# Retroactive Jealousy the Madonna ***** Complex and **** Shaming



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

We run into this very, very frequently. The threads almost always devolve into triggering, attacks and bans. It's not clear that we can actually have a reasonable and productive discussion about where this comes from, why it is, and what if anything can actually be done to overcome it.

I have stated before that I am not, and never have, been subject to this issue. But I've done some research. A number of people liken it to PTSD. Which once again takes me back to 'why' awareness of your partners sexual past, or knowledge that she performed acts prior to her current partnership, that she may no longer desire or be interested in, can be such a trigger point.

It strikes me as extraordinarily damaging, and judgemental. But ... it also appears to be extraordinarily common. Both for men and women.

In these kinds of discussions about promiscuity in the past, I've always wondered, at what point one crosses the threshold to promiscuous? Who gets to make that call?

I indicated in a thread not long ago discussing 'sexual success' that I know a married mom, executive, pretty damn sharp, grounded woman, that estimates she slept with something on the order of several hundred men prior to her marriage. You would never know, presume, or infer that she is promiscuous upon meeting her. But ... I'd be willing to wager that if she came here and posted about her sexual history, there would be people that have very strong opinions about what that 'number' says about her, her character, and her morals. None of which reflects who she is now ... which again no doubt people may disagree with. What interests me is WHY people have a visceral reaction or response, or try to rationalize an individual (almost always female) is somehow damaged if she has an extensive sexual history?

I liked the following because it was posted from the perspective of a woman, who was discussing numbers with a friend, and her own bias became evident to her during the discussion. It also touches on the RJ piece as woman indicated in the piece had literally 10X as many partners as her husband.

https://thewomanformerlyknownasbeautiful.com/2012/10/how-many-pre-mariltal-lovers-is-too-many.html

Other threads on TAM illustrating the topic ... and how the topic goes off the rails:

https://talkaboutmarriage.com/gener...troactive-jealousy-mixed-genuine-worries.html

https://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/151474-you-did-other-men-but-not-me.html

https://talkaboutmarriage.com/new-m...433373-cannot-get-wifes-past-out-my-head.html

https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/408865-lying-about-sexual-past-harmless.html

https://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/435915-past-future.html

Please do keep in mind that a number of the threads above were authored by trolls, and closed. In others, the OP's own issues with the subject resulted in their ban. Other still, people just get so triggered by this, or meander into sexual topics that a bit too far afield. So ... this topic tends to get a lot of attention.

I'm curious if the attention can focused into something productive?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Gotta admit I'm not a fan of that ****ing **** language filter. And I just went ****ing off-topic in my own ****ing thread ...

Please ... carry on.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

For the record, I think the most recent one was very triggering for people for the following reason.

The OP (woman) who was not doing things with her husband that she did with previous man, said a couple of things that set off some members:

1. First guy that got everything was "the best sex of her life"
2. She liked doing those things and only wasn't doing them with her husband, because (no reason given)
3. She said that her husband has been trying to do these things with her and she refused.
4. When she eventually gave a reason, it seemed silly because she cared about her husband so much more than the other guy that she couldn't give herself to him in the same way.


Even in that thread there are multiple posts saying she doesn't have to do them with her husband. However, there should be a reason why she won't, and her husband doesn't have to accept it.

I do not put any judgements on her character, but I did encourage her to dig deep to find out what the actual reason is, because it will need to be the truth if there is any hope of a recovery.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Got an itchy hammer hand? 

But seriously, my wife had a huge number. She did mention it before marriage, just to be open about it and make sure I was ok with it. I viewed her promiscuity as a positive. It worked out well for us, 27 years with no infidelity and continuous sex.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I think the core problem with the thread that spawned all of this was three-fold: a lack of honesty, a lack of managing of their sexual relationship, and a lack of introspection. 

You need to be honest about your past, at least up to a point. If your partner wants to try something you’ve done before, and didn’t
like, then say so. If you tried it before and liked it, but you’re no longer interested, then say so. But you’re going to have to give a compassionate, honest answer about it. 

“Husband, I used to be open to X, but I’m not anymore because I’m older/we don’t have that connection/our sexual relationship hasn’t progressed that way.” Or even, “I’m just not that open with you because our relationship is many things, but wild sex isn’t one of them.” And that sucks but at least that’s real and gives something to work on. 

The sexual relationship also wasn’t managed. He wanted these things, she said no, it caused resentment, and then it was all allowed to come out in a very humiliating way that didn’t just damage their sexual relationship, it damaged their whole relationship. Additionally, it doesn’t seem like they did a good job of carefully initiating, fostering, and developing their sexual relationship. It seemed like just a closed door with no discussion. 

Lastly, there doesn’t seem to be much introspection here. She claims to not understand why she was closed with her husband, when this should have been considered before they even got married. Sex is complicated, messy, dynamic, and surprising. It reveals very deep parts of your psyche. It takes thought and work and practice to get right - but it does take thought. There didn’t seem much thinking going on. 

I’ve been with women that did stuff before me that they wouldn’t do with me. If it was because they didn’t like it, this wasn’t a problem. If they liked it and didn’t want to do it with me, I took that as “we’re not there yet.” If it was permanently off the table with me with no reason given, I assumed she just wasn’t that into me to begin with and moved on. 

That last part is why this stuff hurts so much. Because listen - if you did something with somebody else, liked it, considered it the best sex you’ve ever had, seem open to doing it with someone else in the future maybe (she didn’t seem morally opposed or anything now)... then it kinda means you had better sex with someone else, and I’m not as good for you as he was. 

Which means you settled for me. Which you had better make absolutely clear before getting married and letting someone build their whole life around you. 

And for crying out loud, if you’re going to do all of that without the honesty, management, or introspection, you had better make dammed sure your spouse never hears about it. Especially from someone else laughing about it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I have PTSD from years of severe physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. 

A husband being upset that his wife did sexual activities with another man that she won't do with him is not PTSD and it's really a disturbing way to view your wife and her sexuality. It doesn't belong to anyone but her. 

This is where the problems come in. TAM leans to an anti-woman stance with most of the hurt from the infidelity forum and the sexless marriages coming out into situations that aren't the big deal that they make them out to be. Every woman is cheating and/or married a beta provider who they aren't attracted to. 

I'm willing to guess that NO woman alive is sexually attracted to a man who plays the victim because they don't get the "good sex" and feel left out. 

Everyone is well aware that many men put women into 2 groups- marrying kind and sleeping with kind. On this forum even, men will be warned against marrying anyone who has done anything ****y in their past. 

But as soon as a woman decides that she's going to sleep with men she wants to bang like crazy and marry someone she feels is more "marriage material" then all hell breaks loose. 

-I am not ashamed of my past. My number is higher than some but not ridiculous (my guess is 35 but I don't know for sure) and I've done just about everything. Group sex, threesomes, gloryholes, public "dogging", anal, pegging, mailed used panties to various people, etc, etc, etc. ...... 


-There's some things I've done with some partners and enjoyed that I wouldn't do with my current partner. My reasons for this vary but none have anything to do with attraction or alpha/beta men. We decide out yes/no list based on OUR relationship, not our previous ones. 


-I do not tell my partner all the details, my number, or all of the specific sex acts I have done with people. 
That's not to say I hide it or lie but what I've done with other people isn't really anyone's business. 
I can say something like "I like having anal sex" without giving the details on how many men I've done it with, how big they were, where we did it, etc.


ETA - there were posts suggesting she should now let her husband get a FWB who will do sexual things with him. It's very disturbing to see some of the male poster's views on women and sex that go otherwise unchallenged.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

I will quote my own post from the other thread as I still stand to this idea. 

Many women feel judged by their SO for being sexually active in bed. They will be judged, big time!!! 

I've heard a LOT of the stories just like in the recent case I mentioned below.

That's why women hesitate to give the full menu to their H. It's not always easy to be sexually open even to your SO.




> It's a typical womanish behavior, who wants to act sexually-different for her H.
> 
> With some random person, the woman doesn't care what he thinks and she's a crazy sexual beast in bed. She gets to be herself, let it freely and totally enjoy it! After all, she might not meet him again! So who cares??
> 
> ...



Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

My personality is very black and white. Balance is hard, and I need guidance - or to research what's considered acceptable and ground myself in that.

Speaking as a former promiscuous person, I can be both nunnish and/or whorish. 

When sex becomes an 'interest', I hyperfocus and spend an inordinate amount of time
learning/reading/watching/studying.

Right now, I'm celibate. I'm not on any sort of relationship site, and the only men I come in contact with are my family members, day to day interaction (grocery store, etc.), and here.

If I could take my history back, I would - without a second thought. There's been absolutely no benefit from it at all, and I've consistently felt hurt and used.

For me, there's always been a disconnect between the type of person I've wanted to be and the choices I've made. 

Now that I've stopped dating, I feel more integrated.

I think, ideally, one life partner (for both men and women) is best because it minimizes discontent and comparison. 

Having said that though, I've never had sex just to have sex. For me, it was consistently relational, and in my mind, I didn't compare one man to another. When I was present with someone, that's who I was with, and that's the relationship I focused on and put all my energy into.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Tasorundo said:


> For the record, I think the most recent one was very triggering for people for the following reason.
> 
> The OP (woman) who was not doing things with her husband that she did with previous man, said a couple of things that set off some members:
> 
> ...


Yeah ... lots of incendiary circumstances on that one. But it doesn't change the fact that (presuming it's all legitimate) that she has sexual agency over what she wants, or does not want to do NOW. No?

To make a personal parallel, I love my wife dearly. I'm mid-fifties, and she will be 50 in a few months. We have an active, intimate, gratifying, fulfilling, reassuring sex life. But ... she is most certainly NOT the wildest, or the best sex I've ever had. I've indicated that throughout my sexual experience I've always had delayed ejaculation, difficulty reaching orgasm. And as of mid-forties, off again, on again challenges with ED. There is a woman that I dated, who hands down and without question was the best sex of my life. I had an orgasm within 15 minutes the very first time we had sex. That NEVER has happened in all of my life. And I subsequently got off every single time we had sex. And yes, we did things I have never done with another partner ... including anal ... which hearkening to another post in the thread we are referring to, 'isn't all as great as it's cracked up to be.'
But ... much like in that other thread with the lover, we both knew we weren't looking for soul-mates, the one, or happily ever after. Most of our meetings and dates involved or revolved around sex.

I have not shared this with my wife, in the same vein that I've chosen not to ask her how many guys she's let ejaculate in her face. One it's just strikes me as weird, unnecessary and awkward, and two, given my issues, I absolutely know this knowledge would harm my spouse.
In that vein, there are similarities and your point about the circumstances as presented by that poster certainly made me wince. But ... if folks here were to tell me that I owe it to my wife whom I adore, and made the choice to marry after believing I was out of the marriage game; to be honest with her and offer up that I had 'the best' mind blowing sex of my life with someone other than her, I will instead figuratively point at them and laugh. 

It ain't gonna happen. Because it would hurt her. It would hurt our relationship. And in part, because I know my spouse has some degree of Retroactive Jealousy. Thus my curiosity about the subject and research.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

The OP asks why. I think multiple posters were clear as to why it was hurtful. I tried making an analogy to help convey it to those who couldn’t (or wouldn’t try to) understand.

Most men want their woman to be a ***** in the bedroom. They don’t want her to give her best sex to other men and give him garbage.

It’s one thing for a woman to have ONS with non-marriage material guys, but make a good guy wait for months. It’s not a “lie,” though she is creating the impression that she’s “not that kind of girl” when she actually is. But to deny her husband quality sex, after giving away everything to losers, is hurtful to the husband.

This isn’t retroactive jealousy. It’s current, active, intentional betrayal.

If the woman is honest ahead of time, fine. “I was wild in bed, had great sex with my prior lovers that would put 50 Shades of Gray to shame. Fellatio is my favorite sex act, and I’m incredible at it. But I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing those things with you. You will get nothing but PIV once a month from me. I’m sexually attracted to you, but for some reason that I can’t explain, I must act exactly the way somebody would act if they found you repulsive. But I am attracted to you, and I love you. It looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck... but it’s not a duck!”

If the woman tells him that early on in the relationship, then fine. He will definitely dump her immediately and no harm, no foul. But anything short of this is fraud and betrayal of the very highest sort. Telling him you won’t do X because you hate that, when in fact you love it, is rotten.

I would rate this as far worse than adultery. If a wife has a great relationship with her husband but succumbs to temptation, that is forgivable. But a wife having zero physical attraction to her husband, and having lived a lie their entire relationship, depriving him of the opportunity to have a relationship with a woman who truly wants him, is awful.

In many ways, it seems to me to be similar to learning that your spouse is gay. The whole relationship will feel like one elaborate fraud for the benefit of the deceitful partner.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

To @SlowlyGoingCrazy, @minimalME and @lovelygirl, I really, really appreciate your personal posting from a woman's perspective about this stuff.

Sex can be complex and hurtful, as well as fulfilling and joyful. And always very, very, personal. Appreciate your disclosures.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

lovelygirl said:


> I will quote my own post from the other thread as I still stand to this idea.
> 
> Many women feel judged by their SO for being sexually active in bed. They will be judged, big time!!!
> 
> I've heard a LOT of the stories just like in the recent case I mentioned below.


Except that was explicitly not the case here. He didn't judge her at all for doing those things in the past. He explicitly told her so. So this wasn't about that.



> That's why women hesitate to give the full menu to their H. It's not always easy to be sexually open even to your SO.


Life is long and full of struggle. Why settle with being with someone long-term that you're not open with?

