd be happier going on my own rather than feeling like I was forcing him into it out of guilt or whatever reason he felt he should do it to please me despite not wanting to go.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

mary35 said:


> I think the misunderstandin is with the word want.


Wow. You're GOOD!

This always happens here.

Want is interpreted one way by FW, AA and TechMom (and a couple others) and another way by everyone else.

This must be a brain wiring issue.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Mary,

So I'm not certain about this but I'm 'pretty sure' this is what is going on in M2's mind:

She believes monogamy is an absolute. 

And embedded in that is the acceptance that you can't assert that any breach of monogamy triggers a response ranging from 
game over to sudden death
While 
simultaneously viewing sex as 'optional'

So M2 who can be unnervingly concise at times, might abbreviate all this to: sex matters, a lot

And so as odd as it is gonna sound, when M2 and I are doing this little dance every few days her primary thought is:

Sex matters - a lot 

And my primary thought is:

Bad sex, or frequent obligatory sex - is toxic

So - I get that doesn't sound terribly sexy. Fortunately neither of us verbalized those thoughts very often even though they are what drive both of our responses to each other. 











mary35 said:


> I think the misunderstandin is with the word want. Someone can do something and not want to do, yet still enjoy doing it and get some satisfaction from doing it. Would it make a difference to you NoraJane if your husband didn't really want to do it - but was willing to do because he did derive some satisfaction and enjoyment from doing it?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

If my sole go/no go criteria was how 'hot' M2 seemed or how hot I expected her to get, that would create a deadlock. 

So instead, my sole criteria for go/no go when M2 initiates is how happy she seems. 

I believe I can gauge her 'happiness' level accurately and when she is happily looking forward to connecting - that's an immediate green light. 

Anything else - and I tell her I'm 'good'. 

So that's my gauge of 'want' - happiness




norajane said:


> It might, depends on what precisely that means to him. Frankly, the passion and emotional intimacy that goes into sex is as important to me as the orgasm. I'd rather just masturbate if he wasn't into it and was just doing it to please me. Sex is for passion and fun and games. It's not exciting for me if it's not exciting for him, too. It's a necessary component as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> But I'm like that with a lot of things. I wouldn't drag him to an event unless he wanted to go, because it's not fun for either of us then. I'd be happier going on my own rather than feeling like I was forcing him into it out of guilt or whatever reason he felt he should do it to please me despite not wanting to go.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

john117 said:


> Maybe my decade of liberal arts education is egging me on here but I'm not buying the cold lake analogy. Not on a permanent basis.
> 
> The cold lake has physical properties of temperature and associated initial discomfort that are known and accepted. Sex with your partner doesn't for most people and if it does that needs to be resolved first.
> 
> You see, the lake is cold for everyone - sex is not "cold" for everyone.




The "I'm not buying it" confuses me. I'm not sure what you are shopping for here, so to speak.



I'd guess you are taking Mary at her word, that what she described as "sometimes" her experience is what she said it is.



So, are you simply stating it would be wrong to assume it is felt by most LDs most of the time?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm not buying the analogy - not Mary's premise.

What people feel, want, say, and do are not always in step. 

In my projectile opinion a lot of LD is "I can't be bothered for sex because of reasons 1 thru 70" never mind how real or perceived or made up 1 thru 70 are. 

Ultimately it's all about honesty and balance and reciprocity. Not about sex.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Piece,

This right here is where most marriages either thrive or wither. 

You either have two people who strive to understand and then accept that their partners physical experience of the world is significantly different than their own. 

Or you have two folks who become locked in a surface battle over the 'mechanics' of life. Over what our partners are doing and not why. 

That doesn't mean the 'why' is always or even mostly a case of rainbows and unicorns. Often the 'why' is a combination of willful incomprehension and selfishness. On one side, the other or both. 






PieceOfSky said:


> The "I'm not buying it" confuses me. I'm not sure what you are shopping for here, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Wow. You're GOOD!
> 
> This always happens here.
> 
> ...


Huh??? Care to clarify?

I'm pretty sure my definition of the word "want" is consistent with the rest of the world's. 

Mary's clarification, as I understood it, was not on how want is interpreted, but what the object of that want is.

I'm with NoraJane on this one. I don't really want sex with someone who is just doing it to make me happy. Perhaps on rare occasion, but I would expect that after a while they would grow to resent me for it. 

And I find the whole "why can't you spare 5 minutes just to get me off" approach a total turn off. I wouldn't ever put that on my spouse. Either he's into it or he isn't, and if he isn't, I'd really rather not. I have other solutions that will work much better than putting him on the spot and pressuring him into getting me off.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

norajane said:


> To me, that is mind-boggling. I would ONLY want to have sex when my partner wants, and never when he doesn't.




Same here. But, as I have been living a sexless or near-sexless existence for a long time, I have come to realize for me there are more issues being pondered/processed/felt/misunderstood than that.



What I've desired most is for my wife to *want* to be physically and emotionally intimate with me. Ideally, her desire and motivations would be similar to mine. 



But, if that is not possible for whatever reasons, then it truly would mean a lot if *she wanted* to have such intimacy because she can see and hear me deep enough to know what it would mean to me....not every single time I express an interest, but, enough for me to feel loved.



If she doesn't want it for any of those sorts of reasons, then, no -- I wouldn't want to do it. 



Even if she wants it -- for any other sort of reason (guilt, alcohol, fear of abandonment, inexplicable horniness, her emotional needs getting met by her EA partner, or whatever...), I wouldn't want it. Strange as it seems, at 2+ years of nothing, saying no is easy. Not enjoyable, but easy.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always,

There's a lot of stuff I do makes me happy because it makes M2 happy. I don't resent that stuff. 

She says the same is true in reverse.




always_alone said:


> Huh??? Care to clarify?
> 
> I'm pretty sure my definition of the word "want" is consistent with the rest of the world's.
> 
> ...


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Huh??? Care to clarify?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have never used the "why can't you spare just five minutes to get me off" as an argument to try to convince my wife she should do it. Seems unlikely to work in the moment, and very destructive over time. Plus, incompatible with my personality and values.



However, I have several times in my head weighed the apparent cost and effort that would be involved for her, and made the conclusion that, yes, apparently I'm not worth a five minute HJ to her. I've mentioned it once or twice to her, to give her a chance to see that perspective and change, or so she would feel the need to communicate her differing perspective to me. It would be a mistake for her to think it was a demand.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Piece,
> 
> This right here is where most marriages either thrive or wither.
> 
> ...


I agree. You dip your toe in the water and it feels warm. Your spouse dips their toe in the water and says it feels cold.

You can accept the difference or you can spend your life arguing over whether the water is warm or cold. The fact that it is 25 degrees C, and that "most" people find that temperature warm, or most find it cold, is not relevant. Except in determining your odds of finding someone else (besides your current spouse) who finds it warm.

If your spouse says the water feels cold to them, arguing it feels warm to you and thus your spouse is WRONG to say it feels cold to them is likely to be counterproductive to marital harmony.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

In other words it is ok for you to accept any rationalization from your spouse since they're entitled to their opinion. Even when it's toxic to the marriage.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

There's differently and there's DIFFERENTLY. 

There's the kid that likes broccoli and there's the kid who doesn't like to eat at all.

See?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holding,

That's a big YES 

And right here is the place where two gears spinning at very different speeds, come together. 

And provided your partner can read your body language, it's obvious to them when you are unaware of or indifferent to the way they experience the water temperature. 





Holdingontoit said:


> I agree. You dip your toe in the water and it feels warm. Your spouse dips their toe in the water and says it feels cold.
> 
> You can accept the difference or you can spend your life arguing over whether the water is warm or cold. The fact that it is 25 degrees C, and that "most" people find that temperature warm, or most find it cold, is not relevant. Except in determining your odds of finding someone else (besides your current spouse) who finds it warm.
> 
> If your spouse says the water feels cold to them, arguing it feels warm to you is likely to be counterproductive to marital harmony.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> Right, but how much effort are you willing to spend to convince the kid who hates broccoli that it's delicious?
> 
> What tactics are you willing to use? What is the motivation in doing so?
> 
> ...


The best way to make someone who doesn't like broccoli eat it is to mash it up and hide it pancakes.

Not sure if there's an analogous solution to sex drive differences, though. :scratchhead:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

So it's back to good ole' risk/reward. 

I'm glad to see the basics of human behavior still hold


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> There's differently and there's DIFFERENTLY.
> 
> There's the kid that likes broccoli and there's the kid who doesn't like to eat at all.
> 
> See?



I can tell that it's very important to you to be right. But truth is, you do have to accept that a spouse can unilaterally make decisions that are absolutely toxic to the marriage.

That is "accept" as in "understand that this is how they think about the situation" not necessarily "accept" as in "stick around for more".


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I do accept it. Heck, I'm living it.

It doesn't make it right tho. And no amount of explanations mitigates it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> I've mentioned it once or twice to her, to give her a chance to see that perspective and change, or so she would feel the need to communicate her differing perspective to me. It would be a mistake for her to think it was a demand.


And does she feel the need to communicate her differing perspective?

I know a lot of people here equate sex with any other activity, whether it is going to the in-law's house or washing the floor. But I think for a lot of people it is very, very different.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> Convincing (using whatever method) broccoli hater that he likes it *or serving broccoli to the one who joyfully chomps it down*?


I will believe Bigfoot exists before I believe that this child exists. At least there are sighting of Bigfoot now and then.

I have a disgusting joke. (you were warned)




Q. What is the difference between boogers and broccoli?


A. Kids won't eat broccoli.

ba dum tsh


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I do accept it. Heck, I'm living it.
> 
> It doesn't make it right tho. And no amount of explanations mitigates it.


I dunno. You've made a decision to do something toxic to your marriage in about 3 years time, give or take.

Is it somehow more right when it's based on revenge than on mental illness?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I will believe Bigfoot exists before I believe that this child exists.


Sighting: my niece. LOVES broccoli. Will eat heaps of it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Huh??? Care to clarify?
> 
> I'm pretty sure my definition of the word "want" is consistent with the rest of the world's.
> 
> Mary's clarification, as I understood it, was not on how want is interpreted, but what the object of that want is.


I meant that in a nonjudgmental way.

I'll try to explain using "you" and "me" as placeholders for the two sides.

Let's say someone was talking about their wife not wanting to give them a blowjob.

Now some people ("me") might take that as meaning that she doesn't mind giving blowjobs (at worst she feels meh about it) and she just doesn't care about making him happy.

Other people ("you") seem to go for the interpretation that she doesn't want to due to prior traumatic events, CSA or because it makes her vomit. 

Neither one of us is necessarily right but we always seem to come at situations from different perspectives.

So I'm likely to initially think that the wife is a problem.

You're likely to initially think that the guy's an assh0le for wanting his wife to do that.

We're starting with different priors.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> And does she feel the need to communicate her differing perspective?
> 
> I know a lot of people here equate sex with any other activity, whether it is going to the in-law's house or washing the floor. *But I think for a lot of people it is very, very different*.


I know they do.

The question is: Why?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Is it somehow more right when it's based on revenge than on mental illness?



Yes.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

FrenchFry said:


> It's not a brain wiring issue, it's a difference in relationship expectations.
> 
> Some relationships, there is not a natural mesh of "things I like to do" and "things I don't like to do." Those relationships require ways to get needs met without resentment being created.
> 
> ...


When I get home and the dog wags his tail and jumps all over me, it doesn't mean anything. It's what dogs do when their human comes home.

If somebody chooses to do something nice for me, that means more to me than if they did it just because it's their nature.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
the problem with this sort of example / question is that most HDs really can't imagine not wanting sex. They may truthfully say that they would be happy to give their partners oral whenever they wanted, but it is something they actually ENJOY doing.

I have done sexual things for my wife on the very rare occasions when she was interested and I was not - but those cases are so rare that they don't count.

I give massages when I'm not particularly interested, but that is probably not a fair comparison.

As we keep coming back to NOTHING is a fair comparison for either side of this.




norajane said:


> You say that...but have you ever done it? When you didn't want to have sex? Over a long period of time?
> 
> How would you know if she cares about your happiness or if she just wants to get off? If you were chronically not interested in sex and she always was and always hounded you for it?
> 
> ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I know they do.
> 
> The question is: Why?


Because it is intimate, emotional, vulnerable, and personal in a way that washing the floor can never be.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

good evening
I think this is an interesting question. Many people (probably including you) do all sorts of favors for their partners. Running errands. Cooking their favorite diner. Watching a movie with them even if you don't particularly like it, just for the company. Fixing their broken computer or car. Giving a massage when their muscles are sore.

What makes sex different? If you notice that your partner is horny and you are not, why is giving 15 minutes of oral different from all these other favors that you do? I know it is different to most people, but I can't figure out why. Is it really less pleasant than reinstalling Microsoft windows?

I suppose the answer is that it is less pleasant. This is probably the most difficult thing for a HD to understand - that sex (when it is not physically uncomfortable) with the person you love, might be unpleasant. 





always_alone said:


> snip
> And I find the whole "why can't you spare 5 minutes just to get me off" approach a total turn off. I wouldn't ever put that on my spouse. Either he's into it or he isn't, and if he isn't, I'd really rather not. I have other solutions that will work much better than putting him on the spot and pressuring him into getting me off.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Non LD's can imagine not wanting sex on occasion - but wanting sex once a month? And explaining it all away?

If the riff is between twice a week and 4 times a week it's one thing but that's not what we are talking about.

Take your vanilla LD who only wants sex once a month if that and see if they can imagine what a non LD thinks. 

This is the crux of the issue - empathy vs indifference. The rest is just broccoli.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> It doesn't make it right tho. And no amount of explanations mitigates it.


Of course it is right. It is right for them. And they are certainly entitled to say "no" to sex if they don't enjoy it or don't feel like doing it.

But just because it is "right" does not mean that you have to enjoy it or stay married to them.

From the HD side, I would say "no amount of explanations obligates me to tolerate it".


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Let's say someone was talking about their wife not wanting to give them a blowjob.
> 
> Now some people ("me") might take that as meaning that she doesn't mind giving blowjobs (at worst she feels meh about it) and she just doesn't care about making him happy.
> 
> ...


No doubt, we have very different POV! But I do not assume a guy is an a$$hole for wanting a bj, nor do I think her refusal is necessarily a sign of trauma or CSA.

I think that she is equally entitled to her POV as he is to his, and while I hear lots and lots of accusations about the "selfishness" of the LD, I rarely see any acknowledgement of the selfishness of HD.

It is just as selfish to insist that someone give you a bj that they don't want to give as it is to refuse to give that bj because you really aren't in the mood. 

Now we can all duke it out over who is more selfish over the long term, but that probably varies on a case but case basis. 

And in the end of all, it doesn't really matter who is more selfish. It just matters what you choose to do with it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

If only the LD's in question were honest enough to say sex is not doing it for them....pre cake of course.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> This is the crux of the issue - empathy vs indifference.


YOUR striking lack of empathy is easily seen in all of your posts, john. I'm not sure you actually know what it means or feels like. And each time I have called you out on it (for claiming that others have no empathy, meanwhile, you clearly have none) your responses have shown and even further lack of empathy. Nothing you've ever posted has shown any empathy for anyone, IMO. You like to tell us you deserve empathy for lots of things, yet you've never shown empathy for anyone else.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> YOUR striking lack of empathy is easily seen in all of your posts, john.



You confuse the clinical me with the personal me. 

Not a difficult mistake to make when you're bent on finding something wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> You confuse the clinical me with the personal me.
> 
> Not a difficult mistake to make when you're bent on finding something wrong.


Maybe you can enlighten me and tell me anyone who is not in your situation that you have empathy for, and why? If I'm wrong, this will easily and quickly change my mind about you. Not that you care, but it would be interesting.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> I suppose the answer is that it is less pleasant. This is probably the most difficult thing for a HD to understand - that sex (when it is not physically uncomfortable) with the person you love, might be unpleasant.


Yes, exactly. I like to analogize to food. Imagine sex is like ice creams sundaes. And LD is like being diabetic. So the LD partner enjoying sex while it is happening is like a diabetic person enjoying themselves while eating an ice cream sundae. 

The problem is not what it feels like while they are eating. The problem is what comes before and after. If they agree to go to the ice cream parlor with you and have a sundae, they need to take their insulin. They need to test their blood sugar. Thinking of eating ice cream makes them think about pricking their finger. Pricking their finger hurts. They worry how it will feel after. They worry if it will make them gain weight. They worry about how they will lose the weight if they do gain weight. They worry about all the exercise they will have to do to lose the weight. Thinking about ice cream makes them think about being hot and sweaty and uncomfortable and needing a shower. They worry about their blood sugar getting too high and causing nerve pain or nerve damage and having to have surgery. Thinking about ice cream causes them to think about amputation. Amputation hurts.

Now, remind me why you brought up the idea of going for ICE CREAM!

That is what it is like for some LDs when they think about having sex. And then we HDs wonder why we meet such resistance?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Maybe you can enlighten me and tell me anyone who is not in your situation that you have empathy for, and why? If I'm wrong, this will easily and quickly change my mind about you. Not that you care, but it would be interesting.



It's all in my posts - should I label them with bright stickers? 

As for changing your mind about me... I'll take a rain check - or three. After many moons on TAM I'm beginning to realize that the non zombie marriage crowd has no clue about what it feels to be in a zombie marriage - and I'll include divorced people here. Likewise the zombie marriage crowd can't comprehend the concept of a normal marriage all that well.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> It's all in my posts - should I label them with bright stickers?


I have literally never read you express empathy other than for those who you perceive to be in your exact position...which isn't actually empathy, it is simply agreement.

Once on Anon's thread, someone expressed empathy for Anon's wife caring for two high needs ASD children and the stress she was under, and you came back with a post about "stress is..." and described a work situation of your own. That's what a person who doesn't have normal empathy does. Talks about their own feelings, but can't understand anyone else's.

You are right, my opinion about you means nothing and that's fine.

I just get confused when you talk about empathy that others are supposed to have, while you show none.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Seven orgasms??????


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Yes.


LOL. I have to say, John, you are failing to convince me that you are the empathetic one and she is the indifferent one.

Indeed, I'm struggling to see the moral difference between torpedo-ing a marriage because you can't give what the other wants, and torpedo-ing a marriage because you aren't getting your needs met.

We can all only do what we can with what we have.

But by all means, please carry on believing that you are absolutely right and everyone who fails to agree with your worldview iz broken, evil or stupid.

As far as risk/reward goes, it probably won't bring you happiness, but at least you get to be right.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> There's a lot of stuff I do makes me happy because it makes M2 happy. I don't resent that stuff.
> 
> She says the same is true in reverse.


I do quite a bit of stuff for my SO that I don't particularly want to do, just because it makes him happy. I will do things for him that I *really* don't want to do because he needs me to do it.

But at the same time, as the cost to my well-being increases, my ability to deliver cheerfully decreases.

Is that selfish? Maybe. But my needs matter too.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> AnonPink doesn't quote me for no reason...hahaha.


Well, and ultimately, you are absolutely right. IMHO.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I see two cases:

1). having mutual sex. I an understand that if the LD isn't in the mood, some sexual activities (like PIV) will be uncomfortable or painful. They may not enjoy others as well.

I don't see the insulin connection though - what needs to be done before or after - other than a quick wash, which isn't unpleasant.

2). Sexual acts (oral etc) provided solely for the pleasure of their partner. How is this different from other sorts of favors done for the person you love? What is it that makes sexual acts (not PIV) so unpleasant? 

The closest I can imagine is performing sexual acts for another man - maybe that is how it feels - the partner is not physically attractive at all? Sex becomes a disgusting chore? Would giving a massage feel the same?






Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, exactly. I like to analogize to food. Imagine sex is like ice creams sundaes. And LD is like being diabetic. So the LD partner enjoying sex while it is happening is like a diabetic person enjoying themselves while eating an ice cream sundae.
> 
> The problem is not what it feels like while they are eating. The problem is what comes before and after. If they agree to go to the ice cream parlor with you and have a sundae, they need to take their insulin. They need to test their blood sugar. Thinking of eating ice cream makes them think about pricking their finger. Pricking their finger hurts. They worry how it will feel after. They worry if it will make them gain weight. They worry about how they will lose the weight if they do gain weight. They worry about all the exercise they will have to do to lose the weight. Thinking about ice cream makes them think about being hot and sweaty and uncomfortable and needing a shower. They worry about their blood sugar getting too high and causing nerve pain or nerve damage and having to have surgery. Thinking about ice cream causes them to think about amputation. Amputation hurts.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always, 

On the give:
Church - Once a week I am happy to to this for M2. I'm not sitting there - resigned to being there because it's important to her. And she doesn't 'ask' me to go. I do it because I want to do that for her. I'd feel bad if she had to go alone. 

If she started going every day, I'd still join her on Sunday, but the rest of the week she'd be on her own. 

On the take:
When M2 offers - if I get the sense it's solely for my benefit I softly decline. I absolutely know that she's making an effort to find a happy mid point between our differing drives. And am confident that she believes the same. 

Obviously this would get a LOT harder if M2 believed that once a month was a 'workable' compromise. I tend to think a lot of the positive habits we have outside the bedroom - the high quantity and quality of non sexual affection - is a big help in that regard. 

Probably the thing that helps me most inside the bedroom is the firm belief that sex is almost never a neutral experience. It's either good or it's bad. And I believe it's WAY easier to make it a bad experience for an LD partner than an HD partner. 





always_alone said:


> I do quite a bit of stuff for my SO that I don't particularly want to do, just because it makes him happy. I will do things for him that I *really* don't want to do because he needs me to do it.
> 
> But at the same time, as the cost to my well-being increases, my ability to deliver cheerfully decreases.
> 
> Is that selfish? Maybe. But my needs matter too.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holding, that was the fastest lap the rationalization hamster has ever ran. 

View attachment 38554


As I wrote many a time in this thread if there are any physical or psychological issues with intimacy (ED, CSA, dryness, depression) those can be looked into and addressed perhaps. These would be analogous to your diabetes side effects which are all legit. 

We aren't talking about those. Think again of the broccoli example - it causes no diagnosable physical or mental health issues. 

A better example would be offering a steak to an occasional vegetarian. On a few occasions he can be talked into it, most times he will refuse.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Boards like this work well not because we exchange ideas and situations, not feelings. 

The brain has a much easier time matching concrete behaviors, events, and incidents versus emotions, feelings, hunches, and so on.

Even when we want to relate based on empathy, the concrete facts and matching circumstances are hard to keep out of one's decision process.

Empathy works well when one has time and ability to really get into the other person's skin. Therapy is like that. TAM, at best, is like a support meeting - exchange war stories, outcomes, and the like.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> LOL. I have to say, John, you are failing to convince me that you are the empathetic one and she is the indifferent one.
> 
> Indeed, I'm struggling to see the moral difference between torpedo-ing a marriage because you can't give what the other wants, and torpedo-ing a marriage because you aren't getting your needs met.



Then you haven't read all chapters of the Saga of Dr. John - only the Spark Notes.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> I agree. You dip your toe in the water and it feels warm. Your spouse dips their toe in the water and says it feels cold.
> 
> You can accept the difference or you can spend your life arguing over whether the water is warm or cold. The fact that it is 25 degrees C, and that "most" people find that temperature warm, or most find it cold, is not relevant. Except in determining your odds of finding someone else (besides your current spouse) who finds it warm.
> 
> If your spouse says the water feels cold to them, arguing it feels warm to you and thus your spouse is WRONG to say it feels cold to them is likely to be counterproductive to marital harmony.


Let me start by saying I 100% agree with this awesome post.

But here's the problem that many of us have experienced.
For the first several years of the relationship and marriage, both partners had a compatible temperature range. But then somewhere down the road (say once a mortgage and kids are involved), one partner suddenly starts feeling "cold" in the exact temperature water which previously felt warm. THIS is a common problem: one person unilaterally moves the scale.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

tommyr said:


> but then somewhere down the road (say once a mortgage and kids are involved), one partner suddenly starts feeling "cold" in the exact temperature water which previously felt warm. This is a common problem: One person unilaterally moves the scale.



View attachment 38562


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The cat looks suspiciously like ours... I've had a krappy day at work that even multiple boutique donuts did not fix. Let's hope the client forgets our demo 

The last poster put it quite well actually - there aren't quite that many posts where the LD's were LD's in the rose colored glasses part of the dating process. Otherwise the dating would go about as well as my officemate's efforts in grad school to find a job. When asked about a weakness, Murali's eyes lit up and he said he was a bit lazy and did not want to work too much.

I've seen a number of posters mention the "I can't explain how I feel, I just don't want sex but don't know why". Perhaps the art of the Five Whys has been lost, or perhaps it's a soothing effect to not want to know. One can generally drill down and find out alone or with their partner.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Would giving a massage feel the same?


To answer this, it depends on the person and the intention. Massage is largely empathic with a deeply relaxing effect on mind and body. Is the giver willing and capable of providing empathy in the form of touch and is the receiver willing and capable of accepting that form of touch in return?

Massage can be nurturing, soothing, loving, comforting, much like a hug, except with greater effects on muscles, blood flow, inflammation, neurotransmitters etc. 

It can have a completely different intention to sexual touch or erotic massage where that intention would involve the heightening of sensations and sexual pleasure. Really it depends on the giver, the receiver and the shared intention.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

john117 said:


> The cat looks suspiciously like ours... I've had a krappy day at work that even multiple boutique donuts did not fix. Let's hope the client forgets our demo
> 
> The last poster put it quite well actually - there aren't quite that many posts where the LD's were LD's in the rose colored glasses part of the dating process. Otherwise the dating would go about as well as my officemate's efforts in grad school to find a job. When asked about a weakness, Murali's eyes lit up and he said he was a bit lazy and did not want to work too much.
> 
> I've seen a number of posters mention the "I can't explain how I feel, I just don't want sex but don't know why". Perhaps the art of the Five Whys has been lost, or perhaps it's a soothing effect to not want to know. One can generally drill down and find out alone or with their partner.


I have never heard of the art of 5 whys, so I Googled it. One of the sites had this to say:

"Of course in the real world, finding an isolated root cause is not always so simple. Everything is connected, and there may be multiple root causes, interdependencies, or complexities involved."

Again I will reiterate, many LD' s feelings and thoughts are not simple, nor logical, nor reasonable, and now for your sake - I will add nor is the reason they feel the way they do always distinguishable.

Maybe I am just not as smart or perceptive as you are, cause if I were, I would absolutely love to be able to figure out why my husband can caress my breasts one night and it feels amazing, and then the next night or maybe even a week later, nothing discernablely different in technigue, nothing really discernablely different in the situation, or my mood, or energy level, or any other thing that I can think of - and yet, the same touch the same exact way, intensely annoys me. Then another time it feels good again.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Hearts,

I like that you reference intentions as I think that is the basis for having a high touch marriage. It's sad when someone's intentions are selfless but trust has broken down and the recipient of the touch believes there is another agenda.

If I was teaching a class to folks getting married I'd identify the HD person and warn them about groping. Maybe some LD folks like it - but that's a question they ought to ask their partner. You can do a lot of incremental damage with unwanted touch. 




heartsbeating said:


> To answer this, it depends on the person and the intention. Massage is largely empathic with a deeply relaxing effect on mind and body. Is the giver willing and capable of providing empathy in the form of touch and is the receiver willing and capable of accepting that form of touch in return?
> 
> Massage can be nurturing, soothing, loving, comforting, much like a hug, except with greater effects on muscles, blood flow, inflammation, neurotransmitters etc.
> 
> It can have a completely different intention to sexual touch or erotic massage where that intention would involve the heightening of sensations and sexual pleasure. Really it depends on the giver, the receiver and the shared intention.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Mary,

The stuff you posted below - that - drives our sex life. M2 is exactly the same in this regard. 

And so I'll refer back to my unsexy theme of the past few posts: First do no harm

So - when M2 says - they're hypersensitive tonight - I stop and say - ok. 

But here's the thing - whatever M2 tells me in bed I immediately accept at face value. Sometimes I say - thank you for telling me

So - there's a certain touch pattern M2 really likes - except on nights she doesn't want to be touched there. I have never identified any pattern to it. 

But stuff like this, if I frowned or seemed annoyed or upset might cause M2 to do the one thing that would begin to destroy our sex life: bite the pillow

And sometimes she apologizes afterwards for being 'broken'. 

At which point I shake my head in disbelief and reply: THAT experience we just had wasn't even close to symmetrical. I should be apologizing I can't make it as good for you as you make it for me. I wish I could do more for you. 

The beauty of that exchange is that M2 knows that is how I truly feel. 

The thing about this stuff is that, intentions aside if you're clumsy handling these situations you can cause your partner a lot of distress. 




mary35 said:


> I have never heard of the art of 5 whys, so I Googled it. One of the sites had this to say:
> 
> "Of course in the real world, finding an isolated root cause is not always so simple. Everything is connected, and there may be multiple root causes, interdependencies, or complexities involved."
> 
> ...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

mary35 said:


> None taken! Are you suggesting that offering him the ultimate sacrifice in giving him an out is a way of letting him know I understand how hard dealing with our situation might be for him?
> 
> If you are saying that - then I can understand why I might say it! But the fact is - he is a big boy and can make choices, and while I would have understood if he left me during the first very long LD period, I would not understand if he left me now, especially after sticking it out through the worst part. He has it fairly good now - as do I.


yes, I was saying that... but he has it "good" now, so it seems to me that most LD or "responsive desire" ladies in this thread have taken the right measures to counteract their "mechanism"... which is also good.

But the title of the post is: LD's enjoying but not wanting sex

That's the crux of the matter. There are hundreds of us in this situation and, although we understand the mechanism, since such mechanism can be tweaked, we are just baffled by the infrequencies of activation of such mechanism...

Having said that, I don't agree with analogies such I give you a foot massage, that's not much different from sex... too me, there is a huge difference... because sex goes much deeper emotionally than other activities.

I don't have a solution. If the mechanism is managed properly and at the right frequency, the marriage will be ok. If it's not, or it's managed according to a precise SLA - as John would say - then we are in trouble. Of course we don't have to agree with the SLA and we can leave, but when this puts many other circumstances in jeopardy, I do feel like I'm kept captive...

Communication and understanding are the key. I have to confess that I was good at communicating and my wife not... on the other hand, I wasn't very good at understanding, also due to the lack of communication from my wife. I guess she didn't know what was going on either. Unfortunately, after years of this, the toy is broken.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> Same here. But, as I have been living a sexless or near-sexless existence for a long time, I have come to realize for me there are more issues being pondered/processed/felt/misunderstood than that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Totally agree with this...


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

I would appreciate more dialog on the topic of large desire shifts within a marriage. Because I honestly think this is the more common and serious problem than a person's baseline identity as HD or ND (normal desire) or LD. It appears most of us accept the fact that people are many and varied, and that our own sex drive will differ from alot of other people, that is pefectly fine and acceptable. Few would denigrate the person who thinks 25 degrees C is cold just because it feels warm to you. Live and let live. Right?

So prior to marriage, many of us had the foresight and awareness to realize the importance of a healthy sex life in marriage: we sought a partner with similar sexual views; we talked about sex while dating; we enjoyed premarital sex with a careful eye towards longterm sexual compatibility. And through this process, certain sexual "baselines" were established that of course would ebb and flow over a lifetime together, but provided a mutually satisfying reference point at the start. Using the temperature analogy, we look for a partner who agrees that 25 (or whatever temperature you want) feels warm.

Now flash forward several years, couple kids, couple cars, a house and 401K. Then one partner starts to show less interest, stops initiating, avoids their partner's advances, rejects more often. This happens alot right? An early aparent HD or ND becomes more of an LD later on. Maybe the sex even drops to 10% of the earlier "baseline" frequency.

Well here is the thing: in this scenario, I honestly believe the discussion must expand beyond the initial mode of accepting each person for their natural inclinations toward sex. I think it is now valid to expect greater introspection and effort of the "deviating" partner to see what is wrong and to work hard towards getting back to a (possibly revised) "baseline" that again provides mutual satisfaction. 

Do others agree that a profound SHIFT of desire within a relationship changes the conversation from "does 25 degrees C feel warm or cold?" to "what are some ways that you can again be comfortable with a partner whose thermostat remains the same as before" ?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

the problem with such huge shifts of desire - or even with less pronounced ones - from what I've read here is that the LD person doesn't now why he/she is now LD. This can lead to confusion and lack of communication that will compound the problem. In my situation, the problem was indeed the lack of communication. If my wife told me the brutal truth, I would have accepted it and lowered my expectations. I'm not a monster. I do understand that it's difficult to communicate such aspects of your life - for several reasons, but sweeping everything under the carpet doesn't help. Not sure why this happens... intellectual dishonesty, indifference, laziness, selfishness, or maybe all of these combined. If then your wife seems to enjoy sex when you have it, then I can't help thinking... :wtf:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

There are no shifts in desire as much as there are shifts in priorities and expectations and attitudes. 

Desire is not a quantifiable measured quantity. You can't have a blood test for it. So you measure indirectly 

Eventually - and I feel this is what happens with many people - it gets to the point that it takes more effort to mentally adjust ones priorities and expectations and attitudes than actually have sex. 

Which is not good. If I have to justify a 2 hour bike ride by taking 2 hours to "convince" myself...


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

mary35 said:


> I have never heard of the art of 5 whys, so I Googled it. One of the sites had this to say:
> 
> "Of course in the real world, finding an isolated root cause is not always so simple. Everything is connected, and there may be multiple root causes, interdependencies, or complexities involved."
> 
> ...


I have that same thing with the breasts and so far I think it's hormone related, for me anyway.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

My wife always enjoys sex. And I always tell her I am confused as to why we don't do it more.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> My wife always enjoys sex. And I always tell her I am confused as to why we don't do it more.


Because SLA's.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Sla?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Service Level Agreements - people have a predefined idea of frequency and even if sex is great they may not want to do it more often.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

PieceOfSky said:


> If you don't mind me asking, did you breastfeed and if so for how long, and did you notice a change in libido or capacity to enjoy it after ceasing to breastfeed?
> 
> My wife's ability to orgasm, for a very long time (a few years?) after birth #1, went to zero, having not been much of a problem before. That zero was even when trying on her own, alone.
> 
> I suspect my wife's hormones never rebalanced. There was never an attempt to rebalance via any sort of treatment.


In response to your question above... No, I never breastfed so I can't really blame the change in libido to that. To be completely honest, I say that my loss of libido was due to a hormone imbalance but that was never proven. My hormone panels were all normal following the birth of my son. More than likely it was all mental. 

I never truly believed those people who said 'your life will turn upside down after having kids' until I had my child. No one can prepare you for the lifestyle change. It's just one of those things each person has to figure out on their own, and unfortunately, I had a difficult time adjusting to my new 'normal'. The learning curve was steep and there were a lot of adjustments for which to compensate. My libido adjusted just like everything else did in my life. 

To give you an idea, I am the LD in our relationship and I went from desiring sex with my H 2 or 3 times a week to maybe 2 times a month for close to 2 years. For a time I tried to keep up the facade but then the resentment started creeping in. When I let H see that the genuinely passionate lover he once knew was all but gone, he was devastated and so very disappointed. His disappointment made me more resentful, and my resentfulness devastated him. It was a vicious cycle. I offered an amicable split at no financial risk to him which disappointed him even more (a.k.a. he.was.p!ssed!). 

I recognized that my H desperately wanted me to be the woman he married, the one with the healthy libido, but in her place stood a woman with a libido that on a good day needed several kick starts to get it going and required the equivalent of a three ring circus to make sex enjoyable. 

His world had turned just as upside down as mine...but in a different way. Like me, he believes sex should happen when both partners desire it. His self-esteem took a pounding when I lost my libido. No longer was I chomping at the bit to get my hands on him. No longer did I just want to rip his clothes off him upon first sight. No longer did I look at him with pure lust in my eyes. Looking back on it now, it makes me feel sad for my husband.

When I read threads like these where LD's share their experiences, I find myself agreeing with most of their posts where they try to explain their thoughts and feelings on the matter. Having been on both sides of the HD/LD experience (there's more to our story than my temporary loss of libido after my son's birth), I can recognize the difficulty living long-term in these types of mismatched relationships. It's tough to give up on a partner when you've seen/experienced their sexual potential, yet for some unknown reason, they won't try or just can't reach it again.

Someone asked "Why not set your partner free when there is a recognized sexual mismatch?". I asked my H years later why he didn't take the offer to split. His response was that he would only consider divorce if the relationship got so bad that he would rather be alone than with me. That was not the case back then nor has it ever been the case. He never gave up on our sexual relationship but he accepted things were going to be rocky for a while. Suffice it to say, he prayed everyday "this too shall pass"....and it did.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Lila said:


> He never gave up on our sexual relationship but he accepted things were going to be rocky for a while. Suffice it to say, he prayed everyday "this too shall pass"....and it did.


How did it come to pass and in what way?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Then you haven't read all chapters of the Saga of Dr. John - only the Spark Notes.


I've read enough to know that you blame your wife for absolutely everything, think of her as evil and/or stupid, and demonstrate zero compassion or understanding of her mental illness. And that despite your clear hatred for her, you insist on staying within this zombie marriage, and playing little head games with her, such as dressing her up in sexy clothes to show her off to the men at the mall, making yourself even more furious at her for not being more of a sexpot at the same time.

Point being is that you accuse the peanut gallery of having no empathy for what it is like to live in a zombie marriage, yet at the same time insist on projecting that experience onto every other marriage that shares a feature or two with yours.

You can't have it both ways. I would sincerely say that anyone who hates their wife as much as you do probably should just leave already. Sorry, John, but if you really insist on drawing out your torture, that is up to you. But the "she bad" "me good" thing is IMHO a whole lot of bad faith that is absolutely not fair to project onto everyone else.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> What I've desired most is for my wife to *want* to be physically and emotionally intimate with me. Ideally, her desire and motivations would be similar to mine.
> 
> But, if that is not possible for whatever reasons, then it truly would mean a lot if *she wanted* to have such intimacy because she can see and hear me deep enough to know what it would mean to me....not every single time I express an interest, but, enough for me to feel loved.


Are you able to communicate this need to her? 

There is a lot of emphasis on this thread about how the LDs must explain themselves, express clearly and absolutely accurately exactly why it is that they don't want sex at a certain frequency level.

Can you explain clearly what *your* needs are in a way that your wife may be able to understand and relate to?

It is often difficult to step out of our own POV to see that of another--and it is often difficult to explain one's POV to someone with a different worldview. So maybe this will not work or change anything.

But maybe, just maybe, if you can explore the different POVs without judgements or "shoulds", it is possible to make headway?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I've read enough to know that you blame your wife for absolutely everything, think of her as evil and/or stupid, and demonstrate zero compassion or understanding of her mental illness. And that despite your clear hatred for her, you insist on staying within this zombie marriage, and playing little head games with her, such as dressing her up in sexy clothes to show her off to the men at the mall, making yourself even more furious at her for not being more of a sexpot at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. Tell us how you really feel :lol:

You must have missed the part where I provided significant emotional support in the early years of her mental health issues, the endless hours of me using CBT techniques with her to mitigate her behavior issues, the endless hours of me helping her by listening to her work issues and offering suggestions, or the 20 years of me raising two kids alone because she was too busy with work. 

She nearly destroyed my older daughter mentally and physically abusing her - something I've never shared in detail - and I kept working at it with a therapist till my daughter could learn to deal with it. 

I played the trophy husband and father role. Wow, industry awards, patents, education... Got both girls to be trophy kid status for her. She got her McMansion and trophy BMW. 

What did this get me in the last 7 years? A big nothing. But that's not the reason I'm bailing. And sex isn't either. But if you had bothered to read you'd know.

We all offer tidbits of our own experiences and leave it up to the reader to decide if they're applicable. In a couple cases there were far closer matches and that's where I offered more input....

You fail to understand any of the above and I'm the one with the lack of empathy??? Good one


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

tommyr said:


> .
> Well here is the thing: in this scenario, I honestly believe the discussion must expand beyond the initial mode of accepting each person for their natural inclinations toward sex. I think it is now valid to expect greater introspection and effort of the "deviating" partner to see what is wrong and to work hard towards getting back to a (possibly revised) "baseline" that again provides mutual satisfaction.


Shifts in desire, IMHO, are more the norm than the exception. Stress, health, age, hormones, life circumstance, context, all play a role.

Mostly we don't know why we have the drive we do, we just do. If we spend a lot of time investigating it, we may come up with some explanations of why, but these may also be off base. For example, we might think that low T is the reason for low sex drive, but perhaps it doesn't correct even after taking supplements. Or maybe someone has very low T levels yet also a strong drive.

The answers aren't easy. We can be more or less self aware, but we are not completely transparent, even to ourselves.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> You fail to understand any of the above and I'm the one with the lack of empathy??? Good one


Okay, well I'm sure I deserved that. No doubt you have your struggles, and no doubt you've done what you could with what you had.

It's just that in all of these conversations, you paint yourself as the absolute hero of the story, never making any mistakes, never slipping up. And her as the absolute villain.

And then project that onto every LD, where it is all and only about just being selfish, uncaring, "stupid and evil". All because someone doesn't have the same level of desire for sex that you think they should. 

And I don't think that's fair.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

One day I told my wife if I could change my high sex drive I would. But I can't.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Shifts within a certain range. Going from 2-3 times a week to 1x a month and staying there - typical modus operandi - is hardly what most people consider falling within normal variance.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

john117 said:


> Shifts within a certain range. Going from 2-3 times a week to 1x a month and staying there - typical modus operandi - is hardly what most people consider falling within normal variance.


But if that's the way it is you either accept it or leave assuming the rest of the marriage is good.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Okguy said:


> One day I told my wife if I could change my high sex drive I would. But I can't.


In the past, I had asked doctors if they could prescribe me something just to lower my sex drive . They'd always pretty much laugh at me. 

I had had addiction issues in the past as well. And my main reason for using opiates was that it brought my sex drive to zero. So I was 'happy'. My wife always gets angry when I say this cause she thinks I 'blame her' . I always say that's not the case and my decisions on dealing with things were my own. But that it was my 'main trigger' for using.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Okay, well I'm sure I deserved that. No doubt you have your struggles, and no doubt you've done what you could with what you had.
> 
> It's just that in all of these conversations, you paint yourself as the absolute hero of the story, never making any mistakes, never slipping up. And her as the absolute villain.


And even in what was just shared...he was still the hero, she the villain, he's never admitted to any mistake in the marriage as far as I can recall. But the lack of empathy in general (for anyone except those he perceives to be in the same situation as himself, which again, is simply agreement, not empathy) is what is so striking in all of his posts. Zero empathy for any LD, even those who have nothing in common with his wife, is very telling.

The other HD spouses around here do definitely show empathy for their spouses and other LD spouses, even though they are miserable they can still hold a place in their hearts to understand the struggles others have. Not john though....evil or stupid, that's the only diagnosis. Zero empathy.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

tommyr said:


> Let me start by saying I 100% agree with this awesome post.
> 
> But here's the problem that many of us have experienced.
> For the first several years of the relationship and marriage, both partners had a compatible temperature range. But then somewhere down the road (say once a mortgage and kids are involved), one partner suddenly starts feeling "cold" in the exact temperature water which previously felt warm. THIS is a common problem: one person unilaterally moves the scale.


Saying they unilaterally move the scale implies they did it deliberately and with intent.

I'd suggest that the person going into the water has changed, and that person has _been _changed by those life experiences you mention - having children and being parent, taking responsibility for a mortgage and everything else that affects a person during a lifetime. 

So the water temp might not have changed, but the most important variable has...the person. I find it weird that anyone would expect a person, and everything about a person, to be exactly the same after a couple of decades and a couple of kids and a mortgage.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

LostinNE said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > One day I told my wife if I could change my high sex drive I would. But I can't.
> ...


So you took opiates to lower your sex drive? That's a new one on me. Think I'll pass on that one


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Okguy said:


> So you took opiates to lower your sex drive? That's a new one on me. Think I'll pass on that one


Definitely PASS


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

People change - it's going to happen, in most people. You were compatible previously (presumably). Now you are more - or probably less - compatible. The question is, are you now INcompatible?


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> It is just as selfish to insist that someone give you a bj that they don't want to give as it is to refuse to give that bj because you really aren't in the mood.


It's beyond selfish to insist someone perform oral sex on you. But, it's not at all relevant to my situation, and I'd guess many many situations where there is a difference in interest in sex. It's not been something I have done in 20 years with her.

I suppose there are people who do that sort of thing. But, is that what we are discussing here? Maybe I don't know what you mean by "insist"?


I've never insisted on her doing anything. But, I have expressed desire, and after awhile, disappointment and concern that a pattern was emerging, and... after awhile, there were natural consequences of her repeated rejections, especially those delivered with an extra bit of "put downs" (natural consequences, not revenge... in other words, distance grew between us, I do not like spending time with her, I search for ways to separate from her...etc.)



> And in the end of all, it doesn't really matter who is more selfish. It just matters what you choose to do with it.


Yes, absolutely. No one is coming. No one is coming to make it right, or to fix it, or to declare judgement I was the better partner or that I got an unfair deal, and turn back the clock.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Of course people change. And I know for a fact that "shifts in desire" can occur, and I don't think this is intentional. But many (most?) of us believe that a somewhat regular sex life is an essential part of a lasting marriage, important enough that we carefully screen our dating partners for sexual compatibility. So to borrow a line from norajane (do I recognize your screen name and writing style from a different relationship forum many years ago? I always liked your posts....) _I find it weird_ that people would not make effort to meet the completely legitimate (and previously shared!) needs of their spouse due to some inexplicable mental shift within themselves. 

To be clear, I am talking about going from a normal sex life to a barely-existent frequency without any apparent physical cause. In this scenario, I think there is a valid expectation that the suddenly "below normal" partner would invest effort to find some solution. That is completely different from an "HD meets LD" scenario while dating, where I'd say neither side has any legitimate expectation for change, they should just split and keep searching for a compatible partner.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Yea Tommy. You make some valid points. In many cases the effort is there but not to the satisfaction of the hd spouse sadly enough.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

john117 said:


> Charting human behavior was a fairly good prognosis of things in my marriage (wife's personality disorder). It's also part of what I do for a living so it wasn't too hard
> 
> Richard, you're running into what I call SLA - service level agreement. Your wife has a set SLA of x per time unit. That's her natural SLA. Wanting to want sex risks changing the SLA. Some people can handle it, others can.
> 
> The more BS the excuses the more likely they're manufactured. Stop initiating for a good while and see if she notices. If she doesn't then she's ok with SLA of none...


For some reason, people like that don't seem to be quite as happy with an SLA of 0 for the things they want from their spouses...


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Lila said:


> In response to your question above... No, I never breastfed so I can't really blame the change in libido to that. To be completely honest, I say that my loss of libido was due to a hormone imbalance but that was never proven. My hormone panels were all normal following the birth of my son. More than likely it was all mental.
> 
> I never truly believed those people who said 'your life will turn upside down after having kids' until I had my child. No one can prepare you for the lifestyle change. It's just one of those things each person has to figure out on their own, and unfortunately, I had a difficult time adjusting to my new 'normal'. The learning curve was steep and there were a lot of adjustments for which to compensate. My libido adjusted just like everything else did in my life.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for sharing all that. I am glad you two found whatever it took to get through it.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I've also gone long periods of not being affectionate. I've made efforts to spend lots of time with her, and efforts to stay away.
> 
> As a LD poster said long ago "there is no sex in the maze".
> ...


Would you be satisfied if she had sex with you even though she doesn't want it, assuming that she enjoys it when she does it?


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> And does she feel the need to communicate her differing perspective?


Most often, when I have conveyed how I'm feeling about our lack of intimacy, she has reacted negatively, and the result has been to shutdown further communication at that time.

But, when more directly asked "why", I have gotten many different explanations of how she feels over the last 15 years, about sex and other things.

I have tried to balance letting her see how deeply this has affected me yet not overwhelm her with feelings of guilt such that she shuts down. I have failed. I'm not sure if that balance is achievable. I have heard too many times to have any hope left: "You're just telling me that to make me feel bad!"


She has heard my truth with enough fidelity to understand that it matters and how, and to believe I have been sincere in what I have told her. She seems unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Case in point, late last year, we went to a weekend seminar at the Gottman Institute. During private exercises that were part of the seminar, we communicated our sexual issues as well as other things. She understands that it means much to me to have some sort of physical intimacy with her. She knows touch is one my most important love languages. In the seminar, there was mention of the role oxytocin plays, and she joked that she must have none of it anymore. We had a few hour break towards the end, and went back to our hotel room. Having just cleared away some longstanding hurts during the exercises, I felt the desire to be physically close to her. I'm wise enough by now to know she would feel differently and quite averse to sexual touching in any way. So I asked if we could rest on the bed, skin to skin, in our underclothes, and that I would absolutely not seek to escalate it beyond that. She agreed, and it was pleasant. As I was holding her, she volunteered that she "really need to see someone... you know, to figure out why I am so unable to be intimiate with you. I know [PieceOfSky] it really matters to you." As I have learned to expect, her seeing someone (an MD, psychologist, ?) about this hasn't happened. In fact, after about eight months went by and while feeling a tiny bit of hope, I sent her a link to the article about "Sexual Aversion" on the MarriageBuilders site. I told her I thought maybe the description therein might match her experience, and if so, I thought the article might seem sympathetic to someone in her situation. I followed up a week or so later -- she hadn't read it. Next follow up -- she had read the first part. I gently told her, well, I wish she would really read the rest of it because it is important to me. Next day, when I ask, she said she had finished reading it. And, she was pissed. Me: "Well, did it match what your experience has been at all?" Her: "Yes, only for me it is 10x worse. And, I see from what the article says it has to all fall on me to fix it... that I'm just supposed to "just suck it up and relax" and do it." 

If you haven't read the article, let me say if that is what she got out of it -- pissed and feeling put upon -- then I give up. As I recall, the author makes clear it's not the sexually averse partner's fault, and very likely the other partner has done things "wrong" to make the aversion worse. And, the author doesn't suggest the sexually averse partner just suck it up and relax. Quite the opposite.



> I know a lot of people here equate sex with any other activity, whether it is going to the in-law's house or washing the floor. But I think for a lot of people it is very, very different.


I understand that. And, for many, the experience changes over time and in different contexts, even with the same person.

I'm not sure you understood my point from before. I don't "equate it" with a chore. SHE does. Or, at least she does, explicitly, sometimes; at others, it would seem it is even worse to her than a chore. (I'm not putting her down for that. I'm just saying that is what it seems to be for her, and I do my best to take that into account).

But, given that she has literally described sex as just one more "chore", and when one her justifications for avoiding it have to do with being inconvenienced, then it seems useful to me to "weigh it" against the other not so pleasant things she actually does spend time on. Useful -- because it gives me a sense of what my value is to her, and/or a sense that deeper forces are at work inside her and between us.

I understand she dreads it, loathes it. I have sympathy for that. But, I also realize that, with me, she didn't used to dread or loathe it. And almost always (99.9999% of the time discussed) she is adamant there is nothing she should be doing to figure it out or help us solve it. 


I know people are complicated and full of contradictions. I certainly am. And, I have tried to have patience and let her be who she needs to be, or at least who she is, yet somehow convey to her honestly who I am and what my experience is -- seeking not to coerce or push her, but because I matter too, and I can't hold on much longer.




always_alone said:


> Because it is intimate, emotional, vulnerable, and personal in a way that washing the floor can never be.


Of course.

I've never experienced it any other way.





always_alone said:


> I do quite a bit of stuff for my SO that I don't particularly want to do, just because it makes him happy. I will do things for him that I *really* don't want to do because he needs me to do it.
> 
> But at the same time, as the cost to my well-being increases, my ability to deliver cheerfully decreases.
> 
> Is that selfish? Maybe. But my needs matter too.



And if some day, one of you would find the other is not able to do those things AT ALL, or is unwilling to and not lifting a finger to figure it out -- then, you'd find it's a very sad place to be.

I'm sure you know that.

Sadly, it is the sort of situation some here find themselves in.




always_alone said:


> Are you able to communicate this need to her?
> 
> *There is a lot of emphasis on this thread about how the LDs must explain themselves, express clearly and absolutely accurately exactly why it is that they don't want sex at a certain frequency level.*
> 
> ...


I guess I addressed that earlier, and am too lazy to cut and paste this reply. 

I hadn't seen demands being made in this thread, as you described (and I highlighted in bold) above. (You and I have seen things differently before, haven't we?) 

If that has been going on, then I wish folks would stop. I appreciate any thoughts shared by someone who is or was on the LD side of a relationship. The best any of us can do is introspect about our experiences and share what we see. There are no guarantees what we see reflects the complete truth, or any bit of the truth. But it is very likely what we see is important to someone somewhere. I find it is very difficult to get my wife to share anything about her experience with me, so, bits from strangers on the internet are more valuable to me than they might guess.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

At the level you just described it's about control, not about intimacy...

Of course, if we are sharing our own experiences, the peanut gallery may think we are projecting or have no empathy for anyone else, ad infinitum ad nauseaum, e pluribus unus, et al.

I can't help but wonder if the peanut gallery's idea of LD is two times a week vs four times a week compared to once versus twice but with much higher calendar units


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tommy,

Based on a combination of personal experience and extensive reading I believe the following. 

In most marriages (way more than 50%) over time one of the spouses becomes LD. More importantly that transition is primarily driven by a change from frequently feeling spontaneous desire to rarely feeling spontaneous desire. 

I'd go so far to say that the disappearance of spontaneous desire in one of the partners is the normal course of events in a marriage. 

When that occurs one of two things typically happens:
1. The couple works successfully to learn how to have a mutually satisfactory sex life - this is a joint effort that requires kindness and generosity from both parties. 
Or
2. It recks their sex life. In many/most cases it doesn't directly reck their sex life. Instead it disrupts it enough to create sufficient tension outside the bedroom to damage the marriage. And thus begins the downward spiral. 

I knew none of this when we married 25 years ago. Luckily M2 quickly figured out that she had a nice strong responsive desire and taught me how to work with it. 

I'll quantity this with some estimates: 
Our first 2 years together - spontaneous desire was present maybe 80% of the time we connected. 

The next 15 years - probably 20% spontaneous - 80% responsive 

And for the most recent 8 years I'd say spontaneous desire is less than 5%. 

As for frequency. First two years was once a day. Next 15 years was 15-20 times a month. 

The most recent 8 years has been around 8 times a month. 








tommyr said:


> Of course people change. And I know for a fact that "shifts in desire" can occur, and I don't think this is intentional. But many (most?) of us believe that a somewhat regular sex life is an essential part of a lasting marriage, important enough that we carefully screen our dating partners for sexual compatibility. So to borrow a line from norajane (do I recognize your screen name and writing style from a different relationship forum many years ago? I always liked your posts....) _I find it weird_ that people would not make effort to meet the completely legitimate (and previously shared!) needs of their spouse due to some inexplicable mental shift within themselves.
> 
> To be clear, I am talking about going from a normal sex life to a barely-existent frequency without any apparent physical cause. In this scenario, I think there is a valid expectation that the suddenly "below normal" partner would invest effort to find some solution. That is completely different from an "HD meets LD" scenario while dating, where I'd say neither side has any legitimate expectation for change, they should just split and keep searching for a compatible partner.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Lila,

Your libido temporarily disappeared but you had a lot working in your favor. 

You two seem very connected, and your communication skills are strong. It's also obvious you care about your H. When you describe issues here you address them, and don't rug sweep. 





Lila said:


> In response to your question above... No, I never breastfed so I can't really blame the change in libido to that. To be completely honest, I say that my loss of libido was due to a hormone imbalance but that was never proven. My hormone panels were all normal following the birth of my son. More than likely it was all mental.
> 
> I never truly believed those people who said 'your life will turn upside down after having kids' until I had my child. No one can prepare you for the lifestyle change. It's just one of those things each person has to figure out on their own, and unfortunately, I had a difficult time adjusting to my new 'normal'. The learning curve was steep and there were a lot of adjustments for which to compensate. My libido adjusted just like everything else did in my life.
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
English is too imprecise "doesn't want" covers too much ground.

I would be OK with her sometimes doing it as a favor to me. The key is the difference between "favor" and "chore". 



technovelist said:


> Would you be satisfied if she had sex with you even though she doesn't want it, assuming that she enjoys it when she does it?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

> Would you be satisfied if she had sex with you even though she doesn't want it, assuming that she enjoys it when she does it?


I think it would sound a lot better if you used the word "not in the mood" instead of "doesn't want it"... and isn't this what love is all about?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Mem it sounds to me like you have never had a frequency problem at all. Eight times a month would be heaven for someone married to an ld spouse


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> the problem with such huge shifts of desire - or even with less pronounced ones - from what I've read here is that the LD person doesn't now why he/she is now LD. This can lead to confusion and lack of communication that will compound the problem. In my situation, the problem was indeed the lack of communication. If my wife told me the brutal truth, I would have accepted it and lowered my expectations. I'm not a monster. I do understand that it's difficult to communicate such aspects of your life - for several reasons, but sweeping everything under the carpet doesn't help. Not sure why this happens... intellectual dishonesty, indifference, laziness, selfishness, or maybe all of these combined. If then your wife seems to enjoy sex when you have it, then I can't help thinking... :wtf:


I think people go through a lot of gymnastics to figure out what has happened in these situations because they don't want to accept the simple truth: she's just not into you anymore.

Attraction is not an intellectual exercise.

Both the so called HD and LD partners have reasons for avoiding this.

HD because it calls into question his personal value.

LD because admitting this would collapse a marriage that is otherwise convenient.

I don't really think any of this is intentional or devious. It's just that when you have two people who are each very invested in not seeing the truth, even if for different reasons, they won't see it.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I totally disagree with that Anon.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> As for frequency. First two years was once a day. Next 15 years was 15-20 times a month.
> 
> The most recent 8 years has been around 8 times a month.


Mem- I hope you know I love your posts. Most of us could really benefit from being more like you.

But the above description of frequency in your marriage was a surprise to me.

Have you really at your lowest never gone below 2x per week?

Because if so, I would say it's a lot easier to maintain empathy in this type of situation than in a lot of the more hardcore sexless situations that are presented here.

Now it may be the case that you never dwindled to once a month because your outlook is genuinely that much more positive.

I personally have failed to be as empathetic as I could be.

But I think it is very difficult to imagine being a HD or even ND person in some of these situations if you have not really lived that. It really does grind you down despite whatever your best intentions are.

It is like swimming against a current.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> MEM11363 said:
> 
> 
> > As for frequency. First two years was once a day. Next 15 years was 15-20 times a month.
> ...


Now all of this I agree with totally


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> I don't see the insulin connection though - what needs to be done before or after - other than a quick wash, which isn't unpleasant.
> 
> The closest I can imagine is performing sexual acts for another man - maybe that is how it feels - the partner is not physically attractive at all? Sex becomes a disgusting chore? Would giving a massage feel the same?


Richard, I think this is the key. You simply cannot imagine sex feeling bad. So you think your wife not wanting sex (which in your world always feels good and brings pleasure) must indicate that she feels bad about you.

The reason I did the analogy to ice cream was because ice cream is something that most people find pleasant tasting most of the time. So in that way it is similar to sex. But ice cream is also similar to sex in that some people have strong NEGATIVE associations with ice cream. Even if those people find ice cream delicious while they are eating it.

For example, diabetic people might shun ice cream even though they like the taste. Similarly, overweight people might shun ice cream even though they like the taste. Diabetics might shun it for the sugar. Overweight people might shun it for the calories. The bottom line is that there are large number of people who enjoy the taste of ice cream who nevertheless will refuse to eat ice cream when offered the chance to partake.

And that is how many LD people feel about sex. They may like the sex while it is happening. But for them, sex is associated with something else that makes sex unattractive overall even though it feels good.

That negative association will be different for every LD. Some don't like the smell. Some don't like the bodily fluids. Some guys have ED or PE and having sex makes them feel ashamed of their poor performance. Some women have trouble lubricating or reaching orgasm and having sex triggers feelings of failure. Some feel used afterward. Some feel tired. Some feel weak for giving in to base desires. For some it reminds them of the time they were raped. Or the time they were abused as a child. Or the time they had sex because the other person whined and begged and they finally gave in.

What I am trying to get across to you is that just like some people turn down ice cream (which most people find tasty and pleasurable), some people turn down sex because of physical or psychological reasons even if they enjoy sex while it is happening.

I do think your analogy to a straight man being offered gay sex is another good way to imagine what it is like to be LD. Suppose a handsome man walks up to you and says he gives the best hand jobs, and he really wants to give you a hand job. Are you going to say "yes, sure" because a hand job generally feels good and you generally enjoy orgasms? Or are you going to say "sorry, no way, I am straight and sex with another man turns me off." But why are you turning him down? The hand job will feel good and you know you like orgasms. Suppose you accept the hand job, have an orgasm, but then you feel terrible afterward because you are disappointed in yourself for giving in and allowing another man to touch you. Maybe you could be talked into trying it once, but if you hated the experience do you think you could be talked into it again?

That is how many LDs feel about sex. Even if they have an orgasm during sex. The orgasm wasn't worth experiencing whatever negative associations they have about sex with their spouse. It just isn't.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Sometimes things can be analyzed to death. This is one of those times.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> Having just cleared away some longstanding hurts during the exercises, I felt the desire to be physically close to her. I'm wise enough by now to know she would feel differently and quite averse to sexual touching in any way. So I asked if we could rest on the bed, skin to skin, in our underclothes, and that I would absolutely not seek to escalate it beyond that. She agreed, and it was pleasant. As I was holding her, she volunteered that she "really need to see someone... you know, to figure out why I am so unable to be intimiate with you. I know [PieceOfSky] it really matters to you." As I have learned to expect, her seeing someone (an MD, psychologist, ?) about this hasn't happened. In fact, after about eight months went by and while feeling a tiny bit of hope, I sent her a link to the article about "Sexual Aversion" on the MarriageBuilders site. I told her I thought maybe the description therein might match her experience, and if so, I thought the article might seem sympathetic to someone in her situation. I followed up a week or so later -- she hadn't read it. Next follow up -- she had read the first part. I gently told her, well, I wish she would really read the rest of it because it is important to me. Next day, when I ask, she said she had finished reading it. And, she was pissed. Me: "Well, did it match what your experience has been at all?" Her: "Yes, only for me it is 10x worse. And, I see from what the article says it has to all fall on me to fix it... that I'm just supposed to "just suck it up and relax" and do it."
> 
> If you haven't read the article, let me say if that is what she got out of it -- pissed and feeling put upon -- then I give up. As I recall, the author makes clear it's not the sexually averse partner's fault, and very likely the other partner has done things "wrong" to make the aversion worse. And, the author doesn't suggest the sexually averse partner just suck it up and relax. Quite the opposite.


I'm sorry, PieceOfSky. I don't really know your story, but that sure sounds a tough situation. At the same time, I think what your wife is telling you is very instructive here. That she took a different message than you from the article tells you just how averse she is to sex (10x!), and her taking on all the responsibility to fix tells you that she really sees it as her fault not yours.

That's probably not particularly reassuring, and in some ways it's easier if it is you who caused it, because then you can fix it. But also, if it isn't you who caused it, maybe you can at least not beat yourself up over what you may or may not have done.




PieceOfSky said:


> I'm not sure you understood my point from before. I don't "equate it" with a chore. SHE does. Or, at least she does, explicitly, sometimes; at others, it would seem it is even worse to her than a chore. (I'm not putting her down for that. I'm just saying that is what it seems to be for her, and I do my best to take that into account).
> 
> But, given that she has literally described sex as just one more "chore", and when one her justifications for avoiding it have to do with being inconvenienced, then it seems useful to me to "weigh it" against the other not so pleasant things she actually does spend time on. Useful -- because it gives me a sense of what my value is to her, and/or a sense that deeper forces are at work inside her and between us.
> 
> I understand she dreads it, loathes it. I have sympathy for that. But, I also realize that, with me, she didn't used to dread or loathe it. And almost always (99.9999% of the time discussed) she is adamant there is nothing she should be doing to figure it out or help us solve it.


When I said that, I was referring to the commonly suggested "fix", that she just treat it like any other chore (doing laundry, washing the floor) that she does despite not wanting to. It is often expressed here as the "why can't she take 5 mins to get me off?"

And it was to that notion that I was saying that sex isn't just another activity. It is deeply personal and deeply vulnerable in a way that does require a lot more than just pushing yourself to do it. I know my SO, for.example, the more he feels pushed, the more that it comes off as a duty or obligation for me, rather than an expression from him, the less likely he is to oblige. Lots of people here say that they would "just do it", but I have to wonder how true that really is. It is easy to say when you want it, no matter what, but would you want it if the more you did it, the less pleasure you got? 

Her understanding of it as a chore, IMHO, speaks to how much she doesn't want to do it, but her digging her heels in about not fixing things shows that she doesn't really see it as a chore that needs to be done (like washing the floor). Just an unpleasant experience that she can forgo altogether. 

You say she didn't always feel this way, though. Are you sure about this? When did she change? Do you have any sense of what might have triggered it?




PieceOfSky said:


> I hadn't seen demands being made in this thread, as you described (and I highlighted in bold) above. (You and I have seen things differently before, haven't we?)


I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't share our respective experiences, and I absolutely appreciate all the insightful people here sharing their POVs. What I was trying to get across, though, is that in these conversations, it often seems as though the default assumption is that the LD must account for themselves, and that because they lie outside what is "normal" that therefore they are broken, and need to be "fixed". Any lack of transparency about the "why" of their outlook is seen as selfishness or laziness.

But do you know why you have the drive you do? Are you fully transparent to yourself and your motives? I know I'm not. And while some of us can reassure ourselves that we're "normal", there are lots of people on the hypersexual side of the spectrum who are equally outside the norm, and often thought to have sexual dysfunction --and yet for some reason it's fine to just brag about wanting it 3x a day, everyday, but as soon as we go under the norm, we're defective.

It just doesn't seem particularly fair --or particularly helpful. The norm is just a norm, and the value of making some people feel broken is dubious. At least, IMHO.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

LostinNE said:


> How did it come to pass and in what way?


'Come to pass' is subjective. Did our sex life go back to the way it was before the baby came into our lives? No. 

Over time, did our sex life reset itself to an acceptable 'new' normal? Yes. 

How did this happen? I really can't say for sure but looking back on it objectively, the top three things that come to mind are: 
1) My husband took one for the team, that's the honest truth. He kept our marriage together while I was caught up in the new mom whirlwind. He gave me space so I didn't feel pressured but he also didn't stop providing me with much needed support (emotional and otherwise). As far as sexual enjoyment, he put his ego aside and solved the puzzle of the three ring circus (see my previous post). Lastly, and probably most importantly, he stopped reacting poorly to my lack of sexual desire. He rolled with the punches.
2) We started marching to beat of our own drum. We found our happy. Instead of doing what _others_ told us was the right thing to do as parents, we decided to do what _we _felt was right for us. e.g. We hired a nanny and I went back to work even though we didn't need the money. We also stopped sitting around at home and started taking our son with us everywhere, regardless of venue (nice restaurants, football games, music festivals, international destinations, Las Vegas). 
3) I stopped looking back at what was, accepted and appreciated what is, and started looking forward to what could be. I made peace with my new, post baby reality and recognized that it was a good one. We were blessed with a very healthy baby with a wonderful temperament. My husband was a hands-on dad who was always spending time with the baby. We didn't have to worry about money. H was sexually attracted to me and he was still as physically attractive as ever. We were both of sound mind and body. There were no big hurdles. Life was good. 

Slowly but surely my priorities realigned and I started to see myself as an adult sexy woman again. It was a slow process but the spark did eventually come back, maybe not to the extent that it was before the baby, but it was something we could both live with. 

Between then and now, H and I have had other issues we had to overcome. Having said that our 'new' normal is about 2 x a week when we are mutually on the same page and it's quality sex. There is no faking enthusiasm for either of us. It's either go or no go.

FWIW, we decided to not have any more children after our first. The stress having a child caused on our marriage left us with a sour taste in our mouths. We didn't want to risk long-term issues with another child.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Lila if your new normal is twice a week count your blessings. Many of us aren't even close to that and prob never will be


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I think people go through a lot of gymnastics to figure out what has happened in these situations because they don't want to accept the simple truth: she's just not into you anymore.



I just came to the same conclusion at the end... maybe not completely not into you, but mostly... or just indifferent... or they just care a lot about you, but it's not love anymore... oh, well... :smile2:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> Now all of this I agree with totally



I've been saying this for a while - I hate to draw the analogy with Ann Romney  but that's what it is...

There's a lot of them bones in the closet folks. Enough skeletons for an NFL team.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

@Lila- sounds like you both adjusted well. Baby #2 is an even bigger change than baby#1 in my opinion so it was good you had the foresight to stop at one.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

mary35 said:


> 1. Your right, the analogy is not perfect and does not apply to all LD situation.
> 
> 2. Some people react differently to temperatures. Cold water can cause me actual physical discomfort sometimes and other times I can tolerate it and even enjoy it. My husband can tolerate and enjoy much colder temps than I can So the analogy works for what I am describing happens to me sometimes. There are times that I have a very real level of physical or emotional level of discomfort that I have to decide to
> Ignore to move on. It's not there all the time. I don't know why it's there when it's there. Perhaps a form of anxiety caused by a hormonal or brain chemical problem or something similar. I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to me either. It's not logical nor rational.
> ...


I wish there were some kind of award we could give you. Your ability and willingness to explain the world of at least one LD woman is phenomenally valuable.

Thank you.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Thanks to Mary once again.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

john117 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Now all of this I agree with totally
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Yea her...

View attachment 38602


Aren't y'all happy I am not a graduate teaching assistant any more? My lectures were full of such Hail Mary related facts....


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Anon,
We had a bad year, or maybe it was 18 months. I stopped working out and was too 'passive' for M2. 

During that time we dropped down to every five days. That was the worst period of the marriage in terms of frequency. 

But the thing I was hoping people would focus on this that my/our sex life would be very infrequent if M2 wasn't willing to work with her responsive desire. 



QUOTE=Anon1111;13617794]Mem- I hope you know I love your posts. Most of us could really benefit from being more like you.

But the above description of frequency in your marriage was a surprise to me.

Have you really at your lowest never gone below 2x per week?

Because if so, I would say it's a lot easier to maintain empathy in this type of situation than in a lot of the more hardcore sexless situations that are presented here.

Now it may be the case that you never dwindled to once a month because your outlook is genuinely that much more positive.

I personally have failed to be as empathetic as I could be.

But I think it is very difficult to imagine being a HD or even ND person in some of these situations if you have not really lived that. It really does grind you down despite whatever your best intentions are.

It is like swimming against a current.[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The Ann Romney-esque part of this, MEM, is that M2 was willing to put her responsive desire to work. 

That's not remotely the case in most true LD situations - if one is lucky they deal with ignorance and if they're unlucky with selfishness - in either case indifference is the result.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Every five days????you have no problem at all


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

We dropped down to every five days? Gee what a tough situation that must have been.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Are you able to communicate this need to her?
> 
> There is a lot of emphasis on this thread about how the LDs must explain themselves, express clearly and absolutely accurately exactly why it is that they don't want sex at a certain frequency level.
> 
> ...


*That *worked for me, but of course that doesn't mean it would work for everyone.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > We dropped down to every five days? Gee what a tough situation that must have been.
> ...


Uh huh. Right


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> We take our own porn with us on a USB. Cheaper and more attuned to our tastes.
> 
> Left one attached in a hotel room once.


Ha ha oops.



Buddy400 said:


> Hope the next guest enjoyed it.


I just hope little Suzie who was on vacation with her folks and found it is not still in therapy... :surprise:


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> @Lila- sounds like you both adjusted well. Baby #2 is an even bigger change than baby#1 in my opinion so it was good you had the foresight to stop at one.


ah, that's were I went wrong... :grin2:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,

I admit that there is no way to know how much of M2's team oriented view of our marriage is:
- Nature
- Nurture separate from me
- My direct nurture 

I have however worked really hard to make sure M2:
- Feels like my highest priority 
- Craves my company and feels totally at ease being her true self with me 
- Craves and trusts my touch 

While its true that I wish I could inspire more 'lust' in M2, I accept that to do so - I would have to BE someone else. And I'm not going to turn my entire home into a theater - to get laid more often. 





john117 said:


> The Ann Romney-esque part of this, MEM, is that M2 was willing to put her responsive desire to work.
> 
> That's not remotely the case in most true LD situations - if one is lucky they deal with ignorance and if they're unlucky with selfishness - in either case indifference is the result.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Lila,
> 
> Your libido temporarily disappeared but you had a lot working in your favor.
> 
> You two seem very connected, and your communication skills are strong. It's also obvious you care about your H. When you describe issues here you address them, and don't rug sweep.


I'm not so sure, things sure seemed dicey there for a while based on the following:

"For a time I tried to keep up the facade but then the resentment started creeping in. When I let H see that the genuinely passionate lover he once knew was all but gone, he was devastated and so very disappointed. His disappointment made me more resentful, and my resentfulness devastated him. It was a vicious cycle. I offered an amicable split at no financial risk to him which disappointed him even more (a.k.a. he.was.p!ssed!)."

The really scary part is that they do now seem to be connected and she has good communication skills. And still they almost parted!

Obviously they got past it and ended up happily ever after. And I'm guessing Lila deserves a lot of credit for getting there eventually. But still, it seems like it was a near thing.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I was actually referring to you MEM not M2 . With such a gem of a partner you're about as likely to see the life of someone living with a hardened LD as much as Ms. Romney has of understanding what it means to be not wealthy. It's an abstraction.

I felt the same way when a team member and very close friend described me his marital issues. Super overweight and super LD wife, stays for the kids, open marriage, the whole nine yards. That was in the early 2000's and me and J2 were in cloud nine. I could do little more than nod golden retriever style at his really sad story. 

Ten years later I asked him for divorce lawyer information. He had done the groundwork ahead of me. He was floored. I'm generally very private with my friends. Ten years later his life and mine were converging. Now I could relate to him. In 2002 I had to stop and think what he meant with the "quarterly plan". It never occurred to me that people withheld sex. 

The peanut gallery has talked and talked about empathy. Yet in 2002 my friends issues were an abstraction. That's what I meant.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I think people go through a lot of gymnastics to figure out what has happened in these situations because they don't want to accept the simple truth: she's just not into you anymore.
> 
> Attraction is not an intellectual exercise.
> 
> ...


I disagree. I'm going to be stating some big generalizations, so those that disagree with these (I know who you are) please just respond with "Buddy is full of sh!t" to register your disapproval because I'm not not going to beat that dead horse anymore. 

I believe that Mem i s correct that in a majority of marriages one person generally losses the spontaneous desire that they had at the beginning.

This is usually the woman (generalization 1). Why? I dunno. Maybe there's a tendency for women to tire of men sooner than men tire of women. Maybe the newness of a relationship (the need to lock it down?) serves spontaneous desire. It's no doubt true that men try to "lock down" a relationship by doing things that they'll stop doing once the relationship is established, so women aren't unique in this.

If the woman is selfless (and the husband isn't 1 d!ck), she will work to achieve a mutually satisfying relationship. If the woman is selfish, she's likely to just say "this is how it is now, get used to it".

If this is true, then you're going to end up with say 70% of men with spontaneous desire and 20% of women.

Men that are "into" a woman have a spontaneous desire to have sex with them (generalization #2). Women can be "into" a guy and not have a spontaneous desire to have sex with them (generalization #3) . If a man thinks women are just the same as men they may see a woman not having spontaneous desire for them as being an indicator that they just "aren't into them"
.
It's possible that a guy can bring her spontaneous desire back to life by de-stabilizing the relationship. That's a lot of work and I don't think it's worth it just to get sex from your wife.

Therefore, if we're to assume that the only good relationship is one where each spouse has spontaneous desire for the other, only 20% of people will be happily married (the limiting factor being women with spontaneous desire). Assuming the bothmen and women want to in a LTR (generalization #4)), that's going to leave a lot of unhappy men and women. 

If lack of spontaneous desire always means that the woman is not into the guy, Then we'll all have to fight over the 20% of women who have spontaneous desire and ignore the other 80%. 

Which come to think of it, might just increase the percentage of women with spontaneous desire!


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Lila,
> 
> Your libido temporarily disappeared but you had a lot working in your favor.
> 
> You two seem very connected, and your communication skills are strong. It's also obvious you care about your H. When you describe issues here you address them, and don't rug sweep.


I haven't had much time this weekend to log on to TAM but I did want to respond to your post Mem. If you had heard our arguments back then, you would take back what you said about H and I having good communications skills :surprise::smile2:. 

Our battles were epic. For my part I was brutally honest about my lack of sexual desire (a.k.a no empathy whatsoever for what he was going through). On more than one occasion, I did become disparaging with my comments. For his part he could or would not accept the truth, my libido was gone. I was a project to be fixed. (_Ugh, just writing that makes me angry_). It's a common theme in sexually mismatched relationships. One partner feels helpless while the other feels powerless, and they blame each other for causing their unhappiness. 

We brought out the worst in each other during those 'conversations' about sex. It was tiresome and incredibly heartbreaking. As someone who temporarily experienced it first hand, I can only imagine what it must be like to fight that fight for years and years and years. Must be soul wrenching....for both partners.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

But you did bring those issues to the table regardless of civility. That ain't happening in the zombie marriage part of the world.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> Lila if your new normal is twice a week count your blessings. Many of us aren't even close to that and prob never will be


Okguy, that's why speaking about LD/HD situations is relative to each relationship. While you think twice a week is a dream come true, others would think it's unacceptable. 

In my husband's ideal world, I would desire sex once a day M-Th, and twice on Fri, Sat, and Sun. :smile2:


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

john117 said:


> But you did bring those issues to the table regardless of civility. That ain't happening in the zombie marriage part of the world.


Yes, I did state the truth (I'm not sure if I could have kept it hidden for very long) but in all fairness to those living in the 'zombie marriage part of the world', I didn't have a whole hell of a lot of emotional baggage. There was no CSA, no battles with mental illness or addictions, no 'good girl' syndrome, and minimal FOO issues (who doesn't have those). You gotta compare apples to apples.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> *Obviously they got past it and ended up happily ever after. *And I'm guessing Lila deserves a lot of credit for getting there eventually. But still, it seems like it was a near thing.


Buddy, there's no 'happily ever after'. There's only 'happy for the time being'.:smile2:


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Lila, again, I give you a lot of credit.

Our downward spiral started when we dropped off from 3ish times a week to 1.

After about a year of that I started to lose it, then it rapidly deteriorated from there.

It was almost like, you don't like 1x per week, see how you like 1x every two weeks. Oh, you don't like 1x every two weeks, how about 1x per month. 

Once these situations get momentum, it is extremely hard to reverse it.

For anyone at the beginning stages of this, please take a hard look at these downward spirals and think hard before you start on a path of compounding your problems.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> Lila, again, I give you a lot of credit.
> 
> Our downward spiral started when we dropped off from 3ish times a week to 1.
> 
> ...


So you went from three times a week to one and that was a big issue? To me that is no problem.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Okguy said:


> So you went from three times a week to one and that was a big issue? To me that is no problem.


Well, at this point after about 3 consecutive years of 1x every 4 weeks or so on average, 1x per week would be enough for me.

At the time though, 1x per week seemed totally ridiculous. I was in my early 30s.

What really pushed me over the edge was that it was not just the frequency, but the quality went way down too.

I would wait all week with this building anticipation. Then if it turned out to be routine, I was like, all this build up for this?

Obviously, that attitude didn't help things.

Anyway, I've got a 350ish page thread if you want to read the "War and Peace" of sexless marriage threads.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > So you went from three times a week to one and that was a big issue? To me that is no problem.
> ...


I will take quality over quantity always. 

Where is this other thread?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Okguy said:


> I will take quality over quantity always.
> 
> Where is this other thread?


Oh, same here, although both is nice too.

My thread is the thread right near the top of this forum "Can't you hold me while I read this book."

You may just want to save yourself the frustration of reading it though. :wink2:


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > I will take quality over quantity always.
> ...


Yes both is nice but I'll never have the frequency I want but I do have the quality at least 

That other thread is way too long.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> Yes both is nice but I'll never have the frequency I want but I do have the quality at least
> 
> That other thread is way too long.


Not surprising that a person who seems to value brevity would dislike long threads.

I've never understood the problem with long anything; books, movies, TAM threads. If it's good, I'll take more!


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes both is nice but I'll never have the frequency I want but I do have the quality at least
> ...


Just don't have the time right now Buddy 400. That's my brief response.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Gosh John it must be difficult knowing that despite doing everything right all along the way you got a bad outcome. While in parallel a semi-clueless non PhD like myself just lucked into an easy situation where it all just automagically turned up aces. 




john117 said:


> I was actually referring to you MEM not M2 . With such a gem of a partner you're about as likely to see the life of someone living with a hardened LD as much as Ms. Romney has of understanding what it means to be not wealthy. It's an abstraction.
> 
> I felt the same way when a team member and very close friend described me his marital issues. Super overweight and super LD wife, stays for the kids, open marriage, the whole nine yards. That was in the early 2000's and me and J2 were in cloud nine. I could do little more than nod golden retriever style at his really sad story.
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Gosh John it must be difficult knowing that despite doing everything right all along the way you got a bad outcome. While in parallel a semi-clueless non PhD like myself just lucked into an easy situation where it all just automagically turned up aces.



I'm referring to one's ability to relate to a specific experience in a meaningful way, not in whether one has actually had the experience.

This perceptual gap is not the easiest to bridge. I wish I could wave my magic wand and take care of it, but it simply ain't so. I'm good but not that good.

The gap exists both ways - I can't begin to understand many things too. I've never cheated or been cheated on. Would I know what it feels? Prob not.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Lila said:


> *1) My husband took one for the team, that's the honest truth. He kept our marriage together while I was caught up in the new mom whirlwind.* He gave me space so I didn't feel pressured but he also didn't stop providing me with much needed support (emotional and otherwise). As far as sexual enjoyment, he put his ego aside and solved the puzzle of the three ring circus (see my previous post). *Lastly, and probably most importantly, he stopped reacting poorly to my lack of sexual desire. He rolled with the punches.*


This is the part that grates at me…a lot.

I don't have kids…just a semi-recovering DB with a LD wife and I found the comment here to be pretty much accurate.

Anytime I expressed a problem with the lack of sex or sexual desire it felt like I reset the "rebuilding intimacy" clock.

The problem is that if I did not express a problem with it the lack of intimacy was easier to push aside and ignore for a couple more weeks, then months, then a year…

Too often this feels like a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation.

I honestly cannot really understand the LD mindset…I try to be empathetic and "get it," but it's really foreign to me. Beyond a basic intellectual understanding of "little desire," I just cannot wrap my head around what seems to be nothing more than a "I got mine, we're good," mentality.


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

I left my marriage because I was getting minimal, scrappy unfullfilling sex after he satisifed himself elsewhere. 

Now I am getting nothing! How ironic. 

I was going to sell my house and packed a lot of stuff away (including the toy box). I recently unpacked that toy box. I am less crabby now, but still it is not the same as the real thing.

Funny how it bothered me and now that I don't have a partner it doesn't bother me so much.

What is wrong with me!

And to the OP....what is with your wife. Is it "good girl syndrome" I am not sure your approximate ages and if religous upbringing plays a part. 

I am not a fair female contributor as I think more like a guy.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Lila,

This is why - real education - about the fickleness of raw desire/lust should be part of a premarital class. 

I still fondly remember the day M2 and I had sex 5 times as that was the high water mark for us. 

And I still remember back in late 2011 when she told me that intercourse had come to be a painful thing most of the time. Told me I was too young, too healthy and too fond of sex to spend the rest of my life with someone who had come to fear having sex because it often hurt - a lot. 

I've never asked whether or not she believed me when I told her we would be fine, and that while I'd miss it - I wasn't going to continue to aggravate a chronic inflammatory condition by doing THAT anymore. 

She'd been to the specialists. Tried every treatment shy of surgery. Some stuff - creams and medicines - worked for a while. One medicine - Wellbutrin - even spiked her libido. But her inflammation was slowly worsening and I was aware that it could progress to the point where everyday life was painful. And was absolutely determined not to contribute to that outcome in any way. 

Over time and through consistent repetition of the same message M2 has come to believe that - this is one of those things fully covered under 'in sickness and in health'. And that I'm glad she's healthy enough to play racquetball with me. And that her libido, while diminished, is still present enough to make an appearance a couple times a week. 






Lila said:


> I haven't had much time this weekend to log on to TAM but I did want to respond to your post Mem. If you had heard our arguments back then, you would take back what you said about H and I having good communications skills :surprise::smile2:.
> 
> Our battles were epic. For my part I was brutally honest about my lack of sexual desire (a.k.a no empathy whatsoever for what he was going through). On more than one occasion, I did become disparaging with my comments. For his part he could or would not accept the truth, my libido was gone. I was a project to be fixed. (_Ugh, just writing that makes me angry_). It's a common theme in sexually mismatched relationships. One partner feels helpless while the other feels powerless, and they blame each other for causing their unhappiness.
> 
> We brought out the worst in each other during those 'conversations' about sex. It was tiresome and incredibly heartbreaking. As someone who temporarily experienced it first hand, I can only imagine what it must be like to fight that fight for years and years and years. Must be soul wrenching....for both partners.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Lila said:


> ......Our battles were epic. For my part I was brutally honest about my lack of sexual desire (a.k.a no empathy whatsoever for what he was going through). On more than one occasion, I did become disparaging with my comments. For his part he could or would not accept the truth, my libido was gone. I was a project to be fixed. (_Ugh, just writing that makes me angry_). *It's a common theme in sexually mismatched relationships. One partner feels helpless while the other feels powerless, and they blame each other for causing their unhappiness.
> *
> *We brought out the worst in each other during those 'conversations' about sex. It was tiresome and incredibly heartbreaking. * As someone who temporarily experienced it first hand, I can only imagine what it must be like to fight that fight for years and years and years. Must be soul wrenching....for both partners.


Very well said!

MW Davis talks about this in her book the Sec Starved Marriage.

From my experience the keys to happiness are; one partner saying that things must change, your introspection, willingness to change things about yourself, your spouse's willingness to change themself.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

WorkingWife said:


> Ha ha oops.
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope little Suzie who was on vacation with her folks and found it is not still in therapy... :surprise:


Off topic, but,... we were returning video to the video rental shop (remember them?) and the lady in front of us had an issue. She had rented some childrens videos for a kids birthday party. Snow White was playing and the parents were in the kitchen when they heard laughing. Wondering what was so funny they went in to find an R rated version of Snow White playing. The kids thought it was very funny. They changed tapes quickly.
The shop couldn't say sorry enough.
The mother thought the kids were not worried, but I wondered.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
To me that is an extreme definition of "want". That would imply that I *want* to pay my taxes because when I consider all of the consequences of not doing so, that is what I choose. Or that I "want" to have a root canal.

Arguing over definitions doesn't make sense, but if this version of "want" is implied, then it would not be sufficient for me to be happy with my wife having sex with me. 

I think my criteria would be that doing so would make her happy - even if only because of my happiness (say the way I feel if I get her flowers). It would not be OK with me if she did it to avoid negative consequences. 





Personal said:


> Unless rape is involved if she has sex then she has chosen to have sex, therefore she wants to have sex regardless of whether she enjoys it or otherwise.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
this does seem to fit. Its still difficult to grok though. To me the only negative feelings I can imagine having about sex that I enjoyed if if it was with the "wrong" person. (if I cheated, If it was with another man, etc). So I can't imagine regretting sex with my wife if we both enjoyed it. 

But I can believe that others feel that way - it just points out how differently people feel about sex. 



Holdingontoit said:


> snip
> I do think your analogy to a straight man being offered gay sex is another good way to imagine what it is like to be LD. Suppose a handsome man walks up to you and says he gives the best hand jobs, and he really wants to give you a hand job. Are you going to say "yes, sure" because a hand job generally feels good and you generally enjoy orgasms? Or are you going to say "sorry, no way, I am straight and sex with another man turns me off." But why are you turning him down? The hand job will feel good and you knows you like orgasms. Suppose you accept the hand job, have an orgasm, but then you feel terrible afterward because you are disappointed in yourself for giving in and allowing another man to touch you. Maybe you could be talked into trying it once, but if you hated the experience do you think you could be talked into it again?
> 
> That is how many LDs feel about sex. Even if they have an orgasm during sex. The orgasm wasn't worth experiencing whatever negative associations they have about sex with their spouse. It just isn't.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think I'm the OP on this thread, its been a long one.

Quick answer: I don't know, which is why I post so much trying to get ideas. We are in our 50s. She has never wanted sex frequently (we married young when I didn't know how unusual this was). Not religious. She is almost completely unable to talk about sex (even to the extent of just saying what she would like).







where_are_we said:


> snip
> And to the OP....what is with your wife. Is it "good girl syndrome" I am not sure your approximate ages and if religous upbringing plays a part.
> 
> I am not a fair female contributor as I think more like a guy.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal you sound like a heartless bastard whose main criteria for marital joy is sex at least five times a week apparently. And if it's not there or it decreases you are gone. Well hasta la vista baby.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

PieceOfSky said:


> Mary,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Feel free to ask, I am an open book and will try to answer as honestly as I can. That honest answer may be I don't know though. Lol. I have been very introspective throughout this whole HD and 2nd LD period. I needed to figure out what caused the first period of being LD. I even worked with a SEX therapist for awhile. I thought I had a good handle on it all. That is why this period of being LD and finding myself slipping back into old patterns and having to fight so hard not to - has been so surprisingly frustrating to me.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

Young at Heart said:


> Very well said!
> 
> MW Davis talks about this in her book the Sec Starved Marriage.
> 
> From my experience the keys to happiness are; one partner saying that things must change, your introspection, willingness to change things about yourself, your spouse's willingness to change themself.


I totally agree with this. It's a long process and not an easy one, but one that is worth the effort. At least that is what I keep telling myself. :grin2:


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Lila,
> 
> This is why - real education - about the fickleness of raw desire/lust should be part of a premarital class.
> 
> ...


Mem, were you able to get the painful intercourse problem solved, or have you just taken intercourse off the menu and enjoy other menu items instead. If this is too personal feel free to ignore. I am curious, because I have a friend who is experiencing this. (And no, I am not the friend).


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Personal you sound like a heartless bastard whose main criteria for marital joy is sex at least five times a week apparently. And if it's not there or it decreases you are gone. Well hasta la vista baby.
> ...


Hopefully your wife will always put out. If she doesn't she is gone. If you want to live with such shallow priorities don't let me stop you


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I agree with Personal's view. I was in a long-term low-sex/sexless marriage, and it was a bad experience. If I'd been smarter, I'd have left very early on rather than enduring an incompatible relationship. Moving on, I found a wonderful relationship that includes sexual compatibility. After my earlier negative experience, I won't stay in a relationship that is - or becomes - sexless, and can't be "fixed" in a fairly short period of time. If we're good in other ways, then we can simply divorce and be good friends - as that's what we'd have become anyway, although with the frustration and resentment building over the lack of sex and no sanctioned outlets elsewhere. Call it shallow if you wish, but the waters of sexuality run deep, and I'm not draining the lake because of someone else's drought. My happiness and well being is important to me, so I won't willingly choose to lose it.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Okguy said:


> Hopefully your wife will always put out. If she doesn't she is gone. If you want to live with such shallow priorities don't let me stop you


Is is okay for others to have different priorities. 

Insulting someone for that very reason says more about you than it does about him, Okguy.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

farsidejunky said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully your wife will always put out. If she doesn't she is gone. If you want to live with such shallow priorities don't let me stop you
> ...


Far side I was insulted first. Fair is fair


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Okguy said:


> Far side I was insulted first. Fair is fair


Okguy, the sooner you recognize your controlling nature, the quicker you will begin to really see the direction you need to go in your life.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> I agree with Personal's view. I was in a long-term low-sex/sexless marriage, and it was a bad experience. If I'd been smarter, I'd have left very early on rather than enduring an incompatible relationship. Moving on, I found a wonderful relationship that includes sexual compatibility. After my earlier negative experience, I won't stay in a relationship that is - or becomes - sexless, and can't be "fixed" in a fairly short period of time. If we're good in other ways, then we can simply divorce and be good friends - as that's what we'd have become anyway, although with the frustration and resentment building over the lack of sex and no sanctioned outlets elsewhere. Call it shallow if you wish, but the waters of sexuality run deep, and I'm not draining the lake because of someone else's drought. My happiness and well being is important to me, so I won't willingly choose to lose it.[/QUOT
> 
> I'd rather have a low sex marriage with everything else done with love than the other way around. If sex is that much a priority for anyone they should have a pre nup guaranteeing x number of encounters per week and if not met divorce.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

farsidejunky said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Far side I was insulted first. Fair is fair
> ...


Controlling nature? Give me a break.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

I always wonder about the LD' s if they became single again how quickly they change.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Hopefully your wife will always put out. If she doesn't she is gone.


And hopefully, he will never suffer any of the very common problems that affect guys as they age. Otherwise, she is gone.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather have a low sex marriage with everything else done with love than the other way around. If sex is that much a priority for anyone they should have a pre nup guaranteeing x number of encounters per week and if not met divorce.
> ...


Low frequency sex does not mean the marriage is broken. Perhaps sex on demand could be included when you remarry again Personsal.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully your wife will always put out. If she doesn't she is gone.
> ...


Amen. Well said


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> And hopefully, he will never suffer any of the very common problems that affect guys as they age. Otherwise, she is gone.



One hopefully grades for effort and not for outcome or frequency...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> Married but Happy said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Personal's view. I was in a long-term low-sex/sexless marriage, and it was a bad experience. If I'd been smarter, I'd have left very early on rather than enduring an incompatible relationship. Moving on, I found a wonderful relationship that includes sexual compatibility. After my earlier negative experience, I won't stay in a relationship that is - or becomes - sexless, and can't be "fixed" in a fairly short period of time. If we're good in other ways, then we can simply divorce and be good friends - as that's what we'd have become anyway, although with the frustration and resentment building over the lack of sex and no sanctioned outlets elsewhere. Call it shallow if you wish, but the waters of sexuality run deep, and I'm not draining the lake because of someone else's drought. My happiness and well being is important to me, so I won't willingly choose to lose it.[/QUOT
> ...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

My point of the pre nup is that you might as well be up front about what your priorities are and that you will leave if they are not met.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> My point of the pre nup is that you might as well be up front about what your priorities are and that you will leave if they are not met.


We didn't need a prenup for that - we were both clear on our priorities, and what would be grounds for divorce. Our ONLY vow was to stay together as long as we both loved each other. The rest is negotiable.

For instance, let's say frequency declined due to illness or disability - it would not necessarily mean we'd divorce. We have an open relationship agreement that we could invoke. And neither of us would want the other to sacrifice a satisfying sex life if unable to provide it. We'd divorce if necessary to free the other to pursue a satisfying sexual relationship, but given the depth of our connection I have no doubt that we'd remain close friends and be mutually supportive even then. If that's not love for each other, then I don't want to hear other definitions.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

If the soon to be love of your life needs a prenup to remind them of their marital obligations...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> I agree with Personal's view. I was in a long-term low-sex/sexless marriage, and it was a bad experience. If I'd been smarter, *I'd have left very early on rather than enduring an incompatible relationship*. Moving on, I found a wonderful relationship that includes sexual compatibility. After my earlier negative experience, I won't stay in a relationship that is - or becomes - sexless, and *can't be "fixed" in a fairly short period of time*. If we're good in other ways, then we can simply divorce and be good friends - as that's what we'd have become anyway, although with the frustration and resentment building over the lack of sex and no sanctioned outlets elsewhere. Call it shallow if you wish, but the waters of sexuality run deep, and I'm not draining the lake because of someone else's drought. My happiness and well being is important to me, so I won't willingly choose to lose it.


Although I do agree that there's a time to cut losses, based on my own personal experience, I would never advise someone to leave without having tried everything to improve the situation. 

It's not commonly seen here on TAM but people can and do get through tough times in their marriage. If we all called it quits at the first sign of problems, there would be many more singles and twice/thrice married couples out there.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> So ist das Leben.


Indeed. But should such an unfortunate circumstance arise, you may find that even you find yourself more inclined to amend your rather strict criteria. 

It is easy to be ruthless when we are on the giving end. Much harder when on the receiving end.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Lila said:


> Although I do agree that there's a time to cut losses, based on my own personal experience, I would never advise someone to leave without having tried everything to improve the situation.
> 
> It's not commonly seen here on TAM but people can and do get through tough times in their marriage. If we all called it quits at the first sign of problems, there would be many more singles and twice/thrice married couples out there.


Well, Lila, I spent almost 24 years working on that first marriage, with no success. I certainly didn't give up easily or quickly! I learned from that, and now would greatly limit the length of time I'd spend trying to fix things. Depending on the nature of the problem, I think somewhere in the 3 to 18 month timeframe is appropriate and adequate


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> Well, Lila, I spent almost 24 years working on that first marriage, with no success. I certainly didn't give up easily or quickly! I learned from that, and now would greatly limit the length of time I'd spend trying to fix things. Depending on the nature of the problem, I think somewhere in the 3 to 18 month timeframe is appropriate and adequate


You stuck it out in a mismatched relationship for much longer than many ever would but what would be your advise to someone who finds themselves in such a situation for the first time (1st marriage)?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> > So ist das Leben.
> ...


Again well said


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > My point of the pre nup is that you might as well be up front about what your priorities are and that you will leave if they are not met.
> ...


Not necessarily lead to divorce due to sickness or disability? Gee that's real love huh?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

john117 said:


> If the soon to be love of your life needs a prenup to remind them of their marital obligations...


For some it apparently is more than an obligation


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Lila said:


> You stuck it out in a mismatched relationship for much longer than many ever would but what would be your advise to someone who finds themselves in such a situation for the first time (1st marriage)?


My advice is that once you recognize the problem, you have an honest, caring, and non-accusatory discussion about the problem. Often you won't get any response or you'll get a denial of the problem. If you don't get acknowledgement and commitment to working on the problem together in whatever ways make sense, I'd suggest doing the 180, even if that's more appropriate to infidelity situations, I think it can work as well for sexual and other issues. Then suggest IC or MC as appropriate.

The key is to get participation in changing things, and that may mean you have to change yourself as well as expect changes from your spouse.

If there are no changes, and continued resistance, then your problem may be insoluble, or may need escalation beyond the 180. If you don't want to accept and live with the issue as is, you have be prepared to destroy the relationship to potentially save it, and to move on if this doesn't result in cooperation and real change.

As I said, 3 to 18 months should be enough in most cases - beyond that is probably not going to matter except in rare cases, and I question if it's worth it. So, if there is infidelity of some sort, 3 months or less should be enough to expect changes and sincere work towards fixing things (or simply end things immediately in some cases). In more subtle situations where there may be circumstance beyond one's control (health issues, external factors such as job, etc.), more time may be needed to address these factors before the problem at hand can be addressed.

However, I think in most such cases setting a deadline - even if just in your own mind - is a good idea. Otherwise, these problems may never be fixed and no decision is made, and eventually you'll find you've wasted years of your life being unhappy because you lacked decisiveness.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

mary35 said:


> Feel free to ask, I am an open book and will try to answer as honestly as I can. That honest answer may be I don't know though. Lol. I have been very introspective throughout this whole HD and 2nd LD period. I needed to figure out what caused the first period of being LD. I even worked with a SEX therapist for awhile. I thought I had a good handle on it all. That is why this period of being LD and finding myself slipping back into old patterns and having to fight so hard not to - has been so surprisingly frustrating to me.


A couple of fascinating things here:

1) Your experience seems to validate the claim that many men make (and some women question) that sex did make you feel more connected, but only when the testosterone was coursing through your system. Lack of testosterone meant you didn't feel that, so if a "normal" woman doesn't feel that, you can see why women would doubt this.

2) Even with all you know and making a conscious effort, it's STILL hard for you to not slip back into the old patterns.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okguy said:


> Hopefully your wife will always put out. If she doesn't she is gone. If you want to live with such shallow priorities don't let me stop you


If you think that they are such shallow priorities, why are you here? Why do you have a problem?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> Not necessarily lead to divorce due to sickness or disability? Gee that's real love huh?


Yes. Most definitely yes.

We love each other so much that we'd let the other go to be happy, rather than selfishly holding onto them. Of course, that does not mean we WOULD leave, especially if we can find ways to be happy even with the limitations.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richie33 said:


> I always wonder about the LD' s if they became single again how quickly they change.


They'll change for a while because the newness of the relationship will cause spontaneous desire. But it won't be long before they return to their old ways.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully your wife will always put out. If she doesn't she is gone. If you want to live with such shallow priorities don't let me stop you
> ...


Sex is a priority but not as personal sees it


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily lead to divorce due to sickness or disability? Gee that's real love huh?
> ...


If you did leave we know what is most important to you


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Mary,

Permanently removed from the menu At the end of 2011. 

This condition (vulvodynia) appeared back in 2008. 

And it's the primary reason I've become so much more aware of what the experience is like for M2. Because by the end of 2011 the thought of sex made her tense because maybe half the time it would hurt. Sometimes at the very end, it hurt a lot. 

I did not know that. I had asked her from the start to tell me if it hurt. 

But this is what she said after it all came out. If she was sore beforehand she would tell me. But the times she was feeling fine when we started often ended badly. Because we'd be having sex and she could tell I was close to the end and it would start to hurt. 

By the time I finished it often was hurting her a lot. I did not know that. Did not know that. 





mary35 said:


> Mem, were you able to get the painful intercourse problem solved, or have you just taken intercourse off the menu and enjoy other menu items instead. If this is too personal feel free to ignore. I am curious, because I have a friend who is experiencing this. (And no, I am not the friend).


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

richie33 said:


> I always wonder about the LD' s if they became single again how quickly they change.


Like Buddy said, the newness of the relationship causes spontaneous desire in most. The oxytocin levels are highest at the beginning of a relationship when everything is new and exciting. Once those levels drop off then a sexual match or mismatch can be determined. 

Again, LD/HD are relative terms. The same person who is LD in relationship #1, may have equal desire or even be HD in relationship #2. Did they become a different person? Probably not. They just found a better match in relationship #2.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> If you did leave we know what is most important to you


That's okay. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own happiness and well being. That's why I divorced my first wife, after all - and proud that I finally got my self together and did so. You try to make taking care of one's self a bad thing, when it can be a noble thing.

Should I have stayed with my ex, and both been unhappy? What is the benefit of that? As it turned out, I am far happier now, and SHE IS TOO! (I know this because we are still in contact occasionally, amicable if not friendly.)

So far, you only seem to be making snide remarks, what you think are insulting innuendos, but have not explained your views or provided any logic or justification for them. I'd like to hear how you would handle this in a positive manner that would create a good outcome.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> To me that is an extreme definition of "want". That would imply that I *want* to pay my taxes because when I consider all of the consequences of not doing so, that is what I choose. Or that I "want" to have a root canal.
> 
> Arguing over definitions doesn't make sense, but if this version of "want" is implied, then it would not be sufficient for me to be happy with my wife having sex with me.
> ...


I'm with you on this. My husband does not like giving oral sex. He's never specifically said why, he might just be lazy, but I'm pretty sure the idea repulses him.

I'm sure I could get him to do it if I told him it was important to me, threatened to leave, or with-held BJ's - etc. But I would not be able to enjoy it at all. A few times he's tried for a few seconds and the thought that he was probably grossed out by what he was doing made it horrible for me.

On the other hand, it if was just a matter of him being lazy, I could probably get past that. I like to go by the "sit in traffic" rule. No one wants to do it, but unlike a root canal, they do it regularly to get to other goals. When my H gets impatient regarding something (sexual or otherwise) I figure if it's no worse than sitting in traffic, he should be willing to suck it up and do it. Of course if you think your lover is comparing making love to you to sitting in traffic, that kind of kills the mood...


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> A post in another thread made me aware of something strange in my wife's sexual behavior. She rarely wants sex, but when she does, she physically enjoys it, often very enthusiastically.
> 
> That could be explained by her just rarely wanting sex, but I think there is more. The last couple of years she has given me a BJ as a "gift" for my birthday (a practice I'm going to stop). She really dislikes doing that, and won't do it any other time - but doing it gets her so aroused that she wants me to give her an orgasm afterwards (which I always do).
> ...


I've been thinking about this... the first thing that comes to mind is that she feels the sex is wrong on some level. But I have never totally bought into the "women raised to think sex is dirty" theory. I don't know - it just seems that even if someone is raised that way, once they find out how good it feels, and they're married, they'd get over that. However...

I think some people are inhibited and self conscious about "losing control" in front of someone else. So it might be that. She knows it will likely feel good, but she's reluctant to give up that control, or give you that kind of control over her. Nothing a couple glasses of wine can't fix...

It also could be that she is task oriented. Does she seem pretty focused/driven in her everyday life? I can get that way in that I am self employed so work is never actually done. I feel guilty every minute that I'm not "working" at my computer -- though, as you can see from this post, when I'm at my computer I clearly have spare time. But when my H walks up to me, out of the blue, and says "Do you want to make love?" My reaction is "WTH? Now? I don't have time, I have so much to do..."

Also, keep in mind that women's sex drives are typically different than men's. Just because a woman may thoroughly enjoy sex when she has it, doesn't mean she's desires it. Think of a scrumptious looking 3 course meal when you just ate -- yes, you know it would taste delicious, but you still don't desire it right now. Or think of sex 10 seconds after you just had sex - yes, you know it would feel good, but you don't desire it. (At least most don't.)

Have you asked her about this?

The fact that when she does like the sex it's when she's planned it makes me think there a "control" issue there. She feels more comfortable if she's in control of the whole situation. But I've got nothing as far as what to do about that...

There's some really interesting reading on how to get your wife to desire sex more here.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

> Think of a scrumptious looking 3 course meal when you just ate -- yes, you know it would taste delicious, but you still don't desire it right now. *Or think of sex 10 seconds after you just had sex - yes, you know it would feel good, but you don't desire it. (At least most don't.)*


Whether I desire it or not is moot @ 10 seconds, I can't. But if she says she needs more (pretty rare these days) and can wait 10-20 minutes we're on again, whether or not I desire it. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

My situation and feelings on it have been stated throughout this thread. I am not going to rehash it again.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Personal,

I like that you are so plain spoken. And have a clear sense of priorities. 

I'm going to describe an continuum, and my response pattern. This isn't to change your mind, rather it's to describe a situation in a manner that is non-binary. 

We both know the easy part of the continuum is are the end points. I'll start with those just to get them out of the way.

The binary view of frequency looks like this: yes or no

But a more fine grained look at the continuum breaks the LD's yes down into underlying drivers: 
- Lust (I'm doing this for me)
- A genuine desire to feel connected (still doing this for me)
- Confidence that it WILL be good when responsive desire kicks in - based on prior experience (doing it for us)
- Confident that it won't be 'bad' , based on prior experience (doing it for you)
- Guilt avoidance 
- Solely trying to avoid conflict over sex (doing it for you, so you wont be mad) 

Given that mix of situations, frequency is as much driven by the HD's need for mutuality as it is by anything else. 

And FWIW - given my HUGE sense of sexual entitlement up through my mid forties - M2 frequently had sex with me to avoid my negative reaction to being rejected. 

I imagine in most marriages there's a more balanced sharing of sexual and financial responsibility/stress. But in our more '1950s' styled marriage we did things differently. I carried 100% of the financial responsibility/stress and M2 carried the sexual side of things. 





Personal said:


> Actually it's easy to be sure when you actually truly know yourself and what you will do in the face of very personal life threatening danger both as an adult and as a child. While also knowing through more than one experience, how you will react when someone is trying to kill you as an adult or you are close witness to your loved one being smashed into a bloody mess and have likewise also lived for 14 years longer so far than I should have when I was very close to death.
> 
> So I know through much experience that I am not inclined to rationalise that which is wrong. Incidentally my wife shares a similar perspective, perhaps because she was the loved one who got smashed into a bloody mess when she was right next to me. So we both live under no illusions that our lives can change significantly (and sometimes violently) in a matter of seconds.
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> effort sheffort.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have no sex than crappy sex, or just lots of crappy sex. This is probably the biggest factor in my "ld-ness."



Effort towards improvement and measured improvement at that. I'm not talking Jennifer El Dee to Sylvia Kristel in a month


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok guy,

Up til now I've been posting in my normal 'contributor' mode. 

For a moment I'm putting my Mod hat on. Please reference the post (by number) in which you were insulted. 





Okguy said:


> Far side I was insulted first. Fair is fair


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Mem I will try and find it again


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

WorkingWife said:


> *I think some people are inhibited and self conscious about "losing control" in front of someone else. So it might be that. She knows it will likely feel good, but she's reluctant to give up that control, or give you that kind of control over her. Nothing a couple glasses of wine can't fix...*
> 
> It also could be that she is task oriented. Does she seem pretty focused/driven in her everyday life? I can get that way in that I am self employed so work is never actually done. I feel guilty every minute that I'm not "working" at my computer -- though, as you can see from this post, when I'm at my computer I clearly have spare time. But when my H walks up to me, out of the blue, and says "Do you want to make love?" My reaction is "WTH? Now? I don't have time, I have so much to do..."
> 
> ...


:iagree:

I'm about as convinced of the bolded parts as possible for an internet stranger to be.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> Personally I'll take being true to myself every time over rationalising a dead marriage.