Because not only are you closing the door on your own sexuality, you're closing theirs, too.

I 100% get that you don't get to own your spouse's sexuality. I grok that very much. But... you do kinda take some accountability to be in good working order with your own sexuality as much as you can, and you do kinda take some accountability for your spouse's sexual fulfillment if you expect them to be monogamous.

This is why this stuff takes honesty, active management, and introspection. Constantly.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Marduk said:


> I think the core problem with the thread that spawned all of this was three-fold: a lack of honesty, a lack of managing of their sexual relationship, and a lack of introspection.
> 
> You need to be honest about your past, at least up to a point. If your partner wants to try something you’ve done before, and didn’t
> like, then say so. If you tried it before and liked it, but you’re no longer interested, then say so. But you’re going to have to give a compassionate, honest answer about it.
> ...


I find the thought of being honest with this to be rather interesting..whether it is about physical withholding from the female partner, or emotional withholding from the male partner.

I mean...I can't imagine how crushed my wife would be if I told her I enjoyed hours-long conversations, or vacations to exotic locales, with my ex girlfriends, but simply didn't see her that way.

In fairness, most things in the sex department (that I have pressed for) she has been open to.

The main problem with telling someone to be honest in this situation is that it required at least some modicum of dishonesty to create it. Unless, of course, they were honest upfront. Then there is no room to complain later.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> I will quote my own post from the other thread as I still stand to this idea.
> 
> Many women feel judged by their SO for being sexually active in bed. They will be judged, big time!!!
> 
> ...


The only problem I have with this is that they were not arranged marriages.

These women chose to marry the man who judges them, just as the man chooses the woman who wants to portray herself as the "good girl".

Both of them are lying to each other. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

IMO anal is more about the power. "owning a woman" and porn ideal than it is about actually enjoying it. I've done it with enough men who shrug and "it's pretty much the same as vagina sex" that I'm unconvinced of it's awesomeness. It's also more prep time and a bit of a pain in the butt (lol pun intended) 

I will also say that while I can sympathize with women who do regret their past, I don't regret anything sexually that I've done even if I didn't like it. It didn't change who I am as a person (a quiet, nerdy, boring, average woman who is fiercely feminist- that is who I am) The kind of sex I have and had doesn't change who I am and I think that's where some people wind up getting out of control. 
Why would suddenly "has had wild sex" change anything about me? 

I've also had the "best I've ever had", and I know I was his too, with someone who isn't a possible long term partner. 

I'm choosing the best for me across ALL compatibility areas, not just sex. That should mean more and if a guy dismissed every other thing he was "best" in because he didn't happen to be the best in bed... I'd be upset and feel like I was being reduced to sexual fulfillment and not overall compatibility and love.

ETA- I need to remember to quote... sorry


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

farsidejunky said:


> I mean...I can't imagine how crushed my wife would be if I told her I enjoyed hours-long conversations, or vacations to exotic locales, with my ex girlfriends, but simply didn't see her that way.


Is this an analogy or your real situation?

If your wife has been begging you to do those things with her, and you refuse to do it and she’s resentful about it, and then she finds out that you did those things easily and joyfully for other women, of course she’d be crushed. Rightfully so!


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Yeah ... lots of incendiary circumstances on that one. But it doesn't change the fact that (presuming it's all legitimate) that she has sexual agency over what she wants, or does not want to do NOW. No?
> 
> To make a personal parallel, I love my wife dearly. I'm mid-fifties, and she will be 50 in a few months. We have an active, intimate, gratifying, fulfilling, reassuring sex life. But ... she is most certainly NOT the wildest, or the best sex I've ever had. I've indicated that throughout my sexual experience I've always had delayed ejaculation, difficulty reaching orgasm. And as of mid-forties, off again, on again challenges with ED. There is a woman that I dated, who hands down and without question was the best sex of my life. I had an orgasm within 15 minutes the very first time we had sex. That NEVER has happened in all of my life. And I subsequently got off every single time we had sex. And yes, we did things I have never done with another partner ... including anal ... which hearkening to another post in the thread we are referring to, 'isn't all as great as it's cracked up to be.'
> But ... much like in that other thread with the lover, we both knew we weren't looking for soul-mates, the one, or happily ever after. Most of our meetings and dates involved or revolved around sex.
> ...


Deejo, you know I love you, but I have to call you out here a bit.

I don't think you're being totally straight and fair here.

If you and your wife have decided that "the past is the past" and don't want to discuss it except if you need to - then good on ya. We're in the same boat. We talk about stuff that needs talking about, and past that there's stuff I just don't want to think about, and neither does she.

But there's some big differences between what was being said on that thread and what you're saying here. For one, I don't think it's being suggested that you tell your wife that somebody else was 'better' (whatever that means). Buuuuuuuttttt...

If your wife were to request something you did with this other woman and enjoyed, and you gave a hard no forever on that, then I'd say you owed her an explanation there. Not because of what you did with the other woman. Because you enjoyed it but won't give it to your wife. That requires some digging, thought, and explanation.

Not that you now MUST do that thing with your wife, but you owe it to your wife to explain yourself. Because if you want her to be monogamous, and she wants something you're not willing to give her, then you are in effect restricting her fulfillment, too.

Good, Giving, and Game is hard. Sexual honesty is hard. You know that, better than most. Willfully leaving the past in the past is one thing, and a thing I wholeheartedly endorse. But closing the door to something your spouse wants should take some introspection and discussion, especially if it's something you previously enjoyed.

Plus, FFS, you'd never let your wife find out about that other woman from some friend of yours showing pictures of you and her to your wife, laughing about the kama sutra, BDSM, and anal that you said no to her about. 

That is a massive mismanagement of the relationship and is highly corrosive to intimacy.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> Most men want their woman to be a ***** in the bedroom. They don’t want her to give her best sex to other men and give him garbage.


So vanilla sex = garbage? 

I'm annoyed by the constant assumption that "best sex" is porn star crap and vanilla sex is second rate

My very best time in bed was simple missionary. It was the most amazing feeling of almost becoming 1 person, nothing else was going on in the entire world but our bodies. 

Some random guy putting it in my butt is not my best. That is about ownership IMO.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Going to share what I am anticipating, may be a somewhat controversial perspective. In the regard of "What's on the sexual menu?" I see women being in a can't win situation.

To @lovelygirl 's point, if a sexually empowered, experienced, multi-partnered woman is with a less experienced or less sexually dynamic male with whom she WANTS to partner with over the long term ... if she brings sexual adventure to the table, it may trigger the kind of responses referred to in the post. Basically, it's a red flag to that kind of guy. In my case, much like Charlie, it's a banner to be waved and cheered rather than questioned or shamed.

In contrast, that guy ... that nice, stable, long term prospect, low sexual dynamism guy ... is highly UNLIKELY to either bring it up, or just straight up go for the thing that he wants to do, or will complain about not having the opportunity to do.

If that guy brings up the prospect of wanting to try anal, and his wife, or long term partner is honest, and indicates she did try anal previously and found it painful and uncomfortable that should be the end of it. But if instead, his takeaway is, "so you let another guy get a crack at your ass, but I can't?" 

I have no sympathy whatsoever for that point of view. That is a different animal than the hypothetical of, she did anal, she loved anal, but she lied about it and won't do anal with me. But I still think it's not worth the degree of hyper-focus and perseveration that many men seem to put on it. Again ... agency. 

I'm just using anal as an easy and common reference point. I'd use ski-patrolling as a substitute but it takes too long to type.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

farsidejunky said:


> I find the thought of being honest with this to be rather interesting..whether it is about physical withholding from the female partner, or emotional withholding from the male partner.
> 
> I mean...I can't imagine how crushed my wife would be if I told her I enjoyed hours-long conversations, or vacations to exotic locales, with my ex girlfriends, but simply didn't see her that way.
> 
> ...


My wife falls in the 'brutal honesty' camp. As in, if I'm going to ask her a question about her past, she's going to explicitly tell me the gory details, down to penis sizes, what they did, how often they did it, and how she enjoyed it.

So early on we discussed this kind of stuff in detail, and I learned very much what I had done to other women in my past by doing the same thing: I gave them a world of suck and learned to stop asking questions I didn't want the answers to. So I don't ask.

When I am asked, I try to give compassionate answers, and that's what I recommend. Give them enough information that they need, and don't offer more unless they explicitly asked for it.

For example, using your case...

Wife: "I want to go on an exotic vacation and have long talks."
FSJ: "I don't want to do that."
Wife: "Why?"
FSJ: "Well, our relationship has always been more about adventure vacations like whitewater rafting down the Amazon. I like doing that with you."
Wife: "Those are great, but I'd like a change of pace. Have you ever tried going on a vacation like that with someone else?"

Choice 1: compassionate honesty that hopefully isn't being an *******:

FSJ: "Yes, and while I enjoyed it at the time, I'm not really sure I want to do that with you given that we always have so much fun doing other things. I really enjoy those adventure trips with you, and I look forward to them, and I love thinking about them."
Wife: "Ok, but I really want to try this with you. Does this have to be a hard no forever, or is it something you can consider?"

Choice 2: being open enough to give it a shot and see if you like it, or closing that door forever because you're sure.

FSJ: "Ok, how about we try it once on a short trip. That way, if either of us doesn't like it, it will be over quickly and we can go back to adventure vacations."

- Or -

FSJ: "You know, I'm just not in that place anymore"/"I enjoy adventure trips with you too much that I would resent having to do the exotic talking vacation"/"I'm just too afraid to step out of my comfort zone with you."

I think all of those are ok.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Maybe it's age or maybe it's the experiences I had during my marriage but I feel like committed relationships are so much more than sex but we tend to make it the end all, be all of a successful relationship. 

When I see people talk about divorcing a spouse after finding out they did X sexual acts for a previous partner that was never done with them, my first thought is always "if this was such a huge deal breaker, then why would you stay married to someone who does not meet those particular needs?" It seems like self actualization and accountability is completely lost in these conversations. It's always the denying partner's fault. 9/10 times the hurt party recognizes that relationships are defined by more than a series of sexual acts but at the same time, make the sexual acts the golden standard by which to judge the quality of the relationship. So which is it? Do we judge the success of a relationship based on ALL of the attributes that make a relationship good (intimacy, communication, emotional support, religious values, etc...) or do we focus on the sexual component, specifically he/she did X sex acts in the past but won't do it for me?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > Most men want their woman to be a ***** in the bedroom. They don’t want her to give her best sex to other men and give him garbage.
> ...


On the merits, I don’t disagree with you. I’m personally fine with just PIV and cunnilingus.

I said “best sex,” rather than “her best,” to prevent female posters from saying that a wife gives “her best” by giving hugs and kisses and cooking for her husband.

But I guess “best sex” can also be turned into missionary PIV with the husband.

I should say, “They don’t want her to give ‘full menu sex’ to other men and give him an extremely limited menu.”


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Deejo said:


> That is a different animal than the hypothetical of, she did anal, she loved anal, but she lied about it and won't do anal with me. But I still think it's not worth the degree of hyper-focus and perseveration that many men seem to put on it. Again ... agency.
> .


Quick tip ladies- if you don't want to do anal with a new guy even when you've tried, and liked, it before, just tell him that his penis is WAY too big and there's no way it won't hurt because the other men you did it with were much, much smaller than him. :smthumbup:

Seriously though, you'll get an actual discussion about her reason if you don't go into it like it's a personal insult against your alpha maleness and she's just using you for money and giving you garbage sex while she sl***ted around with all the bad boys. 

EX: I enjoyed public sex before, I don't feel like doing it anymore because it's a bit risky and I'm not in a place in my life anymore where I want to take that risk. 

I'm more than willing to discuss this with a partner but if he comes at me with judgement, entitlement and a sense of victimhood, it's not going to be pretty.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Can't disagree with anything you said Marduk.

Problem is the medium we are using. I was focusing on the aspect of having to explain to my wife the WHY of what made sex with this woman outstanding for me. And the truth is, I can't answer that question. I don't know. I really don't. It wasn't because of WHAT we were doing, or even how we were doing it. The reality is that my wife and I have shared most of those same experiences in our relationship.

It was that unnamed thing. Something just clicked sexually between the two of us ... but never translated out of the realm of sex. She was remarkably forward about sex. And had no issue with me taking what I wanted. Frankly she expected and appreciated it. I think this too, can be a slippery slope for guys. 

I think maybe I'm conflating what I'm thinking in my head, with some of the details others are focused on in the thread we are referencing. The details of how that all came to light are without question, a train wreck in slow motion. I don't mean to advocate or support stupidity or duplicity. But I do advocate avoiding harm and cruelty.

I also want to be REAL clear. Sex with my wife is great, and a huge part of the reason we are together is her ability to NOT take my sexual issues/challenges personally.



Marduk said:


> Deejo, you know I love you, but I have to call you out here a bit.
> 
> I don't think you're being totally straight and fair here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

farsidejunky said:


> The only problem I have with this is that they were not arranged marriages.
> 
> These women chose to marry the man who judges them, just as the man chooses the woman who wants to portray herself as the "good girl".
> 
> ...


****ing exactly.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Problem is the medium we are using. I was focusing on the aspect of having to explain to my wife the WHY of what made sex with this woman outstanding for me. And the truth is, I can't answer that question. I don't know. I really don't.


I highly suspect there's a part of you that does, and that might be worthy of some thinking on your part.

We are animals after all. There's complexity but no magic there.

I went down a rabbit hole - some of it here - doing some very deep thought about my sexuality, what my sexual experiences were, what I wanted and why I wanted them. And it opened a whole vista up of maturity and thought about who I was as a sexual being. How it tied into the rest of me. How my sexual thinking has changed since childhood up until now. Why something used to turn me on and why it no longer does. Or why something has always turned me on, no matter who I was with. Or why certain people triggered me in certain ways that others didn't.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> On the merits, I don’t disagree with you. I’m personally fine with just PIV and cunnilingus.
> 
> I said “best sex,” rather than “her best,” to prevent female posters from saying that a wife gives “her best” by giving hugs and kisses and cooking for her husband.
> 
> ...


So what responsibility does he have for accepting, and marrying, the menu as is? 

Part of my job in finding a partner is finding someone who's current menu matches mine. What I've tried in the past is irrelevant. If I say X, Y, and Z are not on the menu, it doesn't matter if I did them with someone else. He's accepting that as is. 

If he accepts it and then gets mad that someone else did X, Y, and Z with me and he didn't, I feel like that is more an issue of power and control and not "best sex". It's ownership and feeling like her sexuality belongs to you alone. IMO

Sex and power are often confused.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

lovelygirl said:


> I will quote my own post from the other thread as I still stand to this idea.
> 
> Many women feel judged by their SO for being sexually active in bed. They will be judged, big time!!!
> 
> ...


That whole line of reasoning is absolutely foreign to me. First, that a man would negatively judge a wife for getting freaky with him, and second that a woman would have to guard against that. Now it's easy to say that the woman's part is the necessary response to the man's part. But that is also a fail... if she feels she can't be herself with him, she commits a fraud by marrying him. 

And history and experience proves this never ends well... the thread that spawned this thread, and many others, are proof of this.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

I said in my first post in here, that it is totally ok for her to decide what to do and what not to do, there is no reason she is forced to do anything. I do think if this is an issue in a marriage it should he a discussion, and while she doesn't need to do anything she doesn't want, he also has to decide what he wants and what it is worth.

We can all pick people apart for what we feel is petty, but people often say that you are entitled to your feelings. There are a million variables in peoples relationships and marriages, but we all tend to view them through our own set of variables. So we create judgements on the OP, and judgements on peoples judgements of the OP using our subset to fill in the blanks.

Ultimately, I think the hurt in these situations comes from people not talking about things honestly. The person asking is not honest with how much things mean to them or maybe even able to say what they want to try. The person withholding is unable to share why or is unable to engage in the activities for undisclosed reasons. This leaves each person to ascribe motive, which ultimately comes down to the other doesn't care enough about you.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Marduk said:


> I highly suspect there's a part of you that does, and that might be worthy of some thinking on your part.
> 
> We are animals after all. There's complexity but no magic there.
> 
> I went down a rabbit hole - some of it here - doing some very deep thought about my sexuality, what my sexual experiences were, what I wanted and why I wanted them. And it opened a whole vista up of maturity and thought about who I was as a sexual being. How it tied into the rest of me. How my sexual thinking has changed since childhood up until now. Why something used to turn me on and why it no longer does. Or why something has always turned me on, no matter who I was with. Or why certain people triggered me in certain ways that others didn't.


Only thing I can conceivably come up with was; it was simple, easy, straightforward. There was no concern about outcomes. Whereas in stark contrast, I'm now married. Both she and I have distinct investment in the outcome for ourselves and our children. We both actively work towards fostering, rather than undermining our marriage. Nothing about our relationship revolves around withholding.

My wife is post-menopause. I shared previously that she was very direct and open with me that she was concerned, because she no longer has ANY libido whatsoever. Gone. Doesn't think about sex. Doesn't masturbate. Finito.

But, we still talk about meeting each others needs. Especially intimate needs. The way I see it, I could get hung up on the fact that I'm now only getting duty sex, or I can celebrate the fact that I have a partner who cares about my well-being enough to continue being sexual, despite her lack of sexuality.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> Maybe it's age or maybe it's the experiences I had during my marriage but I feel like committed relationships are so much more than sex but we tend to make it the end all, be all of a successful relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> When I see people talk about divorcing a spouse after finding out they did X sexual acts for a previous partner that was never done with them, my first thought is always "if this was such a huge deal breaker, then why would you stay married to someone who does not meet those particular needs?" It seems like self actualization and accountability is completely lost in these conversations. It's always the denying partner's fault. 9/10 times the hurt party recognizes that relationships are defined by more than a series of sexual acts but at the same time, make the sexual acts the golden standard by which to judge the quality of the relationship. So which is it? Do we judge the success of a relationship based on ALL of the attributes that make a relationship good (intimacy, communication, emotional support, religious values, etc...) or do we focus on the sexual component, specifically he/she did X sex acts in the past but won't do it for me?



I think there’s parts of a relationship that work better than others in all relationships. But I think these parts take active work to improve or at least maintain as best as possible. 

If you go into a marriage being open about what great friends you are, how emotionally supportive you are to each other, but the sex is just ok... and you’re both good with that, then groovy. Have fun. 

The problem is if you go into it knowing your partner thinks one thing, when another thing is true. Because that’s not really partnership. 

I will also add that in my LTRs, any pivotal weakness became a weakness in the relationship. And those big ones were things like a misalignment of values, misalignment of emotional styles and conflict styles, and sexual compatibility. 

I would say that if you get any of those wrong, or just barely right enough that you’re going to settle with them, you’re probably heading for trouble.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So what responsibility does he have for accepting, and marrying, the menu as is?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Interesting, and I mostly agree, but I would like to challenge you anyway: 

If you married a chef and he cooked amazing steak for you every night, but refused to make you chicken, you’d probably wonder why but be ok with it. 

You might resent never getting to have chicken, because you agreed to only eat his food from now on, and ask for it occasionally, but you’d feel like a jerk for making a big deal about it given the steak is awesome. 

Until you find out he was an award winning chef for chicken before he met you. 

I bet you’d want to get a taste of that chicken now, and be wondering why he loved making it for other people but not you.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Only thing I can conceivably come up with was; it was simple, easy, straightforward. There was no concern about outcomes. Whereas in stark contrast, I'm now married. Both she and I have distinct investment in the outcome for ourselves and our children. We both actively work towards fostering, rather than undermining our marriage. Nothing about our relationship revolves around withholding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sounds like you do actually know why. 

So now I’m wondering what would happen if you engineered a scenario where it was easy, simple, and didn’t care about outcomes. 

Occasionally I’ll leave my wife a note, saying something like “meet me at this hotel at 2PM, your husband will never find out.” 

And we pretend to have an affair, or pretend we don’t know each other, or whatever. The rule is that anything goes, and none of it means anything and doesn’t have to be repeated or spoken of, ever. 

Something like that might be an interesting experiment for you.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That whole line of reasoning is absolutely foreign to me. First, that a man would negatively judge a wife for getting freaky with him, and second that a woman would have to guard against that. Now it's easy to say that the woman's part is the necessary response to the man's part. But that is also a fail... if she feels she can't be herself with him, she commits a fraud by marrying him.
> 
> And history and experience proves this never ends well... the thread that spawned this thread, and many others, are proof of this.


There are so many men that would judge a woman for being sexual in her past. Many would refuse to marry her. Many guys on TAM will tell other men to not marry a woman who has had a colourful sexual past. 

I think these couples aren't compatible and shouldn't be together, but I totally understand why a woman would hide her sexual details from a man she was serious about. 

But the kind of sex she has had doesn't change who "being herself" is. Literally, I am a boring, quiet nerd. That's being myself. Nothing about myself changed before I had wild sex to after I had wild sex. I'm not tricking anyone if I decide that I don't want to do some of those things with a specific partner. 

This is me and my current menu. That's not a fraud, that's who I am. 

Intimate times I shared with other people aren't anyone's business but mine and theirs. I wouldn't tell people about the kind of sex we had any more than I would show people your nude photos or love notes you wrote. You are allowed some privacy within your previous relationships that no one else deserves to know about.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So what responsibility does he have for accepting, and marrying, the menu as is?
> 
> Part of my job in finding a partner is finding someone who's current menu matches mine. What I've tried in the past is irrelevant. If I say X, Y, and Z are not on the menu, it doesn't matter if I did them with someone else. He's accepting that as is.
> 
> ...


That would be fine, but I doubt they sat down with a list of sex acts prior to marriage and crossed things off. That is a level of discussion that is not very common.

What most likely happened, is what happens in most of these situations. An assumption is made that in a long term, married, loving, sexual relationship that things will come and go and there will be opportunities for experiments and fantasies. Or at least an opportunity to discuss them and then a go/no go.

In the origin of this thread it was just a hard stop, no talking, just I don't do that. Except, she did and she liked it, so now it is a mess. If she had dealt with it at the time with honest discussion then it would never have been an issue, or if it was, it would be his issue. Now it is a dumpster fire.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I'm choosing the best for me across ALL compatibility areas, not just sex. That should mean more and if a guy dismissed every other thing he was "best" in because he didn't happen to be the best in bed... I'd be upset and feel like I was being reduced to sexual fulfillment and not overall compatibility and love.


That would make sense if the man thought you were perfect in every other way but then rejected or reduced you because you weren't his best. THEN you could claim he was reducing you to a sex object. But if he's wanting to be your best, that doesn't mean he's reducing you to a sex object. There's an entirely different dynamic behind that. 

Bear in mind also that we're told time and time again that the biggest and most powerful sex organ is not genitalia, but rather the brain. So if she's not as sexually fulfilled with him, the implication is that she doesn't love him as much or doesn't think as much of him, or as in the case of recent threads, isn't as open to him.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Tasorundo said:


> Ultimately, I think the hurt in these situations comes from people not talking about things honestly. The person asking is not honest with how much things mean to them or maybe even able to say what they want to try. The person withholding is unable to share why or to engage in the activities for undisclosed reasons. This leaves each person to ascribe motive, which ultimately comes down to they other doesn't care enough about you.


QFT.

If the wife in that other thread had said:

“I don’t feel that those kinds of acts are appropriate in marriage. Those are things you might do when you’re young and single, sewing your wild oats. But I couldn’t do those things with you and have self-respect. I could only do those things with a stranger or somebody who meant nothing to me. It just wouldn’t feel right doing that with a serious boyfriend or a husband.”

Then, if the earlier relationship was exposed, the husband wouldn’t have reacted the same way.

When she said she only enjoyed vanilla sex, she probably viewed it as a white lie. What he doesn’t know doesn’t hurt him. Now it may end her 20+ year marriage.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are so many men that would judge a woman for being sexual in her past. Many would refuse to marry her. Many guys on TAM will tell other men to not marry a woman who has had a colourful sexual past.
> 
> I think these couples aren't compatible and shouldn't be together, but I totally understand why a woman would hide her sexual details from a man she was serious about.
> 
> ...


I understand there is a long history of shaming women for their sexuality. There is no excuse for that and it has no doubt done a lot of people a lot of harm throughout historically patriarchal societies. 

I also agree that couples who have this kind of disconnect shouldn't be together, which is actually the point I was making. If a woman is buying into the marriage but not able to give herself the way she did before, even if it's a response to a perception that the man would judge her for it, that's still a fraudulent withholding of intimacy and unacceptable in a marriage. And why would she even want to marry a man who would look down on her in the first place? It makes no sense, at least in modern Western civilization where sexual mores are relatively open and where women are no longer beholden to men for income.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> Interesting, and I mostly agree, but I would like to challenge you anyway:
> 
> If you married a chef and he cooked amazing steak for you every night, but refused to make you chicken, you’d probably wonder why but be ok with it.
> 
> ...


Yes- ask why, talk about it judgement free and understand their reason. Maybe you can work on it a bit or maybe you accept why they don't want to cook it anymore 

No- "you gave your best to all the other people and I got garbage steak, you married me for money and went cooking chicken with all the hot girls!!"


I decided to take group sex/threesomes/etc off my menu for THIS specific relationship. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I may even do it again if I happened to ever be in a different relationship. 

I didn't tell him I had done it before when I put it on my NO list, but he accepted my list as is. 

If if finds out I did them before, he can ask why I decided to take them off my list, respectfully and without judgement. 
He cannot:
Demand that he now gets to do them
Suggest he should be allowed to find a FWB to do them 
Accuse me of lying, frauding, or being with him for money
Pout about missing out on my "best"


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I'm choosing the best for me across ALL compatibility areas, not just sex. That should mean more and if a guy dismissed every other thing he was "best" in because he didn't happen to be the best in bed... I'd be upset and feel like I was being reduced to sexual fulfillment and not overall compatibility and love.


A man with a good income will often get very angry if you want him for his money. He will also get very angry if you don’t want him despite his money.

Kind of like, “Women get pissed if you look at them, and they get pissed if you don’t look at them.”

Choosing somebody for all compatibility areas sounds right to me. But some guys fear that women are marrying them in spite of not finding them sexually attractive, and only for other areas.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That whole line of reasoning is absolutely foreign to me. First, that a man would negatively judge a wife for getting freaky with him, and second that a woman would have to guard against that. Now it's easy to say that the woman's part is the necessary response to the man's part. But that is also a fail... if she feels she can't be herself with him, she commits a fraud by marrying him.
> 
> And history and experience proves this never ends well... the thread that spawned this thread, and many others, are proof of this.


That right there is a pretty outstanding summary of what vexes me as well. I do keep wondering what, if anything, can be done to head it off, or adequately resolve it once the ugly is out in the open.

I also wonder what the contributing factors or corollaries are. More prevalent in relationships where strong religious background is a factor? More likely where a less sexually experienced male partner is involved? Youth? Inability to recognize when your relationship just ISN'T what you think it is?