Cool. Far be it for me to tell you what you will and will not put up with. I just know that when I was close to death, I wasn't having sex 5x a week. And sure, my SO was within every right to leave me for failing to attend to his needs, but I'm kinda glad he didn't, and found it in his heart to cut me some slack. And now that he has ED issues, and isn't performing as he once was, I'm inclined to return the favour. 

Without calling it a dead marriage.

Whatever you can stand to live with, I suppose.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I'll take being true to myself every time over rationalising a dead marriage.
> ...


Agreed


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

WorkingWife said:


> There's some really interesting reading on how to get your wife to desire sex more here.


That looks like a gold mine, still reading.

Contradicts quite a few things said here.

I might start a thread using this.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

where_are_we said:


> I left my marriage because I was getting minimal, scrappy unfullfilling sex after he satisifed himself elsewhere.
> 
> Now I am getting nothing! How ironic.


I expect the same to happen to me, should I eventually leave. My wife is the only one I have ever been with. It's hard to imagine dating and other relationships.



> I was going to sell my house and packed a lot of stuff away (including the toy box). I recently unpacked that toy box. I am less crabby now, but still it is not the same as the real thing.
> 
> Funny how it bothered me and now that I don't have a partner it doesn't bother me so much.


It makes sense to me it wouldn't bother you as much.

What bothers me most with my current situation is not the absence of sex. It's the presence -- continuous presence -- of rejection. I say "continuous" because I no longer need to ask her and go through the motions. I just reject myself, on her behalf. Saves time, and is less draining. I'm not saying it that way to be snarky about it. It simply works better that way for me now.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

PieceOfSky said:


> I expect the same to happen to me, should I eventually leave. My wife is the only one I have ever been with. It's hard to imagine dating and other relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I got upset last year about my wife never initiating. So I did my best to block it out of my mind and wait for her to. Was also doing all the things a good spouse would do just to not give her an excuse. I eventually caved of course. 8 MONTHS LATER !

Whenever I tell this, even to therapists, their jaw drops. 

It'll work......for now.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> I say "continuous" because I no longer need to ask her and go through the motions. I just reject myself, on her behalf. Saves time, and is less draining. I'm not saying it that way to be snarky about it. It simply works better that way for me now.


This, right here, is IMHO, the single biggest obstacle to marital repair there is. We assume we know what is going on in our partner's mind, and that we know how they think and feel. This gives them no room whatsoever to change, or to develop real dialogue.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

LostinNE said:


> PieceOfSky said:
> 
> 
> > I expect the same to happen to me, should I eventually leave. My wife is the only one I have ever been with. It's hard to imagine dating and other relationships.
> ...


I would have caved a lot sooner.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Mem #536


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> effort sheffort.
> 
> I'd rather have no sex than crappy sex, or just lots of crappy sex. This is probably the biggest factor in my "ld-ness."



When I read "grading on effort", something different came to my mind, I think, than yours.


When I think of "effort" she could put into this, I don't think of "trying to have sex". I think of making a good faith effort to finding solutions to the problems in our marriage, which includes the sexual ones.

I have come across a few cases on TAM where both spouses were hurting and drifting apart, and yet somehow they managed to find their way back to each other. It seems the key ingredients, for those folks at least, were to find empathy for each other, respect each other, care about how the other feels, a desire to find a way to be together sexually that works for both... and, that surely took effort and I'd guess a certain amount of dedication.

It would mean quite a bit if my wife seemed to care, and with some consistency over time.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> This, right here, is IMHO, the single biggest obstacle to marital repair there is. We assume we know what is going on in our partner's mind, and that we know how they think and feel. This gives them no room whatsoever to change, or to develop real dialogue.


Yes, that's a problem when it happens. But, that's not the biggest obstacle I've seen and it absolutely has not been a problem I bring to the marriage with any frequency at all.

It's actually so far from the truth of my existence, I find it rather triggering, even as I logically conclude you aren't necessarily assuming I've failed in that way.

I've been dealing with this for a very long time, and I am certain my wife does not want to have sex with me ever. That I have to read tea leaves to come to some actionable judgement about what my wife might be thinking or feeling at any particular moment is the bane of my existence and not of my doing; her aversion to introspection and communication about our problems is sickening.

That I've stopped abusing myself by putting my heart on the line with her, after years and years of observing her behavior towards me, is something I consider progress and growth on my part.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal you still have no clue to what I believe. My marriage is wonderful except for infrequent sex. The sex we do have is awesome. I would like more but I am not going to extreme measures to get it. Life is too short.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I withdraw using the term bastard but heartless remains.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok,
Calling someone heartless is insulting. Please stop with the insults. 

Personal,
Accusing someone of self flagellation isn't typically viewed as a compliment. 

--------
Ok,
If you force my hand I will rule in Personal's favor as you have clearly been more insulting than he has. And you drew first blood. 

That said I like your contributions here and the balanced view you have of marriage. 

As for the exchanges you two have had, I will only say this. When I was younger, and suffering from a modest case of testosterone poisoning, I also described a healthy marriage as 'primarily a sexual relationship'. 

Now I describe it as 'primarily a loving relationship'. Embedded in that definition is the implicit assumption that both people consider each other's sexual needs and make a good faith effort to meet them. This includes the HD's responsibility not to overwhelm their partner with their sexual needs. 





Okguy said:


> I withdraw using the term bastard but heartless remains.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> Yes, that's a problem when it happens. But, that's not the biggest obstacle I've seen and it absolutely has not been a problem I bring to the marriage with any frequency at all.
> 
> It's actually so far from the truth of my existence, I find it rather triggering, even as I logically conclude you aren't necessarily assuming I've failed in that way.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, Piece of Sky. The more I post on these interwebs, the more I feel like I'm doing more to hurt communication, than to help it. Please understand that I'm not trying to accuse or assume. I'm guessing from what little I know of your story, that you are probably doing the right thing in protecting your heart.

But when you say things like "reject myself in advance", it sounds very much like you are still abusing yourself by projecting on her feelings that she may or may not have.

You no doubt have lots of evidence that she does not want sex. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is about you, or a rejection of you, or a reflection of you. 

Yes, of course, protect your heart. But don't protect your heart by heaping more hurt on it. Trust me, I've made that mistake so many times, and it doesn't end well.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Ok,
> Calling someone heartless is insulting. Please stop with the insults.
> 
> Personal,
> ...


Thanks mem. I do feel I have a balanced view of marriage. Regarding the sex thing when I was much younger I thought sex was a lot more important than I do now in my mid 60s. I once did it 8 times in a 24 hr period. That was then. Things change. People change. Is low frequency sex worth ending an otherwise great marriage over? No. Not for me. Do I wish things were different? Yes


----------



## rich84 (Mar 30, 2015)

Okguy said:


> Personal you still have no clue to what I believe. My marriage is wonderful except for infrequent sex. The sex we do have is awesome. I would like more but I am not going to extreme measures to get it. Life is too short.



Ok,

How many times and how many ways have you voiced frustration at your sexual infrequency only to say in the next breath that marriage is so much more than sexual frequency? Which is it? Do you have a problem or no? Are you looking for solutions or no? If you're unwilling to risk anything by changing something, you're just looking for commiseration. Did I miss your thread where you posted your issues and are trying to work through them? 

Statements about how someone's sex starved marriage is a cornucopia compared to yours does little to add to the conversation. You can find support here, but try to check your judgements at the door.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

I


WorkingWife said:


> I've been thinking about this... the first thing that comes to mind is that she feels the sex is wrong on some level. But I have never totally bought into the "women raised to think sex is dirty" theory. I don't know - it just seems that even if someone is raised that way, once they find out how good it feels, and they're married, they'd get over that. However...
> 
> I think some people are inhibited and self conscious about "losing control" in front of someone else. So it might be that. She knows it will likely feel good, but she's reluctant to give up that control, or give you that kind of control over her. Nothing a couple glasses of wine can't fix...
> 
> ...


It is important that men understand clearly that many women are never going to think about sex the same way they do. As Dr. Harley pointed out several times to Mary (I had to laugh at the name), the lack of testosterone makes us very different. That certainly is the case with me. 

I have 2 Thoughts to share:

1. I can tell you first hand that people raised with negative attitudes about sex, and those attitudes become their own - doesn't matter if the attitudes are from religious teachings, cultural teachings, or family teachings - those negative attitudes become engrained into the person's
Psychic, and do not magically disappear because they have sex and feel how good sex feels. What is more likely to happen when they discover sex feels good, they associate the good feelings with guilt and try to avoid them even more. That is one of the main causes of my first LD period. Some counselors refer to it as Good girls don't syndrome when women deal with it. It's complicated and very hard to eradicate and or correct. Basically what happens is the women develops totally faulty thinking patterns and accepts them as truth - such as it's wrong for women to desire sex, sex is only for procreation, one has to keep their sexual feelings completely in control and contained at all times, etc. 
Some women who have this syndrome see their husbands sexual desires as evil and their husbands who express a lot of sexual desires as men who need to develop more self control. They often feel it is their job to help their husbands by not fueling the evil desires. 

Again, I am very well acquainted with this syndrome and the damage it can do. I had it and it's real. I really believed that my sexual desires were evil - and I had to contain them at all costs to be spiritual, so much so that I pretty much shut down all most all sexual feelings years. It was ok to have orgasms occasionally, but you would not believe my list of dos and don'ts on how I or my husband could reach one. (The list was mostly donts)

It took a religious faith crisis to overcome this syndrome - which led to dismantling all my religious beliefs and rebuilding them one by one with careful examination of each belief This process has been going on for years, and is still going on for me as far as my religion is concerned. Most faulty sexual beliefs were dealt with and corrected during the first part of this journey.

2. I read through the article you posted and all of the 8 back and forth letters between Dr. Harley and Mary. Here is my initial reaction to it based on my own experiences. I did not find his suggestions very helpful at all, and I don't think Mary did either, although she seemed to be really trying to. I would be willing to bet Mary is still struggling, and any success she had following the doc's advice was short lived. Just a gut feeling, but no way of ever knowing.

I was especially surprised at his description of the plateau phase - and how it and reaching orgasms was built around mostly intercourse. I know for me his description of actions to sustain the good feelings and reach orgasms through intercourse thrusting and tightening the vagina without some kind of clitoral stimulation at the same time has never and still does not work. And I think that there are many like me. 

Reading his responses to Mary, my initial reaction was he doesn't understand women, and is trying to solve their problems with men technigues. I will read it again, and digest it to see if I feel differently with more thought about it. 

However, I did totally concur with his observations on the power of testosterone and how the natural low levels of it and even total lack of it makes sex and sexuality for women a very different experience then men who have an abundance of it coursing through their bodies.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> That looks like a gold mine, still reading.
> 
> Contradicts quite a few things said here.
> 
> I might start a thread using this.


I had the opposite reaction, so would love to hear why you think this is a gold mine.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

mary35 said:


> I
> 
> It is important that men understand clearly that many women are never going to think about sex the same way they do. As Dr. Harley pointed out several times to Mary (I had to laugh at the name), the lack of testosterone makes us very different. That certainly is the case with me.
> 
> ...


Arrggg - I just glanced at the article I posted and it did not say what I thought it would. I can't find what I'm looking for, but I listen to Dr. Harley's radio show and this subject comes up a lot, and here is my paraphrasing of what he says:

1. The spouse who wants to have the need met (in this case the man) needs to make sure meeting the need is a pleasant experience for their spouse. For example if the guy likes sex in the bright daylight but his spouse prefers it in a darkened, candlelit room - he needs to do it in the darkened candlelit room. The experience must be worth her while and not unpleasant. (Note, the OP thinks his wife actually does enjoy it when they do it so I didn't bring this up sooner.)

2. Women usually need to feel intimately connected to their spouse to desire sex with him. This typically means intimate conversations and one-on-one time together. Guys aren't going to want to put hours of effort into getting a woman to feel intimate every time they want to have sex, but they can make sex a "mini-event" where you spend one on one time together on a date and then go home and finish the night off with sex. (In other words if a man asks for sex when he's been emotionally intimate and affectionate with his wife, she's more likely to want to do it.

3. This is my theory, not Dr. Harleys, but I think if a man does give his wife the emotional connection she craves, then she will feel much more happy about giving him some "quickies" around the more "event like" date/sex times. Because when a woman does not feel an intimate connection to her spouse, she feels very used by sex and can develop a sexual aversion, which he does address here: How to Overcome Sexual Aversion (I have been there!)

4. I don't know if the above sexual aversion article mentions this but I have heard Dr. Harley say that a woman should NEVER have sex when she does not want to do it. That will create a sexual aversion. If it's the man who wants the sex, it's his job to meet her emotional needs so she will want to have the sex.

I don't know how all this plays out with the "good girls don't" syndrome. I have never had that feeling/thought that sex was bad or wrong, but I have had a sexual aversion when I was not getting my needs met and being touched definitely felt "dirty" to me - not like shame, just like repulsive or threatening - like I was just a piece of meat.

OH, one other thing, I don't sense the OP does this but just in case: Men - don't grope your wives unless they tell you they like it. Most women hate with a passion to have their husband come up and just start grabbing at their breasts, crotch, and butt. It really makes most of use feel like we're nothing more than a hole to you. *Not *a turn on.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

mary35 said:


> It is important that men understand clearly that many women are never going to think about sex the same way they do. As Dr. Harley pointed out several times to Mary (I had to laugh at the name), the lack of testosterone makes us very different. That certainly is the case with me.
> 
> I have 2 Thoughts to share:
> 
> ...


Yeah. I read his statement of the problem and thought "he's on to something". Then I read on and largely thought "huh?".

I do think that testosterone largely drives spontaneous desire, I do think many more men have spontaneous desire (SD hereafter) than women. I think that woman usually have SD during the "honeymoon" phase and that it then often drops off. I believe that sex is often a top priority for men and often not in the top 5 for women. Childbirth for physical reasons (hormones) and psychological reasons (mother role vs. wife role) often further reduces SD. If a woman still has responsive desire (enjoys sex when she has it) and is self aware enough to realize that sex is a problem in her marriage and she wants to improve things, the problem can be worked through.

I often read about women who understand that they have RD, realize that sex is important to their husband and therefore make the effort to "get up of the couch" and "just do it". I also believe that incorporating more frequent sex into the normal routine makes it easier to "get up off the couch".

I often read three other viewpoints:

1) A woman shouldn't have sex unless she wants to which is generally seen as her having SD. If she doesn't have SD and she has sex then she is being nothing other than a prostitute and the husband who wants to have sex with her just wants to "use her as a hole". If this is the perspective, then the chances of resolving sexual mismatch problems are virtually nil.

2) If the woman doesn't have SD, then she's "just not into the guy". The solution is for the guy to improve his sexual "value" by behaving in more "manly" ways, "be a leader", "be dominant" and / or destabilize the relationship. The first three are harmless enough and probably do some good. Destabilizing the relationship might well revive some of that early relationship SD but at some cost to the marriage and is it really worth it to "game" your wife for the rest of your life just to get sex? Also, this assumes that the sexuality of men and women are exactly the same. Given the biological differences (which still exist) and the cultural differences (which have only started to change dramatically in the last 50 years), I would think that the surprise would be if they were not very different. 

3) The husband doesn't just want his wife to willingly and, hopefully, enthusiastically have sex with him. He needs her to desire him in exactly the same way he desires her. In many cases, this may just be asking for the impossible. He figures that if he demonstrates his desire and love by wanting to have sex with his wife that, if she does not want to have sex with him as urgently as he with her, this means that she doesn't love him. But, he's interpreting her behavior through his POV, not hers. If the wife wants to go shopping (and I'm just coming up with a random thing here, not claiming to know what any one woman actually wants) and would like her husband to come along, is it really necessary that he want to go every bit as badly as she does? Or is it enough that he's happy to go because he enjoys her company and cares about her happiness?

So Dr. Harley supposes to rectify the problem my increasing her sexual desire rather than acknowledge the differences and taking them into account. He's going to improve her orgasms thus changing her RD desire into SD. She claims to be regularly orgasmic and to enjoy sex when it happens. While I'm sure that better sexual experiences wouldn't hurt, I don't think this is the main problem. I think Mary and her husband need to learn to work better with her RD. I would think that the main effort would be having them both work on creating an environment that is more conducive to sex. Maybe scheduling 2 nights a week focus on intimacy perhaps leading to mutual sex or, if she's not feeling up to it, focusing on him. Have the husband handle the nighttime routines for the kids ahead of time while she meditates, listens to Marvin Gaye or takes a bubble bath to clear her mind. Have the husband back off his need for her to "want" it for a while and just relax. The husband has to try to stop seeing his wife's lack of initiating as a lack of desire. He's the one with the testosterone. Help the wife develop techniques to prepare herself and find ways to just let go and "take the plunge".

The most pathetic instance is when Mary, after a pleasant family day, finds her husband in bed with the lights off and anticipates sex, only to have her husband not make a move (no doubt in fear of another rejection). What's need here is nothing more than communication. Find a way for him to initiate, no doubt less often than he might like, without the fear of rejection thus starting a positive feedback loop.

While women are indeed sometimes the "sex starved" spouse and there are wives without even RD to work with, I think there are a lot of these "classic" cases with an RD wife that are very amenable to solutions. 

Mary and her husband seem like a good couple and it just sucks to see them so unhappy when I'm sure the situation could be improved.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

mary35 said:


> I had the opposite reaction, so would love to hear why you think this is a gold mine.


As noted above, I spoke too soon.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Just doing some general lurking because I cannot get to sleep, so thought I would comment on the Dr. Harley stuff.

I don't remember when I first found it, but I read that entire site a couple of times. The initial exchange…where Dr. Harley glosses over an infidelity and explains that, if the husband learns properly, the wife won't need an affair anymore, basically had me throwing something at the screen.

When I read her tell another husband to have a "non-threatening discussion" with his cheating wife to ask her what the other man gives her so he can work on it and then out-compete her affair partner?

…well, let's say I had to step away for a while. :soapbox:


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

K


rich84 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Personal you still have no clue to what I believe. My marriage is wonderful except for infrequent sex. The sex we do have is awesome. I would like more but I am not going to extreme measures to get it. Life is too short.
> ...


What judgements? I have said many times I'd like more sex. Been pretty clear about it.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
thank you and others for interesting posts.

#2 - I think many of the LD men here are happy to put hours of effort into intimacy and romance. The HDs in HD/LD relationships are often happy to do anything to improve things. In my case my wife and I spend a lot of time engaging in non-sexual intimacy.

The last comment is interesting fro me. My wife very much likes being grabbed (if not exactly groped), She likes a fair bit if intimate contact and very much enjoys intimate passionate kissing. Its only when it starts to blend into.....SEX...... that she wants to stop. It could well be a control issue? A good girl issue? I don't know. 

If she would talk about it, it would help a lot. 




WorkingWife said:


> snip
> 
> 2. Women usually need to feel intimately connected to their spouse to desire sex with him. This typically means intimate conversations and one-on-one time together. Guys aren't going to want to put hours of effort into getting a woman to feel intimate every time they want to have sex, but they can make sex a "mini-event" where you spend one on one time together on a date and then go home and finish the night off with sex. (In other words if a man asks for sex when he's been emotionally intimate and affectionate with his wife, she's more likely to want to do it.
> 
> ...


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> thank you and others for interesting posts.
> 
> #2 - I think many of the LD men here are happy to put hours of effort into intimacy and romance. The HDs in HD/LD relationships are often happy to do anything to improve things. In my case my wife and I spend a lot of time engaging in non-sexual intimacy.
> ...


Maybe she won't talk about it cause she does not understand it herself. Still, whatever the reason is, i can imagine how frustrating and confusing she is too you. Have you tried counseling with a Sex therapist? Would your wife say there is a problem with your sexual relationship or does she think everything is mostly good, that perhaps there is only the small and normal issue of you as a man want more of it than she does?


----------



## rich84 (Mar 30, 2015)

Okguy said:


> K
> 
> What judgements? I have said many times I'd like more sex. Been pretty clear about it.



You're name calling and passing judgement on Personal (and others) for stating that he would end a sexual relationship if it became asexual. We all GET that you want more sex. You couldn't have been more CLEAR about that. But telling people they don't have a frequency problem (in relation to you) when they're seeking a discussion about their sexual infrequency is narrow minded. It's all relative to the relationship. 

Try seeking insight into your situation based on what others post. Take what you think might be helpful and create a plan to change the dynamic in your marriage. Start a thread and seek input from others about your strategy so far and what you might do to improve. Either we're here to gain insight and support to improve our lot, we're here based on intellectual interest in relationships, or both. I don't see you doing either things. You seem to be mildly miserable and looking for other miserable people to validate your being miserable. 

I mean that in the best possible way. Seriously.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

rich84 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > K
> ...


Personal and others have been passing judgement on me. It's a two way street. I have learned that my situation is far from unique. Some have it better and some worse. We all have different tolerances. We all decide how to handle situations differently. I just cannot take such a harsh position that if I don't get the sex I want I'm leaving. It seems there are many others here that feel the same.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The response should not be a universal one. If one person is 35 vs 50 vs 65 the definition changes.

It's safe to say that at 50 or 65 you reap what you sow. And even if you bail out unless you have other "assets" like looks and health and money and time to invest I doubt most 55+ women are into sex in the numbers you'd expect. 

And to be honest in ten years if I still have money and health, sex would be the least of my concerns. Seeing the world would be far better for me.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

I should point out here that my positive experiences with testosterone are not always the same for other women who try it. Many women who try it say it has no effect on them. So it is definitely not the cure all or all LD's would be on it (cause their HD spouses would be spoon feeding it to them - right?l) 

And as I think I mentioned before, during the my HD state, my testosterone levels were always quite a bit higher than the average for my age according to the charts my doctor uses. Right now my levels are slightly higher than average, but are the lowest they have been since starting hormone therapy. And I am back to my low drive state. So we are increasing the testosterone to see if it helps my desire levels. It could be a fluke, or maybe, at least for me, the average range is just way too low. If this turns out to be the case, maybe that is also the case for many other women. There can be some negative side effects for too high levels, but I have not experienced any yet (it's been over 6 years). Except the out of control period when my levels skyrocketed for a 6 month period. 

I should also mention that it's not just one hormone that affects me, but my doctor also watches my other hormones and keeps them all balanced. She also watches other things, such as my thyroid T3 and T4 levels and my cortisol levels. She considers all my levels along with any symptoms or lack of symptoms to determine treatment. And she works to keep a good balance for my particular body. The doctor, the testing, and the bio-identical hormones are not covered under my insurance which is an HMO plan, so I pay all costs. My doctor is taking lots of vacations, and I am broke, but feeling so much better. Ha ha. While hormone therapy is still controversial, I am finding that the younger doctors are more open minded about it and willing to do it. Older doctors tend to be very closed minded. The number of doctors doing hormonal therapy have increased greatly from 6 years ago when I first started this journey. Even my HMO is starting to slowly coming around.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Okguy said:


> Personal and others have been passing judgement on me. It's a two way street. I have learned that my situation is far from unique. Some have it better and some worse. We all have different tolerances. We all decide how to handle situations differently. I just cannot take such a harsh position that if I don't get the sex I want I'm leaving. It seems there are many others here that feel the same.


Right before you said 'I can't take such a harsh position...', you said, 'We all decide how to handle situations differently.' 

It's just harsh 'to you'. Maybe it's just of higher importance to others.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

john117 said:


> The response should not be a universal one. If one person is 35 vs 50 vs 65 the definition changes.
> 
> It's safe to say that at 50 or 65 you reap what you sow. And even if you bail out unless you have other "assets" like looks and health and money and time to invest I doubt most 55+ women are into sex in the numbers you'd expect.
> 
> I agree with you John. That's one reason I can tolerate infrequent sex. The saving grace is that it is always good and she fully participates.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

LostinNE said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Personal and others have been passing judgement on me. It's a two way street. I have learned that my situation is far from unique. Some have it better and some worse. We all have different tolerances. We all decide how to handle situations differently. I just cannot take such a harsh position that if I don't get the sex I want I'm leaving. It seems there are many others here that feel the same.
> ...


It must be if very high importance to divorce over it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Just to put it in perspective - it's the future I am concerned with, and will most likely split over. Not the present or past.

We have had 30 years plus to prepare for our golden years. My idea of retirement at 65 is splitting time between an urban loft in a large metropolis in the USA and my apartment in one of Europe's most interesting capitals. And lots of travel. Her idea is a retirement mansion in some Boomfvck place that will allow her to maintain her current size house (6000 sq ft) or go bigger yet. On a fixed retirement income this is doable but with little money and energy left for travel etc. 

That's far harder to reconcile than sex... I'm offering it as an example of what really matters at age 65 for me. If you value sex over seeing Machu Pichu or the pyramids, things are different. Punt one.

To that add the spouse's perceived ability to support the other in case of health related needs. Let's just say I've been there and don't like what I saw. Pint two.

The only common ground is that more frequent sex MAY help the couple understand each other's viewpoint - but if one made it to 50 or 60 and is stubborn it's unlikely to have much effect.


----------



## rich84 (Mar 30, 2015)

Okguy said:


> It must be if very high importance to divorce over it.



Maybe I'm misreading your level of contentment. Maybe you're very happy, I don't know. 

As a man in my early thirties with a normal to HD, sex rates pretty high. I'm doing everything I can to remedy my situation. But I came to grips this year with the fact that I will be OK with leaving if it feels hopeless. I feel that my kids will not suffer. I have options. I am very confident that I could find another partner, and I'm now more knowledgeable about what my needs are in a relationship. My needs have been communicated with my wife. I continue to seek to meet her needs. If it ever comes to divorce, I will be able to leave with the knowledge that I did all within my power. 

And as John said, priorities shift as you age. You're obviously in another stage of life with different options and consequences. I just perceived that you weren't happy with your sexual relationship and yet you seem unwilling to change anything or accept the viewpoints from others who are. 

All right, I've diverted attention away from the thread's intent long enough.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

John we have nowhere near the finances you do but I understand the problem you describe. I am more of a traveller than my wife. Another area of compromise.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

john117 said:


> Punt one.
> 
> Pint two.


Are you doing this on purpose? You don't need to drink to post here, do you? :smile2:


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Rich I am more than 30 years older than you with different priorities. If I was your age I probably would be less tolerant of my situation.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

John I also have been very ill and my wife was always there. Another reason I love her.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I'm sorry, Piece of Sky. The more I post on these interwebs, the more I feel like I'm doing more to hurt communication, than to help it. Please understand that I'm not trying to accuse or assume. I'm guessing from what little I know of your story, that you are probably doing the right thing in protecting your heart.
> 
> But when you say things like "reject myself in advance", it sounds very much like you are still abusing yourself by projecting on her feelings that she may or may not have.
> 
> ...


 @PieceOfSky -- listen to AA here. Self rejection only hurts you, it doesn't protect. Protection in a case like yours where you believe repair to be not possible is disconnection, or outright divorce.

Self rejection means there's still something you want that you're not getting. There's no protection in that. There's no happiness there. If a happy marriage is not an option, get yourself to a place in your life where she no longer has anything that you need. Otherwise, you're just twisting the knife yourself.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

self-rejection is destructive when there is no exit plan...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's the idea. If I was extraordinarily lucky and healthy I would have sex for 30 min a day. Yet I would have to slave over 8000 sq ft of house or pay someone to do it, versus enjoying life in a 900 sq ft highrise and travel the way I want to.

Could I get both? Maybe. But in life it's not always possible to get what you want.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Fozzy said:


> @PieceOfSky -- listen to AA here. Self rejection only hurts you, it doesn't protect. Protection in a case like yours where you believe repair to be not possible is disconnection, or outright divorce.
> 
> Self rejection means there's still something you want that you're not getting. There's no protection in that. There's no happiness there. If a happy marriage is not an option, get yourself to a place in your life where she no longer has anything that you need. Otherwise, you're just twisting the knife yourself.


I did the 'reject myself' thing. I felt better, felt like 'I was in control now', ....for only a little while. But you'll pay the piper later. And it sucks. It's like using an addictive drug to 'treat' something. It'll work .... but you will pay for it. In Full


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Me too. It's kind of like Mandela said about resentment being like drinking poison and hoping it hurts your enemy.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> John I also have been very ill and my wife was always there. Another reason I love her.



That's the thing too. We have nurtured each other after minor stuff and let's just say I don't trust her


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

john117 said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > John I also have been very ill and my wife was always there. Another reason I love her.
> ...


Understand


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok guy,

If sex wasn't such a big deal I imagine most folks would have a less extreme reaction to affairs. 




Okguy said:


> It must be if very high importance to divorce over it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Ok guy,
> 
> 
> 
> If sex wasn't such a big deal I imagine most folks would have a less extreme reaction to affairs.



In this country 

In my village in the backwaters of Europe affairs are as common as anything...


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Now I have to go watch Borat again.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> Now I have to go watch Borat again.



I hate to bring this up but my wife does hail from a country near Borat's... He hails from Kazhakstan. 

Me, on the other hand, I hail from a real European country; we are even in the EU but we keep quiet and pretend nobody notices


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Ok guy,
> 
> If sex wasn't such a big deal I imagine most folks would have a less extreme reaction to affairs.
> 
> ...


Divorce is extreme. IMHO


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok guy,

I absolutely agree with that. It is extreme. 

And to be totally honest with you - for a bit more than half our marriage M2 was keenly, painfully, constantly aware that my view was a marriage is primarily a sexual relationship. 

And despite the fact that I did the full set of 'desire amplifiers', that was not good for us. And that's on me. 





Okguy said:


> Divorce is extreme. IMHO


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> I often read three other viewpoints:
> 
> 1) A woman shouldn't have sex unless she wants to which is generally seen as her having SD. If she doesn't have SD and she has sex then she is being nothing other than a prostitute and the husband who wants to have sex with her just wants to "use her as a hole". If this is the perspective, then the chances of resolving sexual mismatch problems are virtually nil.
> 
> ...


As noted in my post above, the link I originally posted wasn't the article I thought it was, I think it was emphasizing what she could try to do herself, as opposed to what her husband also needed to be doing.

A couple thoughts on your points:

1. Most women will probably never have as much SD as their husbands due to chemistry. But sex is emotional/mental to them and if their husband creates the right environment of meeting their needs and caring for them, and having sex in a way they find enjoyable, they will probably have a lot MORE SD than otherwise. 

If their husband does the opposite, and just demands sex and demands they desire him, it's likely to kill their desire and create an aversion. The husband may not think he is using her as a hole, but if he wants his sex desire met but won't meet her needs for (non sexual) affection, intimate conversation, etc. it usually feels that way to her, which creates revulsion/aversion.

2. I think the mans attitude and approach can have a lot to do with how sexy he is to the woman. But I think this goes hand in hand with meeting her other needs in a "manly" way. Just going caveman over sex and ignoring your wife's needs, probably won't work to get you more SD from her. Though being a wimpy, whiney, weasely, girly-boy may kill her SD regardless of meeting her other needs.

3. IMO, Good luck to most men who think the woman should desire them in exactly the same way/frequency men desire women. Again, we're talking chemistry. But that's not to say women don't get extremely turned on and love sex with their man. I think there is just a lot more psychology behind what gets them there, whereas there's chemistry - testosterone - getting him there regardless.

BUT I do think that women can have sex enthusiastically - and enjoy it - even when they don't have strong SD and have it be a great experience for their husband, just like their husband can take them shopping when he couldn't care less and make it a wonderful afternoon for both of them.

Where I believe a lot of men go wrong is they don't try to see sex from the woman's perspective. They think nothing of saying "God no, I'm don't want to go shopping with you. No I don't want to sit and talk for 30 minutes. Can't we just get hotdogs at Costco instead of going to a restaurant? etc." to their wives, and then they're frustrated and think their wives are cold and frigid when they don't want to have sex with them at the drop of a hat -- or anytime. Just like they don't want to go shopping with their wife, anytime.

Both spouses need to appreciate the difference in perspective and needs.

For example, if I am feeling loved and cherished by my husband, I'm much faster to warm up to wanting some hot sex with the man I love and feel safe with. And if he wants sex again a day later when I have no SD, I am delighted to do it anyhow, or at least give him a world rocking BJ. I don't have to feel SD to enjoy his SD and my ability to give him pleasure. I just need to 1. Feel save and loved, and 2. Want to bring him pleasure.

*A man who takes his wife shopping when he doesn't feel like it but does it in a happy way and has a great time with her anyhow, has a legitimate concern they need to address if his wife doesn't want to make love to him.

A man who won't take his wife shopping, or does so in a pissy/martyr way just to shut the old ball and chain up, already has the answer as to why his wife doesn't feel good when he tries to touch her.*

IMO!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

WorkingWife said:


> OH, one other thing, I don't sense the OP does this but just in case: Men - don't grope your wives unless they tell you they like it. Most women hate with a passion to have their husband come up and just start grabbing at their breasts, crotch, and butt. It really makes most of use feel like we're nothing more than a hole to you. *Not *a turn on.





richardsharpe said:


> The last comment is interesting fro me. My wife very much likes being grabbed (if not exactly groped), She likes a fair bit if intimate contact and very much enjoys intimate passionate kissing.


Groping is an interesting topic.

When our sex life started becoming more active, I made it a point to grope my wife from time to time. Interestingly, I was doing this mostly for her sake, not mine. The idea was to keep a sexual undercurrent running throughout the days; let her know that she was desired and that we were sexual beings. These occasions were only rarely followed up directly by sex. Now, the groping wasn't overly hard and I mixed in the occasional deep kiss in the grocery store while shopping, etc. When she'd get home from a business trip and changed into pjs, I'd admire her breasts and give them a caress or two.

Then, one day she told me that this could be annoying sometimes. I stopped on a dime. However, she noticed that I stopped, didn't like it (was something wrong? was she no longer sexy?). I told her that I stopped because she had told me that it could be irritating. She said that it's not usually irritating, it's usually nice. She blamed my fragile male ego. When I pick her up at the airport it's at least an hour non-stop of her talking about what happened on the trip. I asked her what would happen if I one day I said that sometimes I find this irritating? She said that she'd stop talking about her trip when I picked her up. She understood.

So she said what should I do if it irritates me occasionally but I mostly like it. I said "would it kill you to just grin and bear it on those few occasions?" Another idea would be to give me a clear signal ahead of time that she's in one of those moods. She agreed that it wasn't that big a deal and never complained about it again.

The problem is that I still know that it could irritate her and so I do it far less often. 

So, I hope it wasn't that important to her. The sexual vibe has seemed to cooled off a bit lately. Don't know if those two things are directly related or not. Might be.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> thank you and others for interesting posts.
> 
> #2 - I think many of the LD men here are happy to put hours of effort into intimacy and romance. The HDs in HD/LD relationships are often happy to do anything to improve things. In my case my wife and I spend a lot of time engaging in non-sexual intimacy.
> ...


That is very interesting, I know a lot of women who want to be held affectionately (the way one would be with a pet or child) and not have sex. But groping and passionate kissing IS sexual to me. It seems very strange that she would be into that and not go all the way. That very well could be a control issue. Is it possible she has been raped or molested? 

If everything else seems great in your relationship but she won't talk to you about this, maybe she is just too self conscious about it. Have you tried writing a letter to her and asking for a reply in writing? That may feel much safer to her.

I just had a really bizarre thought. This is way out of left field, but is it possible you wife may have an STD like HPV or Herpes that she hasn't told you about and she avoids sex because she's worried about transferring it to you?

PS - To me, groping is only loathsome when it's out of the blue. Or when it's ALL that's done during sex - no kissing and hugging first or touching the rest of the body. It's expected and appreciated during sex.


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Groping is an interesting topic.
> 
> When our sex life started becoming more active, I made it a point to grope my wife from time to time. Interestingly, I was doing this mostly for her sake, not mine. The idea was to keep a sexual undercurrent running throughout the days; let her know that she was desired and that we were sexual beings. These occasions were only rarely followed up directly by sex. Now, the groping wasn't overly hard and I mixed in the occasional deep kiss in the grocery store while shopping, etc. When she'd get home from a business trip and changed into pjs, I'd admire her breasts and give them a caress or two.
> 
> ...


This is something I think is a crucial problem in my own marriage. 

I intensely dislike being groped. H can be grabby and it's just plain unpleasant. I immediately get my back up when he does it. It's almost like someone coming up and pinching you. 

I know he means well, though. So I really try to temper my reaction. It's really hard. I can make a single expression no matter how much I am trying to "grin and bear it" and he knows and withdraws. I have a terrible poker face. 

On the other side of the coin...I am very sensitive to coming off as annoying myself. Your airport analogy is a good one. I could easily see myself giving a full recap of a trip and would be excited to do so with H. He's never said that he finds it annoying, but my perception is that he is disinterested. No feedback or even feigned interest from him when I speak. As a result I self-censor. I do not talk much with him at all. It actually hurts me a great deal and it is probably my biggest disappointment in our marriage. From my POV, he doesn't have to tell me I'm annoying him. I can read his body language and lack of interaction loud and clear. 

It hurts. 

I know he feels the same thing when I react to his groping. 

I'm not sure how to fix my reaction. It is something I'm trying to work on but there are certain types of touching that feels bad to me. I don't know how to rewire myself for that. 

I tend to cut him some slack for his emotional indifference for that reason. I know what it is like to truly not know how to make yourself like something even when you know it is important to your spouse. 

Sometimes I think we just picked bad partners when it comes to these two things. He likes touch, hates talk. I like talk, do not like touch. Things we thought were minor differences in the beginning of the relationship turn out to be a really big deal many years later. We could not have known that then. 

So, we have a rift that neither of us really know how to bridge. We both get butthurt about it and retreat from those activities with each other.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

kag123 said:


> This is something I think is a crucial problem in my own marriage.
> 
> I intensely dislike being groped. H can be grabby and it's just plain unpleasant. I immediately get my back up when he does it. It's almost like someone coming up and pinching you.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, I don't mind listening to her when she does this. I'm attentive, ask questions make comments etc. I'm genuinely interested (although maybe not as interested as I might be talking baseball). Once in a while I might not really feel up to it but I know how much it means to her so I don't let on and I'm attentive, ask questions (perhaps not as many), etc. I figure my not feeling up to it is my problem, not hers.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> Groping is an interesting topic.
> 
> When our sex life started becoming more active, I made it a point to grope my wife from time to time. Interestingly, I was doing this mostly for her sake, not mine. The idea was to keep a sexual undercurrent running throughout the days; let her know that she was desired and that we were sexual beings. These occasions were only rarely followed up directly by sex. Now, the groping wasn't overly hard and I mixed in the occasional deep kiss in the grocery store while shopping, etc. When she'd get home from a business trip and changed into pjs, I'd admire her breasts and give them a caress or two.
> 
> ...


Well I can't speak for your wife, but I find the groping irritating when it's all that's done. I'm walking up the stairs in front of my husband and he invariably tries to swipe a finger across my crotch. I walk by and he grabs at a breast... NOW, if this was interspersed with things like a hot kiss in the grocery store, that would change everything for me. Because a kiss is personal, and one in the grocery store says I find you so hot and sexy and special I must kiss you right here and now. (I'm working on trying to get my husband to kiss me period...) A grope out of the blue is not personal. It just says "Oh, boobs that I can grab at!" not "Oh, YOUR special boobs" It makes me feel like a hunted animal.

I guess I'm saying that if I feel special all the time, the groping would be less offensive to me, maybe even fun.

FUNNY THING about your wife missing it when you stopped. Sometimes you don't appreciate the little games your lover plays until he stops. My husband used to always hide my book when I left it on my pillow. It was so juvenille and irritating to me. I'd have to play this little game to get the book back... Then one day I let him know clearly that I was not amused. That night I got up to go to the bathroom and when I returned, my book was still laying there. Haha - I can't say how deflated and let down I felt.

Later I confessed that I clearly hadn't appreciated how amusing he actually was. Now he hides it sometimes and gives it up more easily. That seems to be good entertainment for both of us.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Kag,

This is priceless. M2 hates being groped. Told me so during our first year together. She said: I HATE being groped. 

That was 24 years ago. 

That's a thing I honestly don't understand - why folks do stuff they KNOW their partner dislikes. 

But that especially - creates a negative association with sex. Why on earth would you do that. 








kag123 said:


> This is something I think is a crucial problem in my own marriage.
> 
> I intensely dislike being groped. H can be grabby and it's just plain unpleasant. I immediately get my back up when he does it. It's almost like someone coming up and pinching you.
> 
> ...


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Kag,
> 
> This is priceless. M2 hates being groped. Told me so during our first year together. She said: I HATE being groped.
> 
> ...


To be fair, I am probably much more crazy with my definition of groping than most other women. 

I am just not a touchy Feely person to begin with. Never have been. Friendly or otherwise. I need space. 

H gets to be in my bubble more than anyone else on earth, but my touch threshold is still likely quite a bit lower than the average woman. 

Groping is not always sexual in nature from him either. He is just heavy handed and I don't like it and have never gotten used to it. He does try to be better.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> A post in another thread made me aware of something strange in my wife's sexual behavior. She rarely wants sex, but when she does, she physically enjoys it, often very enthusiastically.
> 
> That could be explained by her just rarely wanting sex, but I think there is more. The last couple of years she has given me a BJ as a "gift" for my birthday (a practice I'm going to stop). She really dislikes doing that, and won't do it any other time - but doing it gets her so aroused that she wants me to give her an orgasm afterwards (which I always do).
> ...



Mrs.CuddleBug is similar. She doesn't want sex much but when she does, I have no choice and its fantastic.

I found out that she is Acts of Service, so she would rather please me than me pleasing her.

She is also LD, so having sex 1x month is just fine with her.

She is LD because she is extremely insecure about her body size, how she looks, clothes she can and can't wear and there is nothing I can do about that.

Mrs.CuddleBug likes sex 3 to 4 days before her period starts, like clock work.

Since my love language is Physical, I love all types of adventurous sex, often, multiple times, toys, groping, oils, you name it and I would try and probably love it. Mrs.CuddleBug not so much, and almost nothing to be honest.

When I hug her, I put my hands in her back pockets and pull her in tight but no groping. She likes this and falls into me and I sway and rock her side to side. She would rather grope me and I hug her instead of me groping her and she hugs me.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

kag123 said:


> This is something I think is a crucial problem in my own marriage.
> 
> I intensely dislike being groped. H can be grabby and it's just plain unpleasant. I immediately get my back up when he does it. It's almost like someone coming up and pinching you.
> 
> ...


WOW Kag - I'm sorry, I'm probably going off topic in this thread, but I have to respond because I could have written this myself, word for word.

We have a ways to go but things are improving for us and this is what I did:

1. I read the book His Needs Her Needs and realized I was not a crazy needy pathetic woman just because I wanted my husband to have a conversation with me where he actually said something in response to me and didn't look like he was sitting in the dentist's chair. And I realized he wasn't a callous a-hole just because groped me and didn't seem to like talking to me (at all). (He was misguided, of course.)

Then I got HIM to listen to the book on audio (this took months and he never did listen to the whole thing), but that and my newfound confidence that I wasn't wanting too much really shifted the dynamic and he is really trying. I also try to make conversations pleasant for him by talking about things I know interested him instead of my feelings (which terrify him, ha ha but we are baby stepping) . OH, and I told him flat out that I felt bad about myself when I tried to talk to him and his only response is to unpause the TV when I stop.

I also read Love Busters by the same author which addresses instincts and habits people have that hurt their relationship and got him to listen to at least part of that too.

Somewhere between those two books I learned how to ask for what I needed in a pleasant but persistent way that wasn't overly critical or demanding. Regarding the groping - that would fall under love busters and I decided to stop trying to stop myself from flinching and showing irritation. I don't like it. I'm never going to like it. If he wants my breasts or crotch in his hands, he needs to take a longer route to get them there. 

I did explain nicely to him that I didn't like it but I WOULD like being hugged and kissed with a long hard kiss and then groped. Or to have the back of my neck kissed, etc. He's not doing that yet but 99% of the random groping stopped.

OH, I also groped him IMMEDIATELY after sex and he hated that and I let him know that's how it feels to me. I also groped him out of the blue a couple times and he didn't like that either, but I know a lot of guys would so that may not work. 

To me, allowing groping that you hate is not equivalent to having a conversation you don't feel like. A better comparison would be comparing groping to nagging. And comparing meeting your spouses need to sexual fulfillment with meeting your spouses need for conversation. The latter two one spouse may not start out wanting to do, but if you do them in a way that is most pleasant to the spouse who doesn't instinctively like the activity, that can change and they can start to genuinely like the activity. And as their good will toward their spouse builds because their needs are also getting met, they want to do more for their spouse.

To me, Groping and "not wanting to talk" with your spouse actually send the same message: *What you think and how you feel are not important to me.*


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Mrs. MbH doesn't like being groped, either. But if I come up behind her, give her a hug, kiss the back of her neck and work up to the groping, she likes it a lot. This is usually the most fun to do when she's doing dishes. Lately she has been doing the same to me. It's quite distracting, and the dishes may have to wait until later ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

SHOW HIM how you like to be touched. Don't tell him. Show him. Touch him exactly the way you want him to touch you. 

I'm actually not very skilled at a long list of things. 

It's also true there are a short list of skills that seemed important and I made a conscious effort to get as good at those as I could. 

Everything related to communication got a lot of focus:
- Writing
- Speaking 
- Humor
- Touch
- Body language: transmitting and receiving 

There's a wooden stool in the kitchen. It sits in front of a small flat screen tv on the counter. Most nights, M2 wants a bit of quiet time and that's where she sits. 

When I enter the kitchen she is facing the TV. Her back is to me. I make some small sound. Maybe I open the fridge door. This is just a cue - that I'm in the room. 

I come up behind her and softly put my hand on her shoulder. Then I slowly lean into her chest to back and she leans back into me as I wrap my arms around her and slowly give her a very firm hug - which she loves. 

The point of all this - is that the gradual nature of it - is very soothing. 




kag123 said:


> To be fair, I am probably much more crazy with my definition of groping than most other women.
> 
> I am just not a touchy Feely person to begin with. Never have been. Friendly or otherwise. I need space.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Sooooo...no jump scares?


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Mrs. MbH doesn't like being groped, either. But if I come up behind her, give her a hug, kiss the back of her neck and work up to the groping, she likes it a lot. This is usually the most fun to do when she's doing dishes. Lately she has been doing the same to me. It's quite distracting, and the dishes may have to wait until later ...


Now we're cooking with gas!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

No.

I don't do that. Don't like it being done to me. 

The dopamine session consists of an all out mattress brawl - but even that starts out with a brief cue that it's about to begin. 

Brawling is a dominance theme. It's playfully intense. 

Jump scares - are an ambush theme - totally different. 






Fozzy said:


> Sooooo...no jump scares?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Note the gradual nature of this. It's more like foreplay than groping. 

Groping tends to be more sudden. 




Married but Happy said:


> Mrs. MbH doesn't like being groped, either. But if I come up behind her, give her a hug, kiss the back of her neck and work up to the groping, she likes it a lot. This is usually the most fun to do when she's doing dishes. Lately she has been doing the same to me. It's quite distracting, and the dishes may have to wait until later ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Fozzy,

This reminds me - Kag ALSO ought to show him what she doesn't much like. And contrast the two. 

Gentle and gradually building to firm vs sudden and rough

Soothing and startling.




Fozzy said:


> Sooooo...no jump scares?


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Fozzy,
> 
> This reminds me - Kag ALSO ought to show him what she doesn't much like. And contrast the two.
> 
> ...


I like the way you think MEM. Ice bucket challenge in the shower?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I love being groped at random. I realize not everyone does, and there was a time before I met Mr. FW when I didn't believe I would like it either. But his randy, lusty hands just can't be stopped...and when I finally just let go of whatever resistance I had to it, I found myself loving it, every single time. And I learned how to grope as good as I got, too...so now we both happily grope each other any time we like. No complaints on either side.


----------



## rich84 (Mar 30, 2015)

My wife frequently gropes me, but it's usually not sexual in that it isn't intended to be a lead up to a sexual act. She says she is just kind of fascinated by my penis and likes to play with it, get it hard. Like a toy. If she's attempting to actually initiate, it's usually way more subtle. 

My groping is accepted or not based on her mood. If she isn't relaxed, it's generally irritating to her. She responds much better to nonsexual touch as a buildup before sex. And then during there better be groping.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

rich84 said:


> My wife frequently gropes me, but it's usually not sexual in that it isn't intended to be a lead up to a sexual act. She says she is just kind of fascinated by my penis and likes to play with it, get it hard. Like a toy. If she's attempting to actually initiate, it's usually way more subtle.
> 
> My groping is accepted or not based on her mood. If she isn't relaxed, it's generally irritating to her. She responds much better to nonsexual touch as a buildup before sex. And then during there better be groping.[/QUOT
> 
> So after she plays with it and gets it hard then what?


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

In cold winter weather, after a snowfall, you have to go out and shovel the driveway, clean off the car, start the engine and let it run a few minutes before you finally hop in and drive away. You also have to maintain the car, make sure it has a good battery, winter tires, rustproofing, winter oil, antifreeze, winter washer fluid, etc. Sometimes you get a block heater and plug the car in overnight. Sometimes you get a remote car starter so you don’t have to physically go out into the cold to start it. When you do the prep work, the car will respond as you want it to, and it will be a smooth ride. 

If you just hop in the car, cold start it, run the wipers a couple of times to get the snow off and gun the engine to plow through the mess the snowplow left at the end of the driveway, you’re not going to get very far. Do this every morning, and odds are you’re going to damage the engine and then it won’t start no matter what you try. 

Some women are like this. Saying you wish the woman wanted you is like expecting the driveway to be plowed, the car cleared and the engine running smoothly without having to do any of the prep or maintenance yourself. Oh and when you married her, she believes you vowed to do the prep and maintenance. Baby your car like a classic, and it will respond to you. Treat it like a replaceable junker and it will not.


As for groping, that's a selfish act done purely for the benefit of the groper. That's why people do it to anonymous strangers on crowded buses and trains. If it was intended for the pleasure of the gropee, it would be done in a completely different manner.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

On a ladder? I was on the toilet one day and my wife had to have me right there.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Well said Hopeful Cynic. Thanks for some truly thoughtful remarks.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> As for groping, that's a selfish act done purely for the benefit of the groper. That's why people do it to anonymous strangers on crowded buses and trains. If it was intended for the pleasure of the gropee, it would be done in a completely different manner.


Yes, when my husband gropes me, it is purely for himself. Though he knows what my pain limits are, so he won't grope me harder than the point where it would cause me pain...but other than that, he's all about feeding his lusty beast while groping me. This makes it even more fun for me, because I get to see him unregulated, unrestricted, and uninhibited. This is the wild horse part of him that drives his crazy sex drive and desires. I would never, ever want to tame his wild horse. 

But I do have to say, his hands are so talented that even when he's groping me for his own pleasure, it is still very pleasurable for me. If he was not so talented with his hands, I may not enjoy it at all and may not allow it. However, we would not have been a good match if that were the case and probably wouldn't have ended up together.

At this point, if he ever stopped groping me, I would know something was terribly wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I was inspired to open another thread so as not to threadjack this one:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/290418-groping.html#post13643114


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I haven't tried a letter. Its an interesting thought - though I'm not very good at writing what I mean.

I think the STD idea is unlikely. She does sometimes initiate sex, just quite rarely. Its just strange that she is almost always up for passionate kissing and naked cuddling - but usually wants to stop one step short of actual sex (defined as anything involving genitals). 

She seems to view passionate kissing as non-sexual - its very strange. She will sometimes tell me not to talk about sex because she doesn't want to get aroused - but want very intimate kissing.
(?????)




WorkingWife said:


> That is very interesting, I know a lot of women who want to be held affectionately (the way one would be with a pet or child) and not have sex. But groping and passionate kissing IS sexual to me. It seems very strange that she would be into that and not go all the way. That very well could be a control issue. Is it possible she has been raped or molested?
> 
> If everything else seems great in your relationship but she won't talk to you about this, maybe she is just too self conscious about it. Have you tried writing a letter to her and asking for a reply in writing? That may feel much safer to her.
> 
> ...


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

If any LD people have time, I'd love to hear what feelings and thoughts go through one's head before during and after sex. 

Someone mentioned the analogy of Ice Cream. A common theme I think would be:

Bill loves chocolate ice cream. Avoids it because he's trying to cut down on calories. Reluctant to have it and a battle goes on in his head. 'It's chocolate but it's really not "that much" so the calorie count won't be "that high" . But it's mostly calories from fat. hmmm . Love it though and I haven't had it in a while. ' He thinks 'well maybe I just wont eat ALL of it '

He orders it and enjoys it. Eating the ice cream thinking 'ahh it's been a while'. Nearly finished but the reality sinks in that he's eating ice cream and feels a little guilt cause he's on a diet. Thinks 'Ok I've had my fun' and throws the rest away. 

Feels good that he had some control and threw the rest away. But feels guilt for caving in . The ice cream was great. But the anxiety that went with it left a 'bad taste in his mouth'. Looks down at his waist remembering that he's on a mission to lose those 15 lbs. Thinking 'well that 20 minute run earlier was for nothing'. . ........

I'm interested to know what are the feelings and thoughts that go through someone's head with regard to sexual experiences.


----------



## rich84 (Mar 30, 2015)

Okguy said:


> So after she plays with it and gets it hard then what?



She gropes me ALL the time. Kind of like a greeting. Pass you in the hall? Grope! But this more thorough, "nonsexual" groping is usually done when sex is inopportune. Kid's running around somewhere. I'm on the phone. I will get an erection, but if I don't think it can go anywhere it can be tortuous to focus on it. So I'll just focus on what I'm doing and generally it goes back down. Then I'll lose my concentration or she will get more vigorous and it goes back up. It's a game she plays. 

Or, if there's opportunity for sex and she's interested In just palpating my manhood, she may even come right out and say that she JUST wants to play with him (while we're watching TV, for example). I usually get a free pass to grope back, and lately I've done a better job at touching her in ways that she responds to. "You don't play fair." 

I at one time would tell her no, that I don't want groped if it couldn't go anywhere. It was too frustrating. So she literally stopped touching it outside of sex. Our sex life kind of went in the crapper during those years too. Now I encourage her to do it whenever she wants. And I think it helps her feel connected to me while also sometimes turning her on. Lately, I've converted every "alone time" groping into sexy time. 

Groping her out of the blue doesn't seem to get her going in any way. And sometimes it downright irritates her. She will say something nice like my boobs hurt to let me know that. So, I've reserved my groping of her more to times when it can be better received.


----------



## rich84 (Mar 30, 2015)

LostinNE said:


> If any LD people have time, I'd love to hear what feelings and thoughts go through one's head before during and after sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where does the guilt for enjoying sex come in? Maybe if you had a ONS and that was against your moral fiber. But in a LTR why would you ever beat yourself up for enjoying sex with your partner, especially when that is a critical component of LTR's? The only reason I can think would be that you are a control FREAK and you get mad because you gave up your control. I'm not getting the ice cream guilt analogy. I do, however, get the LD ice cream analogy (being force fed ice cream until it loses its appeal).


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

If the LD does not want physical intimacy they can rationalize all they want about it including more metaphors and analogies than a poetry tome.

It helps to actually come out and say they don't want sex rather than obfuscate the process to the extent they do. 

It's transparency, not sugar coating, that is needed.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

john117 said:


> If the LD does not want physical intimacy they can rationalize all they want about it including more metaphors and analogies than a poetry tome.
> 
> It helps to actually come out and say they don't want sex rather than obfuscate the process to the extent they do.
> 
> It's transparency, not sugar coating, that is needed.


I agree... just say it and say you don't know why, if you don't know why. Say what you are going to do about it or if you are not going to do anything about it. Then the partner knows where he/she stands and can take the necessary measures...

My wife was like this... never told me anything... just excuses... and I wasted 15 years of my life because of not knowing...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> ... Saying you wish the woman wanted you is like expecting the driveway to be plowed, the car cleared and the engine running smoothly without having to do any of the prep or maintenance yourself. ...


When I lived up north, my neighbor would sometimes do all this for me after a snowfall. He had a snow thrower. Now you've got me wondering if _he_ desired me more than my wife ever did!? Or was he after my wife? No, I don't think so, as he only cleared _my_ car.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

LostinNE said:


> If any LD people have time, I'd love to hear what feelings and thoughts go through one's head before during and after sex.


There are some women who tried to describe their feelings in this thread, starting with kag123 on page 2. Read her posts in this thread, and those of French Fry - the two have different views and approaches, but they do describe their thoughts.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> I agree... just say it and say you don't know why, if you don't know why.


I hear that. That's where I'm at right now in my marriage of 12 years currently. Some will say they don't know why. But there is a reason. Just trying to figure out if 'it's the way it is', or if there are just some hang ups and stuff that can be worked through. 



> Say what you are going to do about it or if you are not going to do anything about it. Then the partner knows where he/she stands and can take the necessary measures...


Great point and gonna use that for 'a talk' later . 


> My wife was like this... never told me anything... just excuses... and I wasted 15 years of my life because of not knowing...


Maybe I'll see where I stand later.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

As much as I would love to hook up a few LD's in my lab instrumentation (the lab rats have done some pretty funny in sanctioned experiments esp with the eye tracker hardware ) the fact remains what's reported here is always self reported data. 

As such one always wonders about filtering - it's like calculus, either you know the solution or you don't and no amount of pu$$yfooting will help if you don't.

By the end of our first year dating we knew each other's favorite everything - but it should NOT take 20 years to learn about THAT.

It's also dependent on the degree you want to work to a mutually satisfying and beneficial solution. There's always middle ground. If we are willing of course.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

LostinNE said:


> I hear that. That's where I'm at right now in my marriage of 12 years currently. Some will say they don't know why. But there is a reason. Just trying to figure out if 'it's the way it is', or if there are just some hang ups and stuff that can be worked through.



I had to threaten divorce to get to the bottom of it... very sad and rather stupid... of course, you don't know and make things even worse, to the point where it's irreparable.

I tried everything.... just guessing. Big mistake.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I'm sorry, Piece of Sky. The more I post on these interwebs, the more I feel like I'm doing more to hurt communication, than to help it. Please understand that I'm not trying to accuse or assume. I'm guessing from what little I know of your story, that you are probably doing the right thing in protecting your heart.
> 
> But when you say things like "reject myself in advance", it sounds very much like you are still abusing yourself by projecting on her feelings that she may or may not have.
> 
> ...



I know you are not trying to accuse or assume. I have interacted enough with you to have some sense of your values, and to trust you are seeking to help. I value your input. Though our initial points of view are sometimes quite different, there's usually something worthwhile to be learned by understanding why.

I suppose I was feeling a bit sorry for myself, perhaps wallowing in it, when I wrote about "rejecting myself." (OK, I don't just suppose, I know I was wallowing in it.) 

At it's best, it's simply that at this very late stage, I find it useful to resist the temptation to reach out to her with affection and hope that it will be reciprocated. Not talking about just sex, but any sort of touching (arm on her shoulder, sitting close, holding hands, a kiss). My reasoning is that such provides me a noticeable bit of relief (maybe a rush of oxytocin), but that only serves to suck me back in. And, at this point, I am done. Or, at least, I want to be done. And, I am seeking to detach effectively enough to leave.

Regarding the self-abuse, there is something to that. I'd put it this way: When the rejections start coming, and then start coming more and more frequently, and then when they are accompanied by angry declarations of why the rejections are deserved, and then when it's clear there doesn't have to be a "particular reason" why and instead it becomes (explicitly) I'm just not attracted to you.... well, it is a challenge to be resilient in the face of that. It's hard to separate the legitimate criticisms from the rationalizations. It's also hard to separate the feelings she "truly has" from my best guesses thereof any my worst projections thereof. It's hard to see oneself accurately, and to feel one's inherit worth, and to understand it is what it is, I am what I am, regardless of what she says or doesn't say, regardless of whether she wants to reach out to me or not, and whether she wants to be vulnerable to me and intimate with me.

And, so, I appreciate the reminders from you and other posts that followed yours. FWIW, I like to think I'm affected by all this much less than where I started, and I intend to be happy regardless of how it turns out.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

She has few feelings other than what she chooses to report that lead nowhere.

Feelings are pretty good motivators if we choose to use them as inputs, but for hardcore LD cases I don't think there's much in the way of feelings coming from the LD side - just "I got mine so there".

Notice I'm not talking situational or low grade LD but the pervasive cases we see here.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

My sense in reading all these posts is that there is a range of sexual frequencies that people want and/or are willing to tolerate. Sharing feelings and solutions is very helpful


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> My sense in reading all these posts is that there is a range of sexual frequencies that people want and/or are willing to tolerate. Sharing feelings and solutions is very helpful



SLA's 

I oughta submit an article to Psychology Today on this!!


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I haven't tried a letter. Its an interesting thought - though I'm not very good at writing what I mean.
> 
> I think the STD idea is unlikely. She does sometimes initiate sex, just quite rarely. Its just strange that she is almost always up for passionate kissing and naked cuddling - but usually wants to stop one step short of actual sex (defined as anything involving genitals).
> ...


That is very strange indeed.

Many women feel frustrated that their husbands seem incapable of giving them a simple hug without it turning sexual. But naked passionate kissing? Where else would that be headed? That seems sexual to me. Unless you're nudists and you're already naked all the time... 

Well, I got nothing... my mind is blown.

I think somehow you need to make her aware of your frustration and disappointment. If she can make out with you naked and say she doesn't "want" to get aroused, either she's completely unaware of how you feel, or she's cruel (which doesn't sound likely).

Although I do like kissing and I can imagine wanting to make out and not go all the way. But I would never expect a man to be satisfied with that. Hmmmmm.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Control control control...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

john117 said:


> Control control control...


Control does not explain the whole thing here. Control is saying "no" even when you are not completely opposed to sex because you want to make it clear you retain the unilateral right to say "no" whenever you feel like it. The refuser might regret having to say no on that occasion, but they feel it serves a more important value than "making my spouse happy".

Saying you want naked kissing and groping but don't want any sex is sadistic. It indicates that the refuser gets off on torturing their spouse.

Not saying that BDSM isn't permitted but it needs to be consensual and the HD here is not enjoying the experience.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Control is saying "no" even when you are not completely opposed to sex because you want to make it clear you retain the unilateral right to say "no" whenever you feel like it. .



That's control to the Nth power right there. Eventually no becomes the norm. And by then it's curtains.

I'm seeing my wife do it to herself for food. She won't eat just because she wants to feel good about NOT eating. Not anorexia but you get the idea.

It's all about balancing low self esteem with any accomplishment.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,

Do you have a post that clearly explains what you mean by SLA in this context. By the way - I'm truly not trying to be dense. 

M2 and I used to have a very unforgiving SLA. Well - actually - it was entirely mine. 

Now a much, much softer one that looks like this:
- More then twice a week - yay
- Twice a week - very happy
- Less than twice a week produces some banter along the lines of: M2: I wouldn't blame you for getting a concubine 
MEM: Maybe not blame
M2: But I'd still kill you
MEM: Slowly? Or painlessly?
M2: (smiling) Very, very slowly
MEM: Concubines are overrated 

So there's acknowledgement - and a request for reassurance. But that's all. 

Or sometimes she says: we haven't had sex in months, are you mad at me? And I'm not and I make that clear. 

To be fair, there is a threshold where I get irritated. But it's very rare that we get to that spot. 




john117 said:


> SLA's
> 
> I oughta submit an article to Psychology Today on this!!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Or sometimes she says: we haven't had sex in months, are you mad at me? And I'm not and I make that clear.


Months?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

On the 5th or 6th day in a row without sex M2 will say: we haven't had sex in months, and we need to do something about that.

It's humour via intentional and extreme exaggeration. 

And I typically respond with: What do you mean, we had sex this morning. I'm sorry it wasn't memorable to you.

Which is a reverse exaggeration because we did not have sex that morning. We are in truth at day 5 or 6. And we both know that. 

The thing about this exchange is it acknowledges differing experiences.

M2 in saying it's been months - is opening the door for me to respond with: I don't think it's been quite that long, but it's starting to FEEL like it. 

This is entire exchange is a 'temperature' check. It's simply being done in an entertaining manner. 

I do feel sorry for the folks who have partners that describe reality in a grossly distorted and self serving manner. 

Every once in a while M2 will pause - and in a serious tone ask me: how long has it been? And then I answer. She usually thinks for a moment, nods and says - that seems right. But that only happens when life - illness - has disrupted our routine in a meaningful way.





Faithful Wife said:


> Months?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Mem is a far better human being than me. We have gone as long as 15 months but I was mad as heck long before then. Should be interesting to see how long we go this time before she succeeds in seducing me.

John: I understand all about the control. H2 was raped more than once. So her highest sexual priority when we got married was to retain the right and ability to say "no" whenever she wanted. And she proved to herself that she retained that right by saying "no" the overwhelming majority of the time. She only relented when I announced that I was no longer going to initiate sex, and followed through by not asking any more. Then she realized there was more to sex than the ability to say "no" and not be raped. But it was too late. I had already checked out. 

I wish I had been able to accept defeat sooner. But it took age and decreasing testosterone and physical degradation as well as emotional exhaustion before I could bring myself to give up. And by then I had polished my resentment to such a glistening sheen that I refuse to part with it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holding,
You are way too generous in your assessment of me and overly harsh in your self assessment. 

I married an excellent life partner who also happened to be a remarkably compatible sexual partner. 

The one thing I came hard wired with that has been immensely helpful is this. 

The thing that turns me on BY FAR the most is happiness. When M2 is happy I desire her. When she is ill, or sad, hurt or angry, or even tired - my desire for HER shuts off. 

This doesn't mean my sex drive itself disappears. This just means my desire to have sex WITH M2 goes away. I just take care of myself in those situations. Though, in truth even my raw sex drive is greatly reduced when M2 is in a bad place. 

But that's not something I - consciously choose. That is just baked into me. 




Hqoldingontoit said:


> Mem is a far better human being than me. We have gone as long as 15 months but I was mad as heck long before then. Should be interesting to see how long we go this time before she succeeds in seducing me.
> 
> John: I understand all about the control. H2 was raped more than once. So her highest sexual priority when we got married was to retain the right and ability to say "no" whenever she wanted. And she proved to herself that she retained that right by saying "no" the overwhelming majority of the time. She only relented when I announced that I was no longer going to initiate sex, and followed through by not asking any more. Then she realized there was more to sex than the ability to say "no" and not be raped. But it was too late. I had already checked out.
> 
> I wish I had been able to accept defeat sooner. But it took age and decreasing testosterone and physical degradation as well as emotional exhaustion before I could bring myself to give up. And by then I had polished my resentment to such a glistening sheen that I refuse to part with it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

SLA's are nothing more than ones own limits - like a lot of other limits they exist because of cultural stereotypes, upbringing, attitude, and overall mental state. The body/mind has an idea of what they want from the relationship and it will take a serious effort to bump it up or down without repercussions.

SLA's become issues when one partner unilaterally decides to enforce them without discussion. Or when they decide to lie about them.

Think of it this way. You love Giordano's pizza - but regardless of cost you won't eat three pizzas a day. You have your own idea of how much is "enough" and go from there. It seems to me this is baked into our basic desire and pleasure seeking behaviors so it's different for everyone but not "by much".


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

FrenchFry said:


> I do kind of love this analogy because I love chocolate ice cream and I constantly feel guilty eating it-- but for me it's not the emotion of guilt that drives me. I don't feel guilty for caving in and having sex when I don't want to. I feel used, unaccomplished and base.
> 
> 
> 
> I love sex. I'll avoid it if it will cause me more grief than it will benefits. I'll have a little bit of it because I like it but will immediately regret doing so if it is bad or there is a bad action in close proximity to sex.


 A 'bad action ' in close proximity ? What do you mean?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

If your partner says or does something cruel or hurtful shortly after having sex.




LostinNE said:


> A 'bad action ' in close proximity ? What do you mean?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> If your partner says or does something cruel or hurtful shortly after having sex.



Standard Operating Procedure in push/pull personality disorders...


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

This is not an SLA to me, maybe it's what John has in mind but I don't think so. 

You've got a level you'd like and maybe a level that is tollerable. M2 is at a minimum aware of it and tries to meet it. 

The SLA is not an agreement at all. You'd like every 2 days or more, will tolerate every 3 or 4 and what you get is once or twice a month cause that is what is tolerable to her. Maybe every once in a while she'll do 3 times in a month but recoils in internal horror and jerks that crap back under control:surprise:



MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> Do you have a post that clearly explains what you mean by SLA in this context. By the way - I'm truly not trying to be dense.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

For a moment I'm going to de-quantify our situation. 

Qualitatively I'll frame it like this.

We both make a good faith and mostly successful effort to understand and meet each other's needs. 

And where we feel we may be falling short the person who may be doing so, raises it and asks if we're causing the other distress. 




anonmd said:


> This is not an SLA to me, maybe it's what John has in mind but I don't think so.
> 
> You've got a level you'd like and maybe a level that is tollerable. M2 is at a minimum aware of it and tries to meet it.
> 
> The SLA is not an agreement at all. You'd like every 2 days or more, will tolerate every 3 or 4 and what you get is once or twice a month cause that is what is tolerable to her. Maybe every once in a while she'll do 3 times in a month but recoils in internal horror and jerks that crap back under control:surprise:


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Love what mem wrote. It is not just about quantity. Or quality. It is about attitude. It is about concern and empathy. Or its absence.

And it is about accepting unpleasant truths. When your partner tells you the truth about themselves, believe them.

Not so far into MC, H2 said "I am never going to be what you need sexually". I should have listened to her and filed for divorce the next day.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Some form of SLA's are there in everyone, I'm quite sure of that. In fact you and M2 have is a feedback mechanism that allows you to monitor the process and adjust as needed.

The second is lacking from some people - if one is an LD of some kind and doesn't pick up the expected emotional behavior clues from friends, family, and neighbors or heck the media and pop culture then I don't know what to say .


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Love what mem wrote. It is not just about quantity. Or quality. It is about attitude. It is about concern and empathy. Or its absence.
> 
> And it is about accepting unpleasant truths. When your partner tells you the truth about themselves, believe them.
> 
> Not so far into MC, H2 said "I am never going to be what you need sexually". I should have listened to her and filed for divorce the next day.


What did u need?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Love what mem wrote. It is not just about quantity. Or quality. It is about attitude. It is about concern and empathy. Or its absence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quantity is easy to quantify (they granted me a phd to write THAT?). Quality, not so much unless you get into indirect measures and the like. Bad idea. 

The rest are all feeding into the standard feedback loop. Without empathy one is likely to miss a lot of nonverbal communication tidbits, and even worse, without concern they aren't going to care much 

Something like this to be precise 

View attachment 38721


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
There seems to be a huge energy barrier about anything involving genitals. Flirting, hugging, kissing (quite passionately) massages, touches, grabs are all fine. 

Anything involving genitals becomes "sex" - something she every once in a while very much wants and enjoys, but rarely.

What is also interesting is that all these intimate, but non-sexual touches do not seem to get her aroused at all. She very much enjoys them but not in a sexual way. 

She does get easily aroused, but only from genital contact - oral etc. 

Its very difficult to talk to her about it partly because she refuses to discuss and partly because its clear that she doesn't recognize anything unusual in her behavior. If I do get her to talk, she will come up with specific objections - but in a form that are clearly excuses for something she doesn't understand herself. 




WorkingWife said:


> That is very strange indeed.
> 
> Many women feel frustrated that their husbands seem incapable of giving them a simple hug without it turning sexual. But naked passionate kissing? Where else would that be headed? That seems sexual to me. Unless you're nudists and you're already naked all the time...
> 
> ...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Okguy said:


> What did u need?


Not to be shot down just about every time I asked. Not for it just about always to be starfish sex.

We had sex twice on our week long honeymoon far from home. Second time I had to beg. We had sex once every 2 or 3 weeks during our first year of marriage (before kids and she was not working). Like I said, should have had the marriage annulled. I stupidly felt obliged to live up to my vows and do everything in my power to make the marriage work. I was in my 30s and wanted kids before I got any older.

Thankfully I got the kids and they are great.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

The question is - can you get R2 to explain how it 'feels' to her when you two connect? The lead up, during and aftermath?

And then, maybe - ask her if she'll try an experiment with you, see if you can both learn to work with her responsive desire. 

And I believe you can maximize the odds of success by time boxing the experiment. Maybe one month. And you tell her: no matter how it plays out long term, it will mean a lot to you if she'll give it a shot. 

And then the goal is to try to get her relaxed enough to tell you - how those experiences feel. 

And FWIW - I have no illusions about how hard this is. I've asked M2 at least a half dozen times over the last decade what HER ideal frequency is. And mind you this is right after she has asked me that same question and gotten an honest answer. And she has never told me. She deflects the question. 

The most difficult thing in these conversations is to decide when to press and when to accept a lack of transparency. 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> There seems to be a huge energy barrier about anything involving genitals. Flirting, hugging, kissing (quite passionately) massages, touches, grabs are all fine.
> 
> Anything involving genitals becomes "sex" - something she every once in a while very much wants and enjoys, but rarely.
> ...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Personal said:


> since you enabled such behaviour you are like your wife, complicit in maintaining a sexless marriage.


Completely agree. I was an idiot, and I deserve what I am getting. I didn't have the guts to get out. I have no grounds to complain. That is why my thread is a cautionary tale and not a vehicle for personal change.

These days I am intentionally complicit. I want my marriage to remain sexless. Makes my wife feel guilty (and she should) and treat me better outside the bedroom. If I am not leaving (and I'm not), might as well milk the relationship for all it is worth.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> > since you enabled such behaviour you are like your wife, complicit in maintaining a sexless marriage.
> ...


So you never have sex? What are your ages?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> And FWIW - I have no illusions about how hard this is. I've asked M2 at least a half dozen times over the last decade what HER ideal frequency is. And mind you this is right after she has asked me that same question and gotten an honest answer. And she has never told me. She deflects the question.


You have, of course, gotten your answer in her silence. You know to a reasonable certainty what she would say. She would say her ideal frequency is far below yours, but that she will strive to make herself available more often to please you. Knowing the exact number would not enhance your interaction.

She hesitates to tell you an exact number because she fears it would upset the equilibrium you guys have reached. A number makes it real. A number seems fixed in time. A number emphasizes the difference between your number and hers. A number would be an obstacle to emotional and physical intimacy. A number would destroy the hope and uncertainty and willingness to suspend disbelief that is needed for you guys to relate sexually.

She is doing you a favor by deflecting. Do yourself a favor and stop asking.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> MEM11363 said:
> 
> 
> > And FWIW - I have no illusions about how hard this is. I've asked M2 at least a half dozen times over the last decade what HER ideal frequency is. And mind you this is right after she has asked me that same question and gotten an honest answer. And she has never told me. She deflects the question.
> ...


Trying to get a number out of an ld spouse is pointless. You already know it is low and you'd love it to me more but you know it won't. I just count my blessings because I know the quality is going to be there


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> John: I understand all about the control. H2 was raped more than once. So her highest sexual priority when we got married was to retain the right and ability to say "no" whenever she wanted. And she proved to herself that she retained that right by saying "no" the overwhelming majority of the time. She only relented when I announced that I was no longer going to initiate sex, and followed through by not asking any more. Then she realized there was more to sex than the ability to say "no" and not be raped. But it was too late. I had already checked out.


You do realize, of course, that this is a total negative feedback loop, with you helping to make it as bad as it could possibly be?

Take someone who is traumatized about sex and feed them your resentment. Resentment causes turnoff causes resentment causes turnoff. 

Would you want to have sex with someone who hated you? I sure wouldn't!

No doubt you should have left her earlier, or never gotten yourself tangled up with someone who had trauma around sex in the first place. 

But IMHO, it often isn't just in the "putting up with" where the HD contributes to the reality they live in. And it isn't just the LD who are flunking in the empathy department.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

And that's why people with this type of emotional skeletons should be up front about such things. To avoid this sort of negative feedback...

Empathy or not if you aren't told about it up front it doesn't matter, you're screwed. So while the "HD" carries some responsibility it's clear they would not be in the relationship if they knew ahead of time...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> The second is lacking from some people - if one is an LD of some kind and doesn't pick up the expected emotional behavior clues from friends, family, and neighbors or heck the media and pop culture then I don't know what to say .


Behavioral clues from pop culture and the media? What, I'm supposed to go get cosmetic surgery, a makeover, a new wardrobe, and hire a lifestyle coach and start posting naked selfies on the internet with pleas to tell me how hot (or not) I am?

I think I'd rather shoot myself.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Clues, NOT replicated behaviors. 

Huge difference.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> And that's why people with this type of emotional skeletons should be up front about such things. To avoid this sort of negative feedback...


Who doesn't have emotional skeletons?

Point being that we all need to try to be up front about who we are and honest about what we need, but it isn't always easy because we aren't actually fully transparent to ourselves, and we don't have crystal balls. Most of us are just muddling through as best as we can.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Clues, NOT replicated behaviors.
> 
> Huge difference.


Okay, so tell me what clues should I take from the constant cheating and partner-swap of the celebrity culture? Or the insistence on referring to to women as b1tches and ho's in the music scene, or the endless narcissism of naked selfies and outrageous behaviour in order to get a few lines of press coverage?

Like I said: pass!


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Who doesn't have emotional skeletons?
> 
> Point being that we all need to try to be up front about who we are and honest about what we need, but it isn't always easy because we aren't actually fully transparent to ourselves, and we don't have crystal balls. Most of us are just muddling through as best as we can.


I understand that... I'm not perfect, but after years of driving the message home, you would expect even someone with a wardrobe resembling a graveyard to grasp the concept...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> I understand that... I'm not perfect, but after years of driving the message home, you would expect even someone with a wardrobe resembling a graveyard to grasp the concept...


Perhaps. But how many years does it take to grasp the concept that you cannot make someone be something they are not?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Perhaps. But how many years does it take to grasp the concept that you cannot make someone be something they are not?


it takes 5 minutes... if you are told... :smile2:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Okay, so tell me what clues should I take from the constant cheating and partner-swap of the celebrity culture? Or the insistence on referring to to women as b1tches and ho's in the music scene, or the endless narcissism of naked selfies and outrageous behaviour in order to get a few lines of press coverage?
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said: pass!



You're still referring to specific behaviors - cues would be, for example, the prevalence - hence importance - of sexuality in creative works, something you would not notice in the Middle East 

Not all media is reality TV or celebrity TV unless your local cable company is wicked  think family time TV and the like. 

While sexuality of older people is not mainstream fodder (Golden Girls lolz) one only has to see any prime time show to see an ideated yet not too far off the wall representation of married life. Heck who could forget TV's LD husbands (Al Bundy and the landlord in Threes Company )

You need to realize the difference between cues and stereotypes - the populations we are talking about are married with kids 30's or 40's not likely to be watching the Kardashians so 

If we take celebrity TV or song lyrics at face value we are toast.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

​


john117 said:


> You need to realize the difference between cues and stereotypes - the populations we are talking about are married with kids 30's or 40's not likely to be watching the Kardashians so


I'm to take behavioral cues from Al and Peggy Bundy? Or the Three's company crowd? 

*shudder*

Seriously, what is to be gleaned from this crap that has any value whatsoever?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You do realize, of course, that this is a total negative feedback loop, with you helping to make it as bad as it could possibly be?


Yes, I understand NOW. That is why I don't initiate sex any more.



> Would you want to have sex with someone who hated you? I sure wouldn't!


Back when I was younger and hornier, I would not have cared. I just wanted to have sex with someone who provided consent. Now, no, I wouldn't. Just as before I was OK with having sex with someone who did not find me attractive. Now I am not OK with that. Not that I expect to find anyone who finds me attractive. I just don't expect to have much sex.



> No doubt you should have left her earlier, or never gotten yourself tangled up with someone who had trauma around sex in the first place.


Correct. But I did not find out about the trauma until 7 years of marriage and 2 kids and 2 years of MC. Then one day during MC she announces "I was raped when I was a teenager. But don't worry, it does not affect my attitude toward sex." Riiiiiiiight.



> But IMHO, it often isn't just in the "putting up with" where the HD contributes to the reality they live in. And it isn't just the LD who are flunking in the empathy department.


I will admit I am lacking in the empathy department. I would have had plenty of empathy before we got married. I would have broken up with her to save us both decades of torment. But I would have empathized.

Hey, I empathized with her when she told me and the MC. I told her I would stay with her and support her and that she could get treatment to help her work through the issues and I would be there for her when she was ready. She told me "don't be ridiculous, the rapes are in the past, they have no impact on me today, and I am not going to get help to deal with something that isn't a problem." Gotta say, that put a damper on my empathy. After all, nothing to empathize with, right?

Look, I told her before we got married that I was a nerdy loser in high school and college and as a twenty-something. I told her I hardly ever had sex (which I am sure she could gather from my lack of technique, limited repertoire, etc.) and that I was looking forward to making up for lost time after we got married. I shared my ugly truth with her so she could marry me with eyes wide open after full disclosure. She declined to do the same. Precisely because she feared that if she admitted to being raped that I might bail.

You can't have it both ways. She hid her past. Said it isn't relevant. Refused offer of help to deal with it. She can't do all that and then justifiably accuse me of not being sufficiently empathetic. You can't live in total denial and then complain that your spouse isn't helping you deal with a problem you continue to insist does not even exist.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Okay, so tell me what clues should I take from the constant cheating and partner-swap of the celebrity culture? Or the insistence on referring to to women as b1tches and ho's in the music scene, or the endless narcissism of naked selfies and outrageous behaviour in order to get a few lines of press coverage?


OK, I'll bite.

You should take from all that cultural hyper-sexuality that sex is really important to a lot of people. That lots of men are disgusting pigs. And that any man you meet just might be one of them. So even if the guy you are dating is not a celebrity or rap artist, he might expect lots of sex from his partner even when conditions are not optimal. Even if he seems like a gentleman on the surface.

Seeing how revolting you find the culture, despite its ubiquity, you should be open with guys you date that any relationship with you is not going to be like that. That you see sex differently than it is portrayed in popular culture. That you see sex as something beautiful between 2 people who care deeply about one another.

The benefit of being open about your wanting to "pass" on popular portrayals of sex is that it helps you weed out the guys who will end up being incompatible. Which is a GOOD thing. Saves both of you the hassle.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Perhaps. But how many years does it take to grasp the concept that you cannot make someone be something they are not?


Took me about 8.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> OK, I'll bite.
> 
> You should take from all that cultural hyper-sexuality that sex is really important to a lot of people. That lots of men are disgusting pigs. And that any man you meet just might be one of them. So even if the guy you are dating is not a celebrity or rap artist, he might expect lots of sex from his partner even when conditions are not optimal. Even if he seems like a gentleman on the surface.
> 
> ...


So because I find the stereotypes and banal characters in pop culture offensive and stupid means I hate sex? I think you have me confused with someone else.

In my relationship, I am the HD one, and my SO is LD. Indeed, we are the perfect Al and Peggy Bundy. I guess I should conclude that since I'm the wife instead of the young hotties in skimpy clothing that l deserve to be despised and ridiculed because I want sex with my SO.

Ah yes, the joy of behavioral cues from pop culture. Now I know why I expect to be despised and ridiculed by all men, and why I now know I have no value whatsoever, despite fitting (some of) the parameters of what they say they want.

ETA: I just wanted to add that when I first met my SO, before we even went on our first date, I told him in no uncertain terms that he didn't want to go out with me, that I was an awful and worthless person (which I had already been clearly informed of), and that he was better off giving me a pass.

IMHO, the hypersexualization of American culture is as damaging in many ways as is repressiveness. Indeed the two often go hand in hand, which is why the Middle East is the biggest consumer of pornography, and the US is about as uptight about sex and nudity as is possible.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Holding,
> You are way too generous in your assessment of me and overly harsh in your self assessment.
> 
> I married an excellent life partner who also happened to be a remarkably compatible sexual partner.
> ...


The bolded is me too.

The problem is that I would usually not initiate if she didn't seem in a good mood. However, this turns out not to be a good measure of whether or not she's up for sex (what she's told me). Often when she's had a tough day at work she wants quality time with me (which includes sex) to counter it. That's not the way I work at all.

I have a hard time wanting sex if she doesn't seem happy, so that's a problem. We've largely resolved this, but it was a misunderstanding for a long time.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> *I was an idiot, and I deserve what I am getting.*


Well, no. Not if you ask me.

I don't know you, Holdingontoit, but I'll make some guesses:

You wouldn't make the same mistake, knowing what you know about human behavior now. We are not born with all the answers. I bet when you look at mistakes your kids or nieces and nephews have made, even as grown ups, you view them with compassion and being mindful of the full context of what it takes to "become".

There's a difference between not having sufficient knowledge and experience, and exercising poor judgement when you should know better.

It's easier to have courage and presence of mind when you've felt, really felt, the pain before. Without such pain, it's hard to know when to let go of optimism and to compromise on the direction our highest values and best motives would point us towards.

It does no good to hold anger towards yourself or disparage yourself for your own actions, made years ago. If you're doing that, there is something you can do: give yourself a break.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> In my relationship, I am the HD one, and my SO is LD. Indeed, we are the perfect Al and Peggy Bundy. I guess *I should conclude that since I'm the wife instead of the young hotties in skimpy clothing that l deserve to be despised and ridiculed because I want sex with my SO.
> *


That's weird. Who on this site despises and ridicules women who want sex with their SO?



always_alone said:


> Now I know why I expect to be despised and ridiculed by all men, *and why I now know I have no value whatsoever, despite fitting (some of) the parameters of what they say they want*.


It's sad that this is your view of what men value. Honestly, I never see what you think you're seeing. 

From reading you, sounds like you're the type of woman I'd be interested in dating (in the imaginary world where we both young, free, unencumbered and you didn't think I was a d!ck). The only off-putting element is your "I'm worthless" attitude. I'd probably be interested in having a go at changing that.

Was your SO always LD? If so, do you think that your view of male sexual desire had an impact on choosing someone that had LD tendencies?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holding,

It isn't every day that someone reaches into your head and describes exactly what's in there with such clarity and precision. 

So - yeah - the post below - says it perfectly. 

My favorite scene from this movie - The Big Chill - is when a group of friends is talking about needs. Someone says sex.

Jeff Goldblum replies: Rationalizations
Somebody looks at him incredulously and challenges that
So Goldblum asks: Have you ever gone a week without a rationalization?

What follows is my compound (2 part) rationalization - of this situation:

There's a whole bunch of stuff I would never do on my own, that I happily do with M2, because I like doing stuff with M2 that she likes to do. To see her smile, to hear her laughter. This seems a bit like that in reverse. 
AND 
I don't accept her overtures unless she seems happy. 

----------------------------------

In my dreams the Genie appears and when he speaks this is what I hear: 

I will grant you one and only one wish, so think hard and then speak clearly. 

And without hesitation I express my wish: I want to switch bodies for one night so I KNOW what this feels like for M2 and she knows what it feels like for me. 




Holdingontoit said:


> You have, of course, gotten your answer in her silence. You know to a reasonable certainty what she would say. She would say her ideal frequency is far below yours, but that she will strive to make herself available more often to please you. Knowing the exact number would not enhance your interaction.
> 
> She hesitates to tell you an exact number because she fears it would upset the equilibrium you guys have reached. A number makes it real. A number seems fixed in time. A number emphasizes the difference between your number and hers. A number would be an obstacle to emotional and physical intimacy. A number would destroy the hope and uncertainty and willingness to suspend disbelief that is needed for you guys to relate sexually.
> 
> She is doing you a favor by deflecting. Do yourself a favor and stop asking.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> That's weird. Who on this site despises and ridicules women who want sex with their SO?


I was talking about pop culture cues for behaviour and Peggy Bundy, not anyone on this site.

And thanks for the compliment. I appreciate your intentions, even though you can't really understand where I'm coming from.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

AA: Sorry that the broad universal "you" implied that I mean the singular unique and wonderful A_A. I should have said "one " or "someone". As in what someone might glean from viewing the hypersexualization of US society.

No one has pummeled themselves more in reaction to that culture than I have. I punish myself for not being sexual. I am reminded of sex constantly through media and every reminder causes me to feel worthless. If no one wants me, and in 54+ years pretty much no one has (including the ones who consented), despite everyone else being so sexual all the time, then I really must be a hideous troll. 

Please accept my apology. I did not mean to imply that anyone who does not have a high desire for sex is unattractive or won't be able to find a partner. I only meant to point out that it benefits both low and high, hypersexualized and restrained, demure or exhibitionist, to discuss their views before they get so entangled that exiting the relationship is overly costly.

As I said before, my only point was meant to be generic. If popular culture is hypersexualized, then silence regarding one's disgust with that culture is a poor strategy for finding a compatible partner.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> So because I find the stereotypes and banal characters in pop culture offensive and stupid means I hate sex? I think you have me confused with someone else.


You seem to miss the difference between a cue and a stereotype. 

A cue is, you go to the mall, you see lots of fashionable women all with short hair. That's a cue. Maybe they all wear some kind of ethnic scarf or colorful hair thingie or this or that, so you conclude that maybe the 'ethnic' look  is in. A stereotype is you see some young thing with pink hair like Lady Gaga and you go pink hair as well.



> IMHO, the hypersexualization of American culture is as damaging in many ways as is repressiveness. Indeed the two often go hand in hand, which is why the Middle East is the biggest consumer of pornography, and the US is about as uptight about sex and nudity as is possible.


If you think America is hypersexualized, I have news for you. We're so far behind it's not even funny. Have you ever visited Europe? 

What is hyped in America is the commercialization of sex (sex sells) not sex itself. If MTV could exist showing cat videos instead of b00b videos 24/7 they'd do it (cats are cheaper as they're not members of the Screen Actors Guild :grin2.

TV always portrays exaggerated views of what is mostly 'real', i.e. the LD guy and HD wife in their 40's etc. Maybe the other way 'round. Look at the Brady Bunch and the like. The Waltons (please take me out of my my misery). You're presented with the idea that people take sex seriously. That's the cue. The stereotype is for you to dress in big red hair, heels, and tight pants and nag your husband.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> No one has pummeled themselves more in reaction to that culture than I have. I punish myself for not being sexual. I am reminded of sex constantly through media and every reminder causes me to feel worthless. If no one wants me, and in 54+ years pretty much no one has (including the ones who consented), despite everyone else being so sexual all the time, then I really must be a hideous troll.


It is precisely this sort of problem that made me challenge john on his idea that we ought to be taking our behavioural cues from the media. Media and pop culture, IMHO, does no one any favours because mostly what it does is pump bs stereotypes and unrealistic ideals, and degrade anyone who doesn't adequately conform. Indeed, it really is mostly geared to making people feel bad about themselves so they will be more susceptible to buying whatever stupid product is being pushed.

That said, I find it interesting that you still seem to see me as someone who thinks of myself as unattractive because I don't want sex --even when I have explicitly stated the exact opposite several times.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> You're presented with the idea that people take sex seriously. That's the cue. The stereotype is for you to dress in big red hair, heels, and tight pants and nag your husband.


Well, I think your description of a stereotype is way off, but okay. Let's say the "cue" is that people take sex seriously. 

Well, duh. So now what? 

Because I've been cued, it's my job to seek social conformity in every possible way? Because I've been cued, my unique or individual needs are meaningless? I should be shamed or derided because I simply physically can't live up to these expectations?

Let's say that's true. What now do I do with all the cues telling me that (for example) my sexual impulses are dirty, dangerous, shameful, despicable, freaky, crazy (or whatever)?

Because there are absolutely no shortage of these either.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

A cue is generally something you interpret rather than observe and do. It is something you perceive as part of the experience that your brain uses to interpret the perception. 

A stereotype is a widely accepted and generally rigid idea or view one has about a person or object. 

The stereotype is the view formed in ones mind about a particular situation, while the cue is a small signal to help with the overall perception.

Most adults take cues from such TV as you indicate but don't stereotype the behavior. Otherwise we would have lots of middle age Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus lookalikes


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> A cue is generally something you interpret rather than observe and do. It is something you perceive as part of the experience that your brain uses to interpret the perception.


And my point is simply this: the cues we get about sex are by no means uniform or consistent. On one hand they insist that we must all be doing it all the time, posting naked selfies on the internet and the like, and on the other they are deeply repressive and full of shame and humiliation.

And you think we should all come out with a consistent interpretation of that? :scratchhead:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The message is that sexuality is important and personal for people of all ages etc.

Hearing your friendly neighbor LD talk about sex, it's somewhere between curling and badminton in the list of Olympic sports to watch... Once every SLA many time periods.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

All this stuff about frequency is incredibly misleading.

I'd take great sex on a daily basis.

I'd take awful sex on a never times per week basis.

I think the true measure of HD vs LD is not in how often they want sex. It's if they prioritize quantity over quality. In other words, the HD prefers bad sex to no sex, and the LD prefers no sex to bad sex. They both still want good sex though. When you get an HD unwilling to improve the sex, because they are selfish and okay with bad sex no matter how their LD partner feels, then you get a true sexual incompatibility.

When you find someone who doesn't want great sex, doesn't even masturbate, doesn't daydream about good sex, then you don't have an LD, you have an asexual. I think a lot of LDs come across as asexual because they've been so turned off by bad sex that they prefer to avoid it altogether, and are unwilling to tell their partner to improve their technique.

Yes, I'm aware that this definition makes me LD. My past experiences have me believing that I'm destined to never experience great sex again.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's like one of my industrial designers telling me that unless they can photoshop me a Mona Lisa of a product or some such they aren't doing anything industrial design any more. 

There are times for storybook sex and times for starfish sex and everything in between. It's how you deal with it and what it means to you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

HC,
I 'liked' the post below despite the bit at the end. Many but not all people dislike being groped. If your partner responds well to groping - than grope away. 

FWIW - I dont mind when M2 grabs my azz. But I do not like her grabbing my cylinder unless it is already hard. 




Hopeful Cynic said:


> In cold winter weather, after a snowfall, you have to go out and shovel the driveway, clean off the car, start the engine and let it run a few minutes before you finally hop in and drive away. You also have to maintain the car, make sure it has a good battery, winter tires, rustproofing, winter oil, antifreeze, winter washer fluid, etc. Sometimes you get a block heater and plug the car in overnight. Sometimes you get a remote car starter so you don’t have to physically go out into the cold to start it. When you do the prep work, the car will respond as you want it to, and it will be a smooth ride.
> 
> If you just hop in the car, cold start it, run the wipers a couple of times to get the snow off and gun the engine to plow through the mess the snowplow left at the end of the driveway, you’re not going to get very far. Do this every morning, and odds are you’re going to damage the engine and then it won’t start no matter what you try.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> HC,
> I 'liked' the post below despite the bit at the end. Many but not all people dislike being groped. If your partner responds well to groping - than grope away.
> 
> FWIW - I dont mind when M2 grabs my azz. But I do not like her grabbing my cylinder unless it is already hard.
> ...


I'm of the view that if it's not unwanted, it should be called by another word, because it's not groping.

OED says:

2 [with object] informal - Feel or fondle (someone) for sexual pleasure, especially against their will: he was accused of groping office girls

When someone says they don't like being groped, this is what they mean.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

john117 said:


> That's like one of my industrial designers telling me that unless they can photoshop me a Mona Lisa of a product or some such they aren't doing anything industrial design any more.
> 
> There are times for storybook sex and times for starfish sex and everything in between. It's how you deal with it and what it means to you.


But if ALL you EVER get is starfish sex, it's like your engineer only phoning it in, designing crappy widgets that barely function and expecting you to be satisfied with the work. And never trying to improve no matter how much you provide encouragement and instruction. But you keep them around because every now and then genius strikes so you KNOW they can do better.

Some people prefer no sex to starfish. Those are the LDs. Some people prefer starfish to nothing. Those are the HDs. The key thing is that BOTH still hope for something more. But in a sexless marriage, NEITHER is willing to do what is necessary to achieve it, probably because it involves effortful change and a lot of overcoming of stereotypes. For the HD, that may be improving their technique, improving their attractiveness, listening to their partner with an open mind, meeting non-sexual needs. For the LD, it might be getting up the courage to tell the HD they are unattractive and need to improve their technique, or that certain positions hurt or remind them of earlier abuse, or learning to be more assertive about what they would prefer.

I can't stand starfish. May as well be rape as far as I'm concerned. To me there's no functional difference between someone saying "no" and someone saying "well, I will if I have to," even if it's nonverbal.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> But if ALL you EVER get is starfish sex, it's like your engineer only phoning it in, designing crappy widgets that barely function and expecting you to be satisfied with the work. And never trying to improve no matter how much you provide encouragement and instruction. But you keep them around because every now and then genius strikes so you KNOW they can do better.
> 
> Some people prefer no sex to starfish. Those are the LDs. Some people prefer starfish to nothing. Those are the HDs. The key thing is that BOTH still hope for something more. But in a sexless marriage, NEITHER is willing to do what is necessary to achieve it, probably because it involves effortful change and a lot of overcoming of stereotypes. For the HD, that may be improving their technique, improving their attractiveness, listening to their partner with an open mind, meeting non-sexual needs. For the LD, it might be getting up the courage to tell the HD they are unattractive and need to improve their technique, or that certain positions hurt or remind them of earlier abuse, or learning to be more assertive about what they would prefer.
> 
> I can't stand starfish. May as well be rape as far as I'm concerned. To me there's no functional difference between someone saying "no" and someone saying "well, I will if I have to," even if it's nonverbal.


I disagree. This is the point of view that that everyone thinks and reacts to stimuli the same way you do. If you had great sex, you'd want it all the time; everyone else feels the same way you do; hence people that don't want sex must not have great sex. After all, that's how you feel about it.

There are plenty of stories on TAM and IRL about wives that have a great time when they have sex but rarely want it (i.e. okguy & Richard). So, either their wives have been successfully lying to them for decades or LD is a bit more complicated than you think.

I don't particularly like wine. Now, a wine lover is prone to say that's because I've never had really good wine. Nope, it's just that I'm not him and I don't share every like and dislike that he does.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The thing is, you probably have a better chance to improve frequent starfish sex, and less of a chance to improve infrequent and awesome sex  - just a guess.

Also it could be starfish is the best they can give and they really try. I can't fault them for that, while I can fault them for not trying.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> There are plenty of stories on TAM and IRL about wives that have a great time when they have sex but rarely want it (i.e. okguy & Richard). So, either their wives have been successfully lying to them for decades or LD is a bit more complicated than you think.



Probably both


----------



## kag123 (Feb 6, 2012)

I see so many people use the term starfish here. 

I never quite get it. 

I mean, I get that sometimes a partner might not be super pumped to have sex. I get what duty sex is. 

But if starfish is not a euphemism and people are really laying there like that, totally unresponsive...I mean, I can't wrap my head around it. I'd be grabbing the AED and preparing the paddles.

And I'm the "LD" one. I can't say I've ever just laid there completely unresponsive. I truly did not know people did that.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I can tell you I know great sex and that's what my wife and I have. No way she is lying or faking it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> The message is that sexuality is important and personal for people of all ages etc.
> 
> Hearing your friendly neighbor LD talk about sex, it's somewhere between curling and badminton in the list of Olympic sports to watch... Once every SLA many time periods.


The message is nowhere near as consistent as that, no matter how many times you repeat it or how right you think you are. Women especially are constantly shamed for their sexuality, and are much more likely to end up with bad sex and no orgasm because of all of the myths and bs around women's sexuality. But men too are often shamed and end up with their own sets of hang-ups.

That culture writ large is fixated on sex is a surprise to no one, but that we are all so lucky as you as to have a completely uniform and consistent message that sex is always great in all respects? Well, sorry, but the world is a whole lot more complicated than that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Well, speaking of the world, I grew up in the backwaters of Europe and within 20 years we went from state run broadcast media to free for all media and from page 3 nudes to full blown sex everywhere. You get the idea. Nobody freaked out.

America is as sexually oppressed as it gets. If it were not, you would not be seeing this dichotomy that you describe. 

I raised two girls and I don't think they used the cues, and sure as heck they did not use the stereotypes. They know not to be shamed and they know how to look classy. They know what a real marriage involves too, and aren't waiting for TV to define it.

Seriously, I wish more Americans would travel abroad and see some SIMPLE things that we could do here to move forward in this aspect. A few years go I was in a conservative German city. On a nice Saturday there was a small set of kid rides and activities set in a place in the city. Right next to the red light district.

Cues? This have me enough cues for a lifetime. At night on TV they had a strip Jeopardy type game after midnight. On ZDF. Do they read different cues than us?

They get a far more uniform, sex is cool who cares type message rather than is Americans who stress over every little Kim Davis-esque detail. Sex is sex.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

HC,
I'm HD. I've NEVER participated in starfish sex. If I ever got the sense M2 was just hoping for it to be over - I'd stop. 

I disagree that HD people are by definition willing to tolerate bad sex. Some sex starved HD folks may do that. But many - even if they are sexually frustrated - have no interest in bad sex.




Hopeful Cynic said:


> But if ALL you EVER get is starfish sex, it's like your engineer only phoning it in, designing crappy widgets that barely function and expecting you to be satisfied with the work. And never trying to improve no matter how much you provide encouragement and instruction. But you keep them around because every now and then genius strikes so you KNOW they can do better.
> 
> Some people prefer no sex to starfish. Those are the LDs. Some people prefer starfish to nothing. Those are the HDs. The key thing is that BOTH still hope for something more. But in a sexless marriage, NEITHER is willing to do what is necessary to achieve it, probably because it involves effortful change and a lot of overcoming of stereotypes. For the HD, that may be improving their technique, improving their attractiveness, listening to their partner with an open mind, meeting non-sexual needs. For the LD, it might be getting up the courage to tell the HD they are unattractive and need to improve their technique, or that certain positions hurt or remind them of earlier abuse, or learning to be more assertive about what they would prefer.
> 
> I can't stand starfish. May as well be rape as far as I'm concerned. To me there's no functional difference between someone saying "no" and someone saying "well, I will if I have to," even if it's nonverbal.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> HC,
> I'm HD. I've NEVER participated in starfish sex. If I ever got the sense M2 was just hoping for it to be over - I'd stop.
> 
> I disagree that HD people are by definition willing to tolerate bad sex. Some sex starved HD folks may do that. But many - even if they are sexually frustrated - have no interest in bad sex.



For real. 

Even a mundane thing like, If ' my friend obviously doesn't wanna hang out with me and go to the mall, I certainly don't wanna do it'. 

And it's even more emotional when it comes to sex. That affects me deeply.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Well, speaking of the world, I grew up in the backwaters of Europe and within 20 years we went from state run broadcast media to free for all media and from page 3 nudes to full blown sex everywhere. You get the idea. Nobody freaked out.
> 
> America is as sexually oppressed as it gets. If it were not, you would not be seeing this dichotomy that you describe.
> 
> I raised two girls and I don't think they used the cues, and sure as heck they did not use the stereotypes. They know not to be shamed and they know how to look classy. They know what a real marriage involves too, and aren't waiting for TV to define it.


So let me get this straight: on one hand you think all LD's should be taking cues from the media about "proper" behaviour, but only if hey are the sex positive cues of your favorite European countries, not those evil repressive ones of the US, and thank gawd your daughters didn't take those cues, and saw them for the bs that they are, but also managed to stay classy and not open their own windows in a red light District. Do I have that right?

You can't have it both ways: either the cues are consistently sending one message or they are not. Yes, sex is everywhere, and yes, people have been having sex since the beginning of, well, people. 

It is clear to me that you are lucky enough to never have experienced ED or pressure to perform that exacerbates that ED in a negative spiral. Or any sort of health problem that causes any sort of painless discomfort, or dysfunction around sex.

It is clear to me that you have never had anyone force themself on you, violating your will, your boundaries, your very personal self.

It is clear to me that you can't even imagine what it might be like to have an even slightly different attitude than sex is always all good and always all desirable all of the time.

I'm all for more sex positive messages, and would be happy to see a whole lot less shaming around sex. But, well, let's just say that not all red light districts are suitable playgrounds for children, and not all hypersexualizations are healthy happy role models for us all to follow. 

And in the end of all, even if they were, people are still different, and entitled to their individual needs and desires.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

No need to get snarky here....

People should take cues from the prevailing culture and follow the culture norms - or they should be honest enough and make clear that they aren't.

If you're vegan and get invited to the company BBQ you better tell the caterer rather than wait and b!tch about it.

The cues are consistent. In Paducah holding hands and lots of PDA is ok and are generally practiced. In Jeddah not so much . The cues are for the general population and give you an indicatin of what's important. 

When I visit Germany for work I notice what's important for them. It is consistent. Same here. It does not mean I follow it blindly there or here. It does mean I consider it.

I'm also cognizant of my own limitations. If I have this or that medical condition, and can't go for a walk or a bike ride at 5 pm like my German colleagues, at least I realize it's important to them to (a) get out of the office at 5pm (b) help stay fit and (c) enjoy the outdoors. 

To bring this back to the topic, LD's claim on many cases they do not recognize how important physical intimacy is to their partner. To which I call major BS. This isn't Jeddah. This is all about understanding and communicating, things that, sad to say, your friendly neighborhood LD is generally aren't very good at.

You keep throwing exception after exception to the rule yet I doubt you want to understand the rule to begin with. I agree with the exceptions and they are valid, however not everyone out there, as much as exceptionalism tells us, is different.live in another country for a while and cues become far easier to understand.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I'm of the view that if it's not unwanted, it should be called by *another word*, because it's not groping.


I sometimes tell my wife I'm very fondle of her, and back it up with action.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

kag123 said:


> But if starfish is not a euphemism and people are really laying there like that, totally unresponsive...I mean, I can't wrap my head around it. I'd be grabbing the AED and preparing the paddles.
> 
> And I'm the "LD" one. I can't say I've ever just laid there completely unresponsive. I truly did not know people did that.


Not a euphemism. Ashamed to say the terms "silent and unmoving" describe H2's behavior during most of our sex sessions. Probably a big part of why we didn't have much sex. Definitely a big part of why I no longer desire sex.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> To bring this back to the topic, LD's claim on many cases they do not recognize how important physical intimacy is to their partner. To which I call major BS. This isn't Jeddah. This is all about understanding and communicating, things that, sad to say, your friendly neighborhood LD is generally aren't very good at.
> 
> You keep throwing exception after exception to the rule yet I doubt you want to understand the rule to begin with. I agree with the exceptions and they are valid, however not everyone out there, as much as exceptionalism tells us, is different.live in another country for a while and cues become far easier to understand.


I have lived in many different countries, in radically different cultures. Indeed, I'm not from the US at all, just a fairly frequent visitor.

I know variation when when I see it, and I know mixed messages. And, my friend, if anything is the rule, it is mixed messages about sex, particularly for women. If you want your wife to be seeing more uniform cultural cues, you might have to move her to Germany.

But even with all that positive messaging, it turns out that the reality for individuals may not be so very different. Even in this mecca of sexuality, women still only climax 33% of the time: Germans have better sex: survey - The Local. 

The most consistent cue in the realm of sexuality is a distinct economic and power imbalance, in which men are to be served and women are there to serve them. I totally get why a lot of women aren't too jazzed on catering to that dynamic, especially given the disparity in satisfaction rates.

But even with all the right cues and perks, there are significant numbers of LD and asexual men too. Call it "exceptionalism" if you insist, but one in 5 is actually pretty high: 
Solutions for Low Libido in Men

Yes, sex is everywhere. But that doesn't mean it has the same meaning or importance or desirability for everyone.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

My apologies to OP for veering so far off topic. I know you were trying to stay away from the negative feedback loop explanation of LD because it is fairly obvious why this happens, and has already been discussed to death.

Why a positive feedback loop isn't easy to generate is a much tougher question to answer. But I do still think that conflicting attitudes around sexuality and autonomy often play a role, along with trying to sort out the conflicting desires and needs of two separate individuals.

And TBH, I really think that some people are just wired that way. Just because culture is telling us we should be having sex every 10 minutes doesn't mean we care at all to conform.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I don't think most of us are saying the LD should conform. We are saying be honest. Yes, this may lead the relationship to end. But that is not necessarily the worst option. The worst option is usually to be trapped in the negative feedback loop for long periods of time. So if you are wired to not want much sex, fine. Don't feel obliged to have sex you don't want. But for gosh sakes admit you aren't that much into sex, or not into sex with this particular partner and free yourself and them to find someone more compatible. Because sexual mismatch often is, by itself, more than enough to undermine an otherwise satisfying relationship.

THAT is the message. Not that LDs are obliged to have sex. But that sex might not be a big deal to the LD themselves, but it is a big deal to many around them. SO they shouldn't assume it WON'T be a big deal to their partner just because they and their partner get along so well in every other way. If the only way someone does not get along with their partner is sexually, that is not a green light to go forward. The "action item" to be gleaned from cultural messages is that sex is a sufficiently big deal for a sufficiently large portion of the populace that a sexual mismatch is a big red flag that needs to be addressed early and openly. Make sure you have explicitly addressed how important sex is to your potential partner. Because if it is a big deal to them, then there is a decent chance that will scuttle the relationship even if everything else goes well.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> I don't think most of us are saying the LD should conform. We are saying be honest. Yes, this may lead the relationship to end. But that is not necessarily the worst option. The worst option is usually to be trapped in the negative feedback loop for long periods of time. So if you are wired to not want much sex, fine. Don't feel obliged to have sex you don't want. But for gosh sakes admit you aren't that much into sex, or not into sex with this particular partner and free yourself and them to find someone more compatible. Because sexual mismatch often is, by itself, more than enough to undermine an otherwise satisfying relationship.
> 
> THAT is the message. Not that LDs are obliged to have sex. But that sex might not be a big deal to the LD themselves, but it is a big deal to many around them. SO they shouldn't assume it WON'T be a big deal to their partner just because they and their partner get along so well in every other way. If the only way someone does not get along with their partner is sexually, that is not a green light to go forward. The "action item" to be gleaned from cultural messages is that sex is a sufficiently big deal for a sufficiently large portion of the populace that a sexual mismatch is a big red flag that needs to be addressed early and openly. Make sure you have explicitly addressed how important sex is to your potential partner. Because if it is a big deal to them, then there is a decent chance that will scuttle the relationship even if everything else goes well.