All rhetorical ... I'm not expecting you to answer.

Unless you have the answers ...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So vanilla sex = garbage?
> 
> I'm annoyed by the constant assumption that "best sex" is porn star crap and vanilla sex is second rate
> 
> ...


I don't think there is only one "best sex." Best sex over the long run will generally include some variety. 

I've never wanted "porn star sex" and I've never had any interest whatsoever in anal; really, that desire is something I just don't get and probably never will. But while some of the more exotic forms of sexual activity are foreign and unappealing to me, even I get a little disillusioned with nothing but missionary. So when I say "vanilla sex," I'm talking about a sex life in its entirety, not just a single particular act. 

This disconnect seems to come up a lot with oral, especially in the "you did it with him but not with me" threads.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Tasorundo said:


> That would be fine, but I doubt they sat down with a list of sex acts prior to marriage and crossed things off. That is a level of discussion that is not very common.


We did.

It was a good thing. It was a hard thing, but ultimately a good thing.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Deejo said:


> All rhetorical ... I'm not expecting you to answer.
> 
> Unless you have the answers ...


lol

Reminds me of something a very wise person told me.

"It's a shame we can't all just trade problems... everybody always knows how to solve the other guys!"


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I understand there is a long history of shaming women for their sexuality. There is no excuse for that and it has no doubt done a lot of people a lot of harm throughout historically patriarchal societies.


Show of hands who things TAM would caution a man away from a woman who had a colourful sexual history with an above average partner list, including ONS, flings and FWB? 

There's a whole thread going on of people telling a guy to not marry a woman because she kissed a stripper's butt 8 years before she met him. 

Let's not act like this is some historical event. 

And- this is not just women. Many men will choose specific types to have wild sex with and then specific types to settle down with. 

What they want is for the vanilla girl they settled down with to suddenly become a porn star for only them.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

I couldn't do it anymore. Maybe in my younger days (well, most def in my younger days). But now, if the womans count is high, I just lose all attraction.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes- ask why, talk about it judgement free and understand their reason. Maybe you can work on it a bit or maybe you accept why they don't want to cook it anymore
> 
> No- "you gave your best to all the other people and I got garbage steak, you married me for money and went cooking chicken with all the hot girls!!"
> 
> ...


The group sex/threesome is an interesting example. I kind of flip this one on it's head... maybe my version of looking at this with rose colored glasses. 

If my SO had said she'd done that in the past, but it was off limits in our relationship, I wouldn't think she was withholding her best and I'd take it as a positive--that I was worthy of an exclusive relationship. Of course that might not be the full story (you having been there would know better than I), but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's how I'd interpret it. 

But again, certain one-on-one activities within a strictly monogamous relationship, I'd probably have cause for concern.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Show of hands who things TAM would caution a man away from a woman who had a colourful sexual history with an above average partner list, including ONS, flings and FWB?
> 
> There's a whole thread going on of people telling a guy to not marry a woman because she kissed a stripper's butt 8 years before she met him.
> 
> ...


Get real here... the criticism isn't about licking stripper ass 8 years ago... it was that she did so at her hen party, meaning she did so when presumably in a monogamous relationship and more importantly that she kept the photo for the world to see well into her engagement with her current fiancee. 

Had she just disclosed that she got freaky with a stripper under different circumstances (i.e. while not in a committed monogamous relationship, and not broadcasting it to the world while in another monogamous relationship), there would have been no such criticism. Oh, and note also that much of that criticism was coming from women posters as well, so we can drop the gender war victimization on this one. 

Let's not manufacture motives to support an obsolete an inapplicable narrative.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's a whole thread going on of people telling a guy to not marry a woman because she kissed a stripper's butt 8 years before she met him.


That's a little bit of cherry picking and leaving out some key parts. It was a stripers butt, at her bachelorette party, and there are a lot of insinuations that more happened, and she is now going to another party of that type and is dismissive of her new fiancés concerns. It isn't so much a judgement on her, but on them, and that they might not be compatible given these interactions and histories.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That whole line of reasoning is absolutely foreign to me. First, that a man would negatively judge a wife for getting freaky with him, and second that a woman would have to guard against that. Now it's easy to say that the woman's part is the necessary response to the man's part. But that is also a fail... if she feels she can't be herself with him, she commits a fraud by marrying him.
> 
> And history and experience proves this never ends well... the thread that spawned this thread, and many others, are proof of this.


It's foreign to you but it's reality to me. 

I personally know friends whose BF have judged them for being way too "promiscuous" in bed and this has caused some sort of questioning from H's side like ..."where did you learn all that??"

Believe, it's reality. On the other hand, there are men who consider these women "****s" behind their backs. I've heard comments from my guy friends about their OWN xGF where he considered her a "****" just because she was not vanilla.

Can you really imagina that ????? :|


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

farsidejunky said:


> The only problem I have with this is that they were not arranged marriages.
> 
> These women chose to marry the man who judges them, just as the man chooses the woman who wants to portray herself as the "good girl".
> 
> ...


I'd really like to explore that concept of why women even feel it's remotely important to portray, or deceive about that image of the 'good girl' when pursuing a husband. It seems fundamentally illogical to me.

As has already been highlighted it seems like the common concern is rejection, or shame.

Even if I go back to when I was dating my ex, she was remarkably forthcoming and open when we discussed sexual history, and interests. It seems like taking that risk either brings you much closer together, or makes it clear there is too large a divide.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Tasorundo said:


> That's a little bit of cherry picking and leaving out some key parts. It was a stripers butt, at her bachelorette party, and there are a lot of insinuations that more happened, and she is now going to another party of that type and is dismissive of her new fiancés concerns. It isn't so much a judgement on her, but on them, and that they might not be compatible given these interactions and histories.


There was A LOT of shaming beyond any of the "she's a cheater" crap (getting oral infections from kissing a butt? this is the "kind of person she is", what she did is disgusting, etc) 

Maybe some of you men should start speaking out when they see **** shaming going on so that people will believe it's a thing of the past.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> That would be fine, but I doubt they sat down with a list of sex acts prior to marriage and crossed things off. That is a level of discussion that is not very common.


We discussed hard no’s. Everything else we said we would try once (later amended to twice) but made no promises an act would make it into the repertoire.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes- ask why, talk about it judgement free and understand their reason. Maybe you can work on it a bit or maybe you accept why they don't want to cook it anymore
> 
> No- "you gave your best to all the other people and I got garbage steak, you married me for money and went cooking chicken with all the hot girls!!"
> 
> ...


All that is fine and good. And I'm with you.

In fact, pretty much the one thing I've knowingly lied about or misrepresented to my wife is the whole threesome thing. I did it once, right after my divorce. My reasoning is that I didn't want my wife to ever feel like she wasn't "enough" - how can you compare with two?

Additionally, I didn't like it. I mean, it was a fun idea but became really complicated and weird and not about me at all. It was like being in a porn movie, except that you had to play chess and do your taxes at the same time to keep it going. Women are complicated, two women geometrically so.

So I don't think that's an issue, except if I ever refused my wife if she wanted to have one I'd have some explaining to do. But I think the odds of that happening are similar to the odds of @Conan becoming an AOC supporter. I don't think that's going to happen within my lifetime.

I'm not sure I did the right thing there at all by lying to her, but my intention was to take the path of least harm to my wife.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CharlieParker said:


> Tasorundo said:
> 
> 
> > That would be fine, but I doubt they sat down with a list of sex acts prior to marriage and crossed things off. That is a level of discussion that is not very common.
> ...


I can’t imagine getting married to anyone without having this conversation. 

Same as talking about how many kids you’ll have or where you will live. 

If you don’t discuss this before you marry, you have no one to blame but yourself if you end up not compatible with someone.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I couldn't do it anymore. Maybe in my younger days (well, most def in my younger days). But now, if the womans count is high, I just lose all attraction.


This type of judgment right here...this is what I'm also talking about.

Now, giving full sex menu to a previous lover is different from the high number of exes. Though..it still depends on what you consider "high".

30 exes? 40 exes? 20? 10?


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I'd really like to explore that concept of why women even feel it's remotely important to portray, or deceive about that image of the 'good girl' when pursuing a husband. It seems fundamentally illogical to me.
> 
> As has already been highlighted it seems like the common concern is rejection, or shame.
> 
> Even if I go back to when I was dating my ex, she was remarkably forthcoming and open when we discussed sexual history, and interests. It seems like taking that risk either brings you much closer together, or makes it clear there is too large a divide.


It depends on the mentality and where you were born.

In Albania (where I was born and live) it's a "shame" to have had many sexual partners. It's considered promiscuity and unreliable for marriage material.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

lovelygirl said:


> It's foreign to you but it's reality to me.
> 
> I personally know friends whose BF have judged them for being way too "promiscuous" in bed and this has caused some sort of questioning from H's side like ..."where did you learn all that??"
> 
> ...


Like I said, I know men can be jerks and often have indefensible double standards. My point was that if that is how a particular man is, don't marry him. The inescapable bottom line is that you don't marry someone you feel compelled to hide things from. And as we now know, it can be very corrosive to a relationship to do so and even those who are sure it will never come up often find it biting them in the ass later.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Tasorundo said:
> 
> 
> > That's a little bit of cherry picking and leaving out some key parts. It was a stripers butt, at her bachelorette party, and there are a lot of insinuations that more happened, and she is now going to another party of that type and is dismissive of her new fiancés concerns. It isn't so much a judgement on her, but on them, and that they might not be compatible given these interactions and histories.
> ...


The Red Pill guys want virgins, believe a woman’s value is her youth and beauty, that promiscuous women make bad wives because they cannot pair bond anymore, etc. I don’t agree, but I feel they should get their say like everybody else.

Promiscuous women generally make great, faithful wives. There does seem to be a tiny bit higher chance of divorce compared to more restricted women.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

I’m not sure how “be a good girl” is interpreted as “be wildly promiscuous, then live a lie and deceive the good men.”


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

lovelygirl said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't do it anymore. Maybe in my younger days (well, most def in my younger days). But now, if the womans count is high, I just lose all attraction.
> ...


If you need more than 2 hands to count your past sexual partners, its too much for me. Preferably one hand. The lower the count, thr more the attraction. Just my own preferences.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Imo- if #of partners and details of sex life are important to you, ask in early dating. 
Then you can know if you are compatible then. 
It’s up to the one who needs to know to bring it up. 
If you don’t ask, don’t be mad if stuff comes out later. 

I think there is only 1 man who knows all my details. Typically I will not share most things. 

I like X, Y, Z. I will not do A, B, C. I have 0 STDs and am on ____ birth control. 

^ these are things I will discuss. Private details about other men are off the table. 

Would you want your ex talking about your sex life to her new boyfriend?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Would you want your ex talking about your sex life to her new boyfriend?


I wouldn't mind a bit. Especially if it helped them understand each other and settle into a sex life that works best for them.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I couldn't do it anymore. Maybe in my younger days (well, most def in my younger days). But now, if the womans count is high, I just lose all attraction.


I’m sure there would be a number that would be a probable dealbreaker for me. Maybe 100+. I’d need to hear a good explanation for why that happened.

The women I pursued and who pursued me weren’t like that. One was ashamed at a count of 17 at age 25 - she was honest to a fault - but that wasn’t a deal breaker for me.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> If you need more than 2 hands to count your past sexual partners, its too much for me. Preferably one hand. The lower the count, thr more the attraction. Just my own preferences.


As someone with more partners than fingers and toes, this is perfectly valid 

BUT- it’s up to you to ask and make sure you are compatible early on. 

I don’t seem like a girl with a high count. I’m average, quiet, shy, boring and I never go out. You won’t be able to tell. 

If you don’t tell me that my # matters, I won’t know. 

Now, I will leave you if you tell me that my # matters (and I won’t tell it anyway) but that’s best for us both.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> Is this an analogy or your real situation?
> 
> If your wife has been begging you to do those things with her, and you refuse to do it and she’s resentful about it, and then she finds out that you did those things easily and joyfully for other women, of course she’d be crushed. Rightfully so!


It's a hypothetical.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I'd really like to explore that concept of why women even feel it's remotely important to portray, or deceive about that image of the 'good girl' when pursuing a husband. It seems fundamentally illogical to me.
> 
> As has already been highlighted it seems like the common concern is rejection, or shame.
> 
> Even if I go back to when I was dating my ex, she was remarkably forthcoming and open when we discussed sexual history, and interests. It seems like taking that risk either brings you much closer together, or makes it clear there is too large a divide.


OK I'll open the kimono here a bit.

When I was in my later teens, it was kind of my thing to get good girls to do naughty things. I had lost my virginity with a very sexually experienced girl at a relatively young age, and she taught me a great deal of things. I spent my middle teenage years kinda 'meh' about girls, and later teenage years I just kind of got a bit out of control.

I'd be the guy that would find the hot but straight laced girl at the party and convince her to a night or weekend fling of crazy sex with me. And I'd push boundaries, but in a very open, non-judgemental, and non pushy way, and most of the time it would be like a sudden rush of sexuality pouring out of this girl. Like zero to kink central in a couple of hours. And that became kind of my fetish.

I found that the more rouge-ish and fling-ish I made myself, the wilder they would be: because there was no consequences, and I absolutely would not judge them for anything. And I was open to anything!

And that's how I met my first wife. Doing exactly that. She was the last in the line of those girls. And she went from virgin to x-rated within a week of meeting her. She was very straight laced, honour roll, daddy's little girl, very conservative in all things and very concerned about what people thought of her. And the things she would do! All her idea. It was crazy.