This cry for honesty, then, needs to be met with acceptance when that honesty is delivered. You yourself pointed out that your wife told you that she would never be able to meet your sexual needs. Similarly, john's wife was quite blunt that she has no interest in a sexual relationship with him and thinks it's beneath her, it's for teenagers not mature adults. I think richard's wife has also made clear her drive isn't what he wants it to be.

You want honesty? You got it. So why still railing about what the LD "should" be doing?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The honesty part is the LD also understanding why he/she is going to be treated as a roommate and not a spouse from that point on, and accepting it. I don't chit chat with my roommate, I don't waste a Saturday proof reading his PowerPoint presentation, and I don't waste my life supporting his choices.

Want to be roommates? Great. Split the chores and costs and stop pretending or depending on your roommate if you need anything. 

Don't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You want honesty? You got it. So why still railing about what the LD "should" be doing?


My wife took 15 years to finally accept reality and "confess"... I understand that admitting something like that 15 years ago would have meant being left on her own with 3 small children, but she never communicated properly and made my life hell. Not sure she actually knew what was going on either... and I'm sure she didn't enjoy it (not knowing, or being LD - she wasn't before). My point is that if you become LD for some reason, please tell your spouse. I appreciate honesty and communication above anything else. Our lives would have been much less painful. But people are what they are...

Being LD in the first place - or not even enjoying sex - and not telling your future spouse, well that's just inconceivable to me...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It would be nice the if LD realized it and communicated it. However, the HD already knows the problem exists now, whether or not it did before.

Having been through such a relationship, my view now is that once you identify ANY significant incompatibility in your relationship, the entire relationship becomes incompatible. Spend some time working to resolve the issue if it is a new one, and if it's not fixed - or it has always existed - end the relationship and move on. Maybe you can remain friends if you want. It almost always works out better that way in the long run, IMO.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> It would be nice the if LD realized it and communicated it. However, the HD already knows the problem exists now, whether or not it did before.
> 
> Having been through such a relationship, my view now is that once you identify ANY significant incompatibility in your relationship, the entire relationship becomes incompatible. Spend some time working to resolve the issue if it is a new one, and if it's not fixed - or it has always existed - end the relationship and move on. Maybe you can remain friends if you want. It almost always works out better that way in the long run, IMO.


I was aware there was a problem, obviously... but how do you solve it if you don't know the reason? If my wife told me: "look, I'm afraid I lost my drive, I only feel like having sex once a month, I don't know why this has happened" - then I would have been fine about it... or I could have made an informed choice... but I didn't know and I made it even worse...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You want honesty? You got it. So why still railing about what the LD "should" be doing?


Because I got the honesty 7 years and 2 kids after I told her sex was very important to me. I might have had the guts to derail the marriage train if I had known before. After the kids arrived I was never going to leave, and she knew it.

And note that before honesty I did not get "I have no idea". I got all kinds of active dishonesty. Complaints about minutiae that were designed to distract me. Requests with the promise they would make a difference because there was a core of desire underneath. When she knew darn well there was not.

Shed no tears for me. I have exactly the marriage I want these days, and my wife is just as stuck with me as I am with her. 

Like I said before, not trying to resolve this for myself. I am trying to help others avoid my fate. And H2's.

Which is an important point. The HDs are not the only ones I am trying to inform. There are plenty of LDs who eventually regret not having paid more attention to the mismatch prior to or earlier in their marriage. LDs pay as high a price or higher for not realizing what a big deal sex is to their intended.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

See. AA, I have coined two terms for explaining the root cause for LD. Notice the quotes. "Stupid" is the case where the LD ignores reality because they do not understand the importance of physical intimacy in a marriage. "Evil" is when they do but due to many reasons prefer to ignore it. Again, the quotes indicate those are made up terms. 

In reality most LD's are somewhere on between. The closer to "s" the easier to fix and the closer to "e" the harder to fix.

The 180 and various acronym DIY methods work well in the "s" cases because one truly gets the wake up call. The same methods don't generally work for "e"...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> I was aware there was a problem, obviously... but how do you solve it if you don't know the reason? If my wife told me: "look, I'm afraid I lost my drive, I only feel like having sex once a month, I don't know why this has happened" - then I would have been fine about it... or I could have made an informed choice... but I didn't know and I made it even worse...


I did say you spend some time to solve it. That may include figuring out the reason - medical, psychological, past trauma, situational, etc. However, having a reason is nice but an unnecessary luxury - you may never know the reason even if you find a solution. You attempt to enlist their help in recognizing and dealing with the problem. If they will NOT, then that tells you all you need to know to move on, IMO. Or, having done your - and their - best to resolve it, it either is resolved to your satisfaction or it is not. If not, you get to decide to live with it or leave.

You can make an informed choice of what to do - even without the reason - based on willingness to work on it (for a reasonable period of time at your discretion), or based on UNwillingness to do so.

If you do nothing or decide to stay despite no progress, that is your choice.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm afraid I'm a pure rationalist... I need a reason for everything... there's always a reason. The rest are excuses...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The subtext of all of these conversations is the same:

If you loved me enough you would WANT to do xyz for me.

OR 

If you really loved me you wouldn't pressure me to do something that I really don't want to do. Especially something like THAT.

Having stared at those two oppositional views for a long time, I believe they both have a lot of merit. 

But here's the ugly reality when you drill down a layer. The LD's view of this situation is hindered by a brutal evolutionary fact. The separation of recreation and procreation is a VERY new thing. So third party sex triggers all the defensive weaponry designed to protect limited resources. Meaning - the LD believes that it's ok to refuse sex while demanding fidelity. Not because it's fair. But because the alternative causes them to feel intensely bad. 

And to be fair, the LD is right to be afraid. The typical HD isn't looking for a casual hookup. They want the thing they had with their partner - at the beginning. 





always_alone said:


> This cry for honesty, then, needs to be met with acceptance when that honesty is delivered. You yourself pointed out that your wife told you that she would never be able to meet your sexual needs. Similarly, john's wife was quite blunt that she has no interest in a sexual relationship with him and thinks it's beneath her, it's for teenagers not mature adults. I think richard's wife has also made clear her drive isn't what he wants it to be.
> 
> You want honesty? You got it. So why still railing about what the LD "should" be doing?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Meaning - the LD believes that it's ok to refuse sex while demanding fidelity. Not because it's fair. But because the alternative causes them to feel intensely bad.


Not being an LD person, I don't see how you (or I) could speak about what an LD believes or feels. I get that you can speak to what your wife has explained to you, but that isn't going to cover what all LD's think and feel.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> I'm afraid I'm a pure rationalist... I need a reason for everything... there's always a reason. The rest are excuses...


I'm a rationalist, too. There may always BE a reason, but a lot of the time it is too complex or too submerged to understand or find. Very common problem in trying to understand human behavior and motivation. And even when you think you have the real reason, you may be wrong. If it makes you happy to have a reason - even a wrong one - then go for it!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> I don't think most of us are saying the LD should conform. We are saying be honest.


But, what if the LD doesn't know they're LD? Maybe the sex is great at the beginning and they don't believe it will change? What if they aren't aware that their libido might tank after children? The HD might know that they are HD and be in a position to inquire about sex; but, maybe not. Maybe neither one knows what HD and LD is?

So, I think the best that can be done is a talk prior to marriage discussing the importance of sex to each partner; propose questions such as: 

If your libido were to suddenly drop and your partner's didn't, is it your responsibility to try to solve the problem? Should your partner just accept the situation? 
Is it morally repugnant to have sex or try to have sex when you don't really want to? 
Do you think sex is an essential part of a relationship or just "icing on the cake"?, 
Is it normal for sex to decrease after the "honeymoon period"? 
Do you think men believe sex and love are related? or different? Are sex and love related for you?
Are there any sexual acts that are off the table?
Are there any sexual acts that are very important to you?

The each partner could ponder the other's answer and, maybe, improve the chances of sexual mismatches being discovered down the road.

There was a book recently called "Baby Proofing your Marriage" which warned women that, although they might lose their sex drive temporarily, their husband won't. One author pointed out that one thing she did about this was to give her husband a blowjob every Friday night. The outrage! A new mother should give her husbands sexual needs the time of day! Appalling! 

I think the birthing classes should work this into their syllabus.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holding,

This is the one area where I think it's important to be relentlessly honest about what happened. 

My Mother - who had one 43 year marriage that lasted til she died - took her vows seriously. 

That said, I remember her frequently saying: Up until the first child, it's just a piece of paper (the marriage certificate). Once you have a child, whole different situation.

Your wife was very honest with you - on the honeymoon and prior to the first child. 

People want what they want. You wanted her to want you. 





Holdingontoit said:


> Because I got the honesty 7 years and 2 kids after I told her sex was very important to me. I might have had the guts to derail the marriage train if I had known before. After the kids arrived I was never going to leave, and she knew it.
> 
> And note that before honesty I did not get "I have no idea". I got all kinds of active dishonesty. Complaints about minutiae that were designed to distract me. Requests with the promise they would make a difference because there was a core of desire underneath. When she knew darn well there was not.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I don't think it's nearly as complicated as folks make it out to be.




Married but Happy said:


> I'm a rationalist, too. There may always BE a reason, but a lot of the time it is too complex or too submerged to understand or find. Very common problem in trying to understand human behavior and motivation. And even when you think you have the real reason, you may be wrong. If it makes you happy to have a reason - even a wrong one - then go for it!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> See. AA, I have coined two terms for explaining the root cause for LD. Notice the quotes. "Stupid" is the case where the LD ignores reality because they do not understand the importance of physical intimacy in a marriage. "Evil" is when they do but due to many reasons prefer to ignore it. Again, the quotes indicate those are made up terms.
> 
> In reality most LD's are somewhere on between. The closer to "s" the easier to fix and the closer to "e" the harder to fix.


There are a few reasons why I'm not a fan of your theory. Most critically, it is waaay too narrow and totally one sided. The "importance" of physical intimacy is *not* an absolute, it is a sliding scale, based on personality, age, health, stress, and a zillion other factors. Just because someone doesn't want to meet your exacting SLA, doesn't make them any more "evil" than you are for imposing it. 

Also, your insistence that "stupid" and "evil" are just your innocent terms that you have "coined" is disingenuous in the extreme.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> I don't think it's nearly as complicated as folks make it out to be.


I sincerely hope you're right. Even so, I don't think that would mean there will be a solution.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I believe touch - physical contact - is a huge deal. And you can have a lot of high quality non sexual touch that has a bonding effect. For most folks, there needs to be some amount of sex for this to make a good 'soup'. 

I've said this before, if your partner doesn't like non sexual affection, it's worth trying to understand why. Because loss of that - has a huge negative impact. 





always_alone said:


> There are a few reasons why I'm not a fan of your theory. Most critically, it is waaay too narrow and totally one sided. The "importance" of physical intimacy is *not* an absolute, it is a sliding scale, based on personality, age, health, stress, and a zillion other factors. Just because someone doesn't want to meet your exacting SLA, doesn't make them any more "evil" than you are for imposing it.
> 
> Also, your insistence that "stupid" and "evil" are just your innocent terms that you have "coined" is disingenuous in the extreme.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> But here's the ugly reality when you drill down a layer. The LD's view of this situation is hindered by a brutal evolutionary fact. The separation of recreation and procreation is a VERY new thing. So third party sex triggers all the defensive weaponry designed to protect limited resources. Meaning - the LD believes that it's ok to refuse sex while demanding fidelity. Not because it's fair. But because the alternative causes them to feel intensely bad.


I'm not sure I buy that: that the separation of recreation and procreation is such a new thing. I mean, it is true that animals tend to have very defined mating cycles, where only when the female is fertile will it even take place, whereas humans are well-known for having sex purely for fun. 

Depending on one's perspective, one could call that very new, but truth is that humans have been around for a goodly amount of time now, and have probably been having sex recreationally for most, if not all of it. 

In a number of cultures fidelity is not particularly important, and so I don't really see jealousy or possessiveness as an evolutionary or biological trait. And in those cases, a mismatch in drives becomes super easy to fix: Just find someone else to scratch that itch. In a culture (or to a person) where fidelity is important, on the other hand, there's no doubt that there are a lot fewer options to work with.

The way I see it, though, the LD is just as entitled to want fidelity and no sex and the HD is to want lots of sex and no fidelity. But just because we are entitled to want something, doesn't mean we'll ever get it. Options are always limited, and for every choice you make there's a downside that you (one) probably wishes they could avoid.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I believe touch - physical contact - is a huge deal.


Good point. This is something we see in all mammals, and is actually pretty critical to survival. Thriving, at the very least. 

Although at this level, it isn't about sex at all, but about being held as an infant, or hugs from family members, or even just close proximity of friends.

Hmmm.... will have to think on that.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think the source of frustration is that people committed to long term relationships without understanding how their partners felt about sex. In most cases this was an honest mistake - each just assumed that everyone was like them. 

I think there is a good chance that the long term LD/HD relationships started when both were young and inexperienced -and became too committed before they realized there was a problem.

There is no solution. There is not way they can really be happy together, but because of the long term commitment, they may not be happy apart. 

How many people can really look themselves in the mirror if they left the love of their lives, over a lack of sex? 



always_alone said:


> This cry for honesty, then, needs to be met with acceptance when that honesty is delivered. You yourself pointed out that your wife told you that she would never be able to meet your sexual needs. Similarly, john's wife was quite blunt that she has no interest in a sexual relationship with him and thinks it's beneath her, it's for teenagers not mature adults. I think richard's wife has also made clear her drive isn't what he wants it to be.
> 
> You want honesty? You got it. So why still railing about what the LD "should" be doing?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> How many people can really look themselves in the mirror if they left the love of their lives, over a lack of sex?


But staying and yet feeling "I would love you so much more if only you changed and were a different person than you really are" is not actually honest or fair to either party. If they are truly the love of your life, then you would love them as LD as much as if they were HD.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> There are a few reasons why I'm not a fan of your theory. Most critically, it is waaay too narrow and totally one sided. The "importance" of physical intimacy is *not* an absolute, it is a sliding scale, based on personality, age, health, stress, and a zillion other factors. Just because someone doesn't want to meet your exacting SLA, doesn't make them any more "evil" than you are for imposing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, your insistence that "stupid" and "evil" are just your innocent terms that you have "coined" is disingenuous in the extreme.



I somehow don't think you've spent any time in behavioral science study or research. I spent the best part of a decade. To start, allow me to remind you that you really don't know much about it other than the two buzzwords. I'm sure if I ever submit it for consideration to a worthwhile journal I'll be asked to use less polemic terms like "mild" vs "acute" or "benign" vs "malevolent" and so on . The behavioral sciences haves long history of using lol-worthy terms. 

Second, and more important, while I agree that frequency of intimacy is variable on many factors as you identified, we are talking about people so far off the chart they might as well be on another planet. I can rattle off the SPSS routines that perform this type of analysis as I use them weekly. 

The only one "imposing" anything is generally the LD...it's a Min(x, y) function. And as MEM observed, it's not just sex that is generally starved but any type of physical path to intimacy, not "just" intercourse.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> The only one "imposing" anything is generally the LD....


Yep, as per your world view, it is "generally" just the LD being evil or stupid, and the poor HD is a perfect and innocent victim who never has anything to do with the state of their own sex life.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> But staying and yet feeling "I would love you so much more if only you changed and were a different person than you really are" is not actually honest or fair to either party. If they are truly the love of your life, then you would love them as LD as much as if they were HD.



Love is what gets you into a relationship based on a variety of "rewards" and "risks". Using love to get into an LTR then selectively picking and choosing what parts of the LTR to participate in is emotional fraud.

I'm not talking illness or some such btw so spare me the "my husband is in the space station and we can't have sex" type arguments.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep, as per your world view, it is "generally" just the LD being evil or stupid, and the poor HD is a perfect and innocent victim who never has anything to do with the state of their own sex life.



It's hardly my view.

It's generally accepted the LD controls the gates...

But don't let this stop you


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Love is what gets you into a relationship based on a variety of "rewards" and "risks". Using love to get into an LTR then selectively picking and choosing what parts of the LTR to participate in is emotional fraud.


And of course, the HD is still the victim, never did anything to contribute to any part of the fact that their sex life sucks. It is all those stupid and evil LD's who are to take the blame for everything that is wrong...and as you've stated above, they ALSO know upfront that they are baiting and switching thus making them even more evil and stupid.

Sorry man, but I don't see you as a victim. Though you will obviously continue seeing yourself that way. Have fun.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> It's hardly my view.
> 
> It's generally accepted the LD controls the gates...
> 
> But don't let this stop you


Yes and per your world view, they "impose" this control on the poor, victim HD who never did anything to deserve and who have nothing to do with the state of their own sex lives. Poor poor you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok guy,

You are now mirroring the behavior of a guy on this board, with whom you have been sparring recently. 

You've lost the thread. Night before last M2 initiated. I begged off. And did so for me - not for her. I did not want to have sex. Had nothing to do with M2. Nada. Zero. She is being her normal delightful self. I did not want to have sex. 

Last night she initiated again. Asked it would be ok - she forced herself on me. That's the thing about M2 - she's a perfect blend of 
sugar and spice. 

I was firmly on the fence last night. She hadn't initiated - inertia would have done what is does - and we would not have had sex. 

But that - light - lightly humorous - but determined - push - was the catalyst. 

So how was it you ask? Well I'm not really sure. See - M2 has a 'tell'. When she's crazily turned on her nipples get rock hard. And last night - despite a very patient and determined effort on my part - that didn't happen. 

So was it good for her? I'm not certain. Was it great for her. I'm pretty sure it wasn't. 

Am I going to ask her about that? You can safely bet your house that I'm not going to. I came hard - she came hard. If I ask her about the nipple hardness - the overall experience I'm opening the door for her to ask ME the same question. 

Don't want to answer that question. It was 'ok'. And that's all it was. 




Okguy said:


> richardsharpe said:
> 
> 
> > Good evening
> ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I somehow don't think you've spent any time in behavioral science study or research. I spent the best part of a decade. To start, allow me to remind you that you really don't know much about it other than the two buzzwords. I'm sure if I ever submit it for consideration to a worthwhile journal I'll be asked to use less polemic terms like "mild" vs "acute" or "benign" vs "malevolent" and so on . The behavioral sciences haves long history of using lol-worthy terms.
> 
> Second, and more important, while I agree that frequency of intimacy is variable on many factors as you identified, we are talking about people so far off the chart they might as well be on another planet. I can rattle off the SPSS routines that perform this type of analysis as I use them weekly.
> 
> The only one "imposing" anything is generally the LD...it's a Min(x, y) function. And as MEM observed, it's not just sex that is generally starved but any type of physical path to intimacy, not "just" intercourse.


You are absolutely correct: I don't agree with a number of the basic assumptions of the behavioural sciences, and generally find this approach to understanding human behaviour severely lacking in both robustness and explanatory power. And so after burning all of BF Skinner's books (a joke!), I haven't really spent a whole lot of time in this arena. 

And no, such people are not so far off the charts as to be on another planet. Let's look atfrequencies: The number of MEN who *have NOT had sex in the past YEAR by age
Age --- Single --- Partnered --- Married
18-24 --- 56.9, --- 26.0 --- 4.2
25-29 --- 46.6 --- 20.8 --- 1.6
30-39 --- 39.6 --- 15.6 --- 4.5
40-49 --- 48.9 --- 29.9 --- 9.1
50-59 --- 67.7 --- 34.1 --- 20.6
60-69 --- 86.4 --- 27.3 --- 33.9
70+ --- 81.6 --- 26.3 --- 54.2

The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]

Now of course you're going to come back and tell me that all of these guys would've had sex every single solitary day multiple times if only (if only!!) it weren't for all the stupid and evil women out there. But then you are ignoring the one in 5 who has their own sexual issues and hang-ups, not to mention the fact that a lot of guys simply do not pursue sex at all. One friend of my SOs, for example, seems plenty adequately happy with only his hand and some porn, and has been like this for ~ a decade. He, apparently, "has no time" for women. And yes, he is just an example, but there are many more like him, and many more with different stories still. 

No, not from another planet. Just different from you.

There are also a number of cultures/philosophies that counsel men that too much sex is a very bad thing because it weakens them, depleting their ability to be warriors and hunters, etc. Some say no more than once a week; some say no more than once a month. 

Also planet earth.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> And of course, the HD is still the victim, never did anything to contribute to any part of the fact that their sex life sucks. It is all those stupid and evil LD's who are to take the blame for everything that is wrong...and as you've stated above, they ALSO know upfront that they are baiting and switching thus making them even more evil and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, but I don't see you as a victim. Though you will obviously continue seeing yourself that way. Have fun.



I'll make sure to have my lawyer exclude you from the jury pool 

Do you deny that an LD HD "relationship" is based on one side giving and the other side taking. If the giver is a victim, that I don't know. 

Think of resentment. If the LD has some concern on a fraction of the marriage, does that give them the right to completely and unilaterally (and often permanently) take intimacy off the table?

Let's take the easy (?) example case. HD working husband and LD SAHM wife. Wife does not put out because husband insulted her cooking. Should he cut out financing her health club?

Fundamentally no. But she shouldn't cut sex either. Two wrongs, etc. Eventually both are "winners" yet both are "victims".

If you expect such a relationship to be a win-lose I have news for y'all. It's not.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Do you deny that an LD HD "relationship" is based on one side giving and the other side taking.


Given that there are multitudes of reasons for a sexual mismatch, yes I do deny that it is reasonable to make this type of generalized statement.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

AA, it's disheartening that you don't look more into how behavioral sciences work. Skinner's theories are best used as litter box liners... He got a lot of the basics right on conditioning but when he pulls it all together... I'll stick to Noam Chomsky 

The data table you presented lacks dimensionality. Add a dimension for physical health, another dimension for qualitative relationship status (JLD (1)... loves spouse ... Indifferent ... Hates spouse's guts... J2), and keep subsetting or drilling down. 

So pretty much you find yourself into the twilight zone. Now, think of your thesis - or mine. Take the last column and start drilling down. Then interview people or ask with a good questionnaire about why they're NOT having sex. Add that into the data set and keep drilling down.

From what I know of the Kinsey methodology he did ask questions and tabulated data but tables like the one you posted don't drill down enough, and I doubt Kinsey used motive anywhere. Motive is at the heart of my theory (2)

(1) just to see if jld follows this thread 

(2) me and Kinsey in the same paragraph...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Given that there are multitudes of reasons for a sexual mismatch, yes I do deny that it is reasonable to make this type of generalized statement.



If both sides are ok with sex once a month, I agree. If one side has some ailment, I agree. 

But that's not what my premise is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> If both sides are ok with sex once a month, I agree. If one side has some ailment, I agree.
> 
> But that's not what my premise is.


Yes, I'm quite aware that you don't consider anything but your own premise.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes and per your world view, they "impose" this control on the poor, victim HD who never did anything to deserve and who have nothing to do with the state of their own sex lives. Poor poor you.


if you're not interested in having a sexual relationship with your spouse, that's fine. people lose attraction for each other. it's sad, but it happens. it doesn't mean it's the result of some evil plot.

but here is when it becomes more than that:

(1) you know you're no longer attracted to your spouse, but you pretend like there is still something there. you make up BS excuses and cause your spouse to engage in pointless and humiliating hoop jumping.

(2) you know you're no longer attracted to your spouse and you even are willing to admit it, but you still somehow expect commitment and fidelity.

The loss of desire is not your fault, but if either of the above describes you, you are a cake eater.

Now, I don't actually believe the above scenarios are all that common in a black and white sense.

What I think is much more typical is there is a loss of desire and the spouse who has lost the desire knows, in the back of her mind, that the consequences of this will be severe. So she does not admit it, even to herself.

Which is actually pretty sad for the LD person too.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

You are fun to 'think' with. 

Here's the thing that I learned from studying skinner. You can encourage / discourage certain behaviors via reward and punishment. 

That said, if you are fighting against a person's hard wired traits, your adventures in Carrot-Stick metropolis will almost certainly end in tears.






always_alone said:


> You are absolutely correct: I don't agree with a number of the basic assumptions of the behavioural sciences, and generally find this approach to understanding human behaviour severely lacking in both robustness and explanatory power. And so after burning all of BF Skinner's books (a joke!), I haven't really spent a whole lot of time in this arena.
> 
> And no, such people are not so far off the charts as to be on another planet. Let's look atfrequencies: The number of MEN who *have NOT had sex in the past YEAR by age
> Age --- Single --- Partnered --- Married
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
this particular thread (before it drifted) was for the case where it really wasn't in any way the fault of the HD. 

Many times the HD is at fault in some large or small way. but there are a number of HD posters here who honestly cannot think of ANYTHING that they could do differently. The only way they are responsible for their sex lives is in their choice of partner. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Yes and per your world view, they "impose" this control on the poor, victim HD who never did anything to deserve and who have nothing to do with the state of their own sex lives. Poor poor you.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I can find plenty that I am not doing well now. But, as we say in statistics, it's noise at least in my colorful case study. No amount of good behavior - and I've tried - will open sesame.

This is something that the more, ehem, sexual members of the peanut gallery fail to see. Because their experience of a spouse systematically and chronically withholding sex is as much as their experience with unicorns. 

Perhaps it's because they did not experience their own spouse being completely freaked out about the loss of their own sister in a stupid car accident for which their own spouse blames lust, sex, and everything else but the real reason, an inexperienced driver (the 20 something lover) who somehow survived. 

I can understand that. And did. And I offered great support when the death blew up her family back home. We talked nothing but for nearly 6 months. 

Meanwhile when my own brother passed away in an equally meaningless way, all I got for support was a big fat zero. 

That, dear gallery, is the mindset that some of us are dealing with. Consider yourselves and your partners lucky that you didn't end up having to deal with this. 

It's the experience of watching your loved one fade away and a carcass left behind. Emotional Alzheimer's. Maybe it's too strong of a term, I should quote it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> The only way they are responsible for their sex lives is in their choice of partner.


Yep. And their choice is their responsibility, as is their choice to stay anyway, and to "love you but wish you were actually someone else because you aren't HD".


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> if you're not interested in having a sexual relationship with your spouse, that's fine. people lose attraction for each other. it's sad, but it happens. it doesn't mean it's the result of some evil plot.
> 
> but here is when it becomes more than that:
> 
> ...


Yes it is sad for everyone. There's no use pointing fingers as if there are all these evil and stupid LD's running around deliberately victimizing their HD spouses as john likes to pretend.

Most of the people I know personally in sexless relationships are HD women with LD men.

As I have said a couple of times recently, those stories don't always play out along the same lines as the HD man/LD woman story, yet they are just as heartbreaking.

And not one of the LD husbands I know "did this" to their spouse due to being evil or stupid.

The divorce rate is very high, and sexual mismatches is one of the top reasons for it. So obviously this isn't just a simple issue that people can turn around just by placing all the "blame" on the LD and expecting them to fix everything for the poor HD (not saying you are saying this, but john is).

I know everyone wants and wishes for things to change...but most of the time, it doesn't.

When it doesn't change and you're still there anyway, then it becomes your choice and your responsibility for the consequences of your choices. Sadly though, most people still blame their LD and resent them and silently hate them and play the victim card. (again, not saying you do this)


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Mem you lost me


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> AA, it's disheartening that you don't look more into how behavioral sciences work. Skinner's theories are best used as litter box liners... He got a lot of the basics right on conditioning but when he pulls it all together... I'll stick to Noam Chomsky


Meh, Noam Chomsky didn't get interesting until he got into politics, at least IMHO.

I'll give you that the table does lack dimensionality, and indeed it is very, very difficult to find the data on the whys of sexlessness. So we have no choice but to rely somewhat on anecdote and speculation.

But I think your characterization of LD is overly Machiavellian and does a disservice to relationship realities. To every explanation of the whys, you keep saying "I'm not talking about that". Indeed, you keep narrowing the scope and narrowing the scope until you are talking about a vanishing small population: those people who are only LD because they want to stick it to their partner. 

How many situations do you actually think your theory applies to? Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced it applies even to your own, let alone anyone else's.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok guy,

At one end of the spectrum is a guy who said the following in response to a post of mine: 

If our frequency EVER dropped to once every five days, the marriage would be over. 

I believe a few people believed that he had a fairly low 'threshold' for any type of sexual mismatch. I was one of those folks though to be fair age matters and I don't know how old he is. 

At the other end of the spectrum - you make a blanket statement about sexual mismatch being an invalid basis for ending a marriage. And more than that, you implied that anyone who did such a thing is a bad person via that - can't look yourself in the mirror - construct. 

So in a way that makes you two similar. He's making it overly about sex. Your making the assertion that sex simply isn't that important at all. You're doing it indirectly - but doing it nonetheless. 

And that's one of those things I truly love about M2. She not only KNOWS that sex is important, that knowledge informs her behavior. 

I actually believe that a very LD spouse who is a good person is capable of saying: 

I accept that you have needs I'm not meeting. I love you and don't want to lose you. Neither do I want to hold you 'sexually' hostage. So if you can find a partner for what I hope will be 'casual' sex, not only will I tolerate it, but I'll be happy for you. 

That is the honest play for someone who doesn't want to have sex with you, but recognizes your raw desire for sex is high. 

And for clarity, that's for situations where there is a BIG mismatch. 




Okguy said:


> Mem you lost me


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> this particular thread (before it drifted) was for the case where it really wasn't in any way the fault of the HD.
> 
> Many times the HD is at fault in some large or small way. but there are a number of HD posters here who honestly cannot think of ANYTHING that they could do differently. The only way they are responsible for their sex lives is in their choice of partner.


I think one of the walls we are running into is that HD can't necessarily see what it is they are doing that is so off-putting, and because this seems kind of obvious to others, the whole "the HD is doing nothing wrong, has never done anything wrong" just doesn't wash.

Suppose I tell you that my SO is LD, at least with respect to me. What am I doing wrong? Answers easily abound: I'm not attractive enough, I stress him out, I'm an a$$hole. There are a zillion things that make me completely undesirable to him, and all he needs is someone cute, fun and sexy, an he'll be back on track.

Is this hard to believe? Why not?

In a relationship there is always a dynamic, and we can work to bring out the best in our partners --or not.

But that said, even when we do everything in our power to make things right, the fact is that our spouses are individuals with their own wants, needs, conflicts, fears, desires, and we can't just will them into looking at things our way.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It seems to me, FW, that you really do not grasp the concept of ignorance based LD vs indifference based LD. Perhaps you're too offended by words such as "evil" to see what is the meaning behind the quoted word, I don't really know.

Do you really think all these poor HD's you describe are sitting down and sulk in their misery? No. They're dumping their partners a you said. High divorce rate and all. A divorce is pointing fingers. Nobody opens the DivorceApp and clicks OK wasting tens of thousands of dollars in the process and tearing their family apart if there aren't fingers to point.

As you said most times it doesn't work... But if it came to divorce do you feel it is always "amicable"??


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

You are hardwired to: serve and protect 

Those drives exceed your sex drive. By the time you figured out what R2 was really like, she had invested too much time in YOU for you to be able to walk away. 

Most of the folks here in sexually impaired marriages, I (rightly or wrongly) believe I could have played their hands better. 

But not you. Of everyone here, you were dealt the one hand that I wouldn't/couldn't have played much different. The long and ultimately failed attempt to have kids. I would have stuck it out. And no way I would have walked away from M2 in the crushing aftermath. 



richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> this particular thread (before it drifted) was for the case where it really wasn't in any way the fault of the HD.
> 
> Many times the HD is at fault in some large or small way. but there are a number of HD posters here who honestly cannot think of ANYTHING that they could do differently. The only way they are responsible for their sex lives is in their choice of partner.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> You do realize, of course, that this is a total negative feedback loop, with you helping to make it as bad as it could possibly be?
> 
> Take someone who is traumatized about sex and feed them your resentment. Resentment causes turnoff causes resentment causes turnoff.
> 
> ...


Maybe this is too nerdy, but a "negative feedback loop" is one that corrects the problem by applying an input of sign opposite to the error term.

I think you mean a "positive feedback loop", in which the added input is of the *same* sign as the error term, thus making the problem worse.

I know John knows this but perhaps others don't...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,
I absolutely KNOW that doing handyman stuff gets M2 hot. I do that stuff when I see something that I WANT to do for whatever reason. And that isn't a very common situation. I don't do it as foreplay. Way too much effort. 

At heart I'm not really a handyman. And don't feel like being 'not me' to get laid. 

But I don't 'blame' M2 for finding the handyman theme sexy. Don't resent her for it. And I don't think she resents me for hiring other guys to do most of that stuff for us. 





always_alone said:


> I think one of the walls we are running into is that HD can't necessarily see what it is they are doing that is so off-putting, and because this seems kind of obvious to others, the whole "the HD is doing nothing wrong, has never done anything wrong" just doesn't wash.
> 
> Suppose I tell you that my SO is LD, at least with respect to me. What am I doing wrong? Answers easily abound: I'm not attractive enough, I stress him out, I'm an a$$hole. There are a zillion things that make me completely undesirable to him, and all he needs is someone cute, fun and sexy, an he'll be back on track.
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

AA, my pet theory considers both intentional and unintentional reasons for lack of intimacy. I won't waste any more time by explaining it again.

Nobody starts withholding sex to "stick it to their partner". They choose to, or do it unaware, based on their own perception of the relationship and generally without a long term planning horizon in mind. In most cases it's a varying mix of both. That is, there's no pure benign and no pure malevolent choice either.

Chomsky/Sanders 2016


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> As you said most times it doesn't work... But if it came to divorce do you feel it is always "amicable"??


No it isn't always amicable, but if people can actually be decent to each other and set each other free when things don't live up to one or the other's expectations with minimal hard feelings...IOW if the divorce process can be less brutal by deliberate steps taken by the stbx's to be kind and fair...then maybe it wouldn't be so bad to just lovingly let go of each other.

disclaimer: I have to repeat here for the record, I am not saying just throw in the towel at the first sign of trouble. I am referring to relationships that have an unfixable sexual mismatch, after the partners have tried all they can think of or at least one has and is now miserable.

If you aren't miserable and really love your spouse, LD and all, such as richard sharpe and Young at Heart, then I'm not saying divorce is a good idea. But for those who do end up divorced, if you can just do your best to be a good loving spouse during the D process the same way you are trying to be a good loving spouse now, then you may not be facing the scary divorce future you say everyone is doomed to have.

Divorce should be seen as a logical and humane option for those who need it, and we should encourage a kind outcome in everyone so that these mismatches don't have to be so painful to get out of without stigma attached to you (even if only in your own mind).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> That is, there's no pure benign and no pure malevolent choice either.


Then why talk about pure malevolent so much? I mean, besides your marriage, which I understand (I think) why you speak about your wife the way you do...but why you do then project this same thing on every other LD wife?

We don't have the other side of the stories here. Most situations aren't like yours. I've known directly or indirectly many LD people. None of them were malicious people that were ignoring the "great pain they were inflicting on their HD spouse" just to keep their cushy lives. All of them were just people, in a confused marriage where no one was happy, even though they loved each other. 

Most of the LD's I've known have been men, but some women, too. Some are self aware enough to not get in relationships with people who are highly sexual...but sometimes they aren't aware enough of this and they end up in mismatched relationships....because they fell in luuuuuuuuvvvvvv. The HD also fell in luuuuuuuvvvvv and ignored the obvious reality of the mismatch, too.

The only way to help others is to have empathy for both sides of this issue and not assume a default "the LD is the one who is WRONG" position.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I think the source of frustration is that people committed to long term relationships without understanding how their partners felt about sex. In most cases this was an honest mistake - each just assumed that everyone was like them.
> 
> I think there is a good chance that the long term LD/HD relationships started when both were young and inexperienced -and became too committed before they realized there was a problem.
> ...


That describes my whole marriage! We got together young, were each other's first and only, and the sexual mismatch only developed over time. By then, I was well and truly in love, and even though I realized that we weren't perfectly compatible in the bedroom, I felt that we were so very compatible in every other way that we'd work past it by compromising together and we got married. I think that compatibility contributed to the sexual problems because we had zero practice at communicating differences.

Over time, past the honeymoon period and children, we both got resentful, my ex for lack of frequency, and me for lack of quality. The classic vicious circle - my ex would say "I need sex MORE!" and I would say "please do this, this and this to make it enjoyable for me then" but then neither of us would budge. I accepted my lot in life, out of love. My ex cheated. I guess there weren't enough mirrors around.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> No it isn't always amicable, but if people can actually be decent to each other and set each other free when things don't live up to one or the other's expectations with minimal hard feelings...IOW if the divorce process can be less brutal by deliberate steps taken by the stbx's to be kind and fair...then maybe it wouldn't be so bad to just lovingly let go of each other.
> 
> disclaimer: I have to repeat here for the record, I am not saying just throw in the towel at the first sign of trouble. I am referring to relationships that have an unfixable sexual mismatch, after the partners have tried all they can think of or at least one has and is now miserable.
> 
> ...


I like all of this in theory, but consider for a second the fairly typical situation from the male POV.

You're faced with a choice of being a bit player in your kids lives, losing your home, basically all of your wealth to support a person who just doesn't really give a sh-t about you.

That's the cold reality some of us face. So it is pretty difficult to just be pals about it in reality.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> In a relationship there is always a dynamic, and we can work to bring out the best in our partners --or not.
> 
> But that said, even when we do everything in our power to make things right, the fact is that our spouses are individuals with their own wants, needs, conflicts, fears, desires, and we can't just will them into looking at things our way.


And there is a special snowflake unique connection that happens between two people that can't be experienced with any other two people. We've all had more than one relationship or kiss or girlfriend...and we all know that none of these relationships are the same. So we are always at a disadvantage on anonymous message boards because we can't really see a couple's specific chemistry in action when we post one half of a couple or to each other. No matter how much we can generalize, we can't really know what the dynamic is with the couple...that chemistry between these two is so specific that without seeing it or understanding both sides, well that's like working out chemistry with only half the data.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I like all of this in theory, but consider for a second the fairly typical situation from the male POV.
> 
> You're faced with a choice of being a bit player in your kids lives, losing your home, basically all of your wealth to support a person who just doesn't really give a sh-t about you.
> 
> That's the cold reality some of us face. So it is pretty difficult to just be pals about it in reality.


Don't have to just be pals...just have to have a continued strong co-parenting relationship. I understand some of you will have to co-parent with difficult people in the future. You should take classes on how to handle that when the time comes, there are practices you can do to make it as easy as you can for yourself. If you lead with love, fairness and kindness through the D process you have a much better chance of your stbx being kinder as well.

If you are one of the ones who gets f*cked over, I am sorry and I can't offer any way around that. Some of us get sh*t on in divorce and no amount of kindness helps. I get that. (Used to work for a D attorney). But each of us can do what we can. In your case, I am positive you can lead her to a fairly amicable D. After a fair bit of grief, fear, pain, sadness, etc....which are normal emotions during a D...then I am sure after that you two can work together and end up being co-parents for life, basically (because your kids will need that far longer than most do).

Life after D is very good in other ways, and that helps, too.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's not all benign and not all malevolent but if it's 95% and 5% vs 90% to 10% does it really matter? You can't quantify human behavior this much -even the law for contributory negligence or shared liability is not this precise  

As time goes by and neither side does anything meaningful it's more likely to move towards malevolence...

To a purely rational choice person like me, of course, it's all within the realm of knowing. But knowing isn't enough. Meh. Enough Chomsky for the evening.


----------



## GirlChut (Sep 19, 2015)

Ugh she is lucky. Husband wants sex maybe once a week. I want sex all the time. She seriously should consider herself lucky.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

kag123 said:


> I see so many people use the term starfish here.
> 
> I never quite get it.




It is confusing. 



Especially if you make the mistake and google "what is starfish", and then happen to end up at the urbandictionary!



Just when I thought I was following the plot here... 😲


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

HC,
I think I better understand the basis for your comments about HD folks and their emphasis on quantity over quality regarding sex. 

In regard to the situation described below, I'm WAY more sympathetic to the LD partner than the HD. 

It's the HD's responsibility to understand and to the best of their ability maximize the experience for their partner. 

This produces two distinct but related impacts. 
- Physically: it feels better for their partner 
- Psychologically: it feels better as well as it sends the unmistakable message that sex is something they do with you, not to you. It makes you feel important. 

When they are lazy, selfish and/or seemingly uninterested in what the experience is like to you - that produces an altogether different response ranging from disinterest to outright aversion. 






Hopeful Cynic said:


> That describes my whole marriage! We got together young, were each other's first and only, and the sexual mismatch only developed over time. By then, I was well and truly in love, and even though I realized that we weren't perfectly compatible in the bedroom, I felt that we were so very compatible in every other way that we'd work past it by compromising together and we got married. I think that compatibility contributed to the sexual problems because we had zero practice at communicating differences.
> 
> Over time, past the honeymoon period and children, we both got resentful, my ex for lack of frequency, and me for lack of quality. The classic vicious circle - my ex would say "I need sex MORE!" and I would say "please do this, this and this to make it enjoyable for me then" but then neither of us would budge. I accepted my lot in life, out of love. My ex cheated. I guess there weren't enough mirrors around.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Well said, MEM. I will add the obvious warning that one has to be aware of their partner's overall desire (and lack thereof) and in my opinion, try to accommodate them as you said BUT not play into it. 

Otherwise it's easy to end up with unicorn sex, a very nice experience for both AND like unicorns, very rare.

Obviously sex has to be a great experience for both but the lower frequency partner should not willingly or unwillingly create the expectation of a parade of unicorns level experience.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Your wife was very honest with you - on the honeymoon and prior to the first child.


Agreed. That is why I say I should have gotten our marriage annulled or gotten divorced when the minute the plane touched down after our honeymoon. 



> People want what they want. You wanted her to want you.


I also wanted to not be a person who divorced. I wanted to be a person who lived up to his vows. I whine these days because I am not. Even though I remain married.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

well, as usual, it boils down to communication... if someone is withholding sex because he/she is annoyed with his/her partner, then why not be open about it? If the partner has been told, then it's not matter of sexual mismatch, but just incompatibility. If someone is LD, then say it! I don't buy the school of thoughts that HD people must be doing something wrong and therefore are the cause of the LD status of the partner. As I said before, that's not sexual mismatch, it's incompatibility. In my opinion, *if the relationship is generally ok*, the LD/HD bad dynamics are usually created by the LD person... for whatever reason... communicate and work together towards solving the problem before irreparable damage is caused... or at least this is my experience...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> disclaimer: I have to repeat here for the record, I am not saying just throw in the towel at the first sign of trouble. I am referring to relationships that have an unfixable sexual mismatch, after the partners have tried all they can think of or at least one has and is now miserable.


Problem is, by not throwing in the towel early and trying everything you can think of to fix it and waiting until you are miserable to leave, you significantly reduce the chances that the divorce will be amicable.



> Divorce should be seen as a logical and humane option for those who need it, and we should encourage a kind outcome in everyone so that these mismatches don't have to be so painful to get out of without stigma attached to you (even if only in your own mind).


Yes, if you were smart enough to not have kids and not have 1 spouse be a stay at home parent during the time you were trying everything you can think of to resolve the sexual mismatch. The problem is that most couples are not willing to put the rest of their life / relationship on hold during the time they attempt to resolve the sexual mismatch. Makes it easier if you do.

That is why Hold's 2 rules of sexual mismatch are:
1. Don't get married if you have a sexual mismatch. It isn't fair to either of you.
2. Don't have kids if you have a sexual mismatch. It isn't fair to the kids.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> That is why Hold's 2 rules of sexual mismatch are:
> 1. Don't get married if you have a sexual mismatch. It isn't fair to either of you.
> 2. Don't have kids if you have a sexual mismatch. It isn't fair to the kids.


I agree... the problem is when the sexual mismatch surfaces after the kids... then, you are truly f*cked!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm not going to blame the LD in ALL cases but withholding sex rarely works as a, umm, BF Skinner style behavior modification technique. 

To tie this back into cultural cues and stereotypes, a young non LD spouse may have the expectation of frequent sex partially due to the over sexualizes stereotypes and expect their partner agrees to it. Neither side talks about it (more stereotypes of good girl / nice guy) and you got yourself a template for a TAM thread worth a couple hundred pages.

In contrast, my birth country's stereotypes and cues were much simpler and as a result people seemed to be a lot less sexually frustrated...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's what happens generally when stereotypes are used - that is, we emulate or follow behaviors without much internal processing. Kim Kardashian good, Jennifer Foobar good.

Cues are much harder to pick up because they require interpretation (of related and seemingly unrelated events at times) as I mentioned. The interpretation phase is crucial because that's where the cues are integrated with ones own value system, etc, etc.

The above is how immigrants generally adapt (or don't). A good example of how generalized goal seeking scenarios work for different issues


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> That is why Hold's 2 rules of sexual mismatch are:
> 1. Don't get married if you have a sexual mismatch. It isn't fair to either of you.
> 2. Don't have kids if you have a sexual mismatch. It isn't fair to the kids.


again, great rules in theory, but in real life, it never works this way.

People want the status and companionship that comes with marriage. There is intense social pressure to get married.

For a woman who is approaching 30, the sense that she is missing the boat must be intense. Yes, I know there are women who don't really care, but for the average woman.

Same deal with kids. Particularly with marriages happening later and later now, there is a very limited window to have kids. 

If you get married in your late 20s/early 30s (like most college educated people do now), you've only got a few years of decent fertility left (yes, I know there are exceptions, but for the typical woman).

If you have some nagging compatibility issues, but you really want kids, it would be easy to rationalize the issues away. 

How likely are you to divorce, find another suitable man, re-marry (which is generally still a pre-requisite for most educated women) and get pregnant if you have to complete each of these steps in your 30s?

I think this narrow window causes a lot of women to settle. Then, once the kids arrive on the scene, the incentive to keep up the facade (both to herself and other) vanishes.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> HC,
> I think I better understand the basis for your comments about HD folks and their emphasis on quantity over quality regarding sex.
> 
> In regard to the situation described below, I'm WAY more sympathetic to the LD partner than the HD.
> ...


Yes, my post-divorce analysis included a lot of figuring out that fundamentally, my ex was just lazy and selfish with a fragile ego, and had no empathy for me, which extended dramatically to the bedroom. I found out during MC that it turned out we got married not due to love and commitment (which is of course what I thought) but because my ex wanted me 'locked in.' My ex thought I could do better but that the same wasn't true in reverse. Then one day someone better for my ex DID come along, and I discovered that I was the only one 'locked in' to fidelity. I got all the blame for not meeting my ex's sexual needs.

You described earlier about not proceeding if you noticed your partner wasn't really into it. I didn't get that luxury. My ex was oblivious to anything but an outright "No, get offa me!" which led to anger and sulking, so it just got easier to acquiesce. The body responds, but I felt like a piece of meat being used. My ex didn't notice/care. I'm not LD by the average definition, but I definitely wasn't the desire style my ex needed.

In hindsight, I realize that my ex has some very unhealthy and selfish attitudes towards sex. If I'd known then what I know now, I'd never have gotten married of course, or would never have agreed to have children, or would have pursued divorce myself. But then I wouldn't have developed the knowledge I have now, right?

It's thanks to TAM though, that I've regained the ability to realize that all people aren't like my ex.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> AA, my pet theory considers both intentional and unintentional reasons for lack of intimacy. I won't waste any more time by explaining it again.
> 
> Nobody starts withholding sex to "stick it to their partner". They choose to, or do it unaware, based on their own perception of the relationship and generally without a long term planning horizon in mind. In most cases it's a varying mix of both. That is, there's no pure benign and no pure malevolent choice either.
> 
> Chomsky/Sanders 2016


Except that in the end, you make it all about malevolence. How many times, and in how many different ways have you declared absolutely that LDs must know how wrong, damaging, hurtful, awful their behaviour is?

Your theory does not at all allow for unintentional or benign LD, because the LD *must* know from culture that they should be having sex, from family and friends that married couples have sex, from their partner that they want sex. And since the LD *must know*, they are malevolent for having their own POV on the topic, for "withholding" (itself a totally loaded term), and for failing to immediately grasp that because their partner is unhappy, they are no longer entitled to their POV. That is why I think your theory is way too one-sided and ignorant of relationship realities.

So, if you do publish it, let me know, and I'll put out a review. Or maybe better still, craft a sister paper on the evil/stupid binary inherent in the expectations and entitlements of HD SLAs imposed on LD partners. I have lots of data to work with.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Except that in the end, you make it all about malevolence. How many times, and in how many different ways have you declared absolutely that LDs must know how wrong, damaging, hurtful, awful their behaviour is?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Academic grade research is not quite the same as posting blog entries. I've published a few articles on conferences and journals. But I'll humor you.

Benign LD's know that sex is expected and required. What they don't know is the expected frequency or level of participatory interest. So, to a benign LD once a month of starfish meets their perception of the SLA or their goal - yet it would not pass muster with most partners assuming no other issues are present.

It's no more malevolent than some guy overeating and thinking that just because they walk the dog around the block they're fine.

The malevolence comes AFTER the LD is told that they do not meet the spirit of the relationship and they ignore it. 

If you decide to publish anything also make sure you have clean data, not biased, and from a representative sample of the target population. It's nowhere as simple as going top to bottom and collecting data on TAM or talking to your friends.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> I absolutely KNOW that doing handyman stuff gets M2 hot. I do that stuff when I see something that I WANT to do for whatever reason. And that isn't a very common situation. I don't do it as foreplay. Way too much effort.
> 
> At heart I'm not really a handyman. And don't feel like being 'not me' to get laid.


Can I ask you a question? If you wanted more sex and knew exactly what makes her hot, why wouldn't you just give her what she wants to get yourself laid?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing, or pointing fingers. I have asked myself that very same question, and came up with the same answer.

But I'd be interested to hear your take on it. People jump through so many hoops to get laid, and lots of people have no objection whatsoever to just becoming whatever it is (they think) the other person wants. For me, I don't think I *can* be that person, even if I wanted to. So really there's no point, since it's not at all who I am or what I want.

What's your take?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> If you decide to publish anything also make sure you have clean data, not biased, and from a representative sample of the target population. It's nowhere as simple as going top to bottom and collecting data on TAM or talking to your friends.


Okay, well thanks for the tip. But since it was actually pretty easy to get a study on how chocolate helps weight loss published, and then cited and repeated ad nauseum everywhere, I am a little less impressed by academia than you are.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How.

A little knowledge of social engineering and a working vocabulary of disciplinary genres goes an awful long way.

ETA: oh wait, here are some better examples because they passed the "peer-review" test
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118972683557627104

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...-scientific-papers-after-fake-peer-review-sca

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Benign LD's know that sex is expected and required. What they don't know is the expected frequency or level of participatory interest. So, to a benign LD once a month of starfish meets their perception of the SLA or their goal - yet it would not pass muster with most partners assuming no other issues are present.


Upshot being that only the HD partner has a legitimate viewpoint.

The LD can be "forgiven" until they have been "corrected".


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,
To be fair the handy man thing is sort of the one and only thing (that makes M2 hot) that I don't make much effort to do. 

Part of it is laziness because it is a lot of effort. And part of it is a practical look at what the impact would be. 

Lots of effort that would change our frequency from twice a week to thrice a week. Not enough benefit for the work involved. 





always_alone said:


> Can I ask you a question? If you wanted more sex and knew exactly what makes her hot, why wouldn't you just give her what she wants to get yourself laid?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing, or pointing fingers. I have asked myself that very same question, and came up with the same answer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Can I ask you a question? If you wanted more sex and knew exactly what makes her hot, why wouldn't you just give her what she wants to get yourself laid?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing, or pointing fingers. I have asked myself that very same question, and came up with the same answer.
> 
> ...


I was curious about this too, MEM. I read your response to AA but, can I expand the question a little bit...can't you just role play as the sexy handyman? You said it would require too much effort, so I assume by that you mean *actually* doing handyman tasks in order to turn her on would require too much effort. But just putting on a tight white t-shirt, nice fitting jeans, work boots and the tool belt and chasing her around the house "while her husband isn't home" wouldn't be too much effort, would it?


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> To be fair the handy man thing is sort of the one and only thing (that makes M2 hot) that I don't make much effort to do.
> 
> Part of it is laziness because it is a lot of effort. And part of it is a practical look at what the impact would be.
> ...


Isn't that EXACTLY the same logic as usually comes from the LD person? Too much effort for too little reward? 

And isn't your LD partner getting the message that you don't care about them enough to put in effort? No wait, I'm mixing that up with the HD complaint.

All of sex is a cost benefit analysis. Each side wants to minimize the cost but still reap the benefits.

The HD person wants to put minimal effort into meeting the LD's needs, but still have a great sex life. The LD person wants to put minimal effort into the sex life, but still have a good marriage otherwise. Each side puts the onus on the other to initiate the effort.

Going back to the thread title, the LD may enjoy sex once their partner puts in the appropriate effort to get them warmed up but they don't 'want' it from a cold start because that requires effort from THEM.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> All of sex is a cost benefit analysis. Each side wants to minimize the cost but still reap the benefits.
> 
> The HD person wants to put minimal effort into meeting the LD's needs, but still have a great sex life. The LD person wants to put minimal effort into the sex life, but still have a good marriage otherwise. Each side puts the onus on the other to initiate the effort.


Your post made great points...but I just want to speak out for the HD/HD couple. I think maybe it gets forgotten around here that not all couples have sex issues. As someone who is in an HD/HD sexual partnership, we both put great effort into our sex life. Neither of us has ever complained about how much effort is required to make our sex life so fun, varied, and amazing. The effort itself is like a joy to us. 

I'm just pointing this out because for people who think there will always be sexual issues for all couples, no, that is not the case. If you find a great match, these issues are not issues at all.

And there are also good LD/LD matches, where no one feels pressured for more or better sex because both partners are happy with the quality and quantity.

So for any of you, whether HD or LD, who end up divorced one day...just keep this in mind and know that a great sexual match is highly important in any future relationships, but not only that, it isn't some impossible to attain thing. It just requires self-awareness and not settling for something other than what will make you happiest.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Isn't that EXACTLY the same logic as usually comes from the LD person? Too much effort for too little reward?
> 
> And isn't your LD partner getting the message that you don't care about them enough to put in effort? No wait, I'm mixing that up with the HD complaint.
> 
> All of sex is a cost benefit analysis. Each side wants to minimize the cost but still reap the benefits.


aka "What about MYYYYYYYYYY needs?"

I think there is some research out there that says we tend to overestimate our contributions and underestimate everyone else's when we are conducting these cost-benefit analyzes.

Which isn't to say that there aren't some stupendously selfish people out there. Just that we need to be careful when pointing fingers.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

LDs aren't broken. Nor are HDs. Neither is broken - but a relationship between the two *is* broken.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

HC,

Have I recently posted something that upset you? 

Or is it just that my the post below presented you with an irresistible opportunity to reverse the polarity of the argument? 





Hopeful Cynic said:


> Isn't that EXACTLY the same logic as usually comes from the LD person? Too much effort for too little reward?
> 
> And isn't your LD partner getting the message that you don't care about them enough to put in effort? No wait, I'm mixing that up with the HD complaint.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
Role playing is fine by me. And yes - actually doing handyman stuff is a lot of work. 

Perhaps a better way to look at the benefit side of the equation is to break it into physical and emotional. 

I already know that M2 loves me a lot. Upping sexual frequency doesn't move that needle at all. 

So what we are really talking about is physical pleasure. And the incremental benefit of 30-60 minutes of physical pleasure. 


[/B]


Faithful Wife said:


> I was curious about this too, MEM. I read your response to AA but, can I expand the question a little bit...can't you just role play as the sexy handyman? You said it would require too much effort, so I assume by that you mean *actually* doing handyman tasks in order to turn her on would require too much effort. But just putting on a tight white t-shirt, nice fitting jeans, work boots and the tool belt and chasing her around the house "while her husband isn't home" wouldn't be too much effort, would it?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

HC,

You're killin me. Mostly I am not a lazy partner who does as little as possible and tries to get as much as possible.





Hopeful Cynic said:


> Isn't that EXACTLY the same logic as usually comes from the LD person? Too much effort for too little reward?
> 
> And isn't your LD partner getting the message that you don't care about them enough to put in effort? No wait, I'm mixing that up with the HD complaint.
> 
> ...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Hopeful Cynic said:
> 
> 
> > All of sex is a cost benefit analysis. Each side wants to minimize the cost but still reap the benefits.
> ...


Yes but as we have seen there is no guarantee that both spouses will remain hd. Then what? Get another one???? We used to do it every day at one point in time. People change.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> LDs aren't broken. Nor are HDs. Neither is broken - but a relationship between the two *is* broken.


No. It is just not ideal in the sexual area for either of them.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ok guy,

In many cases it IS broken. In your case it is 'not ideal'. 

How would you react if your wife told you that she was permanently done having sex with you? 



Okguy said:


> No. It is just not ideal in the sexual area for either of them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Yes but as we have seen there is no guarantee that both spouses will remain hd. Then what? Get another one???? We used to do it every day at one point in time. People change.


Yes people change, and sometimes a couple who used to be a good match are not a good match later. That sucks and sometimes can't be avoided. Then it becomes a matter of, do I love this person as they are now and can I be happy with the way things are? Sometimes that answer is yes and sometimes it is no.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> Role playing is fine by me. And yes - actually doing handyman stuff is a lot of work.
> 
> Perhaps a better way to look at the benefit side of the equation is to break it into physical and emotional.
> ...


Hmmm....I don't quite get you. There is nothing I wouldn't do to increase the quality and pleasure of sex, even though we already love each other as much as possible and even though our sex life is already amazing.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

> So for any of you, whether HD or LD, who end up divorced one day...just keep this in mind and know that a great sexual match is highly important in any future relationships, but not only that, it isn't some impossible to attain thing. It just requires self-awareness and not settling for something other than what will make you happiest.


I was careful the first time, there was no indication of the change to come. If I ever choose to extract myself, which is a possibility at some point in the next few years, there is no way in hell I'd every choose to marry again before my pecker stops working:smile2:

Just evaluating the marriage risks. 
Under 30 is too young. 

30 to upper 30's no kids, no frikken way unless she sign's in blood no kids -too high a risk of the vanishing libido after birth. 

40's? menopause is on the way and another high risk of shutdown. 

50's, maybe if the drive is good now but it would take years of demonstrated performance. 

Hindsight is 20/20!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I think that means we're two different people FW.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> LDs aren't broken. Nor are HDs. Neither is broken - but a relationship between the two *is* broken.


Maybe it is the language or whatever, but I cannot agree with this.

There is such a thing as Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) just like there is a such a thing as Hyperactive and addictive sexual disorders.

My problem with the HD/LD dichotomy on places like TAM is that, often, the terminology is used to place an individual with a _normal_ and healthy sex drive on a continuum for the sole purpose of assuaging the LD person's ego.

A person with no interest or sexual desire who finds that lack of desire is causing distress (something like 1 out of every 9 women and 1 out of every 20 men) both for themselves and their partner are, in fact, "broken" or whatever nice term you want to use to describe it.

There are treatments for it and ways to overcome it.

And a lot of them have to do with dealing with the psychological issues that crop up.

I get everyone wants to be understanding and not pass judgment and all, but pretending that an actually categorically identifiable sexual dysfunction is "normal for them" is not helpful.

I am not saying people have to get treatment or anything like that…but the drive to call it "normal" is problematic to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I think that means we're two different people FW.


Yes I had just assumed we were more similar on this point, based on previous things you have said.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> My problem with the HD/LD dichotomy on places like TAM is that, often, the terminology is used to place an individual with a _normal_ and healthy sex drive on a continuum for the sole purpose of assuaging the LD person's ego.
> 
> ....
> 
> I get everyone wants to be understanding and not pass judgment and all, but pretending that an actually categorically identifiable sexual dysfunction is "normal for them" is not helpful.


And I think that an HD's insistence that they are normal but their LD partner is not is something they do for the sole purpose of assuaging their own ego, and an attempt at placing all the blame for the state of their own sex life outside of themselves, while exhibiting a lack of empathy for anyone who doesn't feel and think the way they do.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Ok guy,
> 
> In many cases it IS broken. In your case it is 'not ideal'.
> 
> ...


No sex is quite a different story


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> And I think that an HD's insistence that they are normal but their LD partner is not is something they do for the sole purpose of assuaging their own ego, and an attempt at placing all the blame for the state of their own sex life outside of themselves.


Yeah, no arguments there.

It has a lot to do with blame shifting and asking other people to do the work, I think.

But there is such as thing as a normal drive.

Anywhere from one to three times a week seems to be pretty much in line with a normal drive for the vast majority of couples.

Yeah, exceptions exist, of course, but that does not mean that a normal, healthy drive, is not a thing.

Personally, I shift from a pretty normal drive (desire 1-3 times a week) for the most part and then sometimes have a much higher one (like, daily for an entire week kind of thing).

Some variation is normal, but if I suddenly felt a need for sexual desire literally daily, or more, then I would accept that I am getting into an extreme that is likely not going to work.

My wife is the opposite, her default is no drive, at all, for almost two years now. Sometimes she hits the 1/week or 2-3 times a month desire, but defaults back almost immediatetly.

<HD ------ Normal ----- LD>

It is a spectrum, of course, but telling someone with a normal, healthy sex drive, that they are "HD" is not helpful anymore than telling someone with no drive that they are "normal" is helpful.

Every normal drive on the planet looks like radical HD to a person who wants sex once or twice a year.

That does not mean the normal drives are not normal though.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

I


Faithful Wife said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but as we have seen there is no guarantee that both spouses will remain hd. Then what? Get another one???? We used to do it every day at one point in time. People change.
> ...


Agreed. I maintain it is yes at least for me


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

StilltheStudent said:


> Maybe it is the language or whatever, but I cannot agree with this.
> 
> There is such a thing as Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) just like there is a such a thing as Hyperactive and addictive sexual disorders.
> 
> ...


You may well be right. But, I no longer care, really. Normal, dysfunctional, broken, HSDD - no longer matters. There is a significant problem and I'm not going to spend a lot of time working with it. If I ever again encounter a mismatch in libido, I'm moving on quickly if there isn't a fairly simple solution. I wasted too many years in a mismatched libido relationship, and really no longer care WHY it existed, but simply that it does is enough to say "Next!"


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> You may well be right. But, I no longer care, really. Normal, dysfunctional, broken, HSDD - no longer matters. There is a significant problem and I'm not going to spend a lot of time working with it. If I ever again encounter a mismatch in libido, I'm moving on quickly if there isn't a fairly simple solution. I wasted too many years in a mismatched libido relationship, and really no longer care WHY it existed, but simply that it does is enough to say "Next!"


I can understand where you are coming from and I can't blame you, honestly.

I am still working on the whole understanding where it is coming from to find a way to fix it angle. Lately my patience is wearing thin (kind of realized that I have gotten nothing but unenthusiastic duty sex for the last year and feel kind of panicked about what it might mean) and I am starting to think about time lines for progress, etc.

Not where you are yet…but I can see it in my future. :frown2:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> <HD ------ Normal ----- LD>
> 
> It is a spectrum, of course, but telling someone with a normal, healthy sex drive, that they are "HD" is not helpful anymore than telling someone with no drive that they are "normal" is helpful.


When we say someone is HD in a mismatched relationship, it does not mean they are HD as in "way out of the spectrum of normal sexuality". Instead it just means they are the higher drive partner in this relationship.

Someone with no drive is being normal by being themselves. It is their own norm. And sometimes this can't ever change, but sometimes it can. Whether it can or not, the person is still normal as themselves.

People are different and if we can embrace those differences without trying to make them "wrong" we can understand these issues better. Acceptance of our differences is absolutely necessary if we want to solve anything.

But if someone doesn't want to solve anything or has given up trying to, that's fine, too. It just doesn't help that person to continue laying the "blame" for their choices and sex life outside themselves.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> When we say someone is HD in a mismatched relationship, it does not mean they are HD as in "way out of the spectrum of normal sexuality". Instead it just means they are the higher drive partner in this relationship.
> 
> Someone with no drive is being normal by being themselves. It is their own norm. And sometimes this can't ever change, but sometimes it can. Whether it can or not, the person is still normal as themselves.
> 
> ...


And a guy with low testosterone and erectile dysfunction is "being normal by being themselves" too.

Doesn't mean "their norm" is actually normal or healthy though.

Yeah, people are different and all, but that is not an excuse to let someone ignore their very real issues, especially when it is damaging their marriage.

The whole idea that a person with HSDD is "normal for them" and a perfectly normal spouse needs to find a way to moderate _themselves_ to that disorder while accepting it is ludicrous to me.

Hypoactive Disorders are not normal and they are not healthy.

And if the spouse with HSDD refuses to accept that it is a problem and find help with dealing with then yes, they do shoulder the blame for the breakdown of the relationship.

Asking one spouse to take a normal and healthy lifestyle and break it down to accommodate dysfunction in their spouse makes no sense to me.

Really, the only way I see it working is for the HSDD spouse to recognize they have an issue, and have them and their wife/husband work together on finding a way through it.

Telling the HSDD spouse they are normal basically stops that process from starting.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

I mean like, here is an example:
There is a couple in my friend group that is having issues. Not married, but LTR and live together. He is severely overweight and from what I have gathered through some private convos with both of them, he probably has low-T, erectile dysfunction, knows its due to his weight and health issues, but refuses to do anything about it.

She is pretty curt and nasty with him from time to time…but I can see why and can't really blame her.

She lost weight and worked on herself…but he refuses to even acknowledge the problem.

I don't see them lasting much longer and it is his fault.

If he would work out some, get checked, and maybe get some pills for the ED, things would start to improve, but he has always said "This is how he is," and that he is a "relationship nihilist" anyways…whatever the hell that means.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,

There is a lot of interesting and useful variation within what we call 'LD'. 

For instance: LD with strong responsive desire vs. LD who has weak responsive desire and a lot of trouble reaching orgasm. 

In the former case, if you both make it a priority you can have a mutually beneficial sex life. In the latter case, someone is always biting the pillow. 

One thing is for certain, if your spouse is very LD and avoids the topic like the plague it won't improve. 



QUOTE=StilltheStudent;13676170]Yeah, no arguments there.

It has a lot to do with blame shifting and asking other people to do the work, I think.

But there is such as thing as a normal drive.

Anywhere from one to three times a week seems to be pretty much in line with a normal drive for the vast majority of couples.

Yeah, exceptions exist, of course, but that does not mean that a normal, healthy drive, is not a thing.

Personally, I shift from a pretty normal drive (desire 1-3 times a week) for the most part and then sometimes have a much higher one (like, daily for an entire week kind of thing).

Some variation is normal, but if I suddenly felt a need for sexual desire literally daily, or more, then I would accept that I am getting into an extreme that is likely not going to work.

My wife is the opposite, her default is no drive, at all, for almost two years now. Sometimes she hits the 1/week or 2-3 times a month desire, but defaults back almost immediatetly.

<HD ------ Normal ----- LD>

It is a spectrum, of course, but telling someone with a normal, healthy sex drive, that they are "HD" is not helpful anymore than telling someone with no drive that they are "normal" is helpful.

Every normal drive on the planet looks like radical HD to a person who wants sex once or twice a year.

That does not mean the normal drives are not normal though.[/QUOTE]


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Agreed Mem , that is one of the reasons I advocate for not letting the LD partner get away with claiming they are "normal."

HSDD (which honestly, should take the place of LD in my mind) comes in a lot of different forms and each has their own solution.

In my case, my wife appears to move between a true "generalized HSDD" where she has no drive, for me or solo stuff, to a more responsive desire.

She has demonstrated outright, in the mood, jump-my-bones desire I think twice in almost 8-years. 

Really, my goal at this point is to find a way to move into more common responsive desire situations and hopefully a few more, if erratic, lustful moments.

My :banghead: moments were when, about a year back, I thought she was responsive and dumped tons of energy into eliminating stress and dating my wife, etc., only to hit the wall of a complete lack of desire, Full. Stop.

To say that year has built up serious resentment in me is an understatement


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Upshot being that only the HD partner has a legitimate viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> The LD can be "forgiven" until they have been "corrected".



Nobody has a "valid point" until there is an honest discussion. This isn't debate class. Both sides have legitimate views. Views are like eyeholes. Everyone has one. It's what both sides do, or don't, that matters.

Now let me make a run for chocolate


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> I mean like, here is an example:
> There is a couple in my friend group that is having issues. Not married, but LTR and live together. He is severely overweight and from what I have gathered through some private convos with both of them, he probably has low-T, erectile dysfunction, knows its due to his weight and health issues, but refuses to do anything about it.
> 
> She is pretty curt and nasty with him from time to time…but I can see why and can't really blame her.
> ...


I have a female friend in this exact position, only they are married and have a kid.

They are not going to make it. She is waiting until the kid is old enough to handle a divorce and then she will leave him.

She has been through the whole sexual mismatched relationship emotional roller coaster for over a decade now. She has gone through the "why can't he just do what would be more healthy for all of us, and it would solve so many issues including our sex life!!!" and crying to the heavens, asking what she can possibly do to CHANGE HIM so that she can be happy in her marriage.

Nothing has caused any change, including him knowing that she will ultimately be leaving over these issues. He appears to have some personality issues that are the root of his health issues, and he so far has not been willing to dig into this. But...should he have to?

People get to choose whether they are healthy or not, we can't change them or choose for them. If dangling our love and the potential loss of it in front of them can make them want to change, then that's great. They can choose to change if they want. But if they don't choose to, then does that make them a horrible person? Why are they not allowed to be who they are, why do we think we have the right to change them?

At this point my friend finally sees the full reality of her situation. She saw all she needed to see before marrying him to know that the relationship would be sexless. She naively thought she could change him, and he naively said he could change. The reality was different than they both hoped. Neither of them meant to "do this" to each other. He is unhappy too, but really only because he wishes she loved him as he is. Which would require HER to change. She is as unwilling to change (and dampen her sex drive in order to try to be happy in the marriage) as he is.

She has let go of the blame and hate and self-loathing that she had in previous years when she was still trying to change him. She now accepts that he is who he is and she is who she is and that loving each other doesn't mean people are willing to change who they are to be together.

Their child has special needs and she's going to need to be a good co-parent with her H for a long time. She is working on those skills now, and working on increasing her income to be able to afford single parenthood. She is also working on herself, in IC, finding out the real reasons behind why she ended up in this place she finds herself in. She still battles a lot of depression, but she's headed down a path that has light at the end of it, finally.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,

Let's triangulate a bit. 

- Does she crave your company? 
- Does she crave your non sexual touch? 
- Does she perceive you to be a good provider? 
- How well does she treat you in comparison to her close friends and close family members?
- How well do you communicate with her non verbally? This means reading her body language and using yours intentionally and with positive effect?
- How fit are you?
- Did you have a successful dating life prior to your wife? Do women generally find you attractive? 
- When you have conflict, who typically extends the olive branch? You, her, or about 50-50. 

And this last bit, I cannot overstate the importance of it. Especially with a LD spouse. How playful are you with her? 





QUOTE=StilltheStudent;13676418]Agreed Mem , that is one of the reasons I advocate for not letting the LD partner get away with claiming they are "normal."

HSDD (which honestly, should take the place of LD in my mind) comes in a lot of different forms and each has their own solution.

In my case, my wife appears to move between a true "generalized HSDD" where she has no drive, for me or solo stuff, to a more responsive desire.

She has demonstrated outright, in the mood, jump-my-bones desire I think twice in almost 8-years. 

Really, my goal at this point is to find a way to move into more common responsive desire situations and hopefully a few more, if erratic, lustful moments.

My :banghead: moments were when, about a year back, I thought she was responsive and dumped tons of energy into eliminating stress and dating my wife, etc., only to hit the wall of a complete lack of desire, Full. Stop.

To say that year has built up serious resentment in me is an understatement[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> And I think that an HD's insistence that they are normal but their LD partner is not is something they do for the sole purpose of assuaging their own ego, and an attempt at placing all the blame for the state of their own sex life outside of themselves, while exhibiting a lack of empathy for anyone who doesn't feel and think the way they do.



"Normal" based on cultural norms and population stereotypes.....


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Wow FW, that is really sad…I don't see a way around that situation.

But the answer to this..


Faithful Wife said:


> Nothing has caused any change, including him knowing that she will ultimately be leaving over these issues. He appears to have some personality issues that are the root of his health issues, and he so far has not been willing to dig into this. But...should he have to?
> 
> People get to choose whether they are healthy or not, we can't change them or choose for them. If dangling our love and the potential loss of it in front of them can make them want to change, then that's great. They can choose to change if they want. But if they don't choose to, then does that make them a horrible person?


Is a resounding *yes*.

If you claim to love someone and you have a child with them I think that means you would, in fact, change the worst parts of yourself because you want to be the best you can be for your spouse and your kid.

And if you are not willing to do that out of selfishness? Yeah…in my book that makes you not a good person.

I am happy to hear it sounds like your friend is finding ways to cope, but as an outsider looking in, I would lay the blame for the failure of that relationship at his feet.

It's kind of like an affair to me.

Sure, both people are responsible for the issues in the relationship, I think it is always a team effort there…but either through action or inaction one partner nuked the whole damn thing.

If you are not willing to be the best version of yourself for someone else, well, I cannot call that actual love at that point. I think it is something else.

I am by nature lazy and procrastinate, a lot.

Does that mean I demand my wife accept that part of me?

Hell no.

My love for my wife means I want to be a better man for her and I work on not being those things.

I think that is what is missing in a lot of these situations.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Still,
> 
> Let's triangulate a bit.
> 
> ...


- All the time
- Constantly. Literally give her a massage/back scratch/cuddling before bed every night.
- I don't think so. She makes 3x what I do because I am finishing school. Thinks I will make more in the future. I used to make more than her before I got into this program.
- About the same. 
- Not sure, 
- Work out 3 times a week + sports with the wife on the weekend. Lost the last few pounds of post-marriage fat last year and I am on the edge of easily visible muscle tone + abs…so pretty fit.
- Wife and I are both of our firsts, but women (and men, strangely enough, whatever) do give me attention. Actually, gotten some light flirtatious attn from friends both now and in college, including wife's gay-buddy way back when.
- I tend to extend the Olive Branch…prolly 3 out of 4 times.
- We are pretty playful, have fun together, tease and stuff like that. She tends not to like it overly much and not in public that much.

Really, I have ticked off most of the standard advice at this point. Chore Play? Done. Date your Wife? Done. Hit the gym? Done. Back off on initiating? Done. Try to initiate more frequently? Done. Have "The Talk." Done. Give her space out of the house? Done. Create strong friend group? Done.

I am getting to a point where I do not know what else I can actually do to change me or get a response from her.

There have been some glimpses of change from her (not to be graphic but first offered and given oral to completion ever, mention of wanting to check out Addyi, some talk of trying some toys in the bedroom (for the third time)) but then I reflect on the actual quality of sex lately…and it is almost 100% duty sex where she seems bored or at worst getting it over with.

Losing sight of what else I can do.

Sorry for the thread jack…just kind of venting a bit here.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,

M2 craves stability
AND
Desires (lusts after) novelty

I have to frequently remind myself to break our routine - because that's often what gets her going. 

Different question - are the massage/back scratches uni directional? Always you giving? Or is it a is of giving and receiving? 

Do you have kids?





StilltheStudent said:


> - All the time
> - Constantly. Literally give her a massage/back scratch/cuddling before bed every night.
> - I don't think so. She makes 3x what I do because I am finishing school. Thinks I will make more in the future. I used to make more than her before I got into this program.
> - About the same.
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> But the answer to this..
> 
> Is a resounding *yes*.
> 
> ...


People have differing opinions on this and in my opinion, staying with someone while silently hating them for "ruining your sex life" does not make you the better person.

Likewise, choosing to leave a situation rather than stay and be resentful, bitter and miserable does not make someone a bad person.

And choosing to be yourself even if that makes it impossible for someone else to be married to you if they don't like who you are, IMO, does not make you a bad person. Choosing to change doesn't make you a better person either, especially if that change is unsustainable and is only done under duress.

If you're mismatched, there are very few happy outcomes. It is worth it to try to have one, but it is also necessary to see how unlikely it is and accept that you are where you are for reasons you cannot blame entirely on someone else.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

I think my wife craves stability…not sure about novelty. She talks about liking the idea of novelty and surprises…but then has to plan everything out and be part of all decisions for said plans. There have been points where she has talked about wanting me to set up secret date nights and when I point out that she has literally made plans for 7 out of 7 nights the coming week she kind of shrugs and goes, "that’s true…"

The one time recently I actually _did_ pull off getting a weekend day without friends and family and planned out a day of Breakfast Out, Going to a Movie, and Dinner out, I was summarily shot down. We ended up compromising by playing one of our favorite games together later on…but still, all the planning shot to sh!t in 30 seconds.

So, breaking routine is one of those things she says she wants, but literally all of her actions say otherwise.

Physical intimacy like the scratches/massages are 99% my giving. I half-heartedly joke about it and she will spend about 2-3 minutes reciprocating half-heartedly before wanting her "turn" again…

There have been days were we literally spent three or four hours cuddling watching TV and before bed…with me doing 100% of all touching etc…

Cannot help but feel a bit used after those kinds of weekends and all I "get" is some of what I have started calling Maintenance Sex...just enough to get it done.

Mentioned it would be nice to get a massage or something before, never sinks in.

The only time she has given me an non-reciprocated massage when I was not having back pain was when she shot me down, very harshly, on an initiation one night, and I think she realized she went too far.


No kids.
Into our 4th year of marriage, live by ourselves in a nice apartment, and are paying off long-standing bills (both cars owned free and clear) and don't want kids for a year or two by mutual agreement (when she hits 30 we were planning then).


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Kids are suicide given the current state of affairs.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> People have differing opinions on this and in my opinion, staying with someone while silently hating them for "ruining your sex life" does not make you the better person.


I agree, never said it did.



Faithful Wife said:


> Likewise, choosing to leave a situation rather than stay and be resentful, bitter and miserable does not make someone a bad person.


Again, agree, never said it did.



Faithful Wife said:


> And choosing to be yourself even if that makes it impossible for someone else to be married to you if they don't like who you are, IMO, does not make you a bad person. Choosing to change doesn't make you a better person either, especially if that change is unsustainable and is only done under duress.


Completely disagree here.

Professing that you love someone, dedicating your life to them, having a child with them, and then knowingly inflicting emotional pain upon them "because that is who you are" and refusing to do anything about it despite numerous emotional pleas does, in my book, make you a bastard.

Pure and simple.

Change is only sustainable when you actually want to change. If a change is unsustainable it is because you do not care about it.

I am pretty harsh about that…but I think that is true.



Faithful Wife said:


> If you're mismatched, there are very few happy outcomes. It is worth it to try to have one, but it is also necessary to see how unlikely it is and accept that you are where you are for reasons you cannot blame entirely on someone else.


Accepting that the other person is not going to change is healthy.

Refusing to call someone out when their refusal to be partners in a marriage is causing it to fall apart is not.

That is my whole issue with the "Why do we blame LDs?" cop-out.

I blame the LDs because they have a severe psychological or physical disorder which is actively harming the people they profess to love and often _are not doing anything about it and are giving excuses for why their spouses should just deal with it_.

They need to do the heavy lifting.

They need help and support, they need to do the work.

If they will not...well that means in they value their partner and their marriage less.

I may have become jaded over the last few years of reading story after story with these issues...but I just cannot shake the feeling that if you are not right, you need to fix yourself.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

anonmd said:


> Kids are suicide given the current state of affairs.


I know.

Something that concerned me was that, a few months ago, she mentioned that she would be ok if we never had kids, due to "circumstances." That being, primarily, me not being able to turn this degree into a solid career path. (Provider Issue Red Flag for me)

Other times she talks about how we could totally have our first while here in the new apt because we have the room and she makes good money (Confusing given those previous comments) 

Personally, I really want kids. It is something I have always wanted.

But as the last few months have progressed I am constantly dreading what my marriage would look like if we actually did have kids…


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,
She's way too comfortable with everything being all about her. It's why she is taking you for granted. 

Full disclosure - my marriage is almost the opposite of yours in the sense that M2 does way more of the giving in terms of massaging and back scratching. Mostly that's because she doesn't want a 30 minute back scratch but I do. That said - outside the bedroom I do enough stuff for M2 to feel VERY loved. 

I'm a bit confused as to why you want to have children with someone who doesn't seem to mind that she's causing you a LOT of distress. 

Has she had her hormones checked? 

What was the highest frequency that you two ever had sex? 

And uh - how comfortable is she saying what she likes/wants and how often does she orgasm?





StilltheStudent said:


> I think my wife craves stability…not sure about novelty. She talks about liking the idea of novelty and surprises…but then has to plan everything out and be part of all decisions for said plans. There have been points where she has talked about wanting me to set up secret date nights and when I point out that she has literally made plans for 7 out of 7 nights the coming week she kind of shrugs and goes, "that’s true…"
> 
> The one time recently I actually _did_ pull off getting a weekend day without friends and family and planned out a day of Breakfast Out, Going to a Movie, and Dinner out, I was summarily shot down. We ended up compromising by playing one of our favorite games together later on…but still, all the planning shot to sh!t in 30 seconds.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> If they will not...well that means they value their partner and their marriage less....


...less than they value themselves. Yep.

And still, I do not think this makes someone a bad person, just because they ended up being unable or unwilling to change for their spouse. It just means they have different values and priorities.

What does it say about you (any HD who is in an unhappy sexually mismatched relationship) that you are with someone who you feel doesn't love you as much as you love them and who doesn't value their relationship with you as much as you value it, and yet you are still there, accepting this? Does it mean you are the "better person"? IMO, no it does not mean that at all. It again just means you have different values.

Different never means better or worse in this case, just different. I've never seen a sexually mismatched marriage where either the HD or the LD "meant to do this" to each other. In all of them, both are good people who were simply mismatched and kept butting up against each other for years trying to change each other.

Ultimately, it is usually futile.

If you had to accept that your wife will never change no matter what you do and just deal with that reality, what would you do, say or feel? If you can go through that exercise in your mind for a few weeks or months and truly adjust to the idea that change is not going to happen...you will find some relief from the blame game and the resentment. And then you will have enough clarity to actually find out what you are going to do. As long as you think she "should" change, you will be miserable.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Personally, I really want kids. It is something I have always wanted.
> 
> But as the last few months have progressed I am constantly dreading what my marriage would look like if we actually did have kids…


Please do not have kids with her. Don't end up in the position my friend is in.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Still,
> She's way too comfortable with everything being all about her. It's why she is taking you for granted.


I have had that thought before and it takes me in some dangerous directions.

I kind of want to explain it as a mismatch of love-languages…she seems to default to Acts of Service and Physical Intimacy. 

And I think she sees agreeing to me leaving a good job ($35k/yr likely $40k next with promotions lined up) and her leaving a not so good job (wanted to be a teacher, only ever managed to sub on and off) filled up her "acts of service" for me for a while. She "scarified" these 4-5 years during my program etc etc.

She has never said it…but it is the feeling I get.



MEM11363 said:


> I'm a bit confused as to why you want to have children with someone who doesn't seem to mind that she's causing you a LOT of distress.


Honestly, I am not sure I do anymore. And that makes me really sad.



MEM11363 said:


> Has she had her hormones checked?
> 
> What was the highest frequency that you two ever had sex?
> 
> And uh - how comfortable is she saying what she likes/wants and how often does she orgasm?


No hormone check..though I have mentioned she needs to talk to a Doc or her gyno this year.

Sex has always been a challenge.

She wanted to wait for marriage, which I agreed to despite not really wanting to on reflection. We did other stuff and she was actually very forward about what she wanted from me (oral) and promised to reciprocate…eventually.

Eventually took until August this year.

But yeah, sex has always been an issue as I think about it.

As I think back on our sex life I realize a couple of things:
1) We usually had sex 2/week in the first year.
2) Despite me getting her "close" she always finished with her toys
3) Somewhere around the beginning of year 2 frequency dived, hard, to 2-3 a month, and I think we entered into a rut.
4) She started to lose interest in finishing….I tried hard to get her to O which she later said made her feel pressured and made it difficult for her to relax.
5) She also started to feel discomfort during sex…and did not tell me for a year and a half. This I have since figured out was a "dryness" issue which was not there in year one.

I have always had to pick my battles.
She wanted double protection for sex, so we always use condom + pill. I don't see the need and it causes some lack of sensitivity on my part and makes it more difficult to finish…but I conceded that a long time ago.

She tried to do the oral thing…if I had condoms for it and basically never for more than a minute or two and only sporadically.

I don't mean to be graphic…just things I have started to think about a lot more recently, and there are a lot of details flooding through my head.

What it comes down to, I think, is she was afraid of getting pregnant, early sex was uncomfortable and did not work for her and she felt pressured when I tried to "help" by making it enjoyable for her.

That produced her getting used to me doing almost all the "work" but her not enjoying it too much.

The weird part is things got better, we addressed the issues (lubrication + toys during) and then around the time she switched jobs two years ago it fell off a cliff.

We both were stressed at the same time…but whereas I increased support and intimacy, she withdrew and I think we had sex 6 times in 2014 and I got left high and dry for a very trying time in my program while she demanded more and more support for her work stress.

I think 2014 basically broke me.

After me doing a lot of self improvement (exercise, cutting out video games, being more attentive, focusing on work more) the result was what I said before…I tried to initiate after a fun romantic day a day before she was leaving for a week-away for work, she turned me down harshly (Literally, "Are you kidding me?" with an amount of disgust in her voice that I had never heard before.

I think she panicked, actually went quiet, and gave me a back-massage. I don't think I spoke the rest of the evening.

The next morning, literally 15-minutes before she was to leave for the week, I told her flatly when she got back we needed to have a serious talk about our intimacy issues.

Cue crying, her freaking out, and a few weeks later, everything back to status quo.

Big thing….the moment I started to try to engage with her seriously we got word her dad had terminal cancer. He passed earlier this year.

The more I write it out the more I feel like I have been taken advantage of/taken for granted in the last few years, then she turned to me for more support during the issues with her dad's illness and passing, and the recent duty sex seems to just be her response to our "Big Talk" about how this was getting bad for me.

Didn't mean to write that much…just lots of little details floating around my head and its easier for me to put them down.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

There is plenty of time to kick her to the curb and find someone else fertile. I wouldn't think about kids until this issue is solved and 3 years has passed. Hindsight  Do not underestimate a women's ability to temporarily change behaviour while under the influence of baby fever.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Age also matters. What you tolerate at 60 you probably wouldn't at 30.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Both sides have legitimate views.


Wow! I think this is the first time I have ever heard you acknowledge that an LD might be something other than stupid, evil, from another planet, selfish, cruel, manipulative, cake-eating, or some other rude insult. Amazing.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

We can talk about how other people "should" change til the cows come home, how he/she shouldn't be overweight, or shouldn't be an addict, or shouldn't be LD, or shouldn't be lazy. And on and on.

But it all ultimately goes nowhere. You can't make someone change, and the more you try, the more likely they will just dig in their heels and feel like you don't appreciate them for who they are (which, in fact, you don't).

The best you can do is support them in the changes they want to make for themselves. But they have to want it. And if it is counter to their nature, they have to *really* want it.

I would not have kids with someone I was at all uncertain about.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> ...less than they value themselves. Yep.
> 
> And still, I do not think this makes someone a bad person, just because they ended up being unable or unwilling to change for their spouse. It just means they have different values and priorities.



Then don't get married. Or, marry someone who has demonstrated the same values and priorities. 

A lot of people in my field do military funded work - let's say Lockheed calls me and asks me to work on some exotic war machine. Do I tell them up front that I'm a pacifist or do I wait for field trials or deployment in Falujah to voice my concerns.

(An old friend worked on the AC-130  )


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Wow! I think this is the first time I have ever heard you acknowledge that an LD might be something other than stupid, evil, from another planet, selfish, cruel, manipulative, cake-eating, or some other rude insult. Amazing.



It's what they do, not what they think, that matters.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Then don't get married. Or, marry someone who has demonstrated the same values and priorities.


The onus is on both partners to do this. Most HD's saw the red flags waving before committing further and choose to do so anyway. Then we hear them claiming "but I thought he/she would change for me, therefore I was an innocent victim."

No one else will ever be in charge of your actual choices. You can project blame for those choices on others, but it won't make it true.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Ah, yea. Caveat Emptor....


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> The onus is on both partners to do this. *Most HD's* saw the red flags waving before committing further and choose to do so anyway. Then we hear them claiming "but I thought he/she would change for me, therefore I was an innocent victim."
> 
> No one else will ever be in charge of your actual choices. You can project blame for those choices on others, but it won't make it true.


Actually, I think most people with HSDD did their best to suppress it, or honestly had a classic "new relationship attraction" moment which obscured what the future was going to be like…and by the time that energy receded both partners were invested.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Sex has always been a challenge.
> 
> She wanted to wait for marriage, which I agreed to despite not really wanting to on reflection. We did other stuff and she was actually very forward about what she wanted from me (oral) and promised to reciprocate…eventually.
> 
> ...


In your own words.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> john117 said:
> 
> 
> > It's hardly my view.
> ...


As long as when the gates are open they open enthusiastically


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> That said any spouse that chooses to maintain a marriage from the wrong side of the moat is a volunteer not a victim.



Oversimplification alert.... But there's some truth to it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,

That is a very helpful synopsis. Your ability to be fully transparent shows a strength that you will need in the go forward world. 

For a moment, please humor me a couple more questions. Before getting married, was she able to orgasm from oral?

The reason I ask is because - back then - she was not on the pill. And I have heard many stories about how the pill can greatly lower or even eliminate a woman's sex drive. 

I'm assuming - given the lack of premarital intercourse - that she was not on the pill back then. Think back - was her sex drive a lot different or not so much? 

And FWIW - there are no guarantees. Sex drives tend to be highest during the first two years. But it's worth considering. 

Would you like some suggestions on how to approach this? 



QUOTE=StilltheStudent;13676962]I have had that thought before and it takes me in some dangerous directions.

I kind of want to explain it as a mismatch of love-languages…she seems to default to Acts of Service and Physical Intimacy. 

And I think she sees agreeing to me leaving a good job ($35k/yr likely $40k next with promotions lined up) and her leaving a not so good job (wanted to be a teacher, only ever managed to sub on and off) filled up her "acts of service" for me for a while. She "scarified" these 4-5 years during my program etc etc.

She has never said it…but it is the feeling I get.


Honestly, I am not sure I do anymore. And that makes me really sad.


No hormone check..though I have mentioned she needs to talk to a Doc or her gyno this year.

Sex has always been a challenge.

She wanted to wait for marriage, which I agreed to despite not really wanting to on reflection. We did other stuff and she was actually very forward about what she wanted from me (oral) and promised to reciprocate…eventually.

Eventually took until August this year.

But yeah, sex has always been an issue as I think about it.

As I think back on our sex life I realize a couple of things:
1) We usually had sex 2/week in the first year.
2) Despite me getting her "close" she always finished with her toys
3) Somewhere around the beginning of year 2 frequency dived, hard, to 2-3 a month, and I think we entered into a rut.
4) She started to lose interest in finishing….I tried hard to get her to O which she later said made her feel pressured and made it difficult for her to relax.
5) She also started to feel discomfort during sex…and did not tell me for a year and a half. This I have since figured out was a "dryness" issue which was not there in year one.

I have always had to pick my battles.
She wanted double protection for sex, so we always use condom + pill. I don't see the need and it causes some lack of sensitivity on my part and makes it more difficult to finish…but I conceded that a long time ago.

She tried to do the oral thing…if I had condoms for it and basically never for more than a minute or two and only sporadically.

I don't mean to be graphic…just things I have started to think about a lot more recently, and there are a lot of details flooding through my head.

What it comes down to, I think, is she was afraid of getting pregnant, early sex was uncomfortable and did not work for her and she felt pressured when I tried to "help" by making it enjoyable for her.

That produced her getting used to me doing almost all the "work" but her not enjoying it too much.

The weird part is things got better, we addressed the issues (lubrication + toys during) and then around the time she switched jobs two years ago it fell off a cliff.

We both were stressed at the same time…but whereas I increased support and intimacy, she withdrew and I think we had sex 6 times in 2014 and I got left high and dry for a very trying time in my program while she demanded more and more support for her work stress.

I think 2014 basically broke me.

After me doing a lot of self improvement (exercise, cutting out video games, being more attentive, focusing on work more) the result was what I said before…I tried to initiate after a fun romantic day a day before she was leaving for a week-away for work, she turned me down harshly (Literally, "Are you kidding me?" with an amount of disgust in her voice that I had never heard before.

I think she panicked, actually went quiet, and gave me a back-massage. I don't think I spoke the rest of the evening.

The next morning, literally 15-minutes before she was to leave for the week, I told her flatly when she got back we needed to have a serious talk about our intimacy issues.

Cue crying, her freaking out, and a few weeks later, everything back to status quo.

Big thing….the moment I started to try to engage with her seriously we got word her dad had terminal cancer. He passed earlier this year.

The more I write it out the more I feel like I have been taken advantage of/taken for granted in the last few years, then she turned to me for more support during the issues with her dad's illness and passing, and the recent duty sex seems to just be her response to our "Big Talk" about how this was getting bad for me.

Didn't mean to write that much…just lots of little details floating around my head and its easier for me to put them down.[/QUOTE]


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> In your own words.


Yeah, I got that part.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Still,
> 
> That is a very helpful synopsis. Your ability to be fully transparent shows a strength that you will need in the go forward world.


Well thanks…from what I have read around it seems like if you're not willing to be frank with yourself, nothing is going help here.



MEM11363 said:


> For a moment, please humor me a couple more questions. Before getting married, was she able to orgasm from oral?


I don't think so…got quite close a few times, but no. And that is something that has definitely weighed heavily on my mind. Ergo the whole, "Stressing her with pressure by trying to make it happen" phase of things a while back.



MEM11363 said:


> The reason I ask is because - back then - she was not on the pill. And I have heard many stories about how the pill can greatly lower or even eliminate a woman's sex drive.
> 
> I'm assuming - given the lack of premarital intercourse - that she was not on the pill back then. Think back - was her sex drive a lot different or not so much?
> 
> And FWIW - there are no guarantees. Sex drives tend to be highest during the first two years. But it's worth considering.


This thought has occurred to me on a number of occasions. I am honestly confused on the whole Pill question.

We did things more often before marriage (no sex though) but those things were very, very restricted. (Like, no penetration at all….period.) and then when she was on the Pill we had a decent sex life for the first, oh, 12-18 months or something like that.

And the moment life stress hit (for her, new job), we hit the wall.



MEM11363 said:


> Would you like some suggestions on how to approach this?


Yeah, I'm open to any advice, really. At this point I don't know where to go with things and think there needs to be some really stressful conversations in my near future.

(Aside/relevant; I am actually out of town till the end of the month or so due to work. First long-term trip away for me…longest separation of our marriage, and it is the reason I finally started posting…because I cannot get out of my own head right now. And it honestly scared the crap out of me when I realized I wasn't sure if I missed her or was happy for the time…)


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

44 is much different than 64.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> It's what they do, not what they think, that matters.


Spoken like a true behaviorist. But, unsurprisingly, the two are quite connected.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Yeah, I'm open to any advice, really. At this point I don't know where to go with things and think there needs to be some really stressful conversations in my near future.


Ah, the sexless marriage stressful conversations. You will likely have to have many of them. Those of us who have ever been in a sexually unfulfilling relationship can tell you how hard it is....having had dozens of conversations and still nothing changes for the long term.  (That was previous relationships for me, I am now in a great sexual relationship).

The only times I've ever seen a mismatched marriage work are of the following types:

*The HD loves the LD so much that they just give up trying and accept things the way they are and they still love their spouse even without as much sexual fulfillment as they would choose. richard sharpe and Young at Heart are in this camp. In YAH's case, there was a significant amount of counseling and sex therapy that helped his wife become more sexual with him, enough for him to accept it and stay.

*The HD is willing to D over the mismatch, and the LD realizes what they might lose and decides to put all their effort into making sure enough compromise is reached to keep their HD happy. In this process they find their groove sexually enough for both spouses to be happy. (This is the rarest type).

*The HD sticks it out for a long time, and the LD has a hormonal or health change that raises their D level and the sexual mismatch gets corrected. Another version of this is when the LD was LD due to psychological issues, yet they were a sexual person in there somewhere and they find that person and bring them to life in their own time. Anon Pink was a case like this.

*They were always mismatched but the LD always wanted to be sexual enough to keep their HD happy and they did it for their own reasons and without pressure from the HD. This happens fairly often, even though we don't hear those stories too much around here. An old poster, Lyris, was an LD wife like this. Since this hasn't been your sitch, it doesn't apply to you unfortunately.

The rest of the time, the HD either eventually leaves or they stay and are resentful forever and feel they wasted their youth on their marriage.

Of the HD's who left, most ended up in good sexual relationships afterwards.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Isn't that EXACTLY the same logic as usually comes from the LD person? Too much effort for too little reward?
> 
> And isn't your LD partner getting the message that you don't care about them enough to put in effort? No wait, I'm mixing that up with the HD complaint.
> 
> ...


Hah, caught an HD not following through on the "I'll do anything she wants / she doesn't do anything for me" meme.

But, this is a little extreme. 

I do a lot for my wife not in order to win sex, but because I genuinely care about her happiness. She does things for me because she genuinely cares about my happiness.

As far doing things for your SO while having sex to increase their pleasure, well that's a no brainer.

I really think that all this isn't so much about HD vs. LD as it is Giver vs. Taker where the giver wants sex more than the taker.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

StilltheStudent said:


> I mean like, here is an example:
> There is a couple in my friend group that is having issues. Not married, but LTR and live together. He is severely overweight and from what I have gathered through some private convos with both of them, he probably has low-T, erectile dysfunction, knows its due to his weight and health issues, but refuses to do anything about it.
> 
> She is pretty curt and nasty with him from time to time…but I can see why and can't really blame her.
> ...


Do you mean to say that someone can actually be *at fault*?

If people can be "at fault", then maybe they'll feel bad and their self esteem might be damaged!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Do you mean to say that someone can actually be *at fault*?
> 
> If people can be "at fault", then maybe they'll feel bad and their self esteem might be damaged!


Which is exactly the reason most HD's don't find themselves at fault, they place all the fault squarely on the LD's. Because of course for some reason that defies logic, all HD's are innocent victims of horrible evil and stupid LD's. Don't ever, ever look in the mirror HD, for you may actually find some fault there, too. Better to keep the blame entirely on the LD, lest your self esteem might be damaged.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> ...less than they value themselves. Yep.
> 
> And still, I do not think this makes someone a bad person, just because they ended up being unable or unwilling to change for their spouse. It just means they have different values and priorities.
> 
> ...


In an unhappy relationship (either one or both are unhappy) an effort should be made to improve it.

When dating, the effort required is minimal.

In an LTR, the effort should be significant.

With children, the effort should be maximal.

In order for effort to be made "wrong" behavior needs to be identified. 

If no determination of "wrong" is allowed, no effort can be given.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'll play

Let's triangulate a bit. 

- Does she crave your company? yes - she is very unhappy when I go away on business

- Does she crave your non sexual touch? yes, constantly


- Does she perceive you to be a good provider? yes - I have a good high status job


- How well does she treat you in comparison to her close friends and close family members? WEll


- How well do you communicate with her non verbally? This means reading her body language and using yours intentionally and with positive effect? I believe I know her well

- How fit are you? More so than most people we know - I'm fit but no athlete

- Did you have a successful dating life prior to your wife? No - she was my first serious data (and YES this is a huge problem)

Do women generally find you attractive? Yes - quite surprisingly so. I'm OK, physically, but people find me charming


- When you have conflict, who typically extends the olive branch? You, her, or about 50-50. Me

And this last bit, I cannot overstate the importance of it. Especially with a LD spouse. How playful are you with her? Very.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

StilltheStudent said:


> I have had that thought before and it takes me in some dangerous directions.
> 
> I kind of want to explain it as a mismatch of love-languages…she seems to default to Acts of Service and Physical Intimacy.
> 
> ...


There's no upside here. Get out.

And if you were thinking of feeling bad because she helped support you during your studies; don't.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Which is exactly the reason most HD's don't find themselves at fault, they place all the fault squarely on the LD's. Because of course for some reason that defies logic, all HD's are innocent victims of horrible evil and stupid LD's. Don't ever, ever look in the mirror HD, for you may actually find some fault there, too. Better to keep the blame entirely on the LD, lest your self esteem might be damaged.


I disagree with the concept of "it's nobody's fault". I do not believe that it is always the LD who is at fault.

It seems to me that you do not like the concept of anyone being at fault? Or are you making the point that someone is often at fault and that it's as likely to be the HD as the LD?

If it's the second, then I agree.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

Here's the tough thing about the whole 'olive branch' thing. 

While it seems like the 'decent' thing to be the one mostly extending it, doing so can create a dynamic where both folks come to believe her feelings matter and yours not so much. 

When you describe the way you tend to put R2's preferences first, I always smile and nod because I happily do the same for M2. It has always felt 'right' to me to do so. 

That said, I learned early on that M2 was frightfully good at conflict. And her default move was to pull an immediate and total 180 when she didn't get the outcome she wanted or disliked my behavior. 

So my response to that was to mirror the 180 until she decided to re-engage. Fortunately the two of us almost always agreed on who was mostly at fault. So she'd either open with an apology or she would open with: I think we should talk about this. 

There's a reason I mention all this. My ability to tolerate a sub zero emotional temperature for an open ended time period seemed to act as a healthy offset to the fact that I love more. The theme was: I love you, but I don't 'need' you. 

To be fair this - lack of need - wasn't something I abused. I have never said: are you kidding me, you start a fight and then hit me with a 180 for 2 full days and now you think I'm just going to accept your apology and move on. 

Instead I'd see she was genuinely sorry, accept it and it was done. 

Truth is, things were either great or we were in a M2 initiated 180. Mostly they were great. 

It's also true that in the first year of the marriage M2 would pull the 180 and then demand an apology even when she knew she was in the wrong. She quickly discovered that I preferred to continue the 180, than to apologize just to go back to 'happy times'. 

My biggest concern from what you've described is that other than those rare moments when you destabilize the marriage, R2 struggles to acknowledge that your feelings matter too. 

And that recognition is worth fighting for. 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'll play
> 
> Let's triangulate a bit.
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,
I've tried really hard to differentiate between 'traits' and behavior. And it's sometimes a knotty mix of both. 

I think it's best to try really hard to understand and fully accept your partners traits. And to pick your battles on their behaviors. 

And yes - I get that the two are related. I have an addictive personality as does M2. We quit smoking together. It doesn't change the fact we have that trait. But we chose to stop expressing it via the behavior of smoking. 




Buddy400 said:


> I disagree with the concept of "it's nobody's fault". I do not believe that it is always the LD who is at fault.
> 
> It seems to me that you do not like the concept of anyone being at fault? Or are you making the point that someone is often at fault and that it's as likely to be the HD as the LD?
> 
> If it's the second, then I agree.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I disagree with the concept of "it's nobody's fault". I do not believe that it is always the LD who is at fault.
> 
> It seems to me that you do not like the concept of anyone being at fault? Or are you making the point that someone is often at fault and that it's as likely to be the HD as the LD?
> 
> If it's the second, then I agree.


I have known a lot of people in a lot of different types of sexually mismatched relationships, and yet not one of the people I've known "meant to do this" to their partner. 

Other than purposeful intent of trying to harm another, I do not see any reason to assign blame to either spouse. Most people go into relationships happy and hopeful. Sh*t happens and the relationships fail. This doesn't mean either party is a bad person nor should they shoulder the "blame" for a relationship breakdown. 

I'm not talking about abusers, addicts, cheaters, etc. I'm talking about sexually mismatched relationships. Again, not having ever known a person in one who was deliberately abusive or who deliberately sexually starved their partner, I do not see any reason to point fingers or assign blame.

Both partners are who they are. They picked wrong and found that out later. This does not make them bad people, just bad at picking partners. Usually they get better at picking the next time. 

The desire for the HD's to assign blame is understandable because they feel helpless, so to them it feels like the LD is "doing this to them". However, they are not helpless, they have made a bad choice and if they stay in the relationship, then they are just continuing to make a bad choice. Some can do this and it ends up being a good choice because they realize they really do love their spouse even without a fulfilling sex life. Others are just bitter and resentful forever. These two outcomes are a direct result of their own choices.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

In my case, we had 10 very happy years, then things changed. My wife's LD because of the pills she swallows - she has OCD, although very well controlled. She could have therapy to fix it, but she refuses... so, where does that leave me? Is she a bad person? No, she is not. Is she selfish? From our marriage point of view, maybe, from her personal point of view, she can do whatever she likes. I have accepted this. Because I care about her. But is this sustainable on the long term? No. But I don't blame her for not wanting to go down that path. I did blame her a lot in the past. This didn't help, obviously. But it takes time to come to terms with it. It took me a few years, the worst of my life. It's difficult to accept your marriage won't be the same again, although it could be fixed.

I've learnt a lot here. One is that you need acceptance, if you decide to stay. Has acceptance changed things? Not for our marriage, but a lot for me. 

My wife doesn't put any effort towards making me "happy". She thinks I'm happy with once a month. Because I have accepted it. It's a rather strange POV, if you ask me. But this is the way it is. She knows that I would like sex once a week, but because I have accepted the situation, there is no effort towards compromise at all. It's once a month. I guess we are completely different and mental illness has "ruined" our marriage. But hey, I'm healthy, I've got nice kids and a good job, which I like... my exit plan is still there... we'll see what happens...


----------



## Keep Learning (Sep 20, 2015)

Have you considered it may be emotional? I also enjoy sex but sometimes if I've felt particularly put down in the few days before I'll find it hard to be intimate in that way with the HD (? - im new to this). He knows me so he could easily arouse me but once we finish i'll just feel worse which will make it harder next time. By put down for me its just a feeling of inadequacy from small things he might have mentioned, things that I know aren't important or that isn't meant in any way to upset me, and so things that I'll ignore, but that'll start to build in the back of my mind after a period of time.

I'll never admit to him that because I know it's silly of me, but I will start to give other excuses. Sometimes just non-sexual intimacy can solve it, or even slightly sexual that doesn't lead anywhere. ie making me feel wanted but not just for sex. It's the hunger. 
Now for me porn is a funny thing, it can excite me when he watches it, and we've watched together in the past. At the same time, however, it can add to any insecurities I may have as he is esentially getting off watching some other naked woman (even worse if it's always someone who is completely different to me)
On the other hand it dounds like she might want a bit of a (respectfully) forceful nature to the sex. Just speaking from experience here. For example if I don't want to give a BJ but am persuaded (through arousal) it's a big turn on for me.
But like I said as long as I see his hunger as well as his caring love for me outside of our sex lives, then I feel comfortable enough to give him what he wants - even if it does take a little persuasion.
Sorry longer post than intended and not sure if anyone mentioned something along those lines already


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> When we say someone is HD in a mismatched relationship, it does not mean they are HD as in "way out of the spectrum of normal sexuality". Instead it just means they are the higher drive partner in this relationship.
> 
> Someone with no drive is being normal by being themselves. It is their own norm. And sometimes this can't ever change, but sometimes it can. Whether it can or not, the person is still normal as themselves.
> 
> ...


I would go even further than this.

It all exists within the eco system of the relationship.

Outside the particular relationship, there is no telling what would happen to the so called HD or LD.

For example, I truly doubt most so called LDs are LD by nature. Out in the dating market, they would lose the LD immediately, because they would have to.

Similarly, but probably to a lesser degree (IMO), some people who are HD within a particular relationship might really be more ND or even LD in another.

For example, if I had a crazy hot girlfriend who wanted it all of the time, I would be more HD than my default, because I would rise to the occasion.

In other words, I think everyone really has a spectrum of HD/LD within themselves which will be expressed differently depending on the environment they find themselves in.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Which is exactly the reason most HD's don't find themselves at fault, they place all the fault squarely on the LD's. Because of course for some reason that defies logic, all HD's are innocent victims of horrible evil and stupid LD's. Don't ever, ever look in the mirror HD, for you may actually find some fault there, too. Better to keep the blame entirely on the LD, lest your self esteem might be damaged.



I suggest you educate yourself on the legal aspect of at fault. 

Contributory negligence or shared liability etc. It is rare it's one person's "fault" 100%. But does it matter when one person is at 10% and the other at 90, or do you really believe it's always 50-50?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

StilltheStudent said:


> And a guy with low testosterone and erectile dysfunction is "being normal by being themselves" too.
> 
> Doesn't mean "their norm" is actually normal or healthy though.
> 
> ...


On the one hand I agree with this.

On the other, I wonder how many of these guys with low T or ED are really with women who are really unattractive to them.