Except then I fell in love. She did before I did, but I let it happen. And then we became a summer thing. And then we became a year thing. And then she moved in with me. And as all that happened, the sex slowly dried up. She became more and more "meh" and disinterested, especially after we moved in together.

Of course I asked her why. She said it was because we weren't married, so now she felt like sex was bad. Everybody knew we were having sex, including her parents (I mean, we lived together), and now that it was 'out there' she was very prudish about it. 

She pushed for marriage. One of the ways she did it was by telling me our sex life would improve if we got married and were 'official.' She wasn't religious, exactly, but having that ceremony was very central to how she perceived herself, and more importantly how others perceived her. By that point, things weren't great, but I was young and stupid and in love so I went along with it. We got married.

And the sex went from rare and boring to zero. Absolutely zero. She went from kinky to prudish to stone cold in 2 1/2 years, and it happened the more serious we were 'in the eyes of other people.' Now, she didn't give a **** about how I perceived her - but she sure did care about how others perceived her. She didn't want anyone to think we had had sex, ever, and that married people just didn't have sex. The opposite of what she had told me going into it. That in her mind, good married people just lived together and supported each other and kept their hands to themselves. That's what her parents did. So now we were in a totally sexless marriage.

And that's when she started cheating on me with a security guard in her building. I'm sure they were very kinky. He was a dumber, more out of shape, poorer version of me. But what he had was the ability to make sex not have meaning, and be hidden from view. That was very key to her - nobody could ever know.

And from what I heard afterward, they split up soon after we did, and she's had nothing but a string of flings ever since. And I often think back to that time and wonder how key that is for many women: sex without consequences, especially of someone else knowing exactly what you're doing.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Only thing I can conceivably come up with was; it was simple, easy, straightforward. There was no concern about outcomes. Whereas in stark contrast, I'm now married. Both she and I have distinct investment in the outcome for ourselves and our children. We both actively work towards fostering, rather than undermining our marriage. Nothing about our relationship revolves around withholding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So the underpinning of fear is the difference?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> It's foreign to you but it's reality to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like my type of girl.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Deejo said:


> I'd really like to explore that concept of why women even feel it's remotely important to portray, or deceive about that image of the 'good girl' when pursuing a husband. It seems fundamentally illogical to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We all have ideals. 

Let's really muddy the waters, and acknowledge this is exactly like the "Empathy for Men" thread with reversed genders. 

All it takes in one woman to shut down to a man in crisis for him to change how he behaves, even if it is in contradiction to his nature. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Marduk said:


> OK I'll open the kimono here a bit.
> 
> When I was in my later teens, it was kind of my thing to get good girls to do naughty things. I had lost my virginity with a very sexually experienced girl at a relatively young age, and she taught me a great deal of things. I spent my middle teenage years kinda 'meh' about girls, and later teenage years I just kind of got a bit out of control.
> 
> ...


:surprise::surprise::surprise::surprise::surprise:

Daamn!! Unbelievable! This is what happens to conservative girls who go from zero sex to xx-rated sex and then slow down (after the hype is gone) .... to meet someone else and go back to x-rated sex!

I've heard many stories like this one. I just thought these happened in Albania.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Show of hands who things TAM would caution a man away from a woman who had a colourful sexual history with an above average partner list, including ONS, flings and FWB?


Not me.



> There's a whole thread going on of people telling a guy to not marry a woman because she kissed a stripper's butt 8 years before she met him.


I would, because you totally missed the point if that's what you think.

Here's the point: she did it on her bachelorette from her first failed marriage, he had worries about her to begin with, she kept it posted up through not one but two marriages, and she was about to go on a very similar event with a person with a history of pushing boundaries.

Very different issues. You can be promiscuous and ethical. You can be promiscuous and still be intimate. You can be promiscuous and be wise.

I don't think what she did demonstrates any of that, and that was my problem with what she did. Not that she licked some guy's ass.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

farsidejunky said:


> So the underpinning of fear is the difference?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I think it's more likely the weight of consequence.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Marduk said:


> I think it's more likely the weight of consequence.


Consequences do not matter unless you fear or desire them. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Show of hands who things TAM would caution a man away from a woman who had a colourful sexual history with an above average partner list, including ONS, flings and FWB?
> 
> There's a whole thread going on of people telling a guy to not marry a woman because she kissed a stripper's butt 8 years before she met him.
> 
> ...


Well, without a doubt, what you describe has happened over and over here. The general outcome is a bunch of dudes who AREN'T in sexually adventurous or sexually fulfilling relationships, trigger and take out that frustration on the poster.

Part of me is left wondering how much of sexual unfulfillment or dis-fulfillment (pretty sure I just made that up) is self-inflicted and actually has little to anything to do with your partner? Just not being sexually in touch with yourself, or the sexual realities of others? The thread we keep referencing is a case where the husband expressed he wanted rocky road, but was only given vanilla by his wife, who as it turns out, had rocky road double mocha cookie dough, and really dug it, with someone years prior.

I dated a partner who basically tried, I believe, to scare me off by sharing her sexual history, which involved a couple of threesomes, and a relationship with a woman. I didn't flinch, and made it perfectly clear that I had no intention or desire to share her with anyone else. Ever. 

She liked that answer.

I can also own that when I started down the road of sexuality, I was pretty vanilla. Never had any delusions about porn being equivalent to 'real sex'. Didn't really want, or expect anything crazy. Once again, I think 'crazy' follows a wildly diverse spectrum depending upon who you ask. And I think ... quite incorrectly ... that I presumed overwhelmingly everyone else, both male and female, thought like I did.

I keep coming back to wondering what the foundation or path of progression is for RJ is? 

Is it an event or occurrence? Or is it already in place based on the individual? Is it really about sex, or is it something else?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

lovelygirl said:


> :surprise::surprise::surprise::surprise::surprise:
> 
> Daamn!! Unbelievable! This is what happens to conservative girls who go from zero sex to xx-rated sex and then slow down (after the hype is gone) .... to meet someone else and go back to x-rated sex!
> 
> I've heard many stories like this one. I just thought these happened in Albania.


When we divorced and I started dating again, the lustre of being the first guy to get a girl to do something had very much lost it's appeal. For me, it's much better to be with someone that knows what she wants and is upfront about it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I think RJ is a combination of low confidence in yourself and a sense of control and ownership of your partner. 

It’s not a complicated list of events.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Exactly.

Having a discussion about preferences is totally different than discussing partners.

There are questions I will _never_ answer and partner count is one of those. Who had the biggest ****, etc??? 

Besides morbid curiosity, why even bring it up?

Being asked for this type of information feels like a violation, and I'd never dream of asking someone else.

Preferences are completely different, and the whole 'where'd you learn that' can be silenced quickly, because I can tell you flat out that the coolest things I've discovered never once came from actually having sex with a man. 




lovelygirl said:


> ...giving full sex menu to a [ ] lover is different from the [ ] number of exes.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

farsidejunky said:


> Consequences do not matter unless you fear or desire them.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Mmmm.... maybe?

From my experience, the fact that something can have consequences can make them a lot less sexy and spontaneous. For example, let's say you want to try something new, but you're not sure you're going to like it, and if you don't like it you want to have the ability to never do it again without pressure.

So, for some people, women particularly maybe, they do it with a fling. Because they never have to see the guy again, and don't have to live with an expectation that they suddenly have to do whatever it was again if the person they did it with liked it.

I've found a lot of traction with ensuring if it's the first time they're doing something, or the first time we're doing something, that if it doesn't work out, we never have to do it again. Maybe that's fear, but I think of it more as 'there might be a consequence for me down the line, so I better think about it.' And when you're in the moment, that's going to shut down a lot of spontaneous stuff that excites you in the moment but you're not sure about.

Thinking about sex before and after you do it is great and I think you need to consider deeply. Thinking about sex while you're doing it is a buzz-kill.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

lovelygirl said:


> It's foreign to you but it's reality to me.
> 
> I personally know friends whose BF have judged them for being way too "promiscuous" in bed and this has caused some sort of questioning from H's side like ..."where did you learn all that??"
> 
> ...


That's a bit nuts I'd definitely agree. 

It's a foreign concept to me that a man would be judgmental about a woman being a super and imaginative partner.

I've heard the topic and the concept before and have expressed before that it's way off track, that a man should do so.

When a young teenager it's a unique situation to encounter but my personal response was ain't this great, and a bit impressed, but no negative responses. A bit of surprise when first licked in certain places but rolled with it without missing a beat and learned a variety of activities. 

That carried through all relationships, ONSs, on going repeats, and into marriage. Sex is good, wildly varied, and deep dives into who did what first to whoever has never been a concern to DW and I. Although she still calls me a sl_t time to time but I've never taken that seriously.

One circumstance is that man or woman; people change. 

It's good, open, considerate communication between spouses that ignite or re-ignite desire for certain acts.

The knowing that no act will be hurtful or damaging to the relationship, that gives freedom and takes the pressure off of the fear of being too ****ty or too demure.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Deejo said:


> Yeah ... lots of incendiary circumstances on that one. But it doesn't change the fact that (presuming it's all legitimate) that she has sexual agency over what she wants, or does not want to do NOW. No?


And the thing is that HE has agency to dump her and move on if he is not happy about it. 

Now this is coming from a guy that usually is the "best or one of the best partners" according to my previous partners. That info what volunteered and never asked about. 

Frankly, I don't really care. 

However, if I found out that I was with a woman that was withholding herself from me sexually, and said some of the things that the poster in question said and felt, it would be over. 

Again, coming from someone that works with every partner to make them feel comfortable and safe, the whole bit. Someone that has been a victim of **** shaming in the past. 

See, I don't have to be the best, but I better be worth you putting yourself out there and wanting to please me if we are together in a relationship. 

I don't really care that much what you did in the past, I hope that you don't care what I did in the past... but at the very least you better be bringing it in the BR or we probably won't be in a relationship.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Mmmm.... maybe?
> 
> From my experience, the fact that something can have consequences can make them a lot less sexy and spontaneous. For example, let's say you want to try something new, but you're not sure you're going to like it, and if you don't like it you want to have the ability to never do it again without pressure.
> 
> ...


You are making my point for me.

Fear of certain outcomes.

Or...

Desire for certain outcomes. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

lovelygirl said:


> It depends on the mentality and where you were born.
> 
> In Albania (where I was born and live) it's a "shame" to have had many sexual partners. It's considered promiscuity and unreliable for marriage material.


Only for women? Or for men as well?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think RJ is a combination of low confidence in yourself and a sense of control and ownership of your partner.
> 
> It’s not a complicated list of events.


I've been taken with the number of guys I've seen post here that are subject to RJ, don't understand it, and really, really wish they didn't feel it. Not all of them are clueless or self involved. When it does pop up, it certainly seems to add all kinds of complication to a relationship.

I added the other tags to the title of the thread because it seems like all of these things do seem to get conflated ... at least here on the forum.

Talk about sexual history, has a tendency to segue into partner count, which then slides down the slope of shaming, guilt, etc.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

farsidejunky said:


> We all have ideals.
> 
> Let's really muddy the waters, and acknowledge this is exactly like the "Empathy for Men" thread with reversed genders.
> 
> ...


That right there is pretty much balls on. And I think we settled on the fact that there really is no explaining that phenomenon. 

Seems a shame that we may end up with the same conclusion here.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

farsidejunky said:


> You are making my point for me.
> 
> Fear of certain outcomes.
> 
> ...



My addition to that would be consideration of the outcomes at all - at least in that moment. 

Because the thinking itself is a turn off. That was an insight that that the very first girl I slept with all those years ago gave me, among many. 

Something to the effect that a girl who’s thinking too much about anything in the moment, even if it’s good, is going to keep her panties on.

This is partly why getting a girl to laugh is so powerful, I think. 

Maybe I’m wrong about that.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Deejo said:


> I've been taken with the number of guys I've seen post here that are subject to RJ, don't understand it, and really, really wish they didn't feel it. Not all of them are clueless or self involved. When it does pop up, it certainly seems to add all kinds of complication to a relationship.
> 
> I added the other tags to the title of the thread because it seems like all of these things do seem to get conflated ... at least here on the forum.
> 
> Talk about sexual history, has a tendency to segue into partner count, which then slides down the slope of shaming, guilt, etc.


I didn't say they were clueless or self involved. I said there was a combination of low confidence and a sense of control and ownership of their partner. These aren't always traits that you understand or notice but that has been the theme of every single one of these that I've seen. 

And there's very much this gold standard that many guys set where they want to marry the vanilla girl who is only a porn star for them. 

When that gets shattered, their confidence and this idea that his wife's sexuality is HIS, gets shattered with it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And there's very much this gold standard that many guys set where they want to marry the vanilla girl who is only a porn star for them.
> 
> When that gets shattered, their confidence and this idea that his wife's sexuality is HIS, gets shattered with it.


Absolutely can't get my head around that one. But yeah, have absolutely seen it.

The counter to this, is they hope to bring out the porn star in their sexually inexperienced partner only to discover she isn't interested in sex at all. Also feel compelled to be very clear here that this also happens in reverse.
I dated A LOT of women whose ex husbands simply had no sexual interest in them ... and I can tell you, they were missing out.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are so many men that would judge a woman for being sexual in her past. Many would refuse to marry her. Many guys on TAM will tell other men to not marry a woman who has had a colourful sexual past.
> 
> I think these couples aren't compatible and shouldn't be together, but I totally understand why a woman would hide her sexual details from a man she was serious about.