Put the ED dude in a room with a Victoria's Secret model ready to go and see if he still has ED.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

StilltheStudent said:


> I mean like, here is an example:
> There is a couple in my friend group that is having issues. Not married, but LTR and live together. He is severely overweight and from what I have gathered through some private convos with both of them, he probably has low-T, erectile dysfunction, knows its due to his weight and health issues, but refuses to do anything about it.
> 
> She is pretty curt and nasty with him from time to time…but I can see why and can't really blame her.
> ...


Interesting scenario.

I don't know them obviously, but here's a possible alternate view.

This guy was fat and unattractive. He realized that becoming generally attractive would require a major effort. Instead of making this effect, he settled for an equally unattractive partner.

Now his formerly unattractive partner is unilaterally "renegotiating" their deal. He now feels pressure to improve himself, which is contrary to the whole reason he wound up with this woman in the first place.

I think it's revealing to consider how this would be viewed if the roles were reversed. Fat guy gets in shape and then gives his fat wife sh-t because she's no longer measuring up.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Well, that for me is the fundamental difference between a woman with HSDD and a man with ED.

ED is a physiological issue primarily. While there are mental aspects to it (depression can do it) in most cases it is a purely physical issue which has to do with cardiovascular health.

There is a reason one pill can address a lot of ED issues whereas there will never be a pill to address HSDD in women.

It often seems like this to me:
Does a guy have low desire? Hit him with some light-testosterone treatments and a bottle of little blue pills while he loses weight and sleeps better and apparently most bounce back.

Does a woman have low desire? Good luck in learning to deal with your new life.



In Absentia said:


> My wife doesn't put any effort towards making me "happy". She thinks I'm happy with once a month. Because I have accepted it. It's a rather strange POV, if you ask me. But this is the way it is. She knows that I would like sex once a week, but because I have accepted the situation, there is no effort towards compromise at all. It's once a month. I guess we are completely different and mental illness has "ruined" our marriage. But hey, I'm healthy, I've got nice kids and a good job, which I like... my exit plan is still there... we'll see what happens...


I look at what you just described and I cannot for the life of me detect happiness with your marriage. The situation you described is exactly what I do not want to end up in. Good luck with things. (What is your exit plan if I might ask?)


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

StilltheStudent said:


> Wow FW, that is really sad…I don't see a way around that situation.
> 
> But the answer to this..
> 
> ...


Hey man-- this line of thinking is extremely tempting. 

It all seems so simple in a logical way..... If only you would... If you really cared about X....

The problem is--- attraction isn't logical.

A woman can't convince herself to want you.

What makes this even more confusing is that so many people think that she can. Even she probably does. 

She probably has this checklist in her mind-- if only all of these things would happen, I would want him then. 

All women have these checklists, but the checklist exists in the rational part of her brain and the "wanting" part of the brain is more primal and exists BEFORE and SEPARATELY from this rational thought process.

So she will first feel she doesn't want you, then rationalize why.

But there is not a direct connection.

At the end of the day, water is just water. There is not always something behind the thing.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

StilltheStudent said:


> I know.
> 
> Something that concerned me was that, a few months ago, she mentioned that she would be ok if we never had kids, due to "circumstances." That being, primarily, me not being able to turn this degree into a solid career path. (Provider Issue Red Flag for me)
> 
> ...


Dude-- DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN WITH THIS WOMAN.

Honestly, there is no good reason you should have dragged this out for this long already.

This chick is just not into you. Sad, but true.

You need to dump her right now. It will only get worse, not better.

If you are in a university environment, you will never have a better chance than right now to find a better replacement.

Imagine yourself 10 yrs from now, supporting this chick with a kid and never having sex or any affection.

Because that is where you are heading.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> The problem is--- attraction isn't logical.
> 
> A woman can't convince herself to want you.


That whole, "You can't negotiate attraction/desire," thing.

I get that angle and think I believe it…but then there are always those women who talk about how they "came to find him attractive" over time and I'm not sure.



Anon1111 said:


> She probably has this checklist in her mind-- if only all of these things would happen, I would want him then.


Yeah, ran into the checklist before. It has sections for the cleanliness of the kitchen, whether or not lunches are packed for tomorrow, and I think there is some advanced moving algorithm that determines the acceptable 45-minute block and the attendant "right time to initiate" things.



Anon1111 said:


> At the end of the day, water is just water. There is not always something behind the thing.


I guess my issue is that I thought, as we checked off some of the items in her list, (better financial security, a good apartment, solid friend group, progress and success in my program, better/less stressful job for her) things would begin to turn around.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Nope, the more comfort the less action.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ah, the sexless marriage stressful conversations. You will likely have to have many of them. Those of us who have ever been in a sexually unfulfilling relationship can tell you how hard it is....having had dozens of conversations and still nothing changes for the long term.  (That was previous relationships for me, I am now in a great sexual relationship).
> 
> The only times I've ever seen a mismatched marriage work are of the following types:
> 
> ...


The bolded part worked in my situation. This really should not be so rare, because I believe it is the most honest of all these from the non-LD (meaning either HD or ND) perspective. And I've found that honestly seems to go a long way in life.

So my advice to all suffering HD/ND is to get honest with yourself, and if you (like me) cannot be happy living in a sexless marriage, then you need to tell your partner this important fact. You may be pleasantly surprised at the response. But even if it goes the other way, that still counts as a "win" because you can soon focus on finding a sexually compatible partner in your next relationship.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

StilltheStudent said:


> That whole, "You can't negotiate attraction/desire," thing.
> 
> I get that angle and think I believe it…but then there are always those women who talk about how they "came to find him attractive" over time and I'm not sure.
> 
> ...


If it isnt happening now, when you are young and childless-- it is NEVER going to happen.

You can take a look around at all of the marriages that have gone off the deep end after having children.

If your wife is stressed out by daily life now and can't seem to manage the effort to get into it with you, imagine how much less energy she'll have for you when you have a kid or three.

Look, I know it is painful. You married this person, after all.

But it WILL get much more painful if you continue on with this.

She is not hiding her true self from you. This is a BLESSING.

You have a clear choice.

You are also about to enter the prime of your life as a man.

Imagine if you had a hot little 22 yr old who is everything your wife is, except that she is constantly coming on to you (instead of you constantly chasing her).

That is yours for the taking RIGHT NOW. You just need to have enough self esteem to drop this dead weight.

LOVE YOURSELF FIRST. SHE CERTAINLY DOES.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

There is a huge difference between infrequent great sex and no sex or starfish sex. There is also the matter of the relationship outside of the bedroom(which is most of the time). While in an ideal world it would be awesome if we all had exactly what we wanted in and out of the bedroom the reality is that most of us don't. And as I have said before if you end a marriage due to not getting the sex you want where is your guarantee of getting it with someone else? Not to mention ending a marriage also has emotional familial and economic consequences. All to be considered when you are pondering leaving over only sexual issues.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> There is a huge difference between infrequent great sex and no sex or starfish sex. There is also the matter of the relationship outside of the bedroom(which is most of the time). While in an ideal world it would be awesome if we all had exactly what we wanted in and out of the bedroom the reality is that most of us don't. And as I have said before if you end a marriage due to not getting the sex you want where is your guarantee of getting it with someone else? Not to mention ending a marriage also has emotional familial and economic consequences. All to be considered when you are pondering leaving over only sexual issues.


Yes, the entire context of the relationship does need consideration before deciding to leave. Yes, few if any relationships provide all that we want, and there is no fine line between enough and not enough: it's a wide fuzzy line that shifts back and forth in size and position over time. Still the average of all those shifts will tell you if it's enough for you - or not.

As for a guarantee of getting it with someone else? Meaningless. There IS a guarantee that you're not getting it where you are! Besides, if you leave you gain HOPE, and hope is far more conducive to happiness and its pursuit than ongoing despair will ever be.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > There is a huge difference between infrequent great sex and no sex or starfish sex. There is also the matter of the relationship outside of the bedroom(which is most of the time). While in an ideal world it would be awesome if we all had exactly what we wanted in and out of the bedroom the reality is that most of us don't. And as I have said before if you end a marriage due to not getting the sex you want where is your guarantee of getting it with someone else? Not to mention ending a marriage also has emotional familial and economic consequences. All to be considered when you are pondering leaving over only sexual issues.
> ...


You may gain hope but you lose the emotional support and bonding developed over in my case 25 years. All in the HOPE of finding a more compatible sexual relationship that for a variety of reasons may not last


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Okguy said:


> You may gain hope but you lose the emotional support and bonding developed over in my case 25 years. All in the HOPE of finding a more compatible sexual relationship that for a variety of reasons may not last


So stay in your relationship then. You clearly have no hope that things will improve within or without it and clearly think you are too old to do anything about it.

Resignation is a funny thing like that.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

StilltheStudent said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > You may gain hope but you lose the emotional support and bonding developed over in my case 25 years. All in the HOPE of finding a more compatible sexual relationship that for a variety of reasons may not last
> ...


I don't know what will happen but I do know that at 64 I have no desire to sacrifice what I have move out and start dating again. Love is a wonderful thing and acceptance is part of it.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Think of it like this Okguy.

Some of us are still just outside of our 30s and would very much like not to turn out like you did.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

StilltheStudent said:


> Think of it like this Okguy.
> 
> Some of us are still just outside of our 30s and would very much like not to turn out like you did.


There are no guarantees and life ebbs and flows. One day you may want to be just like me. You are too young to know better


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> I look at what you just described and I cannot for the life of me detect happiness with your marriage. The situation you described is exactly what I do not want to end up in. Good luck with things. (What is your exit plan if I might ask?)



You are correct, there is no happiness for me in this marriage, only acceptance, because this is what I have left since I decided to stay.

I'm glad my situation has given you food for thought, because this is what you'll become. Luckily, you don't have kids, so your situation is not as "bad".

My exit plan? Waiting for the youngest to fly the nest and then pack my bags. I have 4 years left. I don't really want to do it, because I care a lot about my wife, but I can't live in a marriage devoid of affection. We do get on, but the spark's gone and I can't reignite it... it's out of my hands. I wish I could. But I can't force my wife to do something she doesn't want to do. 

Acceptance has helped me coming to terms with my life, my aspirations and my goals. I don't blame my wife any more. I've made mistakes too. And although there is no real happiness, I have peace, inner calm and the reassurance I have done all I can to save my marriage.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Okguy said:


> There are no guarantees and life ebbs and flows. One day you may want to be just like me. You are too young to know better


Actually, I am too intelligent not to notice fear speaking when I see it.

Why are you even here Okguy? I've seen some of your exchanges with people over the last few days/week and all you seem to do is tell people that leaving an unhappy relationship is "too scary" and fraught with no guarantees.

Welcome to life.

Seriously, is there something you are looking for advice with? Or are you just here to tell people like me that life is scary and that we should hold onto anything we have so we don't die alone?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

StilltheStudent said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > There are no guarantees and life ebbs and flows. One day you may want to be just like me. You are too young to know better
> ...


I do not have an unhappy relationship. I simply desire more sex than I am getting.

I think what I have is more valuable than an unknown quantity. I have seen that many others have an ld spouse and are dealing with similar issues. It is more common than I thought

I never said anything about being too scared to die alone. 

I


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> Yes, the entire context of the relationship does need consideration before deciding to leave. Yes, few if any relationships provide all that we want, and there is no fine line between enough and not enough:* it's a wide fuzzy line that shifts back and forth in size and position over time. Still the average of all those shifts will tell you if it's enough for you - or not.*
> 
> As for a guarantee of getting it with someone else? Meaningless. There IS a guarantee that you're not getting it where you are! Besides, if you leave you gain HOPE, and *hope is far more conducive to happiness and its pursuit than ongoing despair will ever be.*


This post is... perfection.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> You may gain hope but you lose the emotional support and bonding developed over in my case 25 years. All in the HOPE of finding a more compatible sexual relationship that for a variety of reasons may not last


And that is the context for you decision. It's valid, as is YOUR choice. 

I ditched 24 years, but my context was lack of emotional support and bonding in addition to a sexless relationship. It was the right decision to leave - and I was 20 years younger than you are now. For a while, hope was enough after I left, but I could turn my freedom into action, and that action - and all I'd learned - made a new, wonderful relationship possible. It has lasted 16 years so far, and everything points to it continuing in the same vein. Making that happen is up to me - and her.

I would think hard about leaving if things changed now, though. I'm almost your age, but am confident I'd find a new, great relationship with all the emotional support and bonding I desire - if I had to or wanted to. I hope I never have to do so, of course, but I know I could.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Okguy said:


> I do not have an unhappy relationship. I simply desire more sex than I am getting.
> 
> I think what I have is more valuable than an unknown quantity. I have seen that many others have an ld spouse and are dealing with similar issues. It is more common than I thought
> 
> ...


So the issue is just frequency?

It sounds like you have less-frequent but otherwise ok to satisfying sex and would like more from a few of your other responses.

That seems like a different issue/situation than where I am or where In Abesntia seems to be.

Would I leave a long-term multi-decade relationship which satisfies me emotionally, with companionship and support, and even mostly sexually, just because I want it three times a week and she wants it twice? 

Of course not.

Would I leave a relationship that has yet to hit the 10-year mark in which I feel more taken for granted at times than supported and where I go between absolutely no sex-life to weird infrequent duty sex that I have to chase down and earn?

Probably.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > You may gain hope but you lose the emotional support and bonding developed over in my case 25 years. All in the HOPE of finding a more compatible sexual relationship that for a variety of reasons may not last
> ...


Leaving in your case at your age is understandable


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

StilltheStudent said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > I do not have an unhappy relationship. I simply desire more sex than I am getting.
> ...


Yes it's just frequency

I see your point about your situation. It is more severe than mine


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

it is severe... but with no kids and at a fairly young age, I would have no qualms about leaving...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I suggest you educate yourself on the legal aspect of at fault.
> 
> Contributory negligence or shared liability etc. It is rare it's one person's "fault" 100%. But does it matter when one person is at 10% and the other at 90, or do you really believe it's always 50-50?


Some jurisdictions do not bother with these calculations at all: If you contributed through negligence to your harm, you are 100% at fault.

Just sayin'.

But even if we all agree that this isn't fair, I would still leave these assessments to the courtroom, rather than assume the individuals in question are able to accurately determine how many fingers are pointing where. Humans are very well known for their tendencies to overinflate their wonderfulness relative to others, and cut themselves a lot of slack that somehow those others don't deserve.

Why We're All Better Than Average

I say this, John, because if my SO played even half the head games that you play on your wife, he would most assuredly start seeing behaviour on the evil-malevolent spectrum.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> In other words, I think everyone really has a spectrum of HD/LD within themselves which will be expressed differently depending on the environment they find themselves in.


Of the close girlfriends I've had and the close guy friends I've had whom I've asked nosey questions of their sex lives, either for my blog or for my own interest...most report that other than the up or down swing caused by big changes (new relationships, babies, crisis or death, hormonal changes), for the most part their level of D was pretty consistent through out their lives. A lot of these people have been friends for decades, and so I have seen this play out in their lives, across many relationships.

There are people who maybe will fluctuate greatly through out their lives, but I think people tend not to.

For instance in your example where you would want sex even MORE with a hotter, funner wife...that's really not a change in your sex drive, like you said it is just rising to the occasion. That has been my actual experience (my H is sh*t tons of hot and fun) and I am at the top of my sexual range all the time because I'm so hot for him and his sexuality (and his body and pheromones) calls it out of me. Yet I know I have always been this sexual and always knew it, even when I did not have an object of desire that was available to me the way I do now. 

All of the HD women with LD men I've known (at least 5), the man told them straight out of the gate "I'm just not that into sex, I'm not like other men that way". All of the women thought this meant he was a gentleman and didn't ONLY value sex, that he valued her as a person more than a sex object. But no...that's not what these men meant. They meant "I'm not really going to want to have sex with you or see you as if you are hot and gorgeous, ever". And the men remained that way throughout the relationship and on into later relationships, as the HD women went on into better matched relationships.

Just sharing my experience. There are some people who have an awakening, like Anon Pink, and go from what appeared to be LD to HD. But there are other people like the dudes who told my friends that they weren't into sex ever, and they never became so. Situational versus organic LD.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> Put the ED dude in a room with a Victoria's Secret model ready to go and see if he still has ED.


The friend I spoke about on this thread is as hot as a VS model, long thick brown curly hair, huge breasts, tiny waist, huge full lips, dark eyes and skin tone...and her H is 80 pounds overweight and looks terrible, but would be attractive if he was in shape.

I grant you that at this point, he knows she has hated him for years for sexual neglect. Meanwhile, she gets cat calls every where she goes. So he may just be shut down to her.

But he was always shut down, he told her this when they met and it has shown itself to her for over a decade.

Women know when their man notices another woman. She knows he doesn't notice hot strangers, either.

I know it is hard for an HD guy to imagine the way an LD guy feels, and I'm not saying I know how he feels either cuz I'm not a guy...but I'm positive that no matter what is going on, he just doesn't have a sex drive and never did.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> On the other, I wonder how many of these guys with low T or ED are really with women who are really unattractive to them.
> 
> Put the ED dude in a room with a Victoria's Secret model ready to go and see if he still has ED.


LD in men is always the women's fault? 

  Pity the woman who is not a Victoria Secret model!

LD in women is always the women's fault?

 

No wonder so many women give up on relationships.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I suggest you educate yourself on the legal aspect of at fault.
> 
> Contributory negligence or shared liability etc. It is rare it's one person's "fault" 100%. But does it matter when one person is at 10% and the other at 90, or do you really believe it's always 50-50?


John, we each have different view points. You clearly can't understand mine and I can't understand yours. But yours is not "right" and you don't get to tell me what I need to educate myself on anymore than I get to tell you that. Think what you want and I will too.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Yeah, people are different and all, but that is not an excuse to let someone ignore their very real issues, especially when it is damaging their marriage.
> 
> The whole idea that a person with HSDD is "normal for them" and a perfectly normal spouse needs to find a way to moderate _themselves_ to that disorder while accepting it is ludicrous to me.


2 different issues.

1 issue is whether a person who wants more sex can resolve the issue with the person who wants less. Telling the LD "you are broken, fix yourself" tends to be received unfavorable. So FW is correct that this line of argument is unlikely to be successful even if it is objectively true. Saying to the LD "most people are fine with the amount of sex I desire, if you aren't there is something wrong with you" is unlikely to change the LD's mind and isn't all that helpful to the HD in making up theirs.

2nd issue is whether the HD person is likely to find a different partner who would be comfortable with the HD's desired frequency and type of sex. On this issue the question of what is "normal" is highly relevant and useful. If the HD wants sex twice a week, decent chance they can find someone else who is OK with that. If they want sex twice a day, more likely the HD will have to compromise on some other important characteristics to find someone who wants to have sex with them so often. That information might well affect whether the HD chooses to leave and whether the LD chooses to "step up their game" to motivate the HD to stay.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I say this, John, because if my SO played even half the head games that you play on your wife, he would most assuredly start seeing behaviour on the evil-malevolent spectrum.



I'll see your evil spectrum and raise the stakes to include diagnosed BPD, theocratic upbringing, and a pinch of Aspergers


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> I think my wife craves stability…not sure about novelty. She talks about liking the idea of novelty and surprises…but then has to plan everything out and be part of all decisions for said plans.


Here is where it sucks to be a decent guy who married a woman who craves stability.

There are many such women. They marry the guy they think will remain faithful, hold a decent job, be helpful raising the kids, etc. All the ingredients for keeping life stable.

Problem is, stability is not what gets them hot sexually. Sexually they desire novelty. They desire unpredictability. They want the andrenaline rush that comes from a little bit of anxiety.

Problem is, they don't want any of that from their husband. In fact, they will actively prevent their husband from providing any of that. And will complain rather than compliment if he tries to provide it. From their husband, they will only accept stability and predictability. Which leads to boredom and bedroom death.

She may or may not be aware of this dichotomy within herself. She may or may not be willing to change if she recognizes it.

You should still try introducing some novelty and unpredictability and see where it goes. You have tried most everything else.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> John, we each have different view points. You clearly can't understand mine and I can't understand yours. But yours is not "right" and you don't get to tell me what I need to educate myself on anymore than I get to tell you that. Think what you want and I will too.



When did I ever claim I'm right? 

Learning about basic legal terms should point out that there is such a thing as shared fault, yet there are jurisdictions where this is not allowed. This should further indicate that fault itself is not the issue, rather, the efforts taken to mitigate the fault are. 

Let me elaborate (oh no). I've worked on products that have to meet various government standards for safety. When I write my report I list what steps I have taken to identify and mitigate risks. I don't say that I have removed all risks. 

Instead of being fault happy and pointing fingers, let's think about what we can do to avoid and mitigate them. 

I feel that given the attitude of most LD's here one gets the idea that few take any steps to avoid or mitigate. Sure, the HD's may not be helping a lot (pressure etc) but at the same time look at the LD who's likely playing golf or Candy Crush. I can't speak for others but I will take wrong action vs no action any time.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> I guess my issue is that I thought, as we checked off some of the items in her list, (better financial security, a good apartment, solid friend group, progress and success in my program, better/less stressful job for her) things would begin to turn around.


Not going to happen.

Learn from those of us who have trod this path before you.

Or you can decide you will succeed where we failed. I hope you do. But if you have read a bunch of threads here you must know by now the odds are stacked against you.

So you are where FW describes. You have enough information to see the red flags and make a decision. If you choose to stay, any future lack of sex is on YOU, not on her. So I don't want to hear one more complaint from you about her sexuality. It isn't on her anymore. It is on you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This is one of the main reasons why M2 CREATED reasons to 'fight' with me. To destabilize to create desire. Worked for her. 

I unknowingly obliged her desire for 'excitement' by not responding in a 'clingy' way. 





Holdingontoit said:


> Here is where it sucks to be a decent guy who married a woman who craves stability.
> 
> There are many such women. They marry the guy they think will remain faithful, hold a decent job, be helpful raising the kids, etc. All the ingredients for keeping life stable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> When did I ever claim I'm right?


When you told me to "educate myself". Don't pretend to be arrogantly hoity toity and then deny it.

You and I do not agree. We each have an opinion. It doesn't have to be the same, which is good, because it is not.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> So you are where FW describes. You have enough information to see the red flags and make a decision. If you choose to stay, any future lack of sex is on YOU, not on her. So I don't want to hear one more complaint from you about her sexuality. It isn't on her anymore. It is on you.


This is a harsh way to say it, but the point of saying it is to show you that you are not powerless, that you do not have a gun to your head, and therefore you can actually take control of your life if you choose to do it. It will not be easy to leave her, but trust us that it will be easier than staying (because we know what you are in for if you stay and it just gets worse).


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Why not tell him what you are really feeling? Has he reacted badly in the past?



Keep Learning said:


> snip
> 
> I'll never admit to him that because I know it's silly of me, but I will start to give other excuses.
> snip
> '


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Agreed. I don't think ED is part of this discussion. If a man has ED, he can still please his partner in other ways. To me the question is whether or not he is willing to do that.

I would say the same for a woman who finds intercourse uncomfortable - is she willing to please her partner other ways?



StilltheStudent said:


> Well, that for me is the fundamental difference between a woman with HSDD and a man with ED.
> 
> ED is a physiological issue primarily. While there are mental aspects to it (depression can do it) in most cases it is a purely physical issue which has to do with cardiovascular health.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> The friend I spoke about on this thread is as hot as a VS model, long thick brown curly hair, huge breasts, tiny waist, huge full lips, dark eyes and skin tone...and her H is 80 pounds overweight and looks terrible, but would be attractive if he was in shape.
> 
> I grant you that at this point, he knows she has hated him for years for sexual neglect. Meanwhile, she gets cat calls every where she goes. So he may just be shut down to her.
> 
> ...


I'm sure there are true LD guys just like there are true LD women. I don't know your friend, so I'll take your word for it that she is a smokeshow.

However, I think these types are really outliers. I think it is far, far more common that the person who says, it's not you, it's me, is completely full of sh-t (maybe not intentionally so, but still).

The real test is when this person, man or woman, goes back on the dating market.

In almost all cases, these people will be giving it up like never before. 

That tells you all you need to know.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Here is where it sucks to be a decent guy who married a woman who craves stability.
> 
> There are many such women. They marry the guy they think will remain faithful, hold a decent job, be helpful raising the kids, etc. All the ingredients for keeping life stable.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this except the last part.

Seriously, this woman is not worth the effort.

You guys are not compatible.

Do both of you a favor and quit with the experiments.

They are very unlikely to correct the fundamental attraction imbalance.

You are better off using your energy to shore yourself up to move on and find someone who is fundamentally more compatible while you are still young and have ample prospects.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> When you told me to "educate myself". Don't pretend to be arrogantly hoity toity and then deny it.
> 
> 
> 
> You and I do not agree. We each have an opinion. It doesn't have to be the same, which is good, because it is not.



I told you to educate yourself and understand what the legal term means... 

Education is information used to formulate opinions. It's not opinions in itself.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

You can consider the issue shared liability or fault even if 1% - 99% liability split and it magically can become 50-50. That's not the case here in my opinion. While both partners may be at fault it's one sided more often than not.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

John-- with respect, this is not a car crash.

Contributory negligence is really not that relevant in matters of attraction.

This is easy to see.

Just go up to any woman who is not attracted to you and try to explain to her why she should be.

It is an "either or" thing.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Isn't that EXACTLY the same logic as usually comes from the LD person? Too much effort for too little reward?
> 
> And isn't your LD partner getting the message that you don't care about them enough to put in effort? No wait, I'm mixing that up with the HD complaint.
> 
> ...


The are so many different sorts of LD/HD situations. I often feel folks here on TAM each have a different situation in mind as they post and respond to posts, and that makes conversations here difficult.

Some of us non-LDs have made good faith efforts to jump through hoops (at worst) and (at best) apply our time and energy to truly understand and meet our non-LD's expressed and unexpressed needs -- and yet, somehow it wasn't enough.

Some LDs have made good faith efforts to address their own physical and emotional issues that might be part of the decreased desire, and to communicate openly and honestly with their non-LD partner about what changes they need from him or her to take the next step towards each other.

And then, of course, some LDs and some non-LDs have been lazy or inhibited or conflicted enough that their partners feel as if no good faith effort to heal the relationship has been made. If one tries and the other is non-participating and non-reciprocating, and perhaps moves the goal posts, and this goes on for months and years, the natural consequence is one loses interest in putting effort to meet the others alleged needs.

Btw, I disagree that folks generally seek to minimize cost. Some folks are happy to put time and energy into meeting needs of their partner and creating a relationship where love can thrive; some do so effectively, and sometimes, for whatever reasons, the effort is ineffective and possibly goes unnoticed. Some, continue trying even long after it has become clear their partners demand and take but hardly ever give. Eventually, if the other never ever reciprocates, or rarely does, and at the same time has behaviors that cause connections to deteriorate, the partner that had been present and trying cannot hold onto nothing forever.

That's my take anyways, with the situation most familiar to me in mind.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I'm sure there are true LD guys just like there are true LD women. I don't know your friend, so I'll take your word for it that she is a smokeshow.
> 
> However, I think these types are really outliers. I think it is far, far more common that the person who says, it's not you, it's me, is completely full of sh-t (maybe not intentionally so, but still).
> 
> ...


I disagree. No one is LD in a new relationship (well, almost no one). This is when the new relationship buzz can lead to spontaneous desire that evaporates when the newness dies off or, more cynically, when the relationship is locked down.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> I disagree. No one is LD in a new relationship (well, almost no one). This is when the new relationship buzz can lead to spontaneous desire that evaporates when the newness dies off or, more cynically, when the relationship is locked down.


My personal view is that if you only have strong desire for the new guy/ girl, you're just promiscuous or a womanizer and really have no business subjecting someone to a LTR.

I realize people don't choose this predisposition, but they should become over time, self aware enough to identify it and not expect others to bear this burden for them.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> John-- with respect, this is not a car crash.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not the same thing. Not remotely. 

Attraction? Is that code for "who cares about 30 years together I want to bang the lawn care kid" ???


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Put another way... My job involves three distinct elements. I love two of the three and can tolerate the third. 

Do I pick and choose or do I do what is needed to ship the product?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Not the same thing. Not remotely.
> 
> Attraction? Is that code for "who cares about 30 years together I want to bang the lawn care kid" ???


Yes, basically.

Attraction is immediate.

There are no dividends of attraction. It's not an investment.

You know in like 2 seconds if you want to nail a chick.

Same for her.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Put another way... My job involves three distinct elements. I love two of the three and can tolerate the third.
> 
> Do I pick and choose or do I do what is needed to ship the product?


Totally different.

Compare it instead of seeing a predator coming after you (or from the other perspective, spotting prey).

The reaction is immediate, primal and innate. Not rational.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

The other day I was surfing and I had this eerie feeling.

I looked down in the water and saw a large shadow. The feeling preceded spotting the shadow though.

I did not sit there and think: the odds of getting killed by a shark are less than getting struck by lighting.

I just paddled my ass off and got out of there as fast as I could. There was no plan.

That's how your wife feels about the sexy lawn boy bro!


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Here is where it sucks to be a decent guy who married a woman who craves stability.
> 
> There are many such women. They marry the guy they think will remain faithful, hold a decent job, be helpful raising the kids, etc. All the ingredients for keeping life stable.
> 
> ...


This is my next step at this point; being hitting the gym pretty hard to make sure I am in shape and attractive (gotten some comments from the W here and there) and trying to figure out ways to be more spontaneous.

I think there is some responsive desire in there, somewhere, just need to see if it is accessible.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,

For vast majority of women - the difference between a guy who is 'fit' vs very fit is negligible. 

For you - it's going to be behavioral. 

Being playful in a challenging way - is the single most effective thing I do. 

Simplest examples of that are:
- physically wrestling with M2 
- bantering with her about her quirks and occasional malapropisms

These games are better than board and card games - because they have no rules. 

Hyper stability - which is what this always together, always grooming her produces - is the polar opposite of novelty and excitement. 

If you wish to gain a deep understanding of competing desires, look no further than the fridge. If I ate cookies and candy and cake whenever I felt the desire, I'd be a diabetic, morbidly obese wreck. 

So my desire for dessert is offset by my desire to be fit and athletic. 

Likewise if you indulge her constant bids for reassurance, you kill her desire. 

Not complicated. 





StilltheStudent said:


> This is my next step at this point; being hitting the gym pretty hard to make sure I am in shape and attractive (gotten some comments from the W here and there) and trying to figure out ways to be more spontaneous.
> 
> I think there is some responsive desire in there, somewhere, just need to see if it is accessible.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Think you are probably correct about not always doing the reassurance thing, guess I have a bit more of the "Nice Guy" in me than I thought. Had an instance last month where she did a classic, schedule intimacy for a couple days down the line, drop hints day of that she might want to put it off, finally says it and instead of my normal reassurance that it was ok to push it off I made it clear I was not going to and instead went off and did my own thing instead. I wasn't sulking, but I was fed up and not playing the game anymore.

Half an hour into a Yankees game later suddenly her "headache" and "tiredness" were gone like magic…:scratchhead: :bsflag:


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Hey Still- 

Best bet is to forget about jumping through hoops that you may believe are particular to your wife and instead focus on maximizing things that are universally attractive.

Max out the following:

Physical appearance (lifting, style, grooming)

Confidence (meditation, increase casual banter with everyone, learn to take nothing very seriously)

Status (kick ass in school, go for job that will push you, seek to max income)

You are not going to game your wife into wanting you long term.

Tricks are totally transparent and futile.

Be the best version of yourself.

Then, after you hit your face on a few more rungs on the ladder on your way down, you'll be in a great position for the next (better) woman.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Likewise if you indulge her constant bids for reassurance, you kill her desire.
> 
> Not complicated.


Not complicated to explain. Complicated to find the right balance. You (Mem) are good at this, which is one reason why you could play most of our HD/LD hands better than we did.

Still, listen to Mem. If you are already in decent shape, introducing some novelty is likely to pay bigger and quicker dividends than trying to become extremely fit.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> Yes, basically.
> 
> Attraction is immediate.
> 
> ...


Attraction is a lot more complicated than that. I can maybe know in 2 seconds whether I think someone is good-looking or not. But then he says some stupid, obnoxious sh1t, and I think, "eeewww, forget that."

After any amount of time, be it 2 seconds or 30 years, of being patronized, or treated like a convenient sex toy, or on the receiving end of angry outbursts, or any number of such things, the switch turns to off and it doesn't matter a whit how fit or how good-looking, or how novel or surprising or anything he is. The reaction is just to paddle away as fast as I can.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Not complicated to explain. Complicated to find the right balance. You (Mem) are good at this, which is one reason why you could play most of our HD/LD hands better than we did.
> 
> Still, listen to Mem. If you are already in decent shape, introducing some novelty is likely to pay bigger and quicker dividends than trying to become extremely fit.


I totally dig Mem's whole schtik, but given that he has apparently never in his entire marriage dipped below a sexual frequency of 1x every 5 days, I'm not convinced he has a true perspective on how to handle the harder LD situations.

It is relatively easy to be playful and all around awesome if you feel fairly confident the next hookup is right around the corner.

Watch your steel facade crumble though after you go a month. Repeatedly.

Now, again, mem might just be that much better at this than the rest of us.

Or he could just have ended up in a less difficult situation.

I just throw this out there because there are more than a few people who assume that because their marriages are outstanding that everyone else's would be too if they were just more like them.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> Yes, basically.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you're married for 30 years nobody wants to "nail" their spouse. They want to connect, or fool around, rinse, repeat.

Look at the marriage as a holistic relationship and not as a laundry list of to do items. 

Sure, J2 doesn't want to nail me but sure as heck I don't want to spend a weekend doing this chore or that for her either so... 

The corollary - if you're not attracted to your partner after xx years, by all means walk out. Staying for the benefits is not good. And that's what we see happening.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I want to clarify my comment above.

I believe Mem's advice is all around solid.

You are not going to harm your relationship by following his advice.

However, you may harm YOURSELF by continuing to pursue someone who really is not into you.

Only you will be able to discern where this line is.

Be wary of assuming it is not your fault.

At the same time, be wary of assuming it is ALWAYS your fault.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> If you're married for 30 years nobody wants to "nail" their spouse. They want to connect, or fool around, rinse, repeat.
> 
> Look at the marriage as a holistic relationship and not as a laundry list of to do items.
> 
> ...


"Nailing" is a figure of speech.

At the same time, I bet there are dudes J2 would be happy to nail if there were no consequences. Sorry!

Wouldn't you?

Sexual desire has nothing to do with chores.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,

I agree with Anon that 'dishonest' games are a 'no go'. They will make you feel bad, her feel bad, lose lose. 

But when S2 requests a back scratch - make her work for it. This is called asserting yourself. It isn't a 'game'. It's a strategy. 

And the difference is that your agenda should be very visible. YOU MATTER TOO. 

That said, if she really truly deep down isn't attracted to you - that is NOT fixable. And trying to fix it will be torture for both of you. 

I'm certain you are too nice. And pretty sure that she perceives that as weak. And that - being perceived as weak - is a universal turnoff. 

I'm not saying you ARE weak. I'm saying she perceives you that way. 

I'm am ALSO saying that even if you fix that, she may remain un attracted to you. 

The guys who stay in sexually empty marriages universally end up depressed and bitter. 

Create a plan, define a time frame and then see what happens. 

Do NOT drag this out because it is not fair to S2 to do so. Her child bearing window is much smaller than yours. 

By the way - based on a LOT of experience I give you a 20% chance of fixing this. 





StilltheStudent said:


> Think you are probably correct about not always doing the reassurance thing, guess I have a bit more of the "Nice Guy" in me than I thought. Had an instance last month where she did a classic, schedule intimacy for a couple days down the line, drop hints day of that she might want to put it off, finally says it and instead of my normal reassurance that it was ok to push it off I made it clear I was not going to and instead went off and did my own thing instead. I wasn't sulking, but I was fed up and not playing the game anymore.
> 
> Half an hour into a Yankees game later suddenly her "headache" and "tiredness" were gone like magic…:scratchhead: :bsflag:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> "Nailing" is a figure of speech.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You would lose the bet in a hurry. She has conditioned herself to avoid thinking about sex or anything physical, lest she admits that the ghosts of times past are about to come back.

Chores are unrelated to desire but they're very related to the love bank concept - one of the few pop psychology concepts I firmly believe in. 

At age 55 it's really a matter of attitude and priorities and mental state that triggers sexual desire (or does not untrigger it if you will). A much as I want to believe that there are lots of 55 year old senior consultants who work 14 hours a day and have plenty of time and energy for sex, I don't think so.

You got 20 years to get here. Wait and see. Maybe if she was like me, and never bring work home, things would be different. That, too, was something not in the pre cake discussions. 

I have some other pet theories (Aspergers) that I'm reading on right now, not that it really matters at this point but...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Anon,
This is the ONE aspect of TAM that weighs on me more than any other. The idea that I may lack a valid frame of reference for these situations. 





Anon1111 said:


> I totally dig Mem's whole schtik, but given that he has apparently never in his entire marriage dipped below a sexual frequency of 1x every 5 days, I'm not convinced he has a true perspective on how to handle the harder LD situations.
> 
> It is relatively easy to be playful and all around awesome if you feel fairly confident the next hookup is right around the corner.
> 
> ...


----------



## sapientia (Nov 24, 2012)

john117 said:


> As much as I want to believe that there are lots of 55 year old senior consultants who work 14 hours a day and have plenty of time and energy for sex, I don't think so.


The husband leans over and asks his wife, "Do you remember the first time we had sex together over sixty years ago? We went behind the village tavern where you leaned against the back fence and I made love to you."

"Yes", she says, "I remember it well." "OK," he says, "How about taking a stroll around there again and we can do it for old time's sake?" "Oh Jim, you old devil, that sounds like a crazy, but good idea!"

A police officer sitting in the next booth heard their conversation and, having a chuckle, he thinks to himself, "I've got to see these two old-timers having sex against a fence. I'll just keep an eye on them so there's no trouble." So he follows them.

The elderly couple walks haltingly along, leaning on each other for support aided by walking sticks. Finally, they get to the back of the tavern and make their way to the fence. 

The old lady lifts her skirt and the old man drops his trousers. As she leans against the fence, the old man moves in. Then suddenly they erupt into the most furious sex that the policeman has ever seen. This goes on for about ten minutes while both are making loud noises and moaning and screaming. Finally, they both collapse, panting on the ground. 

The policeman is amazed. He thinks he has learned something about life and old age that he didn't know. 

After about half an hour of lying on the ground recovering, the old couple struggle to their feet and put their clothes back on. The policeman, is still watching and thinks to himself, this is truly amazing, I've got to ask them what their secret is. 

So, as the couple passes, he says to them, "Excuse me, but that was something else. You must've had a fantastic sex life together. Is there some sort of secret to this?" Shaking, the old man is barely able to reply, "Sixty years ago that wasn't an electric fence."


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> The corollary - if you're not attracted to your partner after xx years, by all means walk out. Staying for the benefits is not good. And that's what we see happening.


It's a bit ironic hearing you say this, especially since it is exactly what you're doing. And not at all what J2 is doing, because from everything you've said, she is perfectly happy with things just the way they are.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> You would lose the bet in a hurry. She has conditioned herself to avoid thinking about sex or anything physical, lest she admits that the ghosts of times past are about to come back.
> 
> Chores are unrelated to desire but they're very related to the love bank concept - one of the few pop psychology concepts I firmly believe in.
> 
> ...


I don't know, man.

Why would she tell you her fantasies? She knows it would just frustrate you more.

I'm sure there are people in the world who would not under any circumstances be interested in sex with anybody.

But I think those people are extremely rare.

Much more likely is that the people you have reasonable access to are not high enough up on your sexy scale to be worth the effort. Or the social costs are too high to act on it.

I'm sure I'm not the only guy to come home from college and have one of his friends drunk mom hit on me.

It's unpleasant to think about but it is highly doubtful there is no one in the world who turns her wheels.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Anon,
> This is the ONE aspect of TAM that weighs on me more than any other. The idea that I may lack a valid frame of reference for these situations.


We all bring our own perspectives.

I lack perspective on what a healthy marriage looks like, so you've got me beat there. :smile2:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> It's a bit ironic hearing you say this, especially since it is exactly what you're doing. And not at all what J2 is doing, because from everything you've said, she is perfectly happy with things just the way they are.



J2 is staying for the benefits as much as I am. More than I am in fact. 

Her benefits are monetary as well as social and perceived emotional. She gets to play super wife / mom, she gets to show off good ole' John here as the quirky hardworking great father, and gets to have one person that will put up with her sh!t.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> I don't know, man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is. 

Her mind is 80% work, 10% house and material culture, 5% TV, 4% kids and relatives back home, 1% other.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I told you to educate yourself and understand what the legal term means...
> 
> Education is information used to formulate opinions. It's not opinions in itself.


Um...yes it IS simply opinions we are sharing here.

Like being HD or LD or having a mismatched relationship is illegal. Gimme a break.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I'm sure there are true LD guys just like there are true LD women. I don't know your friend, so I'll take your word for it that she is a smokeshow.
> 
> However, I think these types are really outliers. I think it is far, far more common that the person who says, it's not you, it's me, is completely full of sh-t (maybe not intentionally so, but still).
> 
> ...


The man in the story of my friend was not "giving it up" even before he met her. He had only one gf in his life before her, and he was in his late 30's....and that relationship was also sexless, and the woman tried to warn my friend when she started dating him.

She naively assumed "it would be different" with her. It was not.

When they break up, he's going to be the same sexless man.

Another sexless HD woman/LD man case I know of, the man had been molested by his mother and was never able to have a normal sex life. They were together for 6 years. He has not dated anyone since they broke up.

Another HD woman/LD man case...again, he told her right up front he wasn't that into sex. She didn't believe him, thought she could change him, yada yada yada. He had also only had one gf in his life, in high school. They met in their 30's. She just thought he was kinda shy or something. Nope. He is a sexless man. They divorced after 11 years and he has not dated anyone since they split and likely never will in his life.

These are people I've known personally and was able to see what happens after the split.

Sorry Anon...I don't think you can imagine these scenarios because you have a normal sex drive. But there are plenty of people who are natural, life long LD's. Some by nature, some due to trauma or CSA, some due to health issues. 

The only time the LD runs off boffing others after breaking up is when they were LDFY (LD for you). Yes, that happens. But those people typically do have a sex drive, just not for you (that particular spouse). There is a difference between this and a natural, life long LD.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I have some other pet theories (Aspergers) that I'm reading on right now, not that it really matters at this point but...


Perhaps you are the Aspie.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> The man in the story of my friend was not "giving it up" even before he met her. He had only one gf in his life before her, and he was in his late 30's....and that relationship was also sexless, and the woman tried to warn my friend when she started dating him.
> 
> She naively assumed "it would be different" with her. It was not.
> 
> ...


Wild.

It's weird the diverging characters we attract.

I'm friends with several guys who are similar to me: fratty upper income dudes with wives who started out hot but became ice cold after kids.

It's like we're reinacting our parents lives!

So I guess that colors my perspective. 

I just am not seeing the stuff you're describing, but I take your word for it that its real.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Create a plan, define a time frame and then see what happens.
> 
> By the way - based on a LOT of experience I give you a 20% chance of fixing this.


3 to 6 months should be sufficient to fix it if it is likely ever to be consistently fixable. Promise yourself that if it isn't fixed by then, you are out the door. You deserve to treat yourself well.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> Wild.
> 
> It's weird the diverging characters we attract.
> 
> ...


I'm friends with several females who are similar to me...HD women who have a colorful sexual past (and sometimes, present). Since I cannot recall any female friend who was LD (other than LDFY in certain relationships), I never end up hearing directly about that type of scenario. But having read countless stories that sound just like yours, I know yours is pretty common (minus the kids situation...but I think yours would have ended up this way even if you had typical kids).

In my case, I have always been the higher drive partner in every relationship I've ever had, including this one. Though at least finally in this one, not only can he keep up with me, the quality is so high it makes up for the lower frequency than what I would desire.

I'm older than you, too, so have seen more friends through divorces at this point in my life.

Also...my mother's second husband...was LD which I never knew until they split up. Apparently he had such a small member that he simply couldn't bring himself to have sex out of shame and embarrassment. She tried working with him for 15 years to get him to open up and just give her a chance to show that it would not be a problem for her....but apparently he only got the nerve up once a year or so. It has been a long time since they split, and he has never dated anyone since (which she went on to have fulfilling relationships). He has also held a torch for my mother all these years, and apparently never loved anyone but her, and never will. Yet love wasn't strong enough to push him to get over his issues.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Um...yes it IS simply opinions we are sharing here.
> 
> 
> 
> Like being HD or LD or having a mismatched relationship is illegal. Gimme a break.



Who said anything about legal aspects? 

Not that constructive abandonment isn't a valid divorce cause in many jurisdictions but still


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Perhaps you are the Aspie.



I'm not the antisocial Applied Mathematics PhD with an ASD sibling but a good guess regardless


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I told you to educate yourself and understand what the legal term means...
> 
> Education is information used to formulate opinions. It's not opinions in itself.


Who said anything about legal aspects?

YOU did.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I'm not the antisocial Applied Mathematics PhD with an ASD sibling but a good guess regardless


I'm guessing you might test out positive if you honestly took an Aspie test.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> *I'm certain you are too nice. And pretty sure that she perceives that as weak. And that - being perceived as weak - is a universal turnoff*.


Agree.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Hey john- let's say your wife is an Aspie.

Would knowing that allow you to let it go?

In my case, I'm trying to remember my wife didn't totally choose this life and she may not be well equipped to handle it.

Choosing to take this POV can relieve some personal stress because the alternative is she is intentionally doing this to you.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm guessing you might test out positive if you honestly took an Aspie test.



An Aspie that's very spontaneous, hates math with a passion, is very sociable... 

That would be one for the ages. I'm flattered.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Hmmm....apparently there is more than one for the ages. I'm related to a diagnosed Aspie who is spontaneous, hates math, and is very sociable. I still think you are on the spectrum as well.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> Hey john- let's say your wife is an Aspie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a good point. If nothing else her understanding her situation and me accepting it would be a prime reason for me to STAY with her.

The problem is, she doesn't. Yet. And she doesn't with a childlike attitude that's scary. 

If there's one morsel of guilt in this for me is the thought she may have something like it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm....apparently there is more than one for the ages. I'm related to a diagnosed Aspie who is spontaneous, hates math, and is very sociable. I still think you are on the spectrum as well.



A worthwhile prospect. I'll run thru a few tests (the ones posted here and others) and see. Stay tuned


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> I'm certain you are too nice. And pretty sure that she perceives that as weak. And that - being perceived as weak - is a universal turnoff.
> 
> I'm not saying you ARE weak. I'm saying she perceives you that way.
> …
> By the way - based on a LOT of experience I give you a 20% chance of fixing this.


You know, for someone who kinda prides himself on his ability for introspection and who has read about the whole "Nice Guy" issue…it kind of bugs me that I did not notice this dynamic myself.

But it fits. Fits into a lot of situations and makes some sense of them actually. And I missed it...:crazy:

Yeah, I know the likelihood of fixing things is pretty low…but it is there and am going to give it a go.



Holdingontoit said:


> 3 to 6 months should be sufficient to fix it if it is likely ever to be consistently fixable. Promise yourself that if it isn't fixed by then, you are out the door. You deserve to treat yourself well.


Upper end of that time table hits my 30th actually…might be a good benchmark.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

john117 said:


> A worthwhile prospect. I'll run thru a few tests (the ones posted here and others) and see. Stay tuned



I'll disappoint the gallery here but on the same test that J2 scored a 36 I did a 10. 

http://psychcentral.com/cgi-bin/autismquiz.cgi

Anyhow...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> J2 is staying for the benefits as much as I am. More than I am in fact.
> 
> Her benefits are monetary as well as social and perceived emotional. She gets to play super wife / mom, she gets to show off good ole' John here as the quirky hardworking great father, and gets to have one person that will put up with her sh!t.


Point being that she is content with things the way they are, so why would she walk? You are the one who is unhappy.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Point being that she is content with things the way they are, so why would she walk? You are the one who is unhappy.



She knows things aren't going to stay like this... I told her of my plans a few weeks ago. Let's see if she can come up with something better. Not that it matters but I'll be surprised if she does anything.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Still,
A few more questions for you:
- How much of your 'free' time is spent with S2 in a group setting each week?
- How much with your friends and without S2?

What happens when S2 doesn't get her way? Does she work the guilt circuits or go the intimidation route via anger or the silent treatment?





MEM11363 said:


> Still,
> 
> I agree with Anon that 'dishonest' games are a 'no go'. They will make you feel bad, her feel bad, lose lose.
> 
> ...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I'm friends with several guys who are similar to me: fratty upper income dudes with wives who started out hot but became ice cold after kids.


All my male friends, married with kids, complain about not getting enough sex... younger and older... of course, I never asked my lady friends.. :smile2:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> All my male friends, married with kids, complain about not getting enough sex... younger and older... of course, I never asked my lady friends.. :smile2:



Well clearly there must be some women out there with libido issues, as it's practically an industry and fills pages and pages of press.

But I honestly don't know these women, or where they are. Actually, correction: I know one, and it is because she is taking anti-depressant meds --and isn't at all impressed by these side-effects.

Recent studies would suggest such women are the minority:
Women Report They're Not Having Sex As Much As They'd Like; Study Knocks Down Gender Stereotypes

Of course, you might object that the above comes from women who might be seeking to get pregnant, rather than avoiding it, but even post-partum, women report wanting to get back to their sexual selves:
New Moms Reveal the Truth About Postpartum Sex

TBH, I can't help but wonder if a lot of men (not here, but in general) complain because that's what men do, that is, it is a way of showing off their manliness, their prowess, to brag about all the boffing they'd be doing if it weren't for the old ball and chain. But when push comes to shove, they actually can't really sustain the interest they think they have.

I've also wondered a lot about men's pickers over the years. They often seem to only see the surface, what will make other men jealous, but don't seem to care all that much about what will actually happen when there is no one around to be impressed.

Of course, this is only just my experience --and clearly I live in a different world than most of TAM.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> She knows things aren't going to stay like this... I told her of my plans a few weeks ago. Let's see if she can come up with something better. Not that it matters but I'll be surprised if she does anything.


If I were to put money on it, I'd bet she opts for "too little too late."

But I'm glad to see you've decided to be straight with her, instead of continuing the head games.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Well clearly there must be some women out there with libido issues, as it's practically an industry and fills pages and pages of press.
> 
> But I honestly don't know these women, or where they are. Actually, correction: I know one, and it is because she is taking anti-depressant meds --and isn't at all impressed by these side-effects.
> 
> ...



My friends are all intelligent, well-educated people... and they are nice to their wives and good providers... obviously, it's a very small sample... I have a few from a lower-class background too (class doesn't matter to me, even if I live in England - I'm not British) and they seem to be humping like whales... :grin2:

Now, I'm not being a snob or whatever... and sorry about the stereotypes, but it's just my experience... :smile2:


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Well clearly there must be some women out there with libido issues, as it's practically an industry and fills pages and pages of press.
> 
> But I honestly don't know these women, or where they are. Actually, correction: I know one, and it is because she is taking anti-depressant meds --and isn't at all impressed by these side-effects.
> 
> ...


A_A:

I think the thing to remember is that what people say they want is often a far cry from their willingness to make themselves or their partner uncomfortable enough to do something about it. 

I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to safely say that it applies to both men and women.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Still,
> A few more questions for you:
> - How much of your 'free' time is spent with S2 in a group setting each week?
> - How much with your friends and without S2?
> ...


- On average, say, 4 to 5 nights a week. More often of late…
- Once or twice a week, somewhere around 1.

- Silent and pouty, very rarely angry. Bit of guilt gaming if I'm honest. Although, she usually gets her way so its not an issue mostly.

Starting to feel kind of like an idiot for missing the patterns…


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I think there are plenty of women out there with a healthy libido. But I think a sizeable percentage of those women marry for financial stability or likelihood of fidelity or attentive fathering and not for sexual hotness. As FW says, these women tend to become LDFY (low drive for you - meaning their husbands). I think that differing mating strategies rather than differing base libidos accounts for a large proportion of what I believe is a very real difference in the rate of LD female / HD male (especially below age 50) as compared to vice versa.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

A_A those are some interesting articles. I am going to have to chalk the notion that 75% of women want sex three times or more a week up to young-women looking to get pregnant though. That result fails the basic sniff test for me.

The research I have seen places Sex Issues at ~20% of couples, HSDD in women at 12-15%, in men at 5%, and reported averages always around 1-2 per week for "healthy" couples.

There is no way +3 times a week is reality. Going to consider that a sampling issue, if only for my own sanity at this point.

Although the post-partum thing I knew. Had heavy disagreement in another thread where a bunch of posters argued that most women need months upon months to get back into the groove/desire. I did not buy it then and that article seems to back my original point up. Interesting though.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Don't focus on sexual frequency - instead focus on attitude towards sex. That's the real driver of sex for both partners.

- bonding 
- fun way to spend an evening
- something to remember and done sparingly 
- yuk

To a great extent as a behavioral science type I do not believe self reported data all that much. Trust is a better word. I've seen self reported follies of salaries, GPA's and many other ego boost measures and I have no doubt sex is any different. 

Unfortunately I can't duct tape a FitBit onto, you know... (*) so reliable data is hard to come by :lol: but one has to believe the few times a week figure as generally accurate. As long as both partners are in the same frequency unit we are ok but here in TAM few people argue for 2 vs 3 a week, it's more like 2 a month 

(*) it's been done actually...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

my wife said we can have sex tonight (unprompted)... well, that's an improvement from once a month to once every three weeks... I'm hopeful... not! :grin2:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always,

I can't speak to other people's experiences. Fitness can be a big factor in all this. 

I still do physically desire M2 a LOT. That said, it's mostly because of who she is. If we didn't click, I don't know how that would impact me. 





always_alone said:


> Well clearly there must be some women out there with libido issues, as it's practically an industry and fills pages and pages of press.
> 
> But I honestly don't know these women, or where they are. Actually, correction: I know one, and it is because she is taking anti-depressant meds --and isn't at all impressed by these side-effects.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> I think there are plenty of women out there with a healthy libido. But I think a sizeable percentage of those women marry for financial stability or likelihood of fidelity or attentive fathering and not for sexual hotness. As FW says, these women tend to become LDFY (low drive for you - meaning their husbands). I think that differing mating strategies rather than differing base libidos accounts for a large proportion of what I believe is a very real difference in the rate of LD female / HD male (especially below age 50) as compared to vice versa.


Well no, I actually just said that the only times any of my friends were LD was in LDFY in certain relationships. But that didn't have anything do with the reasons they got into these relationships, ie: they didn't become LDFY due to lack of attraction because of these men being providers and not because they were hotties. It was far more complicated than that, with no real pattern. The circumstances were very individual.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Well clearly there must be some women out there with libido issues, as it's practically an industry and fills pages and pages of press.
> 
> But I honestly don't know these women, or where they are. Actually, correction: I know one, and it is because she is taking anti-depressant meds --and isn't at all impressed by these side-effects.
> 
> ...


Also, women google "sexless marriage" and "sexless relationships" far more than men do.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Also, women google "sexless marriage" and "sexless relationships" far more than men do.


that means that there are a lot of women that actually care... :grin2:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Not just that they care, but they are distressed and seeking answers. Lots of women are the HD in their partnerships and wish to change that.

Sadly, they will not find much more help than men do...it is usually a mismatch that can't be fixed.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> my wife said we can have sex tonight (unprompted)... well, that's an improvement from once a month to once every three weeks... I'm hopeful... not!


Awesome. Hope it lasts


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I'll have to check my wife's browser history... on second thoughts, maybe not... >


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> My friends are all intelligent, well-educated people... and they are nice to their wives and good providers... obviously, it's a very small sample... I have a few from a lower-class background too (class doesn't matter to me, even if I live in England - I'm not British) and they seem to be humping like whales... :grin2:
> 
> Now, I'm not being a snob or whatever... and sorry about the stereotypes, but it's just my experience... :smile2:


Not sure what social class has to do with any of it?? :scratchhead:


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> I'll have to check my wife's browser history... on second thoughts, maybe not...


The reality is that sexual issues in marriage are pervasive. Thus all the books and websites devoted to it.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Not sure what social class has to do with any of it?? :scratchhead:


ok, I'll explain... all my friends from so called "lower classes" are all manual workers, very fit, no-nonsense types... and very active sexually... maybe that's an aspect that attracts their wives or a certain type of woman... I don't know, really... I did apologise for the stereotype, though... :smile2: This is the impression I got...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Awesome. Hope it lasts


Doubt it... :laugh:


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

StilltheStudent said:


> A_A those are some interesting articles. I am going to have to chalk the notion that 75% of women want sex three times or more a week up to young-women looking to get pregnant though. That result fails the basic sniff test for me.
> 
> The research I have seen places Sex Issues at ~20% of couples, HSDD in women at 12-15%, in men at 5%, and reported averages always around 1-2 per week for "healthy" couples.
> 
> There is no way +3 times a week is reality. Going to consider that a sampling issue, if only for my own sanity at this point.


One of the most fascinating things of this site is that the view by some that women want sex every bit as much as men. This goes directly against all my experiences, experiences of men I know and the portrayal of sex among married people in popular culture. I'd love to get to the truth of this but it isn't possible (no matter how many scientific studies you read) and I'm not really motivated since I'm very happy with my own situation.

I know that this is just a theory and has no scientific validity, but I suspect that the disconnect is somewhat like the difference between wine connoisseurs and winos. They both like wine, but one is pickier about what constitutes wine they'd like to drink than the other.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> The research I have seen places Sex Issues at ~20% of couples, HSDD in women at 12-15%, in men at 5%, and reported averages always around 1-2 per week for "healthy" couples.


Those numbers aren't so far out of line with the articles I posted. If sex issues are at 20%, that still leaves 80% without them.

Personally, I want sex every single damn day of the week. And then some. Too bad there has never ever been anyone who wants to have it with me.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

In Absentia said:


> ok, I'll explain... all my friends from so called "lower classes" are all manual workers, very fit, no-nonsense types... and very active sexually... maybe that's an aspect that attracts their wives or a certain type of woman... I don't know, really... I did apologise for the stereotype, though... :smile2: This is the impression I got...


I'd guess that the upper classes are more constrained by what is judged as "proper" behavior.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'd guess that the upper classes are more constrained by what is judged as "proper" behavior.


Oh, please. They just have bigger houses in which to hide it better. And better lawyers to protect them when they mess up.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'd guess that the upper classes are more constrained by what is judged as "proper" behavior.


Possibly... I don't really care about classes, really... in fact, it was a bit silly of me to label my friends like that... maybe I've been living in Britain too long... :smile2:


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Oh, please. They just have bigger houses in which to hide it better. And better lawyers to protect them when they mess up.


More stereotypes? :grin2: I should have kept my mouth shut...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> I'd guess that the upper classes are more constrained by what is judged as "proper" behavior.



This++


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Personally, I want sex every single damn day of the week. And then some. Too bad there has never ever been anyone who wants to have it with me.


Do you think that the following might have something to do with your situation?



Faithful Wife said:


> All of the HD women with LD men I've known (at least 5), the man told them straight out of the gate "I'm just not that into sex, I'm not like other men that way". All of the women thought this meant he was a gentleman and didn't ONLY value sex, that he valued her as a person more than a sex object. But no...that's not what these men meant. They meant "I'm not really going to want to have sex with you or see you as if you are hot and gorgeous, ever". And the men remained that way throughout the relationship and on into later relationships, as the HD women went on into better matched relationships.


Since you seem to have a problem with men thinking of women as "holes", are you drawn to men who are "gentleman" who don't ONLY value sex?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> More stereotypes? :grin2: I should have kept my mouth shut...


??? I was just taking down a stereotype, not asserting another one.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Oh, please. They just have bigger houses in which to hide it better. And better lawyers to protect them when they mess up.


People with more money often have it due to their ability to resist instant gratification in favor of long term goals (that's usually why they have more money). Not saying that they're "better" or that "more money" is the only worthwhile goal.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Do you think that the following might have something to do with your situation?


No. That's not my sitch at all.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> ??? I was just taking down a stereotype, not asserting another one.


If you did, I misread you completely...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> People with more money often have it due to their ability to resist instant gratification in favor of long term goals (that's usually why they have more money). Not saying that they're "better" or that "more money" is the only worthwhile goal.



These complicated lives also provide great opportunity to deprioritize sex in favor of ehem, higher pleasures


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> People with more money often have it due to their ability to resist instant gratification in favor of long term goals (that's usually why they have more money). Not saying that they're "better" or that "more money" is the only worthwhile goal.


Most people with "more money" are born into it, and even so it isn't necessarily about resisting instant gratification in favour of long term goals -- although of course it can be. But, you know, celebrities, sports stars, hell, even Donald Trump isn't exactly known for an ability to "delay gratification". 

Just to be clear, I'm thinking of the endless stories of taking on mistresses and/or prostitutes and/or sleeping with the nanny (on the male end), and taking up with the tennis coach or pool boy (on the female end). Maybe they aren't always having sex with each other, but they are having sex ....


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> ok, I'll explain... all my friends from so called "lower classes" are all manual workers, very fit, no-nonsense types... and very active sexually... maybe that's an aspect that attracts their wives or a certain type of woman... I don't know, really... I did apologise for the stereotype, though... :smile2: This is the impression I got...


I'll indulge in a class stereotype tangent for a bit

A lower class bloke who is successful with women is more likely to be successful due to true alpha tendencies. 

There are likely many more lower class men who are completely shut out of the mating market due to women's overall preference for higher income / status men. Any lower class man therefore is starting out with a dating handicap. The ones who are successful are likely to have excess capacity in other alpha traits (looks/confidence).

By contrast, an upper class chap might only be successful due to his resources or perceived social status

once commitment to the upper class man is achieved, the resources/social status have been permanently secured by the woman, regardless of whether the relationship continues, thus, upon commitment being achieved, the man no longer has something desireable that she lacks.

by contrast, the lower class man never loses his physical alphaness. His commitment to the woman does not transfer this to her and she cannot take it from him via divorce.

as a result, it would not surprise me that lower class men in committed relationship generally have greater sexual access than their upper class counterparts.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> One of the most fascinating things of this site is that the view by some that women want sex every bit as much as men. This goes directly against all my experiences, experiences of men I know and the portrayal of sex among married people in popular culture. I'd love to get to the truth of this but it isn't possible (no matter how many scientific studies you read) and I'm not really motivated since I'm very happy with my own situation.
> 
> I know that this is just a theory and has no scientific validity, but I suspect that the disconnect is somewhat like the difference between wine connoisseurs and winos. They both like wine, but one is pickier about what constitutes wine they'd like to drink than the other.


I don't think the people on this site are representative of the broader population.

it is very plain that men on the whole have higher sex drives than women.

this is a function of greater testosterone.

this obviously does not mean that there is not substantial variation within the sexes, but if you pick an average man and an average woman at random and have to stake your life on who is horny more frequently, you would be a fool to pick the woman.

now everyone at TAM can flame me but it doesn't change the facts.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> StilltheStudent said:
> 
> 
> > The research I have seen places Sex Issues at ~20% of couples, HSDD in women at 12-15%, in men at 5%, and reported averages always around 1-2 per week for "healthy" couples.
> ...


Ditto


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> If you did, I misread you completely...


The comment was about how people with more money are more "proper". Which is, IMHO, to laugh. As in ROFL.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> > One of the most fascinating things of this site is that the view by some that women want sex every bit as much as men. This goes directly against all my experiences, experiences of men I know and the portrayal of sex among married people in popular culture. I'd love to get to the truth of this but it isn't possible (no matter how many scientific studies you read) and I'm not really motivated since I'm very happy with my own situation.
> ...


Totally agree


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Sigh!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> now everyone at TAM can flame me but it doesn't change the facts.


They aren't "facts" but I understand that HD men will never look into it further than what they think to be true.

LD women won't, either. There are plenty of stories here by HD men saying that their wives confirm with all their friends and then come back and tell their husbands it is totally normal to never have sex in marriage after the first couple of years.

HD men do a version of the same thing.

The reality is that we are very evenly matched between the genders and that "being horny" most certainly is not a function of testosterone alone...but it takes an open mind for an HD guy to read through and understand the real "facts". Just as an LD wife isn't going to buy into anything that doesn't match her reality, either.

Scientists are debunking the old stereo types every day in new ways. One day it will be common knowledge that women and men are well matched in sex drive. Yet, there will always be those higher and lower on the spectrum and therefore, there will always be the possibility of a mismatch. Hopefully, more education will be passed along to younger people before they mate up so that they can become self-aware and avoid a mismatch.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> The comment was about how people with more money are more "proper". Which is, IMHO, to laugh. As in ROFL.



I live among decently loaded people - 6000-10000 sq ft houses, servants, private schools, incomes from $250k+. 

They aren't any more proper


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I live among decently loaded people - 6000-10000 sq ft houses, servants, private schools, incomes from $250k+.
> 
> They aren't any more proper


Yes, exactly!! So not sure why you were disagreeing with it before? :scratchhead:


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I'm deleting my post because this is really a threadjack and not worth arguing about. Peace.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly!! So not sure why you were disagreeing with it before? :scratchhead:



I never disagreed with the proper part - if I did it's an error on my part. 

There are economic reasons related to sex but not "proper" issues. In my village there was a lot less money and a lot more sex than the cities.

Far fewer LD's and divorces too.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I never disagreed with the proper part - if I did it's an error on my part.
> 
> There are economic reasons related to sex but not "proper" issues. In my village there was a lot less money and a lot more sex than the cities.
> 
> Far fewer LD's and divorces too.


Okay, my mistake. But now I'm curious. Why do you think there were fewer LD's in your village than in the cities?

I mean, there are fewer people, but I'm assuming you have some sort of control for population in mind....


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I have a different question for John.

Did WW2 produce a shortage of 'men of a certain age' in the village? 





always_alone said:


> Okay, my mistake. But now I'm curious. Why do you think there were fewer LD's in your village than in the cities?
> 
> I mean, there are fewer people, but I'm assuming you have some sort of control for population in mind....


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yet, there will always be those higher and lower on the spectrum and therefore, there will always be the possibility of a mismatch. Hopefully, more education will be passed along to younger people before they mate up so that they can become self-aware and avoid a mismatch.


Do you deny the physiological change of pregnancy, child birth, motherhood and menopause in women (some / many)? I have no problem saying there are mismatches but the idea they are easily identifiable to hold true over a lifetime is baffling to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

anonmd said:


> Do you deny the physiological change of pregnancy, child birth, motherhood and menopause in women (some / many)? I have no problem saying there are mismatches but the idea they are easily identifiable to hold true over a lifetime is baffling to me.


These changes actually don't alter the sex drive of *some* women. And for those it does alter, it is not always a permanent alteration.

And on the male side, trauma (both sexual and other types), hormonal changes, stress, body image issues, weight issues, performance issues and mental issues all affect a man's sex drive. These issues remain largely invisible to the non-affected population of men, so they are dismissed and ignored and considered "outlier" situations by people who have not witnessed it personally, yet they are quite common. Men can also be LDFY, by the way.

So in other words, mismatches are not always between LD women and HD men, sometimes it is the opposite.

While it may be impossible to determine upfront if a potential partner is just in the flush of a new relationship and their sex drive may change drastically over time, IMO, this is one good reason why people should not get married young. By about age 30, people typically have a feel for what their natural sex drive is and if they are self-aware enough, they can pick a mate with this in mind.

Discussions about asexuality and the AVEN network are a good thing, because now that this can be openly discussed and understood, those who feel they are asexual can gain self-awareness faster and hopefully end up in fulfilling relationships with similar (or extremely accommodating) partners. Whereas in previous generations, these people simply went along with the herd and got married...usually ending up unhappy, as well as their spouse being unhappy.

Likewise, people who are highly sexual now have more opportunities to understand themselves and seek out mates who are also highly sexual.

Not saying this will eliminate mismatches entirely...but if you read closely, most of the stories at TAM include the fact that the HD spouse (who is now so unhappy and sometimes sexless) actually did see the red flags before committing further. Point being, the more education and self-awareness we have before committing to a relationship, the more chance we have to avoid a mismatch...but some people will still insist that "love can fix it". They will insist this right up until they find themselves divorced.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> I have a different question for John.
> 
> 
> 
> Did WW2 produce a shortage of 'men of a certain age' in the village?



No, this is well after WW2... I'll answer to AA's post in more detail but I think there are some interesting lessons to be learned.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly!! So not sure why you were disagreeing with it before? :scratchhead:


As usual, you approach opinions of others that might go against yours by imagining the worst possible spin on it and then you view it through that lens.

"Proper" was in quotes. As in "they care more about social norms". It carries no value judgment about being "better" or "worse".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> I have a different question for John.
> 
> Did WW2 produce a shortage of 'men of a certain age' in the village?


and in the cities, I would imagine


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> These changes actually don't alter the sex drive of *some* women. And for those it does alter, it is not always a permanent alteration.
> 
> *And for those it does alter sometimes it does nothing but get worse over time. With some brief flare ups of high drive mixed in. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> While it may be impossible to determine upfront if a potential partner is just in the flush of a new relationship and their sex drive may change drastically over time, IMO, this is one good reason why people should not get married young. By about age 30, people typically have a feel for what their natural sex drive is and if they are self-aware enough, they can pick a mate with this in mind.


this made me laugh because knowing what I know now I would stay away from this age range like the plague if I was dating now.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> As usual, you approach opinions of others that might go against yours by imagining the worst possible spin on it and then you view it through that lens.
> 
> "Proper" was in quotes. As in "they care more about social norms". It carries no value judgment about being "better" or "worse".


??? Or, as usual, you are reading things into my posts that aren't there.

'cuz I still disagree that people with money are more "proper".


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> By about age 30, people typically have a feel for what their natural sex drive is and if they are self-aware enough, they can pick a mate with this in mind.


I agree. But at the same time, I did wait until 30 to settle down, and thought I'd got it all right. But he still ended up getting old/sick/worn out and less interested. Either that or I'm a super hideous evil LD causing troll. The jury is still out on that one.

But that's life right? No guarantees.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > By about age 30, people typically have a feel for what their natural sex drive is and if they are self-aware enough, they can pick a mate with this in mind.
> ...


Exactly. People change.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I agree. But at the same time, I did wait until 30 to settle down, and thought I'd got it all right. But he still ended up getting old/sick/worn out and less interested. Either that or I'm a super hideous evil LD causing troll. The jury is still out on that one.
> 
> But that's life right? No guarantees.


I bet there were some red flags you ignored or brushed under a rug? Some things that you hoped would change? I know the physical issues are different, but the other issues I would assume were present, you just didn't want to look at them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

anonmd said: "Poppy****, If it isn't going to change then waiting can help some but you still don't know if it is going to change. If it is going to change I would posit that waiting until the females biological clock is pounding in her head will suppress any issues until after lock in occurs."

I think people in unfulfilling sexual relationships tend to find others who are also in them, and then it seems as if "everyone" has these issues. But "everyone" doesn't. There are many happy and fulfilling relationships out there. Some of them right here on TAM. When some of the guys specifically who have it really good in this department post around here, they are accused of "bragging" and are mostly disregarded and it seems like the other guys assume they are some kind of anomaly. But they aren't.

So the point is, there are GOOD matches out there just as there are mismatches out there, for any of us.

If we can be more self-aware and more mature and more wise before we make the choice to get married, I do think we can do a better job of finding a GOOD match for ourselves.

For myself, if I had not believed the stereo type that "men always want sex all the time" and if instead I would have been more self-aware and more knowledgeable about sexuality in both genders, I would have saved myself some drama and heartache. When I was younger I also thought silly things like "love will fix it", like a lot of people do. If I had waited until at least 30 to get married, I would have been in a much better position to make long term choices.

I think the old way is dead and caused too many irreconcilable differences. But I think the younger generation has learned from us and will change directions a bit, which we are already seeing by people marrying later. I also think that to stigmatize people who divorce is a damn shame, because lovingly letting each other go when it just isn't working should always be an option. Divorce does not have to be a blood bath. People should be able to see their own mistakes and correct them without having to go through hell.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I bet there were some red flags you ignored or brushed under a rug? Some things that you hoped would change? I know the physical issues are different, but the other issues I would assume were present, you just didn't want to look at them.


There were some things I was completely unaware of, and some things that arose later as circumstances changed. But any issues I knew of back then were all on my side --and I didn't rug sweep them, I was very up front that he probably didn't want to get tangled up with me. 

I'm not really one to rug-sweep. I like my truth in the cold light of day and under a microscope. Especially if it is a hard truth.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

looks like I opened a can of worms... sorry about that... these are always complicated issues... maybe even more than the LD/HD dichotomy... :smile2: and it was rather off topic...


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> People should be able to see their own mistakes and correct them without having to go through hell.


Should is a nice sentiment…reality is not so forgiving unfortunately.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The village situation back then was simple... About 400-500 people, lots of young people, and hardworking and healthy adults. Lots of wine (most families made their own), lots of free time (little TV and few places to kill time) and so on. For teenagers it was a free for all 

As people grew older the not so well off moved to the big cities for work while the wealthier farmer stayed put. Some arranged marriages (not 100% arranged as everyone knows everyone else) and so on.

As people got married there were always rumors of who sleeps with who. It was an art. The old women knew everything and added color commentary. There were a few kids that were "paternity challenged". Thru their 40's and 50's people did not miss out, there were not very many stories of unmet needs, let's put it that way. I think both genders knew sex would be gone after 60 so... 

Emotional involvement was not common and neither was divorce. Can't recall any in fact. Not a small feat. 

Past 60... That's a different story but people aged fast BUT lived to be 80-85. But under 60-65, no issues. But they aged. I look much younger than my dad at 55. Women kept better but not by US standards after 60, social pressure I suppose. Even rumors about who couldn't perform and so on.

To people like my family (part time in the village) it was awesome. The girls saw us as a bit of an opportunity to get out of the village. My brother married a village girl. For the most part women were not demanding in the sense they are here (hmmm). Kind of hard to be thinking love languages if you have to milk the cows or harvest the crops. Sex was just that, sex. Women were very respected but both genders had it hard enough that we did not see much of the "what about my needs" wailing. 

A few marriages were perpetually in trouble, but somehow survived. And people were sleeping with all kinds of people... A common theme was village boy lives in big city with distant relatives, bangs daughters... Or kids go to college, whoopee galore. 

Good times.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Should is a nice sentiment…reality is not so forgiving unfortunately.


Yes, in that post you quoted I was talking about the way things currently are, where divorce seems to a blood bath far more often than it should be...and this should change. Hopefully we will see it change. The younger generations will hopefully not cling so tightly to the idea that we have the ability to make just one mate choice and that it will be the right one for life. Hopefully they will see that this is impossible to ask of people.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> There were some things I was completely unaware of, and some things that arose later as circumstances changed. But any issues I knew of back then were all on my side --and I didn't rug sweep them, I was very up front that he probably didn't want to get tangled up with me.
> 
> I'm not really one to rug-sweep. I like my truth in the cold light of day and under a microscope. Especially if it is a hard truth.


Hmmm...this kind of contradicts some of the other things you've said...but I will take your word.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, in that post you quoted I was talking about the way things currently are, where divorce seems to a blood bath far more often than it should be...and this should change. Hopefully we will see it change. The younger generations will hopefully not cling so tightly to the idea that we have the ability to make just one mate choice and that it will be the right one for life. Hopefully they will see that this is impossible to ask of people.


highly doubtful.

why get married at all if it's supposed to be temporary?

also, the exit costs are too high for most people to say c'est la vie

more likely response is that fewer and fewer people will marry (which is what is happening)


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, in that post you quoted I was talking about the way things currently are, where divorce seems to a blood bath far more often than it should be...and this should change. Hopefully we will see it change. The younger generations will hopefully not cling so tightly to the idea that we have the ability to make just one mate choice and that it will be the right one for life. Hopefully they will see that this is impossible to ask of people.
> ...


Lots of exit costs. Financial and emotional.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> highly doubtful.
> 
> why get married at all if it's supposed to be temporary?
> 
> ...


I think fewer people marrying is a good thing and I hope that trend will continue also.

But something else that is happening is that we have more and more young adults who come from divorced homes. At some point, more than 2/3 of adults will have divorced parents. Because these kids lived through it themselves, hopefully they will know that it doesn't have to be a blood bath and especially not where kids are involved.

My parents were divorced...and actually, they re-married and were divorced a second time. I had step-parents. Those marriages didn't last, either, so more divorces. Then I married a divorced man, my first husband, and was a step-parent myself. Then I divorced, which sucked. Then I married my current husband, who was also divorced once before. I also worked for a divorce attorney for a number of years. So I have seen a lot of divorce on all sides of it.

Because of this, I made sure that my divorce did not crush my kids lives, my life, or my ex-h's life. I know that it can be handled in a fair and kind way, or not, it is really up to the spouses. If we can at least remove the stigma from it. Because for the life of me I don't know why there is a stigma surrounding making a poor choice in life at a young age when there is no possible way you could know that you and this person would love each other forever. (Though when it does happen that way, such as SA's marriage, I'm happy for them and wish them the best).

There will always be nasty people, therefore there will always be some people who are nasty to divorce.

But as things change and as these younger people become older, I have a lot of hope for them. They will come up with new ways of doing things, and they already are.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Am I the only one thinking that the natural consequence of what FW wrote would be to over protect marriage? Endangered species and so on? I agree with her assessment 100% but can't help but wonder how the morality police and the Marriage/Divorce Industrial Complex will react.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Older folks and religious folks are already wringing their hands and clutching their pearls, as the younger folks are saying "why the hell should I get married?" The older folks are going to lose this battle, as they will die off as the younger ones take over.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

FW: There are 2 objective facts which argue against strict equality of genders, although not necessarily as to libido.

1. The overwhelming majority of money spent on prostitution and pornography is spent by straight males to access females.
2. If a male walks into a bar and shouts "who wants some" he will be met with laughter. If a female walks into a bar and shouts "who wants some" a fight will break out among the males desperate to reach her first.

This either means that the mean / median males is hornier than the mean / median female or that the mean / median female is pickier than the med / median female. I tend to favor the latter explanation over the former, but these 2 observable realities argue quite strongly against the proposition that female are both equally horny as males or equally indifferent to their partner's attractiveness.

Even if the explanation is more about pickiness than horniness (that is, even if females are just as horny as males, they are just pickier about who they desire), most of the stereotypes about the prevalence of HD males and LD females (as compared to the opposite) are likely true. Not always true. And still allows for many cases of HD female and LD male. But the argument that female are just as horny and equally indiscriminate about who they find attractive is very hard to square with observed reality that a far higher percentage of men complain they can't find anyone willing to bed them as compared to the percentage of women making the same complaint (as opposed to the very different complaint that they cannot find someone to take to bed that they find attractive).


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm...this kind of contradicts some of the other things you've said...but I will take your word.


Really? Like what?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> StilltheStudent said:
> 
> 
> > A_A those are some interesting articles. I am going to have to chalk the notion that 75% of women want sex three times or more a week up to young-women looking to get pregnant though. That result fails the basic sniff test for me.
> ...


Sounds like a Penthouse article actually


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Okguy said:


> Sounds like a Penthouse article actually



Sounds reasonable actually.

I suspect a very active sex life is more indicative of time and energy availability than anything else. When I hear stories of such people I envy their schedules and likely simple straightforward and enjoyable life.

My FitBit doesn't lie - I barely get 6 hours of sleep at night and it isn't because of some Paducah blond


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> If a female walks into a bar and shouts "who wants some" a fight will break out among the males desperate to reach her first.


 Please spare me the "women can have sex whenever they want" speech. Clearly you have *no* idea what it's like to be a woman.

As for men, any man, no matter how hard he finds it to attract women, can simply purchase said service from a local brothel or streetwalker. Now tell me, why are there still men out there who complain about being horny, but nowhere to put it?

Lack of money?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Holdingontoit said:
> 
> 
> > If a female walks into a bar and shouts "who wants some" a fight will break out among the males desperate to reach her first.
> ...


Who wants to buy it?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> When I was 23 I did that in a country pub once during a Friday night disco (when I was instructing at the Infantry Training Centre), two Women responded with one of them taking me to their home for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying!



Self selecting sample... 

The women were there expecting to get some.

Try it with your local PTO as the token male among 24 females. The possibility of taking home a PTO mom after a few hours volunteering is about, umm, zero.

Another self selecting group.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> FW: There are 2 objective facts which argue against strict equality of genders, although not necessarily as to libido.
> 
> 1. The overwhelming majority of money spent on prostitution and pornography is spent by straight males to access females.
> 2. If a male walks into a bar and shouts "who wants some" he will be met with laughter. If a female walks into a bar and shouts "who wants some" a fight will break out among the males desperate to reach her first.
> ...


All of this is just a result of the previous thousands of years of problems that have occurred due to the way sexuality (specifically, female sexuality) was handled in the past. 

Once we stop shaming women for being sexual and stop telling all men they are "supposed" to be more sexual than women, and instead allow young people to find their own way to their own sexual normal, we will see something far different than what we saw in the past.

It is changing very quickly right now, in this generation, at a rapid pace. Young women refuse to be shamed for their sexuality and for acting on it.

And in the face of this, we see a lot of older people still wringing their hands about the huge problems they think would occur if women don't shut themselves down and be good girls. Yet these older people will die off, and the younger generations will continue throw off those shame shackles.

A few years back, people scoffed at the idea that Tinder, the dating app, would ever work, because they claimed that "women would never go for it" (because it was modeled on the gay hook up app Grinder, and the thought was that women would not be into hookups like men are). Lo and behold, Tinder is now the biggest dating app out there. And people aren't just using it to hook up, they've found they like it for regular dating, too. But even knowing it is a huge hookup app doesn't stop millions of women from using it.

Women are still stuck with the shame and pressure to "not be like men", as if that is a bad thing. But this is only because so many of us older people are still around making it hard for them.

Likewise, men who are LD or who just aren't as interested in sex as the world would say they are are ashamed to admit this. As a result, there are far more less sexual men than surveys would suggest.

As for the old question about which gender can walk into a bar and say "who wants to do me?" and walk out with a willing sex partner, the idea behind this discounts the physical dangers posed to women in this scenario that are not posed to men. IF women could do this without risk of physical harm, they would most certainly do it more often. Having said that, I have been present to see female friends going out to a bar or club with the express intention of getting laid and not finding anyone, more than once I have seen this. Also, here's an article about that particular mythical experiment:

Can women get sex whenever they want? | Girl on the Net | Science | The Guardian

Then we have the question of attraction and if women are pickier or not. Men tend to think that since they would be less picky, it means men are more sexual because if women were "horny enough", they would do any willing guy. But what if the men who are less picky only had an orgasm 20% of the time they had an encounter with "just any willing female". At the end they would be left with frustration and they would know it won't likely work out for them well, so any future opportunities are less likely to seem like a good idea. This is what women typically face. Why go home with a stranger when you have a low chance of sexual satisfaction? 

I would also submit it is more difficult for a man to be a good lover (or good enough) than it is for a woman, because as in the above example, if all a man needs is a willing "hole" to put his d*ck in, most women can do that without much need for her to do anything but lay there. Whereas a woman needs more than a hard d*ck usually. But sadly, since men judge women's needs based on their own, a lot of men don't provide much more than a hard d*ck and yet they expect that to be enough.

So I'll grant you that we are different, have different sexual needs, and have different things we are attracted to. Yet none of that says "more or less sexual", it just says we have different needs. We see in all other mammals that their sexuality is different, yet we don't say one gender is more sexual than the other. When a female cat goes into heat, is there anyone who would say she wants to have sex less than the multiple male cats she finds to hook up with? Male cats don't try to have sex with female cats who are not in heat, they don't get revved up for it because her being in heat is what makes him want it. 

I've talked about these issues a lot on TAM and a few guys scoff at me every time, "because surveys". Well, those surveys are changing rapidly as people are more able to be honest on them and as the world stops shaming women (as much). I would bet money that in 20 years, those surveys will report that men and women want sex equally.

Oh and prostitution? That's changing, too. 

Straight Male Escorts for Women Cowboys For Angels. As seen on Gigolos Showtime. Call Now to Book Your Straight Male Escort 954-234-7546

Male escorts and female sexuality ? Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore ? Aeon

https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-hire-the-services-of-a-male-escort

The Sex That Women Want When It?s Costing Them $400 an Hour

As we go forward into the future, the prices of male escorts will come down, the stigma against using them will go down, and more of them will go to work. 

If women could pay a fair price to get nailed in exactly the way she wanted to by a professional who was *excellent* at good sex (in her desired ways), and if this service was available safely and discreetly....well, as I said...that day is on the horizon.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Self selecting sample...
> 
> The women were there expecting to get some.
> 
> ...


As if the possibility for a PTO mom to take home a PTO dad in the same circumstances is any greater? Men have standards, men are faithful, men are not salivating dogs. Even though it is usually other men who paint them this way.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

john117 said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> > When I was 23 I did that in a country pub once during a Friday night disco (when I was instructing at the Infantry Training Centre), two Women responded with one of them taking me to their home for sex.
> ...


I agree


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

StilltheStudent said:


> I know.
> 
> Something that concerned me was that, a few months ago, she mentioned that she would be ok if we never had kids, due to "circumstances." That being, primarily, me not being able to turn this degree into a solid career path. (Provider Issue Red Flag for me)
> 
> ...


DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN WITH HER! That would make your current marriage look like heaven!


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a Penthouse article actually
> ...


25 years. One child. Married twice


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Women are still stuck with the shame and pressure to "not be like men", as if that is a bad thing. But this is only because so many of us older people are still around making it hard for them.
> 
> As for the old question about which gender can walk into a bar and say "who wants to do me?" and walk out with a willing sex partner, the idea behind this discounts the physical dangers posed to women in this scenario that are not posed to men. IF women could do this without risk of physical harm, they would most certainly do it more often.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. However, I think your objection make my point for me.

In a counterfactual universe in which women were not shamed for being high libido and in which women could be equally confident of being satisfied during the encounter and in which there was not significant risk of physical harm, then women would be just as HD as men. This is basically the same as my saying women are just horny as men but they are pickier because (i) they will be shamed for indulging their libido, and (ii) they can't be confident of being satisfied and (iii) they face higher risks - physical harm, pregnancy, etc.

So given the reality of all the factors you cite, wouldn't it be incredibly unlikely that women are equally likely to be the HD in their current relationship with a man who can't alleviate her acculturated shame and probably can be counted on NOT to provide her with consistent orgasms?

See, I agree with you. Most women are far more likely to provide me with an orgasm than I am to provide them with one. Doesn't that imply that I am likely to be the HD in any relationship in which I am one of the partners? As you say, that doesn't mean she isn't horny in general. It means I stink in bed and she is LDFY. But isn't that likely to be the case in a substantial percentage of male - female pairings?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> No thanks, that sounds like barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> That said I got an offer when taking the kids to playgroup long before they started school.



As I said, self selected group. Where I live women won't TALK to a guy in a playground, let alone take said guy home  the stakes are too high since most of them are very aware of how good they have it (*) and can't afford to be replaced by version 2.0. I could barely get most moms to acknowledge my presence in PTO meetings or classroom activities. 

We generally have few divorces around here but the ones we do have are epic high stakes types. 

(*) like 6000 sq ft home, euro SUV, nanny, multiple vacations a year...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> As if the possibility for a PTO mom to take home a PTO dad in the same circumstances is any greater? Men have standards, men are faithful, men are not salivating dogs. Even though it is usually other men who paint them this way.



I know 

As I wrote earlier the stakes (where I live) are too high regardless of morals. And morals generally work pretty well.

I was merely providing an example where even the best PUA that ever lived would not score to save their lives. That's what self selected sampling is all about.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> In a counterfactual universe in which women were not shamed for being high libido and in which women could be equally confident of being satisfied during the encounter and in which there was not significant risk of physical harm, *then women would be just as HD as men*.


I would say it like this: given equal opportunities for risk free satisfying sex, women would go for more ONS's. The fact that this is not possible for women (at this time) does not mean women are less D than men, it means they must use more self-protection. 

And if men were faced with the same lack of satisfaction and risk for harm, they would be less likely to go for ONS's. And this would still not mean they were less D than women.

As for how this plays out in relationships and the odds that there will be more HD men/LD women configurations, I just think that you and other guys find places like TAM to discuss these issues, but less women find such places to vent....and they find out quickly that as soon as they do vent, the overwhelming advice they get boils down to: you must not be hot enough, you must not have worn enough lingerie, you must be a horrible hag, or he must be gay. There is rarely an understanding (especially by other men) that there are so many MORE LD men in the world than most people assume.

When men vent about the same issue, it is true they are also told they may not be attractive enough or whatever...but no one ever says she must be gay because this is so rare that it could only be that or you are a fat hag or both. 

If there was more understanding that so many LD men do exist, we would see more women talking about it on places like TAM. (There are places women talk more openly about it, by the way).

Here's a great article about the top sex terms searched on google:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/2...idowitz-searching-for-sex.html?referrer=&_r=1

A little snip from the article: *"There are more complaints that a boyfriend “won’t have sex” than that a “girlfriend” won’t. Complaints about “husbands” and “wives” are roughly equal."*

On my sex blog, I get a whole lot of women who find it by searching the term "how do I get him to touch my boobs", but never get searches from men saying "how do I get her to let me touch her boobs". That's not any kind of proof of anything, but it is certainly a point. Most men I think would be shocked to know how many LD men (or non boob men, as another example) there are.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I know
> 
> As I wrote earlier the stakes (where I live) are too high regardless of morals. And morals generally work pretty well.
> 
> I was merely providing an example where even the best PUA that ever lived would not score to save their lives. That's what self selected sampling is all about.


As I said earlier, nearly every time a man comes in and tells us that he has had lots of good sexual experience and has *not* experienced that women are less sexual than they are, other men come in to tell him he is just a unicorn, that his experience doesn't count for some reason.

The same thing happens to women who have met and experienced plenty of men who are less sexual than they are. We are told there's something wrong with us or we are somehow trying to get with gay men.

In the bar scenario, what really happens is that highly sexual people find each other, and have sex. It is not magic. It is not unusual. People want sex and those who are highly sexual make it happen. Sometimes it may be a one off thing, but typically highly sexual people like this know they can find an enthusiastic sex partner anytime they want. They don't always choose to do so, but they know they could. It may not be available on demand at the local watering hole (and plenty would not choose that venue to find someone anyway since we don't all enjoy the bar atmosphere), but that doesn't mean it isn't available at all....and this applies to men or women.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

FW, all this is good but somehow around the people I socialize with, sex isn't remotely an area of concern. Of declared concern at least.

The married people hopefully get some, the singles, well, not so sure, and that's all there is to it. 

Most people have things to worry about that are far more important to them and act accordingly. For women the prevalent mindset is either the mommy track or the career track and occasionally the "live the high life track" but mostly the survival track. The men likewise.

It's like college. The hook ups occur but the ones who are very keen about getting laid frequently don't seem to survive college all that long.

It's great that there are people like you describe with healthy appetites and the ability to fulfill these appetites. In this day and age I somehow am not convinced. I feel it's cultural based too, with some cultures being considerably more sexual than others. 

In fact the behavioral scientist in me thinks it's more of a bathtub curve than a bell curve, with more people at the extremes and fewer in the middle. 

Would make an awesome research topic.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Who wants to buy it?


What's that you say? Men can be choosy about where they get sex?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> What's that you say? Men can be choosy about where they get sex?


I think he means it's degrading... for everybody involved... I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is wrong... :smile2:


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Again, it's interesting regarding how our different experiences shape our perceptions. 

Growing up, I can hardly even think of any parents who divorced. It was extremely rare. I'm struggling to think of a single example among my friends. That's not to say there weren't plenty of obviously crappy marriages. 

Similarly, I only have 1 adult friend who is divorced. I'm in my late 30s. This guy's wife turned out to be a lesbian so I kind of see that as nobody's fault. Woops, she's a lesbian!

Other than him (who is now remarried) there have been zero divorces among probably the hundred or so couples I know in my extended social circle. Literally none. 

Divorce is still very much seen as a personal failure (even though no one would probably say that openly). And this is not some ultra religious community either. 

There is a very big premium on presenting a perfect family life to the world.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm over 50 and I don't remember any divorces when I was at school, for example... having said that, I come from a very Catholic country... :smile2:

I have at least 5 friends here (and in their 30s) that are already divorced... one of them has been married twice, one 3 times (but they are slightly older)! It's quite shocking, actually... my high school mates from my original country are all still married, apart from two...

Not sure what to make of that... :laugh:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> FW, all this is good but somehow around the people I socialize with, sex isn't remotely an area of concern. Of declared concern at least.
> 
> The married people hopefully get some, the singles, well, not so sure, and that's all there is to it.
> 
> ...


So we've gone from LD's are freaky aliens from outerspace totally clued out on their culture, evil and/or stupid, to most people have better stuff to think about than sex, because there isn't enough time and people who think too much about sex are loser drop-outs?

Phew. What a trip!

Personally, I wouldn't make too much of the fact that most people don't air their sexual laundry, whether it is to declare how fantastic their sex life is or to complain that their needs are totally unmet. That's the sort of thing you only see in anonymous forums and tiny villages where all your neighbours are sitting in your bedroom with you.

And the reality is, there are an awful lot of people who are satisfied enough, and honestly feel that there is nothing to complain about, whether they are getting it once a day or once a week. In Paducah, for example, you praise the women for not being demanding and are impressed by all the men whose needs were met. But maybe, just maybe, in some of those cases, the men weren't particularly demanding and the women actually had their needs met?

Point being is that satisfaction and frequency aren't necessarily directly correlated. There are a lot of other variables to consider.

Agree, though, that it makes for some interesting research.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

> A little snip from the article: "There are more complaints that a boyfriend “won’t have sex” than that a “girlfriend” won’t. Complaints about “husbands” and “wives” are roughly equal."


Of course, barring religious hangups a girlfriend who won't have sex isn't much of a girlfriend and won't remain a girlfriend very long. Evidently women feel this can be "fixed". 

20-30 years ago in the dark ages I never had a problem getting a girl to have sex or do it as frequently as I wanted, basically if we got together on a date we had sex, pretty much every time once the initial handful of dates (if that) was out of the way. I was no Brad Pitt and the sample size was not huge but it was never an issue. 

Only after marriage. Then the control began, slight at first and not so noticeable at the time but it was there. You know, we can't have sex every day! 

This is a women who, while she didn't exactly make it a habit of regularly pouncing on me first did have her occasional moments. She did for instance knock on my door one winter night in an overcoat, only an overcoat>. My sample size of one tells me marriage changes the game.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

AA, these are personal experiences that are worth generalizing here and there. 

For example, college wise, with a combined 26 years of college in my family of 4, very little was happening in terms of sex compared to pop culture of drunken fraternity rushes and willing coeds. Indeed, the few that I know that did the hook up routine all ended up dropping out or taking years longer to graduate. This was as consistent in the 1980's as it is today. I'm sure you'll have a rocket science major coed who manages to hook up between labs ))... Or sample bias due to the fact that many of our college years were in tough programs... But I'm sure that somewhere out there kids are doing it like bunnies - just not my experience. Maybe a Kinsey style sexual frequency vs GPA  study...

Likewise out of my pretty good sized circle of friends I count exactly two who discuss bedroom subjects, and I'm very close to both. Like VERY close. It's not like after a game of bowling or a round at the pub we all compare notes on our conquests... I'm sure others do. 

Also very few divorces.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

FW, come on.



Faithful Wife said:


> I would say it like this: given equal opportunities for risk free satisfying sex, women would go for more ONS's. The fact that this is not possible for women (at this time) does not mean women are less D than men, it means they must use more self-protection.


Actually, I think it does.

The old dictum holds; if you find someone attractive and you actually want to have sex with them, and they want it with you, it will happen.

I really do not buy the notion that an attractive women who is attracted to a man is going to eschew sex with that man because she is not certain that he will give her an O.

That sounds ridiculous and very much a rationalization for why not to have sex.

Also, that report which said women had desire of +3/week also said that a majority of women do, in fact, orgasm during sex.

So, you cannot have it both ways; either there is an orgasm deficit which helps to explain a desire deficit, or there is not.

Also, the presumption in your posts that a man is going to "always gets his" is also foolish. Just because a man ejaculates does not mean he had a satisfying experience.

But the men still pursue it.

Male desire is higher and more consistent than women's, even in the modern day and always will be.

Also, about your Google search item.

We know the reason behind this: men have always been less likely to seek out help than women. Always.

The fact that there are more Google complaints about "boyfriend won't" just means more girlfriends turn to Google for help, not that there are more of them.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

well, john, I'm here to tell you that everyone I know from college basically was a drunken mess at all times when not studying. it was the classic work hard / party hard situation. constant random hooking up too. 

yet even the people who seemed like complete degenerates somehow pulled it together and now have respectable careers and families.

I would say your girls are either not telling you something or they're not trying as hard as they could be.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111, that's exactly my experience as well. In the upper middle class divorce is too expensive to occur - the SAHM moms lose a lot in terms of creature comforts and the exec dads lose tons of money via shark lawyers... The couple high profile divorces we saw in my neighbors were due to serial adultery where the slighted spouse made sure everyone knew...

If one is more of the 30's working stiff variety it's a lot less punitive, one of my wife's friends dumped her husband for financial infidelity... But I think there were other issues.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

College is a bit too wide a term. My girls are both in high stake top ten programs and have zero time for extracurricular things - the older is in a long distance LTR and the younger is too arrogant to date seriously - her words. But from friends and roommies I'm quite sure that at their schools things are not quite one big stupor. And my older girl has attended / is attending top ten athletic program schools so it's not like the opportunities are lacking. I raised them well I suppose 

In my grad school days in the USA... Meh. Deep South for my MA and wife's MS, flagship state university, lots of skin, but as my fellow countrymen found out, far less action than they thought they'd get. Most of my countrymen had no problem scoring at the local bars but rarely with coeds. 

Midwest for PhD even worse. Again flagship state university full of foreign students paying top dollar and American students happy to get in. Not conducive to a lot of hanky panky at that price. 

Dang I went to the wrong schools  I'm sure others went to more cheerful schools!


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> > What's that you say? Men can be choosy about where they get sex?
> ...


Yes exactly


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

I did the drunken mess thing for a year, got kicked out then settled in to a commute to school / work to pay the tuition situation that involved very little drinking and hooking up until that was over with.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Anon1111, that's exactly my experience as well. In the upper middle class divorce is too expensive to occur - the SAHM moms lose a lot in terms of creature comforts and the exec dads lose tons of money via shark lawyers... The couple high profile divorces we saw in my neighbors were due to serial adultery where the slighted spouse made sure everyone knew...
> 
> If one is more of the 30's working stiff variety it's a lot less punitive, one of my wife's friends dumped her husband for financial infidelity... But I think there were other issues.


yes, exactly.

As I think back harder, the only couple of instances from childhood I can remember regarding divorces involved adultery. there was was one neighborhood kid whose dad was banging some woman on his boat. the kids showed up at the marina one day and caught them. that was a big scandal-- the type of thing you can't sweep under the rug.

I would say > 75% of the couples I know have a SAHM situation. 

Locked in!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> I think he means it's degrading... for everybody involved... I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is wrong... :smile2:


It amounts to the same thing. The theory claims that women are less sexual because they won't just sleep with whatever guy is available. Well, it turns out that men won't sleep with just any woman available. So I guess they are much less sexual than they think.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> The old dictum holds; if you find someone attractive and you actually want to have sex with them, and they want it with you, it will happen.
> 
> I really do not buy the notion that an attractive women who is attracted to a man is going to eschew sex with that man because she is not certain that he will give her an O.


Clearly spoken by a man who has never had sex without orgasm, and who has never taken any sort of real personal risk in order to have sex.

Yet will judge women as not being sexual because they won't take certain personal risks just to get laid.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In my circle, there are some never-marrieds, a number of co-habitaters, a few marrieds, some divorces (and some who have just split from co-habitating LTRs). The whole gamut.

Can't think of anyone offhand that is a SAHM.

The phrase "locked in" is pretty meaningless to me.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I raised them well I suppose


Your equivocation on this topic is mind-blowing. You've "raised them well" means they aren't having sex, and aren't following the cues or their culture, but this is exactly the same reason you hate your wife.

No wonder so many people end up in these fvcked up relationships.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> highly doubtful.
> 
> *why get married at all if it's supposed to be temporary?*
> 
> ...


Agreed.

But I think there's value in believing it's not temporary, it implies that some effort is necessary from both parties to maintain the relationship.

Of course, if one or both parties aren't willing to make an effort, then it's not going to work.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Clearly spoken by a man who has never had sex without orgasm, and who has never taken any sort of real personal risk in order to have sex.


Yeah, because as you well know, I clearly have never experienced either of those. 

Certainly impossible for me to be _speaking from experience there_. 



always_alone said:


> Yet will judge women as not being sexual because they won't take certain personal risks just to get laid.


You know, this is why I don't take part in these kinds of gender-based discussions.

I never said women were not sexual.

I said women did not have a strong as a desire as men, in general.

Guys tend to take a lot of risks and do a lot of stupid things to get sex with a woman (take me for instance...I got married.)

If women in general are going to let other "things" prevent them from having sex while men will not, then yeah, in those cases the men seem to be acting on a stronger desire to have sex.

And overall it looks to me like men are the ones better known for doing stupid stuff and taking risks to get sex. They are on balance the ones who do the approaching, do the courting, do the stupid competitions to impress the ladies, etc etc.

I never said women don't do those things.

Just that men clearly do them _more_.

Really, what is the point of having these conversations if everyone is going to do their level-best to misread the other person and then attack them for things they never said or meant.

Having these conversations is pointless, sorry I engaged.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Your equivocation on this topic is mind-blowing. You've "raised them well" means they aren't having sex, and aren't following the cues or their culture, but this is exactly the same reason you hate your wife.
> 
> No wonder so many people end up in these fvcked up relationships.



Lolz...

Try to understand what high stake academics are. 

We are not talking business majors at Paducah State University. 

The older is a grad design student aspiring to an Ivy League PhD. Only way to get in to an Ivy PhD is to bust your rear end during undergrad (done) and grad (in process). If that means seeing your LTR guy once a month so be it. His parents are in a long distance marriage... Once a month is good for the goose, you get the idea . 

The younger is double major neurobiology and French and hoping for medical school (tho she also wants to apply to top law schools). Even higher stress there but she thrives on it. 

Do you think I would be doing all this if they were your typical Buffy Strategic Communications majors with gpa's close to their weekend BAC levels?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Thanks to all for this conversation. It definitely puts my experience and decisions into context. I will readily admit that many here have far more experience with highly sexual women than I do (mine is zero). So I will take your word for it that my inexperience skews my perspective. Still, if it really is as easy for other men to find partners as is described here, then I have a LOT of work to do to get from where I am to where most other men are. And I am definitely not interested in making that much of an effort. See, confirmation bias is quite easy to implement!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I think fewer people marrying is a good thing and I hope that trend will continue also.


I don't really see how having kids is going to work with life for their parents being just a series of temporary arrangements.

So, each SO has several kids from several different relationships. Do parents always have to stay in the same geographical area while the kids are under 18? You've got Joey M-T, Mary every other week, Josh on alternate weekends, Jane F-Su. I don't see how that's going to work.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Lack of money?


That, fear of STD's and the fact that they'd really prefer sex within the confines of a relationship.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> I really do not buy the notion that an attractive women who is attracted to a man is going to eschew sex with that man because she is not certain that he will give her an O.
> 
> That sounds ridiculous and very much a rationalization for why not to have sex.
> 
> ...


These Are the New Orgasm Statistics Every Woman Should See - Mic

From the article:

"Only 57% of women usually have orgasms when they have sex with a partner, according to new data from Cosmopolitan's Female Orgasm Survey. Now compare that to their partners, who are apparently orgasming 95% of the time, the women say. Notice how far apart those are?"

This is not a great source but other sources say similar. And the above is when in a relationship, but we find other data which says that for a ONS the number of women having O's is much smaller:

Why Hookups Aren't Always a Win-Win - Sexual Health Center - EverydayHealth.com

Why one-night stands aren't worth it for women: They're HALF as likely to orgasm than men - or when in a relationship | Daily Mail Online

So....if men aren't happy with having a ONS and just getting an O out of it, then what exactly ARE they getting out of it that makes them keep going for it?

Again, since it is so unlikely for a man NOT to have an O from an ONS, I don't see how you can argue that this isn't the main reason for doing it, and likewise it being logical that if women COULD get one reliably, they would be more likely to go for it. That said, plenty of women still do it.

I have never had an ONS and for that exact reason. I wouldn't have time to vet the guy and find out if his skills were worth my time, and for me, it isn't about the O....it's about getting my world rocked by a skillful lover. Sadly, not every guy knows how to do this, even if I am attracted to him and even if he can get his O.

But regardless....in the future when the surveys turn up a much different picture between male and female sexuality and show them to be dead even in desire, if TAM still exists, I'll be here to gloat. :laugh:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Lolz...
> 
> Try to understand what high stake academics are.
> 
> We are not talking business majors at Paducah State University.


John, no one is disputing the difficulty of attaining degrees at Ivy league institutions, or the obvious brilliance of your family, and how devoted to their careers they are. I'm just pointing out the irony of you praising your daughter for having the wherewithal to only have sex once a month because she is too busy being successful, and you lambasting your wife for doing the exact same thing.

Tell me, is it a great idea to have sex once a month because you are too brilliant, talented and successful to have time for more? Or not?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Y
> 
> And overall it looks to me like men are the ones better known for doing stupid stuff and taking risks to get sex. They are on balance the ones who do the approaching, do the courting, do the stupid competitions to impress the ladies, etc etc.
> 
> ...


Guys generally are known for doing more stupid stuff than women. My only point is that this doesn't at all mean that they are more sexual.

And, frankly, you can claim that you took a whole bunch of terrible scary risks (like getting married!), but the fact of the matter is that generally speaking, the risks for women are actually a whole lot higher. They face actual physical danger that men do not typically face. If they get pregnant, they will most likely bear the entire burden of that, while the guy just wanders off to the next woman. And the odds are really, really high that the sex itself will be crappy, with the guy getting off and not her.

Given that the risks aren't even in the same ballpark, it's totally disingenuous to then say that men "prove" how sexual they are by taking those same risks. Fact is, they aren't taking those risks at all. And then turning around and saying women aren't "proving" how sexual they are by not taking them.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> That, fear of STD's and the fact that they'd really prefer sex within the confines of a relationship.


Oh, look at that. More ways that men demonstrate their pickiness and unwillingness to take risks .....


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Lolz...
> 
> Try to understand what high stake academics are.
> 
> ...


Daddy-- I study too hard to be interested in boys!

The biggest freak I was ever with was pre-med at our Ivy undergrad.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's not quite the same thing AA.

DD23 is separated from her SO by a 10 hour car ride or 4 hour plane - car trip. Me and J2 are not... 

Also I'm quite aware of DD23's work load and schedule and it is far more demanding. 

I realize the human brain tendency to match a few loose ends and call it, a match but it's not quite how it works in real life.

Over the summer DD and her SO saw each other once a week, maybe twice some weeks. We live a mile apart. DD23 was busy with her cat while SO had summer school in our city and internship. 

I think he was raised well too :rofl: his parents did a transcontinental long distance for four years and have lived together as well as apart for most of their marriage. Now they're back transcontinental . A heck of a family.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah....I remember when I used to pretend my young adult kids weren't having sex, too. Ahhhh....so cute.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I realize the human brain tendency to match a few loose ends and call it, a match but it's not quite how it works in real life.


All I know is that a few pages back you were railing against people who prioritize anything over their sex lives, calling them clueless, stupid, evil, aliens, what have you. And now you are coming up with all sorts of reasons why it's perfectly legitimate, even desirable, to prioritize lots of things over your sex life. Heck, all the successful people have to do it because they have *important* things to do.

But, hey, I'm sure its all perfectly rational, and my little peon brain is too stooopid to keep up with the smart folkz like youse guys.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Bored and on lunch...so why not...

FW, your argument seems to come down to this:

In a perfect world in which all women could have reliably satisfying sex their desires would come to equal that of men.

I don’t know about that.

But this weird argument you are constructing, where women don’t want sex as often because they do not have as satisfying sex, doesn’t work for me.

Is there a satisfaction gap in sex? Well, I don’t know.

I would point out that whereas each of your articles goes out of its way to explain that satisfying sex for a women is as much about physical gratification as it is an emotional connection (to the point of showing the LTR vs. ONS disparity for women) that they each assume that if a man ejaculates then he had a satisfying sexual experience.

The amount of presumption in that base principle is astounding.

I guess the notion that a man can have an unsatisfying sexual experience despite having a physical orgasm is about as unintelligible to most women as the notion of women having equal sexual desires to male sexuality is to most men.

@always_alone
Yeah, women can get pregnant. But there is literally nowhere in America today where a woman cannot find a way to legally terminate her pregnancy, give the child up for adoption, or force the father to pay child support.

There is no “women have it worse, men get to walk away” reality in this country.

That sits right up there with the “Divorce-Rape Myth” stuff that argues men are always on the losing end of the stick in separations and end up financing their exW’s post-divorce party life.

The reality is that, if a woman gets pregnant, she has a variety of options to address an unwanted pregnancy and she can include, exclude, or hold responsible the father in any way she deems fit.

There is no walking away from that responsibility; arguing either side gets the worse end of that deal is pointless I think.

If you have sex with someone and there is a pregnancy involved _both_ partners are inexorably linked with responsibility and obligation.

No one gets to walk away scott-free.

To argue that men have no risks with casual sex is disingenuous.


OK, back to work now....


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> The reality is that, if a woman gets pregnant, she has a variety of options to address an unwanted pregnancy and she can include, exclude, or hold responsible the father in any way she deems fit.


Not quite. Yes, pregnancies can be terminated and kids given up for adoption. The woman bears the toll for this, and let me assure you there is a toll. And if she keeps the baby, she might (might!) be able to get child support, but she ain't getting any help beyond that, unless he should happen to volunteer it. Which he usually doesn't. 

And that is only one of the set of risks.

As for crappy sex: yes, I quite understand that it is possible to have a less than satisfying experience even with orgasm. Been there, done that. But it is still wayy more pleasurable and gratifying than, say, receiving basically no pleasure at all, just some guy ramming you until he's done.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent....if you prefer to continue to believe that men want sex more than women and have higher drives and more desire for it, more power to ya. I do understand that what I'm saying flies in the face of everything people told us and continue to tell us.

Like I said though...when that day comes in the near future when all the surveys put both genders at the same level on these issues, I will be here to gloat.

Bottom line: there are far more highly sexual women and far more not-as-sexual men than are being accounted for, but in the future these two groups will speak out and be counted more and the fact that they don't do so right now is what causes the artificial skew in the surveys. This will correct itself.

That reminds me...years ago I was on a forum of mostly men, telling them how hot I am for my husband and that I'm highly sexual by nature anyway, but it really requires someone as good of a lover as he is to keep my interest in being monogamous. (Ie: if stuck with less than the current high quality I'm getting, I'd rather be single and find other lovers who are higher quality). They all told me I was still in the honeymoon phase and that my sex drive for my H (was my boyfriend at the time) would drop significantly after some more time. None of them understood what I meant by a GOOD LOVER, they all just attributed my high drive to new relationship energy. They told me to come back after 7 years and update how things were going then, because they were sure it would not last the way it was. I need to go back and look up those threads and see if any of those guys are still around....it has been over 11 years now and I'm still horny as ever and hot as hell for my husband, the Sex God.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah....I remember when I used to pretend my young adult kids weren't having sex, too. Ahhhh....so cute.



I think they got it all out of their system during their first four years when they were in the same location (last two years of HS and first two in college)


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I think the reason these conversations go off the rails is because the women in the high desire camp are imagining their ideal male when they consider desire. They will have VERY high desire for this type of man. So they say, SEE, I have high desire.

Men are more likely to be imagining the random pretty good looking woman in line for coffee. They know that women aren't generally interested in banging the average dude in line for coffee so they say, SEE, you're really not high drive.

In other words, it's comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> All I know is that a few pages back you were railing against people who prioritize anything over their sex lives, calling them clueless, stupid, evil, aliens, what have you. And now you are coming up with all sorts of reasons why it's perfectly legitimate, even desirable, to prioritize lots of things over your sex life..



You do realize there are physical constraints at play here, right? Should I draw a map? 

This is basic intellectual discourse material here. In one case you have a distance that's not easy to scale and two people willing to endure the hardship. In the other case the people are living together and did not BOTH agree to this...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> Daddy-- I study too hard to be interested in boys!
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest freak I was ever with was pre-med at our Ivy undergrad.



Did she make it to med school? If so why didn't you stay together


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Did she make it to med school? If so why didn't you stay together


yes. 

we didn't stay together because at the time the sexy stuff didn't seem like it was in short supply to me and I wasn't that thrilled about hanging out with her outside of that.

That was back when I had a natural "abundance" mindset.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> You do realize there are physical constraints at play here, right? Should I draw a map?
> 
> This is basic intellectual discourse material here. In one case you have a distance that's not easy to scale and two people willing to endure the hardship. In the other case the people are living together and did not BOTH agree to this...


Yes, my little peon brain can handle the concept of distance and physical constraints. I'm not so much talking about your daughter as I am about your constant equivocations on the topic. Leaving your daughter aside for the moment, ever so recently, you were just talking about how rich successful people have more important things to think about than sex, and that only dropouts and losers waste time looking for sex, ie, those who go to less serious schools, or who aren't very clever.

I'm assuming that not all rich successful couples in Ivy League institutions are hours apart.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

I know that higher drive women and lower drive men exist.

But your (@FaithfulWife) comments always seem to come back to something and you can tell me if I am wrong.

You think that if men were better at giving women satisfying sex then they would have similar desire.

The men need to learn to be better lovers. (ie, it really is there fault a lot of the time, they need to learn to be attentive)

But here is the rub; men still have sex whether or not it is satisfying and with the full knowledge that most women will likely _not_ find the experience satisfying and that their (the men) sexual experience will likely not be what they want anyways.

But they still have sex and pursue it.

That is my point.

All of the “well if this was different” or “if things were changed thusly” does not change the reality as it exists.

Men are more likely to pursue sex regardless of the potential risks or satisfaction.

Women are more likely to eschew sex because of the potential risks or satisfaction.

That alone proves to me the difference in sexual desire and drive.

If you are willing to pursue something despite a bevy of risks and disincentives and with no guarantee of an enthusiastic (ha…) or truly satisfying experience, whereas others will not, by definition your desire must be higher.

That pretty much describes sexual culture as I have seen it and always known it.

If women’s sex drives actually had the same level of desire as men on balance I think we would see considerably less issues with sexual disparity in marriage and the average sexual encounters _within committed marriages_ would be considerable higher than the routinely reports once or twice a week figure.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

john117 said:


> If you're married for 30 years nobody wants to "nail" their spouse. They want to connect, or fool around, rinse, repeat.
> 
> Look at the marriage as a holistic relationship and not as a laundry list of to do items.
> 
> ...


I've been married for almost 20 years and I still want to nail my spouse. Are you saying that won't be the case in 10 more years? >


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I think the reason these conversations go off the rails is because the women in the high desire camp are imagining their ideal male when they consider desire. They will have VERY high desire for this type of man. So they say, SEE, I have high desire.
> 
> Men are more likely to be imagining the random pretty good looking woman in line for coffee. They know that women aren't generally interested in banging the average dude in line for coffee so they say, SEE, you're really not high drive.
> 
> In other words, it's comparing apples to oranges.


I don't think so. I think some people are happy with junk food and others aren't.

I have plenty of sl*tty friends who ate all kinds of junk food and still do. One is a sex workers and loves her job. One has had at least 75 partners, mostly junk food.

Myself? I will starve before eating at McDonalds, but that's because I've eaten it enough times to know the difference between that crap and a fine meal.

And same is true for my H. He's had all kinds of junk food thrown his way and he turns his nose up at it. He has standards higher than "just the average pretty girl". 

We're both freaks and nothing less than a really great experience is worthwhile. When you've had plenty of great sex and know the difference between McDonalds and Morton's Steak House, you don't want McDonalds anymore.

I'm sure this will somehow get a response of "oh well that just makes my point" or something, but whatever. I know what I know, and there is a whole world out there of sexuality going on that people in sexless marriages have lost touch with.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> I know that higher drive women and lower drive men exist.
> 
> But your (@FaithfulWife) comments always seem to come back to something and you can tell me if I am wrong.
> 
> ...


No, this isn't actually what I think...but I agree the way I end up having to present the case sounds like this is it.

I'll expand more later, not that it will change anyone's mind, but I have an interesting theory to share.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I think the reason these conversations go off the rails is because the women in the high desire camp are imagining their ideal male when they consider desire. They will have VERY high desire for this type of man. So they say, SEE, I have high desire.
> 
> Men are more likely to be imagining the random pretty good looking woman in line for coffee. They know that women aren't generally interested in banging the average dude in line for coffee so they say, SEE, you're really not high drive.
> 
> In other words, it's comparing apples to oranges.


Ummm, no. I know all about my sex drive without having an ideal in mind, and indeed still have it even without an ideal around to exercise it with.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> One of the most fascinating things of this site is that the view by some that women want sex every bit as much as men. This goes directly against all my experiences, experiences of men I know and the portrayal of sex among married people in popular culture. I'd love to get to the truth of this but it isn't possible (no matter how many scientific studies you read) and I'm not really motivated since I'm very happy with my own situation.
> 
> I know that this is just a theory and has no scientific validity, but I suspect that the disconnect is somewhat like the difference between wine connoisseurs and winos. They both like wine, but one is pickier about what constitutes wine they'd like to drink than the other.


Right. I believe that women want sex just as much as men.

The difference is that men have a much lower "attraction bar" for women than women have for men.

This is borne out by the ******* survey showing that men rate 50% of women as averagely attractive or better, whereas women rate 80% of men as below average.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think so. I think some people are happy with junk food and others aren't.
> 
> I have plenty of sl*tty friends who ate all kinds of junk food and still do. One is a sex workers and loves her job. One has had at least 75 partners, mostly junk food.
> 
> ...


No, I know where you're coming from.

I consider myself pretty high drive but at the same time I'd be pretty selective if I was out in the world at this point.

I honestly don't walk around seeing a lot of women I'd make a strong effort to jump anymore.

I've gone through enough hoop jumping for sex in the past 5 yrs to last me a lifetime.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> You were just talking about how rich successful people have more important things to think about than sex, and that only dropouts and losers waste time looking for sex, ie, those who go to less serious schools, or who aren't very clever.



Do you dispute the fact that wealthier and presumably busier segments of society don't have sex as often as commoners? (*)

(*) kidding

Generally wealth is associated with age and fewer hours available for leisure of any kind. Maybe your model is Christian Gray who seemed to have lots of free time....


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> this made me laugh because knowing what I know now I would stay away from this age range (30ish) like the plague if I was dating now.


My understanding is that the age range in question is great to date as long as you can be absolutely sure not to get them pregnant!

Not that I would know personally of course, since I have not dated in the last 30 years...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

technovelist said:


> I've been married for almost 20 years and I still want to nail my spouse. Are you saying that won't be the case in 10 more years? >



Nobody "nails" anyone after 30 years assuming we both refer to the vernacular meaning of the term. The terminology and attitude changes for most people. 

People evolve as they grow hence it stands to reason the terminology changes


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

john117 said:


> Am I the only one thinking that the natural consequence of what FW wrote would be to over protect marriage? Endangered species and so on? I agree with her assessment 100% but can't help but wonder how the morality police and the Marriage/Divorce Industrial Complex will react.


No, the response will be to heap even more costs on men to protect women's right to do whatever they feel like at the moment. Anything else would be misogyny!


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

technovelist said:


> My understanding is that the age range in question is great to date as long as you can be absolutely sure not to get them pregnant!
> 
> Not that I would know personally of course, since I have not dated in the last 30 years...


I wouldn't want to deal with the inevitable hard sell regarding marriage either.

a few years younger and you probably don't have to deal with that.

a few years older and greater liklihood she may have gotten comfortable with the idea of never getting married.

all of this is hypothetical in my case, obviously.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Please spare me the "women can have sex whenever they want" speech. Clearly you have *no* idea what it's like to be a woman.
> 
> As for men, any man, no matter how hard he finds it to attract women, can simply purchase said service from a local brothel or streetwalker. Now tell me, why are there still men out there who complain about being horny, but nowhere to put it?
> 
> Lack of money?


As a man who for many years had "nowhere to put it", as you so gracefully put it, I never considered that seriously. Why? Because I don't like getting involved in illegal activities in which there is no guarantee of what you will get.

If prostitution were legal, then it would have been a much more attractive proposition (no pun intended).

So if women are tired of hearing men complain about the lack of "somewhere to put it", they should support legalization of prostitution.

Also, why are male prostitutes (for women, not for gay men) so rare, if sexual desire is symmetrical?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I 100% support legal prostitution.

In my city, jack shacks are legal (and there's one on every corner). My friend who is a sex worker worked at one for awhile. Not quite full on prostitution, but apparently the customers don't have many complaints.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Personal said:


> Well I only did that in a pub once. Normally when I was young and single, women would just approach me in various settings and start talking to me (apparently they liked my eyes or smile), I was seldom ever very forward so it was rather handy that they came to me.
> 
> I was/am very far from a pick up artist.


In other words, you are a natural.
Which is exactly why you aren't a good source for pickup artistry tips and tricks.
Not that you are claiming to be, of course. :smile2:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yes by all means, ask men who don't have much sexual experience how to get better at sexual experience. That makes so much sense and so many PUA books are written by guys like this.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

john117 said:


> AA, these are personal experiences that are worth generalizing here and there.
> 
> For example, college wise, with a combined 26 years of college in my family of 4, very little was happening in terms of sex compared to pop culture of drunken fraternity rushes and willing coeds. Indeed, the few that I know that did the hook up routine all ended up dropping out or taking years longer to graduate. This was as consistent in the 1980's as it is today. I'm sure you'll have a rocket science major coed who manages to hook up between labs ))... Or sample bias due to the fact that many of our college years were in tough programs... But I'm sure that somewhere out there kids are doing it like bunnies - just not my experience. Maybe a Kinsey style sexual frequency vs GPA  study...
> 
> ...


Here's a data point to support your hypothesis:

I had a fair amount of sex in college.
I took 6 years to graduate, although I was only in attendance for 4 years.
My GPA was just slightly over 2.0.
This was in the 1960's.

Now to be fair, only about 1/3 of the students graduated at all, so I was actually in the top 1/3 of my class!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I 100% support legal prostitution.
> 
> In my city, jack shacks are legal (and there's one on every corner). My friend who is a sex worker worked at one for awhile. Not quite full on prostitution, but apparently the customers don't have many complaints.



I sense a great hands on business opportunity  

Even here in the Theocratic Republic of Paducahistan we have several parlors busted every year only to re emerge. Interestingly enough no women clients...


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Thanks to all for this conversation. It definitely puts my experience and decisions into context. I will readily admit that many here have far more experience with highly sexual women than I do (mine is zero). So I will take your word for it that my inexperience skews my perspective. Still, if it really is as easy for other men to find partners as is described here, then I have a LOT of work to do to get from where I am to where most other men are. And I am definitely not interested in making that much of an effort. See, confirmation bias is quite easy to implement!


It is very easy for SOME men to find partners; the best estimate is about 20% of men have no trouble in that area.
It is not easy at all for MOST men to find partners.

Obviously you are not in the fortunate 20%, so it will take you a lot more effort than it takes them, although the amount of effort depends on other factors (like how tall you are and what your native personality is like).

So you have to decide whether it is worth the effort, once you do some initial investigation to see how much effort it is likely to take.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes by all means, ask men who don't have much sexual experience how to get better at sexual experience. That makes so much sense and so many PUA books are written by guys like this.


No, the people to ask are those who weren't naturals but had to figure out how female sexual response works by reverse-engineering it.

In other words, horny nerds who have figured out how to get laid.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I'd love to read a book or blog by a horny nerd who figured out how to get laid. Perhaps you could give us a link?

There is http://markmanson.net/ who may qualify as a horny nerd who figured it out, but the way he began his journey was by reading the same PUA crap everyone else finds, and then tooled it to work best for himself, which meant taking out the crap and adding in the quality.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Another story time. Gather around..

One of the Asian chicks I dated (5 years older than me) had this preference for nerds who would help her get out of school. We dated a while but once it became apparent I was not a computer science major (took a few courses as a minor) I was given the "let's be friends" speech. According to my compatriots who were comp sci students she hit on most of them. She was a looker but not much of a coder.

When we all graduated and got jobs she charmed her way into probably the best company out of her graduating class. We stayed in touch all these years. She hooked up with a true nerd's nerd for husband who I'm sure taught her a lot of things . Thirty years together they're still together and happy, she looks stunning at 60, and the nerd is happy as a.... You get the idea.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'd love to read a book or blog by a horny nerd who figured out how to get laid. Perhaps you could give us a link?
> 
> There is Mark Manson - Author. Thinker. Life Enthusiast. who may qualify as a horny nerd who figured it out, but the way he began his journey was by reading the same PUA crap everyone else finds, and then tooled it to work best for himself, which meant taking out the crap and adding in the quality.


I'm not familiar with his work, but does it matter how he got there, as long as he did get there? In other words, if he is in that place now, he might be qualified to give advice. I'll take a look at his approach and see if it makes sense when I get a chance. I'm a bit busy right now with my own projects that aren't related to sex. :nerd:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> As a man who for many years had "nowhere to put it", as you so gracefully put it, I never considered that seriously. Why? Because I don't like getting involved in illegal activities in which there is no guarantee of what you will get.
> 
> If prostitution were legal, then it would have been a much more attractive proposition (no pun intended).


What's that you say? There are some risks that men don't want to take just for the purposes of getting laid? I guess they aren't willing to just sleep with whoever they can get their hands on. 

As for male prostitution, it most certainly exists, and while it's true that it is not on every corner, I think this has more to do with the economic and power differential which basically says that women are to be the servers, while men are to be served.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> It is very easy for SOME men to find partners; the best estimate is about 20% of men have no trouble in that area.
> It is not easy at all for MOST men to find partners.
> 
> Obviously you are not in the fortunate 20%, so it will take you a lot more effort than it takes them, although the amount of effort depends on other factors (like how tall you are and what your native personality is like).
> ...


It is very interesting math that only 20% of men can find partners, yet 75% of them get married. And a whole bunch don't get married, but still get laid.

Is that the new math?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> If women’s sex drives actually had the same level of desire as men on balance I think we would see considerably less issues with sexual disparity in marriage and the average sexual encounters _within committed marriages_ would be considerable higher than the routinely reports once or twice a week figure.


I'm curious: how do you explain situations where the LD is the man in the relationship. 

Or are we still pretending that this doesn't exist, and if it does, well the woman is an evil ugly terrible troll?

~ evil ugly terrible troll


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Do you dispute the fact that wealthier and presumably busier segments of society don't have sex as often as commoners? (*)
> 
> (*) kidding
> 
> Generally wealth is associated with age and fewer hours available for leisure of any kind. Maybe your model is Christian Gray who seemed to have lots of free time....


I'm not sure what your point is here, john. People like you are out there chastizing LDs, calling them all evil and stupid, because they can't take 5 minutes out of their day to satisfy their spouse.

Now you're telling me they are too busy with *important* things.

Which is it? Either people can or they cannot take 5 minutes out of their day for sex. And either they are evil and stupid for not doing it or they have legitimate reasons, like being too busy with more important things.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> It is very interesting math that only 20% of men can find partners, yet 75% of them get married. And a whole bunch don't get married, but still get laid.
> 
> Is that the new math?


What I said is that 20% of men find it very easy to get partners, not that only 20% of men can find partners.

So no, it's not the new math; it's called "reading". :grin2:


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> What's that you say? There are some risks that men don't want to take just for the purposes of getting laid? I guess they aren't willing to just sleep with whoever they can get their hands on.
> 
> As for male prostitution, it most certainly exists, and while it's true that it is not on every corner, I think this has more to do with the economic and power differential which basically says that women are to be the servers, while men are to be served.


No, it has to do with the fact that almost any woman can get laid by a man at least as attractive as she is, if she wants to, without paying for it.

This is not true for men.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Myself? I will starve before eating at McDonalds, but that's because I've eaten it enough times to know the difference between that crap and a fine meal.
> 
> And same is true for my H. He's had all kinds of junk food thrown his way and he turns his nose up at it. He has standards higher than "just the average pretty girl".


^^^This! I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone who has ONS with random strangers is automatically considered more sexual than someone who has sex within the confines of an LTR or marriage.

If you're playing the ONS game, then you have to keep finding new partners, and depending on how good you are at pick-up and superficial socializing, you may be more or less good at it. In an LTR, though, you don't need to find new partners, you already have one. And if you're both into it, you can have sex multiple times a day pretty easily. 

To my mind, the willingness to sleep with random strangers speaks more to sexual desperation, not to level of sexual desire. Just because you haven't had any in a while or are desperate to get some doesn't make you more sexual -- it just makes you more desperate.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> No, it has to do with the fact that almost any woman can get laid by a man at least as attractive as she is, if she wants to, without paying for it.
> 
> This is not true for men.


Actually it is true for men. It's just that they actually don't want what is available to them because it isn't good enough. Seen it a million times. 

Oooh gross, she's so fugly!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always,

All I can tell you is that - my sex drive is dramatically lower now in my early 50's than it was up until my mid forties. 

It's not M2 - she has aged very little during that time and truthfully our marriage has never been better. 

Tennis elbow - caused me to cut way back on strength training - caused my T levels to fall a fair amount. 





always_alone said:


> I'm curious: how do you explain situations where the LD is the man in the relationship.
> 
> Or are we still pretending that this doesn't exist, and if it does, well the woman is an evil ugly terrible troll?
> 
> ~ evil ugly terrible troll


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> What I said is that 20% of men find it very easy to get partners, not that only 20% of men can find partners.
> 
> So no, it's not the new math; it's called "reading". :grin2:


What does it matter if it is " very easy" or not? Isn't the point to find a good partner who enjoys having sex with you? Is that not worth some sort of effort? Do you expect in on a silver platter? 

FWIW, it ain't easy for women to find that either.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Guys generally are known for doing more stupid stuff than women. My only point is that this doesn't at all mean that they are more sexual.
> 
> And, frankly, you can claim that you took a whole bunch of terrible scary risks (like getting married!), but the fact of the matter is that generally speaking, the risks for women are actually a whole lot higher. They face actual physical danger that men do not typically face. If they get pregnant, they will most likely bear the entire burden of that, while the guy just wanders off to the next woman. And the odds are really, really high that the sex itself will be crappy, with the guy getting off and not her.
> 
> Given that the risks aren't even in the same ballpark, it's totally disingenuous to then say that men "prove" how sexual they are by taking those same risks. Fact is, they aren't taking those risks at all. And then turning around and saying women aren't "proving" how sexual they are by not taking them.


I'll settle for women are less sexual because sex has more risks for them!

So men want more sex than women because it less risky for them.

This is all just a semantics game anyway.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> What does it matter if it is " very easy" or not? Isn't the point to find a good partner who enjoys having sex with you? Is that not worth some sort of effort? Do you expect in on a silver platter?
> 
> FWIW, it ain't easy for women to find that either.


If I found it "very easy" to have sex, I'd have more choices to select from.

I'd rather find it "very easy" to make a lot of money than not. Then I'd have a more job choices to choose among.

Also, I wouldn't have minded having lots of sex with hot women in my twenties while searching for the ideal woman.

It's probably true that, by not finding it easy to have sex with hot women, I ended up in a better relationship than I would have otherwise. But, try telling my self that in my twenties!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
It depends on what you mean by "nerd". If you mean someone who has no interests other than a specialized technical field, then they will have all sorts of issues with social interactions.

If you mean someone who is an expert in a highly technical field, but who is interesting in other ways as well, then I know several. There are a lot of women who like intelligent men. (and a lot of men who like intelligent women).

They are generally too busy to write books on it though.
'
Personally I think the key is to be a nice guy with a lot of interests. 







Faithful Wife said:


> I'd love to read a book or blog by a horny nerd who figured out how to get laid. Perhaps you could give us a link?
> 
> There is Mark Manson - Author. Thinker. Life Enthusiast. who may qualify as a horny nerd who figured it out, but the way he began his journey was by reading the same PUA crap everyone else finds, and then tooled it to work best for himself, which meant taking out the crap and adding in the quality.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'll settle for women are less sexual because sex has more risks for them!
> 
> So men want more sex than women because it less risky for them.
> 
> This is all just a semantics game anyway.


It's actually just a wee bit more than semantics. It isn't that men want more sex than women because it is less risky at all. 

At most it's that men are more likely to engage in casual hook-ups because they are less risky for them. But casual hook-ups are not the only or even the best measure of "sexual". They are at best one expression of it. 

And as I said to FW, I can't for the life of me understand why these discussions always come back to this random stranger in a bar example. It's supposed to *prove* that because men take more risks than women, that men want sex more. But the risks just aren't the same. So it's comparing apples and oranges, and then making a sweeping generalization about male and female sexuality.

It's so utterly ludicrous, and yet so oddly persistent. I don't get it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> All I can tell you is that - my sex drive is dramatically lower now in my early 50's than it was up until my mid forties.
> 
> ...


Thank you for considering the possibility that there are possible explanations, other than me being an evil, ugly, terrible troll!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

good evening
I don't really see the point in discussing whether average (whatever that means) men or women have an easier time getting casual sex. It seems to me that all that matters is whether you personally can get as much sex as you want, and if not, what if anything you can do about it.

This thread has drifted a lot (which is OK).


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Actually I have little interest in casual sex





always_alone said:


> What does it matter if it is " very easy" or not? Isn't the point to find a good partner who enjoys having sex with you? Is that not worth some sort of effort? Do you expect in on a silver platter?
> 
> FWIW, it ain't easy for women to find that either.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> If I found it "very easy" to have sex, I'd have more choices to select from.
> 
> I'd rather find it "very easy" to make a lot of money than not. Then I'd have a more job choices to choose among.
> 
> ...


Well, sure, everyone wants everything to be easy. Because, well, it would be easier. And probably most people would like to be the most attractive, popular, successful, especially without any effort, because, well, all of life would be easier.

But, well, I guess my point is that I don't understand why it keeps coming back to this "only 20% of men are considered sexy" thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It depends on what you mean by "nerd". If you mean someone who has no interests other than a specialized technical field, then they will have all sorts of issues with social interactions.
> 
> If you mean someone who is an expert in a highly technical field, but who is interesting in other ways as well, then I know several. There are a lot of women who like intelligent men. (and a lot of men who like intelligent women).
> ...


technovelist is the one who mentioned that the best books would be those by men who were nerds and who figured it out, so I'm not sure what his definition of nerd is.

There is always Dr. Nerdlove, who is excellent and has a very popular blog for "helping the nerd get the girl". He is mostly talking about the type of "nerd" who is into video games instead of being Studly Jockstar.

He is/was such a nerd, bombed out with chicks, studied the typical PUA crap and used it, found some success with it but found that it only attracted to him crazy women with no real value to him. So he went to work on his own theories and put them into place, started attracted women who were on his level, and then started offering advice to men who were like he used to be. He's now happily married. 

Here's a great article by him that covers a lot of what we've said here in recent posts:

The Unbelievable Secret To Getting More Sex

And here's another one about the casual sex "disparity" issue we've been discussing:

On Women and Casual Sex - Part 1: The Pleasure Theory

I love him because he gets it, and also because he likes to make fun of evo-crap science, even while he does see some value in it he knows that whatever value can be gleaned from it is not being interpreted correctly by the buffoons who are so stuck on it that they end up thinking women are simultaneously hypergamous wh*res and also somehow are "less sexual" than men with their "spread your seed far and wide nature" (that's sarcasm).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Well, sure, everyone wants everything to be easy. Because, well, it would be easier. And probably most people would like to be the most attractive, popular, successful, especially without any effort, because, well, all of life would be easier.
> 
> But, well, I guess my point is that I don't understand why it keeps coming back to this "only 20% of men are considered sexy" thing.


Because evo-psyche.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

AA, this is why I think you must be purposefully misconstruing people or you have such an extreme filter that your mind sees what it expects to see rather than what's there.

"It is very easy for SOME men to find partners; the best estimate is about 20% of men have no trouble in that area.
It is not easy at all for MOST men to find partners."

To anyone with a reasonable amount of reading comprehension, that says "It is very easy for 20% of men to find partners, it is not easy for the other 80%".

Yet you respond with:



always_alone said:


> It is very interesting math that only 20% of men can find partners, *yet 75% of them get married.* And a whole bunch don't get married, but still get laid.


You know that just because 75% get married, that doesn't mean it was easy to for them to find partners.

I know you're a lot smarter than that.

You may have a case, but misinterpreting your opponents argument in a way that no reasonable person would isn't the way to make it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always,
I am utterly certain that your partners issues are his issues. 

You and Richard have partners with "issues" that directly impact you and to a degree your sense of self. 

And that is sad. You are both very - loyal. Feel good about that. 





always_alone said:


> Thank you for considering the possibility that there are possible explanations, other than me being an evil, ugly, terrible troll!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Actually I have little interest in casual sex


And would you conclude from that you are "not that sexual"?

Of course not! And honestly, no doubt there are some people who are only interested in superficial hook-ups, but I would guess that most people actually want a deeper connection with someone -- at least at some point in their lives. And those are often very difficult to find, no matter how attractive or popular or successful you are. 

When I said that the important thing is to find a good partner who enjoys sex with you, I was assuming that such a person would be worth making quite a lot of effort to hang onto.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> And honestly, no doubt there are some people who are only interested in superficial hook-ups, but I would guess that most people actually want a deeper connection with someone -- at least at some point in their lives. And those are often very difficult to find, no matter how attractive or popular or successful you are.


This was my husband's experience (and mine too, to some extent). He found it easy to find highly sexual women to bang around with, but not so easy to find a compatible (for far more than sexuality) woman to spend his life with. He said the exact words in early conversations we had, "sex is easy, love is not".

Having access to lots of sex did not give him any advantage in finding a good mate. After his young years when he'd already BTDT with plenty of casual (and fulfilling) sex, he wasn't so interested in that type of junk food anymore.

When we met, if I had pushed the envelope to get into his pants sooner than I did, he probably would have assumed I wasn't what he was looking for. And actually, my plan WAS to just get in his pants at first...but in getting to know him on the first couple of dates, I could tell there was much more there than just a good romp.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I'm not sure what your point is here, john. People like you are out there chastizing LDs, calling them all evil and stupid, because they can't take 5 minutes out of their day to satisfy their spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I fear my argumentation is lost on you. 

Think of a large population of well off to do people. Some get all the action they desire, and all is well. Some don't. Those some don't because of a variety of rationalizations, be it knowingly or unknowingly.

My experience living among the well off to do has been that the predominantly SAHM's do their best to not be replaced by Wife V2.0 and as a result really maintain themselves very well etc. Meaning the majority of them care enough about the marriage or not let themselves go etc. Those high stake marriages are not likely to survive a desire mismatch - yet you may see more make LD here as they are the ones that are gone a lot or they are the ones maybe more likely getting it on the side. But I could see it happening both ways.

Au contraire, I would be willing to bet desire mismatches are more likely in cases where both partners work. Men are generally less likely to be stressed for lack of career advancement on my opinion. Well qualified women may hit the glass ceiling and kvetch for years. Again personal anecdote corroborated by friends in similar situations.

Statistics is your friend. If I ever get reincarnated I would love to research some of the above.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Actually it is true for men. It's just that they actually don't want what is available to them because it isn't good enough. Seen it a million times.
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh gross, she's so fugly!



Another business opportunity - Achley Modison meets People of Walmart.

That's why you spend a decade in college folks


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> AA, this is why I think you must be purposefully misconstruing people or you have such an extreme filter that your mind sees what it expects to see rather than what's there.
> 
> "It is very easy for SOME men to find partners; the best estimate is about 20% of men have no trouble in that area.
> It is not easy at all for MOST men to find partners."
> ...


It's just that I neither agree with nor see the relevance of insisting that 20% of guys find it very easy to have sex, or of telling people that they need to "reverse engineer" women's sexuality in order to be more like those 20% of guys.

Maybe I'm not being careful enough in my wording, but basically my point is that women find a lot more than 20% of guys attractive, and they prove this by marrying them and otherwise having sex with them. I understand that it is traumatic for some young guys who feel overlooked or hard done by in their sexual history, but this in no way determines whether they will come to have satisfying sexual lives. 

They, just like women, just need to become self aware, find partners who are a good match for them, and work to keep their relationship dynamics healthy and happy. And of course even this is no guarantee, but it's no guarantee for anyone, regardless of gender, popularity, attractiveness, success, wealth, or anything else.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



MEM, my T should be lower than my car mileage with Propecia and overall wear and tear. I don't see a decline in desire, only an increase in standards if you can believe it...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> You may have a case, but misinterpreting your opponents argument in a way that no reasonable person would isn't the way to make it.



Pareto's Law still stands...


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> I fear my argumentation is lost on you.
> 
> Think of a large population of well off to do people. Some get all the action they desire, and all is well. Some don't. Those some don't because of a variety of rationalizations, be it knowingly or unknowingly.
> 
> ...


this is all just anecdotal.

I see the SAHM dynamic from a different angle.

A lot of fit attractive moms running around in yoga pants but 100% focused on mothering (and competing with other moms) but blue balling the dads at home.

I have several friends that are living this (not just me).

to my older neighbors across the street, they might think everything is hunky dory though.

from the outside, everything looks swell.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Actually it is true for men. It's just that they actually don't want what is available to them because it isn't good enough. Seen it a million times.
> 
> Oooh gross, she's so fugly!


Again, perhaps you should read what I wrote, which is that women can get laid by a man at least as attractive as they are, whereas men can't.

Hope that helps.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It depends on what you mean by "nerd". If you mean someone who has no interests other than a specialized technical field, then they will have all sorts of issues with social interactions.
> 
> If you mean someone who is an expert in a highly technical field, but who is interesting in other ways as well, then I know several. There are a lot of women who like intelligent men. (and a lot of men who like intelligent women).
> ...


Sorry, but it is also not a good idea to take relationship advice from someone who can't get his wife to have sex with him at least fairly frequently.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

"Dr. Nerdlove" says this about evo-psych:

_Women, on the other hand, hold back sex in exchange for status, protection and resources; they want to maximize their individual offspring’s chances to survive… and sexual access is the currency they have to offer.

It’s a lovely theory, one that just feels right. We all know men are hornier than women after all…

Except it’s not true. Not only are women not less sexually inclined than men, but neither are they naturally monogamous. Female primates don’t actually trade sex for protection and support; in fact, it’s more beneficial for the female to mate with many males because of the way it obscures paternity and helps prevent the threat infanticide from males who might want to make her fertile again.

_Except that it's not true that evo-psych says that women are less sexually inclined than men, nor that they are naturally monogamous. What it says is that women's sexual strategy is bipartite:

1. To get the best man that she can to produce offspring with, where "best" is defined as "most attractive to other females". 
2. However, since such men are often not likely to stick around, as they have other options, the second part is to get resources from other men to support those offspring.

This is often called the "alpha ****s, beta bucks" strategy, and it can be achieved by getting pregnant with an alpha lover, either before or while married to a beta man.

Hope that helps.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
possibly - though I can give great advice on what NOT to do. In this case I wasn't talking about myself. I have "nerd" friends who have no trouble getting the female attention that they want.

Strangely women even seem attracted to me, but since I'm married I haven't seen if that will translate into actual sex. 




technovelist said:


> Sorry, but it is also not a good idea to take relationship advice from someone who can't get his wife to have sex with him at least fairly frequently.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> It's just that I neither agree with nor see the relevance of insisting that 20% of guys find it very easy to have sex, or of telling people that they need to "reverse engineer" women's sexuality in order to be more like those 20% of guys.
> 
> Maybe I'm not being careful enough in my wording, but basically *my point is that women find a lot more than 20% of guys attractive, and they prove this by marrying them and otherwise having sex with them*. I understand that it is traumatic for some young guys who feel overlooked or hard done by in their sexual history, but this in no way determines whether they will come to have satisfying sexual lives.
> 
> They, just like women, just need to become self aware, find partners who are a good match for them, and work to keep their relationship dynamics healthy and happy. And of course even this is no guarantee, but it's no guarantee for anyone, regardless of gender, popularity, attractiveness, success, wealth, or anything else.


No, what those women do with the men that they don't find attractive, but who have resources they want access to, is to marry them and then REFUSE to have sex with them. I know quite a few cases like that, and there are plenty more on this board if anyone is in doubt.

And yes, I know that there are women who want sex with their husbands but can't get it. That is also a serious problem but not the same problem, as most men find most women attractive enough to have sex with, whereas the reverse is not true.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> "Dr. Nerdlove" says this about evo-psych:
> 
> _Women, on the other hand, hold back sex in exchange for status, protection and resources; they want to maximize their individual offspring’s chances to survive… and sexual access is the currency they have to offer.
> 
> ...


Not sure what your point was here, but I understand Dr. Nerdlove just fine and I also understand the bullcrap you adhere to just fine. I choose to side with the good Dr. and to completely dismiss your bullcrap. Hope this helps.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> technovelist said:
> 
> 
> > What I said is that 20% of men find it very easy to get partners, not that only 20% of men can find partners.
> ...


Finding them is easy. Keeping that frequency is not.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Here's another article by the good doc I love:

What's Wrong With "Taking The Red Pill" - Paging Dr. NerdLove

His thoughts on the 20% of men bullcrap:

In the Red Pill world, it’s true: only certain men get laid: alpha males, According to the Red Pill philosophy, 20% of the men f*ck 80% of the women. Don’t worry about the fact that this is mathematically impossible, it feels true and that’s the important part. So when someone is feeling like he’s been cheated by life, that it’s unfair that other people have an easier time getting dates or getting laid, the Red Pill ethos is there to validate those feelings. “You’re right,” says the Red Pill community, “It is unfair. You’re being denied something that is rightfully yours. You should take it back!”

It’s a classic recruitment technique, one used by hate groups for centuries: prey on someone’s insecurities and fears. Tell them that they’ve been wronged and then tell them “this is how you get to be strong.” Give them an enemy and tell them “this is why things are so bad for you. They’ve hurt you. They’ve wronged you. Don’t you want power over them?” They offer secret knowledge, helping you “wake up to see the real world”, unlike all those blue pill manginas. By being a Red Pill man, you’re proving yourself superior to others. You know things that other people don’t. You’re special. Not like those other people. The world of the Red Pill is one of “us vs. them”. An alpha f*cks, a beta bucks, bro. Other guys are manginas, average frustrated chumps (because you’re not average or a chump, bro) or “white knights” – poor, deluded men who think that being nice to women will get them laid. Not like you, Red Pill devotee; you know the truth.

To someone who’s always felt like they lack control or who has low self-esteem, being told “no, you’re a god among insects” is intoxicating. You were weak, but now you’re strong. You’ve been given the secret of being Alpha – now you can be one of the guys who gets the women instead of the guy getting used. They’ll back it up with pseudo-science and evo-psych that sounds legit – after all, it’s confirming what you already believe. Don’t worry that “alpha” and “beta” doesn’t actually exist in nature; that’s just white knights trying to Nice Guy their way to p*ssy. Don’t worry that all you’re doing is masking insecurities instead of actually addressing your issues. Do alpha male sh*t, get p*ssy, bro!

(in case you are not good at reading between the lines, that's a whole lotta sarcasm)


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon,

The stakes I'm talking here are not worth blue balling anyone . I can see the yoga pant clad moms and believe me, at the risk of sounding trollish, who would want to risk the Good Life (tm)???


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

FW,

The 80/20 is not red pill bull bio products in general. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Specifically into the dating scene it could be right for a narrow range of dating related events but without broader applicability. 

Again, a fun research project.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Hope this 20% have it easy BS blows over, we were having a perfectly fine conversation talking past each other .


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

always_alone said:


> I'm curious: how do you explain situations where the LD is the man in the relationship.
> 
> Or are we still pretending that this doesn't exist, and if it does, well the woman is an evil ugly terrible troll?
> 
> ~ evil ugly terrible troll


Seriously A_A _what is your problem_? 

Are you actually readying the posts, or just taking out your anger for some perceived slight on this thread now? Because it seems very much like the latter.

I have already pointed out that some men have HSDD (it is apparently estimated at 1 in 20 men, so about 5%), I have already pointed out that the problem tends to be physical issues for most guys (ergo the discussion about my overweight friend and the ED question), and I have already talked about ways to address it (exercise, T-Therapy, Blue Pills, better sleep).

Yeah, there are HSDD men out there. 

_I literally gave an example of one I personally know._

And I even directly stated that his refusal to address it is killing his relationship.

So please show me where I claimed it does not exist.

Men have higher sex drives than women.

On average.
On balance.
In general.
[Total # of desired encounters/male population] > [Total # of desired encounters/female population]

Men still pursue sex despite a ton of disincentives and a bevy of risks whereas women tend not to.

Simple as that. 

Not sure how I can clarify it any more.

And I am most certainly not going to defend bastardized strawmen that _you_ constructed so you can rail against them.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Also, men do not just want more casual hook-ups.

I personally find casual sex to be quite distasteful and tend to judge people who have quite a bit of it.

But there is also this, the sense I get is that men tend to want more sexual frequency in long term relationships as well.

Which would really be the test, no? Who wants more frequency in a committed relationship?

It ticks off most of the female risks right then and there.

The question would be to see who lets smaller scale disincentives, like normal daily work stress, block sexual desire.

I have a sneaking suspicion I know the answer...


Also, I am totally a nerd and give tons of awesome sex and dating advice.

Of course, most of it is restrained to how to chat up girls about Star Wars and Spider-Man and hang out awkwardly at parties with a drink in your hand.

But I am an expert, so pay my $15/hr and I'll teach you too! :nerd:


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

$15? Not much of an expert :smile2:


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

anonmd said:


> $15? Not much of an expert :smile2:


Hey, you have to be competitive, there are a lot of sources of info out there.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Men have higher sex drives than women.
> 
> On average.
> On balance.
> ...


And I am disagreeing with you.

Men do not have higher sex drives
On average
In general
On balance

Women still pursue sex too, despite much, much, much greater disincentivess. Indeed we live in a culture that actively encourages men and pats them on the back for conquests, and then tells women they are no good if they've "been around" too much.

Not sure how I can clarify it more. The strawman I am arguing against is created by you, not me. Indeed it is you that is defending the strawman, IMHO.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Again, perhaps you should read what I wrote, which is that women can get laid by a man at least as attractive as they are, whereas men can't.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Again, perhaps you should realize that I am capable of both comprehending a post and disagreeing with it.

I'm wondering now if men have an overinflated sense of how attractive they are. :scratchhead:

Either that, or just totally zero understanding of the women's perspective.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I will just throw out there that arguing about things with people who are determined not to hear what you are really saying does not demonstrate value.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> FW,
> 
> The 80/20 is not red pill bull bio products in general.
> 
> ...


John, the red pill crap has created their own magical 80:20 rule which states that 20% of men are f*cking 80% of women.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> FW,
> 
> The 80/20 is not red pill bull bio products in general.
> 
> ...


The Pareto Principle has nothing to do with relationships.

And if you want to talk economics, the numbers have been updated. Now the top 20% control 95% of the world's wealth. And the top 80 people control more wealth than over 50% of the rest of the population (some 3.5 billion people).

Care to apply those stats to relationship dynamics?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I will just throw out there that arguing about things with people who are determined not to hear what you are really saying does not demonstrate value.


What? I'm not demonstrating value? I'm crushed!

(And here I thought I was trying to analyze/understand relationship phenomena, not prove my "value".)


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> John, the red pill crap has created their own magical 80:20 rule which states that 20% of men are f*cking 80% of women.



I understand that. 

The thing is, in general the 80/20 rule applies so if you narrow it down to, say, out of 100 potential Saturday college crowd hook ups I think that there will be a number of guys that will consistently score a lot more than others. 

One can't generalize tho to all men and women.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> The Pareto Principle has nothing to do with relationships.
> 
> And if you want to talk economics, the numbers have been updated. Now the top 20% control 95% of the world's wealth. And the top 80 people control more wealth than over 50% of the rest of the population (some 3.5 billion people).
> 
> Care to apply those stats to relationship dynamics?



The Pareto principle applies roughly to a lot of things from Medicare spending to medical spending as one ages to people loading the internet by watching Netflix and so on. 

In general a small number of X is often responsible for Y. Not 80/20 but generally around there. It's not linear.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

technovelist said:


> No, what those women do with the men that they don't find attractive, but who have resources they want access to, is to marry them and then REFUSE to have sex with them. I know quite a few cases like that, and there are plenty more on this board if anyone is in doubt.
> 
> And yes, I know that there are women who want sex with their husbands but can't get it. That is also a serious problem but not the same problem, as most men find most women attractive enough to have sex with, whereas the reverse is not true.


Dude, what?

Have you not seen the kind of guys that women tend to have affairs with?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

marduk said:


> Dude, what?
> 
> Have you not seen the kind of guys that women tend to have affairs with?


Yes, but I don't understand what you're getting at. Please elaborate.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

technovelist said:


> Yes, but I don't understand what you're getting at. Please elaborate.


Most of the 'fantastic' guys that have gotten a married woman to leave their good-looking, successful, and supportive husbands that I've seen...

Look like ****.

In fact, there's a whole thread on TAM about it.

You don't have to be fantastic looking to get a girl.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

marduk said:


> Most of the 'fantastic' guys that have gotten a married woman to leave their good-looking, successful, and supportive husbands that I've seen...
> 
> Look like ****.
> 
> ...


I didn't say you had to be good looking.
I said you had to be the kind of man that other women want.

Those are not the same; in fact, there are plenty of good-looking men who have a lot of trouble with women, because they don't have the "correct" attitude.

And of course this is a generalization, which does not apply in all cases...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The issue is desire and my half baked brain would think that if desire of men and women were equal, as suggested, one would be seeing similar venues for commercialized sex for women as with men... 

So, we have Hooters, lots of them. Do we have the same for women? Like Hangers? (*) Same numbers? Do we show nuts on HBO like we show b00bs?

(*) Long John Silver's doesn't count :rofl:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> The Pareto principle applies roughly to a lot of things from Medicare spending to medical spending as one ages to people loading the internet by watching Netflix and so on.
> 
> In general a small number of X is often responsible for Y. Not 80/20 but generally around there. It's not linear.


Yeah, well sort of. Everything you find about it basically says the ratio could be 90:10 or 70:30 or indeed, any other ratio. The goal is just to find ways to maximize your productivity.

Still can't see how this applies to relationships. Yeah, some men are maybe more successful are hooking up than others. How many? Who knows. What proportion of women do they bag? Does it really matter?

Shall we also say that 20% of women get 80% of the men?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> The issue is desire and my half baked brain would think that if desire of men and women were equal, as suggested, one would be seeing similar venues for commercialized sex for women as with men...
> 
> So, we have Hooters, lots of them. Do we have the same for women? Like Hangers? (*) Same numbers? Do we show nuts on HBO like we show b00bs?
> 
> (*) Long John Silver's doesn't count :rofl:


There is a huge double standard re nudity on TV. One of my pet peeves in life.

As for commodification of women? Well, the history and economics of this is obvious and well entrenched. It isn't about who has more desire, it's about who is expected to serve and who is to be served.

As this economic situation shifts, just watch as more and more men are commodified, and watch as many of the problems affecting women start to affect men more and more. We are already seeing lots of signs of it, now that there are more and more half-naked men out there keeping the billboard women company.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

LMAO - NYET - I am quite sexual by nature

It simply that - people have an 'essence', a 'spirit' and that is the thing I 'seek a connection with'. 

And sex 'amplifies' that connection, but it doesn't 'create' it. 






always_alone said:


> And would you conclude from that you are "not that sexual"?
> 
> Of course not! And honestly, no doubt there are some people who are only interested in superficial hook-ups, but I would guess that most people actually want a deeper connection with someone -- at least at some point in their lives. And those are often very difficult to find, no matter how attractive or popular or successful you are.
> 
> When I said that the important thing is to find a good partner who enjoys sex with you, I was assuming that such a person would be worth making quite a lot of effort to hang onto.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

The assumptions and interpretations of the sexual behavior of women are faulty, IMO. 

Take the belief that women are less interested in sex because many lose interest in LTR and men usually don't. Some may lose interest in sex as it exist for them not sex as it could or should be. 

Sex is geared more towards male satisfaction than mutual satisfaction or female satisfaction. Not for individuals but in general. Men have a list of sex acts they expect from their partner, the end point is orgasms for the man. Just imagine that women have a sex drive as strong as men. It is different in expression but just as strong, IMO. 

How frustrating would it be to give orgasms year after year to a partner who gets them easily and reliably. Women are expected to be the giving and sacrificing but after a time, even women run out of gas. The sexual interest discrepancy between the genders may decrease when sex is oriented towards mutual satisfaction.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm being half facetious - even in very liberated sexually countries you don't see the sexualization of men. 

Now, the artist (*) in me will say that the female form is a bizillion times better than the male form... How many six pacs and chiseled scrotums (**) will one tolerate in laundry detergent ads?

(*) I'm not an artist - the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Suck_At_Photoshop_(web_series) was created for people like me but really, the female form is light years ahead of the male form in aesthetics - not "hotness"... 

(**) ouch ouch


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

always_alone said:


> And I am disagreeing with you.


That is fine.

I think your argument comes from wishful thinking and not from a frank look at reality.

Men pursue sex more than women in literally every way measurable.

They are vast, vast majority consumers of pornography and both legal and illegal prostitution, they are the vast majority users of online cheater sites, more men engage in masturbation more frequently and more consistently than women, men are more likely to catcall and cold approach women in public, and in every major study done which asks about the importance of sex in one's life men report significantly higher affirmatives than women.

On all counts men will ignore social stigma, physical and emotional risks, and outright violate the law in order to pursue sex at greater frequencies and with greater consistency than women, even if that includes paying for it.

And men suffer HSDD at rates that may in fact be one third of that of women and their HSDD tends to be primarily _physical_ whereas female HSDD seems to be primarily _psychological_.

But sure, maybe, all evidence to the contrary, deep down all women really want sex as much as men.

But if they do not act on it that would still be evidence of men's higher sexual desire as men appear willing to _act_ on their desires more than women despite disincentives. 



always_alone said:


> Not sure how I can clarify it more. The strawman I am arguing against is created by you, not me. Indeed it is you that is defending the strawman, IMHO.


Um, no, try again.

Your strawman:


always_alone said:


> I'm curious: how do you explain situations where the LD is the man in the relationship.
> 
> Or are we still pretending that this doesn't exist, and if it does, well the woman is an evil ugly terrible troll?
> 
> ~ evil ugly terrible troll


I never made the claim that there are no LD men.
I never made the claim that if a man is LD then the women is an "evil ugly terrible troll."
I did not even get close to implying anything close to that.

To the contrary I *directly stated the opposite using a personal friend as example*.

In other words you fabricated a strawman where I, apparently, claimed that LD men are not a real thing, and that where LD men exist it is the fault of the women for being unattractive.

Why? No clue. You seem to want to have that argument. 

It is not going to be with me though.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

OMG, really john?

You think as a straight man you can appreciate what the male form does for women? How does that even make sense? Do you think that gay men agree that the female form is all hotness and beauty but the male form, not so much?

You really need to hear what women say in private about the male form.

And as for sexualizing the male form...jeez, start expanding the circles you read in. Being a sex blogger, I'm in a circle of other sex bloggers, mostly female, that post pic after pic and story after story and meme after meme about HOTTT men and just what they want to do with those hot bodies of theirs. Want me to post a few hundred of them to show you what I mean?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Men pursue sex because they are virtually guaranteed sexual satisfaction. They get a high return on their investment so it's worth a lot of effort.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
the (80 pages ago) original topic here was the interesting case where women do get sexual satisfaction yet still do not want much sex. I would think these would be well correlated, but I wonder if its true. Do women who regularly have orgasms want more sex than those who do not?

It seem obvious, but I know counter examples exist - just no idea how common.






Catherine602 said:


> Men pursue sex because they are virtually guaranteed sexual satisfaction. They get a high return on their investment so it's worth a lot of effort.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Catherine602 said:


> Men pursue sex because they are virtually guaranteed sexual satisfaction. They get a high return on their investment so it's worth a lot of effort.


Which would be one of the reasons to explain why men have higher sexual desire.

It is considerably easier for men to experience orgasm, that is simple reality.

That was kind of my point concerning FW's set up.

In the real world where women's sexual satisfaction quite literally always lags behind that of men, they have less of a "purely sexual," if you will, reason to engage in sex. Ergo, a lower desire.

Can we say that, in a perfect world where women's satisfaction was near 100%, they would want more sex?

Undoubtedly.

But here in the real world where that is never going to happen? Nope.

There are a variety of reasons for why women do not want sex as often as men, but it is basically a commonly held principle that is reproduced in just about every study ever done on sexual culture in America that men think about, pursue, and desire sex more often than women.

Does that preclude hyperactive desire in women or hypoactive disorders in men? Of course not.

But at the end of the day this is one of those stereotypes which exists because it reflects reality.


EDIT: Just kind of backing up what I am saying, to show I am not just spouting off here; from a WebMD article:



> Men seek sex more avidly.
> "Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it," Baumeister concludes after reviewing several surveys of men and women. This isn't just true of heterosexuals, he says; *gay men also have sex more often than lesbians at all stages of the relationship.* Men also say they want more sex partners in their lifetime, and are more interested in casual sex.
> 
> Men are more likely to seek sex even when it's frowned upon or even outlawed:
> ...


http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

Things are probably changing somewhat given the state of the modern hook-up culture and all that, but these are trends which have been around forever.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> No, this isn't actually what I think...but I agree the way I end up having to present the case sounds like this is it.
> 
> I'll expand more later, not that it will change anyone's mind, but I have an interesting theory to share.


Alright, here's my theory...

I think that as young women are becoming sexual, they should be able to see more peen. 

People go to great lengths (he he) to make sure no peen is seen anywhere, anytime. (Not including the easy availability of internet porn, but I'll get to that in a moment).

I think this actually stunts women, sexually. I think part of our natural progression to sexual maturity would and should include seeing peens on a somewhat regular basis...both flaccid and erect. But most pubescent girls are not "allowed" to see any peen, whether flaccid or not. It is not something anyone EVER encourages. But seeing peens causes natural curiosity about them and awakens the natural inner workings inside of us.

Women growing up are quite aware that there are naked women everywhere, but not naked men. And by the time we see one, it is usually while fumbling around in a back seat, and there very little understanding of what these amazing organs do, what they are capable of, and the incredible change it goes through between flaccid and erect.

We hear stuff, about boys having boners and being embarrassed about it, and we hear stuff about how you're never supposed to let a man whip it out at you. We are constantly discouraged away from our natural curiosity about them...to the point that it is not considered ladylike or even normal and natural to HAVE that curiosity. The only information we are given makes us paranoid about peens, or at best, we're supposed to mock boys for having boners like boys do to each other.

And yet...come to find out, when we are being naturally sexual, women LOVE PEENS!! We love those amazing, beautiful, incredible sex organs so much! They are a work of art by Nature herself. They not only give us babies, they give us pleasure and love and desire and lust.

In the book What Do Women Want, the author describes an experiment:

A set of straight women looked at pictures of male and female genitalia. There were four kinds of photos: one with a dangling penis; another with a taut erection; a third with a demure vulva half-concealed by coy thighs. The fourth was a “full-on crotch shot,” Chivers said, with typical wry humor, of a woman with spread legs.

In all four, the genitalia were tightly framed, mostly disembodied; there was little else to be seen. *This time, the subjects’ blood wasn’t indiscriminate. It rushed much, much more when an erection occupied the screen than when any of the other images were on the monitor.* Paradoxically, here was objective evidence that women were categorical after all. 

It resonated, too, with the faint reactions of Chivers’s earlier subjects when the Adonis with the slack penis walked along the shore. It seemed that the visible slackness had nullified the rest of his impressive body. More than anything, though, as an isolated, rigid phallus filled vaginal blood vessels and sent the red line of the plethysmograph high, niceties vanished, conventions cracked; female desire was, at base, nothing if not animal.

Bergner, Daniel (2013-06-04). What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire (p. 28). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. 

In the above passage, they were referencing an earlier experiment where they found what seemed to be evidence that women's arousal was very much open to anything...the little thing they shoved inside women to measure blood flow seemed to rise at nearly every type of erotic image, but no more so for the Andonis walking on a beach with a flaccid penis than for bonobos having sex with each other.

Until they did the later experiment, and saw a marked increase when showing the women just the hard c*ck shot over all other types of genitalia. 

Now, they are implying that seeing a flaccid penis doesn't quite hit us the same way...but I'm contending that seeing peens in all their various stages actually helps us (especially as younger women) develop that natural curiosity...so we need to see it in all stages. Not that a flaccid peen will cause automatic lust in a female, but if she has been allowed to explore her natural curiosity about peens previously, she will be more likely to unlock herself at the sight of a hard one or even a flaccid one, knowing what it can do.

So enter the easy access to porn, and our young girls are watching it just like young boys are (something people try to pretend isn't true, but it is). Now young girls can see at least some erect peens, even if still not allowed to see them in all their glorious stages. And young girls are now finally able to get some blood pumping and explore those natural urges that come from seeing the naked male body. This urge is supposed to happen, it is part of the process...it is the female body awakening. But if most parents have any say about it, they would wish their young girls never see an erect peen until she's in college (and even then, they don't want her to see one except if it is attached to a reliable and stable boyfriend).

Meanwhile....throughout the ages, young boys' natural curiosity about the female body is encouraged, understood, and sometimes older males actually hand the porn (or the mouse, or Playboy mag) to young men themselves and give them space to explore their natural urges. Even if the boy is told to keep it in his pants, he is never told that wanting to look at female genitalia is wrong or unnatural.

I don't think just seeing giant hard c*cks in porn is actually the best way for young women to be introduced to the glorious organ (I also don't think it is the best way for young men to see women's bodies or sexual examples), but I do honestly think it is better than nothing.

The young women I know who have told me that they were sneaking into porn at young ages, are also highly sexual now as adults. They have more appreciation for men's bodies and more connection with their own arousal.

Meanwhile, older women who may not have had this type of experience when younger, are now old enough to figure it out for themselves...and do they share peen pics with each other and talk on and on about the glorious organs? Yes, yes they do.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> OMG, really john?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm speaking as someone involved in product design for two decades. I understand aesthetics, what people look for, and the like pretty well. I generally prefer the female form if I need to borrow a few lines or curves...

Take a classic Jaguar automobile. Female 100000%. Take, say, an American muscle car. Male 100000%. Think of beauty - in terms of what emotions and visual imagery they evoke.

It's more about design theory and the themes the female body offers. The male body looks great too, it's just I don't see it used as an archetype for as many other things as the female form.

Read the last paragraph and comprehend it before unleashing hundreds of good looking dude pictures on me . 

Women appreciate specific male forms - their significant other, David the Italian nakkid dude statue, etc. But I'm talking more about general inspiration. 

Maybe I'm wrong


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> the (80 pages ago) original topic here was the interesting case where women do get sexual satisfaction yet still do not want much sex. I would think these would be well correlated, but I wonder if its true. Do women who regularly have orgasms want more sex than those who do not?
> 
> It seem obvious, but I know counter examples exist - just no idea how common.


One of my super sl*tty girlfriends is easily orgasmic and also has a very wide range of guys she can be attracted to (ie: not just buff stud muffins), and she is the one I mentioned who has had at least 75 partners. She can also be in love and monogamous, as well as out cattin' around, she isn't just out for one or the other. She loves sex and makes no secret of it. She has multiple O's every time she has sex.

Another super sl*tty girlfriend who also has a fairly high partner count but not as high, has never had an orgasm in her life. But she loves sex, just not for the O. She loves it because she enjoys the connection it creates, even if with a near stranger. She also loves giving bj's and swallows.

So I don't know that it is only the issue of getting an O or not that keeps women from doing it or not doing it...(although that is suggested by the "orgasm gap" articles). I think the O is only part of what makes sex fulfilling for women (of course this is true for men, too).

By the way, both of these women have been in mismatched relationships with guys who wouldn't put out. They have dumped these guys, too.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong


You are.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Props to this thread for "David the Italian nakkid dude statue" and "bud stud muffins."

Expanding my vocabulary daily!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

Perhaps a more fine grained survey might look like this:
1. Orgasm
- Yes or no
- If yes, how many
- How intense, long lasting were they
2. Was the rest of the sexual experience overall positive:
- Physically
- Psychologically 
3. How did you feel afterwards?
- Physically (relaxed, etc,)
- Psychologically (loving, bonded, happy)
4. We're there any painful/unpleasant aspects to the experience?
- Physically
- Psychologically 
5. Given all that, how good/bad was the overall experience? 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> the (80 pages ago) original topic here was the interesting case where women do get sexual satisfaction yet still do not want much sex. I would think these would be well correlated, but I wonder if its true. Do women who regularly have orgasms want more sex than those who do not?
> 
> It seem obvious, but I know counter examples exist - just no idea how common.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> Seriously A_A _what is your problem_?


Still...you and always have a lot in common. You are both being deprived of a good sex life. You both thought things were going to be different with your partners, and in good faith, you have been going along in your relationships, doing your best to be good to them. But they, your partner and AA's, for their own reasons, cannot or will not fulfill you sexually. This makes you both edgy, depressed, confused, and having tons of self doubt and emotional pain. 

Since I'm not in similar emotional pain (but have been before in previous relationships), I can see you two have so much in common actually and it is definitely driving your individual positions on these issues. But since you are on opposite ends of the advice polarity spectrum, you are both mired here appearing to be opposing one another. This is making it so that both of you are a bit cloudy when reading each other's posts...you're both on the hurtin' end of an unfulfilling situation that there's no easy way out of or around.

I am not sure the future of either of your relationships, but whatever it is, I wish a better sex life for you both. Sincerely.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

john117 said:


> College is a bit too wide a term. My girls are both in high stake top ten programs and have zero time for extracurricular things - the older is in a long distance LTR and the younger is too arrogant to date seriously - her words. But from friends and roommies I'm quite sure that at their schools things are not quite one big stupor. And my older girl has attended / is attending top ten athletic program schools so it's not like the opportunities are lacking. I raised them well I suppose
> 
> In my grad school days in the USA... Meh. Deep South for my MA and wife's MS, flagship state university, lots of skin, but as my fellow countrymen found out, far less action than they thought they'd get. Most of my countrymen had no problem scoring at the local bars but rarely with coeds.
> 
> ...



John, allow me to rephrase (and possibly answer) a question always_alone asked. I read to the end of thirst thread and don't think it has been answered yet. 

So the question is: when you said at the end of the first paragraph "I raised them well I suppose ", did you mean
- because they are going to a good school
or 
- because they deprioritise sex/relationships ?

Perhaps you were just expressing pride at getting your two daughters into great schools. I think elsewhere you described battling J2 over your daughters choices. So I think this was your meaning.

Or perhaps you were proud that they were 'good girls', prioritising education over sex and relationships. If so, they may get their education, get married in a rush of hormones and love, and later deprioritise sex again and end up in a LD/HD mismatch, repeating the very thing you so hate.

Or perhaps you were proud that they can plan out their future so carefully. Or maybe something else entirely.

The reason I am reviving an old post is I am interested how parents often reproduce our own problems, issues and personalities in our kids, such as LD/HD. Often we do this against our own stated intentions. And often changing technologies such as cars, internet and better schools change the details but not the overall pattern.

Of course for the society to be even vaguely stable something like this has to happen. Otherwise it would have all ended with hippies/rock and roll/punk/generation X, just like our grandparents warned us.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

John will speak for himself but I would think he means, all in good time, priorities in the right order and a good amount of delayed gratification.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

anonmd said:


> John will speak for himself but I would think he means, all in good time, priorities in the right order and a good amount of delayed gratification.



That.... 

There's time for relationships and time for studies and, if you're on your own, time for both. 

It's all about balancing.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> Men pursue sex because they are virtually guaranteed sexual satisfaction. They get a high return on their investment so it's worth a lot of effort.


I do not believe this explains all of the difference. I think there is another important factor that distinguishes men and women.

I think many men (presumably from among those of us in the 80% for whom obtaining sex is not "easy") feel a sense of accomplishment simply by getting a woman to say "yes". There is a payoff to obtaining consent independent of the pleasure from the sex itself. Even if the sex is bad, the man still feels "well, at least I got her to do it".

I don't think most women feel this same sense of accomplishment simply from convincing a guy to provide sex. But I am happy to have the women here provide their insight. Do you feel good about yourself when you convince some random guy to have sex with you? Good about the fact that some guy was actually willing to have sex with you? 

I am told that some women do feel this sense of accomplishment. Although the women I have talked to usually refer to it as a sense of power. As in "I knew he wasn't that into me but I got him to have sex with me anyway".

If this is indeed a significant difference between the genders, I think that also impacts why men are more likely to seek out sex. To sacrifice for it. And to feel good about the experience even if the sex wasn't so great.

At least for me "I got her to say yes" is a huge accomplishment and a huge source of pride and satisfaction. Yes, I know that makes me a loser because it shouldn't be so difficult and it shouldn't matter that much. But it does. And it explains a substantial portion of my libido.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> I think your argument comes from wishful thinking and not from a frank look at reality.
> 
> Men pursue sex more than women in literally every way measurable.


I know you think this is reality, and I know the studies and measures you are pointing to. And I understand that I am just an Internet troll and so can give you no reason to challenge your understanding of their conclusions or the endlessly repeated "truths" about male and female sexuality.

But study after study does *not* conclude what you think it does. There are metastudies and statistical analyses that I have posted here before that show very, very clearly that while some self reports might indicate that men are more interested in sex, masturbate more, pursue more, think about sex more, etc., when you actually look at the numbers, the overlap between the sexes is so large, that there really actually is NOT a difference in kind.

In addition, there are a whole host of studies that show the methodological flaws in much of the early research are sufficiently egregious to cast doubt on their conclusions.

In addition, there is primary research that shows that women and men report pretty much the same levels of fantasy, thinking about sex, masturbation, and all sorts of other measures.

So, you can assert your interpretation of the body of research without engaging in any further analysis, and put me down for "wishful thinking" all you want. That is your prerogative. And I will exercise my prerogative to point out that my analysis is just as backed up by evidence as yours is.



StilltheStudent said:


> Your strawman:
> 
> I never made the claim that there are no LD men.
> I never made the claim that if a man is LD then the women is an "evil ugly terrible troll."
> I did not even get close to implying anything close to that.


No, your straw man is to dismiss the phenomenon of LD men as a rare, simple, easily corrected physiological hiccuo. When in fact, sexual issues affect ~20% of men, and men make relationships sexless at the same rates as women. And the reasons aren't just hydraulics, but also psychological, etc.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Richard,
> 
> Perhaps a more fine grained survey might look like this:
> 1. Orgasm
> ...


Yes, on point, I think. Somewhere back in the earlier days of this thread I said something to the effect that it all depends on your definition of "good." Having had some particularly not good sex that my SO found to be quite good, I think there can be quite a discrepancy between two people's description/memory of the same event.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

In terms of sexual dysfunction the current numbers are 31% men and 43% women... 

Focusing on desire is also suspect - I desire a Bugatti but I don't think I'm getting one any time soon...

I mean, women are liberated and all that, for how many years are we going to have to wait till men are hit on by women in the same numbers as women are hit on by men?

Count what people do, not necessarily what they wish.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> the (80 pages ago) original topic here was the interesting case where women do get sexual satisfaction yet still do not want much sex. I would think these would be well correlated, but I wonder if its true. Do women who regularly have orgasms want more sex than those who do not?
> 
> It seem obvious, but I know counter examples exist - just no idea how common.


The simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that she doesn't actually enjoy it all that much.

haven't you ever had a "routine" orgasm? e.g., that was nice, but about as nice as smoking a good cigarette?

I like to smoke a cigarette here and there, but even though it is pleasurable for me, the downsides are too significant for me to want to indulge in it all that much, even though I do enjoy it.

A woman who has a rather ordinary orgasm may feel the same way ("that was nice, but gosh, now he's going to expect I want to do it tomorrow and now I feel kind of slimy and want to take a shower and, wow, I have an early meeting tomorrow and could have really used an extra hour of sleep," etc., etc.)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> That....
> 
> There's time for relationships and time for studies and, if you're on your own, time for both.


Really, John, my only point was that, given you feel this way, maybe you could be just a teensy weensy bit more understanding and forgiving of your wife when she says exactly the same sorts of things.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> In terms of sexual dysfunction the current numbers are 31% men and 43% women...


Wow, those are high. Where did they come from?

As for hitting on men, women have been doing it for yonks. There is even a saying about this: he chases her until she catches him.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Really, John, my only point was that, given you feel this way, maybe you could be just a teensy weensy bit more understanding and forgiving of your wife when she says exactly the same sorts of things.



(Cue video of masked and caped defender swooshing to action )

That's not how it works - there's a huge difference in the intimate life of a couple of college kids in an LTR separated by a 10 hour car ride and that of a couple married for decades living under the same roof.

Are you telling me I should accept the same intimacy schedule rofl as my cousin the merchant marine officer who is gone for a month at a time? 

I'll let you on on another Little Secret. I was separated from J2 for a year and a half in the 80's for school and work, and we had a lot of entertainment back then, even tho it was every other week or so.

Look deeper.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Are you telling me I should accept the same intimacy schedule rofl as my cousin the merchant marine officer who is gone for a month at a time?


Of course not! I'm trying to point out that you have understanding for everyone (oh, they're separated by long distances, oh, they are in Ivy League institutions, and don't have time, oh, they are wealthy and need to work hard to amass that wealth, they don't have time, oh they have legitimate health reasons, oh, they are over 60 and no one expects sex over 60, and on and on.) Excuses for everyone EXCEPT your wife.

I get that she has given you all of these excuses and more, and so you don't need to feed them to her. I'm just trying to urge a teensy weensy bit of understanding and forgiveness on your part, and stop seeing her as just stupid and/or evil.

But I'm thinking I'm just wasting my breath.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

always_alone said:


> I know you think this is reality, and I know the studies and measures you are pointing to.


And those measures and reports have repeatable results and show consistency year after year.



always_alone said:


> And I understand that I am just an Internet troll and so can give you no reason to challenge your understanding of their conclusions or the endlessly repeated "truths" about male and female sexuality.


When did I call you a troll?



always_alone said:


> But study after study does *not* conclude what you think it does.


Actually, they do, in black and white.



always_alone said:


> There are metastudies and statistical analyses that I have posted here before that show very, very clearly that while some self reports might indicate that men are more interested in sex, masturbate more, pursue more, think about sex more, etc., when you actually look at the numbers, the overlap between the sexes is so large, that there really actually is NOT a difference in kind.
> 
> In addition, there is primary research that shows that women and men report pretty much the same levels of fantasy, thinking about sex, masturbation, and all sorts of other measures.[/


First, meta-study analysis are interesting, but unless they operate within a group of original studies with 1) identical or near-identical operationalization of tested variables, 2) identical or near-identical data gathering methodologies, and 3) identical or near identical population sets and controls, then they are basically on par with under-grad Stats 101 projects.

I know, because I was basically told exactly that by my Stats 101 prof. when I tried to meta-analyze election polls way back in the day… 

Second, you are going to have to provide some evidence that women masturbate as much as men for me to believe that.

Seriously.

Every single study, from self-reported online surveys to clinical psychological studies published in peer reviewed articles that I know of has concluded that men masturbate more and at a greater frequency than women.

And at all stages of life.



always_alone said:


> So, you can assert your interpretation of the body of research without engaging in any further analysis, and put me down for "wishful thinking" all you want. That is your prerogative. And I will exercise my prerogative to point out that my analysis is just as backed up by evidence as yours is.


Well, I have literally never seen one of these meta-studies you are talking about, so how about a link?





always_alone said:


> No, your straw man is to dismiss the phenomenon of LD men as a rare, simple, easily corrected physiological hiccuo. When in fact, sexual issues affect ~20% of men, and men make relationships sexless at the same rates as women. And the reasons aren't just hydraulics, but also psychological, etc.


There is a fundamental difference between general sexual dysfunction and hypoactive sexual desire disorders.

Sexual dysfunction in men appears to be dominated by physiological issues, primarily erectile dysfunction, premature or retrograde ejaculation, and low testosterone.

Even HSDD in men appears to be dealt with via addressing physiological issues, such as weight loss, blood pressure medicines, and better sleeping patterns.

And yes, it is rarer in men, or more prevalent in women.
The 43% of women and 31% of men statistic that was just cited refers to generalized sexual dysfunction. The actual study those numbers came from (1999 The National Health and Social Life Survey) reported that only 20% of respondents said "desire" was an issue.

Another one, focusing just on HSDD
The Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors (GSSAB - 2005):
Men: 13% - 28% [Avg. = 21%]
Women: 26% - 43% [Avg. = 35%]

Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder, is a very prevalent issue for women, at all stage of life.

The confusing issue is that, as I do some reading on it, the offered solutions for male HSDD _repeat the physiological solutions_.

I am getting the distinct feeling, time and time again, male HSDD is primarily physical in nature.

If we controlled for physiological issues (ED, Low-T, etc) and restrained our study to just _desire_ I would put good money on women being the primary population suffering from psychological HSDD that cannot be addressed via primarily physical solutions.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Sorry, AA, it isn't excuses I worry about but attitudes. It sounds that you're way too quick to focus on words versus attitudes.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
agreed - it can be difficult to tell how good it was for the other person, beyond the obvious physical responses - assuming they may not be honest with their responses.



always_alone said:


> Yes, on point, I think. Somewhere back in the earlier days of this thread I said something to the effect that it all depends on your definition of "good." Having had some particularly not good sex that my SO found to be quite good, I think there can be quite a discrepancy between two people's description/memory of the same event.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> And those measures and reports have repeatable results and show consistency year after year.
> 
> 
> When did I call you a troll?
> ...


StilltheStudent, I did not say that you called me a troll. I called myself a troll because this is the internet, and unless I divulge my identity, you have no way of knowing if I have any knowledge or experience of anything. I could be anyone, and I understand why you might be skeptical of anything I say, particularly since it contradicts common stereotypes.

But please do not dismess metastudies because of your Stats101 prof. They are an important staple of scientific research, whether in the hard sciences or the social sciences, otherwise empirical research because just a string of disconnected conclusions, with little opportunity to integrate, build theory, or develop new angles to further research. This is why there are such things as literature reviews and metastudies in the first place: they are not just make-work projects for undergrads.

Here are some links that I have posted in the past. 

Men Are from <del>Mars</del> Earth, Women Are from <del>Venus</del> Earth : Rochester News (there is also a link here to the full published study).

Sex on the Brain?: An Examination of Frequency of Sexual Cognitions as a Function of Gender, Erotophilia, and Social Desirability - ResearchGate

Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception - Online First - Springer (pointing out that while women might not accept an offer from a random stranger, this might have more to do with safety than anything else.)

What Do Women Want?: Adventures In The Science Of Female Desire: Daniel Bergner: 0884458909098: Books - Amazon.ca (And there is a write-up on this book at Turns Out Women Have Really, Really Strong Sex Drives: Can Men Handle It? - The Atlantic)

Are men more promiscuous than women?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Sorry, AA, it isn't excuses I worry about but attitudes. It sounds that you're way too quick to focus on words versus attitudes.


I'm on about attitudes too: yours.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> agreed - it can be difficult to tell how good it was for the other person, beyond the obvious physical responses - assuming they may not be honest with their responses.


Well, I used to complain, but all it did was start arguments and add pressure, and nothing good came of it. So I shut up, and now say nothing, and just make things happen for myself.

Not saying this is your situation, though, richard. From the sounds of it, I don't have much in common with your wife at all --- indeed I can't quite wrap my head around some of the things you describe her doing. 

It is though, at least I think it is, not uncommon for spouses to fail to fully disclose how they are feeling around issues like sex which are very likely to cause lots of hurt feelings, and make people feel very vulnerable and exposed.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> agreed - it can be difficult to tell how good it was for the other person, beyond the obvious physical responses - assuming they may not be honest with their responses.


I would look at it like this-- there are different levels of honesty.

If your wife liked it OK, she's not likely to say, "well, that was pretty good, but it could have been better." 

I think you will know better how much she really liked it by her actions.

If she's not particularly motivated to seek it out again, on the whole I would interpret that to mean that it's not that great to her.

I realize this is kind of a downer, but I don't think any other conclusion is reasonable.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

To some people, it doesn't matter how good the sex is - they just don't want or need more. Just like my hamburger analogy: I really enjoy a good hamburger, but not more than once or twice a month.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> It's actually just a wee bit more than semantics. It isn't that men want more sex than women because it is less risky at all.
> 
> At most it's that men are more likely to engage in casual hook-ups because they are less risky for them. But casual hook-ups are not the only or even the best measure of "sexual". They are at best one expression of it.
> 
> ...


We go round and round about this because you and FW keep telling us things are one way when everything we know tells us they are another way. It's as if you're saying the sky is orange and it just drives us nuts.

Actually I think you and FW are saying that in some future, more perfect world without all of the social conditioning, women would want great sex in exactly the same degree as men want great sex. That might be true (though I'd be a bit surprised if, given biological and evolutionary differences, that was true). I don't understand why exactly it's so important to you to make this argument. More relevant to me is how who wants sex more now, under current conditions. But, I do think it's mostly just a matter of the definition of the term "sexual" that's at issue.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I'm on about attitudes too: yours.



Right, woe the inconsiderable husband 

But my stone hard heart was moved by the discussion so in honor of J2's upcoming birthday I bought her a rather pricy and nice art glass piece. Let's see if she shows any appreciation  

(But don't hold your breath...)


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Right, woe the inconsiderable husband
> 
> But my stone hard heart was moved by the discussion so in honor of J2's upcoming birthday I bought her a rather pricy and nice art glass piece. Let's see if she shows any appreciation
> 
> (But don't hold your breath...)


I hope you like it.

Otherwise, might have been more satisfying to light that money on fire.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I would look at it like this-- there are different levels of honesty.
> 
> If your wife liked it OK, she's not likely to say, "well, that was pretty good, but it could have been better."
> 
> ...


Or not

I've suggested just that, denied repeatedly. 

The magnitude of satisfaction seems inversely proportional to the time between encounters. Give it a month and she can be a panting quivering mess afterwards, twice a month - not so much, 3 times a month - meh.

And it is pretty much guaranteed that a 3 times or horror of horrors 4 times month will be followed by a 1 or maybe 2 times month. I'd be happy if mere performance and technique on my part were the problem. Obviously I'm a douche bag <g> (aka, your I'm a troll)


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> It's just that I neither agree with nor see the relevance of insisting that 20% of guys find it very easy to have sex,


I can easily see that you might disagree about this.

However, if true, it could be very relevant.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another article by the good doc I love:
> 
> What's Wrong With "Taking The Red Pill" - Paging Dr. NerdLove
> 
> ...


Two things:

1) I hate when people say things like "mathematically impossible" as if it means something, especially when they don't seem to understand math. 

Consider 100 men and 100 women where x = sexual encounters: 

100m * .20 * 8x = 100w * .80 * 2x

Now, I'm sure that that equation is not an exact representation of reality, but it is possible.

2) If you use this knowledge (assuming, of course, that it's directionally true) to feel bitter and angry at women, that's stupid, entitled and infantile. If you use this knowledge to inform your choices and behaviors, that's different. While I'm sure that there are a lot of men in the MRA movement that DO feel bitter and are just whining, I don't think that's the case with any of the men posting here


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Interesting articles, but what are they saying?

1) The University of Rochester study argues that sex cannot be used as a taxonomic category to qualitatively differentiate separation in behaviors between men and women. However, even within that research they found certain items (such as watching pornography) to be taxonomically predictive in men and not women and also found that, when discussing a single combined variable of sexual desire (appeal of sex with more than one partner or a stranger) that the Bayesian distribution appeared in a U-Shape and indicated taxonomic predictability with some solid accuracy.

They conclude that, in general, sexual attitudes appeared to be dimensional, but had to offer the caveat that _their single variable on sexual desire was a contravening data point_.

2) The Ohio State University study found the opposite of your argument. It clearly states that “young men did think more about sex than did young women,” and that overall, there are clear sex differences in sexual cognition, albeit smaller than sometimes argued.

3) The Baranowski study also undermines your point. It flatly reinforces a 1989 study which demonstrates that men are more receptive to offers of casual sex. The only way the study could eliminate the gender difference was by conflating sex and dating together and do so in a setting in which all potential risks were eliminated, _and even then “men were more liberal in their choice in either condition._

4) _What Women Want_ is not a professionally produced monograph. It is an opinion piece, written by a journalist and published by commercial press, who goes on to interpret a series of scientific studies, and who had his primary reviews produced by places like _Salon, Slate, and The Atlantic_.

It is quite literally an op-ed turned book about how gender roles might be holding women’s sexual desire back.

5) “Are men more promiscuous than women?”
I cannot access the article through my credentials (annoying) but I do know this; numerous studies have found that, when a threatened polygraph is offered, men’s self-reported # of sexual partners declines and women’s increase.

What does this mean about desire? Well, nothing really. Just that it seems your average man achieves sexual intimacy less often than your average woman (If I remember correctly the average was ~5 or 6 for men and 7.5 for women).

While I appreciate the effort you put into tracking those down A_A, they literally fail to support, and in many places directly contradict, what you are trying to argue for.

Nothing you posted contradicts men masturbating more, consuming prostitution more, consuming pornography more, thinking about sex more, being open to casual sex more, etc etc.

Men are repeatedly and consistently demonstrating more desire _even in a taxonomic study that concludes men and women have dimensional behaviors_.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

john117 said:


> ....But my stone hard heart was moved by the discussion so in honor of J2's upcoming birthday I bought her a rather pricy and nice art glass piece. Let's see if she shows any appreciation
> 
> (But don't hold your breath...)


I will assume no sarcasm was meant in your post and take it at face value. If I have assumed wrong, please forgive me.

Not to get all "Glover" on you, but was there a "covert contract" in the back of your mind when you purchased and gave the gift of art glass?

Was it a true gift of the heart with no expectations of quid-pro-quo?

Sometimes we forget that wives have spent years learning to decode our body-language, our facial expressions, the tone of our voice, and our patterns of behavior. 

Good luck. I hope she has a lovely birthday.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

For me the kicker is homosexual relationships.

If ever there were control groups for male and female sexuality, it would be them.

In comparison to heterosexual relationships we know two things to be true:

1) Homosexuals report considerably more frequent sexual encounters.
2) Lesbians report considerably less frequent sexual encounters.

In fact, lesbian relationships disproportionately suffer from lower desire at such high rates that the term “Lesbian Bed Death” was coined to describe them.

And no, it is not a myth.

As recently as 2013 the Society for the Study of Sex reported that there are massively lower levels of sexual encounters in lesbian couples.

The only thing the researchers could think of was that maybe women have less sex because they have longer and more sexually satisfying encounters…which is interesting.

But fails to fit into the arguments being made _here_.

Women in lesbian relationships have more reliably satisfying sex…and they are the group of people in America who have the least amount of sex, the lowest frequency, and the longest periods of dead-bedrooms.

Sorry, but in the real world of modern America, every single item points to men and women having divergent sexual desire, with men wanting it more frequently.

EDIT:
Basically, the argument of the female sexologist is that we should redefine sexual desire to ignore frequency and instead argue that lesbians have superior sex which leaves them more satisfied. 

Which is another way of conceding that, yes, women have lower sexual desire, but it shouldn’t be considered important or significant that they do. And that we should celebrate all kinds of sexual cultures in America…


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Still...there are studies that are looking at the fact that there may be other reasons than are obvious about the gay men having more sex and lesbians having less sex situation. But I agree that at a glance, it would appear to uphold everything people already think is true about sex drive disparity between the genders.

I won't bother to go further with these arguments because many of us at TAM have done it before, and in the end it just goes in circles.

As the points AA and I were trying to make apply to *you* personally, though...I hope you can at least absorb and retain the idea that not all women are LD, not all women end up LD in long term relationships, and therefore, if you end up single again, I hope you'll make every effort you can to find a new partner who is sexually compatible with you. Of course there are never any guarantees that someone won't change out of the blue or due to health issues or whatever, but the chances of finding a compatible partner are much higher if you take steps to ensure it. There are a lot of guys here who seem to believe it is inevitable that women will snare you into marriage to get babies and money out of you and the refuse to have sex. Of course that has been the experience of plenty of men, but most of those men are still hanging in there on marriage #1. Therefore, they simply don't know that it doesn't always have to be like this. Those of us who have let go of marriage #1 and moved on, if we seek out compatibility more deliberately in later relationships, we find it.

I want to offer you a message of hope in case you cannot make your current marriage better and in case you end up leaving.

And that glimmer of hope may be the only bright spot you can see for awhile as you forge ahead into the dark spaces of trying to fix a mismatched relationship. Those of us who have been there get it. But those of us who have escaped and moved on can sometimes come back and offer hope.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> I hope you like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, might have been more satisfying to light that money on fire.



The McMansion houses an obscene amount of Murano and other art glass... My daughters have been known to bicker about who gets what after divorce 

I actually do like it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richard, sorry for what looks like major threadjacks. To me, all the things we are discussing are part of the whole sexuality and LD/HD issue, so they are related to your original question...but I realize it is not such a direct relation, so again, sorry.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> There is a huge double standard re nudity on TV. One of my pet peeves in life.


My wife kind of enjoys seeing attractive women nude on TV.

She doesn't particularly enjoy seeing d!cks on TV. And if she did, she wouldn't enjoy seeing them in their non-aroused state.

If there was money to be made showing full frontal male nudity on TV, I'm sure HBO would be doing it. HBO likes money. 

You produce content based on what sells, not on the basis of gender neutrality.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Young at Heart said:


> I will assume no sarcasm was meant in your post and take it at face value. If I have assumed wrong, please forgive me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm well past the era of covert contracts. That was thru 2013. It's a nice heavy piece of art glass by a renowned local artist. More likely to end up in my pile of loot after divorce than hers :lol:

My wife, tho, is unable to decode such hints. I know as I've tried. Many times.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> My wife kind of enjoys seeing attractive women nude on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the thing tho. Women may go for the subtle thing, Fabio and the like mommy-novel-p0rn, not video... I wonder how sales of mommy novels and the real thing  compare...


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> My wife kind of enjoys seeing attractive women nude on TV.
> 
> She doesn't particularly enjoy seeing d!cks on TV. And if she did, she wouldn't enjoy seeing them in their non-aroused state.
> 
> ...


HBO is doing it - see Game of Thrones. It's not very often, less than women, and oddly, hardly ever in a sexual context. 

I always thought it was men who didn't want their dangly bits shown flaccid on tv since they aren't as "powerful" and "manly" if they aren't shown as erect bits. Erect penises aren't allowed on tv because, porn.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

anonmd said:


> Or not
> 
> I've suggested just that, denied repeatedly.
> 
> ...


I dont know man... I go back to my cigarette analogy. I think cigarettes are pretty good. A nice little buzz. Fun every once in a while, but really not that awesome that I want it all of the time.

I've never smoked crack, but let's assume smoking crack is like 1000x better than smoking a cigarette. Like, it would be scary to smoke crack because it's so good. You'd want it all of the time (hence, crackheads).

Having sex is like smoking a cigarette to your woman. It's not like smoking crack to her. 

She might like it a little bit, but it's not so great she's gonna go all crackhead about it.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Its possible. Tricky though - she generally claims to very much enjoy sex, and will never let me know of anything she wants different. (I often ask and always get a "you know what I like".

I still think the best model is that she enjoys sex, but for whatever reason only wants it once or twice a month. 






Anon1111 said:


> I would look at it like this-- there are different levels of honesty.
> 
> If your wife liked it OK, she's not likely to say, "well, that was pretty good, but it could have been better."
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
no problem. Its interesting watching where this drifts. 



Faithful Wife said:


> richard, sorry for what looks like major threadjacks. To me, all the things we are discussing are part of the whole sexuality and LD/HD issue, so they are related to your original question...but I realize it is not such a direct relation, so again, sorry.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

StilltheStudent said:


> As recently as 2013 the Society for the Study of Sex reported that there are massively lower levels of sexual encounters in lesbian couples.
> 
> The only thing the researchers could think of was that maybe women have less sex because they have longer and more sexually satisfying encounters…which is interesting.


That's the only thing they could think of? Talk about failure of imagination.

Women still earn 75% of what men earn, on average. Maybe the lesbian couple has to work longer hours than other couples just to have a similar lifestyle and they are TOO TIRED for as much sex.

Women suffer depression at greater rates than men. Depression affects libido. Maybe the lesbian couples are more likely to have these issues than other couples.

Women are still more responsible for childcare than men, so it seems logical that there are more likely to be children in a lesbian family, and the women are more likely to have custody. So maybe the lesbian couple have more competing priorities and interruptions than other couples.

Women are more likely to have experienced rape than men or be sympathetic to such an experience. So perhaps in a lesbian relationship, both partners are more likely to respect an initial 'no' instead of becoming persuasive or pushy.

I'm not sure if the study you mentioned explored it, but I've heard of research that dealt with the concept of fluidity in sexuality. The basic concept is that men physiologically respond to a drought in sexual activity by being MORE driven to seek it out, while women physiologically respond to a drought in sexual activity by a lessening of libido, adjusting to its lack of availability by wanting it less.

Then there are also the concepts of awareness of arousal and responsive desire. Men can't help but notice when they get an erection, and the natural response is to want sex. Brain and body are in harmony. However, women are found to be often UNAWARE of their level of arousal, so even when aroused, it may not occur to them to go have sex. Brain and body are on completely different pages. On top of that, men are more visually stimulated, while women are more imaginatively stimulated. So men think of sex or see someone sexy (which is EVERYWHERE) and get aroused and want sex. While women need foreshadowing and foreplay, or reading erotica, to get aroused, but still may not realize it and actively want sex.

On TOP of that, there is further research about this automatic response of women's bodies to sexual contact or visual stimulus despite their minds being on anything but sex. This leads to women becoming aroused at the sight of an erect penis but not a flaccid one, or from seeing videos of bonobos mating, even if they have no interest in the owner of that penis or having wild monkey sex. The thinking is that this developed as a protective measure, to minimize injury from rape, by lubricating the woman's genitals even if the sex is unwanted. So even if a woman's body is responding to you, even if she's having orgasms, her mind may still not actually want sex.

That was a whole lot of generalizing, and more than a bit of evo-psych, so I'm sure there are both men and women who operate differently, but the problem comes when they believe that they are normal, because it is all they know, when in fact it isn't average and their partner probably doesn't behave that way at all.

Again, it all boils down to two different people, neither of whom is willing to change themselves but expects the other person to do it 'out of love.' And the lower frequency sexual option is the one that triumphs because the other choice is basically rape.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Still...there are studies that are looking at the fact that there may be other reasons than are obvious about the gay men having more sex and lesbians having less sex situation. But I agree that at a glance, it would appear to uphold everything people already think is true about sex drive disparity between the genders.


The homosexual-heterosexual-lesbian sexual frequency divide has been observed since at least the early 1980s and has been reinforced over and over again, so it is a real thing.

The thing that really strikes me is the satisfaction levels; lesbians apparently report more satisfaction from sexual encounters but significantly less encounters and more rapid frequency decline over time.

The only way that makes sense for me is if the natural tendency of sex is for women to be responsive and men aggressive.

Put two aggressive men together and they will interact a lot.
Put two responsive women together and well…either someone steps out of their comfort zone or nothing happens.

Mix and match and you get an average with some variation.



Faithful Wife said:


> I won't bother to go further with these arguments because many of us at TAM have done it before, and in the end it just goes in circles.


Heh, yeah, I am getting that feeling.



Faithful Wife said:


> As the points AA and I were trying to make apply to *you* personally, though...I hope you can at least absorb and retain the idea that not all women are LD,


Well, I never had that problem fortunately. My base assumption has always been that men and women both desire a normal level of sex, most men want it more often than women, and that HSDD is an issue that hits a lot of women, apparently my wife, and have been looking for ways to deal with it.



Faithful Wife said:


> …not all women end up LD in long term relationships, and therefore, if you end up single again, I hope you'll make every effort you can to find a new partner who is sexually compatible with you. Of course there are never any guarantees that someone won't change out of the blue or due to health issues or whatever, but the chances of finding a compatible partner are much higher if you take steps to ensure it. There are a lot of guys here who seem to believe it is inevitable that women will snare you into marriage to get babies and money out of you and the refuse to have sex. Of course that has been the experience of plenty of men, but most of those men are still hanging in there on marriage #1. Therefore, they simply don't know that it doesn't always have to be like this. Those of us who have let go of marriage #1 and moved on, if we seek out compatibility more deliberately in later relationships, we find it.
> 
> I want to offer you a message of hope in case you cannot make your current marriage better and in case you end up leaving.
> 
> And that glimmer of hope may be the only bright spot you can see for awhile as you forge ahead into the dark spaces of trying to fix a mismatched relationship. Those of us who have been there get it. But those of us who have escaped and moved on can sometimes come back and offer hope.


Thanks and I do really appreciate the advice you folks have given me. 

Helped to put some things in perspective.

I am trying to focus on points where my wife seems to have shown some desire to improve things (a bit better frequency of late, mention of talking to doctors about things like the Addyi pill, some recent expansion of sexual comfort zone for her) and see if I can work on those for a while.

The advice about me being a bit too much of the “Nice Guy” has sunken in…a lot. Going to be more assertive and playful more often. I think I kind of knew I had to do that…but getting it pointed out by this thread was helpful in jogging me to action.

So, definitely going to work on things, and not going to be open ended about it either. :wink2:


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> The sexual interest discrepancy between the genders may decrease when sex is oriented towards mutual satisfaction.


Back to the topic of this thread, implied in "enjoying" is that the woman IS sexually satisfied. And yet, still not wanting sex.

Few people would wonder what to do about a situation where an LD woman does NOT enjoy sex and doesn't want it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> We go round and round about this because you and FW keep telling us things are one way when everything we know tells us they are another way. It's as if you're saying the sky is orange and it just drives us nuts.
> 
> Actually I think you and FW are saying that in some future, more perfect world without all of the social conditioning, women would want great sex in exactly the same degree as men want great sex. That might be true (though I'd be a bit surprised if, given biological and evolutionary differences, that was true). I don't understand why exactly it's so important to you to make this argument. More relevant to me is how who wants sex more now, under current conditions. But, I do think it's mostly just a matter of the definition of the term "sexual" that's at issue.


I disagree. Women have always been known to be highly sexual. This is why entire cultures have felt the need to cut out most of the clitoris, labia, and sew the vagina shut. There is a long, long history of suppressing women's sexuality by quite severe and gruesome means. None of this would be necessary if women actually weren't all that sexual to begin with.

I do realize that saying that women are sexual in a place like TAM is akin to saying the sky is orange. People are highly wedded to these stereotypes, perhaps just because they are repeated so often, or perhaps because there is some sort of vested interest in imagining that it's okay for men to be promiscuous, to sow their wild oats, to seek their gratification, all the while imagining that women ought not be doing these things.

The reason it is important to me is that continuing to spread these stereotypes, continuing to insist on their truth is continuing to perpetuate the problem. Women are actively discouraged from exploring our sexuality, from enjoying the experience of it, and are shamed and told we are broken and undesirable if we don't behave like "good girls". How can you imagine this to be a good thing? How can anyone in a sexless relationship (or even not) imagine this to be a good thing?

In addition, while it is usually men who promote the image of men as being salivating dogs up for sex with anything that moves any time, they aren't actually like this, and it does them a great relationship disservice to keep insisting that they are. 

These stereotypes just aren't true, and they aren't really doing anyone any good. Tell me, why is it so important to defend them?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Wow, some balance :toast::thumbup::thumbup:

*Not all women are LD* - :thumbup: no issues from me, some are

*Not all women end up LD in long term relationships* - :thumbup: no issues from me, some don't - some to many do

*There are a lot of guys here who seem to believe it is inevitable that women will snare you into marriage to get babies and money out of you and the refuse to have sex.* - :thumbup: not all, not inevitable. How about somewhat likely? 

*I want to offer you a message of hope in case you cannot make your current marriage better and in case you end up leaving.* - :thumbup: Great, thanks for the glimmer. 

Personally, as I've said here I think, while I may choose to escape at some point it is basically all in the rear view mirror. I think I would pass on any future marriages. LT relationships, sure but not marriage unless it was pure legal convenience for health care reason's or some such with ironclad prenup's related to financial obligations. That is not to say I am down on marriage in general just that I've put in my 20 years, could have been different but it wasn't. I would see no reason to re-up...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> While I appreciate the effort you put into tracking those down A_A, they literally fail to support, and in many places directly contradict, what you are trying to argue for.
> 
> Nothing you posted contradicts men masturbating more, consuming prostitution more, consuming pornography more, thinking about sex more, being open to casual sex more, etc etc.
> 
> Men are repeatedly and consistently demonstrating more desire _even in a taxonomic study that concludes men and women have dimensional behaviors_.


I'm sorry, but that is a pretty one-sided assessment of that research, and indeed inaccurate on a number of points. And there is more out there that would help reinforce what I'm saying, but I don't have time right now to dig them up.

Suffice to say, I understand what the raw numbers have indicated across a lot of the research, particularly those studies that were conducted a few decades ago (when most of the ones that support the stereotypes were conducted). But with some deeper reflection, we can see many things that account for these raw numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with the stereotypical explanation that this demonstrates innate differences between the sexes. These include issues around self-reports and gender expectations, methodological issues, design of research, assumptions about statistical significance, as well as historical, cultural, and contextual factors that come into play.

This is one reason why I find the taxonic analysis so interesting, because it actually shows that even accepting those raw numbers, we can see that the difference between the genders is dimensional and not one of kind across all sorts of things, including sexual behaviours and attitudes.

I can see, though, that no matter what I say or post, you and many others here will always discount all of those other factors and all those other considerations as not being at all relevant and to continue to believe in the stereotypes.

Me? I will continue to challenge them because I don't think they are sufficient to help us understand ourselves or each other.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> agreed - it can be difficult to tell how good it was for the other person, beyond the obvious physical responses - assuming they may not be honest with their responses.


richard,

Everybody else is telling you that your wife is faking it. I don't agree. That's like people telling you that nobody smokes, since they know it's bad for them and therefore, rationally, no one does it.

I can, and I think most people here, can think of lots of things that they KNOW they'd enjoy but just can't get up the energy or work out the logistics of doing it more often.

Case in point; I imagine Anon1111 would love to surf more than once a week but, for various reasons, doesn't do it.

It would seem rational that if someone enjoys something; they'll find a way to do it more often. People aren't rational.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'm curious, why so much interest in the relative strengths of average mens' and womens' interests in sex. There are physical and hormonal differences so it wouldn't be very surprising if there were different levels of sexual interest. 

There may be an interesting academic study in this, but overall: Women have sex drives that rang from very low to very high. Men have sex drives that range from very low to very high. Without a metric we can't do a reasonable weighted comparison.

I guess you could argue that even with ideal pairings there will always be one gender that gets less sex than it wants. In the real world though there are significant numbers of men and women who do want more sex, so we are far from an optimal sexual pairing right now.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

For my entire life, what people in general have told me is that the sky is orange. The stereotype has always been so different than my internal experience that it made me feel crazy.

Until I was an adult and was able to talk directly to more people myself about their experiences, and was also able to research the history behind why these stereotypes exist.

I've always been a horny chick who wants lots of sex. I've encountered numerous men who are far less sexual than I am, and have encountered numerous women who are horny chicks like me. I've also found many men who do not feel men are more sexual than women are, because their experience has shown them this first hand.

Because I've now done more research and known so many people who actually do not think the sky is orange, I've finally concluded that the stereotypes are simply wrong. There is plenty of evidence that they are wrong, but there is an investment in the stereotypes by a lot of people for various reasons. With people who are not invested in the stereotypes, I find they are more willing to look further at the history behind them and be open to the idea that the sky is not orange.

I can understand how if the stereotypes match your experience, it seems they are true and that they are just common knowledge. But for those of us whose experience is way off from the stereotypes, in the past it seemed that we were just freaks or something. But as evidence mounts that the stereotypes were incorrect, I stand by and wait for the stereotypes to prove themselves to be based on incorrect data and influence by various self interested parties. I no longer feel like a freak of nature, instead I feel like a voice for the real nature of female sexuality.

Which doesn't mean all women are like me. It just means there are far more like me than the stereotypes make room for.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Depends what the distribution curves look like, FW. Is it right modal or left modal or even?

View attachment 38938


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Tell me, why is it so important to defend them?


I don't spend much time thinking about this and I have no dog in the fight. I'm way past any of this having any relevance in my life and my kids seem to be doing just fine.

If I was talking baseball and someone thought pitching and defense was more important than offense and I disagreed, I'd figure that's a valid point of view held by many and I'd be likely to give it up and talk about something else.

On the other hand, if someone says that the most important thing In baseball is the stolen base, I'm going to have a hard time walking away from that fight.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

always_alone said:


> I'm sorry, but that is a pretty one-sided assessment of that research, and indeed inaccurate on a number of points. And there is more out there that would help reinforce what I'm saying, but I don't have time right now to dig them up.


One sided?

I provided you direct statements of the variables and conclusions of each study.

The University of Rochester study found such a taxonomic significance in the preponderance of men looking at pornography that they used it as an example of the exceptions to their broader conclusion.

The single variable of sexual desire offered in that study demonstrated a U-shaped Bayesian distribution and the conclusion for the section in which it was found conceded, because it was an actual scientific study after all, that it indicated a taxonomic difference that contravened the other variables tested.

Those are not one sided readings of the study. Those are the explicit examples of gender-based taxonomic differences which the study itself provided as counter-factual exceptions to its general conclusions.

The other two studies said, in exact terminology, that men thought about sex more often than women, that men were more likely to agree to casual sex more often than women, and that men were more liberal in their pursuit of casual sex than women in a risk-free environment.

Again, those were the explicit conclusions of the studies you provided.



always_alone said:


> Suffice to say, I understand what the raw numbers have indicated across a lot of the research, particularly those studies that were conducted a few decades ago (when most of the ones that support the stereotypes were conducted). But with some deeper reflection, we can see many things that account for these raw numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with the stereotypical explanation that this demonstrates innate differences between the sexes. These include issues around self-reports and gender expectations, methodological issues, design of research, assumptions about statistical significance, as well as historical, cultural, and contextual factors that come into play.


These are all suppositions.

Rationalizations offered after the fact.

When studies are done, including the ones your provided, they still reproduce a significant difference in the genders, even accounting for items like gender roles.

The one thing we are learning is that the significance of the variation may not be as large and may not be innate, as some of them seem to be narrowing over time.

However, that does not mean there is no sex-based difference.



always_alone said:


> This is one reason why I find the taxonic analysis so interesting, because it actually shows that even accepting those raw numbers, we can see that the difference between the genders is dimensional and not one of kind across all sorts of things, including sexual behaviours and attitudes.


Yeah, except not on matters of sexual desire.

Look at the actual variables employed; when asked about pornography usage and desire for multiple partners, the studies you are referring to identify taxonomic differentiation between the sexes.

The conclusion about dimensional behaviors does not mean men and women are the same, I think you are misattributing the conclusions of these studies.

It means men and women have behaviors that can best be seen as overlapping.

The point of the University of Rochester study was to demonstrate that there is a high level of commonality between men and women’s behaviors; essentially rejecting gender essentialism which argued that men and women are fundamentally different.

Instead the study concluded that there is a high level of dimensional overlap in behaviors and views and an equally weak correlation between a series of gender-specific stereotypes.

That conclusion does not imply, whatsoever, that men and women are the same.

And it explicitly pointed numerous points of taxonomic difference, which just so happened to be two primary sexual behaviors denoting desire: usage of pornography and sexual partner variety.




always_alone said:


> I can see, though, that no matter what I say or post, you and many others here will always discount all of those other factors and all those other considerations as not being at all relevant and to continue to believe in the stereotypes.


You provided three studies which each explicitly proved your wrong on _four_ different variables:
1) Usage of pornography
2) Pursuit of additional sexual partners
3) Thinking about sex
4) Acceptance of casual sex

That is not me “reading” into the studies.

The fun thing about actual scientific studies is that they point out confounding and contravening variables and results in the process of building their theories and conclusions because those are still significant data points.

The only items you can actually say, with scientific veracity from those studies are that:
1) Men and women generally exhibit dimensional behaviors, however, there are still taxonomically differences in sex, which include most notably the usage of pornography, as well as evidence those differences extend to pursuit of additional sexual partners.

2) Women think about sex more often than some have argued and their cognitive triggers are not necessarily the same as men, however, men do think about sex more often.

3) Women are willing to accept casual sexual advances in the absence of risk factors; however, men demonstrate greater willingness to engage in casual sex in all scenarios, including the controlled ones that eliminated risk.

That is it.

None of the things you have argued show up in the scientific studies in the ways you claim them to.



always_alone said:


> Me? I will continue to challenge them because I don't think they are sufficient to help us understand ourselves or each other.


You have yet to link any meta-analysis study which supports your point or the study where you purport to have evidence that women masturbate as much as men.

And the Lesbian Death Bed issue is the immovable object.

In the one place where women report the highest levels of sexual satisfaction, most frequent orgasms per interaction, and are completely free from male sexual desire in the bedroom, there is the least frequency, most rapid decline, and longest term sexlessness out of any committed relationship grouping.

I do not understand why some people want to argue that female sexual desire is equal to that of men in the face of the chasm of difference between male and female sexual-seeking behavior.

As case studies, prostitution pornography, and masturbation alone prove the point.

It is so beyond accepted that female sexual desire is different from that of men that the DSM-V definitions for female sexual desire actually differentiate HSDD amongst women in ways it does not for men and the entire concept of a responsive-desire has been developed to explain why female desire does not match that of males.

But sure, all that could just be stereotypes.

You are entrenched in your position, to the point of actually failing to notice the points where your own studies proved you wrong.

I am pretty entrenched in mine.

Is what it is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Depends what the distribution curves look like, FW. Is it right modal or left modal or even?


Let's wait and see what happens when The Porn Generation are our age and see what the data shows then. These young people, particularly women, are shaking off the shame shackles and are no longer invested in keeping the stereotype alive.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't spend much time thinking about this and I have no dog in the fight. I'm way past any of this having any relevance in my life and my kids seem to be doing just fine.
> 
> If I was talking baseball and someone thought pitching and defense was more important than offense and I disagreed, I'd figure that's a valid point of view held by many and I'd be likely to give it up and talk about something else.


Entering dangerous territory there bub...>

Statistics, baseball, and me....long time bedfellows and all kinds of fun!


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Let's wait and see what happens when The Porn Generation are our age and see what the data shows then. These young people, particularly women, are shaking off the shame shackles and are no longer invested in keeping the stereotype alive.


From what I have heard there are some fairly dramatic problems in many males in their 20's these days exposed to hardcore porn at much younger ages, delayed ejaculation, non-interest in real sex etc. If the same exposure helps young women maybe they will meet in the middle at uniformly mediocre


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Let's wait and see what happens when The Porn Generation are our age and see what the data shows then. These young people, particularly women, are shaking off the shame shackles and are no longer invested in keeping the stereotype alive.


This actually concerns me for other reasons.

There have been a lot of studies which are linking increased casual sex among the millennial generation with a rising depression issue.

It will be interesting to see where things go in the next decade or two. I am personally not convinced it is going to be for the best.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

anonmd said:


> From what I have heard there are some fairly dramatic problems in many males in their 20's these days exposed to hardcore porn at much younger ages, delayed ejaculation, non-interest in real sex etc. If the same exposure helps young women maybe they will meet in the middle at uniformly mediocre


Maybe we should ask @FrenchFry for her opinion on this, as she is one of the generation I'm talking about.

I agree that it appears many young men are harming their natural sexuality with all this porn, and some young women are, too. But I also think the dysfunction that is occurring in men will be seen for what it is and there will be a new understanding among men in general about how to NOT harm your own body this way and that this new understanding will be part of the correction that will occur.

A long time ago, everyone smoked and didn't realize what it would do to their bodies, and the agenda of the big tobacco companies was allowed free reign. Now that this has been corrected and seen for what it is, less people smoke, but some always will anyway, even knowing the risks and the big tobacco agenda. That's what I feel will happen for young men and porn in the long run.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> This actually concerns me for other reasons.
> 
> There have been a lot of studies which are linking increased casual sex among the millennial generation with a rising depression issue.
> 
> It will be interesting to see where things go in the next decade or two. I am personally not convinced it is going to be for the best.


I'm not convinced it will be as healthy as possible, either. But the genie is out of the bottle, so we can only wait and watch what the result is.

Myself, I have a lot of faith in the younger generation for their ability to rise above the crap we created for them to deal with, on the porn issue and many others. They have far more education available to them and science and medicine will continue to make breakthroughs that are available to them but weren't available to us.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

StilltheStudent said:


> This actually concerns me for other reasons.
> 
> There have been a lot of studies which are linking increased casual sex among the millennial generation with a rising depression issue.
> 
> It will be interesting to see where things go in the next decade or two. I am personally not convinced it is going to be for the best.


I think we are just beginning to go down the p-rn rabbit hole.

I think as p-rn gets more developed (customized, interactive, socially accepted, etc) you will see increasing percentages of men start to opt out of the dating market

at first it will be the lowest value men but it will creep up the scale


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I think we are just beginning to go down the p-rn rabbit hole.
> 
> I think as p-rn gets more developed (customized, interactive, socially accepted, etc) you will see increasing percentages of men start to opt out of the dating market
> 
> at first it will be the lowest value men but it will creep up the scale


Perhaps this is nature's plan. To force us to stop overpopulating the planet, but still allowing us to experience sexual pleasure, since we don't need to make a baby just to experience the pleasure.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Let's wait and see what happens when The Porn Generation are our age and see what the data shows then. These young people, particularly women, are shaking off the shame shackles and are no longer invested in keeping the stereotype alive.