She would be better off finding someone she is more compatible with rather than hide who she is? This thought process just makes no sense.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

leftfield said:


> Would she better off finding someone she is more compatible with rather than hide who she is? This thought process just makes no sense.


Well yes, she'd be better with someone who didn't get bothered about her sexual history and I would tell any woman who was with someone who was bothered by it to leave. I would tell any man who was bothered by it to leave. 

But again the "who she is" bothers me. 

Who I am is so many things. I'm not a different person before and after I had a high partner count and some more adventure. 

My partner knows who I am. I'm not hiding who I am. Do I become someone different if you know I had sex with multiple men in a room full of more men? That's something I did but ultimately had no impact on who I am as a person. Not discussing this with him isn't hiding who I am, it's just keeping private details of my personal sex life to myself. 

I think maybe people need to disconnect sexual activity with how they view who you are.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> I think there’s parts of a relationship that work better than others in all relationships. But I think these parts take active work to improve or at least maintain as best as possible.
> 
> If you go into a marriage being open about what great friends you are, how emotionally supportive you are to each other, but the sex is just ok... and you’re both good with that, then groovy. Have fun.
> 
> ...


What I don't understand (and it's possible it's just my way of thinking) why a simple "I'm interested in doing xyz. I'm not interested in doing xyz" has to be justified with an explanation? I just feel like too many people (men and women) "settle" for a less than perfect match assuming they will be able to change them. They use the "explanation" to justify their decision to "settle".

I also think the issue associated with RJ is more predominant with people who married young (less life/dating experience) versus those who married later in life.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> My partner knows who I am. I'm not hiding who I am. Do I become someone different if you know I had sex with multiple men in a room full of more men? That's something I did but ultimately had no impact on who I am as a person. Not discussing this with him isn't hiding who I am, it's just keeping private details of my personal sex life to myself.



Not buying that, sorry. 

I’ve had all kinds of crazy experiences. None of them make me a lesser person. But all of them have changed me as a person. 

Yes, it’s private if you want it to be. No, it doesn’t mean there’s no impact and doesn’t change you.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> Not buying that, sorry.
> 
> I’ve had all kinds of crazy experiences. None of them make me a lesser person. But all of them have changed me as a person.
> 
> Yes, it’s private if you want it to be. No, it doesn’t mean there’s no impact and doesn’t change you.


If it did, I don't notice it. I'm the same as I've always been. I'm happy I had the experiences I did because I wanted to try everything I could, but who I am isn't defined by who's had their parts in my parts and in which ways.

Nothing about me changed. No one who is close to me would have known any difference before and after.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

Deleted


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

I'm selfish, I want to be first and last in line 🙂


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> What I don't understand (and it's possible it's just my way of thinking) why a simple "I'm interested in doing xyz. I'm not interested in doing xyz" has to be justified with an explanation? I just feel like too many people (men and women) "settle" for a less than perfect match assuming they will be able to change them. They use the "explanation" to justify their decision to "settle".
> 
> 
> 
> I also think the issue associated with RJ is more predominant with people who married young (less life/dating experience) versus those who married later in life.



When you’re not partnered, it’s simple. If your LEGO pieces don’t snap together nicely, you walk away. 

When you’re partnered, it’s not so simple. Because you don’t really have it as an option so much to shrug your shoulders and find a new LEGO piece. You have mortgages and children and shared bank accounts and houses, etc. 

So it becomes more serious. 

Plus, that LEGO piece that mostly worked but had a sharp edge slowly becomes more and more of an issue sometimes. It becomes emotional, or meaningful, or symbolic, or even someone gets the realization that “if I stay with you for the rest of my life, I’ll never get to try this thing I thought I’d be ok never trying.”

To add to that, sex is highly dynamic, highly situational, and highly evolutionary. Meaning I may not care about something when I’m 25, but I might really really really care about it when I’m 55 and might have developed a new kink. 

So all of that means that if you want long-term monogamy, the price tag on that box of LEGO pieces comes with continual renegotiation forever. 

If you don’t want that renegotiation, don’t get in a long term monogamous relationship, because healthy people tend not to be static people.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I'm selfish, I want to be first and last in line 🙂


This is fine but then it's on YOU to make sure you communicate this long before marriage and find a compatible match. You can't assume things will all work out and then angry later if you find out you're not the first.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm selfish, I want to be first and last in line 🙂
> ...


I did find out exactly that and am now married. I didn't do my due dilegence the first time around, though...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> When you’re not partnered, it’s simple. If your LEGO pieces don’t snap together nicely, you walk away.
> 
> When you’re partnered, it’s not so simple. Because you don’t really have it as an option so much to shrug your shoulders and find a new LEGO piece. You have mortgages and children and shared bank accounts and houses, etc.
> 
> ...


My problem with what you state is that usually when there is a significant change, like what you describe above with developing kinks, etc.... the static partner (the one that's been the same since day 1) is expected to meet those needs and if they don't, then they are now made responsible for the demise of the relationship or are blamed for their partner's lack of sexual fulfillment. Add RJ into the mix and you have someone who feels cheated because THEY changed and expect a partner who is willing to meet those needs. 

This includes more than just sex too. I see this with women who marry guys who are stable but boring (maybe introverts) and then after so many years feel cheated because their spouse is not fun and exciting. Would it be fair to the husband to expect him to be someone he is not or does not want to be?

I think it's okay to expect _some_ change along the same axis within a long term monogamous relationship. Kind of like expecting rocks to weather over time. Expecting a change to jump axis is unrealistic - rock to weather into a tree.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I'll throw out a counter-example to the whole "woman gets **** shamed" piece in the madonna ***** complex dilemma.

It happened to me. When I got divorced, I made friends with some very cool women. Artists, writers, academics, that kind of thing. And I didn't sleep with any of them. But because I was friends with them, they set me up with their single friends quite a bit. I realized this was a great way to date, and this is loosely one of the ways that I met my current wife. So good.

After I married my wife and we started having kids, one of those women friends got married, and we got invited. Very cool wedding, lots of fun, and off to the reception we go. And that's where everything went sideways. We walk up to the table, and the seating arrangement became very awkward. Because as we were seated at this round table with other couples, I realized that I had slept with every single other woman at the table. And it wasn't a small table. 

I started to sweat bullets. Everybody's being fine and civil as dinner was getting served, but I figured I better tell my wife what's what. She laughed about it, which was a big relief because she can be very jealous. But then as the drinks started to flow, conversations became more open, and dirty jokes started to flow. Well... I became one of those jokes.

"Wait, you slept with him, too? Did Marduk do this with you? Did he try that?" On and on. I wanted to sink under the table as my wife and the other women were laughing hysterically. I felt awful for the other guys at the table, too. I grabbed the guys, took them to the bar, bought them a few rounds of expensive scotch and just kind of apologized for the whole thing. They were mostly cool, but you could tell it wasn't really that cool at all, and the whole night became very weird.

My wife is casual friends with many of those girls to this day, and when we run into them, I brace myself for the ribbing that's going to soon follow.

My point is, it happens to us guys, too. I wasn't all "hell ya, I'm da man!" about it. I was like, FFS, now I'm the man-***** POS wrecking these guy's night, or maybe even relationship.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Lila said:


> My problem with what you state is that usually when there is a significant change, like what you describe above with developing kinks, etc.... the static partner (the one that's been the same since day 1) is expected to meet those needs and if they don't, then they are now made responsible for the demise of the relationship or are blamed for their partner's lack of sexual fulfillment. Add RJ into the mix and you have someone who feels cheated because THEY changed and expect a partner who is willing to meet those needs.
> 
> This includes more than just sex too. I see this with women who marry guys who are stable but boring (maybe introverts) and then after so many years feel cheated because their spouse is not fun and exciting. Would it be fair to the husband to expect him to be someone he is not or does not want to be?
> 
> I think it's okay to expect _some_ change along the same axis within a long term monogamous relationship. Kind of like expecting rocks to weather over time. Expecting a change to jump axis is unrealistic - rock to weather into a tree.


The problem I have with what you are saying is... I don't think anyone should be static. I really don't.

I also agree that healthy people are not static. 

Now the other side of that is that sometimes when people are not static, at some point they don't fit together. 

I know you can never know how things are going to go long term, but to me, if you are not truly, madly, sexually in love and compatible then you should not have gotten married. 

For example if my Fiancé was not one of the best sexual partners that I have ever had, then I would not even consider marrying her.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> My problem with what you state is that usually when there is a significant change, like what you describe above with developing kinks, etc.... the static partner (the one that's been the same since day 1) is expected to meet those needs and if they don't, then they are now made responsible for the demise of the relationship or are blamed for their partner's lack of sexual fulfillment. Add RJ into the mix and you have someone who feels cheated because THEY changed and expect a partner who is willing to meet those needs.


The only thing I'd challenge in that would be to say that I don't think anybody should be the static partner. If you're static, you're not growing. This doesn't mean continually adding crazy new ways to have sex necessarily - it could be a realization that you no longer like something.

I would also say that we kind of have a "try it once" rule (within reason). If someone wants to try something, we can talk about it, negotiate it, and most likely try it once even if you're not sure about it. Kind of like trying new food. But at any time if it's not working, you can tap out, and if you could tolerate it but didn't like it, you never have to try it again.

Again, within reason. A "hell no" is not gonna happen and not be pushed. But if a "hell no" used to be a "hell yes" it's probably reasonable to have a conversation about it that isn't just a "no, and we're never speaking about it again."

I think intentionality is everything here.



> This includes more than just sex too. I see this with women who marry guys who are stable but boring (maybe introverts) and then after so many years feel cheated because their spouse is not fun and exciting. Would it be fair to the husband to expect him to be someone he is not or does not want to be?


Ya, I hate that. I'm very social at work the more I climb the ladder, and I sure don't want to come home and be social with whatever group of women want to get together and hang out with their husbands that get drug along for the ride .



> I think it's okay to expect _some_ change along the same axis within a long term monogamous relationship. Kind of like expecting rocks to weather over time. Expecting a change to jump axis is unrealistic - rock to weather into a tree.


Ya, I think that's the key. Be reasonable. Hear a no, and hear "maybes" not as a "hell yes" but as a "let's think about it for a while." And with something that's kinda unreasonable, you better take a long time working up to it to even contemplate asking for it. It's a long way from a super vanilla sex life to, say, group sex on the beach in Ibiza. You can't just jump right to that, either.

And with all of these things, a no is hopefully just an opportunity to to find a "hell yes" to something else. I mean, the solution set for sex is infinite. You could literally have a different kind of sex with the same person every day for the rest of your life, and not run out of things to try.

So if you do get a reasonable no, go find something else.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Marduk said:


> I'll throw out a counter-example to the whole "woman gets **** shamed" piece in the madonna ***** complex dilemma.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Yeah, another story like that is... we are at one of my favorite clubs that I play at sometime... and GF at the time asks me, "How many women in her have you slept with?", GULP... I start looking around.

Thankfully, that night I could say, "None...." It was a slower night...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

BluesPower said:


> The problem I have with what you are saying is... I don't think anyone should be static. I really don't.
> 
> I also agree that healthy people are not static.
> 
> Now the other side of that is that sometimes when people are not static, at some point they don't fit together.


Using your logic, then Americans must be some of the healthiest people in the world. Our divorce rates are sky high. 



BluesPower said:


> I know you can never know how things are going to go long term, but to me, if you are not truly, madly, sexually in love and compatible then you should not have gotten married.
> 
> For example if my Fiancé was not one of the best sexual partners that I have ever had, then I would not even consider marrying her.



I agree that truly, madly, sexually in love and compatible are necessary ingredients to marriage.

I just don't see how one has to be "the best" sexual partner to be truly, madly, sexually in love and compatible.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Most situations that end up with a totally vanilla, no compromise sex life had red flags. I was in one myself, there were red flags. 

But there are 2 different issues here:

Partners should be open to trying new sexual things together <--- this is 100% true

The problem comes in because: 
It has nothing to do with her past. 
If she had 0 sexual partners before or 100 guys in one night, it doesn't change the negotiation process. 

If something is a hard no, it's a hard no regardless of if she has done it before. Finding out that she has done it changes nothing. If it was acceptable for you before, it's not suddenly unacceptable because she tried it in the past. 

It's an issue of "It's not fair that she did that with him and not with me" and/or feeling like you were tricked into marrying a good girl who turned out to not be a good girl and/or worrying that she will find someone else and leave because she only married you for practical reasons and not attraction (I've seen several threads on RJ turn into a "she's going to cheat on you" hysteria)


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

I guess this is something that we men will simply never understand. Apparently women think this is acceptable and that it in no way suggests that the exs were sexier or superior in any way.

I understand that thinking with respect to waiting X dates for sex with good guys to show that you are chaste, even though you have ONSs. I also understand lying to your husband about the number of former partners or even sexual acts. I could understand doing anal with your husband but denying you ever did it before or that you ever do it with him. But I don’t understand severely limiting sexual positions (or frequency) with your husband to prove to him that you are a good girl. That seems so messed up to me.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> Using your logic, then Americans must be some of the healthiest people in the world. Our divorce rates are sky high.


That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that you're not the same person you were when you tied the knot decades later. At least I don't think you should be.

Your core values might not change. Your identity might not change. But your experiences should have weathered and wizened you, you may be more open about certain things and closed about others. You likely have whole new interests. In other words, you've grown.

Growth is good. Growth comes with change. Hopefully you grow and change together, discover new things together, bring new things to the table that enriches you both.