Do you have a list of addresses or phone numbers for said young liberated women 

J2 liked the hulk of glass... Good sign :lol:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Do you have a list of addresses or phone numbers for said young liberated women


When you have divorced and are ready to move on, I'll be your personal matchmaker. How's that?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Perhaps this is nature's plan. To force us to stop overpopulating the planet, but still allowing us to experience sexual pleasure, since we don't need to make a baby just to experience the pleasure.


interesting idea.

I think it will go a different way.

I think polygamy will become accepted. I think that is the next frontier after gay marriage.

I think you will increasingly see high value men with multiple wives (or one official wife and multiple mistresses-- already a reality but it will become more open and socially acceptable)

at the same time, it will be increasingly socially acceptable for women to have children without any man in their life. this is already verging on the commonplace but it will become moreso.

so you will have the same population but fewer fathers.


----------



## StilltheStudent (Sep 14, 2015)

Sometimes I realize I am technically part of the Millennial generation and a small part of my soul dies....:surprise:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> interesting idea.
> 
> I think it will go a different way.
> 
> ...


Except you missed one. You will also see high value women with multiple wives and/or husbands. Thus evening out the discrepancy.

I was one of those myself at one time.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

That sure sounds like a recipe for resentment. Especially given your overall role in the marriage as the 'giver'.

It is kind of interesting that on a thread about the enjoyment/avoidance paradox, a thread filled with analysts and statisticians, there is so little apparent interest in the definition of 'enjoyment'. 

I loved Buddy's post about baseball. And in fact I loved the book Money Ball. 

The thing is, I've yet to have a conversation where a frustrated HD expresses genuine interest in the list of questions I provided. 

Earlier in the thread someone very politely suggested that M2 isn't a 'true LD' and therefore I don't have an accurate frame of reference. 

I will now attempt to be just as tactful in return:

Those questions I listed. I can answer ALL of them accurately for M2. Because I've asked, and she's answered. And her answers were consistent over time and aligned fully with my direct observations. 


QUOTE=richardsharpe;13709322]Good evening
Its possible. Tricky though - she generally claims to very much enjoy sex, and will never let me know of anything she wants different. (I often ask and always get a "you know what I like".

I still think the best model is that she enjoys sex, but for whatever reason only wants it once or twice a month.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Except you missed one. You will also see high value women with multiple wives and/or husbands. Thus evening out the discrepancy.
> 
> I was one of those myself at one time.


maybe in the case of lesbians.

I'm sure you'll hate this argument, but the idea of one woman with multiple husbands flies in the face of human history and biology.

one man can easily impregnate multiple women.

a woman can only be pregnant with one man's child at a time.

multiple cultures have had (still have) polygamy with one man / many wives.

I'm sure there have been a couple of isolated cultures that had the reverse, but it has not been a common theme in human history (unlike the other way)

You can say that this is just a result of women's subjugation but that is a big assumption.

My view is that the whole monogamy thing has been a blip and we will revert back to the original paradigm.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

You guys are all talking about what's to come. Dang...I'm an 80's child. Alls I want is for pot to be legal and to see fingerless gloves come back in style. I'll die old happy


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

You can keep the leg warmers


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Elizabeth001 said:


> You guys are all talking about what's to come. Dang...I'm an 80's child. Alls I want is for pot to be legal and to see fingerless gloves come back in style. I'll die old happy


Come to Oregon, my dear. :x


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Oregon is overrated...


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

oh yeah-- legal pot will feed the p-rn addicted basement dweller phenomenon big time.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> maybe in the case of lesbians.
> 
> I'm sure you'll hate this argument, but the idea of one woman with multiple husbands flies in the face of human history and biology.
> 
> ...


Except poly is no longer about having babies, it is about personal choice in matters of sex and love.

Dude, I know plenty of women with multiple male or female partners....you should read a little more about the people who are doing this instead of looking at it through the old testament lens.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> oh yeah-- legal pot will feed the p-rn addicted basement dweller phenomenon big time.


Um...huh? (tokes at desk while remaining a high functioning member of society who is also highly sexual and powerfully energetic)


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Um...huh? (tokes at desk while remaining a high functioning member of society who is also highly sexual and powerfully energetic)


You sound more like you are from Ashland as opposed to Portland...


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> Oregon is overrated...


Yes it is. Stay the hell away. Far, far away...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Ha! Nope. Less hippies (though still plenty), more freaks.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Come to Oregon, my dear. :x



OMG! Do you guys REALLY have fingerless gloves out there?!?!!!

SWEET!!
:-D


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Elizabeth001 said:


> OMG! Do you guys REALLY have fingerless gloves out there?!?!!!
> 
> SWEET!!
> :-D


Oh yes. Because cold, rain, nasty weather + still need to be able to text = fingerless gloves are in.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

And it makes it easier to pick up that X you promised me


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Cletus said:


> Yes it is. Stay the hell away. Far, far away...


I would if I did not have family all over the state... It is cursed with my presence every couple of years...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> I would if I did not have family all over the state... It is cursed with my presence every couple of years...


Well, "all over the state" is not the same thing as "Portland". Just sayin'.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Portland, Medford, Ashland, Grants Pass, and *cough* Takilma...all over.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cool. You named the cool areas in Oregon. The rest of the entire state is pretty much dead to me due to their Redneckistan ways.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Ok where is the babe who had 75 partners anyway?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Ha ha! She's no longer available. But you can find some of her old cohorts here:

All That Glitters Burlesque Academy

and here:

Rose City Rollers | women's flat track roller derby in Portland, Oregon

Not sure if bad azz b*tches are your type, but that's her clan.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

But seriously. 75? Was she a hooker?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

StilltheStudent said:


> One sided?
> 
> I provided you direct statements of the variables and conclusions of each study.
> 
> ...


Nowhere in this study does it say that watching pornography is taxonic. Yes, sex-stereotyped activities, including both boxing and cosmetics were seen as taxonic as whole. But not watching pornography. And note that all were chosen as specifically those that would most likely reveal the taxonic structure. 

As for sexual attitudes and behaviours, the study is unequivocal that these are dimensional, and indeed in the generalized conclusions, the authors pointed out specifically that even when an individual scored in sex stereotypic ways on one variable, it didn't mean that they would on another. 

As for the other studies, one I included because it showed very clearly that women's responses are quite different in different contexts, demonstrating some of the weaknesses in the "random stranger asked me for sex" scenario.

The other concluded that: 


> However, *erotophilia was actually a more powerful predictor of frequency of sexual cognitions than was biological sex. * In fact, there were several areas in which men and women were quite similar—most notably, with regard to the variance of their retrospective estimates; the correlation between their retrospective estimates and tally counts for cognitions about sex; and, of course, for their retrospective estimates of frequency of thoughts of food
> and sleep. [emphasis mine]


Yes, the initial tallies from men indicated that they thought about sex more, but they also thought about food and sleep more. Shall we also conclude from the simple tally that men are generally speaking more interested in food and sleep? I think not. 

You can dismiss analysis as rationalization, and pretend that it has no value. But similar analysis appears in these and many other studies. Indeed, there is quite a lot of evidence that many observed differences (including cheating, promiscuity, masturbation, etc.) are much more related to specific personalities and personality types than they are to biological sex. 

And that, in a nutshell, is the significance of noticing that these variables are distributed dimensionally.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Okguy said:


> But seriously. 75? Was she a hooker?


Just a sl*t.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Cool. You named the cool areas in Oregon. The rest of the entire state is pretty much dead to me due to their Redneckistan ways.



And to think U Oregon was DD23's dream school .


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Personal,

I had the EXACT same reaction to the comment - and roughed out the math about the same way. 

How come the woman is a **** - S L U T - the man is a stud?

**** - S L U T - stud - for identical behavior. 

FWIW - S L U T is a naughty word so sans spaces - it gets asterisked...




Personal said:


> Just normal.
> 
> If one remains single and has various sexual partners and dates regularly etc, that number is hardly surprising depending upon ones age.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Some of us sl*ts don't give no f*cks that the word has been used against us for centuries, and we are now embracing the word and taking it back to use as we please. So don't get all political about the word when I use it to describe myself or my friends. My friend is a proud sl*t and actually has a t-shirt with the word emblazoned across her boobs. Trust me, us sl*tty girls ain't too happy about the double standard of men being studs for the the same behavior that we get called sl*ts for (by people who want to shame us). There is a whole movement about this, or haven't you heard? 

Personal, you have it right. Given that she became sexually active in her late teens and is now 41, her partner count isn't that outrageous for a gal who doesn't look to other people to decide for her what is and what isn't appropriate sexually speaking.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Okguy said:
> ...


Let me guess. You had more right?


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

If you screw anything that moves maybe 75 partners is normal


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Another story... One of my roomies ended up in Beaverton OR from the mid 80's to 2010 or so, working for that big chipmaker... He hooked up with the Rajneesh commune and if he was half as prolific as I remember he was he breezed over that 75 number for practice


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Let me guess. You had more right?


No, I have a relatively low partner count, for a sl*t.

I realize most people are in the average partner count range which is what, somewhere between 6 and 12? And I think most people are doing just fine. I have never advocated that people rack up partners and never will. I only advocate that we shop shaming those who do and stay out of their business. 

And yet, I definitely think it is the right thing for a person who only wants to be with others with a similar partner count to screen out anyone who has a high number when picking a partner. I totally get why someone like you would never want to partner with someone with a high number and it makes sense to me that it would freak many people out. I think opening up to each other about this topic and our thoughts or boundaries about it before going into any new relationship is always a good thing.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

john117 said:


> Another story... One of my roomies ended up in Beaverton OR from the mid 80's to 2010 or so, working for that big chipmaker... He hooked up with the Rajneesh commune and if he was half as prolific as I remember he was he breezed over that 75 number for practice


Key word is commune


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess. You had more right?
> ...


I agree but my comment was not at you


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Another story... One of my roomies ended up in Beaverton OR from the mid 80's to 2010 or so, working for that big chipmaker... He hooked up with the Rajneesh commune and if he was half as prolific as I remember he was he breezed over that 75 number for practice


Omg....the Rajneesh...what a trip. Some of my family lived out where their camp was and I was out there in the summers staying with them when all that stuff went down. The motorcade of Cadillacs would roll through the tiny towns and it was a huge spectacle. (I think it was Cadillacs? Now I'm second guessing, was it Rolls Royces?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram

This from the wiki definition was funny/ironic:

"The Rajneeshpuram residents believed that the wider Oregonian community was both bigoted and suffered from religious intolerance."


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Okguy said:


> I agree but my comment was not at you


Oh, it was at Personal?

Sorry, my bad.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's not a question of shaming anyone - it's more a matter of why?

As much as evo-pop psych wants to tell us we are designed to screw link mink, social norms are such that it's unlikely most of the 75 were LTR material.

At that point you gotta wonder if she's after the perfect experience, she's too picky, or... 

I know my roommie was the "do anything that has the requisite body parts"?type of guy but still...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess. You had more right?
> ...


Sigh. Ok.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> It's not a question of shaming anyone - it's more a matter of why?
> 
> As much as evo-pop psych wants to tell us we are designed to screw link mink, social norms are such that it's unlikely most of the 75 were LTR material.
> 
> ...


I don't know why, really. Just know she loves having sex. I love sex too but the experience with randos was never going to be ok with me so I had to go without for long periods of time. It was agony but I chose that over randos. 

She described every experience like it was great, and I eventually concluded that she is just able to experience pleasure with anyone she picked (she had certain types). To her, sex was just so wonderful that it was worth it to experience a lot of men and find out how wonderful each one was to her.

I wouldn't pick that, but hearing her talk about it made me wish I could be THAT free.

I ended up hitting the jackpot pot though so...NO regrets.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Small world! this guy was from my country and a grad CompSci student... He lived for over 20 years in the same one bedroom apartment and drive the same car until it fell apart on him. He saved all his salary and sizable stock options and retired in a Mediterranean tourist trap at age 50 where he prays on unsuspecting TILF's (tourists )


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> For my entire life, what people in general have told me is that the sky is orange. The stereotype has always been so different than my internal experience that it made me feel crazy.
> 
> Until I was an adult and was able to talk directly to more people myself about their experiences, and was also able to research the history behind why these stereotypes exist.


A very wise post! I forget, or perhaps don't appreciate enough, that many people here fit those stereotypes to a tee, and so why wouldn't they think they're true? Why wouldn't they seem obvious?

But for me, none of them ever fit. None of the explanations, none of the stereotypes. And I know I'm not some crazy outlier, some freak of nature whose story is irrelevant in understanding the "norm". Other women I know have similar experiences, similar attitudes, and there's no shortage of us out there.

So it seems utterly natural to me to challenge the stereotypes. They offer me no explanatory power, and no answers. 

And ultimately, I can't help but think that questioning those stereotypes actually offers some perspective even to those who are a better fit with them. I mean, how can it be a bad thing to step back and analyze one's presuppositions and set patterns of explanations? Isn't that helpful to finding ideas and possible solutions?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

A female friend of mine who is the HD with an LD husband just shared this:

A Marriage Without Sex Scary Mommy


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I'm sure you'll hate this argument, but the idea of one woman with multiple husbands flies in the face of human history and biology.
> 
> one man can easily impregnate multiple women.
> 
> ...


If we were worried about populating the planet, you might have an argument. But with what, 7, 8, billion of us and counting, we really need to cut back on the baby making.

And if sex is mostly for fun, it actually makes more sense to have many men for one woman. It is much easier for one woman to please many men, than it is for one man to please many women.

Just sayin'


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

SS its a low desire for bad, frustrating sex. That is not the same as low desire for sex. I will try and find this - studies have shown that women who orgasm more frequently have sex more frequently. It's just within the last 15 years that it's been accepted that only 30% of women orgasm with PIV, that warming up is essential and most don't orgasm in 5 mins. 

Some men and woman still don't know the above. It's not harder for women to have orgasms, the path to orgasm is different than it is for men. Male sexuality was assumed to be the only way for centuries. It's not surprising that there are still myths about female sexuality. 

Men really don't know more about female sexuality than the people who are female. It seems to me that men would what to entertain the possibility that we actually know what we are talking about. What is the down side to listening. It's entirely possible that when two people having sex get equal enjoyment out of it, they will be equally avid to have it. 

Another very important aspect to female sexuality. Men say they wish women were as sexual as they are but that's not true. They want women to be less sexual with other men than they are with them. A lack of interest in sex is forced upon women by convention. It possible that a more open and welcoming attitude towards woman would yield positive results. If men were shamed, discouraged and told how they should feel about sex from childhood, they would seem less interested in sex too.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

A thousand likes, Catherine.

I do think it is going to take an entire new generation to fix the shaming issue, which affects men and women both badly, just in different ways. So I hand the future (have no choice anyway) to the next generation and I think they will be in a better position to figure out all these Mars/Venus sexual issues than we were. Hopefully they will all be less uptight about sex in general due to less overall shaming and an increase in the idea that sex is good and natural.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> A thousand likes, Catherine.
> 
> I do think it is going to take an entire new generation to fix the shaming issue, which affects men and women both badly, just in different ways. So I hand the future (have no choice anyway) to the next generation and I think they will be in a better position to figure out all these Mars/Venus sexual issues than we were. Hopefully they will all be less uptight about sex in general due to less overall shaming and an increase in the idea that sex is good and natural.


You're right. I read somewhere that men and woman in their 20's have different concepts about sex. They come of age knowing what a clitoris is and that women orgasm when it's stimulated. 

Oral sex is standard for both men and women and it's important to men that their partner orgasm. It's important to women too. Men and women know that women can reach orgasm and they know it takes longer than men. Men take pride in lasting longer. .

There is less emphasis upon female purity and negative attitudes towards women being sexual. They never knew a time when women didn't have sex with more than one partner. 

It's kind of nice to know that things are changing for women. I'm not saying that it's only among 20 yr olds.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Personal said:


> Just normal.
> 
> If one remains single and has various sexual partners and dates regularly etc, that number is hardly surprising depending upon ones age.
> 
> ...


You meant "any woman", of course.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I think most sl-t shaming is actually done by women to other women.

Most men love sl-ts.

"Good girls" HATE sl-ts because sl-ts drive down the price of p-ssy.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Personal said:


> No, I meant any adult (in a modern Western nation). Exempting the magenta text it is pretty easy for men and women to find sexual partners.


I guess it depends on your definition of "socially inept, particularly unattractive and or restricts themselves by self imposed limitations". If roughly 80% of the male population fits into one or more of those categories, then you're right.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I think most sl-t shaming is actually done by women to other women.
> 
> Most men love sl-ts.
> 
> "Good girls" HATE sl-ts because sl-ts drive down the price of p-ssy.


Most men who have a choice won't knowingly marry sl-ts. Unfortunately, many men either can't identify them or are desperate enough to marry one when she gets tired of riding the carousel (or gets kicked off).


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I think most sl-t shaming is actually done by women to other women.
> 
> Most men love sl-ts.
> 
> "Good girls" HATE sl-ts because sl-ts drive down the price of p-ssy.


This post speaks volumes about who has a problem with slvts.

And it ain't women.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

How so based on Anon's post? I agree with what he said and it seems to me both genders have an issue with so called slvts, not just one.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Its possible. Tricky though - she generally claims to very much enjoy sex, and will never let me know of anything she wants different. (I often ask and always get a "you know what I like".
> 
> I still think the best model is that she enjoys sex, but for whatever reason only wants it once or twice a month.


Likely candidates for the truth:

1. She is lying about liking it to protect your feelings and avoid negative consequences from admitting the truth
2. She truly likes it but she cares more about power and control than about sexual satisfaction
3. She has responsive desire but does not understand how to integrate that with you

She is unlikely to admit to either #1 or #2.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Mem11363 said:


> Those questions I listed. I can answer ALL of them accurately for M2. Because I've asked, and she's answered. And her answers were consistent over time and aligned fully with my direct observations.


If you asked me the salient difference between M2 and many of the LDs reported on here by their HD partners, the difference is NOT that M2 isn't truly LD. The difference is that M2 is willing to answer your questions honestly.

Yes, I got my honesty. In broad strokes through behavior. But I never got the details I requested. You did. Yet another reason to cherish M2.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I am old. I was always willing to perform oral. Women never wanted to have sex with me on a consistent basis. Guess I was lousy at oral. Wish one of these women would have taught me how to be good at oral so some other woman would want to have sex with me.

And ladies, when you are angry at some of us guys who buy into gender stereotypes: remember that not all of us are looking for a solution to the problem.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> How so based on Anon's post? I agree with what he said and it seems to me both genders have an issue with so called slvts, not just one.


Anyone who uses the expression "drive down the cost of pvssy" clearly has severe issues with women.

I have never heard a woman use that expression. The only time I have heard a woman complain about a slvt was when that slvt was actively hitting on her boyfriend or husband. Or when the boyfriend and husband was chasing after her.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Likely candidates for the truth:
> 
> 1. She is lying about liking it to protect your feelings and avoid negative consequences from admitting the truth
> 2. She truly likes it but she cares more about power and control than about sexual satisfaction
> ...


There's a fourth possibility: that she really does enjoy sex, and that she really does only want to enjoy it infrequently.

I have a friend who describes herself as a camel when it comes to sex. She can go for a long time in the desert, and when she is at the oasis, she drinks heartily, storing it up for later.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

FW, the more I think about it, the less I like the idea of reclaiming the word slvt. It's a nasty, awful word and deserves to be thrown I. The garbage, not reclaimed.

My two cents.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

technovelist said:


> Most men who have a choice won't knowingly marry sl-ts. Unfortunately, many men either can't identify them or are desperate enough to marry one when she gets tired of riding the carousel (or gets kicked off).


I know this is conventional wisdom in some quarters, but I haven't seen this play out this way in real life (the won't "knowingly marry sl-ts" part).

here is where the distinction between sl-ts and sk-nks becomes relevant.

my experience is that most men will happily enter a LTR with a sl-t under the theory that she may have gotten around but she ultimately chose me.

they will not do this for the sk-nk.

What is the difference? 

Generally the sl-t is hotter than the sk-nk. That's it.

A very hot sl-t can enter into sk-nk territory if she's got major problems (e.g., totally crazy, substance issues).

Otherwise, it's generally a matter of appearance.

There is one very prominent example among my friends. There was a hot girl who slept with 8 different dudes in my fraternity in college. The last guy she slept with ended up marrying her. 

At first I was like WTF, but they are still together many years later and now I think this guy was actually very smart. 

He KNEW this girl loved sex because she'd already slept with all of his friends. 

I suppose there is some residual risk that she will cheat on him, but nothing comes without a cost. 

It is very unlikely that a woman will act like a wh-re for you alone. If you want the hot sex piece, you pretty much have to accept that you won't be the first to get it.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> I am old. I was always willing to perform oral. Women never wanted to have sex with me on a consistent basis. Guess I was lousy at oral. Wish one of these women would have taught me how to be good at oral so some other woman would want to have sex with me.


I just wanted to call you out on this idea, which you may be unaware you are doing, and also to use you as an example for others.

So it's the fault of previous women that YOU were lousy at oral? Maybe they did try to teach you better but you didn't pay attention. Maybe they didn't speak up about your lack of skill because they felt you wouldn't handle the criticism well. Maybe they felt you should take the initiative to develop some skill.

The world will work much better when people take responsibility for their own faults and work to better themselves instead of shifting the blame onto other people for their own lack of change.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> If we were worried about populating the planet, you might have an argument. But with what, 7, 8, billion of us and counting, we really need to cut back on the baby making.
> 
> *Actually the western world is already below replacement level and the rest of the world is getting there. We're going to need someone to pay for our retirement benefits and staff our long term care facilities.*
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Anyone who uses the expression "drive down the cost of pvssy" clearly has severe issues with women.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard a woman use that expression. The only time I have heard a woman complain about a slvt was when that slvt was actively hitting on her boyfriend or husband. Or when the boyfriend and husband was chasing after her.



Don't let symbology get in the way of reality tho. I see the slvts vs good girls arguments when I attend various ethnic parties where young adults attend... The first and more caustic comments are always from the good girls and their moms


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

> Actually the western world is already below replacement level and the rest of the world is getting there. We're *going to need someone* to pay for our retirement benefits and staff our long term care facilities.


Immigrants. Problem solved.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Immigrants. Problem solved.



Do you really want a few hundred thousands like my wife (or worse, me) getting into the gene pool?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

john117 said:


> Do you really want a few hundred thousands like my wife (or worse, me) getting into the gene pool?


You're already in the gene pool, and I don't see it as a problem anyway. This country was built by immigrants - they may also be necessary to sustain it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Don't let symbology get in the way of reality tho. I see the slvts vs good girls arguments when I attend various ethnic parties where young adults attend... The first and more caustic comments are always from the good girls and their moms


Calling all women wh0res is a lot more than just symbology, IMHO. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it's true. Do you think the $1000 escort is threatened by the $50 back-alley blow job? Cuz I don't!

As for caustic comments, I haven't seen a woman call another woman a slvt in decades. FW excluded, and she is clearly not caustic about it.

What you describe never happens in my circle, but I'm betting that what it amounts to is a bit of jealousy. Kind of like a guy calling another guys an a$$hole because he has more women interested in him.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

> As for caustic comments, I haven't seen a woman call another woman a slvt in decades. FW excluded, and she is clearly not caustic about it.


B1tch seems to be the word of the day.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I am happy to take responsibility for my lack of technique. At this point it is all academic. I am with H2 and I am not willing to invest in behaviors that are likely to result in her honestly sharing with me what technique, if any, would bring her pleasure. So it clearly IS my fault that I will never learn better technique.

Back when I was single, I was terrified of any woman who had a healthy relationship with her own sexuality. So of course I ended up with women who were not particularly forthcoming about what worked for them. I can remember asking for suggestions and several said something along the lines of "don't sweat it, I never orgasm, so you don't have to worry about not getting me there, no one does". Again, no sarcasm, my fault. I should have gathered the courage to fish in a pond more likely to contain the kind of fish I wished to catch.

I don't think that I was resistant to feedback. Heck, my only thought when performing oral as to pay attention to her movements and noises to try something new if there was no response and keep doing what I was doing if the response was favorable. But mostly I got no response no matter what I tried, which lead to the requests for suggestions.

Trust me, given how difficult it was for me to convince any girl to consent to sex, the last thing I wanted was for it to be "bad" for her. I was happy to spend hours giving massages, manual, oral, whatever it would take to get her off. I would have gladly implemented any suggestions on how to make it better for her. I got none, and my trial and error efforts at exploration did not bear fruit. Not surprising given the small sample size and the population from which it was selected.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> You're already in the gene pool, and I don't see it as a problem anyway. This country was built by immigrants - they may also be necessary to sustain it.



Are you free for dinner next Sunday 7 pm near Paducah? If that won't change your mind nothing will 

The catch with opening the floodgates Germany or France style is this - new arrivals don't assimilate as well, don't cross marry, and bring far more of their cultural skeletons stateside than they should. 

This works very well in the subject at hand - lots of the "desirable" immigrant groups aren't exactly sex fiends and follow many traditions that to outsiders appear odd. Sex (or lack thereof) is no different.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
the only time I've see slvt used in conversation was a woman referring to herself. (as a way of saying "i like sex and I'm proud of it". 

I think the word usually has a very negative connotation, but has been taken back by some to mean "its OK to like sex". 






always_alone said:


> Calling all women wh0res is a lot more than just symbology, IMHO. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it's true. Do you think the $1000 escort is threatened by the $50 back-alley blow job? Cuz I don't!
> 
> As for caustic comments, I haven't seen a woman call another woman a slvt in decades. FW excluded, and she is clearly not caustic about it.
> 
> What you describe never happens in my circle, but I'm betting that what it amounts to is a bit of jealousy. Kind of like a guy calling another guys an a$$hole because he has more women interested in him.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> What you describe never happens in my circle, but I'm betting that what it amounts to is a bit of jealousy. Kind of like a guy calling another guys an a$$hole because he has more women interested in him.



Some is jealousy - few women in our circle can match J2's looks past 40 and with our daughters on display, er, alongside mom, it's even worse  you can feel the daggers.

But a lot of it is comparison for ego boosting purposes. Lots of young male MD's in the group. The community was flabbergasted when the most eligible guy married an American nurse from his residency days instead of following their parents' dreams of marrying him off Game of Thrones style 

Even among the married women, lots of slvtwear even on 40+ ladies. Not sure why there.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd be free for dinner if I were in your area - I'm not afraid! lol

You do make good points about assimilation. Past immigrants - even from different cultures - often shared basically similar religions, and eventually dispersed from their groups after a few generations. Religion is a divisive force, IMO, that may prevent that with some recent immigrants. Perhaps countries accepting immigrants should require that they be dispersed and not form large groups or sub-communities that slow assimilation. Yes, they may lose some of their culture, but that would be the price for life in a new land.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Some is jealousy - few women in our circle can match J2's looks past 40 and with our daughters on display, er, alongside mom, it's even worse  you can feel the daggers.
> 
> But a lot of it is comparison for ego boosting purposes. Lots of young male MD's in the group. The community was flabbergasted when the most eligible guy married an American nurse from his residency days instead of following their parents' dreams of marrying him off Game of Thrones style
> 
> Even among the married women, lots of slvtwear even on 40+ ladies. Not sure why there.


Can you remind me again who is it making all the caustic comments and super concerned about who is wearing what and more beautiful than whom? 

I forget already.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Anyone who uses the expression "drive down the cost of pvssy" clearly has severe issues with women.
> 
> I have never heard a woman use that expression. The only time I have heard a woman complain about a slvt was when that slvt was actively hitting on her boyfriend or husband. Or when the boyfriend and husband was chasing after her.


I think that anyone that has a problem with the expression "drive down the cost of pvssy" is either a little too uptight and/or lacks a sense of humor.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> I'd be free for dinner if I were in your area - I'm not afraid! lol
> 
> You do make good points about assimilation. Past immigrants - even from different cultures - often shared basically similar religions, and eventually dispersed from their groups after a few generations. Religion is a divisive force, IMO, that may prevent that with some recent immigrants. Perhaps countries accepting immigrants should require that they be dispersed and not form large groups or sub-communities that slow assimilation. Yes, they may lose some of their culture, but that would be the price for life in a new land.


I'm a fan of immigrants. I'm sure they'd assimilate if we didn't make it so easy for them not to.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> FW, the more I think about it, the less I like the idea of reclaiming the word slvt. It's a nasty, awful word and deserves to be thrown in the garbage, not reclaimed.
> 
> My two cents.


It is sad when the word is still used to try to control and shame women.

I would never call a woman a sl*t who I did not know personally and know that she would be ok with it and understand my particular context of it...which describes several of my friends.

However, we're still quite aware that dudes like technovelist don't mean the word in the same way when they say it, and that helps us know who we are in danger around, because judgmental attitudes about our sexuality are a huge waving red flag about them.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> SS its a low desire for bad, frustrating sex. That is not the same as low desire for sex. I will try and find this - studies have shown that women who orgasm more frequently have sex more frequently. It's just within the last 15 years that it's been accepted that only 30% of women orgasm with PIV, that warming up is essential and most don't orgasm in 5 mins.


If a man doesn't try to make sex good for his partner, it's because he's a selfish d!ck, not that he doesn't know better. Many men here are obsessed with getting their SO off every time, even when there are times she'd rather not be pressured to do so.



Catherine602 said:


> Men say they wish women were as sexual as they are but that's not true. They want women to be less sexual with other men than they are with them.


Sure, it's naïve, but wouldn't a woman like to think that there was something so special about her that a guy would only be willing to do something with her?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Can you remind me again who is it making all the caustic comments and super concerned about who is wearing what and more beautiful than whom?
> 
> I forget already.



I maintain it's mostly women, like Anon implied...


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

On **** vs stud:

It's the value judgment hidden behind the words that's the problem. They still boil down to the basic premise that women should be the gatekeepers of sex and the men are supposed to be trying to get let in. That old 'women want sex less than men' thing, women are supposed to be more choosy, etc.

When a woman is called a ****, it's a value judgement that says she's not doing a good job at keeping the premises secure.

When a man is called a stud, it's a value judgement that says he's doing an excellent job at battering down gates.

Even though it's the EXACT same sexual behaviour, going out and getting some action when you want it.

Instead of reclaiming the word **** for women, I'd prefer to see them starting to refer to themselves as studs. That won't happen though, due to other meanings of the word.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

You can call me a stud anytime.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Sure, it's naïve, but wouldn't a woman like to think that there was something so special about her that a guy would only be willing to do something with her?


How often does this happen unless they've never had any other sex partners? And even if they have only been with each other, do you really think men don't WANT to do "something" with other women besides his partner? Because men right here at TAM make sure that we all understand that they are imagining having sex with our sisters, our friends, barely legal inappropriate relatives, and every other female they encounter practically...and that they "would do something" with every one of them if they could "get away with it".

Meanwhile, if women feel the same way, a man is butthurt about it.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Seems to me that part of the mechanism behind men not wanting to be with a sl*t is as follows: he is afraid. He fears that if she wanted to hurt him by sleeping with someone else, it would be far easier for her to find a partner than for him to do the same in reverse. See, most guys know they can walk down the street fantasizing about every women they see and nothing will come of it because NONE of those women are going to give him the time of day if he tries to put those thoughts into action. But he believes that if his wife has those thoughts and puts them into action, she most likely WILL "score" with one of those random guys. If his partner is a sl*t, that means she does not have core shame or aversion to sex that might curb her willingness to act on her fantasies.

I wanted to be with an experienced woman. I was hoping she would share some of her experience with me and teach me how to make it good for her. Of course, her experience taught her that what she really wanted was not a guy skillful at sex but an inexperienced loser who would stick around to help her raise her kids, and who wouldn't leave or cheat the first (or second, or 100th) time she turned him down. So she picked the least skillful guy she met. And I fell for it hook, line and sinker.

I would love it if my wife fantasized about every guy she saw walking down the street and then brought all those horny feelings home to me and let me rock her world. The problem is not my wife being a horny sl*t. The problem is me not being able to rock her world and her being OK with that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm not buying it - there's a cost associated with a "slvt" not acting like the part post marriage. And she's paying it unless she's getting it on the side.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I'm not buying it - there's a cost associated with a "slvt" not acting like the part post marriage. And she's paying it unless she's getting it on the side.


Speaking for myself as a sl*t, there's no contradiction between me being a sl*t and me wanting monogamy. I can be a sl*t with my husband and just him, no problem.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I don't even know where the sl-ttiness bar is these days. If you're determined to be a true sl-t, it must be a tremendous undertaking.

"good girls" where I live walk around in shorts that might as well be belts. on the beach, thongs are now totally normal.

sexting is totally normal too. nude selfies are completely routine. suburban moms take fitness classes with stripper poles.

there really is not much ground left to cover.

I think it's awesome.


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Speaking for myself as a sl*t, there's no contradiction between me being a sl*t and me wanting monogamy. I can be a sl*t with my husband and just him, no problem.


And that my friends.... is the dream. 

I have a dream. ......That one day.........


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Speaking for myself as a sl*t, there's no contradiction between me being a sl*t and me wanting monogamy. I can be a sl*t with my husband and just him, no problem.



You're an enthusiast - not a slvt 

Look for the purpose, the meaning. There's a huge difference between the two. At least from where I see it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I think that anyone that has a problem with the expression "drive down the cost of pvssy" is either a little too uptight and/or lacks a sense of humor.


Because c0cks are a dime a dozen?

Me, I prefer an expensive and rare c0ck, and don't have any time for the cheap knock-offs.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I maintain it's mostly women, like Anon implied...


Says the guy who is bragging about how well his wife and daughters fare in the slvt parade in a forum with a bunch of men judging women for being slvts.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Says the guy who is bragging about how well his wife and daughters fare in the slvt parade in a forum with a bunch of men judging women for being slvts.



There's no slvt parade actually - the ethnic parties we attend are fairly well segregated by gender .

The men are all out to prove whose house or business or job or car is worth the most while women compete on more, ehem, lower pleasures based criteria .


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking for myself as a sl*t, there's no contradiction between me being a sl*t and me wanting monogamy. I can be a sl*t with my husband and just him, no problem.
> ...


You don't seem to get it. I'm not insulting myself. I understand both the purpose and meaning, and I still am one.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> You don't seem to get it. I'm not insulting myself. I understand both the purpose and meaning, and I still am one.



I do understand it; obviously you like the term. But to many people, monogamous slvt is an oxymoron. 

Nympho, maybe?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to get it. I'm not insulting myself. I understand both the purpose and meaning, and I still am one.
> ...


My husband is "all the menz" once we're gettin' down.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
I think the slvt discussion has degenerated with some people misinterpreting other's statements - some of which were intentionally tongue and cheek. 

Sine I'm the OP here can we please at least get back to LD / HD issues, if not the one I brought up, and if people want to argue over the appropriateness of the term slvt, please take it elsewhere.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think HD covers what people really mean.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yes, dear.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,
Do you have any interest in pursuing the question of what it really means to say that sex felt good?

Because in my experience, the psychology is at least as important as the raw physical sensations produced. 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> I think the slvt discussion has degenerated with some people misinterpreting other's statements - some of which were intentionally tongue and cheek.
> 
> Sine I'm the OP here can we please at least get back to LD / HD issues, if not the one I brought up, and if people want to argue over the appropriateness of the term slvt, please take it elsewhere.
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
yes - but she is just terrible at communicating - extremely uncomfortable about discussing it at all.

Still everything is consistent with her enjoying sex when she wants it - but she rarely wants it, and nothing can change that.




MEM11363 said:


> Richard,
> Do you have any interest in pursuing the question of what it really means to say that sex felt good?
> 
> Because in my experience, the psychology is at least as important as the raw physical sensations produced.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Seems to me that part of the mechanism behind men not wanting to be with a sl*t is as follows: he is afraid. He fears that if she wanted to hurt him by sleeping with someone else, it would be far easier for her to find a partner than for him to do the same in reverse. See, most guys know they can walk down the street fantasizing about every women they see and nothing will come of it because NONE of those women are going to give him the time of day if he tries to put those thoughts into action. But he believes that if his wife has those thoughts and puts them into action, she most likely WILL "score" with one of those random guys. If his partner is a sl*t, that means she does not have core shame or aversion to sex that might curb her willingness to act on her fantasies.
> 
> I wanted to be with an experienced woman. I was hoping she would share some of her experience with me and teach me how to make it good for her. Of course, her experience taught her that what she really wanted was not a guy skillful at sex but an inexperienced loser who would stick around to help her raise her kids, and who wouldn't leave or cheat the first (or second, or 100th) time she turned him down. So she picked the least skillful guy she met. And I fell for it hook, line and sinker.
> 
> I would love it if my wife fantasized about every guy she saw walking down the street and then brought all those horny feelings home to me and let me rock her world. The problem is not my wife being a horny sl*t. The problem is me not being able to rock her world and her being OK with that.


So you still don't believe that men can get sex whenever they want it, with someone at least as attractive as they are? What a misogynist! >


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, dear.



Love it!


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> 
> I think the slvt discussion has degenerated with some people misinterpreting other's statements - some of which were intentionally tongue and cheek.
> 
> ...



Richard, I think this is the first post I've read of yours where you're not being so damned nice. WTG! I love it. You need more of it!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Enjoying but rarely - I gave you the reason earlier... SLA's.

She has x times per month idea in her head. Anything that could bump it up ain't happening - and this includes any type of "of she likes it so much why not have more of it".


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> That must be incredibly boring.



Standard protocol for many cultures... 

Meanwhile women compare their girls or their kids' academic achievements...


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> maybe in the case of lesbians.
> 
> I'm sure you'll hate this argument, but the idea of one woman with multiple husbands flies in the face of human history and biology.
> 
> ...


I agree that there have been very few cultures where women had multiple husbands as a mainstream norm. But my guess is there have been many cultures where some minority of women had multiple men. I don't know where you would read or find out about those practices though. 

When I first went overseas I read about the traditional culture I was going to. On arrival I was surprised to hear of some 'second wives', as a recognised marital status, with ID cards and everything. I gather there was never a marriage, they were mistresses not wives. But they were recognised by law, had inheritance rights, birth certificates had both parents names etc. The books hadn't mentioned any of this.

Several locals and friends pointed out the reverse also existed. Rich women kept multiple boyfriends. There were clubs that are a male version of Hooters. 

They also thought that men are more highly sexed that women. So these women were seen as flaunting their wealth, not satisfying their sexual desire. Whereas a rich man might buy a new sports car, a rich women gets a new boyfriend, or sends an existing boyfriend overseas to get an Italian accent.

And all the while it appeared to be a traditional culture. They saw western culture as decadent and in decline because of loose morals. They thought they were holding to their stricter moral code.

So I don't see how we can easily and accurately look at what went on behind closed doors in historical cultures. Given this ignorance, how can we judge what is likely in the future.

And I don't think culture is guided by history or sustainability anyway. We blithely charge off in new directions all the time.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> Sure, it's naïve, but wouldn't a woman like to think that there was something so special about her that a guy would only be willing to do something with her?


No, why should it be? 
A woman who shows little interest in sex prior to marriage can't turn on a dime. She may be inspired to be a vixen during the early phases of a relationship but she is likely revert back to normal after the rose colored glasses come off. 

She is practiced in the art of control before marriage and will show the same tendency after marriage. She may actually expect her partner to gain control over his sexuality like she did before marriage. She knows it can be done because she did it. 

The basic motivation of women who save themselves sexually is to appeal to marriageable men and not to give a man special sexual gift. If they believe that special sex stuff, they also believe that men are superior and in a position to judge them. That is not s sustainable belief in a relationship. 

If her sexuality is special before marriage it will be after marriage. After the honeymoon period, she may think that the man who judged her as worthy to be his wife may not himself be worthy enough to get her special gift of sex. He only gets it when he deserves it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

God, you're awesome Catherine.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> If her sexuality is special before marriage it will be after marriage. After the honeymoon period, she may think that the man who judged her as worthy to be his wife may not himself be worthy enough to get her special gift of sex. He only gets it when he deserves it.



What could POSSIBLY go wrong with such a rational decision 

I kind of remember my wedding vows and they didn't mention "special gift"... Or "worthy"... Have the vows changed in recent decades?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> What could POSSIBLY go wrong with such a rational decision


Yes is it much like the rational decision men make that it is normal and natural for them to want to hump everyone, but any woman who feels that way is a sl*t.

Not saying this is you.

Sorry Richard!


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Thank you Faithful.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

john117 said:


> What could POSSIBLY go wrong with such a rational decision
> 
> I kind of remember my wedding vows and they didn't mention "special gift"... Or "worthy"... Have the vows changed in recent decades?


I don't think most people ever sit down and make a clear rational decision about their sexuality. Rather they gradually form a mindset which they carry forward. Of course, it may change over time, but most people seem to act like their sexuality and personality are correct for them and are permanent.

So in this example a female before marriage wants to be a "good girl" because everyone tells her that is what the guys want. And "good girls" keep their knees together at all times.

Romance and love may cause temporary changes. Later she may revert to her original behaviours.

Not saying any of this is rational, or even concious. And I am not saying it has to be so or shoud be so. People can be rational and they can be introspective. They can realise probably outcomes of their behaviour, can spend the effort to change themselves, and so are far less likely to end up being discussed in an LD thread. The sad thing is many people are not rational when it comes to their core beliefs. Some of them don't even seem to be concious of them.

My guess is J2 sees her SLA or core beliefs as correct and natural. She sees it as the proper way for a woman of her age to behave.

When Apple phones first came out I worked with econometricians and got lots of questions from them. These guys were paid to make careful, justified, rational decisions about industry policy and import/export taxes. One particular person went through a long written evaluation considering cost, features, utility, etc, worthy of a research paper. He clearly and rationally decided to get another phone. Soon after he bought an iPhone. I think his real decision was always to get an iPhone, the questions and evaluation were only because that was what he did. He never believed this own rational decision. Sadly I fear some LD/HD discussions may be something like this, with people promising to change but never really believing it.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> No, why should it be?
> A woman who shows little interest in sex prior to marriage can't turn on a dime. She may be inspired to be a vixen during the early phases of a relationship but she is likely revert back to normal after the rose colored glasses come off.
> 
> She is practiced in the art of control before marriage and will show the same tendency after marriage. She may actually expect her partner to gain control over his sexuality like she did before marriage. She knows it can be done because she did it.
> ...


Bingo.

The fantasy though, from the guy's perspective, is that the good girl will think you're such a stud that she will be transformed into a raging ball of desire just for you.

It's the corollary to the female fantasy that she will be able to transform the womanizing @sshole into a faithful family man who is a bad boy on the side just for her.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Except that expecting sex from a "good girl" is fairly single dimensional while expecting the azzhole guy to change is not...

In other words one is a lot easier than the other yet I don't think either happens all that much...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> What could POSSIBLY go wrong with such a rational decision
> 
> I kind of remember my wedding vows and they didn't mention "special gift"... Or "worthy"... Have the vows changed in recent decades?


They probably didn't specify whether and how much sex there would be either...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Except that expecting sex from a "good girl" is fairly single dimensional while expecting the azzhole guy to change is not...
> 
> In other words one is a lot easier than the other yet I don't think either happens all that much...


Actually they are pretty comparable fantasies, IMHO. Both are expecting the other person to just act like totally different people because their partner is just that wonderful and desirable. She is still supposed to be the lady in the streets, who she has always been, but suddenly transform herself into the freak, just for him, and on his demand. He is still supposed to be the cool bad boy on the streets, taking no guff from anyone, and all the ladies are jealous, but transform himself into a loyal softie, just for her, on her demands.

Both are cake-eating fantasies that want all the perks of external appearances and yet also to change the other person --but "just for me".


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Actually they are pretty comparable fantasies, IMHO. Both are expecting the other person to just act like totally different people because their partner is just that wonderful and desirable. She is still supposed to be the lady in the streets, who she has always been, but suddenly transform herself into the freak, just for him, and on his demand. He is still supposed to be the cool bad boy on the streets, taking no guff from anyone, and all the ladies are jealous, but transform himself into a loyal softie, just for her, on her demands.
> 
> Both are cake-eating fantasies that want all the perks of external appearances and yet also to change the other person --but "just for me".


If they are fantasies (and not expectations based on cultural norms of experience), then marriage is a fantasy and should not be entered into by any but the delusional.

I think most normal, healthy people often do change their behavior when alone with their romantic interest. If they did not, there would be no incentive to enter a relationship at all.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> If they are fantasies (and not expectations based on cultural norms of experience), then marriage is a fantasy and should not be entered into by any but the delusional.
> 
> I think most normal, healthy people often do change their behavior when alone with their romantic interest. If they did not, there would be no incentive to enter a relationship at all.


Really? You think?

I mean, I get that there is a distinction between private and public, and that we will give freer expression of ourselves in private than we would in public. And reveal sides of ourselves to our partners that our, say, colleagues will never see.

But other than that I guess I'm not healthy because I wouldn't change myself for him, nor would I expect him to change himself for me.

I don't think you can assume there is a porn star hidden inside every lady, just like you can't assume there is a loyal nice guy in every bad boy. If they don't have that side, they ain't gonna express it -- anywhere.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Well, if you can't change your behavior to suit the circumstances - without changing yourself, of course - then I'll agree with you that you're not healthy. Since neither of us is advocating changing who we really are, that basic personality will strongly influence our behavior in different circumstances. If we're inflexible, it won't bode well for intimate relationships.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> They probably didn't specify whether and how much sex there would be either...


The traditional "to have and to hold" vows basically state "whenever my spouse wants it". In recent years, perhaps most people who make these vows do not realize that is what they are signing up for. In prior years, most people understood that is exactly what they were signing up for.

Not saying the older rule was better. Not arguing in favor of marital rape. Just saying that it is somewhat disingenuous to say that vows do not specify anything about sexual consent or frequency. Traditional vows do state so explicitly. Marriage = blanket consent whenever one's spouse desires.

What we need are new vows that explicitly state the new reality that marriage does not imply consent. We need vows that say "You hereby consent to be monogamous with me, but I do not consent to have sex with you on any particular occasion. Even though I expect you to refrain from seeking consent from anyone else, I do not make any promise whatsoever to consent at any time or with any particular frequency, and you will have to do what it takes to earn my consent each and every time you seek to have sex."

Not suggesting this would cut down on mismatched marriages. But it would cut down on arguments over what each spouse agreed to when they got married.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

people, did you really think about all this stuff before you got married? We just loved each other and we got married... sex was good, relationship was good... didn't talk about anything...


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> people, did you really think about all this stuff before you got married? We just loved each other and we got married... sex was good, relationship was good... didn't talk about anything...


exactly.

"Hi honey, as you will see in Article IV, Section 10, Paragraph C, Clause 3, you clearly agreed to at least 6 morning BJs per quarter, provided that I had asked you how your day was at least 3 times per week during such quarter."


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

well, I only knew she wanted children... and it was fine by me...


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> exactly.
> 
> "Hi honey, as you will see in Article IV, Section 10, Paragraph C, Clause 3, you clearly agreed to at least 6 morning BJs per quarter, provided that I had asked you how your day was at least 3 times per week during such quarter."


..and in the quarter in question, if receiving party exhibits behaviors outlined, but not limited to, Section D through D(e), performing party is not obligated to perform said action and receiving party must submit an appeal. Guidelines for appeals can be found in Section F.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Actually they are pretty comparable fantasies, IMHO. Both are expecting the other person to just act like totally different people because their partner is just that wonderful and desirable. She is still supposed to be the lady in the streets, who she has always been, but suddenly transform herself into the freak, just for him, and on his demand. He is still supposed to be the cool bad boy on the streets, taking no guff from anyone, and all the ladies are jealous, but transform himself into a loyal softie, just for her, on her demands.
> 
> Both are cake-eating fantasies that want all the perks of external appearances and yet also to change the other person --but "just for me".


Yes, they are both fantasies.

But the difference is that if the guy gets what he wants (freak in the sheets), he is happy, whereas if the girl gets what she wants (loyal softie just for her), she is *un*happy.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> What we need are new vows that explicitly state the new reality that marriage does not imply consent. We need vows that say "You hereby consent to be monogamous with me, but I do not consent to have sex with you on any particular occasion. Even though I expect you to refrain from seeking consent from anyone else, I do not make any promise whatsoever to consent at any time or with any particular frequency, and you will have to do what it takes to earn my consent each and every time you seek to have sex."



Sounds like a great warning label


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> people, did you really think about all this stuff before you got married? We just loved each other and we got married... sex was good, relationship was good... didn't talk about anything...


Yes, I did. I told H2 that I was less experienced than I wished (which I am sure she could detect), that sex was vitally important to me, and that I expected her to help me make up for lost time by having lots of sex after we got married.

Then of course the sex stopped as soon as I said "I do".

Once again, slapped in the face by the reality that I should have gotten divorced / marriage annulled the day the plane landed on the way back from our honeymoon.

As I frequently say, book smarts are WAAAYYYY overrated. Test scores and GPAs and degrees notwithstanding, I am the dumbest person I know.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Yes, they are both fantasies.
> 
> But the difference is that if the guy gets what he wants (freak in the sheets), he is happy, whereas if the girl gets what she wants (loyal softie just for her), she is *un*happy.


Gee, that's odd. I love my loyal softie just for me, and he loves the freak in the sheets just for him. Even though I was also freaky with others before him (so was he) and he was a softie for women before me (I wouldn't like him if he wasn't). So strange that anyone can actually be happy given all the drama you spout about as if it is impossible. Oh, maybe we're in the 20% and that makes us magical unicorns.

Or maybe we just took the time to make sure we were a sexual match before we committed to each other.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, I did. I told H2 that I was less experienced than I wished (which I am sure she could detect), that sex was vitally important to me, and that I expected her to help me make up for lost time by having lots of sex after we got married.
> 
> Then of course the sex stopped as soon as I said "I do".
> 
> ...


I'm so sorry, but it is true. By NOT doing this, you showed her that what you said before marriage really wasn't important to you. I wish these things didn't happen, but they do.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> people, did you really think about all this stuff before you got married? We just loved each other and we got married... sex was good, relationship was good... didn't talk about anything...


The first time, no. And that's why we're divorced.

The second time, yes. And that's why we are sexually compatible.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> The first time, no. And that's why we're divorced.
> 
> The second time, yes. And that's why we are sexually compatible.


the problem is that people often present a different face before commitment is achieved.

so even if you are fully conscious of what you're looking for and upfront about it, there is still a huge risk to committing.

the solution, of course, is to not commit, but if you want a family that's not really viable.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> the problem is that people often present a different face before commitment is achieved.
> 
> so even if you are fully conscious of what you're looking for and upfront about it, there is still a huge risk to committing.
> 
> the solution, of course, is to not commit, but if you want a family that's not really viable.


In my case, I didn't even TRY the first time though. So there was no different face before commitment was achieved. I was naive and made assumptions. I did not do one single thing to educate myself about marriage or divorce or married sex life or ANYTHING. Every single thing I needed to know about him, I knew before we said "I do". So I have no excuse. I have to see it for what it was. Straight up magical thinking. "Oh, it will get better..."

Why? Why did I think it would get better? I never heard anywhere from anyone that things just magically get better. I knew the reality of divorce (had seen much of it in my life by then). My only excuse is being young and no elders said a word to me...but is that really an excuse? Given the price I paid via divorce, I do not excuse myself. Dumbasses like me frequently get our asses handed to us, and that's when you finally snap out of dumbass-ness.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> By NOT doing this, you showed her that what you said before marriage really wasn't important to you.


Yes and no. I showed her that is wasn't important enough to divorce over, but that was more about my being a gutless wimp than about its lack of importance.

See, she will be paying the price for this for the rest of her life. We will never have the money to do the things she wants to do. Especially as regards travel. But also housing, cars, clothes, etc. She has this fantasy that eventually I will retire and we will travel together. Never going to happen. We will never be able to afford it. She keeps telling me how much she looks forward to doing it after I retire. And I indulge her fantasy life by telling her how wonderful it would be if we could. Just like she lulled me by telling me that "smart is sexy" and implying that the sex would continue after we married.

Like I said, the tables will turn. Not by me leaving her. But by me staying. Wrapping her slowly and carefully in thin threads of time and togetherness. Such that by when she realizes finally my retirement won't be what she imagines, she will be too tightly bound to me to escape.

Or not. Maybe she will dump me in search of a rich guy who wants a 60-something peer to travel with. All life is risk. Since I can't fantasize about sex, this is what I choose to fantasize about.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

That's super sad. I'm glad you seem at least somewhat at peace with it all.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> No, why should it be?
> A woman who shows little interest in sex prior to marriage can't turn on a dime. She may be inspired to be a vixen during the early phases of a relationship but she is likely revert back to normal after the rose colored glasses come off.
> 
> She is practiced in the art of control before marriage and will show the same tendency after marriage. She may actually expect her partner to gain control over his sexuality like she did before marriage. She knows it can be done because she did it.
> ...


I wasn't talking about anything related to sex.

Let's say that your boyfriend of 6 months flies you to Rome for a romantic weekend (just a placeholder, not implying that all women want romantic weekends in Rome). Would it matter if you were the first woman he's done this with or if it turns out that he does it all the time, sometimes with total strangers?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

The assumption being that trading romance for sex is apples to apples, but it is not.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Anon1111 said:


> the problem is that people often present a different face before commitment is achieved.
> 
> so even if you are fully conscious of what you're looking for and upfront about it, there is still a huge risk to committing.
> 
> the solution, of course, is to not commit, but if you want a family that's not really viable.


Men and women will fall in love and commit. The fog period can't be avoided. The optimism has a function, it makes people get married, have children and raise them. 

The risk of failure and disappointment seems highest if you are not aware of the natural phases of a loving relationship and if the expectations are unreasonable. I dreamed that my husband and I would be in agreement on all things and we thought the same way. Its shocking how different we are in so many ways. 

The only thing you can do is to wait at lest 2 years before you commit and pay attention to red flags. Assume that you will have to negotiate many aspects of relationship throughout the relationship.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> I wasn't talking about anything related to sex.
> 
> Let's say that your boyfriend of 6 months flies you to Rome for a romantic weekend (just a placeholder, not implying that all women want romantic weekends in Rome). Would it matter if you were the first woman he's done this with or if it turns out that he does it all the time, sometimes with total strangers?


I wouldn't care who he took before me. I would be visiting one of the most beautiful historic cities in Europe. If I thought that I would be consumed with jealousy or insecurity, I would refuse his invitation. 

You can make a haven or hell out of your experiences. Its your choice, your world exist in your own head. In your hypothetical situation, i would chose to have the best time of my life in Rome even though my bf takes random women. If the women who go on the trip with him after me spend their time being miserable then they are fools.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I am with Catherine. I don't care who she went to Rome with as long as she goes with me.

The problem is when she promises to go with me to Rome, saying that she went there with all her other boyfriends. But then when I ask she refuses to go because it is never the right time for the trip. In that case the best response is to break up rather than chasing after her desperately trying to find the proper time for her to accompany you to Rome.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> I wouldn't care who he took before me. I would be visiting one of the most beautiful historic cities in Europe. If I thought that I would be consumed with jealousy or insecurity, I would refuse his invitation.
> 
> You can make a haven or hell out of your experiences. Its your choice, your world exist in your own head. In your hypothetical situation, i would chose to have the best time of my life in Rome even though my bf takes random women. If the women who go on the trip with him after me spend their time being miserable then they are fools.


You're assuming a lot of things that weren't there. 

I never asked if you'd be jealous or insecure.

Do you appreciate it if your SO goes out of his way and makes an effort to do something nice for you? 

If so, does it effect your appreciation of what he did for you if he would only go to that amount of effort for a small exclusive group of people or if he would go to that amount of effort to do the nice thing for anyone (including people that you think are unworthy?

Sure, you'd be happy that a nice thing happened to you either way, but would it affect how much you value it?

He brings you home nice flowers. It turns out that he bought a bunch of flowers, gave flowers to lots of people he barely even knows and some to the neighbor who's always mean to you.

Is that really the same as if he specifically went and bought you flowers because he was thinking of you? 

I know some will say "he's a great guy, he buys everyone flowers, he makes everyone happy". But I've got to believe that there's an element of not feeling that he thinks you're special.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

What's the difference between asking if she would be "jealous or insecure", and asking if it would make her feel "not special" because he did the same for others?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> What's the difference between asking if she would be "jealous or insecure", and asking if it would make her feel "not special" because he did the same for others?


Those things don't seem the same to me.

And it's not so much feeling "not special" I would think as it is not feeling special. It's like getting an A in a class. To me it matters if I was the only one who got an A or if everyone got an A. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the A. It just doesn't feel like as big an accomplishment.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Then it sounds like what you are asking is if she would feel competitive with his previous women. The only reason we feel competitive with others for our spouse is if we are jealous or insecure.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> If they are fantasies (and not expectations based on cultural norms of experience), then marriage is a fantasy and should not be entered into by any but the delusional.
> 
> I think most normal, healthy people often do change their behavior when alone with their romantic interest. If they did not, there would be no incentive to enter a relationship at all.


Woo up there, I agree and disagree in so many ways I don't know where to begin. So in no particular order:

I agree that they are both fantasies, but conveyed by culture / romance novels / porn video / etc,

I think they are expectations, but only because the fantasies are so widely held. These expectations are stupid and dangerous and should be discredited to those approaching marriage. Reality is a far better foundation for a happy marriage than is fantasy.

I disagee with these fantasies being cultural norms based on experience. Probably most have experience with people changing after marriage. With some that may be a positive change. But, I think, a very small fraction experience anything that matches these fantasies.

I disagree marriage is a fantasy. I think marriage is an institution / agreement / joining of two people. 
Unless you are saying the idea that many people have about marriage is based on these fantasies, rather than reality. If so I agree these people should not enter into marriage. (oh and by the way I would have counted myself in this group.)
But again I disagree, as I would consider this group to be delusional, and they should not enter into marriage. Although by this point I am wrapped up in double negatives and am not sure if I am agreeing or disagreeing with you.

Or are you saying that the delusional are the only ones who have any chance of succeeding at marriage? Boy oh boy do I disagree with that.


Finally on to the second paragraph, which I agree with. Most people change their behaviour with their romantic interest. Either because they reveal behaviours they wouldn't show in public, or because the romantic interaction uncovers/develops parts of themselves.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> You're assuming a lot of things that weren't there.
> 
> I never asked if you'd be jealous or insecure.
> 
> ...


Buddy I am not trying to change your mind and I don't think you are wrong to feel as you do. The choice of a lifetime partner is too important to let PC or opinion or judgements cloud your choice. 

I believe that there is something that you are missing. There is a corollary to your right to chose, others have the same right and you cannot control them. There are 100's of posts offering the opinion that women who have too much sex before marriage will end up with feline companions instead of husbands. Fear-mongering, a common method used to control. The anger and spitefulness is really fear. 

Staying with the trip scenario - I am not entitled to a trip to Rome in the first place, he is sharing an experience with me. I also have no right to tell him who he should share trips to Rome before or after me. I can walk away if I have a problem with promiscuous traveling and find someone who suits me. 

Do you think I could control the traveling habits of men by claiming that men who take multiple trips with gf's will eventually end up lonely and camping out in the Nevada desert for vacations because no woman will want them.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,

This partner history theme is something that is clearly important to a lot of folks. I admit that I don't 'get it' in the sense that I truly don't care. And don't care what my partner has or has not done with those other fellows. 

What I DO care about:
- Is she 'over' past partners or still fixated on the 'one that got away'?
- Are WE compatible overall including sexually
- Is she highly monogamous by nature

That's pretty much it. 

One of the ugliest things I see men do - and while it doesn't seem common it's not exactly rare - is marry an experienced woman and then AFTER GETTING MARRIED, grind her down for her history. 

I've seen a few cases of it on TAM. The men in question claimed they 'couldn't help themselves' it preyed on their minds on a frequent basis. 




Catherine602 said:


> Buddy I am not trying to change your mind and I don't think you are wrong to feel as you do. The choice of a lifetime partner is too important to let PC or options or judgements cloud your choice.
> 
> I believe that there is something that you are missing. There is a corollary to your right to chose, others have the same right and you cannot control them. There are 100's of posts offering the opinion that women who have too much sex before marriage will end up with feline companions instead of husbands. Fear-mongering, a common method used to control. The anger and spitefulness is really fear.
> 
> ...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> The only thing you can do is to wait at lest 2 years before you commit and pay attention to red flags.


We were together 5 years before we got married and it still went wrong... even with no red flags, people change over the years... so, even if you discuss stuff, when faced with the reality of a LTR, not everything sticks...

Was great for the first 10 years... downhill after that...


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> Catherine602 said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing you can do is to wait at lest 2 years before you commit and pay attention to red flags.
> ...


Do u know what changed? Downhill sexually or what? Thanks


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

NotEasy said:


> Woo up there, I agree and disagree in so many ways I don't know where to begin. So in no particular order:
> 
> I agree that they are both fantasies, but conveyed by culture / romance novels / porn video / etc,
> 
> ...


This is a more nuanced look at the issue, so kudos for that.

I would guess that overall experiences create some average cultural expectations about marriage - some are fairly valid, and some are myths, no doubt. We also have research that says that on average, couples have sex about 3x a week. That includes the newlyweds and the long-time marrieds, HD and LD, young and old. There's a huge amount of variation, yet if you're not happy with what you've got in your marriage, you'll still want some benchmark to use to argue your case.

I think marriage is a fantasy as it is seldom what people think it will be like, until they've experienced it. The positive, saccharine sweet stereotypes prevail, unless you listen to the jokes about how bad marriage can be, too.

Anyway, the bolded bit - the part you most disagree with - is the most accurate and truthful statement! Research has shown that the most successful couples are those who view each other with the proverbial rose-tinted glasses. Seeing your partner in a more positive light than they behave in objective reality creates a more forgiving and positive relationship, which enhances success. Being seen as better than you are is often motivating to be that person your spouse sees you as. So, _*a little delusion is good for a marriage*_!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

And regular, high quality intimacy is a good way to feed the delusion.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> NotEasy said:
> 
> 
> > Woo up there, I agree and disagree in so many ways I don't know where to begin. So in no particular order:
> ...


I doubt most couples have sex three times a week. Certainly not long term. Certainly not post menopause and in later life


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

john117 said:


> And regular, high quality intimacy is a good way to feed the delusion.


You are so right about that! It works well for us.


----------



## Star79 (Feb 8, 2014)

I wish my husband would touch me.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> I doubt most couples have sex three times a week. Certainly not long term. Certainly not post menopause and in later life


Maybe not - but are they both fairly content with their frequency, or not? And what was once a normal decline with age is now malleable with hormone replacement therapies for both sexes, and ED pills - and now a female libido pill, too. A couple has at least some control over their physical and emotional ability and desire to have sex. Is it important enough to them to bother? It matters enough to us to do everything we can think of - and afford - to maintain a great, frequent sex life, even post menopause and 60-ish.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt most couples have sex three times a week. Certainly not long term. Certainly not post menopause and in later life
> ...


That would depend on the couple. Many of those solutions also have serious side effects as well.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Okguy said:


> That would depend on the couple. Many of those solutions also have serious side effects as well.


Some do, some don't, some are worth it. You have a variety of nuanced options now that weren't available before, is all I'm saying. You set your priorities as a couple and pursue them.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > That would depend on the couple. Many of those solutions also have serious side effects as well.
> ...


True. But sometimes people have different priorities and adjustments need to be made. Many times these priorities are not apparent until many years have passed during which it appeared all was in harmony. Things change. What you do about it depends on many variables which frankly have been discussed to death already


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Do u know what changed? Downhill sexually or what? Thanks


Her OCD got a lot worse... I didn't even know she had it, she never told me... she suffers from recurrent catastrophic thoughts and she can't stop them... she is on ADs for it and she has no libido, it just disappeared... it's very well manage with ADs, but it could be "solved" with therapy, albeit a long process... she refuses to go to therapy...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> Her OCD got a lot worse... I didn't even know she had it, she never told me... she suffers from recurrent catastrophic thoughts and she can't stop them... she is on ADs for it and she has no libido, it just disappeared... it's very well manage with ADs, but it could be "solved" with therapy, albeit a long process... she refuses to go to therapy...


My take - which may be totally wrong and too simplistic as I don't know your story - is to tell her that unless she does the therapy, you'll leave. By staying, are you enabling her to be dysfunctional and not address her problems?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Holdingontoit said:


> I am with Catherine. I don't care who she went to Rome with as long as she goes with me.
> 
> The problem is when she promises to go with me to Rome, saying that she went there with all her other boyfriends. But then when I ask she refuses to go because it is never the right time for the trip. In that case the best response is to break up rather than chasing after her desperately trying to find the proper time for her to accompany you to Rome.


I agree with everything you said. However, I am puzzled, why did you include information about her past travel with ex-bf's. It's not a problem, it just means that you may focus on the past in relationships and miss important info in the present. Anywhoooo, she has the right to travel with her bf's before you.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

In Absentia said:


> We were together 5 years before we got married and it still went wrong... even with no red flags, people change over the years... so, even if you discuss stuff, when faced with the reality of a LTR, not everything sticks...
> 
> Was great for the first 10 years... downhill after that...


I understand. I'm not talking about the serious issue of no/low sex relationships though. Completely different when there are emotional contracts.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> Her OCD got a lot worse... I didn't even know she had it, she never told me... she suffers from recurrent catastrophic thoughts and she can't stop them... she is on ADs for it and she has no libido, it just disappeared... it's very well manage with ADs, but it could be "solved" with therapy, albeit a long process... she refuses to go to therapy...


I am truly sorry to hear what you are going through. I hope your wife gets better soon
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Okguy said:


> I doubt most couples have sex three times a week. Certainly not long term. Certainly not post menopause and in later life


According to The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources], the modal frequency for married couples where the man is from 50-59 is "a few times per month to weekly", at 38.3%, while 15.0% respond "2-3 times per week". At male ages 60-69, the modal frequency is also "a few times per month to weekly", at 35.4%, while 9.5% respond "2-3 times per week". 4 or more times per week is 1.1% for the 50's and 0.0%(!) for the 60's.

So it is true that most 50+ couples have sex less than 2-3 times per week.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

technovelist said:


> So it is true that most 50+ couples have sex less than 2-3 times per week.


I am happy to be a six-sigma exception to this statistic.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> I am happy to be a six-sigma exception to this statistic.


Congratulations!


----------



## HDsocal (Nov 19, 2010)

Okguy said:


> That would depend on the couple. Many of those solutions also have serious side effects as well.


So does living in a marriage with mismatched desires. The side effects of that could make it's own thread on here.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

HDsocal said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > That would depend on the couple. Many of those solutions also have serious side effects as well.
> ...


Yes that is a problem that has been discussed to death.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I am happy to be a six-sigma exception to this statistic.



That's why the curve is there for


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> This is a more nuanced look at the issue, so kudos for that.
> 
> I would guess that overall experiences create some average cultural expectations about marriage - some are fairly valid, and some are myths, no doubt. We also have research that says that on average, couples have sex about 3x a week. That includes the newlyweds and the long-time marrieds, HD and LD, young and old. There's a huge amount of variation, yet if you're not happy with what you've got in your marriage, you'll still want some benchmark to use to argue your case.
> 
> ...


Ok almost in agreement now.

Marriage is a fantasy in that people don't know what they are in for. My answer to that is education. A marriage licence should be harder to get that a driving licence.

But even with education, I think marriage will still be a fantasy that you need to experience to understand.

And I definitely agree a little delusion and rose coloured glasses are good for a marriage. Often they are essential. I still see the woman I married. Sadly she sees the few extra kilos, greying hair etc. I wish she could put on my rose coloured glasses.

The delusion I thought you were talking about was those who believe the DisneyLand princess and knight in shining armour, if we have a big wedding then we will live happily ever after. They need a heavy dose of reality. They don't have just rose colour glasses. They can't see reality and when they do the shock can be terrible.

And like I said before, not saying I wasn't somewhat delusional. I merely want to reduce the number of people getting terrible shocks when they wake up.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> Buddy I am not trying to change your mind and I don't think you are wrong to feel as you do. The choice of a lifetime partner is too important to let PC or opinion or judgements cloud your choice.
> 
> I believe that there is something that you are missing. There is a corollary to your right to chose, others have the same right and you cannot control them. There are 100's of posts offering the opinion that women who have too much sex before marriage will end up with feline companions instead of husbands. Fear-mongering, a common method used to control. The anger and spitefulness is really fear.
> 
> ...


This is getting a bit frustrating. I guess it just highlights the difficulty in communicating with other people, particularly via the internet. 

Everyone wants to ignore what I'm actually saying and address was they think I am saying. I am not trying to say that a woman is a slvt if she has had sex with someone before me, even if she had sex with 100 guys before me. I am not worried that she had better sex with someone other than me. I am not saying that there's something morally wrong with women who have sex and enjoy it with other men. I am not saying that I am entitled to sex with any woman.

What I am saying is that if someone does something a lot, without a need for emotional attachment, with people they don't particularly like and some that they hardly know, then what they do obviously doesn't mean that they feel that their partner is necessarily special. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this. I am not saying that there is any moral rule that one can only do this with special people.

If you meet a billionaire for whom going to Rome for a weekend is something that they do frequently and of trivial expense and he invites you to come along because he prefers not going to Rome alone; then, by all means, go. Enjoy yourself. It would be silly to worry that he might have taken others to Rome. It would be foolish to compare yourself to other companions and worry that you might not measure up. The only mistake would be to think that the fact that he took you to Rome means that you're special to him, that maybe he loves you and wants to marry you. He might, but taking you to Rome doesn't have anything to do with how he feels about you.

Relating this to sex, which everyone has decided that I'm secretly doing anyway. A woman wants to give me a blowjob. She's given over 100 blowjobs. Some to guys she's been in a relationship with, some to guys she's just met because she was in the mood, occasionally to guys that she didn't really like who had penises that appealed to her. If I have some sort of problem with that, I'm free to refuse the offer. I have no right to complain about her past behavior. If I accept, I would have no right to later complain about her prior actions. It would be silly of me, having accepted the offer, to worry about whether I "measured up" to her previous partners. If I accept, I have no right or reason to think that I have any control over whether or not she gives blowjobs to other men after me. There is no reason for me to think that blowjobs should mean something to her other than what they mean to her. If she subsequently wanted to enter in to a committed relationship with me, then my opinions matter as they inform my decision to accept. If I did enter into a committed relationship with her, it would not be unreasonable for me to consider the possibility that she might blow other guys (either because she really likes doing it and finds it hard to be constrained or because she doesn't understand what the big deal is) on occasion. It would be wrong of me to think that the fact that she gave me a blowjob meant that she thought I was of any special importance to her. If I was unattached, she was attractive and disease free, I'd probably accept and enjoy myself.

If on the other hand I meet a woman that's had plenty of opportunities to give guys blowjobs and has passed on all or all but a couple because she feels that giving a guy a blowjob is a very intimate act and therefore only does this in committed relationships with men she respects and loves; then I might be correct in assuming that there is, indeed, something special about me. If I were to enter into a committed relationship with her, I could probably feel confident that she won't be blowing the pizza delivery guy. 

So, you can determine how meaningful it is to be taken to Rome based on the past behavior of the man offering.

You can determine how meaningful sex is to a woman based on her past behavior.

And no, I'm NOT saying that trips to Rome and sex always have to be meaningful. But I am allowed to determine how meaningful they are to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Relating this to sex, which everyone has decided that I'm secretly doing anyway. A woman wants to give me a blowjob. She's given over 100 blowjobs. Some to guys she's been in a relationship with, some to guys she's just met because she was in the mood, occasionally to guys that she didn't really like who had penises that appealed to her. If I have some sort of problem with that, I'm free to refuse the offer. I have no right to complain about her past behavior. If I accept, I would have no right to later complain about her prior actions. It would be silly of me, having accepted the offer, to worry about whether I "measured up" to her previous partners. *If I accept, I have no right or reason to think that I have any control over whether or not she gives blowjobs to other men after me.* There is no reason for me to think that blowjobs should mean something to her other than what they mean to her. If she subsequently wanted to enter in to a committed relationship with me, then my opinions matter as they inform my decision to accept. If I did enter into a committed relationship with her,* it would not be unreasonable for me to consider the possibility that she might blow other guys (either because she really likes doing it and finds it hard to be constrained or because she doesn't understand what the big deal is) on occasion*. It would be wrong of me to think that the fact that she gave me a blowjob meant that she thought I was of any special importance to her. If I was unattached, she was attractive and disease free, I'd probably accept and enjoy myself.


But you ARE saying what I think you are saying. You are saying that because she likes this sex act, she will be compelled to want to do it randomly forever, no matter if she enters a monogamous relationship or not.

Therefore, likes sex = she's a sl*t (ie: would do it with "whoever", even after agreeing to monogamy)

Or do you mean to say that if a man likes going down on a woman, things are the same way for him? That he will not be capable of only going down on one woman in a monogamous relationship because since he likes it, he is clearly a sl*t?

If you think this about both genders then at least then you are simply confused about the combination of "liking sex" and "ability to be monogamous by choice". I don't agree with you at all and that just makes me wonder why you are so confused about highly sexual people. 

But if you think this only applies to women liking sex, then it is the usual sl*t shaming that I've come to expect from some men. I'm not sure if you even know you are doing it.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> My take - which may be totally wrong and too simplistic as I don't know your story - is to tell her that unless she does the therapy, you'll leave. By staying, are you enabling her to be dysfunctional and not address her problems?


She agreed to it, when I packed my bags... but then she couldn't find the right therapist and then it was too expensive... basically, she didn't really want to do it, even when I said I would pay for it... then she told me she wasn't going to... by then, I had changed my mind about leaving. I didn't want to leave my children and I didn't want to leave them with someone mentally unstable. I have an exit plan in place, when the young one flies the nest. Will I go through with it? Honestly, I don't know.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Okguy said:


> I am truly sorry to hear what you are going through. I hope your wife gets better soon
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's managed well through anti-depressants... she won't get better until she does therapy, i.e. never... :smile2: It's her choice and I understand it to a certain extent. But it's wrecked our marriage.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > I am truly sorry to hear what you are going through. I hope your wife gets better soon
> ...


Has she ever tried therapy? Good for you supporting her. I know it's not easy.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> But you ARE saying what I think you are saying. You are saying that because she likes this sex act, she will be compelled to want to do it randomly forever, no matter if she enters a monogamous relationship or not.
> 
> Therefore, likes sex = she's a sl*t (ie: would do it with "whoever", even after agreeing to monogamy)
> 
> ...


I have to agree here. He is conflating 'specialness' with 'trustworthiness.'

It doesn't matter what one thinks of blowjobs in the context of commitment. If a woman loves giving blowjobs, has given many in her single life, but has now committed to marrying YOU, then you can trust her no more or no less than a woman who reserves blowjobs for just a rare few.

The issue is the level of integrity of the woman, not her sexuality. The big problem here is that, for ONLY women, people blend sexuality into commitment. Men are expected to have sexual pasts, and to put all that behind them when they marry. Women who have sexual pasts are called slvts and are assumed to be unable to put that behind them when they marry.

I also find it completely ridiculous that giving blowjobs is the first example that comes to his mind when he thinks of slvtty behaviour. A sexual act that gives women little to none of their own physical pleasure is the best measure of slvttiness?

You're using the term slvt to mean "woman who can't make a monogamous committment" when the rest of us are using it to mean "woman who really enjoys sexual activity."


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> It would be wrong of me to think that the fact that she gave me a blowjob meant that she thought I was of any special importance to her. If I was unattached, she was attractive and disease free, I'd probably accept and enjoy myself.


So, following your same logic, I'm guessing that no woman can be special to you (or perhaps any other man)? I mean, given that you would be willing to accept a bj from any random woman who offered, then accepting one from your wife is nothing special. Since men often talk about how they want to have sex with every "half-decently attractive" woman, it must mean none can possibly be special. 

A guy being attracted to you, wanting to have sex with you, fantasizing about you all mean nothing. That's just what guys do? Am I understanding your meaning properly?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> she is on ADs for it and she has no libido, it just disappeared... it's very well manage with ADs, but it could be "solved" with therapy, albeit a long process... she refuses to go to therapy...


Anti-depressants? They're a well-known libido killer. 

As far as causes of LD, that one is about as clear-cut and direct as they come.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always,
That isn't what I understand Buddy to be saying. My interpretation is that he's referring to how special someone considers the 'act', not how special someone considers the person. 

Buddy,
I DO believe there are plenty of folks who engage in a decent amount of 'casual sex', UNTIL they marry. 

Once they marry and take vows, extramarital sex is no longer about sex, it's about deceit and betrayal or a partner. 

M2 and I both had some casual sex prior to marriage. And both of us have felt raw DESIRE for other folks during the course of our marriage. 

But I'm not to sure folks who wait until marriage are much less immune to falling in love with others after marriage. And then cheating. 







always_alone said:


> So, following your same logic, I'm guessing that no woman can be special to you (or perhaps any other man)? I mean, given that you would be willing to accept a bj from any random woman who offered, then accepting one from your wife is nothing special. Since men often talk about how they want to have sex with every "half-decently attractive" woman, it must mean none can possibly be special.
> 
> A guy being attracted to you, wanting to have sex with you, fantasizing about you all mean nothing. That's just what guys do? Am I understanding your meaning properly?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> But you ARE saying what I think you are saying. You are saying that because she likes this sex act, she will be compelled to want to do it randomly forever, no matter if she enters a monogamous relationship or not.
> 
> Therefore, likes sex = she's a sl*t (ie: would do it with "whoever", even after agreeing to monogamy)


No,* it's not whether she likes this sex act or not*. It is what performing this act means to her (and therefore, to the partner). If she likes it but does it for anyone, then doing it for a man means little other than that she likes doing it. If she likes doing it but only does it with men that she loves and respects, then doing it is an indicator that she loves and respects the man she is doing it with.

I don't think she would be "compelled" to do it outside of a monogamous relations ship or even that it would be likely. But I would imagine that it would be more likely than in the case of the woman who only does it in cases where love and respect exist. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Or do you mean to say that if a man likes going down on a woman, things are the same way for him? That he will not be capable of only going down on one woman in a monogamous relationship because since he likes it, he is clearly a sl*t?


It would be no different with a man. If a man goes down on random women in meaningless relationships just because he likes doing so, I'd imagine that he might be more likely to violate an exclusive relationship as well.



Faithful Wife said:


> But if you think this only applies to women liking sex, then it is the usual sl*t shaming that I've come to expect from some men. I'm not sure if you even know you are doing it.


Well, since I don't think this only applies to women liking sex, then it looks like it's NOT the usual sl*t shaming that you've come to expect from some men.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> It would be no different with a man. If a man goes down on random women in meaningless relationships just because he likes doing so, I'd imagine that he might be more likely to violate an exclusive relationship as well.


Ok, fair enough. I don't agree with this assessment about men being more likely to violate an exclusive relationship just because he has enjoyed being sexual with random women in his past, but at least you apply your judgment about it equally.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> This is getting a bit frustrating. I guess it just highlights the difficulty in communicating with other people, particularly via the internet.
> 
> Everyone wants to ignore what I'm actually saying and address was they think I am saying. I am not trying to say that a woman is a slvt if she has had sex with someone before me, even if she had sex with 100 guys before me. I am not worried that she had better sex with someone other than me. I am not saying that there's something morally wrong with women who have sex and enjoy it with other men. I am not saying that I am entitled to sex with any woman.
> 
> What I am saying is that if someone does something a lot, without a need for emotional attachment, with people they don't particularly like and some that they hardly know, then what they do obviously doesn't mean that they feel that their partner is necessarily special. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this. I am not saying that there is any moral rule that one can only do this with special people.


Men enjoy sex with no emotional connection. In fact, it's encouraged. Does that mean that the woman a man marries is not special to him? 

When women say that they feel used for sex by their husbands are they right. Shouldn't men be able to control their sexual desire when their wives are not in the mood? Women are required to control their desire for sex pre-marriage in order to attract a mate.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I'll answer my own question. When men and women fall in love, sex becomes special. I believe it because of hormones that promote bonding. It is special for people that you care about but it's not exclusively so. 

You don't have to let that influence your choice. No matter what anyone says, your criteria for selecting a mate is right for you. I am not challenging your choice just the rationale behind it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> So, following your same logic, I'm guessing that no woman can be special to you (or perhaps any other man)? I mean, given that you would be willing to accept a bj from any random woman who offered,* then accepting one from your wife is nothing special*. Since men often talk about how they want to have sex with every "half-decently attractive" woman, it must mean none can possibly be special.
> 
> A guy being attracted to you, wanting to have sex with you, fantasizing about you all mean nothing. That's just what guys do? Am I understanding your meaning properly?


It is special to me if it is special to her.

If it's not special to her, then it's not special to me. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't accept it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> I'll answer my own question. *When men and women fall in love, sex becomes special*. I believe it because of hormones that promote bonding. It is special for people that you care about but it's not exclusively so.
> 
> You don't have to let that influence your choice. No matter what anyone says, your criteria for selecting a mate is right for you. I am not challenging your choice just the rationale behind it.


This thought is what I would have trouble with.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I have to agree here. He is conflating 'specialness' with 'trustworthiness.'
> 
> *I guess it seems like my main concern is with trustworthiness, but it isn't. My wife was a bit of a slvt before marrying me, yet I never considered her likely to cheat on me. *
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,

SOME men like sex without connection. Maybe even a lot. 

But I wonder, is it possible that many of the guys who claim to only want to: Hit it and quit it

Is it possible many of those guys have just come to the belief they suck at real relationships so they claim not to want one. 

For those guys - casual sex is better than no sex. 





Catherine602 said:


> Men enjoy sex with no emotional connection. In fact, it's encouraged. Does that mean that the woman he marries should not feel that sex has any special meaning for him?
> 
> When their wives say that they feel used for sex, then they are right. Shouldn't men be required to control themselves like woman are required to do when their wives are not in the mood?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> Men enjoy sex with no emotional connection. In fact, it's encouraged. Does that mean that the woman he marries should not feel that sex has any special meaning for him?
> 
> When their wives say that they feel used for sex, then they are right. Shouldn't men be required to control themselves like woman are required to do when their wives are not in the mood?


A wife is probably correct in feeling that her husband's wanting to have sex with her doesn't mean that there is something uniquely special about her (she probably has other ways of measuring how special she is to him). He probably does think that if he is special to her, she'd have sex with him. If she doesn't want to, he probably does not feel she thinks he's special. The reinforcement that he is special to her probably is what he values and needs the most.

I don't think husbands or wives should be required to do anything. I think that a marriage works best when each is genuinely interested in the happiness of their partner.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Okguy said:


> Has she ever tried therapy? Good for you supporting her. I know it's not easy.


No, she hasn't... as far as supporting her, I do my best... but she is not a great communicator, so, it's a bit difficult for me... I don't really know what's going on...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Anti-depressants? They're a well-known libido killer.
> 
> As far as causes of LD, that one is about as clear-cut and direct as they come.


I know that... very well!  Anyway, it's her choice... she was off them for some time a few years ago and she was a tiger in bed... :smile2: ah, well... but, she is coping... so, I guess, that's the most important thing...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

It took me a while to figure out what was bothering me about your posts. 

First the parts I agree with:
If a person is comfortable with casual sex, that means you cannot infer that they love or are committed to you just because they have sex with you. 

That is a true statement regardless of gender. 

But then you say: If a person has casual sex, they are more likely to cheat when married because they don't place a high value on the 'meaning' of sex. 

And the reason I disagree with that is because you are now correlating a person's character inversely with the number of partners they have. 

In a sense you are saying that type person is a '****' in the original sense of the word. They have weak morals. 

In a sense you are assuming a high negative correlation between their comfort with casual sex and the value they place on:
- Trust
- Stability
- Monogamy

That hasn't been my experience at all. 





Buddy400 said:


> A wife is probably correct in feeling that her husband's wanting to have sex with her doesn't mean that there is something uniquely special about her (she probably has other ways of measuring how special she is to him). He probably does think that if he is special to her, she'd have sex with him. If she doesn't want to, he probably does not feel she thinks he's special. The reinforcement that he is special to her probably is what he values and needs the most.
> 
> I don't think husbands or wives should be required to do anything. I think that a marriage works best when each is genuinely interested in the happiness of their partner.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> I'll answer my own question. When men and women fall in love, sex becomes special. I believe it because of hormones that promote bonding. It is special for people that you care about but it's not exclusively so.



Is special code word for 'rare'??


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> It took me a while to figure out what was bothering me about your posts.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I was pretty sure I had a post in here clarifying that faithfulness as it relates to sexual history wasn't my main point, but I don't see it. My error for making two points at the same time. I DO suspect that there is some correlation, but I'm not really all that interested one way or another. My wife was rather promiscuous prior to meeting me (actually prior to a period where she decided to no longer be promiscuous and then met me). I was not, (more from perceived lack of opportunity than superior moral character). I don't recall ever worrying that she might cheat on me. 

I have also never advised my two sons to watch out for women with a sexual history. I have never told my daughter that no man will want her I she's a slvt. I have told her that it is very important to only have sex only when she wants to have sex. I turns out that she's only been with her LTR partner. She does sometimes think that there's something wrong with her since she has a liberal group of friends and reads liberal media. It's her impression that the message is that women who do not engage in casual sex are weird. I have to reassure her that it's okay if she wants to only have sex when in a committed relationship.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I agree with this in its entirety.

Including the statement about their being some correlation between non-monogamy and number of partners. 

But I truly believe that is driven by the fact that those folks like the raw physicality of sex a lot more. And therefore it's a greater temptation. 

Just as I'd say that if I marry an asexual (who wants kids with me) that person won't ever cheat, not due to better/worse morals, but rather because they don't like the physicality of sex. 

Now, one last drill down. Promiscuous or not, folks who routinely cheat on their partners before marriage, will likely continue to do so after marriage. But that isn't about number of partners. That's about having a selfish and deceitful character. 





Buddy400 said:


> Hmmm, I was pretty sure I had a post in here clarifying that faithfulness as it relates to sexual history wasn't my main point, but I don't see it. My error for making two points at the same time. I DO suspect that there is some correlation, but I'm not really all that interested one way or another. My wife was rather promiscuous prior to meeting me (actually prior to a period where she decided to no longer be promiscuous and then met me). I was not, (more from perceived lack of opportunity than superior moral character). I don't recall ever worrying that she might cheat on me.
> 
> I have also never advised my two sons to watch out for women with a sexual history. I have never told my daughter that no man will want her I she's a slvt. I have told her that it is very important to only have sex only when she wants to have sex. I turns out that she's only been with her LTR partner. She does sometimes think that there's something wrong with her since she has a liberal group of friends and reads liberal media. It's her impression that the message is that women who do not engage in casual sex are weird. I have to reassure her that it's okay if she wants to only have sex when in a committed relationship.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> It is special to me if it is special to her.
> 
> If it's not special to her, then it's not special to me. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't accept it.


And if you would accept it, doesn't that mean that you are fine with emotionless sex, and as such your willingness to have sex with your wife in no way indicates that she is special to you?

Indeed, this is more or less what you say to Catherine. Women shouldn't look to sex for feelings of specialness. They must find it elsewhere from men.

And I agree with her reaction: this is why so many women feel used sexually by their own husbands. Because he will take sex anywhere, from anyone and so it is meaningless. It says nothing about her or her relationship.

You want to define "specialness" for you in terms of how *she* feels about sex. But she can do the same thing.

And you are okay with this? Women should look elsewhere for this sense of being special? Well, maybe men should too.

(And it is a recipe for LD, if I ever saw one.)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Including the statement about their being some correlation between non-monogamy and number of partners.
> 
> But I truly believe that is driven by the fact that those folks like the raw physicality of sex a lot more. And therefore it's a greater temptation.
> 
> Just as I'd say that if I marry an asexual (who wants kids with me) that person won't ever cheat, not due to better/worse morals, but rather because they don't like the physicality of sex.


I wouldn't assume a correlation. Appreciation of sex, as you say, doesn't at all mean weakness in the face of temptation. 

People end up with lots of partners for all sorts of reasons, not all of which have to so with just loving sex so much they can't control themselves, and people end up with few to no partners for all sorts of other reasons than that they don't really like sex. And when it comes to cheating, this isn"t always about sex: often it is about attention, emotional validation, transgression, and all sorts of other needs/desires.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

MEM11363 said:


> I agree with this in its entirety.
> 
> Including the statement about their being some correlation between non-monogamy and number of partners.
> 
> But I truly believe that is driven by the fact that those folks like the raw physicality of sex a lot more. And therefore it's a greater temptation.


That's a slippery slope. I both agree and disagree at the same time (I'm allowed to do that, right? :grin2: )

Some people have more partners in their lifetime for varying reasons. Some like sex, period. Or variety. There's nothing wrong with that.

Some people have more partners in their lifetime, not because of the sex, but because it makes them feel wanted or desired, or attractive. Ego boosts, in other words.

My wife was, I don't want to say "promiscuous" prior to me, but along those lines, I guess. For her, it wasn't about the sex, so much as it was about the latter category - something she admits to, as well.

At one point, especially earlier in our relationship, the amount of experience she had concerned me, rightly or wrongly. I obviously did not feel good about that, but there it is. I also correlated a high number of partners with one's ability to be monogamous. It was always in the back of my mind, regretfully, that there might be a higher likelihood that she'd hop into bed with somebody else because I felt she didn't take sex as seriously as I did.

I no longer believe this to be the case. I don't think it was ever a morality thing with her, but rather an acceptance thing, and a need to be wanted - two things she has in spades from me.

Ironically enough, I actually think the people one needs to watch out for are the ones with little experience prior to marriage. My wife (and many other spouses who have had a higher # than average - whatever that is - partners) already know what's out there, I suppose.

And frankly, I feel that people who have many partners haven't necessarily had so simply because of sex. That's not an insult, or anything to be ashamed of. There were periods of my life where I required reassurance that I was desirable, and had I been single, my #'s may very well have been through the roof.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> And if you would accept it, doesn't that mean that you are fine with emotionless sex, and as such your willingness to have sex with your wife in no way indicates that she is special to you?


I'm fine with emotionless sex. I'd prefer it with emotion, but it's not a requirement. My wife would not be wise to interpret my having sex with her as meaning that she's special, I would have sex with lots of women, including those that aren't special to me, conditions permitting. However, my wife IS very special to me. It's just that my wanting to have sex with her wouldn't be the best way to determine that. Sex with my wife IS the best sex I've ever had, being in love and the emotions involved make it better than emotionless sex with someone else. 



always_alone said:


> Indeed, this is more or less what you say to Catherine. Women shouldn't look to sex for feelings of specialness. They must find it elsewhere from men.


I'm not trying to tell all women how all men think. I do think that, in general, women shouldn't consider the fact that a man wants to have sex with them as an indicator of how special the man thinks the woman is. I'm not saying that's the way it should be; that's just the way it is. Women are free to look wherever they want for indications that the a man thinks they're special. A willingness to commit might be a good place to start but, I'm mostly interested in determining how things work so that people can make informed decisions, not telling them what to do.



always_alone said:


> And I agree with her reaction: this is why so many women feel used sexually by their own husbands. Because he will take sex anywhere, from anyone and so it is meaningless. It says nothing about her or her relationship.


I don't know why this would make a woman feel used. I will play racquetball with just about anyone, I presume that they're playing racquetball with me because they get something out of it for themselves. I don't feel that I'm "using" them for racquetball. If a woman would talk about her feelings with anyone, should her husband feel "used" because she does it with him?



always_alone said:


> You want to define "specialness" for you in terms of how *she* feels about sex. But she can do the same thing.


Sure



always_alone said:


> And you are okay with this? Women should look elsewhere for this sense of being special? Well, maybe men should too.


I think women have looked at a man's willingness to commit as an indication that they are special. Or maybe his willingness to provide emotional support. Each person will have their own criteria. The important thing is to understand what is special to your SO.

It goes wrong when a woman thinks that sex isn't important to her, so it can't be important to her partner. Or when a man thinks that emotional support isn't important to him so it must not be important to his wife. Or when a man thinks sex isn't important to him, so it must not be important to his wife. 

Don't think that just because if you did something for someone else because he was special that it is true that his doing the same thing for you has the same meaning.

One man gives flowers to lots of women and another man only gives flowers to women he loves.

Either way, you've got flowers. Which is good (assuming you like flowers). But it would be a mistake to think that giving flowers means the same thing to each man. In some cases, it's not the flowers; it's the thought that matters.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Catherine,
> 
> SOME men like sex without connection. Maybe even a lot.
> 
> ...


Men are taught to squelch their emotions especially when getting "laid". Woman are taught that they fall in like when having sex. I think for many men and women, sex is sometimes for fun and sometimes for an emotional connection.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Always,

Let's say we have a bell curve representing selfishness. 
And a separate bell curve representing how much someone likes the raw physicality of sex.

I'm saying there is absolutely NO correlation between those two. Zip - Zero - None. 

I'm also saying the following: 
The selfish person who really likes sex is more likely to cheat on their partner. And the selfish person who isn't all that fond of sex, is more likely to reject their partner relentlessly while making up a stream of excuses - because they are benefitting otherwise from the marriage. 

And the selfless person who really likes sex, is more likely to remain monogamous because they don't want to risk hurting their partner. 

That same selfless person who isn't terribly fond of the physical act of sex, will make a good faith effort to find a sexual middle ground their partner is ok with - because they enjoy pleasing their partner. 






always_alone said:


> I wouldn't assume a correlation. Appreciation of sex, as you say, doesn't at all mean weakness in the face of temptation.
> 
> People end up with lots of partners for all sorts of reasons, not all of which have to so with just loving sex so much they can't control themselves, and people end up with few to no partners for all sorts of other reasons than that they don't really like sex. And when it comes to cheating, this isn"t always about sex: often it is about attention, emotional validation, transgression, and all sorts of other needs/desires.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

MEM11363 said:


> I'm also saying the following:
> The selfish person who really likes sex is more likely to cheat on their partner. And the selfish person who isn't all that fond of sex, is more likely to reject their partner relentlessly while making up a stream of excuses - because they are benefitting otherwise from the marriage.
> 
> And the selfless person who really likes sex, is more likely to remain monogamous because they don't want to risk hurting their partner.
> ...


I love this, and wholeheartedly agree with that analysis.

Just goes to show that the ego drives everyone and everything.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'm fine with emotionless sex. I'd prefer it with emotion, but it's not a requirement. My wife would not be wise to interpret my having sex with her as meaning that she's special, I would have sex with lots of women, including those that aren't special to me, conditions permitting. However, my wife IS very special to me. It's just that my wanting to have sex with her wouldn't be the best way to determine that. Sex with my wife IS the best sex I've ever had, being in love and the emotions involved make it better than emotionless sex with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to tell all women how all men think. I do think that, in general, women shouldn't consider the fact that a man wants to have sex with them as an indicator of how special the man thinks the woman is. I'm not saying that's the way it should be; that's just the way it is.


Buddy, I find your views confusing.

You say that women should not look to sex for indicators that a man thinks is special, yet above say that men will take her willingness to have sex as a sign that he is special to her. Or at least he wants to until she mucks it up by having had sex in another circumstance. 

It smells a lot like a double standard. 

I would be pretty weirded out by a racquetball partner who felt that it was okay for him to play racquetball with any one of his friends, but tried to tell me that I should only ever play with him. And would also feel no obligation to play racquetball at all if I didn't feel like it. 

It's funny because men here at TAM are always telling women it's not the sex, it's the connection. But it would seem that their wives are actually quite right that it is just the sex, and it doesn't actually mean anything.

I have only felt used when there wasn't anything in it for me. I don't know what the racquetball equivalent of that is? Maybe being invited to play, but without a racquet, so all you get to do is stand there and be pelted by balls.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Buddy, I find your views confusing.
> 
> You say that women should not look to sex for indicators that a man thinks is special, yet above say that men will take her willingness to have sex as a sign that he is special to her. Or at least he wants to until she mucks it up by having had sex in another circumstance.
> 
> ...


Is questioning this nuance a need to understand or a need to exploit? It feels like the latter, but that could be my preconceived notions showing. Or is it something else I am not considering?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I'm also saying the following:
> The selfish person who really likes sex is more likely to cheat on their partner. And the selfish person who isn't all that fond of sex, is more likely to reject their partner relentlessly while making up a stream of excuses - because they are benefitting otherwise from the marriage.


MEM, I'm not disagreeing with you on this at all. Well, maybe just a little. People are complicated.

It would seem that it's narcissism that drives most cheating behaviour, much more than sexuality. So yes, someone who is both into sex and highly narcissistic is probably much more likely to cheat. But even the person who isn't that into sex, but who is highly narcissistic, may find themselves quite tempted, if not by the sex itself, by the ego-boost, the attention, the validation. There has to be something that feeds the phenomenon of LDFY.

And a highly sexual person need not be selfless to choose monogamy. If, for example, it is that much better at home, it would be foolish to stray, to give it up for some random unknown that might pale in comparison. Just because you like sex doesn't mean it's more desirable outside the confines of LTR.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> Is questioning this nuance a need to understand or a need to exploit? It feels like the latter, but that could be my preconceived notions showing. Or is it something else I am not considering?


I see it as much more than a nuance. Don't you?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I see it as much more than a nuance. Don't you?





always_alone said:


> People are complicated.


I think like many things it is not set but fluid. There are sometimes I want my wife for the release. That is more primal, and it is probably <10%. The other 90% I want and need the emotional connection.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Buddy, I find your views confusing.
> 
> You say that women should not look to sex for indicators that a man thinks is special, yet above say that men will take her willingness to have sex as a sign that he is special to her. Or at least he wants to until she mucks it up by having had sex in another circumstance.
> 
> ...


If the situation is *largely* that men "get" sex and women "give" sex, then it follows that men value getting sex and women don't. So, if a man gets sex, that's an indication that she is giving something to him. He feels good about this because he is receiving a gift. There must be something positive about him that resulted in her giving him this. If a woman gets sex, I imagine she wouldn't necessarily feel all that good because he isn't giving it to her because he feels that she is especially deserving. None of this implies that women do not like sex, or shouldn't like sex.

If a man is constantly being offered sex by women, he'll come to see the offer of sex as just being a desire for sex and not interpret it as a "gift". He'll think women are just like men. In fact, he may feel like he's giving something to the woman. It happens all the time without much effort on his part so he doesn't value it the same way as a man for whom it is a rarer occurrence.

So a wife having sex with her husband is emotionally important to a husband. She's having sex with him because she loves, respects, values him. Every time she has sex with him the husband is reassured that his wife loves him and values him. Since men aren't "giving" sex to women, they don't see this as meaning that he loves, respects and values her. She undoubtedly looks to other areas for this validation.

Now, you probably don't like the idea of men "getting" sex and women "giving" it. You probably don't agree with this and think that it's the same for both genders. Or you think that this is how it was/is and should be changed or is already changing. I would also like this to change, but I'm more concerned with the current reality.

Match up my theory with what actually happens in reality and I think one gets a reasonably good match. Matching up the theory that you might support (men and women exactly the same) with reality and I think what's happening in real life is hard to explain.

Again, I don't think this is the way things SHOULD be or how I'd LIKE them to be. I just think that this is how things ARE.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

I would think that infidelity is about opportunity, impulse control and selfishness.

If your SO has had a lot of previous sexual partners, that's a pretty good proxy for lots of opportunity.

Impulse control is important both as it relates to the thought that sex is an impulse that should be controlled and as it relates to giving up instant gratification in the interest of preserving a good relationship.

Someone who is selfish is less likely to consider the damage their behavior would do to their SO.

Someone with lots of opportunities, good impulse control and who is not selfish will not be unfaithful if they are in a happy relationship.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Now, you probably don't like the idea of men "getting" sex and women "giving" it. You probably don't agree with this and think that it's the same for both genders. Or you think that this is how it was/is and should be changed or is already changing. I would also like this to change, but I'm more concerned with the current reality.
> 
> Match up my theory with what actually happens in reality and I think one gets a reasonably good match. Matching up the theory that you might support (men and women exactly the same) with reality and I think what's happening in real life is hard to explain.
> 
> Again, I don't think this is the way things SHOULD be or how I'd LIKE them to be. I just think that this is how things ARE.


Okay, that definitely explains why I am confused by your approach: we have completely different base assumptions from the get-go. So whose is closer to reality?

Men who are viewing sex as something they "get", that she gives to show just how much she loves and appreciates him are just as likely to be disillusioned as any women who thinks this, IMHO. He will take it personally, and be very hurt when she is not interested in giving that special gift; he will be jealous or think it was all a lie if she gave that special gift to other people before him or admits that she will do so after him, or if she decides to cheat. He might freak out if she has done some specific sexual act with another partner that she no longer wants to do and won't do with him. He also is a lot less likely to care about her pleasure, as the gift is "for him", not for her, and so it's about catering to what he wants, when he wants, in his way, and her pleasure is irrelevant. After all, he "gets", she "gives". 

And women who believe that he is not giving her a special gift, that it is *her* gift to give, and he only "gets", may feel that all he cares about is his "getting", not actually giving, and that sex therefore holds little value or pleasure for her. Or she may think that since sex isn't about anything except his "getting", that she is mostly replaceable, and given that, she doesn't really need to bother herself with any of it. He can "get" his own rocks off. It is just a release, after all, a physical moment he can manage with one hand. Besides, special gifts are for special occasions, and since she doesn't get any gift at all, why should she concern herself with giving lots of special gifts to him?

Do people view things this way? No doubt. But is it actual reality? Or is it the source of all sorts of confusions and misinterpretations that lead both partners away from each other instead of towards each other. 

It troubles me, Buddy, that you think sexual pleasure holds no real importance to women and that all we want are just some proxy stand-ins for men to show when they think we are special. A few flowers? Maybe a trip to Rome? There is nothing particularly intimate about these things, no matter how often or rarely they are given. What's left?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's a matter of relative importance - do you see women doing the pool boy as much as you see men doing the nanny?

Both are happening yet one tends to happen a lot more, so it's only natural to judge attitudes by what each gender does rather than what each gender says.

Of course we could throw the WAW/WAH numbers into the mix but still I'm not convinced the two genders will be even.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Okay, that definitely explains why I am confused by your approach: we have completely different base assumptions from the get-go.


Surprise, surprise :smile2:



always_alone said:


> Men who are viewing sex as something they "get", that she gives to show just how much she loves and appreciates him are just as likely to be disillusioned as any women who thinks this, IMHO. He will take it personally, and be very hurt when she is not interested in giving that special gift; he will be jealous or think it was all a lie if she gave that special gift to other people before him or admits that she will do so after him, or if she decides to cheat. He might freak out if she has done some specific sexual act with another partner that she no longer wants to do and won't do with him. He also is a lot less likely to care about her pleasure, as the gift is "for him", not for her, and so it's about catering to what he wants, when he wants, in his way, and her pleasure is irrelevant. After all, he "gets", she "gives".
> 
> And women who believe that he is not giving her a special gift, that it is *her* gift to give, and he only "gets", may feel that all he cares about is his "getting", not actually giving, and that sex therefore holds little value or pleasure for her. Or she may think that since sex isn't about anything except his "getting", that she is mostly replaceable, and given that, she doesn't really need to bother herself with any of it. He can "get" his own rocks off. It is just a release, after all, a physical moment he can manage with one hand. Besides, special gifts are for special occasions, and since she doesn't get any gift at all, why should she concern herself with giving lots of special gifts to him?
> 
> Do people view things this way? No doubt.


I was talking about how people view things, so what you describe above is pretty much what happens. We agree!



always_alone said:


> But is it actual reality? Or is it the source of all sorts of confusions and misinterpretations that lead both partners away from each other instead of towards each other.


True, it does cause problems. You can do one of two things:

1) Change everybody's view of how the world operates or

2) Educate everybody on the differences between how the genders view sex.



always_alone said:


> It troubles me, Buddy, that you think sexual pleasure holds no real importance to women and that all we want are just some proxy stand-ins for men to show when they think we are special. A few flowers? Maybe a trip to Rome? There is nothing particularly intimate about these things, no matter how often or rarely they are given. What's left?


I don't think that sexual pleasure holds no real importance to women. I'm sure it does. I know it is important to my wife. I just don't think that a man having sex with them is how they can best judge their importance to a man. Many women (my wife having been one of them) have used men being willing to have sex with them as a measure of their self-worth. It hasn't gone well for most of them. What else might help a woman decide how worthy a man thinks they are? Commitment?

Are men wrong for valuing a woman's willingness to have sex with them? Maybe.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> True, it does cause problems. You can do one of two things:
> 
> 1) Change everybody's view of how the world operates or
> 
> 2) Educate everybody on the differences between how the genders view sex.


Okay, well, I'm less sold than you that everyone happily agrees that sex is something that men "get" and women "give". And a whole lot less sold than you that there is any value whatsoever in continuing to shove this idea that women should be treating sex as a special gift that they reserve for the special man, just to make him feel special, down everyone's throats. 

Can you not see how this is a total raw deal for women? Can you not see how it would make them feel like sex is all just about getting his rocks off, and turn them right off sex completely? I mean, the way you describe it makes *me* never want to have sex again, I find it such a repulsive turn-off. And I'm about as HD as they come. Meanwhile, you happily give men carte blanche sexually, and it's up to women to figure out if maybe there is something intimate between them. 

IMHO, it is your very philosophy that is the cause of the problems. And so, while I agree that it is not possible to change anyone's view of how the world operates, let alone everybody's, I see no value whatsoever in "educating" everybody on these differences. All you would be doing is feeding the problem, not solving it. And all you would be doing is reinforcing the same old slvt shaming that you are pretending that you aren't doing. 

PS: if a man measures his self-worth by how willing a woman is to have sex with him, it isn't going to go well for him either. Guaranteed.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> It's a matter of relative importance - do you see women doing the pool boy as much as you see men doing the nanny?
> 
> Both are happening yet one tends to happen a lot more, so it's only natural to judge attitudes by what each gender does rather than what each gender says.
> 
> Of course we could throw the WAW/WAH numbers into the mix but still I'm not convinced the two genders will be even.


Ummm. If we're talking about cheating, it actually occurs about the same rates for both men and women. 

So, judging by what people actually do, sex is pretty important to both genders.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Okay, well, I'm less sold than you that everyone happily agrees that sex is something that men "get" and women "give". And a whole lot less sold than you that there is any value whatsoever in continuing to shove this idea that women should be treating sex as a special gift that they reserve for the special man, just to make him feel special, down everyone's throats.


This is where we always fail to connect. You feel that I am in favor of "continuing to shove this idea". I'm not in favor of shoving any ideas. I am just doing my best to describe things as I see them IRL.



always_alone said:


> Can you not see how this is a total raw deal for women? Can you not see how it would make them feel like sex is all just about getting his rocks off, and turn them right off sex completely? I mean, the way you describe it makes *me* never want to have sex again, I find it such a repulsive turn-off. And I'm about as HD as they come. Meanwhile, you happily give men carte blanche sexually, and it's up to women to figure out if maybe there is something intimate between them.


I'm not sure why this would be a raw deal for women. In any case, if things are like this, it's not because I WANT them to be, it's just the way things ARE. Why would seeing having sex a man as something you are giving him turn you off? That doesn't mean that you aren't going to enjoy yourself. After all, if he enjoys "receiving" sex from you it would behoove him to make it as good for you as possible. Again, I am not "giving" anybody carte blanche, nor am I talking about how I would like things to be.



always_alone said:


> IMHO, it is your very philosophy that is the cause of the problems. And so, while I agree that it is not possible to change anyone's view of how the world operates, let alone everybody's, I see no value whatsoever in "educating" everybody on these differences. All you would be doing is feeding the problem, not solving it. And all you would be doing is reinforcing the same old slvt shaming that you are pretending that you aren't doing.


It is NOT my philosophy, if my observations are correct, it a description of how things actually are. I could talk about how I'd like things to be but that wouldn't do anybody any good.

I think if women knew how men viewed sex and vice versa rather than thinking that the other gender thought exactly the same way about it that they do, I think that would be helpful. I do not think that focusing on how you'd LIKE the other gender to think about sex is helpful.

I don't know why you think I'm slvt shaming. Point out where I've shamed anyone for enjoying sex or having many partners. Heck, I didn't even shame my wife for being promiscuous in her previous life! If I were to say anything about it, I would say that it's naïve to behave in a way that you believe is correct and then complain when people who do not agree with you refuse to accept it. I speed. I believe that I'm a lot safer driver when I'm going 20 mph over the limit than most people who obey the law. But I don't complain when I get a ticket. I'm aware that not everyone agrees with me.



always_alone said:


> PS: if a man measures his self-worth by how willing a woman is to have sex with him, it isn't going to go well for him either. Guaranteed.


Maybe. What kind of problems would this cause?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
One thing reading these boards shows is that sex means very different things to different people. There may on average be a difference between how men and women view sex, but I don't think that is important - the variations within each gender are very large. People are not having (or failing to have) sex with an "average" person, they are having sex with a specific person, and how that specific person feels about it is what matters.

I don't know if the way people think about sex is learned or innate, but it doesn't seem easy to change.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The percentages are the same roughly for each gender but the reasons for cheating are not...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'm not sure why this would be a raw deal for women. In any case, if things are like this, it's not because I WANT them to be, it's just the way things ARE. Why would seeing having sex a man as something you are giving him turn you off? That doesn't mean that you aren't going to enjoy yourself. After all, if he enjoys "receiving" sex from you it would behoove him to make it as good for you as possible. Again, I am not "giving" anybody carte blanche, nor am I talking about how I would like things to be.