To be static is death. That's what my old sensei used to say (loose translation), and I think he was right.



> I agree that truly, madly, sexually in love and compatible are necessary ingredients to marriage.
> 
> I just don't see how one has to be "the best" sexual partner to be truly, madly, sexually in love and compatible.


Mmm... I disagree.

You may not have *started* as the best. But after years and decades of continual sexual refinement, reflection, growth, and adaptation... you should end up as the "best" sexual partner. I mean, I hate thinking that way - "the best" or "number one." But I'm certainly having better sex now than I did 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Because _I'm_ better at it, and I pay attention to what works for my wife. So I continually try to be the best for her. Not as a "I better be the best lay you ever had" thing, but as in "I love the hell out of you lady, and you deserve to get off the most/best/craziest ways possible, so I'm gonna improve at that forever."

And I kinda expect the same from her. Growth or stagnation. Flexibility or static.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> I guess this is something that we men will simply never understand. Apparently women think this is acceptable and that it in no way suggests that the exs were sexier or superior in any way.
> 
> I understand that thinking with respect to waiting X dates for sex with good guys to show that you are chaste, even though you have ONSs. I also understand lying to your husband about the number of former partners or even sexual acts. I could understand doing anal with your husband but denying you ever did it before or that you ever do it with him. But I don’t understand severely limiting sexual positions (or frequency) with your husband to prove to him that you are a good girl. That seems so messed up to me.


Lying is unacceptable but not telling your number or previous sex acts isn't lying. That's not information that needs to be shared. 

I don't think anyone is advocating severely limiting sexual activity with your partner, just that is has no dependence on your past sexual history. At all.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's an issue of "It's not fair that she did that with him and not with me" and/or feeling like you were tricked into marrying a good girl who turned out to not be a good girl and/or worrying that she will find someone else and leave because she only married you for practical reasons and not attraction (I've seen several threads on RJ turn into a "she's going to cheat on you" hysteria)


That actually has happened to me. Not the cheating, but the leaving. 

Once was in a fairly serious relationship with a woman that wanted to wait with me (when she didn't with her flings), wanted to keep things very constrained and straightforward sexually (even though she wasn't that way with her flings), thought that was the best way to "get serious and settle down."

Guess what she did? Left me for a fling, and went right back to those things. I never shamed her, never pushed her, was very patient and nice. She took off with the first guy that wasn't any of those things. I'm sure she had good time.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

People can judge you any way they want and they can use any criteria they want. And you don't get a say in the prosses. Unless it is illegal and you are taking them to court.

This happens to every one of us multiple times every single day and most of the time we don't even know it is happening.

For those who say 'someone should not be judge by their sexual past', it would be good to stop trying to control what other people do. Spend your time focused on what you can do. Which is; to decided to associate with those who judge a persons sexual past or not.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

I don’t participate in the so-called retroactive jealousy threads when they appear on TAM because I don’t understand the underlying mind-set. In fact, many of the posts on this thread are _baffling_. Most of the attitudes I have read on this subject indicate personal insecurity or aural voyeurism (tell me a sex story). I have never encountered this phenomenon outside of TAM.

In my 62 years on this earth I have had numerous relationships and no partner has ever asked my “number” or asked for details of previous sex acts … NOT EVER. For the record, I am the sort who thinks that if you cannot talk about sex then you shouldn’t be having it, so sexuality and sexual preferences are always discussed in my relationships.

There are all sorts of reasons why a person might not want to perform a sexual act that they tried previously. For example: physical flexibility may not be what it once was, do you know what hemorrhoids are? ever have an anal fissure or vaginal tear? ever tried to get cum out of straight/fine hair without it knotting? There are all sorts of reasons for changes in sexual desires and preferences.

These days if a man asks me if I “do anal” I tell him “of course, however I’ll have to shop for a strap-on”. > Otherwise, as long as it doesn’t involve blood, pain, animals or multiple humans I’ll give it a try and, if turns out to be something I don’t favor I will not do it again and, don’t pester me about it.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Deejo said:


> Well, without a doubt, what you describe has happened over and over here. The general outcome is a bunch of dudes who AREN'T in sexually adventurous or sexually fulfilling relationships, trigger and take out that frustration on the poster.
> 
> Part of me is left wondering how much of sexual unfulfillment or dis-fulfillment (pretty sure I just made that up) is self-inflicted and actually has little to anything to do with your partner? Just not being sexually in touch with yourself, or the sexual realities of others? The thread we keep referencing is a case where the husband expressed he wanted rocky road, but was only given vanilla by his wife, who as it turns out, had rocky road double mocha cookie dough, and really dug it, with someone years prior.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I missed it on in this thread or should know from somewhere else, but RJ is?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well yes, she'd be better with someone who didn't get bothered about her sexual history and I would tell any woman who was with someone who was bothered by it to leave. I would tell any man who was bothered by it to leave.
> 
> But again the "who she is" bothers me.
> 
> ...


I believe sexual behavior is absolutely a vital and central part of who you are.

That aside, you are a pretty amazing nerd!:wink2:


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

Sheeze….

That monastery in Arizona is looking more and more appealing all the time. These threads are depressing.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Sorry if I missed it on in this thread or should know from somewhere else, but RJ is?


Retroactive Jealousy.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Red Sonja said:


> I don’t participate in the so-called retroactive jealousy threads when they appear on TAM because I don’t understand the underlying mind-set. In fact, many of the posts on this thread are _baffling_. Most of the attitudes I have read on this subject indicate personal insecurity or aural voyeurism (tell me a sex story). I have never encountered this phenomenon outside of TAM.
> 
> In my 62 years on this earth I have had numerous relationships and no partner has ever asked my “number” or asked for details of previous sex acts … NOT EVER. For the record, I am the sort who thinks that if you cannot talk about sex then you shouldn’t be having it, so sexuality and sexual preferences are always discussed in my relationships.
> 
> ...


^I had 1 guy ask for my partner count and details but we were FWBs and it was a turn on for him. I can't even imagine how that conversation would go in a typical situation "This one time, at band camp...." I don't want to know all his details either. 

Other than the one, no one else has cared to ask or has been bothered by anything that happens to come out down the road. 
and 1000000% that there are all sorts of reasons. One of mine is "meh, don't really feel like doing it anymore" which is why I put it on my no list and they can take me or leave me as is. 

Also- I have fine and thin hair, I get you.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> Retroactive Jealousy.


Oh yeah... the title of the thread itself! Oops.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Why does this thread now remind me of Cameron Diaz?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Marduk said:


> I'll throw out a counter-example to the whole "woman gets **** shamed" piece in the madonna ***** complex dilemma.
> 
> It happened to me. When I got divorced, I made friends with some very cool women. Artists, writers, academics, that kind of thing. And I didn't sleep with any of them. But because I was friends with them, they set me up with their single friends quite a bit. I realized this was a great way to date, and this is loosely one of the ways that I met my current wife. So good.
> 
> ...


Hahahaha!!!:laugh::grin2:>

This had me rolling! What a nightmare! Mrs. C might not have had the sense of humor Mrs. M did!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

BluesPower said:


> For example if my Fiancé was not one of the best sexual partners that I have ever had, then I would not even consider marrying her.


How prevalent do you think this view should be?

Anecdotally, Mrs. Conan wasn't really in the top 10 sexual experiences I had when we first got together.

I didn't care at all. She improved and we have had some great sex over the years but she is no where near the best sexual partner I ever had.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> Hahahaha!!!:laugh::grin2:>
> 
> 
> 
> This had me rolling! What a nightmare! Mrs. C might not have had the sense of humor Mrs. M did!



Woman at the table: “Does he still wear those boxer briefs and think they’re sexy? I guess they were kind of cute.”

My wife: “He’s wearing them right now, wanna see? Or should I say, see them again? Marduk, stand up and show them.”

Me: “Uh, I’m getting a whiskey, anybody want one?”

“How about the face he makes when he cums? He ever make this face for you?” (She makes a silly face, laughter, hands go up) 

My wife: “He still does! You should have seen him the other day!”

“Uh, guys, how about we go get one and see if they’ll turn the game on at the bar. On me.” 

We shuffle over to the bar. “So, how about those Leafs? They’re on a tear, aren’t they?”

Paraphrasing of course, it was a long time ago, but was that kind of thing.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

lovelygirl said:


> It's foreign to you but it's reality to me.
> 
> I personally know friends whose BF have judged them for being way too "promiscuous" in bed and this has caused some sort of questioning from H's side like ..."where did you learn all that??"
> 
> ...


I think that expectations have as much to do with this as the reality. Expectations based upon what each thought the other person's past was, and seeing a different reality in bed. In many cases those expectations are completely unfair and without foundation. But in some, the "more adventurous" person, be that person male or female, may have billed themself as having little prior experience. And suddenly it's like, um, where did that come from? Books? Porn? Movies? Prior partners?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

BluesPower said:


> For example if my Fiancé was not one of the best sexual partners that I have ever had, then I would not even consider marrying her.


Not trying to be contrary here, but once again, I'll use my own personal anecdote. At the time I was engaged to now my ex-wife? She was hands down the best sex I had ever had in my life. And just for perspective, by that time I had already had 15 partners. Fast forward 6 years and two kids later? And there was no sex. So I agree that people aren't static, and to that point, the terms and conditions of someones sexuality are subject to change ... with or without notice.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

I think there are a lot of things being convoluted into one thing here.

There is a difference between:

A guy who finds out his wife/gf had lots of partners and he judges her.

A guy who loves his wife/gf and she wont try things he wants to do in bed, but has reasons and he still judges her.

A guy who loves his wife/gf and she wont try things he wants to, but she loves those things and gave them to another or multiple guys.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Tasorundo said:


> I think there are a lot of things being convoluted into one thing here.
> 
> There is a difference between:
> 
> ...


Or "enjoyed them at the time with other men" 

There's many reasons why that would change over time and with different partners.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Tasorundo said:


> I think there are a lot of things being convoluted into one thing here.
> 
> There is a difference between:
> 
> ...


And of those three, the last is the one that gives the most cause for concern... and was the issue in the thread that ultimately spawned this thread.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Marduk said:


> Woman at the table: “Does he still wear those boxer briefs and think they’re sexy? I guess they were kind of cute.”
> 
> My wife: “He’s wearing them right now, wanna see? Or should I say, see them again? Marduk, stand up and show them.”
> 
> ...



:lol::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You're killing me!!!


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Or "enjoyed them at the time with other men"
> 
> There's many reasons why that would change over time and with different partners.


That would fall under number 2, assuming it was talked about.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

This is an interesting topic. I personally, don't get jealous about my partner's sexual past. The way I look at it, everything he's done up to meeting me has helped to prepare him to be the lover he is...so if he's good at it I consider that a bonus. I'm not going to want to sit down and talk about how he learned each trick but I won't get upset about his past either. 

I wouldn't be happy if he got upset with me for having a past. I have a pretty low number for a woman my age and one of them was gay so not much to be jealous of anyway :laugh: I think my current guy feels like I do...he doesn't want to hear about my past exploits but he isn't going to get upset about them either. 

I've never held back with anyone either so the situation of "you did that with him, but you won't with me" has never come up for me. The older I get the more free I feel to express myself sexually and so instead of taking things off the menu, more stuff gets added as I get older. 

I know some men don't understand why a woman would hold back for a guy she wants to respect her but I get it. I constantly hear men telling dirty jokes that make women who engage in certain behaviors out to be ****s, *****s, etc. But for me, if a guy was going to take the pleasure I offer but then not respect me for offering it, he will find I will never offer that, or anything else ever again. So I offer what I'm comfortable with, try new things that I'm comfortable trying and go on with my life. I guess I've been lucky in that the few men I've been with have all respected me for my willingness to try new things and my willingness to please them.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Tasorundo said:


> I think there are a lot of things being convoluted into one thing here.
> 
> There is a difference between:
> 
> ...


They certainly all seem to end up in the same place ... resentment. You don't think these are all precursors for retroactive jealousy?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> :lol::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> You're killing me!!!




“Ok, who fell for the line about nobody being able to tell if you went down on him while he drove that little sports car?” Hands go up. “And who got caught?” Same hands go up, lots of laughter. 

“What’s his thing with lingerie, anyway? For crying out loud, I’ve never spent so much on so little clothing.” “I don’t know, but we should have invested in Victoria’s Secret, I can tell you that.”

“Does he still try to keep you up all night? Why isn’t once enough? Does he still start with this, move to that, and finish with that other thing?” “I thought that was just with me!”

Ugh.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> BluesPower said:
> 
> 
> > For example if my Fiancé was not one of the best sexual partners that I have ever had, then I would not even consider marrying her.
> ...


Anything from once a week, missionary only, or better would have been acceptable to me. Not ideal but acceptable.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Deejo said:


> They certainly all seem to end up in the same place ... resentment. You don't think these are all precursors for retroactive jealousy?


I think there is a good chance for that. I think that it would be very hard to live with someone who you feel gave their all to someone else, but not you. The women in here can say that is foolish or whatever, but there is hardly any way to make a guy not feel that way.

I mean, what is it about him that makes him unworthy of your effort? That is the way a guy will always see it. If you are unwilling to compromise or work through his feelings on it, then what is the point of the relationship at all?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that you're not the same person you were when you tied the knot decades later. At least I don't think you should be.
> 
> Your core values might not change. Your identity might not change. But your experiences should have weathered and wizened you, you may be more open about certain things and closed about others. You likely have whole new interests. In other words, you've grown.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. Most of us change throughout our lives. And yes, we can only hope to change together. However, I feel that's like asking to win the lottery. There's a fifty/fifty chance couples end up divorced and of the ones that stay together, about half do so unhappily. This is all probably a topic for another thread.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Tasorundo said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > Or "enjoyed them at the time with other men"
> ...