Buddy, you say your wife was promiscuous before you. Does this mean that her having sex with you means nothing about how special she sees you? And if so, what indicators do you use to realize how she feels about you? Commitment?

You also agree that it behooves men to consider women's pleasure. Is this not the same as saying that he too is a "giver" in the sexual arena? That she "gets" as good as she gives?

That's all I'm saying. Sex for men is also about connection and giving, not just getting. Farsidejunky said as much for him, and I've seen many other men here say the same thing, without you feeling the need to contradict them. Yet you feel the need to tell me that what they say is wrong, and what you say is how it really is. Why is that?

Just because I want to say that sex for women is also about "getting"?

Maintaining a double standard about sexuality where he is the getter and she is the giver is reinforcing a power dynamic, one that privileges male sexuality over female sexuality. How is that not a raw deal for women? The implication that men are justified in promiscuity when women are not is slvt shaming, pure and simple.

Why is that a turn off? Well let me count the ways. But first and foremost, my sexuality is mine to do with as I please as much as yours is for you, and I would never want to be with anyone who didn't, couldn't, respect that.

Sex is something we share. And there can be more or less of an emotional connection, and more or less of feelings of the "specialness" of the other we are having sex with. So far no problem.

When the problems arise, is when there is a power imbalance, where there is one always giving, and another always taking. This is a breeding ground for resentment.

You've been here long enough. Can you really honestly not see the downsides to a man investing his sense of self-worth in whether a woman will have sex with him? They are the same as for a woman.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> The percentages are the same roughly for each gender but the reasons for cheating are not...


Uh huh. Sure. That's why the lists are virtually identical. Slightly different weighting, perhaps, but pretty much the same items.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Women with LD occasionally post on TAM for advice. Invariably, a male poster will warn her that if she does not have sex with her husband, he will find a woman who will. Just recently, a woman posted that she did not like to swallow and asked for advice.

I thought it was good that her desire was to make her husband happy and early in the thread, she got good advice. But the mood got snarky very fast. Some men warned the OP that men will find someone else if the wife won't do it. She stopped posting but I wonder if she starting swallowing out of fear. It's more likely that she didn't bother out of self-respect. 

I think some of the things men say about women and relationships are very destructive. (Women do the same) Most of the time, it is said out of frustration and anger. I believe that because I have read posts from too many men who have stuck by wives who deny them for decades. I've also read so many posts from men who express their love for their wives. 

But not every woman has had the education that I have had from reading post on TAM. No one can control what others say but you have to be aware of the message women get in our culture. It helps to acknowledge that the negative messages are there and may effect the relationship. Women rarely talk about it because it's so pervasive and accepted. When men post it here, no one challenges them.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> True, it does cause problems. You can do one of two things:
> 
> 1) Change everybody's view of how the world operates or
> 
> 2) Educate everybody on the differences between how the genders view sex.


Those are not exclusionary choices, they are inextricably linked.

The current view of how the world operates has come about BECAUSE of what people have been educated to believe about the differences in how the genders view sex.

You accomplish 1) by doing 2) more fairly and taking the shame out of sexual behaviour.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Uh huh. Sure. That's why the lists are virtually identical. Slightly different weighting, perhaps, but pretty much the same items.



Not quite...

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-women-cheat-vs-why-men-cheat-they-cheat-for-different-reasons


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Not quite...
> 
> Why women cheat vs Why men cheat ? They cheat for different reasons | Examiner.com


Take a closer look at the lists, and then tell me how different they are. Sure, the issues have been framed in a particular way to reinforce the stereotypes as much as possible (and the difference in language choice for men and women is very interesting), but they are essentially the same issues.

Besides, wasn't it you who said we need to pay attention to what people do, not what they say? 

Mostly people don't really know why they cheated, they just did. It was there, it felt good, and they were the sort of person who doesn't really care how their actions affect others. 

Guys say things like they will do anything for sex, and it is their number one priority, but then start talking about sex being a way for them to connect. Women say things like they just want to be desired and connect, but when it comes to how one should express that desire? Well, let's just say it looks a lot like sex.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

You look at what people do to begin with then once you have established the equality then you look at the contributing factors...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Guys say things like they will do anything for sex, and it is their number one priority, but then start talking about sex being a way for them to connect.


You have the causation backward. Guys feel most connected and gratified by sex, so they will do anything to get it. It is not about sensation. All my most powerful orgasms have been solo. No woman does me as well as I do myself. But the emotional connection and payoff from sex provides strong motivation to seek it even when the sensation is only meh.

Much of the "payoff" from sex comes from the sense of conquest. I think many women feels this as well.

Another payoff from sex is getting the other person to orgasm. That is why many of us who have LD partners get very frustrated when we cannot reliably bring our partner to O. And yes, I realize our inability to get them there may contribute to their LD. But even where the LD reliably orgasms, many still don't want sex. They may say "just masturbate" but masturbation is not the same. Yes, I orgasm either way but what I want from sex is for YOU to orgasm, and I don't get that by jacking off.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

P: And that is why you have a sex life and I don't. Wish my wife had dumped me for someone who could get her off.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Sorry about bumping this thread again when it was pretty much (deservedly) dead. But I particularly wanted to reply to the personal question.



always_alone said:


> Buddy, you say your wife was promiscuous before you. Does this mean that her having sex with you means nothing about how special she sees you?


I mentioned my wife in order to defend myself from the "slvt shaming" charge.

As I've repeatedly stated, my comments are about how the world IS, not how I personally see it or how I would prefer it.

Her having sex with me didn't really make me feel special at the time, and generally doesn't. If she subsequently didn't have sex with me, it would have made me feel like I was not special. 

I might have had a problem with her past if she had sex with strangers or men that she actively disliked and was perfectly happy about it. But, she felt that she'd had sex as a way to improve her self esteem and found that she had actually ended up hurting her self image (her opinion). But, in actuality, I really didn't think about it much at the time. 



always_alone said:


> , what indicators do you use to realize how she feels about you? Commitment?


She claimed that I was the best thing that ever happened to her and her actions supported that. If she had stopped having sex with me for a prolonged period of time, I might have decided that her actions no longer supported that contention.



always_alone said:


> , You also agree that it behooves men to consider women's pleasure. Is this not the same as saying that he too is a "giver" in the sexual arena? That she "gets" as good as she gives?


I think that you're confusing "getting" with "only getting pleasure" and "giving" with "only giving pleasure".



always_alone said:


> ,That's all I'm saying. Sex for men is also about connection and giving, not just getting. Farsidejunky said as much for him, and I've seen many other men here say the same thing, without you feeling the need to contradict them. Yet you feel the need to tell me that what they say is wrong, and what you say is how it really is. Why is that?


I'm not telling anyone that their personal experiences are wrong. If they differ from what I think is typical, then I'll say that. But I'd never say that they're lying. If we're arguing over what's typical then, yes, I'll say that I think they're wrong. 



always_alone said:


> Maintaining a double standard about sexuality where he is the getter and she is the giver is reinforcing a power dynamic, one that privileges male sexuality over female sexuality. How is that not a raw deal for women? The implication that men are justified in promiscuity when women are not is slvt shaming, pure and simple.


The world record time for the 100 meters is 9.58 for men and 10.49 for women. Is that a double standard?

Sometimes gender differences just exist.



always_alone said:


> Why is that a turn off? Well let me count the ways. But first and foremost, *my sexuality is mine to do with as I please as much as yours is for you*, and I would never want to be with anyone who didn't, couldn't, respect that.


Is my free time mine to do with as I please? Is my choice of career mine to choose as I please? I'm pretty sure you'll say yes to each. But I think that relationships will work better if you take your partner's wishes into account. I'm not saying do whatever they want, but I would give their preferences some weight.



always_alone said:


> You've been here long enough. Can you really honestly not see the downsides to a man investing his sense of self-worth in whether a woman will have sex with him? They are the same as for a woman.


I can see where basing your self worth on sex and not getting any could be a problem for men (or women). I'm not sure I know of a problem if the man is having lots of sex.

It's interesting how these discussions always come down to you and FW as the primary participating women. Other women's comments elsewhere on TAM make me think that they disagree with the idea of men's and women's sexuality being the same, but they don't seem to have an appetite to show up for these fights. I'd like to see a women only discussion of this so that we could remove the potential male bias from consideration.

One place that I think this thought is particularly damaging is if Anon Pink is correct about the following: 

_"I used to think I had a very strong libido. I wanted sex nearly all the time! I was ready for sex at a moments notice and I took risks with my husband in order to get sex, like being late, like too near public... But the truth is I didn't have a really strong libido, I had a constant arousal level that was stuck on 4-6, while most women have an arousal level at zero as a normal daily operating temperature. For more than 10 years I had a constant level of arousal, with physical symptoms most notably in my clitoris, which pushed me to desire sex all the time.

But then full menopause hit and my arousal level went to zero and stayed there. Now I have to work to get myself aroused and I only do it when I'm pretty sure my husband really wants to have sex. Because I know what it's like to really want sex but not get it, I never turn him down without a very good reason and lots of time I start to have sex with him and I'm STILL not very aroused but I trust I'll eventually get there and I almost always do.

All these husbands who complain about their wives never wanting sex are not getting their wives aroused. Whether they're too needy, whether the relationship is lousy, whether their wives no longer want to be anywhere near them, whether their wives have serious body image problems...the bottom line is ALL of those things can be over come if the wife was aroused enough BEFORE sex started. 

The trouble is, a lot of wives won't allow themselves to become aroused because of the problems I've mentioned above, and because sex has become a battleground because husbands have been measuring their wives sex drive by the only standard they know, a man's standard. Making their wives feel defective because she doesn't approach sex the way he does." 
_

If men predominantly experience spontaneous desire (SD) and women often experience responsive desire (RD), then this makes men expect their SO do show the same sexual desire for them that they have for their wife and be unhappy when they don't. That if women aren't experiencing SD for their man, then they shouldn't have sex with him. That if a woman doesn't have SD, there's something wrong with her. If both partners don't feel SD for each other, they aren't sexually compatible and should just give up and look for someone else. Men and women might not make the effort to have a mutually satisfying sex life by learning to work with RD.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Nah, I've pretty much hit that wall, FF. Thankfully there are other gatherings of people who don't think the sky is orange.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Nah, I've pretty much hit that wall, FF. Thankfully there are other gatherings of people who don't think the sky is orange.


You have to admit, though, there is a certain level of humor in all of this: The womenz don't like sex. Period. The fact that women cheat means nothing because they don't cheat for sex. It's some other reason. The fact that women can be promiscuous doesn't count because they aren't having sex for sex. Only men have sex for sex, and women are completely different, and that's just the way it is. 

Alrighty then. A cigar is never a cigar. Indeed it *can't* be a cigar because that's just the way life is!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You have to admit, though, there is a certain level of humor in all of this: The womenz don't like sex. Period. The fact that women cheat means nothing because they don't cheat for sex. It's some other reason. The fact that women can be promiscuous doesn't count because they aren't having sex for sex. Only men have sex for sex, and women are completely different, and that's just the way it is.
> 
> Alrighty then. A cigar is never a cigar. Indeed it *can't* be a cigar because that's just the way life is!


Right...but don't forget also, women are hypergamous c*ck carousel riding wh*res if they DO like sex. So they at least give us that tiny percentage of women who are "allowed" to like sex, but they must be shamed and disregarded immediately, to make up for their sin against nature of liking sex.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Methinks neither of you are philosophy majors.

What the collective seems to be questioning is not the existence of said mythical creatures - the existential proof is simple. What the collective seems to be questioning is the propensity of married women in long term monogamous relationships to morph into such roles, as well as the chance that any male married to them and NOT a sexual deity will be bestowed with such , ehem, gift.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm not confused about what is being said here, John. I'm mocking it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not confused about what is being said here, John. I'm mocking it.



Do you think that such sex loving serially monogamous women whose long term partners are average joes are unicorns, rare, common, or typical?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> If men predominantly experience spontaneous desire (SD) and women often experience responsive desire (RD), then this makes men expect their SO do show the same sexual desire for them that they have for their wife and be unhappy when they don't. That if women aren't experiencing SD for their man, then they shouldn't have sex with him. That if a woman doesn't have SD, there's something wrong with her. If both partners don't feel SD for each other, they aren't sexually compatible and should just give up and look for someone else. Men and women might not make the effort to have a mutually satisfying sex life by learning to work with RD.


Many women don't know that RD is normal so they resist getting aroused in order to feel desire. I've read many men say that "she gets into it once we start" Bingo, RD. Along with their wives, many men don't know that RD is normal. If they both knew that desire before arousal, and arousal then desire are both normal patterns of sexuality, they would be in sync. 

Women wouldn't feel that getting in the mood before they feel the same level of desire as their husbands, is not a matter of being forced to have sex against their will. It's simply that they are not like their husbands and its alright. Husbands can help bring their wives out of the cultural shell if they realized that some of the sexual problems are not personal. Their wives are not cold, withholding b!tches but their attitudes are products of culture. 

I think many woman drop out of these discussions or don't bother to participate because so many men reject what we say or try to argue us out of what we know. Many men tell women what they should feel based on their (the man's) relationship experiences. That's just it, if a man has fixed expectations of what women should be in a relationship, then the woman will be exactly what he expects because that's all he is prepared to see.. 

When their wives try to reveal what they really are, he thinks he already knows and cuts off discussion. That's when their wives probably give up and withdraw. Like you Bubba, some men ask why but they already have a ready answer. When they get silence, they don't understand. It's exhausting to explain my experience only to be told I don't know what I know. This is a microcosm of our wider culture. Women are told what they feel sexually and emotionally. When they attempt to say otherwise, they're considered outliers or worse.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> Do you think that such sex loving serially monogamous women whose long term partners are average joes are unicorns, rare, common, or typical?


If the average couple is having sex 2 - 3 times per week, how could it be anything but common? :scratchhead:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's not the type of frequency - or enthusiasm -that one would associate with a woman who "enjoys sex". As you say that's typical and I agree.

Do we slvt shame for typical now? If so we have big problems...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Methinks neither of you are philosophy majors.
> 
> What the collective seems to be questioning is not the existence of said mythical creatures - the existential proof is simple. What the collective seems to be questioning is the propensity of married women in long term monogamous relationships to morph into such roles, as well as the chance that any male married to them and NOT a sexual deity will be bestowed with such , ehem, gift.


Methinks you aren't much a philosophy major either, John. You've given us here ad hominem folllowed directly by straw man, the fallback only of those who really have nothing stronger to argue with. Such basic fallacies should've been drilled out of you by the end of your first year.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> *That's not the type of frequency - or enthusiasm -that one would associate with a woman who "enjoys sex"*. As you say that's typical and I agree.
> 
> Do we slvt shame for typical now? If so we have big problems...


Wha...????

What does this even mean? The typical woman having sex with a regular frequency isn't even enjoying it? 

That to be deemed as "enjoys sex" she must be far above typical women? 

Yes, it appears you are doing a version of sl*t shaming. By seeing women as some sort of yard stick and then no matter what the yard stick reads, it is "wrong" for some reason.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Methinks you aren't much a philosophy major either, John. You've given us here ad hominem folllowed directly by straw man, the fallback only of those who really have nothing stronger to argue with. Such basic fallacies should've been drilled out of you by the end of your first year.



Ad hominems? 

Plonk.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Someone somewhere upstream said something that exemplified reality verses dreams. They opined that one line of evidence that women don't seek sex as much as men is that men commonly have opportunistic affairs with their nanny whereas women don't prey on the pool boy. 

If these men are watching for activity around the pool they are looking in the wrong direction. Pool boys are so last century. Try Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, gaming sites, Forums, the gym or tennis court or work.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Ad hominems?
> 
> Plonk.


Except that in this particular case, reasoning skills were at the very heart of the issue. Is it ad hominem to point out the fallacious reasoning of the previous argument?

Of course, I probably shouldn't have started with the tu quoque. That too is basic fallacy. I just thought that maybe the pot needed a gentle reminder about calling other things black.

I would add, John, that your propensity to belittle the intelligence of others probably doesn"t serve you all that well in the getting laid department. Nothing is more of a turn-off than being looked down on with contempt.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Wha...????
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really?

People set their own yardstick. My or your yardstick are irrelevant. 

It's like a cat show. Tha cat does not compete against other cats as much as it competes with the idealized version of itself. Think about it.

As I said, there's plenty of typical women who enjoy sex enough to do it on a regular basis. I'm happy for them. But take this to the next level to a couple that rolls in the sheets monogamously a bunch of times a week for 20 years or more and you're not in typical category any more. Neither is wrong by anyone's yardstick. Heck, it is a preference, not calculus. 

The right or wrong part comes not from her actions - or lack thereof - but from the impact those actions have on others.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> john117 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that such sex loving serially monogamous women whose long term partners are average joes are unicorns, rare, common, or typical?
> ...


That is not average.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> Why not? I wouldn't presume a woman who wants sex 2-3 times a week doesn't enjoy it.



She does - no doubt about it - but put it in context. 20 years married? Newlywed? New mom? 

Typical is not mutually exclusive with enjoys it. I enjoy cycling but compared to most people in the trail I svck


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Personal said:


> I keep reading that sex ends after 3 years or saying I do, or after the wedding cake, after pregnancy, after a child is born, or after stress or trauma or after teenagers and on and on.
> 
> Yet despite all of that and more, my wife and I are a few months shy of monogamously rolling in the sheets a bunch of times a week for 20 years.
> 
> Still enjoying lots of sex together as we have always done doesn't make us unicorns.


No, because unicorns have a total population of 0, whereas you are probably "only" in the top 5% of married couples.

But that still doesn't make you typical.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Depending on your socioeconomic status you could actually be a unicorn


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> Still enjoying lots of sex together as we have always done doesn't make us unicorns.


My new hypothesis: Misery is vested in being "typical" because misery loves company.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

john117 said:


> Do you think that such sex loving serially monogamous women whose long term partners are average joes are unicorns, rare, common, or typical?


John, I think you'd be amazed at how a group of women will talk about loving sex like locker room guys or a group of teenage boys. 

If society hadn't f-ed it all up for us and told us to hide our sexuality and told men that "you can't wife the wh*re" and not stressed to women how important sexual compatibility is, the same way as they do men, I bet the rate of true LD for men and women would be pretty much equal. 

As soon as you decide that a woman is not as sexual as a man, you've already set her up for failure. You've decided that sex is more important to you than it is for her and then you end up treating her sexuality differently. 

If you look at, for example, one sided orgasms - oral, quickies, etc.
The % of men who get them vs. the % of women who do or numbers about orgasms in general,last I checked lesbian women have the most orgasm per session rate going. 

So- treat women as sexual as you are, they will be more comfortable being as sexual as you are. Treat women who like sex as "unicorns" and you end up with women not opening up and not asking for what they want and not marrying men who please them sexually.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

No disagreement assuming you have defined your target demographics properly.

If you're in your 20's or 30's I have no doubt. Yet move up the age ladder and you'll find things may not be as forthcoming. 

This is heavily dependent on socioeconomic status and location as well. If you live in the more enlightened parts of the country vs here in Middle Earth for example.

Lots of sex is like lots of cycling. One admires not only the stamina and dedication and availability of a good partner or trail or what have you and all the good stuff but also the time and energy. I don't doubt such unicorns exist any more than I doubt my buddy Chuck does. I worked with him and knew he was a cycling fan but when I saw the numbers he posted on Strava.... It was like... Impossible. But he has a stable defense job now and kids still in the house and a non whining wife . So he can hit the trail 3 hours a day. To me the availability of time and energy says more than anything else. Same with sex or anything else.

Is Chuck typical? Not in my book.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> John, I think you'd be amazed at how a group of women will talk about loving sex like locker room guys or a group of teenage boys.
> 
> If society hadn't f-ed it all up for us and told us to hide our sexuality and told men that "you can't wife the wh*re" and not stressed to women how important sexual compatibility is, the same way as they do men, I bet the rate of true LD for men and women would be pretty much equal.
> 
> ...


Exactly. It is like society trains women from little girls to dislike how their bodies mature, once we start our menstrual cycles we are told to hide it and given the speech about how sex can ruin our lives because we can become pregnant. Controlling female sexuality serves society at large because women are kept in their place. They don't want them to like sex because then women will prioritize sexual compatibility over all else, such as economic support. Women are already becoming more economically independent with every generation. The theory of women disliking sex and being low libido keeps the power out of our hands.

Most men seem to be invested in this theory, and unless they experience highly sexual women they cling to this theory with both hands. They need to have a reason why they were denied these experiences, and some tend to dislike other men who say that they enjoyed the company of highly sexual women. They want to make them the unicorns so they can feel better about themselves, and quiet that nagging voice in their head that echoes " why not me?"


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

techmom said:


> Exactly. It is like society trains women from little girls to dislike how their bodies mature, once we start our menstrual cycles we are told to hide it and given the speech about how sex can ruin our lives because we can become pregnant. Controlling female sexuality serves society at large because women are kept in their place. They don't want them to like sex because then women will prioritize sexual compatibility over all else, such as economic support. Women are already becoming more economically independent with every generation. The theory of women disliking sex and being low libido keeps the power out of our hands.
> 
> Most men seem to be invested in this theory, and unless they experience highly sexual women they cling to this theory with both hands. They need to have a reason why they were denied these experiences, and some tend to dislike other men who say that they enjoyed the company of highly sexual women. They want to make them the unicorns so they can feel better about themselves, and quiet that nagging voice in their head that echoes " why not me?"


Of course the (often-denigrated) red-pill theory states that female sexuality is powerful, not non-existent. It's just more selective in its targets than male sexuality, being focused primarily on the men who are most attractive to women rather than being diffused across most of the opposite sex as it is with men.

While it might seem "fair and balanced" to let women follow this instinct, the social results are terrible, as many men are then excluded from the possibility of regular sex through their early working years, which makes them uninterested in working hard and making themselves suitable providers. It's a lot easier to stay home and play video games and use porn, so why bother chasing women?

Of course the feminist answer to this problem is "Who needs them? Women can do everything without men." However, this is far from accurate. The maintenance (let alone the advance) of civilization depends on jobs that are overwhelmingly performed by men. The vast majority of women aren't interested in those jobs, because they are dangerous, filthy, or require skills that are very rare in women, such as engineering. So without men having the incentive to do them, civilization will decay and eventually collapse.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Of course the (often-denigrated) red-pill theory states that female sexuality is powerful, not non-existent. It's just more selective in its targets than male sexuality, being focused primarily on the men who are most attractive to women rather than being diffused across most of the opposite sex as it is with men.
> 
> While it might seem "fair and balanced" to let women follow this instinct, the social results are terrible, as many men are then excluded from the possibility of regular sex through their early working years, which makes them uninterested in working hard and making themselves suitable providers. It's a lot easier to stay home and play video games and use porn, so why bother chasing women?
> 
> Of course the feminist answer to this problem is "Who needs them? Women can do everything without men." However, this is far from accurate. The maintenance (let alone the advance) of civilization depends on jobs that are overwhelmingly performed by men. The vast majority of women aren't interested in those jobs, because they are dangerous, filthy, or require skills that are very rare in women, such as engineering. So without men having the incentive to do them, civilization will decay and eventually collapse.


You quoted my post but completely missed my point. That's ok, because I see that you are stuck in your tunnel vision :wink2:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

john117 said:


> No disagreement assuming you have defined your target demographics properly.
> 
> If you're in your 20's or 30's I have no doubt. Yet move up the age ladder and you'll find things may not be as forthcoming.
> 
> ...


Yes, most of my peer group is 30-40 but women I've spoken to in the 50,60+ age range just describe it as even better. More confident, better communication skills. 
One talked about how she use to be self-conscious about her body but now that she's older and things are flapping around like a dog with it's head out the car window, she feels more free and gives less of a f*ck than she ever did. That = better sex, more often. I've known as many dirty old ladies as I have dirty old men. Amazing considering the generation restrictions they came from. 

Geographical issues often = religion which can contribute to the shaming of sexuality. 
Socioeconomic- take out the couple who married for money instead of love and desire and I doubt there would be a difference. 

It's not like cycling. You're just choosing to ignore all the women who say that they do like and want sex because they don't fit into your theory.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

technovelist said:


> Of course the feminist answer to this problem is "Who needs them? Women can do everything without men." However, this is far from accurate. The maintenance (let alone the advance) of civilization depends on jobs that are overwhelmingly performed by men. The vast majority of women aren't interested in those jobs, because they are dangerous, filthy, or require skills that are very rare in women, such as engineering. So without men having the incentive to do them, civilization will decay and eventually collapse.


Huh? I thought the main reason for women not being interested in those jobs was sexism. If you tell women over and over from a young age that girls are no good at engineering, then no, they won't be as interested. And if women interested in 'male' fields do try to break into them but are met with unwelcoming sexist attitudes by the men, then they will quickly lose interest.

If men stopped doing the 'male' jobs, for whatever reason, then I'm sure women would start up in droves because things need doing. Civilization would not collapse.

Society still does not allow women to enjoy 'male jobs' just as it still does not allow women to enjoy sex. There's probably a link.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Society can do without men who feel like they will never experience enthusiastic sex with women unless they are in the 20% of lucky alpha men, because they tend to develop a dangerous mindset.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Huh? I thought the main reason for women not being interested in those jobs was sexism. If you tell women over and over from a young age that girls are no good at engineering, then no, they won't be as interested. And if women interested in 'male' fields do try to break into them but are met with unwelcoming sexist attitudes by the men, then they will quickly lose interest.
> 
> If men stopped doing the 'male' jobs, for whatever reason, then I'm sure women would start up in droves because things need doing. Civilization would not collapse.
> 
> Society still does not allow women to enjoy 'male jobs' just as it still does not allow women to enjoy sex. There's probably a link.


The theory of most men who have a deprivation mindset regarding sexual relationships goes like this; if a woman is dependent on me to provide for her then it is more likely she will have sex with me so I can continue to provide. Since I don't have anything else to attract her to me I will just use this thing (economic security) to get her to want me. A man who lives in this mindset hates "alpha" men with a passion because they are a threat. This man thinks that once women become economically independent and start to look for more satisfying sexual encounters, they will leave him and seek the "alpha" men.

This is why feminism and HD women are a threat, they threaten to deprive these men of the sex they feel they deserve. This is why we see such a backlash against HD women and feminists on these boards. They hate them more than the LD women. They cling to the red pill theories because it comforts them, it gives them an "us vs. them" mindset. So they can quiet their insecurities by thinking they have 80% of men who go through the same thing.

It is a sad existence .


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> While it might seem "fair and balanced" to let women follow this instinct, the social results are terrible, as many men are then excluded from the possibility of regular sex through their early working years, which makes them uninterested in working hard and making themselves suitable providers. It's a lot easier to stay home and play video games and use porn, so why bother chasing women?
> 
> Of course the feminist answer to this problem is "Who needs them? Women can do everything without men."


Actually the feminist response is not to say that women don't need men, but to question this idea that we need to control women's sexuality in order to save civilization. I mean, really? Whatever we do, don't let women express their sexuality or society as we know it will crumble?

Yikes!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

techmom said:


> Most men seem to be invested in this theory, and unless they experience highly sexual women they cling to this theory with both hands. They need to have a reason why they were denied these experiences, and some tend to dislike other men who say that they enjoyed the company of highly sexual women. They want to make them the unicorns so they can feel better about themselves, and quiet that nagging voice in their head that echoes " why not me?"


Exactly.

My husband has no idea I have these types of conversations on the internet. But he wouldn't understand it anyway, because he has no idea how deeply held the idea is by some men that women aren't as sexual as they are. He knows the running sit-com gag about headaches, etc, but he thinks this is just a pop culture thing. He doesn't think it is true.

Hearing him talk about women you would think women are *more* sexual than men are on average. He has only been with highly sexual women, and many others have chased him for sex.

He isn't out there doing anything special to attract these women. The reason he is attracting them is because he is highly sexual himself. Highly sexual people can "see" each other, and naturally gravitate to each other. It is not always about physical attraction, it is about sexual compatibility. Not all highly sexual people have this ability nailed down, but most of them could if they put some intention into practicing it.

Then there are people who are very sexual even if not as highly sexual...and by "people" of course I don't just mean men. These people still tend to gravitate toward each other.

And then there are people who are less sexual than others. If they are self aware and good at picking a compatible person, they will still have a happy, good sex life because the sex will be good even if not as frequent or freaky or whatever.

When two highly sexual people find each other and gravitate toward each other, others on the sidelines may mistake this for the guy being a bad boy or the girl being a sl*t or both. Of course guys who are jealous will hate the "lucky bastard" for this ability and will soothe themselves by saying "I wouldn't want to be with a sl*t like her anyway", even though it is clear that they would love it.

Instead of just seeing this phenomenon for the MUTUAL attraction that is actually occurring, they have to get their shame guns out and spray everyone involved with it. And this sh*tty attitude about the sex other people are having is exactly what makes that person as far away from getting themselves as possible.

There are men who just aren't as sexual as other men. These men don't understand what the missing piece is. They just want women to flock to them, so they try to find men like this "unicorn guy" to emulate. They ALWAYS get it wrong. They focus on the wrong things. The best they can do is attract women who have major issues and try to dupe them with stupid tactics like negging. What they don't get is that they actually have to be more sexual, and they have no idea what this means.

Men think that just because they "want sex" and they want women to want to have sex with them, that this alone makes them highly sexual, but it doesn't. A true highly sexual man doesn't feel this way. He doesn't have angst about sex. He doesn't view it from lack or scarcity. And he doesn't hate the same women he wants to have sex with, or hold their sexuality against them. He sees women as just as sexual as men are, because it is TRUE and he has seen it for himself.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

techmom said:


> Society can do without men who feel like they will never experience enthusiastic sex with women unless they are in the 20% of lucky alpha men, because they tend to develop a dangerous mindset.



I will make sure to exclude myself from the gene pool at the first opportunity...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes, most of my peer group is 30-40 but women I've spoken to in the 50,60+ age range just describe it as even better. More confident, better communication skills.
> 
> One talked about how she use to be self-conscious about her body but now that she's older and things are flapping around like a dog with it's head out the car window, she feels more free and gives less of a f*ck than she ever did. That = better sex, more often. I've known as many dirty old ladies as I have dirty old men. Amazing considering the generation restrictions they came from.
> 
> ...



I sense a lot of bias here... Regardless, you seem to ignore a few of the required ingredients for an enthusiastic sex life at, say, 45 or 50 and beyond.

Details like money, work, health, family, time, and energy. 

Just like cycling.

Step out of a self selecting sample of the population and you'll see what I'm referring to. 

It's like me saying that just because I have a six figure income and the wife does too and most of my friends, then everyone does. 

Except I don't think this way. I count my blessings that i make what I make with a liberal arts degree or three and never for a moment believe it's common. 

Ironically my wife thinks everyone lives like us, etc etc and that we are typical.

Surely


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Techmom,

I think we all see a lot of jealousy and resentment regarding people's sex lives. I DEFINITELY see a lot of inappropriate hostility directed at LD posters. 

But I haven't seen that type of hostility directed at HD women. 

Do you think the 'board' is unfriendly to HD women? 

I only ask because IME, TAM is pretty supportive of women who open threads to discuss their frustrations with a LD husband.






techmom said:


> The theory of most men who have a deprivation mindset regarding sexual relationships goes like this; if a woman is dependent on me to provide for her then it is more likely she will have sex with me so I can continue to provide. Since I don't have anything else to attract her to me I will just use this thing (economic security) to get her to want me. A man who lives in this mindset hates "alpha" men with a passion because they are a threat. This man thinks that once women become economically independent and start to look for more satisfying sexual encounters, they will leave him and seek the "alpha" men.
> 
> This is why feminism and HD women are a threat, they threaten to deprive these men of the sex they feel they deserve. This is why we see such a backlash against HD women and feminists on these boards. They hate them more than the LD women. They cling to the red pill theories because it comforts them, it gives them an "us vs. them" mindset. So they can quiet their insecurities by thinking they have 80% of men who go through the same thing.
> 
> It is a sad existence .


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hostility? Resentment? :lol: galore...

Holy Cow Batman, I find it difficult to believe Chuck is on the trail 3 hours a day. But unlike sex, Strava is not lying. I can barely do 12.5 mph on a particularly tough segment and Chuck clocks at 25.0. 

It's physically impossible, he's like 5 ft 7 maybe 150 lb, 50 something. I can't do 25 with a freaking motorcycle . But I respect Chuck for what he represents. 

Same with the more active members of the TAM peanut gallery.

We all have attributes we are admired for, be it our physique, career success, or bedroom prowess. But it's a far stretch to make resentment or jealousy out of it 

Personally speaking of course.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> 
> I think we all see a lot of jealousy and resentment regarding people's sex lives. I DEFINITELY see a lot of inappropriate hostility directed at LD posters.
> 
> ...


Telling a woman that she's a unicorn for being highly sexual is dismissing her experiences. We don't do this to men who say that they are highly sexual, we just assume that it is true. Faithful Wife and Always alone have stated through countless posts that irl they know many women who are highly sexual, only to have their posts explained away by men with LD wives who seem to wish that all women were more like them so they can all share in the suffering of sexless marriages. They don't want to see any other viewpoints.

I see this as hostility, why can't the majority of men on these boards accept that women are just as sexual as them. This thread is a perfect example, certain posters tend to constantly debate that women are not as sexual as men. Which I see as a self fulfilling prophecy, these men tend to attract women who hide their sexuality and don't want to be sexual. Don't know why they want this reality for themselves, so this is why I posted what I did.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Society tends to cater to men's sexuality through porn ,strip clubs and every other media. Women's sexuality is rarely spoken of unless it is involving pregnancy or childbirth. Worse yet, women's sexuality is only used to service men (bikini contests, reality shows, music videos). Or it is used to make men buy stuff. It is never seen as a attribute to be praised as men's sexuality is seen. Only in recent years has the female orgasm been fully explored, not just as a vehicle for pleasing men (PIV) but as a way for her to receive more pleasure just for the sake of it. What woman would want to have sex in this climate?

And despite all of this negative conditioning you still have women who love sex. And who love men and sex. Saying this, it would seem that women have to overcome way more mental and emotional obstacles to become HD. I would love to see the results if the gender training was switched...


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

As a LD wife of a HD man, who I believe married me just because my previous partner count was zero, I would desire more sex. My hubby believes that women who put out more are s!uts, and I don't like the way he degrades female sexuality. So, I don't feel sexual with him because I feel judged and critiqued. He wonders why my desire is in the toilet, yet he does more of the same.

Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Have you expressed these opinions to him, @techmom? What has he said? Or if you haven't, why not?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

techmom said:


> As a LD wife of a HD man, who I believe married me just because my previous partner count was zero, I would desire more sex. My hubby believes that women who put out more are s!uts, and I don't like the way he degrades female sexuality. So, I don't feel sexual with him because I feel judged and critiqued. He wonders why my desire is in the toilet, yet he does more of the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results...



Yet you're still together.

Why?


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> Have you expressed these opinions to him, @techmom? What has he said? Or if you haven't, why not?


We had this conversation numerous times, he sees nothing wrong with his viewpoints. It was how he was raised to believe, you have fun with the s!uts then settle down with the "good girl". This is why I am becoming adamant in debating these long held beliefs, because it harms marriages.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

john117 said:


> Yet you're still together.
> 
> Why?


I am used to what I know, just like everyone else who stays...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> While it might seem "fair and balanced" to let women follow this instinct, the social results are terrible, as many men are then excluded from the possibility of regular sex through their early working years, which makes them uninterested in working hard and making themselves suitable providers. It's a lot easier to stay home and play video games and use porn, so why bother chasing women?


As has been done for all of time apparently, women get blamed for men's bad choices and behavior.

"The possibility of regular sex through their early working years" is not anyone's right or entitlement. Anyone who thinks it is, deserves to not have regular sex during any time in their life.

For people who understand that sex happens naturally between people who are mutually wanting it, and that this is a good and fair and desirable, they tend to have regular sex during most times in their lives.

Once you feel entitled to regular sex, you are already off the playing field altogether. NO ONE will want to be with that. It is their own damn fault.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> As has been done for all of time apparently, women get blamed for men's bad choices and behavior.



And vice versa.

Welcome to humanity.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

techmom said:


> And despite all of this negative conditioning you still have women who love sex. And who love men and sex. Saying this, it would seem that women have to overcome way more mental and emotional obstacles to become HD. I would love to see the results if the gender training was switched...


I would, too.

If we regularly shamed young boys for any type of sexual curiosity or expression, it would stunt their sexual development. 

If we regularly applauded young girls for sexual curiosity by catering to all women constantly with images and movies targeted to make them horny specifically, and if moms and aunts slide the young girls a boy candy magazine under the table now and then with an understanding of how nice it is to feel that sexual buzz during adolescence...then those young girls would grow up feeling more sexual and more able to express their natural desires.

But society as yet doesn't WANT young girls and women to have those feelings. Even though society openly encourages it in boys and young men. We still don't want to think that this would be normal and natural for girls, so we go out of our way to stunt the process, typically by using shame but also by not normalizing candy for the female gaze.

For anyone who can't see this happening and can't see why it skews everyone's perceptions and creates the gender war that we see today, I can only say that you are at a disadvantage and will never see the bright, sunny, natural and non-shamed side of sexual behavior. You will just see that fake world of catering to and bolstering men's sexuality while extinguishing women's and sadly, you will think this is reality. That's why you are at a disadvantage.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> 
> I think we all see a lot of jealousy and resentment regarding people's sex lives. I DEFINITELY see a lot of inappropriate hostility directed at LD posters.
> 
> ...


This wasn't directed at me, and techmom already answered, but I just wanted to chime in with my two cents.

IMHO there is little room or support for HD women here. There is a prevailing attitude as to what women are and should be (responsive, submissive), and if you don't fit that mold, then you are dismissed as an outlier, and your experience not worth even considering.

I joined this thread because I identified with the question: If sex with me is good (which it supposedly is), why not want more of it?

But somehow the question is still analyzed as just more "proof" that women are so very different from men because they don't want sex as much.

WTF? :scratchhead: Never mind the woman on here claiming the same sorts of issues, she's a unicorn and her problem is easily fixed --no matter how many threads with HD women complaining about LD men are opened.

And while it's true that HD women are treated generally better than LD women (not difficult!), the advice for them is usually along the lines of either she is not playing to male fantasy sufficiently well or else he needs Viagra. There is no acknowledgment, really, of LD men, and they are instantly dismissed as "broken", and ultimately also as rare as unicorns. 

IMHO, there is a huge double-standard in the advice given here grounded in some very unhelpful stereotypes as to what women are and what men are. And anyone who doesn't fit that mold is unlikely to get much in the way of help or support here.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> And while it's true that HD women are treated generally better than LD women (not difficult!), the advice for them is usually along the lines of either she is not playing to male fantasy sufficiently well or else he needs Viagra. There is no acknowledgment, really, of LD men, and they are instantly dismissed as "broken", and ultimately also as rare as unicorns.


So true. Mem, you mentioned that people are generally supportive of women who open HD woman/LD man threads. Well, people may be supportive, but they do so coming from the position that there is something drastically wrong with this LD man or with the way the HD woman is trying to get her needs met. Every. Single. Time. This is not supportive really, it is actually just serving to perpetuate the stereo types. Which makes it very difficult for an LD man or an HD woman to be seen as "in the normal range" and soon enough, they stop even trying to be seen as normal.

But they ARE normal and mismatched sexual relationships happen all the time...but around here if the mismatch doesn't happen in the configuration of HD man/LD woman, it is immediately dismissed. Even while being supportive, people are also dismissive.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Techmom,

That's very sad. I can't imagine living with a spouse who - is so negative and judgmental about female sexuality - and doesn't grasp what a huge turnoff that is. 

I do think there are plenty of folks who believe men have an inherently higher drive even after factoring in social / psychological factors. 

And I don't understand why that belief is seen as inherently antagonistic. 

Let me make a gentle observation. I give little weight to statements that begin with: 
'most of MY friends' followed by some generalization. 

And I'll tell you why. In the normal course of posting I would NEVER say - and I could say it hand on the bible 100% truthfully - NONE of my friends hits their wives. 

It's a totally true statement. You aren't dismissing ME by saying it doesn't apply to society at large. You are simply disagreeing with the idea that my friends reflect a representative sample of the US or the US plus Europe. 

I do believe that hormone (especially testosterone) levels have a powerful impact on behavior. 

I believe that if you have two groups with signifcantly different T levels, all other things being equal, the higher T group will have greater desires to (physically) fight and to fvck. 







techmom said:


> As a LD wife of a HD man, who I believe married me just because my previous partner count was zero, I would desire more sex. My hubby believes that women who put out more are s!uts, and I don't like the way he degrades female sexuality. So, I don't feel sexual with him because I feel judged and critiqued. He wonders why my desire is in the toilet, yet he does more of the same.
> 
> Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I don't recall anyone dismissing TCW's lengthy thread or those of many other female non LD posters with LD men... 

Maybe I'm not using my Female Secret Decoder Ring properly,?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Society still does not allow women to enjoy 'male jobs'


Is every situation where the ratio of men to women is not 50/50 the result of sexism? Is the over representation of women in college a result of sexism? Is the overwhelming representation of women in elementary education a result of sexism? Is it inconceivable that men and women could have differences in the kind of job they choose?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> If we regularly applauded young girls for sexual curiosity by catering to all women constantly with images and movies targeted to make them horny specifically, and if moms and aunts slide the young girls a boy candy magazine under the table now and then with an understanding of how nice it is to feel that sexual buzz during adolescence...then those young girls would grow up feeling more sexual and more able to express their natural desires.


Do you feel that there is a great demand for "boy candy" magazines, male nudity on TV and movies and female oriented porn? (there is female oriented porn content, but it's a niche market) If so, why wouldn't there be more of it? Is it because there is a male conspiracy to control women's sexuality? Do you think that this conspiracy is so powerful that entrepreneurs are passing up the opportunity to make millions of dollars? Why couldn't a woman owned production company start an HBO-like channel or make movies featuring male nudity? I think it's because the demand isn't there. If you disagree, here's your chance to help society and get rich at the same time (and if you don't want to be rich, you can give it all away to worthy charities).


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> 
> That's very sad. I can't imagine living with a spouse who - is so negative and judgmental about female sexuality - and doesn't grasp what a huge turnoff that is.
> 
> ...


I'm going to say this, most women discuss sex, even the LD women. Men need to come to this conclusion, you don't corner the market on being sexual. Many women, if they are given the chance , will be sexual. Society seems to prefer to keep women in this little box, so we won't intimidate men. Believe it or not, most men find female sexuality threatening, and many women experience this. And, no we don't have the almighty testosterone to aid us, and we experience hormonal changes throughout our lives (childbirth and menopause). But we do desire sex and do not deserve to be s!ut shamed from little to suppress it.

We just need a safe space and we will be all that we can be.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

techmom said:


> We had this conversation numerous times, he sees nothing wrong with his viewpoints. It was how he was raised to believe, *you have fun with the s!uts then settle down with the "good girl". *This is why I am becoming adamant in debating these long held beliefs, because it harms marriages.


This a stupid policy to follow in the first place. Its even dumber if you expect the virginal "good girl" to like sex as much as the slvts.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

technovelist said:


> While it might seem "fair and balanced" to let women follow this instinct, the social results are terrible, as many men are then excluded from the possibility of regular sex through their early working years, which makes them uninterested in working hard and making themselves suitable providers. It's a lot easier to stay home and play video games and use porn, so why bother chasing women?
> 
> Of course the feminist answer to this problem is "Who needs them? Women can do everything without men." However, this is far from accurate. The maintenance (let alone the advance) of civilization depends on jobs that are overwhelmingly performed by men. The vast majority of women aren't interested in those jobs, because they are dangerous, filthy, or require skills that are very rare in women, such as engineering. So without men having the incentive to do them, civilization will decay and eventually collapse.


I do largely agree with the 20% theory. But, you're talking about "letting" women follow their instinct. Well, who exactly is going to "let" them? Last I knew it was a woman's decision to determine who she wants to have sex with.

And if civilization is going to collapse if they do "follow this instinct", then it's just going to have to collapse.

The days where men are "the provider" are pretty much over (especially among the lower income classes). They can't be brought back even if we wanted them back.

I do think that women instinctually are drawn to men that have the capacity to provide even though they no longer depend upon men to provide for them. That's going to take a while for both men and women to adjust to (and I think it's going to be painful).

If women are only sexually attracted to the top 20% and freely have sex with men they are attracted to (nothing wrong with that), then they're going to have a hard time getting men to commit (to the extent that they still want that and I think they still do). Those men won't need to commit and the men that are willing won't have anybody to commit to. So, something's gonna have to change.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

techmom said:


> The theory of most men who have a deprivation mindset regarding sexual relationships goes like this; if a woman is dependent on me to provide for her then it is more likely she will have sex with me so I can continue to provide. Since I don't have anything else to attract her to me I will just use this thing (economic security) to get her to want me.


I think that's pretty much how it used to work.

Not anymore.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Is every situation where the ratio of men to women is not 50/50 the result of sexism? Is the over representation of women in college a result of sexism? Is the overwhelming representation of women in elementary education a result of sexism? Is it inconceivable that men and women could have differences in the kind of job they choose?


I don't expect everything to be perfectly 50-50, because there ARE differences. It is sexism that exaggerates those differences to the point that you can claim a certain job is a 'male' one. But if the 'natural' level of interest in a given profession was, say, 33-67, it is sexism that currently holds it to 5-95 in favour of men.



Buddy400 said:


> Do you feel that there is a great demand for "boy candy" magazines, male nudity on TV and movies and female oriented porn? (there is female oriented porn content, but it's a niche market) If so, why wouldn't there be more of it? Is it because there is a male conspiracy to control women's sexuality? Do you think that this conspiracy is so powerful that entrepreneurs are passing up the opportunity to make millions of dollars? Why couldn't a woman owned production company start an HBO-like channel or make movies featuring male nudity? I think it's because the demand isn't there. If you disagree, here's your chance to help society and get rich at the same time (and if you don't want to be rich, you can give it all away to worthy charities).


Women's pornography and men's is completely different. Again, those differences you are insisting on are present, but you are not acknowledging them? You can't just replace the naked women with naked men and expect it to work the same for women.

Men are typically more visually stimulated than women, which is why pornography aimed at men is a video industry.

Women are, generally, more imaginatively and responsively stimulated. Pornography aimed towards women is less visual and more imaginative. Hence, romance novels and erotica. And yes, that 50 Shades person made a bundle.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

techmom said:


> Only in recent years has the female orgasm been fully explored, not just as a vehicle for pleasing men (PIV) but as a way for her to receive more pleasure just for the sake of it. What woman would want to have sex in this climate?


Given the oft quoted statistic that only 25%-30% of women have orgasms via PIV, the probable lack of oral sex in the time before daily baths were common, the lack of birth control, no ability to safely terminate a pregnancy and the belief that women didn't usually enjoy sex (because many of them probably didn't) ; I'd imagine that a lot more women would want to have sex in the current climate than in the past.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> It's exhausting to explain my experience only to be told I don't know what I know. This is a microcosm of our wider culture. Women are told what they feel sexually and emotionally. When they attempt to say otherwise, they're considered outliers or worse.


I would never tell anyone that their experiences aren't valid. I may argue about what's typical, but I would never argue that everyone was typical, that everyone should be typical or that there is something wrong with not being typical.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Women's pornography and men's is completely different. Again, those differences you are insisting on are present, but you are not acknowledging them? You can't just replace the naked women with naked men and expect it to work the same for women.
> 
> Men are typically more visually stimulated than women, which is why pornography aimed at men is a video industry.
> 
> Women are, generally, more imaginatively and responsively stimulated. Pornography aimed towards women is less visual and more imaginative. Hence, romance novels and erotica. And yes, that 50 Shades person made a bundle.


I DO believe that there are differences and I DO acknowledge them. That was a reply to FW, who seemed to believe that women wanted (or needed) these things (or, at least, something that they're not getting now).


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's only wrong when someone else is impacted regardless of whether the behavior is typical or not.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Society ...still does not allow women to enjoy sex.





Faithful Wife said:


> If we regularly shamed young boys for any type of sexual curiosity or expression, it would stunt their sexual development........But society as yet doesn't WANT young girls and women to have those feelings.





techmom said:


> Controlling female sexuality serves society at large because women are kept in their place. They don't want them to like sex because then women will prioritize sexual compatibility over all else, such as economic support. Women are already becoming more economically independent with every generation. The theory of women disliking sex and being low libido keeps the power out of our hands.





Faithful Wife said:


> Right...but don't forget also, women are hypergamous c*ck carousel riding wh*res if they DO like sex. So they at least give us that tiny percentage of women who are "allowed" to like sex, but they must be shamed and disregarded immediately, to make up for their sin against nature of liking sex.


I can't for the life of me see where this idea that "women are taught by society that they shouldn't like sex" comes from.

I'll believe that many women *used* to be taught that women don't like sex (the prior to the wedding discussions when mother's told their daughters about their "wifely duties". I can believe that some men *used* to think that there was something morally wrong with women that liked sex (because "good girls" don't).

But I don't think this has been the situation for the last 50 years (especially the last 20). I checked with my feminist. liberal 21 year-old daughter. Her impression is that women are being taught that there's something wrong with them if they *don'*t like sex or if they don't have casual sex.

She agrees that some women are taught that they shouldn't have sex outside of marriage (or at least an LTR), but not that they shouldn't like sex at all.

The disagreements on this site are about whether or not women want sex as much as men, if they are pickier about sex than men, if they have more responsive desire than men, if there is something wrong with women having too many partners, if men have a problem with a woman having too many partners; but I've never seen anyone claim that women shouldn't like sex. I see men that thnk that their wife should want sex or wondering why they don't want sex. I've seen plenty of men that are troubled because their wives don't seem to want sex in exactly the same way that they want sex. But I've never seen a man here that was upset because his wife or girlfriend enjoys sex (unless an LD man has posted).


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I am 30 and I have been taught that in many different ways. No one ever sat me down and told me outright to hide my sexuality. It's little experiences throughout your life and yes, girls are now pulled in both directions. Pressure to be sexual and then shamed for it.

You don't even have to look further than TAM for it. I could probably find 10 threads that sl*t shamed women, told women they weren't as sexual as men, told women their sexual needs didn't matter as much as a mans, talked about not marrying a wh*re but to go ahead and sleep with her, blasted a woman's sexual past, told a woman her sexuality was owed to her husband and everything she's done in the past she must now perform for him, etc..... 

If you think we don't hear those messages our whole lives, you're wrong.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

If you're comparing anonymous discourse in TAM with real life discussions I have some prime ocean front property for sale near Paducah...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You don't even have to look further than TAM for it. I could probably find 10 threads that sl*t shamed women, told women they weren't as sexual as men, told women their sexual needs didn't matter as much as a mans, talked about not marrying a wh*re but to go ahead and sleep with her, blasted a woman's sexual past, told a woman her sexuality was owed to her husband and everything she's done in the past she must now perform for him, etc.....


I'm confused. How do any of the above equal "not liking sex"?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Techmom,
I hope you don't think I am poking you, as that isn't my intent. As it does feel to me like we are gradually moving to a society that is generally more 'sex positive' for both genders. 

If that slow but positive shift isn't also happening inside T2's brain, well that kind of sucks. Let's hope for an epiphany. 

As for AA and TCW - having followed along fairly closely with their situations - it felt to me that they are getting the same general feedback a man does when he shows up on TAM with similar issues. 

Last but not least I have never gotten the impression from any of the fellows posting on this thread that they are anything but happy to read about, post with and/or encounter women who like sex. 

















techmom said:


> I'm going to say this, most women discuss sex, even the LD women. Men need to come to this conclusion, you don't corner the market on being sexual. Many women, if they are given the chance , will be sexual. Society seems to prefer to keep women in this little box, so we won't intimidate men. Believe it or not, most men find female sexuality threatening, and many women experience this. And, no we don't have the almighty testosterone to aid us, and we experience hormonal changes throughout our lives (childbirth and menopause). But we do desire sex and do not deserve to be s!ut shamed from little to suppress it.
> 
> We just need a safe space and we will be all that we can be.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

I agree with the post below, that said it is incomplete in an important way.

There are still some number - hopefully a shrinking number - of guys who are HYPER FIXATED on the number of partners a woman has had. 

I've never met a woman who thinks like that. 

And along with that hyper fixation is a lot of other odd sex related baggage. Often stuff like: we'd all still live in paradise it wasn't for Eve tempting Adam and ruining everything....





Buddy400 said:


> I can't for the life of me see where this idea that "women are taught by society that they shouldn't like sex" comes from.
> 
> I'll believe that many women *used* to be taught that women don't like sex (the prior to the wedding discussions when mother's told their daughters about their "wifely duties". I can believe that some men *used* to think that there was something morally wrong with women that liked sex (because "good girls" don't).
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> I don't recall anyone dismissing TCW's lengthy thread or those of many other female non LD posters with LD men...
> 
> Maybe I'm not using my Female Secret Decoder Ring properly,?


Every time she starts posting again, someone new (or old) comes on to tell her that he MUST be gay or else wanking it constantly when she's not around, because there is no possible way he could just be LD. Then they ask if she is hideous or fat.

This has happened so many times she is used to it by now.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I am 30 and I have been taught that in many different ways. *No one ever sat me down and told me outright to hide my sexuality*. It's little experiences throughout your life and yes, girls are now pulled in both directions. Pressure to be sexual and then shamed for it.
> 
> If you think we don't hear those messages our whole lives, you're wrong.


I learned to hide mine because the responses I got when I was being curious or acting on my natural impulses very CLEARLY made me understand that my sexuality was NOT free to be expressed.

I did not have too many harsh shaming messages, but of the ones I did have, I knew these people were wrong...but my response was to take my sexuality more underground, hide it, and control it. I knew the shamer just "didn't understand because they are old" (that was how my young mind judged them) but I also knew the elders around me were not about to accept any sexual expression from me without squawking.

Then later, I learned that not all men invite sexual expression, either. Conflicting information abounds. They say they want you to be outwardly sexual, but they don't actually. Only the men who are truly ok with a woman's sexuality want you to be a sexual person. The rest of the men only want it if they can control it and tell themselves it is special, only for them. If it isn't, they don't want it and reject it.

Meanwhile, the same guys will talk on and on about how they'd "do it with any willing woman" and yet if a woman really would do it with any willing man, those men would run a mile in the opposite direction.

There are hundreds of more examples...it happens daily in my life in one way or another.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> I'm confused. How do any of the above equal "not liking sex"?


It's all part of the "women are taught by society that they _shouldn't _like sex". Because we get shamed, thought of as unworthy, or made to feel bad about our pasts or feel different if we do enjoy and have sex. 

And it's not just women who get pressure and generalizations. Men can get looked down on if they _don't_ want or enjoy sex which makes many of them not open to discuss their own LD or sexual problems. Men can feel embarrassed if they are a virgin too long, etc. 

Neither of these societal pressures are good for creating healthy sex lives for couples.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Lost in translation*

Buddy,
The post below makes a critical distinction which seems to be getting lost in translation. 




Buddy400 said:


> I would never tell anyone that their experiences aren't valid. I may argue about what's typical, but I would never argue that everyone was typical, that everyone should be typical or that there is something wrong with not being typical.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Do you feel that there is a great demand for "boy candy" magazines, male nudity on TV and movies and female oriented porn? (*there is female oriented porn content, but it's a niche market*) If so, why wouldn't there be more of it? Is it because there is a male conspiracy to control women's sexuality? Do you think that this conspiracy is so powerful that entrepreneurs are passing up the opportunity to make millions of dollars? Why couldn't a woman owned production company start an HBO-like channel or make movies featuring male nudity? I think it's because the demand isn't there. If you disagree, here's your chance to help society and get rich at the same time (and if you don't want to be rich, you can give it all away to worthy charities).


:rofl:

A "niche" market....oh, that's a good one.

You haven't kept up on the porn market much, have you?


Over half of women regularly watch porn (and a daring 40% admit to making their own) | Daily Mail Online

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1041...-tumblr-for-porn-because-gifs-can-be-sexy-too

Bustle

In Toronto with the world?s feminist pornographers - BBC News

What Candida Royalle, The Godmother of Feminist Porn, Taught Us About Sex - Mic

http://www.thecsph.org/the-csph-res...sure/sex-positive-and-feminist-friendly-porn/

For straight up man candy pics:

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/guys/

http://izismile.com/2010/08/20/sexy_shirtless_men_56_pics.html

There are several sites (hundreds at just a quick google, probably thousands if you look a little further) of just pic after pic of "hot naked dudes" which I don't want to link here because I'm not sure if it is considered porn or not. 


Oh and then there's: Make Love Not Porn :: Porn World vs. Real World

Which is entirely amateur couples who jointly decide to upload images and videos of themselves having sex with each other. They have a huge female audience, and of course, half of the contributors are WOMEN who choose to openly do this type of porn...for nothing but their own gratification. No exploitation, just real people getting it on.

I could post dozens of other examples, including tons of women's sex blogs, more articles, more research...but I suppose you won't bother to open your mind to what is actually going on in the world of porn...you'll just stay stuck in the idea that everything is as it used to be, before women were able to take over and yes CREATE porn and porn companies themselves (there are several of them).

It won't matter though. Within 10 years there will be data that says half of all porn viewers are women, and a much higher number of production companies will be women owned....when that happens, you still may not believe it. But it will happen.

The world knows that every young boy now has easy access to graphic pornography. But they forget that every young girl does, too. And they are watching it, all of them are.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Techmom,
> 
> That's very sad. I can't imagine living with a spouse who - is so negative and judgmental about female sexuality - and doesn't grasp what a huge turnoff that is.
> 
> ...



The point is not that it is inherently antagonistic. The point is that it is *wrong*. Sexuality is not solely defined by testosterone. It just isn't. Not even for men, but most certainly not for women.

And really, if the answer to the thread OP is, "of course your wife is LD, it's because she doesn't have testosterone, and therefore she doesn't, won't, can"t want it more." If this is the case, why are so many men still here on TAM calling their wives stupid, evil, selfish, uncaring for being LD? Shouldn't they have all be railroaded out of here by the "right-thinkers" who know the "truth" about the sexuality of women? As in "give up dude, we all know women don't like sex. Just get yourself a hooker. They'll pretend to be into it if you pay them."

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If it really were true that women weren't all that sexual, there would never be female genital mutilation, chastity belts, or any number of cruel and severe efforts to prevent us from having and enjoying sex. There wouldn't be all sorts of people all over CWI whining about what slvts and hypergamous wh0res we are. There wouldn't be constant shaming of good girls don't. There wouldn't have been doctors who needed to "stimulate the genital area until paroxysm is achieved" to cure women"s hysteria. 

You say that you would NEVER say that you and your friends don't hit their wives, and would simply accept that you and your friends are not representative of society at large. First of all: really? Cuz OMFG.

But secondly and more germane to the current thread: If you think the "me and my friends" argument is nonsense, why are you so willing to accept the "me and my sexless (male only!) friends all believe women aren't as sexual -- and *of course* WE are the epitome of representative of all of society?????


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Lost in translation*



MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> The post below makes a critical distinction which seems to be getting lost in translation.


Everyone understands the distinction. I promise you. We all get that the argument is "simply" that women just aren't that sexual, and that all the women who experience otherwise are just "not typical". 

What seems to be getting lost in the translation is that women are pretty much unanimously saying that women are sexual, it only sometimes appears otherwise because of all the pressure we face to hide it, to *not* express it.

Just as not all men are all that sexual. It just appears otherwise because it gets repeated so often. Never mind that a lot of guys actually don"t want as much sex as they claim they do, and can get pretty threatened pretty quick by a woman who wants it more than he does.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I would never tell anyone that their experiences aren't valid. I may argue about what's typical, but I would never argue that everyone was typical, that everyone should be typical or that there is something wrong with not being typical.


Yet whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn, and the conversation immediately reverts back to how "not sexual" women are, and how evil, selfish, and stupid they are for not enduring more sex because it's important to their husbands.

It's actually pretty invalidating.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Lost in translation*

AA,
That isn't the argument at all. 

The argument is simply about two overlapping normal distributions - just like there are for height. 

I know you wouldn't get angry at me - if I said that, on average:
- Men are taller than women, and included some mean and standard deviation information. We both know this means you could easily be taller than your partner. 
OR
- Men kill intimate partners at 3 times the rate women do. We both know, that statistics aside, if he keeps wanking off to porn, your intimate partner might make a posthumous appearance on that show 'snapped', where some announcer will explain how you were listening to that song from the play 'Chicago' - you know - the Cell Block Tango. And while listening your partner 'ran in to your knife, he ran into your knife 10 times'. 

So - if the height and the murder bell curve comparisons don't irk you, why does a comment comparing average sex drives in a similar manner - cause such a strong response?








always_alone said:


> Everyone understands the distinction. I promise you. We all get that the argument is "simply" that women just aren't that sexual, and that all the women who experience otherwise are just "not typical".
> 
> What seems to be getting lost in the translation is that women are pretty much unanimously saying that women are sexual, it only sometimes appears otherwise because of all the pressure we face to hide it, to *not* express it.
> 
> Just as not all men are all that sexual. It just appears otherwise because it gets repeated so often. Never mind that a lot of guys actually don"t want as much sex as they claim they do, and can get pretty threatened pretty quick by a woman who wants it more than he does.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

I will bltch slap anyone who is posting that way. Point me to some sample posts. 

And I am sorry that is happening, it isn't right. 




always_alone said:


> Yet whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn, and the conversation immediately reverts back to how "not sexual" women are, and how evil, selfish, and stupid they are for not enduring more sex because it's important to their husbands.
> 
> It's actually pretty invalidating.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> 
> I will bltch slap anyone who is posting that way. Point me to some sample posts.
> 
> And I am sorry that is happening, it isn't right.


Ummm....men say such things to me here almost daily. I don't see you b*tch slapping anyone who says such things to me. Several are doing it right here on this thread!


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> A post in another thread made me aware of something strange in my wife's sexual behavior. She rarely wants sex, but when she does, she physically enjoys it, often very enthusiastically.
> 
> That could be explained by her just rarely wanting sex, but I think there is more. The last couple of years she has given me a BJ as a "gift" for my birthday (a practice I'm going to stop). She really dislikes doing that, and won't do it any other time - but doing it gets her so aroused that she wants me to give her an orgasm afterwards (which I always do).
> ...


Yes exactly that behaviour. Including unwillingness to communicate matters of sex or intimacy. And saying things like "wasn't it great that we didn't have to have sex". yet she's the one who always gets off, refuses BJ despite saying she used to love doing them, and never initiates.

(annoying things she does - don't kiss me, I don't want to get horny (or I don't have spare underwear - even though I went and bought some).


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Every time she starts posting again, someone new (or old) comes on to tell her that he MUST be gay or else wanking it constantly when she's not around, because there is no possible way he could just be LD. Then they ask if she is hideous or fat.
> 
> 
> 
> This has happened so many times she is used to it by now.



The rationalization hamster went supersonic on this one...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Yet whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn, and the conversation immediately reverts back to how "not sexual" women are, and how evil, selfish, and stupid they are for not enduring more sex because it's important to their husbands.
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually pretty invalidating.



Has anyone referred to posters like FW or Anon Pink as unicorns?

For the love of Pete this is getting like a broken record... The kind of people who would be "offended" lolz by such posters ain't likely to be in TAM any more than to be reading calculus texts at night. 

Unless of course you confuse the occasional "your partner is so lucky to have such a person for x y or z" as invalidating.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Personal,
Just to be clear, the bltch slapping is reserved for nasty, mean spirited comments. NOT for disagreements regarding the median of the bell curve. And/or WHO is therefore reflective of the median and who isn't. 

If you think I'm missing posts that violate TAM guidelines, feel free to point them out. 

It is unhelpful to tell me 'it' is 'happening all around me', and choose not to point to a single example of 'it'.





Personal said:


> You do realise this happens in plenty of of threads you participate in?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Look, folks. Before I say this, I will admit that I am guilty of getting sucked into this thought process as well, but...

This entire thread has turned into a debate of who has a higher level of entitlement to the victim chair.

Sure, it's comfortable. Sure, it gives you the ability to blame other people or genders for your problems. But a year from now you will still be sitting there complaining unless you choose to act. 

This just proves to me that often times people would rather complain because it takes less effort than actually doing something about their lousy situation.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's it Far. After decades in America my skin scores fairly high on the thickness scale. I've heard it all multiple times. It's part of being an adult in a society that somehow manages to embrace and despise diversity of opinion all at once.

Most men have. Many women too. My kids for example. I have been on the Internets since 1982 and so far TAM has been by far the least offensive online community I've ever had the luck of participating.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Lost in translation*



MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> That isn't the argument at all.
> 
> The argument is simply about two overlapping normal distributions - just like there are for height.


Let's unpack this a bit. No, it does not irk me to talk about overlapping normal distributions. And when I can see that the statistics easily support a "men are...than" or a "woman are....than", I have nothing to say on the matter.

On the issue of sexuality, I do happen to have something to say. All of the latest research talks about how the supposed gap between men and women is closing on all sorts of measures. There is research that suggests that it has already closed. This overlapping normal curve that is so "objectively" introduced is an assertion based on stereotype, flawed methodology, and biased language choice in asking these questions. As soon as these are corrected for, the differences start disappearing, never mind the influence of culture and societal attitudes towards women. And once we start to look at those issues, we see again and again that male sexuality is celebrated, encouraged, and catered to. While women's sexuality is suppressed, discouraged, and twisted so that it is all about the male. Case example: how many fathers give their sons pornos while sitting on the porch with shotguns for every boy that wants to date their daughter? What message do you suppose that sends?

That is all of it in a nutshell, and none of it irks me. I see it as discussion, review of what is known, and challenge to stereotypes and sloppy thinking

What irks me is that whenever I engage in these discussions, I get told that I am incapable of reason, of understanding simple points, of recognizing the obvious, that I have an agenda, that I have some sort of aberrant need to stomp around and declare "equality" just for the sake of it. I'm told that *I* am the one who will not engage with the "facts", but none of what I put forward is treated with any seriousness at all. It's just "there, there little girl, but normal overlapping bell curve, if only you were smart enough to understand statistics"

Not everyone is so patronizing about it, of course, but the message is the same: "no matter what considerations are put forward, you will never, ever, ever be able to contradict that image of the bell curve."

All well and good. But what really irks me is how this "it's just statistics, ma'am, nothing to get upset about" is used again and again to reinforce ideas that men "get" sex, women "give", or that men sowing their oats is "natural", but women? Ewww, skank. Or that all women care about is being "provided for", and on and on and on.

They used to draw overlapping bell curves to "prove" that men are smarter than women, and have indeed applied that same reasoning to show one race is smarter than another. Never mind social and cultural influence and never mind how the tests were skewed. I rail about that sh1t too. Just because you can draw a graph or assign some numbers doesn't make it objective or true.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Has anyone referred to posters like FW or Anon Pink as unicorns?
> 
> For the love of Pete this is getting like a broken record... The kind of people who would be "offended" lolz by such posters ain't likely to be in TAM any more than to be reading calculus texts at night.
> 
> Unless of course you confuse the occasional "your partner is so lucky to have such a person for x y or z" as invalidating.


FW is referred to as a unicorn all the time, and she is told point blank that her experiences are irrelevant because she married a sex god, and so of course he's man enough to make her sexy. Even you have said this, I think, although I may be misremembering.


And clearly your oblivious to it, but HD women here get told a lot more than "your partner is so lucky". We get told all sorts of very nasty things about our trustworthiness, our ability to be monogamous, our general skankiness. Sure, most men here say they love/want sexual women. But a lot of them have some very ugly messages coming out the other side of their mouth.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,
I would imagine they've been told they are not 'average'. 

Anybody coming to TAM to discuss their frustrations with a libido mismatch is going to get asked a lot of potentially painful questions. And will get a varying amount of validation. 

Some folks will say: Gosh, your H is SOOOO lucky you like sex. 

Others might imply there must be something wrong with you if your H wants it less than you do. 

The men in sex starved marriages generally get asked: Are you fit, do you dress nice, do you treat her right, ARE YOU A GOOD PROVIDER?

Some folks are tactful, well at least they try to be. Text and (subtext) below. 

Do people other than your spouse find you attractive? (just how ugly ARE you?)

Do you workout? (exactly HOW fat are you)
-------------

It IS true that a sex starved man is far more likely to hear: That is normal, women don't like sex. Or at least they don't after ANY of the following life events: marriage - kids - menopause - etc. 



QUOTE=john117;13795530]Has anyone referred to posters like FW or Anon Pink as unicorns?

For the love of Pete this is getting like a broken record... The kind of people who would be "offended" lolz by such posters ain't likely to be in TAM any more than to be reading calculus texts at night. 

Unless of course you confuse the occasional "your partner is so lucky to have such a person for x y or z" as invalidating.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

The last time I was here a trend I noticed was the group telling all men WHY their wife was LD and what would turn her on, like we are all the same. So it's not just that we are all lower drive, it's the reasons we are and what we like in bed. We are all submissive, attracted to alpha men, want to be "taken" and the only reasons for not wanting sex is that we married a safe, nice guy who needs to man up. 

My wife is a SAHM with 4 kids under 5, 1 of which is breastfeeding. She says by the end of the night she is "touched out" and just needs a break and won't have sex.

-You're a nice guy, your wife married you for money and would be a total wh*re with an alpha guy. Man up and she'll want you.

My wife tells me that the reasons she doesn't want sex is that she is that even though we both work full time, I only do 10% of the chores. Also because we have no time alone together and don't go on dates anymore. 

-You're a nice guy, your wife married you for money and would be a total wh*re with an alpha guy. Man up and she'll want you.

I admit I have had temper and control issues before and because of that my wife says she no longer trusts me enough to be intimate. 

-You're a nice guy, your wife married you for money and would be a total wh*re with an alpha guy. Man up and she'll want you.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> ...
> do you treat her right, ARE YOU A GOOD PROVIDER?


Things must have changed because the last time I was here a few months ago. Anyone who even asked questions about treating her right, if they do enough to help out, if they have been romantic, etc was jumped on because we are all supposed to assume that if a man is at TAM, he has already tried all that and is too nice, does too much and now needs the "man up" advice only.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
You 'self report' as a sex goddess married to a sex God. 

And your chief complaint is - that people are saying you are unusual? 

As always you are welcome to point to specific posts that you believe violate TAM guidelines. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Ummm....men say such things to me here almost daily. I don't see you b*tch slapping anyone who says such things to me. Several are doing it right here on this thread!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Slowly,
In a way - TAM - is like the bible. It has kinder, gentler threads. And harsher, more judgmental threads. 

If you look hard, you can usually find some hard line positions on TAM. And you can also find some balanced posters and advice. 




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Things must have changed because the last time I was here a few months ago. Anyone who even asked questions about treating her right, if they do enough to help out, if they have been romantic, etc was jumped on because we are all supposed to assume that if a man is at TAM, he has already tried all that and is too nice, does too much and now needs the "man up" advice only.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Slowly,
> In a way - TAM - is like the bible. It has kinder, gentler threads. And harsher, more judgmental threads.
> 
> If you look hard, you can usually find some hard line positions on TAM. And you can also find some balanced posters and advice.


I know that there are amazing posters here who somehow still manage to fight against the current and have a voice. I'm amazed at them, some are on this thread. The overwhelming amount against them is frustrating for everyone who doesn't belong in the tiny little box that TAM wants to put them in. 

I would love if there was a MMSLP, "man up" or just sit and whine about it section where all that could stay and the rest of the forum could be more productive and not turn so many people off.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The bottom line is men don't get offended IN GENERAL remotely as much as women. If someone called me a psychologist unicorn for doing what I do I would be off to Nordstrom Rack to but a decent horn... And i would not be offended the least bit.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

john117 said:


> *The bottom line is men don't get offended IN GENERAL remotely as much as women. *If someone called me a psychologist unicorn for doing what I do I would be off to Nordstrom Rack to but a decent horn... And i would not be offended the least bit.


The whole reason for the "it's not me, it's biology that makes her LD, it's just normal for women to not like sex" is ego. It's offensive to you to be told that's not true. Most women like sex, if yours doesn't with you, it is not the norm.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Lost in translation*

It feels like you are linking my belief in a difference in 'raw drives', to a LOT of hostile views towards women/female sexuality. 

And I don't understand why. 

If you have research that defends your viewpoint - on convergence - I'm happy to read it. 






always_alone said:


> Let's unpack this a bit. No, it does not irk me to talk about overlapping normal distributions. And when I can see that the statistics easily support a "men are...than" or a "woman are....than", I have nothing to say on the matter.
> 
> On the issue of sexuality, I do happen to have something to say. All of the latest research talks about how the supposed gap between men and women is closing on all sorts of measures. There is research that suggests that it has already closed. This overlapping normal curve that is so "objectively" introduced is an assertion based on stereotype, flawed methodology, and biased language choice in asking these questions. As soon as these are corrected for, the differences start disappearing, never mind the influence of culture and societal attitudes towards women. And once we start to look at those issues, we see again and again that male sexuality is celebrated, encouraged, and catered to. While women's sexuality is suppressed, discouraged, and twisted so that it is all about the male. Case example: how many fathers give their sons pornos while sitting on the porch with shotguns for every boy that wants to date their daughter? What message do you suppose that sends?
> 
> ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> The bolded text in always_alone's post is what's happening, it is fair that she asserts that the net effect is "pretty invalidating".


Exactly!

MEM, my point was not to point fingers at any particular person or accuse anyone of violating TAM guidelines. It was to observe an overall tendency to utterly dismiss certain perspectives that do not fit into the prescribed TAM roles.

There are some things, for example, that I will never reveal about myself on this forum because I know exactly how it would be received. Despite John's blase assertion that all TAM folks are pro sex, and pro HD women, it really isn't true. I can see myself through the eyes of a lot of guys here, and let me tell you, it ain't pretty.

Just because a guy says he like to fvck doesn't make him pro women's sexuality.

And every single solitary time, we talk about LD, and what causes LD, any mention of LD men gets a hand wave and a prescription for Viagra at best, and the conversation reverts back to how men are more sexual and why can't women realize they have needs and do what it takes so he will keep providing for her.

If I had a nickel for every time I've been told I was an outlier on this board, I'd be able to buy myself a nice lunch.

And honestly, if it were just me and my idiosyncratic, outlier take, I would've just given up and left TAM long ago. But then I get these messages from women, thanking me for saying what they are too intimidated to say. For putting into words thoughts they weren't sure how to vocalize. For not getting exhausted by the continual insistence that everything I experience is utterly wrong --or if not wrong, such a weird anomaly that it's not worth discussing.

Ever notice how those overlapping bell curves always get translated as sexual woman = outlier?

We could always turn the question around and ask: why do so many men get so worked up about insisting on their greater sexuality? Why the need when women want to express our sexuality on our terms to tell us we are "not typical", "taking it too personally", exercising our "rationalization hamsters", "pushing an agenda"? (Anything but, notice, engaging in rational discourse.)


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> You 'self report' as a sex goddess married to a sex God.
> 
> And your chief complaint is - that people are saying you are unusual?
> ...


I self identify with those words because they are cute and I use them for my blog. But the real deal is that I'm simply a highly sexual woman married to a highly sexual man and we are in love with each other and still having excellent sex for over a decade. I have repeatedly said that he wouldn't be a Sex God to every woman and I wouldn't be attractive to every man. I have also repeatedly said there is nothing that special about it, I have pointed out other highly sexual people here (especially guys who are Sex Gods to their wives, like Personal and samyeager) who are talked about as if they are unicorns just because their experience doesn't match the average HD TAM man's. Part of the reason I have a blog is that I would like to hear more voices of people who have GOOD married sex lives and be a voice like that myself. I get a lot of emails and comments by people like that at my blog, and what I've realized in talking to them is that when it is GOOD, people don't come to places like TAM. (duh)

Even your response to me is dismissive, simply because of the words I've chosen to identify with. Yet others who are like me here don't dismiss me or feel what I'm saying is so unusual.

I never said anyone was breaking TAM rules. I said they dismiss us, treat us like unicorns and then go right back to talking about how "most women are LD compared to most men" (from AA's quoted post) which is exactly what you just did....even though you now "don't see it".

As much as I wish I was a unicorn, I am not. But don't let that stop you from continuing to say so...apparently there is no room for women like me in the TAM collective consciousness.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Every time she starts posting again, someone new (or old) comes on to tell her that he MUST be gay or else wanking it constantly when she's not around, because there is no possible way he could just be LD. Then they ask if she is hideous or fat.
> 
> This has happened so many times she is used to it by now.


I've read most of that thread. I remember a few "he must be gay" responses towards the beginning. I never saw "she must be hideous or fat" (it's a very long thread so it might be there somewhere). Mostly, I've seen men that think he's uncaring and just LD. 

I do think that guys being gay and trying to be straight is more of a thing than women being gay and trying to be straight. Although I have seen people say that the wife might be a lesbian.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> I agree with the post below, that said it is incomplete in an important way.
> 
> ...


True.

I said "if there is something wrong with women having too many partners, if men have a problem with a woman having too many partners;" were topics that were often discussed here.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Meanwhile, the same guys will talk on and on about how they'd "do it with any willing woman" and yet if a woman really would do it with any willing man, those men would run a mile in the opposite direction.


That's true. It is a double standard. There are reasons behind this, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a double standard.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Lost in translation*



MEM11363 said:


> It feels like you are linking my belief in a difference in 'raw drives', to a LOT of hostile views towards women/female sexuality.
> 
> And I don't understand why.
> 
> If you have research that defends your viewpoint - on convergence - I'm happy to read it.


Let me clarify: I am not saying you are holding hostile beliefs about women's sexuality. I am saying that

(1) beliefs about raw differences in sex drive are not adequately supported by the research, and I have posted many, many, many links and engaged in discussion on these points.

(2) that beliefs about the stereotypical differences between men and women are often used to support a lot of hostility towards women's sexuality, and there is a sufficient amount of it on TAM that women often have a tough time being heard here. This is not a problem unique to TAM; women face a lot of struggles and obstacles in discovering, uncovering, and exploring sexuality on their terms. But many of those obstacles play themselves out right here again and again and again.

And the funny (sad!) part of it is that the insight here given by women about this, about the causes of LD, the many reasons why it is happening, where the roots are, etc, would go a long, long, way to actually helping men who are flummoxed by their sexless relationships. But instead of learning from that, they hold their hands over their ears and shout lalalalala, women aren't as sexual, but they owe it to us to endure some more sex to make us happy.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> :rofl:
> 
> A "niche" market....oh, that's a good one.
> 
> ...


I agree that a significant number of women watch porn and that it is increasing. I know that many women watch porn, my wife is one of them. I would imagine that, currently, more than half of men watch porn. I've got no problem with women watching porn, the more the better as far as I'm concerned.

My only issue was with the implied assumption that some nefarious force was keeping these things away from women or that women's demands weren't being met by the market.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

*Re: Lost in translation*



always_alone said:


> What seems to be getting lost in the translation is that women are pretty much unanimously saying that women are sexual, it only sometimes appears otherwise because of all the pressure we face to hide it, to *not* express it.


You use the term "sexual" to respond to claims that woman, on average, have a lower sex drive. I'm not sure that these are the same thing. If you think so, why not just use the same terms others are using? It makes me think that you're sidestepping something.

Other threads here are full of women who take it as common knowledge that men have a higher sex drive than women, they just don't show up on threads like these. Are you saying that they only think so because they are brainwashed by society?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Yet whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn, and the conversation immediately reverts back to how "not sexual" women are, and how evil, selfish, and stupid they are for not enduring more sex because it's important to their husbands.
> 
> It's actually pretty invalidating.


Actually, there are a lot of men that tell the husband it's his fault. That she has lost her attraction to him. He has to hit the gym and make himself worthy once again.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
I have said this before and will repeat it here - you are a highly skilled contributor who has helped a lot of folks. 

What I am seeing on this thread is a sincere disagreement. 

What I'm NOT seeing is: S L U T shaming, women bashing etc. 

Now I won't argue that isn't a societal issue. It is. But I'm not seeing it on this thread. And when it happens in TAM, if it gets reported, it typically gets addressed. 

And - maybe - nurture truly is more powerful than I believe. Maybe given a totally gender neutral environment - we'd act the same. 



UOTE=Faithful Wife;13796994]I self identify with those words because they are cute and I use them for my blog. But the real deal is that I'm simply a highly sexual woman married to a highly sexual man and we are in love with each other and still having excellent sex for over a decade. I have repeatedly said that he wouldn't be a Sex God to every woman and I wouldn't be attractive to every man. I have also repeatedly said there is nothing that special about it, I have pointed out other highly sexual people here (especially guys who are Sex Gods to their wives, like Personal and samyeager) who are talked about as if they are unicorns just because their experience doesn't match the average HD TAM man's. Part of the reason I have a blog is that I would like to hear more voices of people who have GOOD married sex lives and be a voice like that myself. I get a lot of emails and comments by people like that at my blog, and what I've realized in talking to them is that when it is GOOD, people don't come to places like TAM. (duh)

Even your response to me is dismissive, simply because of the words I've chosen to identify with. Yet others who are like me here don't dismiss me or feel what I'm saying is so unusual.

I never said anyone was breaking TAM rules. I said they dismiss us, treat us like unicorns and then go right back to talking about how "most women are LD compared to most men" (from AA's quoted post) which is exactly what you just did....even though you now "don't see it".

As much as I wish I was a unicorn, I am not. But don't let that stop you from continuing to say so...apparently there is no room for women like me in the TAM collective consciousness.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Yet whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn, and the conversation immediately reverts back to how "not sexual" women are, and how evil, selfish, and stupid they are for not enduring more sex because it's important to their husbands.
> 
> It's actually pretty invalidating.





Personal said:


> You do realise this happens in plenty of of threads you participate in?


I imagine that the problem would be anyone saying:

_"how evil, selfish, and stupid they are for not enduring more sex because it's important to their husbands."_

That's rude and uncalled for.


I have to think that saying:

_"whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn,"_ 

is within the bounds of permissive discussion. If we couldn't discuss whether or not someone's experience was typical, we'd have a hard time discussing anything.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Lost in translation*



Buddy400 said:


> You use the term "sexual" to respond to claims that woman, on average, have a lower sex drive. I'm not sure that these are the same thing. If you think so, why not just use the same terms others are using? It makes me think that you're sidestepping something.
> 
> Other threads here are full of women who take it as common knowledge that men have a higher sex drive than women, they just don't show up on threads like these. Are you saying that they only think so because they are brainwashed by society?


Just because women make the same mistake as men does not make it any less of a mistake.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Actually, there are a lot of men that tell the husband it's his fault. That she has lost her attraction to him. He has to hit the gym and make himself worthy once again.


And see notice, right there. I said "Yet whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn"

And you respond by *completely* ignoring that I am talking about the experience of sexual women, and start talking about how indeed all is fair because men really are blamed for their wife's LD.

Huh? That shows me I'm wrong how?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The last time I was here a trend I noticed was the group telling all men WHY their wife was LD and what would turn her on, like we are all the same. So it's not just that we are all lower drive, it's the reasons we are and what we like in bed. We are all submissive, attracted to alpha men, want to be "taken" and the only reasons for not wanting sex is that we married a safe, nice guy who needs to man up.
> 
> My wife is a SAHM with 4 kids under 5, 1 of which is breastfeeding. She says by the end of the night she is "touched out" and just needs a break and won't have sex.
> 
> ...


There IS an awful lot of "man up and she'll want you advice". That seems to be critical of the man, not the woman.

That woman want to be submissive in the bedroom and just "taken"
is something I hear here from a (to me) surprisingly large number of women. So there might be something to it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I know that there are amazing posters here who somehow still manage to fight against the current and have a voice. I'm amazed at them, some are on this thread. The overwhelming amount against them is frustrating for everyone who doesn't belong in the tiny little box that TAM wants to put them in.
> 
> *I would love if there was a MMSLP, "man up" or just sit and whine about it section where all that could stay* and the rest of the forum could be more productive and not turn so many people off.


But that would account for 90% of the posters!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> There IS an awful lot of "man up and she'll want you advice". That seems to be critical of the man, not the woman.
> 
> That woman want to be submissive in the bedroom and just "taken"
> is something I hear here from a (to me) surprisingly large number of women. So there might be something to it.


Lots of women want to be submissive in the bedroom. That's not the point. The point is that lots of women don't want this, and don't fit the prescribed mold, and to be told endlessly that we're just "not typical" is not particularly helpful, enlightening or accurate.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I agree that a significant number of women watch porn and that it is increasing. I know that many women watch porn, my wife is one of them. I would imagine that, currently, more than half of men watch porn. I've got no problem with women watching porn, the more the better as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> *My only issue was with the implied assumption that some nefarious force was keeping these things away from women or that women's demands weren't being met by the market*.


You really think that in the past, if a woman wanted to, she could safely walk down a back alley and get porn from a MENS ONLY sex shop? And that if she did NOT do this, it proves she wouldn't want to see porn? And you really think that men being in control of all film, all laws, and all production in the past and therefore, only catering to men is considered a "nefarious" force?

I guess I don't have any reason to discuss anything with you anymore if you can't even be logical. This is straight up willfully ignoring reality.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> And see notice, right there. I said "Yet whenever a woman comes to TAM and expresses her experiences about being sexual, she is told that she is not typical, a unicorn"
> 
> And you respond by *completely* ignoring that I am talking about the experience of sexual women, and start talking about how indeed all is fair because men really are blamed for their wife's LD.
> 
> Huh? That shows me I'm wrong how?


I wouldn't take every thing I say as an effort to prove you wrong. Sometimes I'm just making a related point.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> I have said this before and will repeat it here - you are a highly skilled contributor who has helped a lot of folks.
> 
> What I am seeing on this thread is a sincere disagreement.
> ...


You say this as if what YOU believe is The Truth and that YOUR opinion is the determination of truth.

And sadly, most other guys seem to think this as well.

It really won't matter in the long run. All the evidence we need is being collected right now and there will ultimately be reports that show we are equally sexual....but in the meantime, if you and some of the other men would stop holding so dear to what you were always told and start listening to women who speak up now that we are able to, you might learn something about the world you thought was not possible. I would think you would want to learn this, but you men are stubbornly opposed to women being as sexual as men are, and these posts only go to hi-light that point over and over and over.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> You really think that in the past,


I wasn't talking about the past. 



Faithful Wife said:


> And you really think that men being in control of all film, all laws, and all production *in the past *and therefore, only catering to men is considered a "nefarious" force?


Again, you are referring to the past.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> You say this as if what YOU believe is The Truth and that YOUR opinion is the determination of truth.
> 
> And sadly, most other guys seem to think this as well.
> 
> It really won't matter in the long run. All the evidence we need is being collected right now and there will ultimately be reports that show we are equally sexual....but in the meantime, if you and some of the other men would stop holding so dear to what you were always told and start listening to women who speak up now that we are able to, you might learn something about the world you thought was not possible. I would think you would want to learn this, but you men are stubbornly opposed to women being as sexual as men are, and these posts only go to hi-light that point over and over and over.


My wife used to complain that I always thought I was right. I responded that, of course, I did. If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my position. That doesn't mean that I *am* right, just that (of course) I think I am.

We have the same right to our world view that you do to yours. I don't complain that people who disagree with me are "invalidating me".

Thoughtful, well informed and well meaning people disagree about things all the time. If someone disagrees with me I don't assume that they are misinformed or evil.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The whole reason for the "it's not me, it's biology that makes her LD, it's just normal for women to not like sex" is ego. It's offensive to you to be told that's not true. Most women like sex, if yours doesn't with you, it is not the norm.



Once again, subject to target demographics. A concept alien to some of the peanut gallery members here.

At 30 vs at 55 makes a bit of difference, no?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> And - maybe - nurture truly is more powerful than I believe. Maybe given a totally gender neutral environment - we'd act the same.


Since reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", I give a lot less credit to nature than I used to.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> You really think that in the past, if a woman wanted to, she could safely walk down a back alley and get porn from a MENS ONLY sex shop? And that if she did NOT do this, it proves she wouldn't want to see porn? And you really think that men being in control of all film, all laws, and all production in the past and therefore, only catering to men is considered a "nefarious" force?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I don't have any reason to discuss anything with you anymore if you can't even be logical. This is straight up willfully ignoring reality.



And we didn't have women's only sex shops because???


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> My wife used to complain that I always thought I was right. I responded that, of course, I did. If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my position. That doesn't mean that I *am* right, just that (of course) I think I am.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, because, you know... We are men


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

If it were true that women had a lower sex drive than men (on average), then it might be damaging to women. They might think there's something wrong with them (responsive desire vs. spontaneous desire) when what they're experiencing might be completely normal.

Being a 60 year old in an excellent marriage, loving my wife and having a daughter and two sons, I'm not just interested in what's best for men.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I wouldn't take every thing I say as an effort to prove you wrong. Sometimes I'm just making a related point.



Okay, fair enough. Women aren't always called evil, selfish, and stupid for being LD. Sometimes the men are told that he needs to do something so that she will be attracted to him.

And admittedly, a lot of men will take this on board so much so that they twist themselves into unnecessary and crazy knots over this, when the simple reality is just that some women really aren't all that sexual and never will be, no matter who he is. 

I get it. It happens this way. 

But I still want to point out that in a very specific point about HD women, you zeroed in on the LD woman example and brought it back to that. And this happens all the time.

Earlier in this thread, I made a point about being HD, and how off-putting it is to pressure others for sex, how that exacerbates LD, and that this is the same, whether man or woman. What I got back for that point was a little b1tch out about how awfully I am treating others by being so LD. I had to repeat myself, and even then it wasn't heard that I was in the HD position. 

That wasn't actually you, and so please don't think I'm calling you out for something you didn't do. It's just an interesting pattern how the conversation always, always, always has to assume that the woman is LD, and the LD man is just as rare a unicorn as the HD woman.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> But that would account for 90% of the posters!


I know this is joking and not serious but the reasons 90% (or whatever %) of the posters are like that is because all the rest get turned off by it and find a different forum to go to. There's no room for people who are outside the box.

If you say you are outside the box you either are a unicorn, lying, don't really know yourself (yes, I was once told that)

You confirm your own theories by building a place full of people in the same situation - even telling them that they are when they aren't- and then everyone else is just _not normal_ so you don't have to consider the other possibilities.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
I state my opinion no more strongly than you do. 

Fortunately I don't need to insult you by calling you stubborn. Or derisively refer to 'you women'. 

But that's because I see this as a discovery process, not a competition. 






Faithful Wife said:


> You say this as if what YOU believe is The Truth and that YOUR opinion is the determination of truth.
> 
> And sadly, most other guys seem to think this as well.
> 
> It really won't matter in the long run. All the evidence we need is being collected right now and there will ultimately be reports that show we are equally sexual....but in the meantime, if you and some of the other men would stop holding so dear to what you were always told and start listening to women who speak up now that we are able to, you might learn something about the world you thought was not possible. I would think you would want to learn this, but you men are stubbornly opposed to women being as sexual as men are, and these posts only go to hi-light that point over and over and over.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> My wife used to complain that I always thought I was right. I responded that, of course, I did. If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my position. That doesn't mean that I *am* right, just that (of course) I think I am.
> 
> We have the same right to our world view that you do to yours. I don't complain that people who disagree with me are "invalidating me".
> 
> Thoughtful, well informed and well meaning people disagree about things all the time. If someone disagrees with me I don't assume that they are misinformed or evil.


There is thinking that you are right because you have thought about it, examined the evidence, and are actually engaging in rational discourse about the facts and evidence at hand.

And then there is thinking you are right, just because you think you are right, and ignoring or dismissing everything that challenges that worldview. How many times, Buddy, have you told me that I am "pushing an agenda" or "arguing for the sake of arguing" or dismissed me because you just aren't willing to engage with what I am putting forward. Lots of times, Buddy. Lots of times.

But it's so much better, isn't it, to claim the high road, and how clearly this idea about "invalidation" is irrational over-sensitivity and not worth taking seriously.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> in the meantime, if you and some of the other men would stop holding so dear to what you were always told and start listening to women who speak up now that we are able to, you might learn something about the world you thought was not possible. I would think you would want to learn this, but you men are stubbornly opposed to women being as sexual as men are, and these posts only go to hi-light that point over and over and over.


Isn't it obvious WHY some of us men are opposed to the idea that women are just as sexual? If that is true, it means we are losers. Which hurts a lot more than being on the short side of a rigged game with bad odds. If women truly want sex as much as men, and our experience has been that few if any women desire sex with us, then that means we are particularly unattractive. Not the most appetizing conclusion.

Of course, you might counter "can't you see that this is an optimistic reality? Can't you see that if you work on becoming more attractive you can expect to have success with women?"

Most of us men defending "men want sex more than women" have convinced ourselves that we will never succeed. That there is no amount of exercise or "fake it until you make it" phony self-confidence that will convert us into attractive men. And that the amount of financial success required to turn us into attractive candidates is beyond our most optimistic ceiling.

If you believe that you can't win, it is comforting to convince yourself that the game was rigged at the outset. Deep down we know it is not true. But we will never admit that we wasted our lives. We are far more invested in protecting ourselves than in having an honest debate about the nature of reality.

I would have thought that was clear by now.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

john117 said:


> Once again, subject to target demographics. A concept alien to some of the peanut gallery members here.
> 
> At 30 vs at 55 makes a bit of difference, no?


Many studies will show you that women report enjoying sex more as they age.

_For the study’s authors, the most surprising finding was that 89 percent of women ages 45 to 55 are the most experimental.
...
The research found that 60 percent of women believe their sex life could be better. And perhaps contrary to popular belief, 54 percent say sex gets better with age._

So that's from just one small 1000 woman study but if you look around you can find the same results. 

Women like sex more than people used to assume we do. 

Many women prefer sex when they are older and know their bodies better, can talk about it more, are more comfortable with themselves.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> I have said this before and will repeat it here - you are a highly skilled contributor who has helped a lot of folks.
> 
> What I am seeing on this thread is a sincere disagreement.
> ...


There isn't a whole lot of slvt shaming on this particular thread, because the topic is about LDs. 

But, I submit for your consideration:

In response to some posts about high partner count, a response that assumes that such a woman must be a hooker.

A post that insists that women hate slvts because they "drive down the cost of pvssy". 

Some posts that instead of responding to the issues at hand, hurl some accusations impugning the reasoning skills of women generally. Because, you know, women.

There's more, of course. These sorts of things are so expected and so part of how we talk about women that a lot of people don't even notice them.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,
Thank you for explaining what I thought was plainly obvious. 




Buddy400 said:


> I imagine that the problem would be anyone saying:
> 
> *"how evil, selfish, and stupid they are for not enduring more sex because it's important to their husbands."
> *
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> I state my opinion no more strongly than you do.
> 
> Fortunately I don't need to insult you by calling you stubborn. Or derisively refer to 'you women'.
> ...


Strange that you think being dismissive of me doesn't insult me. But for the record, it does. You just don't want to see it that way.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> And we didn't have women's only sex shops because???


In Victorian era, it was believed that women didn't like sex, and didn't have orgasms. This was accepted as the final truth of the matter. 

They did, however, have an awful lot of doctor's appointments where the required treatment was to stimulate the genital area until paroxysm was achieved. These "seizures" were very important to her mental health. 

Simplistic analysis is simply not sufficient to understand the complexity of these issues, and your endless insults about other people's intelligence won't change that fact.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Isn't it obvious WHY some of us men are opposed to the idea that women are just as sexual? If that is true, it means we are losers. Which hurts a lot more than being on the short side of a rigged game with bad odds. *If women truly want sex as much as men, and our experience has been that few if any women desire sex with us, then that means we are particularly unattractive*. Not the most appetizing conclusion.
> 
> Of course, you might counter "can't you see that this is an optimistic reality? Can't you see that if you work on becoming more attractive you can expect to have success with women?"
> 
> ...


Yes it is clear. Thank you for just saying it.

I would hope that you could possibly expand your thinking to realize that there are many women who can't get laid either and who suffer the same feelings of being the ultimate loser. 

The TAM chorus line would tell us that any woman can get laid...yet this is absolutely not the case and women who can't get laid suffer just as much as men who can't do.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> And we didn't have women's only sex shops because???


I can't take you seriously at all anymore john....really? In the past when men controlled everything, it makes sense that we would have women's only sex shops? I don't even see how you can say something so silly.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

Yes - that is all fair. I'm not as proactive on that stuff as I could be when it's a one off post or if I can't tell if the poster is joking. 

Sometimes as mods - we wait for complaints. It's a time management thing. 





always_alone said:


> There isn't a whole lot of slvt shaming on this particular thread, because the topic is about LDs.
> 
> But, I submit for your consideration:
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Many studies will show you that women report enjoying sex more as they age.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Having spent a lifetime working with statistics, what you state above is correct. Except...

These tend to be self selecting or biased samples - not random samples. If you take that 60% who think they could do better, it's no wonder they will be more open to experimentation or this or that. 

Look at the Kinsey data of partnered vs married couples... What is it that causes the difference? Wedding cake?

The statistics overall tell us dysfunction wise women are 43% vs men 31%. Start from there.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> Thank you for explaining what I thought was plainly obvious.
> 
> 
> ...


Of course it is within the bounds of permitted discussion to suggest that someone is not typical. Where it starts getting weird is that no matter how much evidence accrues that a certain way of being is in fact entirely "typical", that the overlap in those magical bell curves is actually quite substantial and affects a whole lot of people (even if you accept the base premise that men have higher drives), the discussion can never move beyond pointing out "that's not typical".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Okay, fair enough. Women aren't always called evil, selfish, and stupid for being LD. Sometimes the men are told that he needs to do something so that she will be attracted to him.
> 
> And admittedly, a lot of men will take this on board so much so that they twist themselves into unnecessary and crazy knots over this, when the simple reality is just that some women really aren't all that sexual and never will be, no matter who he is.
> 
> ...


I have seen some posts form women hot having sex with their SO's for what seem to be very good reasons and occasionally a guy show up to berate them. It's jarring. But the fact that it stands out probably because it isn't normal here. And there does seem to be a default assumption that the woman is the LD by some posters (who don't seem to be regulars).

I usually see the "pressuring for sex is off-putting (love that word, when I met my wife she thought I made it up)" from women, not men. I believe it can be off-putting, but not saying anything pretty much means that nothing will change.

Speaking of off-putting, when your SO said that you "should be satisfied", I'm sure that qualified. No one gets to say when someone else "should be" satisfied.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> 
> Yes - that is all fair. I'm not as proactive on that stuff as I could be when it's a one off post or if I can't tell if the poster is joking.
> 
> Sometimes as mods - we wait for complaints. It's a time management thing.


Just to be clear, this isn't about your mod skills, MEM. Or whether such people should be banned or not. Truth is, I have never reported anyone, no matter how much they have insulted me, and I have no interest in policing these boards.

What I do have interest in is showing that the observations women are making here are legitimate, and ought not be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Of course it is within the bounds of permitted discussion to suggest that someone is not typical. Where it starts getting weird is that no matter how much evidence accrues that a certain way of being is in fact entirely "typical", that the overlap in those magical bell curves is actually quite substantial and affects a whole lot of people (even if you accept the base premise that men have higher drives), the discussion can never move beyond pointing out "that's not typical".


No amount of evidence was able to convince Einstein that quantum mechanics was true or Hubble that the universe wasn't "steady-state". If we stop thinking that the other side will somehow "come around" if we keep piling on the evidence, maybe we could make some progress at the margins.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Just to be clear, this isn't about your mod skills, MEM. Or whether such people should be banned or not. Truth is, I have never reported anyone, no matter how much they have insulted me, and I have no interest in policing these boards.
> 
> 
> 
> What I do have interest in is showing that the observations women are making here are legitimate, and ought not be dismissed out of hand.



I ought to have my personal moderator based on how much has been hurled my way here by both genders  

Just saying...


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Once in a while there is a thread by a HD women with a husband who never wants to have sex. 

If she asks "what am I doing wrong?" I might ask a few of those uncomfortable questions, have you gained a huge amount of weight, when you say you used to have sex "all the time" what did that mean? It's projecting, if I decided I didn't want to be bothered any more what would be the reasons? 

But of course, the answer is generally no or not much and the actual frequency was fairly reasonable but now it's none. I don't have any followup to that other than "it's not you, it's him" and I won't add any more, because I have no frame of reference to tell you what a guy who has a very low sex drive is thinking. It is not dismissing her position, I just can't relate. 

Curious Wife's thread went on forever, I didn't see to many posts among hundreds and hundreds calling her totally a typical, a unicorn etc.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

I believe: 
1. There is a lot of overlap in those curves
2. So much so, that from the honeymoon on - many women are in a sex starved marriage 
3. The curves converge as we age - perhaps they invert beyond a certain age

I think a lot of education should go into responsive desire FOR BOTH SEXES. 

My spontaneous desire started to fade a few years ago. It is almost entirely gone now. 

So I've had to learn to work with responsive desire. 

First things first. I MISS THE HELL OUT OF MY SD. 

SD to RD - is a bit like comparing apples and oranges

When I had SD I had a multi hour anticipatory rush during the lead up to sex. By the time we started - I wanted to tear M2's clothes off. 

She could lightly trace a high voltage pattern anywhere on my bare skin with her finger nails. And all that voltage ran to ground at my secondary command center. 

With RD - there is no anticipation. No hunger. No desire. And the experience itself is good. It feels good. 

That said - when I'm taking a shower just before we connect - I keenly feel the absence of desire. Not a good feeling. 

But even though it's a much less intense experience, it still feels good. And it is a nice bonding thing. So it feels good after. 

That said, it's like someone took hold of the main neural rheostat (dimmer switch) inside me and rotated it 180 degrees - reducing the intensity level by half. 

So - maybe it will get better again. Honestly though I doubt it will ever go back to being as good as it once was. 





always_alone said:


> Of course it is within the bounds of permitted discussion to suggest that someone is not typical. Where it starts getting weird is that no matter how much evidence accrues that a certain way of being is in fact entirely "typical", that the overlap in those magical bell curves is actually quite substantial and affects a whole lot of people (even if you accept the base premise that men have higher drives), the discussion can never move beyond pointing out "that's not typical".


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

anonmd said:


> Curious Wife's thread went on forever, I didn't see to many posts among hundreds and hundreds calling her totally a typical, a unicorn etc.


What they tell her is that her husband either must be gay or he is wanking off to porn daily because there is no way he could possibly just be LD. This invalidates her experience and the experience of her H and other LD men. These responses are part of the stereotypes and the resulting lack of awareness of the issues women face when they are not in a stereotypical situation.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Slowly,
I can't speak to your specific experience at TAM other than to say it sounds like it was very bad. 

Usually I ask HD people a few simple questions:
- Does your partner crave your company 
- Do they crave and melt into your non sexual touch 
- Do they want to please you
- Do they want to avoid causing you distress 
- Do they feel comfortable being completely transparent about their sexual feelings, desires and experiences - including saying things like: that hurts, or that doesn't feel good or a I kind of felt like you were rushing me. Or - I can only orgasm reliably through oral. 

If those things are all true, you might be able to figure out how to improve things. If they aren't, your odds aren't so good. 


QUOTE=SlowlyGoingCrazy;13796058]Things must have changed because the last time I was here a few months ago. Anyone who even asked questions about treating her right, if they do enough to help out, if they have been romantic, etc was jumped on because we are all supposed to assume that if a man is at TAM, he has already tried all that and is too nice, does too much and now needs the "man up" advice only.[/QUOTE]


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> What they tell her is that her husband either must be gay or he is wanking off to porn daily because there is no way he could possibly just be LD. This invalidates her experience and the experience of her H and other LD men. These responses are part of the stereotypes and the resulting lack of awareness of the issues women face when they are not in a stereotypical situation.


Those are natural questions to ask on the way to - "well then, your husband is LD and it's not your fault." I don't see asking the questions as invalidating. There are the occasional drive by poster making pretty assertive comments along those lines without asking and without reading the previous several hundred posts that I'd agree and hang that tag on.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

anonmd said:


> Those are natural questions to ask on the way to - "well then, your husband is LD and it's not your fault." I don't see asking the questions as invalidating. *There are the occasional drive by poster* making pretty assertive comments along those lines without asking and without reading the previous several hundred posts that I'd agree and hang that tag on.


No, it wasn't just drive by posters. There were many regulars who refused to accept her reality.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

I'll take your word for it, unfortunate.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> What they tell her is that her husband either must be gay or he is wanking off to porn daily because there is no way he could possibly just be LD. This *invalidates* her experience and the experience of her H and other LD men. These responses are part of the stereotypes and the resulting lack of awareness of the issues women face when they are not in a stereotypical situation.


This is a serious question. What does "invalidate" mean? I hear it used, usually it seems by activist women or minorities, but I don't know what it means. How can I have a differing opinion and not be seen as "invalidating" someone? 

Is this like a man telling his wife how to solve a problem instead of acknowledging her feelings? Is it a belief that, by not being in the group, I can't understand what they experience? If I believe that someone is experiencing something but believe that it is not typical, is there someway I can disagree but not be "invalidating" them. Personally, 
When talking about a particular person, I think I do a pretty good job of understanding how something feels to them and acknowledging their experience. When talking about a general topic, not involving a specific person, it seems like "invalidating" is another way of saying that I disagree with them. But I suspect that's not it. Any help?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The ONLY person who knows what the real deal with with TCW's husband - is her husband. 

If he is gay, it would be completely rational to conceal that fact in a very religious rural community. And they live in a very religious rural community. 

Maybe he is LD. Maybe he is gay. I don't think it is possible to tell. 

I had a few friends who were gay - told me about their experiences with girls in highschool. They said a lot of the same things that T2 said to TCW. Did not like how vaginas smell. Disliked giving oral sex. Didn't like how 'wet' they got. 

So this is a good example of a situation where people are offering a reasonable hypothesis. No one is asserting it as fact, just saying its a potential reason - and yet apparently that is offensive because the one true answer is that he must be:

1. A normal LD guy who can't keep an erection even once a week.
2. Fights hard to avoid doctors and shrinks.





Faithful Wife said:


> What they tell her is that her husband either must be gay or he is wanking off to porn daily because there is no way he could possibly just be LD. This invalidates her experience and the experience of her H and other LD men. These responses are part of the stereotypes and the resulting lack of awareness of the issues women face when they are not in a stereotypical situation.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Isn't it obvious WHY some of us men are opposed to the idea that women are just as sexual? If that is true, it means we are losers. Which hurts a lot more than being on the short side of a rigged game with bad odds. If women truly want sex as much as men, and our experience has been that few if any women desire sex with us, then that means we are particularly unattractive. Not the most appetizing conclusion.


There is another possibility that you seem to be neglecting in your analysis. Perhaps you aren't "particularly unattractive", but women have tighter filters on what they consider attractive.

E.g., suppose (just for the sake of argument) that most men considered most women attractive enough to meet their "attraction bar", whereas most women considered most men NOT attractive enough to meet their "attraction bar".

In that case, you could be average or even above average in attractiveness and still get nowhere with most women.

Isn't that less depressing?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> The ONLY person who knows what the real deal with with TCW's husband - is her husband.
> 
> If he is gay, it would be completely rational to conceal that fact in a very religious rural community. And they live in a very religious rural community.
> 
> ...


Thank you for chiming in and proving the exact point AA and I have been making. You are implying that it is silliness to believe he could be a naturally LD man, as you are saying above. You saying that no one is asserting it as a fact, while at the same time saying it is so unlikely as to be mocked, is exactly what AA and I are trying to point out in these past few pages of posts.

And you don't seem to get that at all, but I'm not surprised or anything. I understand, you guys are so attached to the stereotype that it does seem silly to you.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> This is a serious question. What does "invalidate" mean? I hear it used, usually it seems by activist women or minorities, but I don't know what it means. How can I have a differing opinion and not be seen as "invalidating" someone?
> 
> Is this like a man telling his wife how to solve a problem instead of acknowledging her feelings? Is it a belief that, by not being in the group, I can't understand what they experience? If I believe that someone is experiencing something but believe that it is not typical, is there someway I can disagree but not be "invalidating" them. Personally,
> When talking about a particular person, I think I do a pretty good job of understanding how something feels to them and acknowledging their experience. When talking about a general topic, not involving a specific person, it seems like "invalidating" is another way of saying that I disagree with them. But I suspect that's not it. Any help?


Buddy, if I thought it would make any difference I would try to explain it.

Thankfully, I'm pretty clear that it won't and won't waste my time. You can make me out however you want...you are going to anyway. Obviously I must be an activist woman or a minority to feel invalidated. Yeah, that's validating.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I think a lot of education should go into responsive desire FOR BOTH SEXES.


Agree wholeheartedly with this. I think a lot of women take it very personally (dare I say, *as* personally as men do) when faced with a man who isn't chasing after them, isn't always ripping their clothes off, and doesn't actually want sex 24/7. We are taught that this isn't "natural", that something must be wrong with him. That it is a reflection on how attractive or desirable I am. And so on. But one thing I have learned being with someone with ED (besides some mad skillz) is that even though it is really, really, really, really, really (did I say really?) hard not to take it personally, looking closely for those responses can make a huge difference.

And  sorry to hear of the loss of intensity. I wouldn't be too happy about that either. Even though my sex drive has also been my curse all through my life, I wouldn't at all be happy to lose intensity like that.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

People who don't have sex don't like, want, or need it. And there's a near perfect probability that that will never change. Period. End of story. The rest is noise from the cheap seats.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Not at all. 

I think it's a 50-50 proposition. Based on the picture as drawn to date, I believe he is as likely to be LD as gay. 






Faithful Wife said:


> Thank you for chiming in and proving the exact point AA and I have been making. You are implying that it is silliness to believe he could be a naturally LD man, as you are saying above. You saying that no one is asserting it as a fact, while at the same time saying it is so unlikely as to be mocked, is exactly what AA and I are trying to point out in these past few pages of posts.
> 
> And you don't seem to get that at all, but I'm not surprised or anything. I understand, you guys are so attached to the stereotype that it does seem silly to you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Given our cultural template I absolutely believe it is MORE painful for a woman to be rejected than a man. 

Because the media portrayal almost universally portrays the man in 'hot pursuit'. 

I don't mean to be dense, but when you say:

"looking closely for those responses can make a huge difference."

What do you mean by that? 





always_alone said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with this. I think a lot of women take it very personally (dare I say, *as* personally as men do) when faced with a man who isn't chasing after them, isn't always ripping their clothes off, and doesn't actually want sex 24/7. We are taught that this isn't "natural", that something must be wrong with him. That it is a reflection on how attractive or desirable I am. And so on. But one thing I have learned being with someone with ED (besides some mad skillz) is that even though it is really, really, really, really, really (did I say really?) hard not to take it personally, looking closely for those responses can make a huge difference.
> 
> And  sorry to hear of the loss of intensity. I wouldn't be too happy about that either. Even though my sex drive has also been my curse all through my life, I wouldn't at all be happy to lose intensity like that.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> This is a serious question. What does "invalidate" mean? I hear it used, usually it seems by activist women or minorities, but I don't know what it means. How can I have a differing opinion and not be seen as "invalidating" someone?
> 
> Is this like a man telling his wife how to solve a problem instead of acknowledging her feelings? Is it a belief that, by not being in the group, I can't understand what they experience? If I believe that someone is experiencing something but believe that it is not typical, is there someway I can disagree but not be "invalidating" them. Personally,
> When talking about a particular person, I think I do a pretty good job of understanding how something feels to them and acknowledging their experience. When talking about a general topic, not involving a specific person, it seems like "invalidating" is another way of saying that I disagree with them. But I suspect that's not it. Any help?


Okay, I'll bite. 

To invalidate someone is to not take them or their position seriously. It is *not* the same as disagreement, but is rather more like dismissal, and can come in many different forms, such as 

- patronizing responses that show that you are just humoring someone but don't think their opinion is actually worth listening to (as in "those women, always complaining about being "invalidated" just because they can't stand being disagreed with")

- hand waving at something only in order to dismiss it 
(as in "thanks for sharing sweetie, but it's not like that's how anyone else in the world sees it")

-insulting the intelligence, reasoning, or observation skills of the person offering the opinion (as in, "too bad you aren't blown away by these glorious statistics because we all know that statistics *never* *ever* *ever* lead to wrong impressions. They are FACTS!!!")

- refusing to engage with any of the evidence put forward (as in "oh yeah, you showed me an array of studies? Well .... bell curve!")

- marginalizing voices by categorizing them as "not typical" (as in, "I don't care how many of you there are or what your issues might be, you have nothing to offer because you aren't like everyone (sic) else".) 

Does that help?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I don't mean to be dense, but when you say:
> 
> "looking closely for those responses can make a huge difference."
> 
> What do you mean by that?


I had to learn (am learning?) that the way I approach him can make quite a huge difference. If he feels pressure, embarrassment, shame, hurt, or any of a whole host of negative emotions/responses, then I am nothing but a turn-off. And making it worse for myself.

If I am patient, easy-going, creative, flexible, spontaneous, and a bunch of other things that evoke positive responses, I can make things a whole lot better for myself. And him, for that matter.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

always_alone said:


> I had to learn (am learning?) that the way I approach him can make quite a huge difference. If he feels pressure, embarrassment, shame, hurt, or any of a whole host of negative emotions/responses, then I am nothing but a turn-off. And making it worse for myself.


Short form, you two don't communicate well at all. It's like people who are ALWAYS crabby and unpleasant, any attempt you make to engage sets off their anger and paranoia like an invitation to be even crabbier. It's bad communication dynamic where both of you are anticipating the negative reaction you think you WILL get.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

technovelist said:


> There is another possibility that you seem to be neglecting in your analysis. Perhaps you aren't "particularly unattractive", but women have tighter filters on what they consider attractive.
> 
> E.g., suppose (just for the sake of argument) that most men considered most women attractive enough to meet their "attraction bar", whereas most women considered most men NOT attractive enough to meet their "attraction bar".
> 
> ...


I actually think this is likely to be the case with many if not most women. Hmm, does that make it less depressing? I guess so. A little bit. Makes it more like the "rigged game" I should not feel bad for losing.

Then again, in the big picture it is still depressing. Because if I cannot get myself into the top 20%, then for all intents and purposes it is as if most women are LD. Because they are LD for me. I don't really care if they are HD for tall guys or handsome guys or rich guys.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Buddy, if I thought it would make any difference I would try to explain it.
> 
> Thankfully, I'm pretty clear that it won't and won't waste my time. You can make me out however you want...you are going to anyway. Obviously I must be an activist woman or a minority to feel invalidated. *Yeah, that's validating*.


Damn, failed to validate yet again!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I had a few friends who were gay - told me about their experiences with girls in highschool. They said a lot of the same things that T2 said to TCW. Did not like how vaginas smell. Disliked giving oral sex. Didn't like how 'wet' they got.


What was it you said a few pages back about disregarding posts that start with "I have friends who...."


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I think it's a 50-50 proposition. Based on the picture as drawn to date, I believe he is as likely to be LD as gay.


sigh....

The ONLY evidence you have is that he isn't into sex, but it is a 50/50 chance this means he is gay.

Yet with an LD woman....it is "normal".

And yet you don't see that you are doing exactly what AA and I have been describing.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Okay, I'll bite.
> 
> To invalidate someone is to not take them or their position seriously. It is *not* the same as disagreement, but is rather more like dismissal, and can come in many different forms, such as
> 
> ...


Yes, thanks. So it's acting as if their position has no merit.

That's better than I thought it would be.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

One day M2 and I were bantering about some nonsense or other and she casually remarked that she was grateful for me being sensitive regarding 'birth order'. 

She's the youngest of 4. And we often joke about how 'she likes it the way she likes it'

Anyway I asked her: How many points do I get (out of a 100) for validating your feelings, and how many for doing what you ask? 
M2: So you want me to spread the 100 points between, emotional understanding/acceptance and mechanical compliance?
MEM: yes
M2: 10 points for each
MEM: raised eyebrow 
M2: it's a synergy thing - if you understand and accept how I feel but STILL don't do what I want - that's - well its condescension. Your lucky I even give you 10 points for that. 
MEM: And
M2: Well if you just mechanically comply with what I want without really understanding and agreeing with how I FEEL - that's a hollow victory. You're *really* lucky I give you 10 points for that.
MEM: (laughing) So I can't just DO what you want, I have to WANT TO DO, what you want. 
M2: right - that creates synergy and I multiply the two scores - get the 100. The combined score is still a 100. I still used up all your stupid points. Just using multiplication not addition. 
MEM: shaking my head - that wasn't quite the assignment
M2: It was. Exactly the assignment. Multiplication is simply repeated addition. 
MEM: (laughing harder) I really thought I was going to prevail here. Silly me. 
M2: You still think we're talking about me. I just described how you view our sex life.





Buddy400 said:


> This is a serious question. What does "invalidate" mean? I hear it used, usually it seems by activist women or minorities, but I don't know what it means. How can I have a differing opinion and not be seen as "invalidating" someone?
> 
> Is this like a man telling his wife how to solve a problem instead of acknowledging her feelings? Is it a belief that, by not being in the group, I can't understand what they experience? If I believe that someone is experiencing something but believe that it is not typical, is there someway I can disagree but not be "invalidating" them. Personally,
> When talking about a particular person, I think I do a pretty good job of understanding how something feels to them and acknowledging their experience. When talking about a general topic, not involving a specific person, it seems like "invalidating" is another way of saying that I disagree with them. But I suspect that's not it. Any help?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> I actually think this is likely to be the case with many if not most women. Hmm, does that make it less depressing? I guess so. A little bit. Makes it more like the "rigged game" I should not feel bad for losing.
> 
> Then again, in the big picture it is still depressing. Because if I cannot get myself into the top 20%, then for all intents and purposes it is as if most women are LD. Because they are LD for me. I don't really care if they are HD for tall guys or handsome guys or rich guys.


The top 20% get more sex, they don't get *all* the sex.

It would be nice if I had women crawling all over me offering sex. But then it would be nice to have a billion dollars too.

Actually, hard to believe as it is, it probably isn't a good thing long term to have women crawling all over you for sex. You'd have a hard time staying in a relationship, you'd be jaded, you'd figure your mere existence made women happy and be a crappy lover, do they like you for yourself or your looks/money? Still, like a billion dollars, I'd have a hard time turning it down if it happened to me. 

There was a great line in a movie once by a woman "the best thing that ever happened to me was not being beautiful, it meant that I had to develop character".


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

That is black and white thinking. He's way outside the realm of a typical LD. He seems to only really like receiving blowjobs. 

Loses his erection having intercourse even at a once a week pace. 

Much closer to a sexual aversion than a low desire. 

That's why I'm 50/50 on him. 

Does your definition of LD include folks who flat out dislike sex? 

Remember this is the guy who was warning CW that after they have kids they won't have 'time' for sex. 





Faithful Wife said:


> sigh....
> 
> The ONLY evidence you have is that he isn't into sex, but it is a 50/50 chance this means he is gay.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Does your definition of LD include folks who flat out dislike sex?


Yes, why wouldn't it?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

:smile2: sometimes the problem comes down to posting while male.

BTW, where are all these LD males on this board? There are a handful of LD women that pop in from time to time. I can't recall an LD male poster. There ought to be a few if we're all equal.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> That is black and white thinking. He's way outside the realm of a typical LD. He seems to only really like receiving blowjobs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Asexual.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

anonmd said:


> :smile2: sometimes the problem comes down to posting while male.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, where are all these LD males on this board? There are a handful of LD women that pop in from time to time. I can't recall an LD male poster. There ought to be a few if we're all equal.



I can recall one guy - some foreign dude I believe maybe Indonesian or some such - with a bunch of underscores in his user id. 

But them again TAM is hardly a random sample. 

I have yet to comprehend why non problem facing users hang out here


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
I believe it's important to have terms that are more narrowly defined is because the recommendation I might make to someone would be different if they had a - once a week - responsive desire type partner vs. a partner who has a true sexual aversion and wants to never have sex. 






Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, why wouldn't it?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> I believe it's important to have terms that are more narrowly defined is because the recommendation I might make to someone would be different if they had a - once a week - responsive desire type partner vs. a partner who has a true sexual aversion and wants to never have sex.


What are we talking about now? That he's gay? That he doesn't like sex?

The only reason I've been engaging you on this is because you continue to do the exact thing that AA and I had been talking about on the previous few pages. 

At this point, I have no idea where you're at anymore...but you are still invalidating TCW's experience and that of her husband's...


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

Reality tv without the director.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

In all seriousness, I keep following this thread to try and make sense of my ASEXUAL husband. I have the wonderful gift of empathy. Therefore, I am able to change the gender rolls and strive to learn where the hell my husband is coming from. And learning how I can avoid this situation the next time. 

I also love to hear from women who have broken out of the "acceptable female sexuality role" and are free to explore who they really are without all of the double standards.

Eta: and FVCKING guilt. I'm getting over it


----------



## lifecolorful (Oct 5, 2015)

I believe it has nothing to do with intimacy, but everything to do with control. She wants to be the one at the helm. Yes, she likes flirting, because it lets her know you are interested, but when it comes to getting to it, she wants to call the shots. Denying you is the ultimate control.

She loves sex, as you said she enjoys it during the act, but she likes being the boss even more.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Elizabeth001 said:


> In all seriousness, I keep following this thread to try and make sense of my ASEXUAL husband. I have the wonderful gift of empathy. Therefore, I am able to change the gender rolls and strive to learn where the hell my husband is coming from. And learning how I can avoid this situation the next time.
> 
> I also love to hear from women who have broken out of the "acceptable female sexuality role" and are free to explore who they really are without all of the double standards.
> 
> Eta: and FVCKING guilt. I'm getting over it


:toast:

Rock on my sex-lovin' sistah!


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

I would cheers you back but I am out of wine and sleepy. Have a great one sista. lol


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Buddy: I guess if I had ever built character or even learned to be a decent lover then I would appreciate not being born beautiful. As it is, I'm holding out hope for hitting the lottery (what was it you thought I was holding onto?).

Mem: I gave up sex when I realized M2 was correct, it is multiplicative. Since I knew there was always going to be a 0 as one factor, didn't seem worth making any effort to raise the other factor. 0 x 0 is exactly the same as 0 x 10.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

anonmd said:


> :smile2: sometimes the problem comes down to posting while male.
> 
> BTW, where are all these LD males on this board? There are a handful of LD women that pop in from time to time. I can't recall an LD male poster. There ought to be a few if we're all equal.


Ah hahahaha. Funny!

I've seen guys on TAM going on about how "HD" they are, only to admit later that any more than a few times a week, and they just aren"t as into it. They need "time to build their anticipation."

The odds of a guy admitting here he is LD is somewhere between zero and, well, zero. But not because he isn't LD, but because he would either be laughed out of town, or just because there would be conceivable benefit from admitting it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Yet you see men giving details of even worse...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

A_A is correct. The flip side of slvt shaming is LD male shaming. Very few males would post online about being LD. And those who do get savaged. I have been actively posting on message boards regarding mismatched libidos for over a decade. I can think of a handful of LD males who posted with any frequency. They were all treated exceptionally poorly.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Ah hahahaha. Funny!
> 
> I've seen guys on TAM going on about how "HD" they are, only to admit later that any more than a few times a week, and they just aren"t as into it. They need "time to build their anticipation."


I've got no problem admitting to that. Once or twice on a weekend + once during the week would be perfectly fine. There was once about 5 or 6 years ago where some sort of hormonal insanity briefly occupied my wife ans she needed sex something like 6 or 7 times in 4 days or so. Got close to turning her down at the end, then it passed :wink2:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

That makes total sense to me. M2 is pretty low key with me. And it helps that she's experienced a loss of desire (on and off) for quite some time.

I will tell you this though. It's a bit unnerving when the ignition system goes out. It requires a small leap of faith that everything will work as it's supposed to if I relax and let nature take its course. 

And stuff that wouldn't have thrown me off. Does now. 

I get out of the shower dry off, come in the bedroom and as I'm about to get in bed M2 fires off a big yawn. 

So I paused and said - hey if you're tired you can just crash. After a quick back and forth where she insisted she was awake and wanted to play: 
We played, I got her to the rapture and then declined to have her finish me. I wasn't being vindictive. Just having a hard time processing mixed signals. Mixed signals plus low desire = system crash. 





always_alone said:


> I had to learn (am learning?) that the way I approach him can make quite a huge difference. If he feels pressure, embarrassment, shame, hurt, or any of a whole host of negative emotions/responses, then I am nothing but a turn-off. And making it worse for myself.
> 
> If I am patient, easy-going, creative, flexible, spontaneous, and a bunch of other things that evoke positive responses, I can make things a whole lot better for myself. And him, for that matter.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Ah hahahaha. Funny!
> 
> I've seen guys on TAM going on about how "HD" they are, only to admit later that any more than a few times a week, and they just aren"t as into it. They need "time to build their anticipation."
> 
> The odds of a guy admitting here he is LD is somewhere between zero and, well, zero. But not because he isn't LD, but because he would either be laughed out of town, or just because there would be conceivable benefit from admitting it.


That's not necessarily true though. Whereas I am now at a point where my libido is "through the roof", I have mentioned on more than one occasion...PUBLICLY..where there was a point when I was definitely LD due to health issues (weight , BP, cholesterol, etc).

I may have remedied the situation, but I have never hidden from the fact that there was a time in the not too distant past when I really had no interest. These things can be rectified in many instances.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Not at all. I feel genuinely sorry for TCW and have told her that repeatedly. 

I've pointed out where he's being manipulative. 

I've validated her misery and described the subtext of his behavior because I've seen it before. 

The statement: We won't have time to have sex after we have kids. 

Is a HUGE RED FLAG. I warned her that he was letting her know that as soon as he had a plausible excuse for shutting down their sex life, he would take it. 

As to the underlying cause of his sexual aversion, I'm not sure it matters all that much. She is equally miserable either way. 

Agreeing or disagreeing with your analysis as to WHY he dislikes sex with her is uncorrelated to validating him or her. 

And FWIW, I did give him props for telling her as much truth as he believed she could handle. He is also in a terrible spot. 




Faithful Wife said:


> What are we talking about now? That he's gay? That he doesn't like sex?
> 
> The only reason I've been engaging you on this is because you continue to do the exact thing that AA and I had been talking about on the previous few pages.
> 
> At this point, I have no idea where you're at anymore...but you are still invalidating TCW's experience and that of her husband's...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mem, I guess you just aren't going to get my point.

Yes, I agree that you have been supportive of TCW. But you also still think there's a 50% chance he is gay, and that is dismissive. TCW had heard that so many times on her thread and explained so many times that he isn't that she got upset with people over it more than once. To me, you still clinging to that idea is dismissive and not supportive, and it is part of the overall issue AA and I were talking about.

The huge red flag you are pointing out, IMO, is no different than many similar things an LD wife would say. It is not unusual in the least for a truly LD person to be pre-emptively lowering the HD's expectations for sex, especially when they have felt hounded for sex for a long time already. It is very common. I understand what you are saying about warning her...but you still do not project the idea that he is no different than an LD woman. You still contend it is more than that, like 50% chance he is gay. That isn't something I've EVER heard anyone say about an LD woman unless there was a smoking gun like lesbian porn all over or the wife had been known to be bi-sexual.

LD men are not rare, and they are not "usually gay". But since "he's gay" is the typical advice given to HD women with LD men, we hear about it less often than HD men with LD women, because a woman in that position is already so ashamed, and that just rubs salt in the wound. Because of the stereotype that "all men want sex more than women", the HD woman with an LD man is already acutely aware that society will think there is something wrong with her or that he is gay...it is already drilled into her head. So she doesn't know where to turn or who to ask and BAM, the second she tries, the replies are "he's gay". So she doesn't bother asking beyond that and typically suffers in silence. She doesn't want to shame herself or her husband anymore than what she is already living.

Once in awhile you get a brave soul like this one....

A Marriage Without Sex Scary Mommy

Please...read the comments. It isn't uncommon, and it isn't because they are gay.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> And stuff that wouldn't have thrown me off. Does now.
> 
> I get out of the shower dry off, come in the bedroom and as I'm about to get in bed M2 fires off a big yawn.
> 
> ...


Sexuality is part of our identity, a very vulnerable part, which is IMHO what makes it so hard to take when we are rejected, or so hard to come to grips with when our body can no longer do what it's supposed to / used to. (aka getting older sux!)

This is why I think it is so much more valuable and helpful when we talk across to each other, to share these things as they are, as how they feel, rather than importing in a bunch of presuppositions about "things generally". 

Truth is, some of us fit stereotypes better than others, but "things generally" are rarely the way things actually are, at least in sum, and tapping into our real experiences is where we can gain empathy and understanding. When you've lived on both sides of the track, you learn that really we're all just people deep down inside.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MountainRunner said:


> That's not necessarily true though. Whereas I am now at a point where my libido is "through the roof", I have mentioned on more than one occasion...PUBLICLY..where there was a point when I was definitely LD due to health issues (weight , BP, cholesterol, etc).
> 
> I may have remedied the situation, but I have never hidden from the fact that there was a time in the not too distant past when I really had no interest. These things can be rectified in many instances.


Stories of surmounting, of beating down obstacles and achieving success, are always well received. Such stories are what gives us hope. It's a bit different when there is no surmounting, no overcoming of obstacles, no ultimate success in the end.

Still, I am happy to be corrected on this issue. I tend to think Holdingontoit is right that LD shaming is for men what slvt shaming is for women, but would much rather that we could rise above both forms.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I agree that you have been supportive of TCW. But you also still think there's a 50% chance he is gay, and that is dismissive. TCW had heard that so many times on her thread and explained so many times that he isn't that she got upset with people over it more than once. To me, you still clinging to that idea is dismissive and not supportive, and it is part of the overall issue AA and I were talking about.
> 
> The huge red flag you are pointing out, IMO, is no different than many similar things an LD wife would say. It is not unusual in the least for a truly LD person to be pre-emptively lowering the HD's expectations for sex, especially when they have felt hounded for sex for a long time already. It is very common. I understand what you are saying about warning her...but you still do not project the idea that he is no different than an LD woman. You still contend it is more than that, like 50% chance he is gay. That isn't something I've EVER heard anyone say about an LD woman unless there was a smoking gun like lesbian porn all over or the wife had been known to be bi-sexual.



I see it as a threshold thing. It is not in and of itself wrong to consider what might be causing a problem, or suggesting alternatives as to what might be at the root. Where it starts to be an issue is when, as in TCW's case, she had to explain again and again and again and took a whole lot of snark and abuse in the process.

In the reverse scenario, the HD man is told, as someone pointed out earlier, to get to the gym, look fit, dress sharp, but in general the assumptions are that he is, if he is making any mistakes at all, just "too nice". And yeah, welcome to the club (backslapping all around). He means well, his intentions are good, his bad attitudes and resentment are perfectly understandable given the hardship he is suffering. He just needs to not be as available to her, make her want to hysterically bond to keep that provider around.

In the HD woman case, though, there is no backslapping and welcome to the club, no sense that what she is going through is actually normal. It has to be either he is gay (in which case why isn't he going after men, this is the new millennium after all) or she is just one of those uggo women who has no right to a partner in the first place. After all, the fix for a man is easy: just take a pill.

It's difficult to put a finger on it exactly, but the assumptions and thresholds of acceptability are quite different for those who easily fit into accepted stereotypes and those who don't.

I mean we are *still* hearing about how only 20% of men are attractive, with a bunch of people nodding sagely. No matter how many times you point out the oddity of the math. No matter how many times you show it is projection, and that it is equally true that men only want 20% of women. No matter how much you confess to being rejected. Nope, has to be that way because some evo-psych dude in a funny hat said it was true.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

always_alone said:


> This is why I think it is so much more valuable and helpful when we talk across to each other, to share these things as they are, as how they feel, rather than importing in a bunch of presuppositions about "things generally".
> 
> Truth is, some of us fit stereotypes better than others, but "things generally" are rarely the way things actually are, at least in sum, and tapping into our real experiences is where we can gain empathy and understanding. When you've lived on both sides of the track, you learn that really we're all just people deep down inside.


Aa, what I understand from this is that you feel it is more effective to look at each person as an individual, and really seek to understand their individual makeup, as opposed to fitting them into a pre-labeled box in our heads. Is that correct?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> Aa, what I understand from this is that you feel it is more effective to look at each person as an individual, and really seek to understand their individual makeup, as opposed to fitting them into a pre-labeled box in our heads. Is that correct?



It is - but when you start talking in general terms you need to use populations or samples... 

Individual cases are just that, individual cases. Population data is just that, population data. The peanut gallery seems to have a major issue understanding the differences and similarities. But pop psych, self help, and psychics all know how to convince people about going from one to the other 

I spent a whole bunch of time wondering if I'm normal (in my teens). Concluded I was not. Lived happily ever after. There's non normal shaming of course (what? He doesn't golf but he shoots aliens on Halo?) but it's part of the experience.

Just like our female friends here that love this or that, me and my few 40's and 50's friends enjoy all kinds of typical AND atypical things  but we have the wherewithal to recognize if we are typical or not and celebrate our apparent non normalcy. We are not, repeat, not, invalidated by anyone's comments online or IRL.

Embrace the box even if you're out of it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA and FW,

Running the TCW scenario with genders reversed, produced an ODD result. I couldn't generate a high confidence 'she must be a lesbian' result. I can't explain that other than - I have a strong bias I'm apparently unaware of. 

Then I read AA's analysis below - a few times. It deserves separate responses. 





always_alone said:


> I see it as a threshold thing. It is not in and of itself wrong to consider what might be causing a problem, or suggesting alternatives as to what might be at the root. Where it starts to be an issue is when, as in TCW's case, she had to explain again and again and again and took a whole lot of snark and abuse in the process.
> 
> In the reverse scenario, the HD man is told, as someone pointed out earlier, to get to the gym, look fit, dress sharp, but in general the assumptions are that he is, if he is making any mistakes at all, just "too nice". And yeah, welcome to the club (backslapping all around). He means well, his intentions are good, his bad attitudes and resentment are perfectly understandable given the hardship he is suffering. He just needs to not be as available to her, make her want to hysterically bond to keep that provider around.
> 
> ...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

john117 said:


> It is - but when you start talking in general terms you need to use populations or samples...
> 
> Individual cases are just that, individual cases. Population data is just that, population data. The peanut gallery seems to have a major issue understanding the differences and similarities. But pop psych, self help, and psychics all know how to convince people about going from one to the other
> 
> ...


John, the problem is that there isn't an even playing field so you can't determine the "box". You can't say what is normal or what is average until you can look at female sexuality with no bias, no societal influence, no stereotypes. 

Now that it's starting to become more accepted for women to be sexual, we are seeing more and more HD and ND women coming out of the closet to talk about their mismatched marriages. 

The playing field is starting to even out and so are the numbers of HD vs. LD in men and women. 

It's no more or less normal for a man to be low or high drive than it is a woman.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's where stereotypes - deserved or not - come into the decision process. 

Is a stereotype invalidating? Maybe. "All XXX are YYY" is not too well received. But it's a "reality" that needs to be dealt with or ignored. Sexuality is an iffy area because people don't *generally* talk openly about such things. Some do but in America at least one speaks not of salary, grades, and....


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The playing field will take a while to level out - if it ever does. The younger generations will see it nice and level but it's no consolation for older people.

I guess when we croak well be buried level


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> It is - but when you start talking in general terms you need to use populations or samples...
> 
> Individual cases are just that, individual cases. Population data is just that, population data. The peanut gallery seems to have a major issue understanding the differences and similarities. But pop psych, self help, and psychics all know how to convince people about going from one to the other
> 
> ...


"No one knows what it's like
To be the bad man
The sad man
Behind blue eyes

No one knows what it's like
To be hated
To be fated
To telling only lies"

Now imagine a stadium of multi-thousands of people singing those same lyrics. Now tell me again, what is "normal"? 


It's a shame you are so busy looking down on everyone that you cannot even hear what is being said.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

On the "married to an LD/ND man" thread, we are now up to 3 "he's gay" posts. And I'm sure the number will keep rising...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> AA and FW,
> 
> Running the TCW scenario with genders reversed, produced an ODD result. I couldn't generate a high confidence 'she must be a lesbian' result. I can't explain that other than - I have a strong bias I'm apparently unaware of.
> 
> Then I read AA's analysis below - a few times. It deserves separate responses.


Did you read the link I posted last night and the comments?

It isn't just you with an bias.

That's the point.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'm not sure why these thread drift into gender wars. People discuss averages, but those averages really don't matter. A lot of marriages (maybe most) do not have a big LD/HD imbalance so the issue is not with the averages, but with the outliers. 

There are posts from HD/LD situations with either gender LD. I haven't noticed posts from same-sex couples on HD/LD, but I assume it is an issue there as well

Sometimes the cause is clear - the HD person may be acting in a way that makes them clearly undesirable. From what I've seen though, that seems to be a minority - often the the HD person is lusting after a LD person who is making no effort to be attractive. This sort of makes sense - a LD person with a HD partner has no direct motivation to attempt to be desirable - sex is just something they get whenever they want.

In many cases the HD person is behaving very reasonably - the LD person just doesn't want sex. These are the cases that go on for years or decades as the HD tries to figure out what they can to do "fix" the problem, where in general there is no fix. The LD seems innate - like sexual orientation, and not amenable to change. This can be a complete lack of interest in sex, or like my wife a very binary interest: when she wants sex, she wants it. When she doesn't, she doesn't. Nothing will change her mind in either direction. (I realized recently that I can't remember a case where we had sex when I suggested / initiated it). 


On the arguments: I don't remember seeing any negative comments toward HD women or men. They are almost always told that being HD is great. There are some negative comments toward LD men or women - mostly from miserable HD people who tend to lash out just from general frustration.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Looking down? :lol: My bad, that was invalidating 

Let me be brutally honest AA. We are far more alike than we are different. Once you subset enough by a handful of factors you'll be surprised.

Of course, the legend of American individualism and other cultural stereotypes convince us we are all special so we all can't be typical, what horrors!!!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> On the "married to an LD/ND man" thread, we are now up to 3 "he's gay" posts. And I'm sure the number will keep rising...



Could it be that the collective does not (yet) have access to the nuances that can tell whether the dude IS gay or whether he is this or that?

Most skilled therapists could take many sessions to decipher this without a chat with the dude himself.

Occam's Razor, meet TAM.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

jld said:


> Aa, what I understand from this is that you feel it is more effective to look at each person as an individual, and really seek to understand their individual makeup, as opposed to fitting them into a pre-labeled box in our heads. Is that correct?


Yes, especially for these sorts of conversations. The boxes are considered efficient, but they are limiting, and really only helpful for determining how "normal" we are. And like john says: who cares?

One thing I learned travelling is that when you encounter a different culture, there are many, many, many obvious differences between cultures. But underneath those differences are similarities. And like an onion, when you peel back the layers, there are differences and similarities at all depths. I was struck by the fact that I could be in a foreign land, with people who are ostensibly fundamentally different from me, and yet feel more affinity to them than someone who was supposedly "my kind", with same colour of skin, same socio-economic status, same cultural background, similar life-experience trajectory, and so on. It was eye-opening.

Simlarly, I find here that once you get past the "men are this", "women are that" you actually see some pretty remarkable similarities in how we feel, react, experience. That there are differences is obvious, but what those differences amount to is not.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I could swear I wrote the last paragraph but anyhow  there are reasons for gender differences - lots of them.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Could it be that the collective does not (yet) have access to the nuances that can tell whether the dude IS gay or whether he is this or that?
> 
> Most skilled therapists could take many sessions to decipher this without a chat with the dude himself.
> 
> Occam's Razor, meet TAM.



So why isn't your thread filled with all sorts of speculation about whether your wife is a lesbian. I mean, surely that's just as plausible?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> So why isn't your thread filled with all sorts of speculation about whether your wife is a lesbian. I mean, surely that's just as plausible?



Holy Invalidating LOLZ Batman...

Would a lesbian woman NOT seek the company of like minded women? Overtly or covertly? Dr. J2 is batting .000 here... Possible? Yea. Probable? Not in six sigma territory at least.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Holy Invalidating LOLZ Batman...
> 
> Would a lesbian woman NOT seek the company of like minded women? Overtly or covertly? Dr. J2 is batting .000 here... Possible? Yea. Probable? Not in six sigma territory at least.


Would a gay man NOT seek the company of like-minded men? 

Overtly or covertly, these other guys are also batting .000.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

And on the "sex for wife is work" thread, only 3 posts in and we already have sl*t shaming going on. "Since she's a sl*t who has had 12 partners, obviously sex doesn't mean anything to her and neither do you mean anything to her you're just number 13...that's why she wants to hop on and hop off...she's a sl*t, that's what sl*ts do". (my paraphrasing)


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Sigh.

If they're gay/lesbians, would they NOT make a move towards finding someone more suitable, overtly or covertly?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> If they're gay/lesbians, would they NOT make a move towards finding someone more suitable, overtly or covertly?


I think it would probably come to that, as I don't think people can deny their natures forever.

But if they themselves suffer from homophobia, it might take a while.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> And on the "sex for wife is work" thread, only 3 posts in and we already have sl*t shaming going on. "Since she's a sl*t who has had 12 partners, obviously sex doesn't mean anything to her and neither do you mean anything to her you're just number 13...that's why she wants to hop on and hop off...she's a sl*t, that's what sl*ts do". (my paraphrasing)


Yep and she's "not marriage material".


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> I think it would probably come to that, as I don't think people can deny their natures forever.
> 
> 
> 
> But if they themselves suffer from homophobia, it might take a while.



Like, years? Many years? 

As I said, it's possible. But Occam has better explanations.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> Like, years? Many years?
> 
> As I said, it's possible. But Occam has better explanations.


My sister is a lesbian, and she has known women who have come out after years and years of marriage, having children, etc. They just did not feel they could. Too repressed by fear of society, their loved ones' feelings, etc.

It takes a lot of courage to be honest with oneself like that, I think. I hope now that gay marriage is legal, homophobia even among gay folks will become a thing of the past. No one should feel forced to live with that kind of fear of self.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

As I said, possible. 

But there's a huge line between possible and likely especially considering the strong willed take no prisoner types we see here on occasion that could be in this scenario.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> As I said, possible.
> 
> But there's a huge line between possible and likely especially considering the strong willed take no prisoner types we see here on occasion that could be in this scenario.


Which is precisely why it is ridiculous for people to spout "he's gay!" every time we see an HD woman with an LD man here and elsewhere.

A very small percentage of people are gay...and although it does happen, usually due to the gay person not accepting their sexuality and that is changing now rapidly...but numbers wise, I would wager there are far less gay men than there are LD men.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The mind often picks what's available / convenient, not what's rational. It's our friend the availability heuristic.

If you accept 10% of men are gay and 30% have some sexual dysfunction the odds are 3:1 against gay. But it's a convenient explanation that's also incorrect. 

But invalidating? If I'm Mrs. HD I care about figuring out what's going on - so I need ideas and not sugarcoating. For all I know Mr. LD is an alien creature that eats live hamsters for lunch and is asexual. Yea it's a remote chance but it is a possibility.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> It's funny because men here at TAM are always telling women it's not the sex, it's the connection. But it would seem that their wives are actually quite right that it is just the sex, and it doesn't actually mean anything.




I can only speak for myself, but I swear by all that is good and holy in this world that when I say it is about connection (or rejection) and not about using my wife's holes (her words), that is what I feel.



You invalidate, with a wide brush.



I mean this literally, and I risk saying it here publically because I happen to respect and like you despite our differences of opinion: I think your statement above comes from wishful thinking, and not the most stringently honest and logical thinking I know you are capable of and often demonstrate here. If so, I'm left wondering why.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

john117 said:


> The mind often picks what's available / convenient, not what's rational. It's our friend the availability heuristic.
> 
> If you accept 10% of men are gay and 30% have some sexual dysfunction the odds are 3:1 against gay. But it's a convenient explanation that's also incorrect.
> 
> But invalidating? If I'm Mrs. HD I care about figuring out what's going on - so I need ideas and not sugarcoating. For all I know Mr. LD is an alien creature that eats live hamsters for lunch and is asexual. Yea it's a remote chance but it is a possibility.


And so the reason that this doesn't come up with LD wives constantly is......????

If you don't see the point I'm making, you just don't.

But the reason is this whole stereotypical crap. 

"If a man doesn't want sex with any willing woman, he is gay" is a HUGE part of the stupid, dangerous message in the stereotype.

Less than 2% of the population is gay by the way....no where close to 10%.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> What are we talking about now? That he's gay? That he doesn't like sex?
> 
> The only reason I've been engaging you on this is because you continue to do the exact thing that AA and I had been talking about on the previous few pages.
> 
> At this point, I have no idea where you're at anymore...but you are still invalidating TCW's experience and that of her husband's...


I don't see how putting forth the possibility that TCW's H is gay invalidates TCW's experience and that of her husband. If he doesn't like sex with her and there doesn't seem to be anything she can do about it, what does it matter?

I can see how this might be seen as invalidating your proposal that men and women are HD/LD in exactly the same numbers for exactly the same reasons. Is that why this upsets you so much?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

Let's run the exercise - with genders reversed. 

T1: HD man
T2: ND woman (Feels the same way about sex as TCW's H)

They were each other's first partners. 

We ask a lot of questions - clearly T1 is a motivated and giving partner. T2 can barely tolerate sex with him. They are both devout Christians - living in a religious rural environment. 

My default assumptions in order of likeliness: 
- She isn't attracted to him 
- She doesn't like sex (asexual)

I don't know why lesbian doesn't show up on my list. I think it should for the reasons John referenced. Aren't lesbians more common than asexuals? Or about as common. Today - asexuals self identify at around 1% of the population. My guess is that number is low, and over time more folks will step forward and identify that way. 




always_alone said:


> So why isn't your thread filled with all sorts of speculation about whether your wife is a lesbian. I mean, surely that's just as plausible?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

PieceOfSky said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I swear by all that is good and holy in this world that when I say it is about connection (or rejection) and not about using my wife's holes (her words), that is what I feel.
> 
> You invalidate, with a wide brush.


I was going to point out that there seemed to be some invalidating of men going on here as well.

In fact, it seems that almost all opposing thoughts are hand waved away with the greatest of ease. We believe in foolish stereotypes, we haven't read the latest findings, we misunderstand them, what we think we see all around us everyday is wrong......


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

As I said, it's the availability heuristic. Look it up. 

2% or 10% it's just how the mind picks rules to make decisions.

Guy older? - ED or low T
Guy successful etc - getting it on the side or looking for #2
Guy younger - gay
In general - wife not hot enough etc

The average person has little idea of asexuality - it's all someone else's folly. 

It's not rocket science. If it was someone close friend or in a therapy session they'd ask 1000 follow up questions. But this being TAM you fire rules until there's a match. 

Flip it around for women and it's the same thing. Different rules but the same process. 

Is it invalidating? If ones skin is thin, yea. Sorry. But that's how you get answers.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> My default assumptions in order of likeliness:
> - She isn't attracted to him
> - She doesn't like sex (asexual)
> 
> I don't know why lesbian doesn't show up on my list. I think it should for the reasons John referenced. Aren't lesbians more common than asexuals? Or about as common. Today - asexuals self identify at around 1% of the population. My guess is that number is low, and over time more folks will step forward and identify that way.


You really don't see why your bias occurs? Really, MEM?

Can you maybe open yourself up a bit to the ideas AA and I have been presenting? That there has been a long history of sl*t shaming combined with a long history of LD man shaming that converge into an unrealistic picture for many people? And that maybe this has seeped into your mind as well?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> 
> Let's run the exercise - with genders reversed.
> 
> ...


Common knowledge has it that it's not unusual for women to not want sex. So it isn't necessary to look for a reason like "she might be a lesbian"

Common knowledge has it that it IS unusual for a man not to want sex. So it is necessary to look for a reason like "he might be gay".

Posing the question is representative of one's views regarding common knowledge in this situation.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> So why isn't your thread filled with all sorts of speculation about whether your wife is a lesbian. I mean, surely that's just as plausible?


Are you speaking of john117's wife? If so, it seems pretty clear (from what John has reported) that his wife suffers from some form of mental illness. It also seems they had many good sexually-compatible years together.



Faithful Wife said:


> You really don't see why your bias occurs? Really, MEM?
> 
> Can you maybe open yourself up a bit to the ideas AA and I have been presenting? That there has been a long history of sl*t shaming combined with a long history of LD man shaming that converge into an unrealistic picture for many people? And that maybe this has seeped into your mind as well?


FW, if MEM's answer is "No, I don't think that has seeped into my mind", do you think you will be comfortable believing it, or will you conclude MEM is just too far gone to even see it?

I'd agree there is a long history of sl*t shaming, and I'd agree many people have a hard time understanding there are LD men and what people don't understand they quite often cast shame at.

But there are many possible factors influencing what one believes -- some are obvious, but some are not. I can think of some here that have not been mentioned. And, I'd guess there are more.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I would phrase it somewhat differently. I am wondering if the social pressure for lesbians to marry men, have children and pretend they are hetero is the same as the pressure on male homosexuals. Anecdotal evidence indicates it is fairly common for gay males to marry and have children and hide their sexuality from their spouse. Is this also true for lesbians? I have no idea. Do lesbians typically find sex with men more unpleasant than gay men find sex with females? Again, I have no gut feeling one way or the other.

But I think this may explain some of the disparity. People may believe that men are more likely than women to "pretend" they are hetero. Then again, we hear more and more stories these days of wives leaving their husbands for a woman. So maybe the occurrences are more even than we realize.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but I don't think a "very small percentage of people are gay". I thought it was in the neighborhood of 10-20%. Since many places have had a social stigma against homosexuality, many gays / lesbians can end up in heterosexual marriages. Some may not even be really aware of their own orientation - it is so stigmatized that they won't admit it to themselves. 

I don't know how to tell what percent of LD/HD situations are actually orientation issues, but I don't see any reason too rule it out.

Things are made more complicated because people cover a range from "gay" to "straight". So there may be many people who are no completely gay, but who are more attracted to same-sex partners, but who are stuck in hetero marriages.




Faithful Wife said:


> Which is precisely why it is ridiculous for people to spout "he's gay!" every time we see an HD woman with an LD man here and elsewhere.
> 
> A very small percentage of people are gay...and although it does happen, usually due to the gay person not accepting their sexuality and that is changing now rapidly...but numbers wise, I would wager there are far less gay men than there are LD men.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW, 
But I'm not ashamed - my sex drive has disappeared. 

I didn't choose it to happen. Quite honestly I miss it. 

And even before that happened I wouldn't 'shame' anyone, man or woman for having a low drive. 

Where I have a very defined viewpoint, is how folks DEAL with their situations and their partners. 

For instance - I'm very judgemental of T2:
- not being willing to try testosterone supplements
- not being willing to try Viagra
- seemingly being less worried about TCW than I think he should be

But I also feel bad for him. He knows he's a big disappointment to TCW in this area. And likely feels beaten down about it. 

I doubt he had any idea what day to day married life would be like. 

It is like one of those Greek tragedies....




Faithful Wife said:


> You really don't see why your bias occurs? Really, MEM?
> 
> Can you maybe open yourself up a bit to the ideas AA and I have been presenting? That there has been a long history of sl*t shaming combined with a long history of LD man shaming that converge into an unrealistic picture for many people? And that maybe this has seeped into your mind as well?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> But I'm not ashamed - my sex drive has disappeared.
> 
> I didn't choose it to happen. Quite honestly I miss it.
> ...


MEM, I never said you shamed anyone for having a low drive.

I was asking if you could see how the cultural narrative may have shaped your thinking that if a man is LD is may be gay, but if a woman is LD you don't tend to think that.

But it's ok...as I said earlier, it appears you just aren't going to see my point.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but I don't think a "very small percentage of people are gay". I thought it was in the neighborhood of 10-20%. Since many places have had a social stigma against homosexuality, many gays / lesbians can end up in heterosexual marriages. Some may not even be really aware of their own orientation - it is so stigmatized that they won't admit it to themselves.


Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.

"The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans' 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year."


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Common assumption based on the history of sl*t shaming has it that it's not unusual for women to not want sex. So it isn't necessary to look for a reason like "she might be a lesbian"
> 
> Common assumption based on the history of LD man shaming has it that it IS unusual for a man not to want sex. So it is necessary to look for a reason like "he might be gay".


FYP.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> If they're gay/lesbians, would they NOT make a move towards finding someone more suitable, overtly or covertly?


Exactly! So why the sigh?

Why presume someone is gay when they have made zero indication that they are? When they do *not* find someone more suitable, whether in real life or in pictures? When they do not seek out the company of the same sex?

But no doubt it is still obvious to you that it makes sense to repeatedly badger an HD woman endlessly about the sexual orientation of her LD husband, but to *never*, *not once* raise the question of the orientation of an LD wife.

Because?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I swear by all that is good and holy in this world that when I say it is about connection (or rejection) and not about using my wife's holes (her words), that is what I feel.
> 
> You invalidate, with a wide brush.
> 
> I mean this literally, and I risk saying it here publically because I happen to respect and like you despite our differences of opinion: I think your statement above comes from wishful thinking, and not the most stringently honest and logical thinking I know you are capable of and often demonstrate here. If so, I'm left wondering why.


Please understand, PieceOfSky, those words you quoted are not my actual view. They were an inference I was drawing from what another poster was saying.

IME,.men are just as interested in real emotional connection, acceptance for who they really are, and love as women are. But often, the way men portray themselves paints a quite different picture.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Common knowledge has it that it's not unusual for women to not want sex. So it isn't necessary to look for a reason like "she might be a lesbian"
> 
> Common knowledge has it that it IS unusual for a man not to want sex. So it is necessary to look for a reason like "he might be gay".
> 
> Posing the question is representative of one's views regarding common knowledge in this situation.


"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age 18"

Or, if you prefer

"Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat"

Both quotes from Albert Einstein.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I was going to point out that there seemed to be some invalidating of men going on here as well.
> 
> In fact, it seems that almost all opposing thoughts are hand waved away with the greatest of ease. We believe in foolish stereotypes, we haven't read the latest findings, we misunderstand them, what we think we see all around us everyday is wrong......


I am happy to engage with you on all points. I have posted studies referencing a few of my sources and can post more, I have offered evidence from history, from culture, from personal experience, from reasoning and analysis. I have acknowledged explicitly that what you are experiencing is typical, even allowed that it is conceivably a majority.

What more do you need to be validated? I ask this as a sincere question.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Intersting. 
There is a lot of regional variation, so maybe that contributes to the estimate?

Polling is also very difficult on a topic like this.

That said, I don't have a better number than yours. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.
> 
> "The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans' 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year."


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> But invalidating? If I'm Mrs. HD I care about figuring out what's going on - so I need ideas and not sugarcoating. For all I know Mr. LD is an alien creature that eats live hamsters for lunch and is asexual. Yea it's a remote chance but it is a possibility.


Again, it's not invalidating to offer an idea, or to present a different perspective (unless it is done in a completely patronizing or dismissive way). What's invalidating is to beat someone over the head again and again with something they have patiently addressed again and again, just because you're unwilling to even consider the possibility that your prejudices and stereotypes might be mistaken. 

Even though the mere thought of applying the same logic to your own scenario, or a gender reversed scenario, doesn't compute in the slightest.

You do realize that you've basically just said it would be more reasonable to suggest an LD man is a hamster-eating alien than to suggest a woman might be avoiding sex with her man because she is lesbian?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

75% of wives say sex is 'very important' to them; only 5% said it wasn't
No Sex in Marriage? Here's What You Can Do About It

In an article I came across today when I was looking into some of my own stuff. Thought I'd share. 


I'd say 5% is a pretty reasonable number to be completely LD. 
But I think it's funny that it also says "Stress and exhaustion are the biggest sex drive killers for wives; ironically, the aspect least affecting desire is attraction to their husbands." Seeing how TAM is so big on the opposite. 

But then I agree with that part of the article too.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
**** shaming - to be fair I'm more aware of it - and starting to pay more attention to it - based on our recent exchanges. 

As common as it is ugly. 

And yes it's ugly. And on the thread we both recently participated in - it was in half the posts - maybe more. 

Starting with the OP. 

You might however want to consider how best to educate folks on this stuff. For instance - the OP in that thread - UNINTENTIONALLY opened the damn thread **** shaming his own wife. 

I asked myself, is he doing this consciously and/or with malicious intent? I believed not. So I simply asked him to put to himself the question he was asking of her. 

Honestly - I'm not sure he got it. He claims he did. Here's to hope....  

When a poster from another culture chimed in with more of the same - I winced - and let it go. Because my 'success rate' with that fellow is at best 50-50. 

Then there was the fellow who stood out from the **** shaming crowd. That guy was clearly over the 'bright line'. I was composing my response to him when I saw your posts to me. 

I was tempted to make a more general comment on that thread about **** shaming - but it really is hard to educate folks unless they WANT to be educated. 





Faithful Wife said:


> MEM, I never said you shamed anyone for having a low drive.
> 
> I was asking if you could see how the cultural narrative may have shaped your thinking that if a man is LD is may be gay, but if a woman is LD you don't tend to think that.
> 
> But it's ok...as I said earlier, it appears you just aren't going to see my point.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Exactly! So why the sigh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't recall badgering anyone, AA. It's not my style, LD or HD or MartianD.

As to the first question, there's a basic concept called "Availability Heuristic". Because it comes to mind due to cultural stereotypes and / or cues, ABSENT OTHER INFORMATION. 

The brain loves to simplify / reduce and classify, like any good computer. Entire sciences have been created around this


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> **** shaming - to be fair I'm more aware of it - and starting to pay more attention to it - based on our recent exchanges.
> 
> As common as it is ugly.
> ...


Yes, I agree that I'm not necessarily going to educate anyone. I am more concerned (here at TAM) with keeping extremely ugly examples of sl*t shaming out of posts. In the big picture, if TAM doesn't allow that type of thing, that's got some power behind it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

Part of what - dilutes your message - is what I can only describe as 'over reach'.

Hopefully you will take this observation the spirit it is offered. 

I don't believe there is a long history of LD man shaming. LD men - true LD men - of the type that are rejecting their wives at a high rate - are pretty rare on TAM. 

IME LD folks (of either gender) who are kind, concerned and working towards a happy accommodation with their partners - typically get a fairly supportive response from TAM. 





Faithful Wife said:


> You really don't see why your bias occurs? Really, MEM?
> 
> Can you maybe open yourself up a bit to the ideas AA and I have been presenting? That there has been a long history of sl*t shaming combined with a long history of LD man shaming that converge into an unrealistic picture for many people? And that maybe this has seeped into your mind as well?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 75% of wives say sex is 'very important' to them; only 5% said it wasn't
> No Sex in Marriage? Here's What You Can Do About It
> 
> In an article I came across today when I was looking into some of my own stuff. Thought I'd share.
> ...


And yet.....

_"◾More than 1/3 third of the wives were in the mood to have sex with their husbands yesterday or today; 62% have been in the mood in the past week, *and 71% in the last month*."_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> Part of what - dilutes your message - is what I can only describe as 'over reach'.
> 
> ...


I do take this observation in a spirit of goodwill from you.

The thing is, people who don't get what I'm saying or don't get me or dislike me or whatever are going to say whatever they want to say to me, and they do so. So by being provocative and spirited (which I really am in real life, too, so it's "just me"), there's plenty of opportunity for others to push back against me. Or push for me. Both of these happen a lot, even though I do not use a velvet glove around here. I have plenty of supporters.

But as for your last paragraph...I disagree and that's one of the reasons I do come out blazin'. People frequently show up here and have to hear the sl*t shaming and man shaming (if you aren't alpha, you're a wuss bag). It is a pity.

As for shaming of LD men, it does happen but it is far more subtle in the culture. It mostly consists of the idea that most young men can't escape as they are teens and then on into their adult lives, that men must necessarily be total horndogs and if they aren't, they are suspected of being gay, and yes, they are mocked.

Did you watch the show Entourage? There is a character, E, who is constantly being shamed - by his friends - for preferring to be in relationships rather than bang everything he could like his friends did. This is just one example but it is pretty common. Not all men are even close to the friends in terms of being crude and banging everything they can, so the friends in Entourage are not representative of the general population of men. Yet it is still something you can find all over the place if you look for it. It is an underground current in our culture. And it is harmful to the understanding of human sexuality in the same way sl*t shaming is. 

An excellent book on this topic I did a blog post review about was:

http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Casanova-Beyond-Stereotype-Promiscuous/dp/1118072669

More about the author:

About Dr. Smiler ? Andrew Smiler, Ph.D.

The point of this particular book of his was that when he studied young men, the majority of them reported that they wanted relationships more than they wanted to bang everything that moves, and that it is a myth that most men do want to bang everything.

Here's the description from Amazon:

Changing perceptions about male sexuality

In his groundbreaking new book, noted expert on teenage and adult masculine behavior Andrew Smiler debunks the myth that teenage boys and young men are barely able to control their sex drives, which may lead to destructive hyper-sexuality, unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Smiler helps us recognize that the majority of boys and men do not fit this stereotype and that boys sexual development is multi-faceted. He also shows how this shift in attitude could help create young men who are more mature, and have better relationships with partners and friends. 

* Explains how the Casanova Complex has developed over time and how it can hurt young males 
* Provides the latest research on male sexuality, including information from the author s own studies. 
* Offers guidance for parents and counselors of boys who want to help them develop lasting and meaningful relationships, as well as for the parents of girls who are dating.

This book dismantles the stereotype of boys as driven only by an obsession with having intercourse with multiple partners, and calls for deeper growth and understanding of modern masculinity.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I don't recall badgering anyone, AA. It's not my style, LD or HD or MartianD.
> 
> As to the first question, there's a basic concept called "Availability Heuristic". Because it comes to mind due to cultural stereotypes and / or cues, ABSENT OTHER INFORMATION.
> 
> The brain loves to simplify / reduce and classify, like any good computer. Entire sciences have been created around this


I wasn't accusing *you* of badgering. Just observing that it was happening. And that it is common. And that it reflects embedded stereotypes. 

See? We actually agree. Where we differ is that I won't just shrug my shoulders and say, oh well lots of stupid stereotypes being flung around. That's what people do. Let's fling some more.

I don't actually expect to expand anyone's availability heuristic. But that won't stop me from trying.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I have acknowledged explicitly that what you are experiencing is typical, even allowed that it is conceivably a majority.


I'm not sure where you have acknowledged explicitly that what I am experiencing is typical or that it might be a majority. I'm guessing that you're talking about what I see around me in everyday life?

If so, I regret having missed the opportunity to find some common ground. 

I don't put much value in the "battling studies" game. I've never seen it affect either participant. You've had at least as many studies thrown at you as you've thrown in return. One could appoint a commission to review the top 100 studies of anything in detail and they would end up ruling 6 to 5 based on their initial political alignment.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> And yet.....
> 
> _"◾More than 1/3 third of the wives were in the mood to have sex with their husbands yesterday or today; 62% have been in the mood in the past week, *and 71% in the last month*."_


Before you get too "gotcha" over this, do note that these numbers are cumulative, and not separate categories (they add up to ~176%).


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I wasn't accusing *you* of badgering. Just observing that it was happening. And that it is common. And that it reflects embedded stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After 35 years of hearing every name in the book as an immigrant and 15 in product design I have learned it is wise to shrug rather than be overly concerned about shaming or being shamed. 

People are people. But having thick skin is generally a lot safer than having thin skin.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'm not sure where you have acknowledged explicitly that what I am experiencing is typical or that it might be a majority. I'm guessing that you're talking about what I see around me in everyday life?
> 
> If so, I regret having missed the opportunity to find some common ground.
> 
> I don't put much value in the "battling studies" game. I've never seen it affect either participant. You've had at least as many studies thrown at you as you've thrown in return. One could appoint a commission to review the top 100 studies of anything in detail and they would end up ruling 6 to 5 based on their initial political alignment.



Well let me say it again, then. I'm not denying that what you experience around you is typical. But what I experience is also typical. Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean it actually applies to a majority of people. And even if technically it does, it has to be a pretty overwhelming majority before there aren't a whole lot of people that don't fit the stereotype. A whole lot. And their experience can be quite typical.

As for your take on studies, I entirely disagree. There are better studies, there are worse studies, and none of that depends on political alignment. Data can be analyzed, and conclusions can be more or less reasonable. Of course, it takes a bit of work and you have to be willing to put some thought into it. But sharing evidence is not at all the same as trading soundbites --as long as it is done with some rigour.

I have looked at the studies thrown at me, and have found them to be wanting -- and have explained why. As have quite a number of researchers. I have also responded to the few who have looked at what I have posted. I get that a forum like this isn't really for intellectual debate, and interest is limited. But that doesn't mean that the evidence and data itself is invalid.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

I find unemotional sex off putting and pointless, it does nothing for me, and unless paid to do so I don't see the point.
Mow some lawns instead, at there's something to show for it.

Backrubs on the other, even bad backrubs are good


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> After 35 years of hearing every name in the book as an immigrant and 15 in product design I have learned it is wise to shrug rather than be overly concerned about shaming or being shamed.
> 
> People are people. But having thick skin is generally a lot safer than having thin skin.


Again, I see it differently. Dismissing these concerns as just having a "thin skin" is well, dismissive. It is the type of "shrug, who cares" that's used to justify all sorts of hatred, against people of different races, immigrants, women, LGQBT, and on and on it goes. It is a gaslighting tactic used to belittle people and take away their voice.

"What? I was just *joking*. What's wrong with you? Can't take a joke? You're so thin skinned"

By all means, have a thick skin, be impervious to insults, protect yourself. Nothing wrong with that.

But IMHO, a thick skin should not come at the cost of a calloused heart. It is worth it to be sensitive to others, not just for their sake, but also so that you might remain receptive to your own growth.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Before you get too "gotcha" over this, do note that these numbers are cumulative, and not separate categories (they add up to ~176%).


I can handle the math. 

75 of 100 women view sex as very important to them.

Yet 13 of them haven't been in the mood to have sex with their husbands in the last week. (~20%)

4 of the women to whom sex is very important haven't been in the mood in the last month. (~5%)

And that's not even counting the times that they were in the mood, but no sex resulted.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, that's interpreting the results as 71% of all wives were in the mood in the last month, not 71% of the wives to whom sex was very important. 

If some of the wives who don't think sex is very important to them are sometimes in the mood, it get's worse.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> As for your take on studies, I entirely disagree. There are better studies, there are worse studies, and none of that depends on political alignment. Data can be analyzed, and conclusions can be more or less reasonable. Of course, it takes a bit of work and you have to be willing to put some thought into it. But sharing evidence is not at all the same as trading soundbites --as long as it is done with some rigour.


Why does the Supreme Court always seem to come down 5-4 on important decisions, almost always aligned by the party that appointed them? 

I am convinced that Climate Change is not a significant threat. Can you spend your evenings for the next six months debating that with me? I think you'll see that I'm right.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

Very good. 

Entourage - watched every single episode. And I loved E. Hands down my favorite character. 

So here's the thing about the aspect of the show you mentioned. The guys do mock E, for his loyalty to Sloan. They unsuccessfully try to get him to be more like them and play the field. And that is fairly normal guy behavior. I have directly experienced several situations where friends and/or business associates pushed hard for me to cheat on M2. And when I declined - they definitely didn't like it. I actually found their frustration sort of - satisfying. 




Faithful Wife said:


> I do take this observation in a spirit of goodwill from you.
> 
> The thing is, people who don't get what I'm saying or don't get me or dislike me or whatever are going to say whatever they want to say to me, and they do so. So by being provocative and spirited (which I really am in real life, too, so it's "just me"), there's plenty of opportunity for others to push back against me. Or push for me. Both of these happen a lot, even though I do not use a velvet glove around here. I have plenty of supporters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Well let me say it again, then. I'm not denying that what you experience around you is typical. But what I experience is also typical. Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean it actually applies to a majority of people. And even if technically it does, it has to be a pretty overwhelming majority before there aren't a whole lot of people that don't fit the stereotype. A whole lot. And their experience can be quite typical.


Well, that's good to know. I'd have thought you argue so strongly that some stereotypes are wrong that it often seems to me that you are flat out saying that they are not true at all.

I readily agree that even accurate stereotypes have lots of exceptions.

If I don't see you as saying that a certain stereotype is 100% wrong and you don't see me as saying that it is 100% correct, then we might get somewhere. 

I would define "typical" as the mode.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I can handle the math.
> 
> 75 of 100 women view sex as very important to them.
> 
> ...


None of this specifically implies that the women who weren't in the mood are LD. It also doesn't imply that those women didn't masturbate instead of sex. There are so many reasons a person (either gender) doesn't want to have sex.

they may be in poor health

or recovering from poor health

sex may cause them pain 

they may have a partner who is hateful and mean to them

their relationship may be so bad that they don't want to touch their partner at all

they may have a partner who they aren't attracted to anymore

they may be cheating with someone else

they may be going through a crisis of some kind that isn't even part of their relationship (people die, get in accidents, sh*t happens)

they may be on medication that cuts them off from their desire

they may be under a lot of stress (more than their threshold amount to still want to have sex)

their partner might not meet their sexual expectations and they don't want to even go there knowing this



I could think of a lot more reasons people may not want to have sex that don't indicate whether the person is LD or not.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> Very good.
> 
> ...


They were mocking him before he even got with Sloan, due to the first girlfriend he had in season 1. He wasn't just loyal to Sloan. They mocked him because he felt emotions when he had sex and therefore preferred to have it in committed relationships.

I am sure that you are such a guy as you describe and don't bow to the man shaming.

It still isn't right to do it so rampantly and it does cause harm to the understanding of sexuality when looking at the big picture. The big picture is what AA and I have been trying to describe. So even though you feel confident enough in yourself to feel you are not harmed by such shaming and stereotypes, this does not mean it should be shrugged off by everyone and not questioned and examined instead.

When we shame one gender if they don't bang everything that moves, and shame the other gender for banging anything at all, this is how we set up a gender war. It is unhealthy and restricts people from being free to be authentic. The long history behind it is deplorable, and we still see hate crimes against both men and women by people who will not let go of that old way of thinking. The ghosts of our ancestors are still fighting wars against people they hate for being different, through this way of thinking that still persists now.

I would love to hear about it if you read the book I linked.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
Yes to all of this. 

And - since your post was in response to Buddy:

Buddy - for clarity this next bit has nothing to do with you. I believe you are much more focused on comprehension than ego protection. 

That said, there are a LOT of fellows here who are very 'ego protective'. If you are directly critical of them - they morph into either turtles or cats. Withdrawal or aggression. 

It's very easy for their partners to gradually conclude that sex is something their H does TO them, not WITH them. Once THAT happens - the wife may view sex as something that ONLY occurs when she wants it. 

I'm going to use a recent case - to illustrate just how powerful and powerfully destructive this 'ego protection' is. 

The fellow in question seems like a decent person. This is not about whether he is kind/unkind. Honest or not. Seems like a good guy who loves his wife. That said - ego protection is powerful. 

Guy posts - worried about his sex life. They have sex 2-3 times a month most months. It is however very fast. They both orgasm - but the whole process is well under 10 minutes. Almost no foreplay. And he explains that she's kind of driving the pace so to speak. 

So far so good. Well not exactly. I would have hoped the guy could say what was really on his mind. Is she rushing the process just to get it over with? Is she not attracted to me? Am I a bad kisser? I'm frustrated with both the frequency and duration. 

No acknowledgement that either he is a bit unhappy with their routine OR he's worried that she's unhappy with it. 

Instead - the focus is this: She had kind of a lot (more than 10) of partners before me, is it strange that she wants to have sex so efficiently. 

So - the whole issue - not only rests on his W - but rests on how many previous partners she's had. 

And I got the sense - the most important result for him - was a consensus that everything was fine/normal. 




Faithful Wife said:


> None of this specifically implies that the women who weren't in the mood are LD. It also doesn't imply that those women didn't masturbate instead of sex. There are so many reasons a person (either gender) doesn't want to have sex.
> 
> they may be in poor health
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
So I think that is a fair depiction of reality. It isn't even close to being symmetrical though. 

The LD male ribbing is relatively mild. It is rarely mean spirited. There is a lot more intensity in the positive feedback directed at the stud who's got a lot of conquests. He's viewed as in the winners circle. 

And here we arrive at the high contrast part of the picture. The S L U T shaming ranges from unintentionally mean spirited to very intentionally mean spirited. 

So the broken part of the system is almost entirely:
- stud backslapping 
While
- s l u t shaming 

And for clarity's sake: I see a huge difference between:
1. 'beta' shaming 
2. Disinterest in casual sex shaming 
3. Monogamy shaming

There is a LOT of (1). Guilty of it myself. 
I have personally seen very little of 2 and 3. And what I do see is super mild compared to (1). 

And (1) usually happens in the context of a guy posting about how he is on the losing side of a marriage that has turned into a power struggle. 

When I first came to TAM, reading those stories made me angry and spiked my vitals. It was a knee jerk - how dare she reject him like that.   




Faithful Wife said:


> They were mocking him before he even got with Sloan, due to the first girlfriend he had in season 1. He wasn't just loyal to Sloan. They mocked him because he felt emotions when he had sex and therefore preferred to have it in committed relationships.
> 
> I am sure that you are such a guy as you describe and don't bow to the man shaming.
> 
> ...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> I can handle the math.
> 
> 75 of 100 women view sex as very important to them.
> 
> ...


Just because a woman likes and wants sex does not mean her marriage allows her to express that. Marriage problems, health issues, lifestyle changes. That does not mean the woman is LD or does not like sex. 

What that means is that 5% of women are LD. Nothing you can do to fix that.
Another 5-20% of them do enjoy sex but something is getting in the way of wanting it with their husbands- this you can fix. 

So don't just assume that a woman who doesn't have sex with her husband is just LD because it's soooo typical for women to be LD.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I can handle the math.
> 
> 75 of 100 women view sex as very important to them.
> 
> ...



Again, Buddy, the survey collected info from ~1000 women, and there is *no* indication whatsoever that these numbers for the different questions reflect only those women who are interested in sex. Rather, they reflect all ~1000. Where almost 2/3 of them thought about sex with their husbands at a *minimum* of once a week (from once a week to daily).

So taking these stats at face value for the moment, you're telling me that instead of talking about the 62% who were in the mood for sex in the last seek, you want to focus on the remaining 38% who want less than that (anywhere from few times a month to zero). And keep telling me that LD is "typical"? And I'm the one who twists things to suit my agenda?

Admittedly, once a week (as a minimum) isn't exactly HD, and 38% is a lot higher than I would think. But given the way the questions were framed, and the fact that women notoriously (well-evidenced!) under-estimate and underreport on most things related to sex (while men over-report wildly), I'd say this survey at least suggests that it is more typical for women to want regular sex with their husbands and think it important.

And FW and SGC have offered up some much better points that really speak to how the survey was framed and what it actually speaks to -- which isn't really LD at all.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> > I can handle the math.
> ...


Age has a lot to do with this as well


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Why does the Supreme Court always seem to come down 5-4 on important decisions, almost always aligned by the party that appointed them?
> .


The Supreme Court? That *is* politics, my friend. Not science.

As for Climate Change, there's a whole bunch of different issues going on there. I won't deny that there are politics in science, thanks to special interests purchasing (or trying to purchase) the conclusions they desire. That's why you have to be careful about what you believe. But at base, there is still data, methodology, asking the right questions. You can try to buy that stuff, and you can fool some of the people some of the time, but that doesn't mean you'll fool all the people all of the time.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I am sure that you are such a guy as you describe and don't bow to the man shaming.
> 
> It still isn't right to do it so rampantly and it does cause harm to the understanding of sexuality when looking at the big picture. The big picture is what AA and I have been trying to describe. So even though you feel confident enough in yourself to feel you are not harmed by such shaming and stereotypes, this does not mean it should be shrugged off by everyone and not questioned and examined instead.
> 
> When we shame one gender if they don't bang everything that moves, and shame the other gender for banging anything at all, this is how we set up a gender war. It is unhealthy and restricts people from being free to be authentic. The long history behind it is deplorable, and we still see hate crimes against both men and women by people who will not let go of that old way of thinking. The ghosts of our ancestors are still fighting wars against people they hate for being different, through this way of thinking that still persists now.


Beautiful!!!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> You might however want to consider how best to educate folks on this stuff. For instance - the OP in that thread - UNINTENTIONALLY opened the damn thread **** shaming his own wife.
> 
> I asked myself, is he doing this consciously and/or with malicious intent? I believed not. So I simply asked him to put to himself the question he was asking of her.
> 
> Honestly - I'm not sure he got it. He claims he did. Here's to hope....


What makes you think it was unintentional? He opened by making a deal of her sexual history and asking if that had anything to do with her approach to sex. And then simply sat back while a bunch of poster called her the "town bicycle" and all sorts of nasty things.

If it was unintentional, you'd think he'd at least back pedal a bit, or, well, something .....

As for educating folks, you can only do what you can do. People won't hear you until they are ready for it, or the knowledge is somehow relevant or helpful to them. But if you are persistent, if you keep challenging and offering different perspectives, well, sometimes a crack forms and the light gets in.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Again, I see it differently. Dismissing these concerns as just having a "thin skin" is well, dismissive. It is the type of "shrug, who cares" that's used to justify all sorts of hatred, against people of different races, immigrants, women, LGQBT, and on and on it goes. It is a gaslighting tactic used to belittle people and take away their voice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nobody's dismissing anyone's concerns but it makes for very difficult discourse if we can't speak our mind. 

Years ago I joined the well known BPD support forum where, not surprisingly, it was all about validation, compassion, support, and general don't rock the boat-itis. If you think the sex starved marriage threads on TAM were heart wrenching these guys - more often than not males dealing with BPD women make all of us here on TAM look like a cheerful bunch. After a brief tenure I bailed out. 

Interestingly enough BPD seems to affect women more than men but nobody get tried to portray BPD as impacting men and women equally


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Yes, I don't believe anyone is naive enough to use words like "slept around a lot" and not understand that it is derogatory and shaming. 

And even without the clear sl*t shaming post (town bicycle) there were others that said the same thing. Maybe she just views you as #13 and sex isn't special to her, she's not marriage material. 

It's all the same mindset, and this wasn't even a woman with a large number. Mine's about the same. I don't know anyone 30+ who isn't... 
But even if that number was higher, I think the mods should be sensitive to how this forum is perceived by newcomers and lurkers. If women who have a sexual past want to look for a place to get marriage help, they won't feel comfortable posting in a group that is so hostile and old fashioned.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

If that is the case I should have my own personal moderator as I have been called far worse than that. Of course we shouldn't be offended but heaven forbid we offend someone.

- Would I be offended if my therapist asked the same question in slightly less offending tone? 

- would I be offended if my mom did?

- would I be offended if my sister did?

- would I be offended if my best buddy / BFF did?

Context is king.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Just because a woman likes and wants sex does not mean her marriage allows her to express that. Marriage problems, health issues, lifestyle changes. That does not mean the woman is LD or does not like sex.
> 
> What that means is that 5% of women are LD. Nothing you can do to fix that.
> Another 5-20% of them do enjoy sex but something is getting in the way of wanting it with their husbands- this you can fix.
> ...


My comment wasn't addressing any deeper issues, just pointing out that the original statistic might not be as impressive as it first seemed.

I would imagine that a poll of men asking the same questions would be quite a bit different.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> None of this specifically implies that the women who weren't in the mood are LD. It also doesn't imply that those women didn't masturbate instead of sex. There are so many reasons a person (either gender) doesn't want to have sex.


Agreed.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> My comment wasn't addressing any deeper issues, just pointing out that the original statistic might not be as impressive as it first seemed.
> 
> I would imagine that a poll of men asking the same questions would be quite a bit different.


There have been several threads here from males who are _not _LD but for one reason or another are not wanting sex with their wives at the moment. 

Could be anything from post-affair triggers, appearance, tension and anger in the marriage, work stress, fears of pregnancy. Similar things that would make a woman feel the same. 

I don't think there would be that much of a difference. 
The difference I see is that men are more often told their reasons for not wanting sex right now are valid and ok where a woman's is not.
If a woman came on saying she did not want to have sex with her husband because he gained weight, she would have more people telling her that it was her job and duty to do it anyway and that he deserves a wife who will have sex with him. Not all, but more than a man would be told the same thing.

There's a thread about a woman's anger issues and how she started a big fight because he wouldn't have sex with her. There was a lot of "of course you don't want sex with her, she's acting crazy" type of attitude. A woman would be more likely to be told all about how "of course he's acting crazy, you won't have sex with him"
Again, not all but more often.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

This is all good but has anyone done an accurate count of threads or posters by gender? Current and past?

I would be willing to bet that men outnumber women on TAM SIM so it follows more men would be in problem marriages so you will see more posts from biased people 

Context is king.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Again, Buddy, the survey collected info from ~1000 women, and there is *no* indication whatsoever that these numbers for the different questions reflect only those women who are interested in sex. Rather, they reflect all ~1000. Where almost 2/3 of them thought about sex with their husbands at a *minimum* of once a week (from once a week to daily).


It sounds like you are thinking that I misinterpreted the data, but I'm not clear on what you think I missed. It sounds like you're saying that the 71% that were in the mood in the last month was a percentage of the total respondents, not just the women who found sex to be very important. If so, I acknowledged that and assumed it to be the case. I pointed out that if it was 71% of women who claimed that sex was very important to them, this situation would be worse. 



always_alone said:


> So taking these stats at face value for the moment, you're telling me that instead of talking about the 62% who were in the mood for sex in the last seek, you want to focus on the remaining 38% who want less than that (anywhere from few times a month to zero). *And keep telling me that LD is "typical"?* And I'm the one who twists things to suit my agenda?


Like I said in a earlier post, I wasn't trying to make a point other than that the report might not be as impressive as originally thought.

The bolded: I don't think that LD women are "typical". I'm not even sure that I would say that there are more LD women than LD men. My main premise would be that women are more likely to have responsive desire than men (who tend to have spontaneous desire) and that, knowing that and working with it could help couples with what seems to be mismatched sexual drives. Also, men who insist that their wife have spontaneous desire like they do might have a problem.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

john117 said:


> This is all good but has anyone done an accurate count of threads or posters by gender? Current and past?
> 
> I would be willing to bet that men outnumber women on TAM SIM so it follows more men would be in problem marriages so you will see more posts from biased people
> 
> Context is king.


TAM isn't a good measure when it is so allowed to be hostile and biased towards women. Just a quick lurking around could make a woman go elsewhere for her support. 
But you can see when someone like TCW has the courage to start a thread, she'll get women who first time post on hers saying they are in the same boat and thank her for sharing. 

It's all about the environment that someone will be comfortable being so vulnerable in. 
I used to be regular on parenting and pregnancy forums which were mostly women and there was a lot more opening up about sexual problems in their marriages.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes, I don't believe anyone is naive enough to use words like "slept around a lot" and not understand that it is derogatory and shaming.
> 
> And even without the clear sl*t shaming post (town bicycle) there were others that said the same thing. Maybe she just views you as #13 and sex isn't special to her, she's not marriage material.
> 
> ...


I think someone could say "slept around a lot" and mean it just as a statement of fact without intending to be shaming and derogatory.

I think we need to be careful to not go too far in squelching "slvt shaming". There are a lot of guys to whom a woman's number means a lot, right or wrongly (I believe mostly wrongly). But women need to know this opinion is out there so that they can take that into consideration, if only to avoid them.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> I think someone could say "slept around a lot" and mean it just as a statement of fact without intending to be shaming and derogatory.
> 
> I think we need to be careful to not go too far in squelching "slvt shaming". There are a lot of guys to whom a woman's number means a lot, right or wrongly (I believe mostly wrongly). But women need to know this opinion is out there so that they can take that into consideration, if only to avoid them.


Don't worry, we know these types of men exist without having to allow a little bit of sl*t shaming in to remind us. 

Allowing it just creates a hostile place for everyone and supports the idea that it's ok and accepted to do it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If a woman came on saying she did not want to have sex with her husband because he gained weight, she would have more people telling her that it was her job and duty to do it anyway and that he deserves a wife who will have sex with him. Not all, but more than a man would be told the same thing.


I've seen posts like that and don't get the same impression. I think what happens is that I see a post saying "you should have sex with him anyway" and dismiss it as an outlier. You see those posts and say "Aha! just as I thought". 

We often only see what we're looking for and don't see what we're not.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> So I think that is a fair depiction of reality. It isn't even close to being symmetrical though.
> 
> The LD male ribbing is relatively mild. It is rarely mean spirited. There is a lot more intensity in the positive feedback directed at the stud who's got a lot of conquests. He's viewed as in the winners circle.
> ...


Actually I do think it is symmetrical. What you didn't post about above is the violent and cruel gay shaming that still occurs, and that is part of the stud backslapping culture.

Even the hint of being feminine or gay can still get a guy beaten up in this day and age. And the hazing that occurs among younger guys typically takes this type of behavior and extrapolates it into violence.

I don't see any reason to not see them as hand in hand and part of the same problem, and just as destructive. It is all just thinly veiled forms of hate and we know what happens when people feel justified in their hatred.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Slowly,
I will look for that going forward. 

It's also true that - I read a thread recently - the wife is saying what the 'men' need to do to avoid turning their wife off. 

I'll be honest - after I read her list I asked myself a question. How would I react to being given such a - comprehensive - list of dos and don'ts?

And would it be different if I reverse the genders? Genders reversed - same reaction. 

There's a tipping point folks reach when attraction is low and commitment to the marriage is ALSO low. At that tipping point ANYTHING their spouse does that they dislike, becomes the basis for not having sex. 








Okguy said:


> Age has a lot to do with this as well





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There have been several threads here from males who are _not _LD but for one reason or another are not wanting sex with their wives at the moment.
> 
> Could be anything from post-affair triggers, appearance, tension and anger in the marriage, work stress, fears of pregnancy. Similar things that would make a woman feel the same.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Totally different bucket. 

And here's the thing - I agree with the stuff below - and that is exactly why John and me and a few others thought TCW's H might be gay. 

We know he SAYS he isn't. But in his community, it's likely both miserable and dangerous to be GAY. 

So - given the relevant frequency of - asexuals and homosexuals - that's what drove the question. 

I'm not saying it wasn't 'over asked'. On a 200 page thread - repetition is unavoidable as is a certain amount of 'drive by' posting. Not saying it doesn't feel bad. Go read Boston Bruins thread. Really read it. You'll see the same. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Actually I do think it is symmetrical. What you didn't post about above is the violent and cruel gay shaming that still occurs, and that is part of the stud backslapping culture.
> 
> Even the hint of being feminine or gay can still get a guy beaten up in this day and age. And the hazing that occurs among younger guys typically takes this type of behavior and extrapolates it into violence.
> 
> I don't see any reason to not see them as hand in hand and part of the same problem, and just as destructive. It is all just thinly veiled forms of hate and we know what happens when people feel justified in their hatred.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

FWIW, one of our neighbors may divorce her husband in part because she wants hot sex daily and apparently he can't provide the type or duration or frequency of sex that she desires. The kids are out of the house and she figures she doesn't have to accept a less than satisfying sex life any longer. I know he has hit the gym to get in shape but she married a nerdy educated guy who is thin and reasonably handsome but not super studly. Now I guess she wants one of the super studs she used to date in her teens and 20s before she wanted to get married and have kids. Trying to decide whether he got used or whether to be jealous that at least he got to be married and have sex with a bombshell for 20 years.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Totally different bucket.
> 
> And here's the thing - I agree with the stuff below - and that is exactly why John and me and a few others thought TCW's H might be gay.
> 
> ...


It's not a different bucket at all.

You don't want to bang everything that moves? You aren't like the stereotypical man we want you to be? YOU'RE GAY!!! 

How is this a different bucket?

Read the book I linked. Really read it. You'll see how all of this is in the same bucket.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holding, there's more to the story of the nerd and sex bomb couple. If I were the nerd I would feel used as the proverbial bicycle assuming I provided for her for decades, got her kids etc and now she wants to party etc.

Any time the relationship becomes so single item focused it's generally time to reassess. It's the old "I was good enough for xx years and now I am old news". Men do it all the time and generally get shamed or punished for it by the courts and society. It would be interesting to see how your neighbor will do...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

I know you recognize that men are able to differentiate behavioral gradations. 

The category: young male dislikes sex with young fit wife - raises the question.






Faithful Wife said:


> It's not a different bucket at all.
> 
> You don't want to bang everything that moves? You aren't like the stereotypical man we want you to be? YOU'RE GAY!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> I know you recognize that men are able to differentiate behavioral gradations.
> 
> The category: young male dislikes sex with young fit wife - raises the question.


You're just going to remain stuck in your position and not see how harmful it is, I guess.

To me, all I hear is: You aren't like other men? YOU'RE GAY!!!

It doesn't matter to me how you want to intellectualize it. It is the same, it is harmful, and it is unkind. It comes from the same bucket that sl*t shaming does. To some people, it is "logical" to question a woman's morals if she had sex with more than one person. To other people, it is "logical" to question a man's orientation if he doesn't want sex with his wife. Same bucket.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Gay is one of many alternative theories. Lacking more details of T2's behavior and personality it's a guess a lot better than "asexual hermaphrodite alien from planet Zork in human form".

And regardless, I don't see it as anything other than a theory. If I was paying a therapist $200/hr to tell me that and only that (think Coach in Copper Top's case) I would be upset... If my BFF dismissed it all with the same verdict... If my mom did...yea I would be concerned / invalidated. But Here? 

Context is... You get the idea.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*
**** shaming is all rooted in disapproval. 

I don't disapprove of homosexuality. 

Being straight, gay or asexual - those things just ARE. 

I'm no more emotionally invested in those differences than I am in the fact that Earth, Mars and the moon all have very different surface gravity. 



*


Faithful Wife said:


> You're just going to remain stuck in your position and not see how harmful it is, I guess.
> 
> To me, all I hear is: You aren't like other men? YOU'RE GAY!!!
> 
> It doesn't matter to me how you want to intellectualize it. It is the same, it is harmful, and it is unkind. It comes from the same bucket that sl*t shaming does. To some people, it is "logical" to question a woman's morals if she had sex with more than one person. To other people, it is "logical" to question a man's orientation if he doesn't want sex with his wife. Same bucket.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

But he's not gay, MEM. Your consistent assumption that there's a 50% chance that he is is uncalled for, yet you stand by it. It doesn't matter that you aren't meaning to shame him with it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Here's another way to put it....some men just aren't very sexual and there is NOTHING WRONG with them. It is natural and normal for them. It really doesn't matter why this occurs in the individual cases.

The same is true for some women.

Some PEOPLE just aren't very sexual.

Your insistence is upon making there be something WRONG with TCW's husband. 

In my correspondence with TCW, I've never wavered from "yep, he's just not very sexual and this is unlikely to change".

Having met more than one NORMAL man who just isn't very sexual, it doesn't seem so odd to me.

But in your typical male cultural narrative, you aren't going to hear from those men. What would they say and to whom? How can a man say to another man "yeah I'm just not very sexual so I don't relate with a lot of the cultural pressures placed on men".

There's nothing WRONG with these men and they deserve to be accepted. Same goes for women who aren't very sexual.

A sexual mismatch is a problem, but it is a problem in choice of spouse, not a problem with the nature of either individual.

Did you read the comments in the link I posted by the HD wife with an LD husband? The hundreds and hundreds of women who are dealing with LD husbands? To see how common this is, you can't just speak to other men, as they will NOT tell you their real sexuality level if it is not what you consider "normal". You are still struggling to accept that LD men are far more common than it would appear, and the reason they don't appear common is because they are shamed (he must be gay!) into silence.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

Help me understand your viewpoint. 

Are you saying that, you are essentially certain that he is either:
- Truly Asexual 
Or
- Very LD, which mixed so badly with his wife's intense sexuality, that he developed a sexual aversion to her






Faithful Wife said:


> But he's not gay, MEM. Your consistent assumption that there's a 50% chance that he is is uncalled for, yet you stand by it. It doesn't matter that you aren't meaning to shame him with it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

There may not be anything wrong with him and it's fine. Until it impacts the relationship. 

What is wrong is to refuse to acknowledge you're not meeting your partner expectations (typical for LD's ) and REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Or if he misrepresented himself as a young 20's sexual deity and did not bother to deliver.

All of the above are shame worthy and not once did I mention the possible reason...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,
In my journey through life I've only become aware of one person who appeared to be truly asexual. 

He's a he. There is absolutely nothing unusual about his affect, behavior or personality. 

His GF - just thought he had a low sex drive. Then they got married and - sex stopped completely except for procreation. As did most non sexual affection. 

They have children. 

And after 20++ years his wife divorced him. 







Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another way to put it....some men just aren't very sexual and there is NOTHING WRONG with them. It is natural and normal for them. It really doesn't matter why this occurs in the individual cases.
> 
> The same is true for some women.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

sigh.....LD is not asexual MEM. If you are going to base all your opinions only on what YOU have observed, then obviously you can't change your position.

8 Harmful Myths We're All Spreading About Men and Sex - Mic


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

I'm asking how you would describe TCW's H. 

Because it sounds like you want to label him: LD

But your definition of LD includes folks who dislike sex. Or lack sexual feelings. 

So - LD - includes asexual 





Faithful Wife said:


> sigh.....LD is not asexual MEM. If you are going to base all your opinions only on what YOU have observed, then obviously you can't change your position.
> 
> 8 Harmful Myths We're All Spreading About Men and Sex - Mic


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> sigh.....LD is not asexual MEM. If you are going to base all your opinions only on what YOU have observed, then obviously you can't change your position.



LD or asexual are not mutually exclusive. Tell to people whose partners haven't responded to anything in a year if it matters which term to use.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> But he's not gay


How do you know that? Because he says he isn't?

Do you acknowledge that some men might be gay but unwilling to accept it due to religious and societal reasons?

If it's a biological thing as most insist, this would be possible right?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> sigh.....LD is not asexual MEM. If you are going to base all your opinions only on what YOU have observed, then obviously you can't change your position.
> 
> 8 Harmful Myths We're All Spreading About Men and Sex - Mic


From the linked article:

_In fact, a 2010 study from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that *men* are much more interested in relationships: "Two-thirds (66%) say they would rather have a girlfriend but no sex compared to only one-third (34%) who say they would prefer to have sex but no girlfriend. Similarly, 2 out of 3 (66%) agree that they could be happy in a relationship that doesn't include sex."_

It says men. But do they mean men under 18? Believable. College men? Somewhat believable. Men 22 or older? Sorry, I don't believe that. I don't believe that would apply to adult women either.

EDIT: Scanned the study. It was about males 15-22.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

john117 said:


> LD or asexual are not mutually exclusive. Tell to people whose partners haven't responded to anything in a year if it matters which term to use.



I have said that in my own thread. The label doesn't matter because the outcome is the same.

My H says "you always say I'm lying to you". I tell him I'm accusing him of lying to himself. 

The outcome is the same.

Eta: I should learn to type STBX. First draft of separation papers came TODAY! Hallelujah!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> **** shaming is all rooted in disapproval.
> 
> I don't disapprove of homosexuality.
> 
> ...


Gay shaming is rooted in disapproval too, and so the real issue is whether by asking "is he gay?", are we engaging in simple fact-seeking or are we engaged in shaming?

If I may echo john, context is everything.

Given the tone, approach, and insistence of the view he *must* be gay in these breads, and given that this question literally *never* arises when the genders are reversed, it seems reasonable to conclude that indeed, it is not just a matter of "raising the question" for informational purposes. Maybe for some. But certainly not for all.

Young woman not interested in sex with fit young men should, ultimately raise similar questions. And would if we paid any attention to what young women are actually doing, as opposed to preconceived stereotypes and a list of "shoulds".


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

The never ending thread


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I think what is happening now is the opposite of the free love era. The amount of sex hasn't decreased but it hasn't gone up either. It's just that fewer people are having more sex and more people are having less sex.

Just a guess, this is partially due to having "just say no" hammered to our heads, less people marrying and more hookups, man-children, and so on.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Gay shaming is rooted in disapproval too, and so the real issue is whether by asking "is he gay?", are we engaging in simple fact-seeking or are we engaged in shaming?
> 
> If I may echo john, context is everything.
> 
> ...


If we give advice on the assumption that men's and women's sexuality is different and it turns out they are the same, then we're giving bad advice.

If we give advice on the assumption that men's and women's sexuality is the same and it turns out they are different, then we're giving bad advice.

How about we have advice from each viewpoint just to play it safe?

So let's argue about this stuff here and not argue about it on actual advice threads? Perhaps we should be required to state our priors in the signature.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

john117 said:


> I think what is happening now is the opposite of the free love era. The amount of sex hasn't decreased but it hasn't gone up either. It's just that fewer people are having more sex and more people are having less sex.
> 
> Just a guess, this is partially due to having "just say no" hammered to our heads, less people marrying and more hookups, man-children, and so on.


If sex outside of committed relationships becomes more socially acceptable, the theory would say that the same amount of sex occurs. The top 20% get more, the rest get less (since women having sex don't get "pushed down" to them). It kind of hangs together. It seems like some guys are having a lot of sex and there seem to be a lot more guys living in the basement and playing video games. I'm not certain this is happening but I wouldn't be surprised. The guys in the basement are probably better off since the theory also says that their potential wives wouldn't want to have sex with them anyway and they'd have to give up a lot of quality video gaming in the pursuit.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> If sex outside of committed relationships becomes more socially acceptable, the theory would say that the same amount of sex occurs. The top 20% get more, the rest get less (since women having sex don't get "pushed down" to them). It kind of hangs together. It seems like some guys are having a lot of sex and there seem to be a lot more guys living in the basement and playing video games. I'm not certain this is happening but I wouldn't be surprised. The guys in the basement are probably better off since the theory also says that their potential wives wouldn't want to have sex with them anyway and they'd have to give up a lot of quality video gaming in the pursuit.


If this is true (and I think it is), the big losers are the "potential wives". Especially after sexbots come out.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

technovelist said:


> If this is true (and I think it is), the big losers are the "potential wives". Especially after sexbots come out.


I agree. It's what I see as bad outcomes for women (who want LTR's) that most concerns me. But, they'd have to figure this out for themselves and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

And, as silly as it sounds, I agree that the sexbots will be a problem too.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

I absolutely love chocolate cake. So does my partner. Especially my family recipe made from scratch.

I don't want to eat it every day though, no matter how much I like it. It's kind of a lot of work to make and it's very rich. I don't want to get sick of it.

My partner would eat double helpings every day, if it were possible. My partner absolutely will NOT make it though - apparently that's my job. The more my partner whines about not having had cake in a while, the less I feel like putting in the work. Why can't my partner make the cake for ME once in a while?

Sometimes I bring home storebought cake, trying to make my partner happy, but I just get met with complaints about how it's not the same.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> I'm asking how you would describe TCW's H.
> 
> ...


Asexual is an orientation. Some asexuals still feel a high level of sexual arousal, they just don't feel sexual attraction. This is different than a sexual person. http://www.asexuality.org/home/?q=relationship.html

A sexual person may be only barely sexual, but they are still sexual.

TCW's H is LD. He is a sexual, not an asexual. He does feel sexual attraction.

He is just not very sexual. The spectrum from barely sexual to extremely sexual, if let's say it is 1 - 10, I'd guess he is about a 3. However, that is still a sexual person.

I think that the reason for his low level of sexual-ness is due about half to his body's natural chemistry (T levels are low even though he is young and he is fit and works out, therefore this is simply his body's natural level, not being caused by age or poor health), and the other half is due to his upbringing. 

According to TCW, religious beliefs has a lot to do with it and the fact that his family did not show affection or ever speak about sex at all. I think he absorbed the message that sexual impulses are bad, and mentally squealched them if he ever felt them. This can happen to both genders in exactly the same way, regardless of how the person absorbed the idea that sexual impulses are bad (though it does not happen to all people who got that message, some do not or can not squealch those impulses).

Over time, in his adolescence, his mind being so set on squealching those impulses eventually caused his body to get the message: These impulses are pointless because I will not respond to them. The body then stops having the impulses as frequently, and maybe hardly any at all.

Given his naturally low T levels, it was probably easier for his mind to over take his body like this, where as if he had normal T levels he may have become much more sexual than he is now.

Combined with the above, he is also young, selfish, inexperienced (they were virgins) and immature. He has no example of what sex is to any woman, doesn't watch porn, and doesn't know how to interact sexually even with TCW after all this time.

If he had married a woman who also isn't very sexual, who never chased him (he dislikes this), who never badgered him for sex, he may have had a mutually satisfying sex life with that imaginary LD woman. If he could have no-pressure sex once every 2 weeks (which is his stated preference), I'm sure he could be happy and possibly even come out of his shell a bit and be a little less selfish (though not much, the selfishness is just part of his nature, too).

He has told TCW several times that he would like her to do and wear sexy things. He communicates this so badly that it just hurts her feelings (and it would mine, too). But the point here being, there are some sexual things he has asked for that he says would turn him on and she won't do them (because he's been such an ass about it). I believe completely that he would love a great sexy strip tease from his wife, and this is an indicator that he is a sexual person. If TCW could shake off her anger at his stupidity in poor communication and learn to do a sexy strip for him, I bet both of them could really bloom and blossom sexually. Though I do not blame her for being closed off to this, I probably could not overcome the stupidity either.

Once every 2 weeks is not barely sexual, but it is low, as I said, probably about a 3.

That's what I think.

Understand that if there was any smoking gun related to him possibly being gay versus LD, I would agree it was worth investigating. 

An LD man is not unusual, and I have shown you many examples via links and can provide many more. But you don't even answer me when I ask if you've read them...you just keep telling me your reasons for why you think he's gay. Here's yet another one: http://www.thefrisky.com/2009-03-16/dealbreaker-the-sexless-guy/

Your resistance to this being normal is baffling to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> And, as silly as it sounds, I agree that the sexbots will be a problem too.


Don't forget, they will make male sexbots, too. And as much as some men might think women would never use one, you are wrong. Millions of women will love it. I saw a clip of some women f*cking a test bot on HBO the other night. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And if people chose this route whether by preference or lack of sex partners, good for them. I'm glad there will be an alternative some people will really enjoy. The women in the show I watched sure were enjoying that humongous perfectly shaped c*ck and perfect bot body. Keep in mind, women already use all kinds of non human things to f*ck themselves with.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> If this is true (and I think it is), the big losers are the "potential wives". Especially after sexbots come out.


Translation: If women would wise up and learn that they must f*ck non-20%-ers, they would find love and happiness. But since they only want the 20%-ers, those guys will eventually dump you and you will end up an old maid, while the non-20%-ers will be married to sexbots instead of you. Oh and also, none of you will be able to support yourselves because we will refuse to work, we'd rather stay home with Botwife, and this will also cause the collapse of society and marriage. That's what you get for only going for the top shelf stuff. 

My response: Mmmmmm....top shelf.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> If we give advice on the assumption that men's and women's sexuality is different and it turns out they are the same, then we're giving bad advice.
> 
> If we give advice on the assumption that men's and women's sexuality is the same and it turns out they are different, then we're giving bad advice.
> 
> ...


If you give any advice at all based on your presupposition that women need to be "pushed down" to men playing video games in their basements, it is bad advice.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> If this is true (and I think it is), the big losers are the "potential wives". Especially after sexbots come out.





Buddy400 said:


> I agree. It's what I see as bad outcomes for women (who want LTR's) that most concerns me. But, they'd have to figure this out for themselves and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.


Ahahahahhaha. Please, your "concern" is heartwarming, but don't worry about us. If you want to spend your life in the basement with a sexbot, by all means. Knock yourself out. We women will be just fine.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I think what is happening now is the opposite of the free love era. The amount of sex hasn't decreased but it hasn't gone up either. It's just that fewer people are having more sex and more people are having less sex.
> 
> Just a guess, this is partially due to having "just say no" hammered to our heads, less people marrying and more hookups, man-children, and so on.


"Just say no" was a slogan for drugs, not sex. You must be thinking of "no means no "? And you think this might be the cause of people having less sex? 

Yikes!!!

Most stats show that married people have more sex than single folks, but that partnered people have the most sex of all. Generally speaking, of course. And it is partnered that seems to be moving up to the number 1 spot in terms of relationship status. So more people may very well be having more sex. 

Despite how people talk about it, hook-up "free love" style sex actually usually isn't all that successful --in terms of frequency or quality. We have all these guys running around seething with jealousy for the magical top 20%, but even they are mostly not getting it as much as the average partnered guy. A lot of it is just talk, bragging to seem like the big man on campus, pretense and fantasy.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

See, the overwhelming opinion on this forum is that sex for men is about love, connecting. It's how they show and feel that they are wanted, etc. That doesn't come from a sexbot. It's just something to get off in.

So which is it? Men care about sex as an emotional need, they want to please their woman and be wanted and loved or men want just want something mindless with no needs who will put out?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> See, the overwhelming opinion on this forum is that sex for men is about love, connecting. It's how they show and feel that they are wanted, etc. That doesn't come from a sexbot. It's just something to get off in.
> 
> So which is it? Men care about sex as an emotional need, they want to please their woman and be wanted and loved or men want just want something mindless with no needs who will put out?


This is an "all men" trap.

Just like the "all women" trap.

All of us are different. 

Should there really be all of this victim chair stuff about swearing off the opposite gender?

I love women. I always have. Probably too much. They come in all flavors, colors, shapes and sizes. They are all a little different when you touch them in the right places. What is not to love? There have been times in my life where I sampled nearly all varieties.

Sex bots? Go right ahead. I will continue with the girl I asked to marry me. But if that falls through, I will sample what the ones who are banging a machine (while wishing they had a living breathing woman) should be sampling.

And I promise you I am not a 20% man. I am just some average dude that loves women and does his best to avoid being a victim.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> "Just say no" was a slogan for drugs, not sex. You must be thinking of "no means no "? And you think this might be the cause of people having less sex?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No yikes - a lot of abstinence related teachings at home and peer un-pressure  is as good as just say no (to sex)

I noticed a significant change in attitude with two girls in HS a few years apart. There seemed to be a lot more "action" going on when my older was in HS judging by the horror stories we were told by the school administration, other parents, kids, pregnancies, and so on. When my younger was in HS three years later the schools biggest issue was cyber bullying, sexting, and so on. Not dress codes, not hanky panky or pregnancies.

I agree with the second paragraph. But partnering up is just as meaningless if the partner changes every two months. DD23's former roommate is on her fourth love of her life in eight months all captured on social media..


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Partnered? You mean gays and lesbians?


----------



## LostinNE (Aug 31, 2015)

Okguy said:


> Partnered? You mean gays and lesbians?


No. 

Committed sexual relationship. Kinda like how, 'a couple was before they tied the knot'.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I think women come out the winners in the sexbot area. Exactly because of something along the lines of the "red pill" argument. In my view, a male sexbot is going to do a better job pleasing many women than many HD men would do. Whereas a female sexbot is better than nothing but will not do as good a job of satisfying a man as a HD woman would do. So whereas female sexbots will only improve the situation for men who have no available partner, male sexbots will improve the situation for women without a partner AND women who have a partner who doesn't do such a good job of satisfying her.

In other words, a man's enjoyment of sex is in many cases determined / limited by his own stamina and technique, whereas a woman's enjoyment of sex is in many cases determined or limited by her partners stamina and technique and endowment. If that is true, then women have more to gain by artificial partners who excel in stamina and whose technique can be "dialed in" than do men.

But as always, this is being posited by a male with limited experience and no stamina, technique or endowment, so I could be totally off base.


----------



## Okguy (Aug 25, 2015)

Personal said:


> Okguy said:
> 
> 
> > Partnered? You mean gays and lesbians?
> ...


We did that for two years.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> See, the overwhelming opinion on this forum is that sex for men is about love, connecting. It's how they show and feel that they are wanted, etc. That doesn't come from a sexbot. It's just something to get off in.
> 
> So which is it? Men care about sex as an emotional need, they want to please their woman and be wanted and loved or men want just want something mindless with no needs who will put out?


*Most *men have sex as an emotional need and would prefer a live, willing partner to a sexbot.

But if they don't have (and don't think they can get) a live, willing partner, *many *of them will probably be happier with a sexbot than with either:
1. No partner at all, or
2. A partner who is stingy with affection and sex.

As always, these are generalizations that don't apply to *all *men.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh and also, none of you will be able to support yourselves because we will refuse to work, we'd rather stay home with Botwife,


Women will be able to support themselves just fine. That's one of the major changes in society, women don't need men for this much anymore. If they have children, the child support from the bio father will be helpful.



Faithful Wife said:


> and this will also cause the collapse of society and marriage.


If men and women choose sexbots, that's certainly going to hurt marriage (which doesn't concern a lot of people here). Society is going to change. If it leads to less kids, old people are going to have to support themselves.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> If you give any advice at all based on your presupposition that women need to be "pushed down" to men playing video games in their basements, it is bad advice.


I wouldn't give any advice based on that. When social norms pretty much enforced 1 to 1 parings via marriage, most people would end up matched with someone. The theory is that men went to all the trouble of working hard, having a well paying job etc. in order to attract women. With women having the ability to support themselves and only having children that they choose to have, they don't need this much anymore. If these men can't attract women by being good providers, they'll stop putting in the effort (doesn't say much about men).

I don't think we can or should do anything about this. I wouldn't advise any woman to be with a man she wasn't attracted to. It's just speculation, I'm not suggesting that anything could or should be done about it. Of course, this is all based on the idea that men want sex and women want commitment, which you disagree with. So I know that you're not buying any of this.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Please understand, PieceOfSky, those words you quoted are not my actual view. They were an inference I was drawing from what another poster was saying.




I'm sorry, a_a, I completely misunderstood that to be your view. My bad.





> IME,.men are just as interested in real emotional connection, acceptance for who they really are, and love as women are. But often, the way men portray themselves paints a quite different picture.




Those are two different sorts of men. There are both kinds of women, too. 



The ones that are in the first category and hurting are the one's I tend to notice here on TAM. The second category is relevant to an individual from the first only to the extent folks fail to keep the distinctions in mind.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PieceOfSky said:


> Those are two different sorts of men. There are both kinds of women, too.


Yes, in some ways I agree with you. But IMHO men have a much greater tendency to portray themselves in a certain light -- all about the sex, would bang anything in sight, only care about how hot she is, and so on. Not always of course, but there are definitely a goodly number that will talk this way, at least on the surface, and don't actually like to admit they want connection, love, acceptance, etc., even when deep down that really is what they want. 

I'm sure there are women like this too, but there is less pressure on us to appear the studly big man on campus, and so I think tend to be a bit more likely to admit we care about things like connection, love, acceptance. 

(And this is one of the many reasons why we do see statistical differences in how men and women answer questions about their sexuality.)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> In other words, a man's enjoyment of sex is in many cases determined / limited by his own stamina and technique, whereas a woman's enjoyment of sex is in many cases determined or limited by her partners stamina and technique and endowment.


If a man's enjoyment of sex is determined / limited by his own stamina and technique, what possible difference could the partner make? :scratchhead:

Maybe she doesn't need to be living and breathing.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> If a man's enjoyment of sex is determined / limited by his own stamina and technique, what possible difference could the partner make? :scratchhead:


That is my point. The partner's stamina and technique matters more to the woman than the man. So a female sexbot won't give a man a substantially better experience than he has with a live woman. But a male sexbot might give a woman a much better time than she has with the typical man. If that is true, then the introduction of sexbots is going to be a much bigger benefit for women than for men. So if one gender or the other should welcome sexbots because it will improve their sex life, women should welcome sexbots more. And if one gender should fear sexbots as being a superior replacement for live partners, men should fear sexbots more. 

Add in the fact that male sexbots aren't going to accidentally get a woman pregnant (although I bet you could rig one up to do that if she WANTED to get pregnant) and I think males clearly have more to fear from the introduction of sexbots than women do.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

A male robo-lover with technique? 

Maybe add text to speech reading of Harlequin novels with the proper voice deep-ness?

But can Hitachi Wand-san watch Lifetime Movie Network awful movies without blowing a fuse?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> That is my point. The partner's stamina and technique matters more to the woman than the man. So a female sexbot won't give a man a substantially better experience than he has with a live woman. But a male sexbot might give a woman a much better time than she has with the typical man. If that is true, then the introduction of sexbots is going to be a much bigger benefit for women than for men. So if one gender or the other should welcome sexbots because it will improve their sex life, women should welcome sexbots more. And if one gender should fear sexbots as being a superior replacement for live partners, men should fear sexbots more.
> 
> Add in the fact that male sexbots aren't going to accidentally get a woman pregnant (although I bet you could rig one up to do that if she WANTED to get pregnant) and I think *males clearly have more to fear from the introduction of sexbots than women do*.


*That* will be true for the proportion of women who don't want resources from men. I think that is a very small proportion, but that's just a guess, not a fact.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Most stats show that married people have more sex than single folks, but that partnered people have the most sex of all. Generally speaking, of course. And it is partnered that seems to be moving up to the number 1 spot in terms of relationship status. So more people may very well be having more sex.
> 
> Despite how people talk about it, hook-up "free love" style sex actually usually isn't all that successful --in terms of frequency or quality. We have all these guys running around seething with jealousy for the magical top 20%, but even they are mostly not getting it as much as the average partnered guy. A lot of it is just talk, bragging to seem like the big man on campus, pretense and fantasy.


Partnered people would include all the short-term but exclusive relationships that don't lead to marriage, right? So all the people still in the limerence phase of a relationship? Of course they're having the most sex! Also, it includes all the people who might become LD over time as well as all the people who aren't into casual sex.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Partnered people would include all the short-term but exclusive relationships that don't lead to marriage, right? So all the people still in the limerence phase of a relationship? Of course they're having the most sex! Also, it includes all the people who might become LD over time as well as all the people who aren't into casual sex.



You have a bright future in statistical analysis 

That's actually a good explanation of it - add a couple variables in the model for #years in relationship and #years living together and you'll see what you just described.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

john117 said:


> You have a bright future in statistical analysis


Once you learn stats, you can't unsee it. Anywhere.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Partnered people would include all the short-term but exclusive relationships that don't lead to marriage, right? So all the people still in the limerence phase of a relationship? Of course they're having the most sex! Also, it includes all the people who might become LD over time as well as all the people who aren't into casual sex.


It would depend on how they see themselves. The starry-eyed among us might see themselves as "partnered" after just a couple of weeks of exclusive dating. Others might see themselves as single until they have moved in together or have been exclusively dating for some time. And, of course, partnered would also include those who have been together for decades, but never formally got married. And this form of co-habitation is becoming more and more popular.

No doubt, the partnered category would hold a fair mix of individuals. Are those in the flush of new relationship sufficient to skew results? Perhaps. But also note that married is second on the list. So even if you are right that "partnered" is more likely to include those who become LD over time, presumably they are not necessarily those who are getting married.

Personally, I don't think it so obvious that LD are just found in one of those categories. Some are married, some partnered, some single. And HD would be the same. It may not be completely even, but I doubt the variances is all that remarkable.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> It would depend on how they see themselves. The starry-eyed among us might see themselves as "partnered" after just a couple of weeks of exclusive dating. Others might see themselves as single until they have moved in together or have been exclusively dating for some time. And, of course, partnered would also include those who have been together for decades, but never formally got married. And this form of co-habitation is becoming more and more popular.
> 
> No doubt, the partnered category would hold a fair mix of individuals. Are those in the flush of new relationship sufficient to skew results? Perhaps. But also note that married is second on the list. So even if you are right that "partnered" is more likely to include those who become LD over time, presumably they are not necessarily those who are getting married.
> 
> Personally, I don't think it so obvious that LD are just found in one of those categories. Some are married, some partnered, some single. And HD would be the same. It may not be completely even, but I doubt the variances is all that remarkable.


The other point about the "partnered" status is that people who have serious mismatches in desire and aren't married have a lot less difficulty getting "unpartnered". So there is a fair amount of selection bias here too.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> The other point about the "partnered" status is that people who have serious mismatches in desire and aren't married have a lot less difficulty getting "unpartnered". So there is a fair amount of selection bias here too.


Fine. Have it your way. People who want sex will "self select" into partnerships. And/or get married.

Point being that statistically partnered people have the most sex, married people the second most, and all the generalizations about "free love" and casual sex being the better way to get laid a lot are grossly mistaken.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Depends on context. Plenty of nookie to be found in larger areas (duh) but try the free love or perpetual FWB theory in Vermont and you won't go very far.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> See, the overwhelming opinion on this forum is that sex for men is about love, connecting. It's how they show and feel that they are wanted, etc. That doesn't come from a sexbot. It's just something to get off in.
> 
> So which is it? Men care about sex as an emotional need, they want to please their woman and be wanted and loved or men want just want something mindless with no needs who will put out?


Let's say Chris has a high need for sex. If unattached, he/she would have sex with anyone who met a certain level of attractiveness. Chris believes that if someone has sex with them, it is because there is something special about him/her.

Let's say Pat only wants to have sex with someone that they have an emotional connection with.

Pat might think that Chris's willingness to have sex without an emotional attachment means that Chris doesn't get emotional needs met via sex. It's just sex. It's just about "getting off". 

However, Chris sees their partner's willingness to have sex as reinforcing the message that there is something special about him/her. That can be very emotionally fulfilling.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> Let's say Chris has a high need for sex. If unattached, he/she would have sex with anyone who met a certain level of attractiveness. Chris believes that if someone has sex with them, it is because there is something special about him/her.
> 
> Let's say Pat only wants to have sex with someone that they have an emotional connection with.
> 
> ...


Then sex for Chris and Pat is a pursuit of self-gratification and emotional solace. Sex makes then feel emotionally connected to a willing person. including but not exclusively their wives or husbands. I'm being hyperbolic.

There is more than one route to feeling emotionally connected when sex is good and frequent. The mere willingness of a loved one to have sex is one way. That one is the topic of much discussion. That may not be enough for many - a willingness along with pre-existing love and caring. Both routes bring a sense of connectedness in different ways and they are both important. 

I feel the greatest emotional satisfaction and sexual pleasure when my husband is having sex to give and receive. I need that. Maybe I don't get the same types of emotions he does when we have sex but that does not mean he is the only one that needs something out of it. We are different but reassuring him through sex is empty for me if that is the only exchange. It cannot be a service from me to him, I would not be able to endure that for long. 

What might happen in some relationships where the wife loses interest is that the husband may come to regard sex as satisfying his needs not realizing that his wife has needs for an emotional connection too. She needs his willingness to have sex along with his desire specifically for her. She needs to feel special to him not interchangeable with random sex partners. 

I am certain there is cross-over but the order of priority is probably different.


----------