The OP of the other thread gave a reason, people just didn’t think it was good enough. FTR

But my point is that I think there’s a big difference between asking why you “loved doing something” you “gave” to other men and asking why you enjoyed that sex act at that time and why you don’t anymore. 

Words matter. Being open to conversation matters. The difference between the 2 phrasings would be the difference between a conversation and me shutting down and never trusting you again.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Tasorundo said:


> Deejo said:
> 
> 
> > They certainly all seem to end up in the same place ... resentment. You don't think these are all precursors for retroactive jealousy?
> ...


Give her all, unworthy of effort, etc. Again, this phrasing is putting sex above everything else your partner does for you. 

I can have wild sex with a fling who I do nothing for 

My effort and “all” is my emotional investment and giving I do. 
Not where I let them put their penis. I work my butt off to please a partner with affection and commitments and words. 
If they think my “all” is some guy who I hadn’t anal sex with and didn’t care about, that tells me his priorities are not in line with mine. 
And I like sex. It’s a priority for me but it is not the measure of love and effort. 

If a partner used this phrasing with me, I don’t see how I could be with him.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> They certainly all seem to end up in the same place ... resentment. You don't think these are all precursors for retroactive jealousy?


I'm not jealous at all. Retroactive or otherwise but I could see a scenario where I wouldn't be a happy barbarian.

Mrs. C isn't like this but if I found out she really enjoyed giving oral and to swallowing or even allowing it in her mouth in the past and couldn't come up with something pretty amazing to convince me why she never would with me, there would be some real damage to our marriage.

Now she is small all over and her mouth is tiny. She has always had difficulty with oral and nothing has ever come out to contradict her aversion to oral to completion in her mouth or swallowing. Both of those activities are things I am very interested in but I don't want to push her on it.

She is very generous with the rest of the playground.:smile2:


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

CraigBesuden said:


> Anything from once a week, missionary only, or better would have been acceptable to me. Not ideal but acceptable.


Didn't your wife hold out on you or something?

If I recall, something transpired a bit late in the game for you two?

Mrs. C is very generous in bed and will try any position we are physically capable of and anywhere that isn't easily seen of n public. She also went like the Energizer Bunny for years into our marriage until natural slow downs do to aging and health issues. She still is good for once a day.:smile2:


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Marduk said:


> When we divorced and I started dating again, the lustre of being the first guy to get a girl to do something had very much lost it's appeal. For me, it's much better to be with someone that knows what she wants and is upfront about it.


Yep. I get your point. That's what I meant in another thread here on TAM that being someone's first nowadays feels like it's too much work, feels like you're teaching them.

Whereas, what I want...is a team-mate, a partner, someone to share things with - give and take. - and you can't have all these by being someone's first. (Here I'm not referring only to virginity, but also _vanillaness_. If they come from the vanilla world, it'll feel like you're their first ...). 

Pretty boring.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

minimalME said:


> Having a discussion about preferences is totally different than discussing partners.
> There are questions I will _never_ answer and partner count is one of those. Who had the biggest ****, etc???
> 
> Being asked for this type of information feels like a violation, and I'd never dream of asking someone else.


Being asked for this type of information, first and foremost, shows INSECURITY!!!!

I dislike it when men I've dated have asked me questions like "How many did you date? Were they more muscular, more handsome ... more this....more that???" 

WTF? I don't even care what you've dated before me as long as we're compatible NOW! Actually, why waste time talk about the past and giving ex-partners the attention they don't deserve now??

Let's concentrate on us and make _*us*_ better!


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Only for women? Or for men as well?


Usually for women. They are judged if they've had many exes. While for men, it's allowable

See? 


Sh*ty double standard!


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

So, I married a virgin, as a virgin.

If I was single and dating, I would never ask a woman how many guys she dated, or had sex with, because it doesn't matter. The original thread that started this isn't about that either.

I don't understand how you guys cannot see that it would be hurtful to find out that the partner that never wanted to do anything with you loves doing those things with her previous partner. There is just some basic fundamental thing we are not able to see the same here. It might not even be that I want all of what she did with him, but this guy was denied EVERYTHING with the excuse of she doesn't like it. But she even said she does like it! How can he feel any other way than undesirable?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Yep. 

Asking about my # or specific sex acts I did with other men (other than “do you like x?”) is a red flag that there will be issues with insecurity and jealousy and having to prove yourself for your entire relationship 


Parts of me sometimes wants to just tell guys that I’ve been with 1000 men in every way possible just to scare off anyone who has a problem with past sex lives.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Also, the guy in question didnt ask, but instead was bombed with a friend, followed by his wife bragging about how much ****ing she did. It is not some insecure chump digging into his wifes past. It is a guy that thought he knew his wife, only to be blindsided and feel awful by who she was.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> So, I married a virgin, as a virgin.
> 
> If I was single and dating, I would never ask a woman how many guys she dated, or had sex with, because it doesn't matter. The original thread that started this isn't about that either.
> 
> I don't understand how you guys cannot see that it would be hurtful to find out that the partner that never wanted to do anything with you loves doing those things with her previous partner. There is just some basic fundamental thing we are not able to see the same here. It might not even be that I want all of what she did with him, but this guy was denied EVERYTHING with the excuse of she doesn't like it. But she even said she does like it! How can he feel any other way than undesirable?


If I recall correctly, the OP on the other thread explained WHY she did not want to do those things with her husband. You don't have to like her reasons for not doing it but they were HER reasons. And while I do understand his disappointment, I don't understand why so many refuse to see the role the husband played in that relationship dynamic. He has to accept some accountability for accepting her lack of desire to explore sexually.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Tasorundo said:


> So, I married a virgin, as a virgin.
> 
> If I was single and dating, I would never ask a woman how many guys she dated, or had sex with, because it doesn't matter. The original thread that started this isn't about that either.
> 
> I don't understand how you guys cannot see that it would be hurtful to find out that the partner that never wanted to do anything with you loves doing those things with her previous partner. There is just some basic fundamental thing we are not able to see the same here. It might not even be that I want all of what she did with him, but this guy was denied EVERYTHING with the excuse of she doesn't like it. But she even said she does like it! How can he feel any other way than undesirable?



Liking something at some point in your life with some partners doesn’t mean you like it forever. 
Things change. Priorities change. Life changes. 

Who you are as a couple is what matters, not what she did with someone else. 

Wanting more than 1 type of sex is valid but shouldn’t be linked to her past.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> If I recall correctly, the OP on the other thread explained WHY she did not want to do those things with her husband. You don't have to like her reasons for not doing it but they were HER reasons. And while I do understand his disappointment, I don't understand why so many refuse to see the role the husband played in that relationship dynamic. He has to accept some accountability for accepting her lack of desire to explore sexually.


She told us that eventually, she eventually talked to him and they are working it out.

Sure, it is not for me to decide what they do. If my wife told me she loved me too much to have freaky sex, then I would think that was stupid.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

slowlygoingcrazy said:


> liking something at some point in your life with some partners doesn’t mean you like it forever.
> Things change. Priorities change. Life changes.
> 
> Who you are as a couple is what matters, not what she did with someone else.
> ...


i get that!! She never said she stopped liking it, she even gloated about it in front of her husband!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> If I recall correctly, the OP on the other thread explained WHY she did not want to do those things with her husband. You don't have to like her reasons for not doing it but they were HER reasons. And while I do understand his disappointment, I don't understand why so many refuse to see the role the husband played in that relationship dynamic. He has to accept some accountability for accepting her lack of desire to explore sexually.


I don't really get his responsibility other than not being a bit more demanding in the bedroom. He did try to spice it up and she shot everything down.

I suppose he could have called it off before getting married because she was such a dud in the sack but not too many other options.

I am glad it came out because she is obviously a far better sex partner than she has let on and is just having a mental issue.

I only see their marriage getting better now after a little ruffling of their feathers.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Who you are as a couple is what matters, not what she did with someone else.


I do agree with this statement in general. But there's gotta be a range from the sex menu that you should be consistent with (between your exes and your SO).

For example:

It's one thing to go form *hardcore* to *vanilla* .... AND .....

it's another to abandon some sex positions _within_ the *hardcore range*.
You understand my point?

For example, within the _dogy style range_, you can abandon anal (that you had with your exes) but still keep on doing the_ classical vaginal doggy style _with your H/SO.

BUT having done anal with your ex and you end-up simply missionary with your H????? 

that's just going from one extreme to another - which raises supsicions if you're really attracted to your H, in the first place.

_______________
So, as much as I agree that you don't have to have all the sex positions with all the partners in your life, you have ultimately created a _portofolio_ of sex positions that you like the most and would want to try them with most of your partners. Logically, your H should be within this circle. 

If he isn't, then there's something wrong here.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Tasorundo said:


> slowlygoingcrazy said:
> 
> 
> > liking something at some point in your life with some partners doesn’t mean you like it forever.
> ...


She liked it then in that situation with that man. She didn’t want to do it now. That says she doesn’t like it now, in her situation. 

I absolutely love some of the things I did and can talk about them fondly but I don’t want to do them now. I didn’t stop liking them even, I just don’t want to now. 

It’s not like some big change has to happen. Sometimes you just don’t want to.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> She liked it then in that situation with that man. She didn’t want to do it now. That says she doesn’t like it now, in her situation.
> 
> .


She didn't like it now because her H _is a nice guy_, but not enough to make her be tremendously sexually attracted to him, so that she could give him hardcore, just like she did with Dave.

This is the reason why.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> She liked it then in that situation with that man. She didn’t want to do it now. That says she doesn’t like it now, in her situation.
> 
> I absolutely love some of the things I did and can talk about them fondly but I don’t want to do them now. I didn’t stop liking them even, I just don’t want to now.
> 
> It’s not like some big change has to happen. Sometimes you just don’t want to.


I disagree with your assessment. I feel that something happened at the end of her previous relationship, and she uses that as a reason to never be that way again. That she fears that men only want her for that and she can never give herself to her husband in that way, because it automatically means he will not love her.

I think her issues in this are as big as his. She has a lot of soul searching to do and to just blow it off as if it is no big deal is foolish.

If I was married to you, and you told me how much you love act b, but would never let me experience act b, then goodbye.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

lovelygirl said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > She liked it then in that situation with that man. She didn’t want to do it now. That says she doesn’t like it now, in her situation.
> ...


This may be the case for that specific situation. 

I don’t know if that is true for all women. My reasons have nothing to do with attraction or nice guy/alpha guy stuff. 

I’d give each woman a chance to give her own reasons before jumping to that for every case.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Another thing that goes into this, is that sex is unique in a marriage. There is nothing else really that is solely the couples responsibility to each other. If you wanted more conversation, you can get that from a friend or family member. If you wanted more out door activities, you can do that as well. If you wanted any number of experiences, you can do them however you want.

When you marry someone, you have made them the only outlet for sexual activity. If you want to add some variance and are shot down, you might be ok with it. But, if what happened in that post happened to you, I just do not understand how he is the bad guy here.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Give her all, unworthy of effort, etc. Again, this phrasing is putting sex above everything else your partner does for you.
> 
> I can have wild sex with a fling who I do nothing for
> 
> ...


Acknowledging this is not relevant is one half of the problem.

Supposition that this is the only part of the problem is the other. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> This may be the case for that specific situation.
> 
> I don’t know if that is true for all women. My reasons have nothing to do with attraction or nice guy/alpha guy stuff.
> 
> I’d give each woman a chance to give her own reasons before jumping to that for every case.


So what determines who gets to put it in your butt? Just curious.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Give her all, unworthy of effort, etc. Again, this phrasing is putting sex above everything else your partner does for you.
> 
> I can have wild sex with a fling who I do nothing for
> 
> ...


Again, a false dilemma.

We are not limited to putting a lot of effort in to affection and commitment OR sex. We can do both.

Expecting both in equal mearsure is not putting sex above all else.

You may as well praise a car because it has a nice paint job and luxurious interior while suffering from an underpowered, unreliable engine.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Tasorundo said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > This may be the case for that specific situation.
> ...


What I do with each person depends on a number of things: some examples- where I am in life, the risks I want to take, how safe I feel emotionally, if I trust them, how they respond to sexuality and if they have an open mind, if they are judgey, if I feel like trying something again, penis size, give and take ratios, interest levels, if they will be open to some of my interests (pegging, etc) 

I tend to pick non- s*** shaming feminist men who are open minded and those are who I do the most with. 

But some things I just don’t want to do. No biggie. I make my yes and no menu clear up front.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> What I do with each person depends on a number of things: some examples- where I am in life, the risks I want to take, how safe I feel emotionally, if I trust them, how they respond to sexuality and if they have an open mind, if they are judgey, if I feel like trying something again, penis size, give and take ratios, interest levels, if they will be open to some of my interests (pegging, etc)
> 
> I tend to pick non- s*** shaming feminist men who are open minded and those are who I do the most with.
> 
> But some things I just don’t want to do. No biggie. I make my yes and no menu clear up front.


Just curious, is that a shot at me being a **** shaming man?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep.
> 
> Asking about my # or specific sex acts I did with other men (other than “do you like x?”) is a red flag that there will be issues with insecurity and jealousy and having to prove yourself for your entire relationship
> 
> ...


I've never asked those questions, but I can see their value and it may have nothing to do with insecurity.

If you loved giving head with previous partners but dont want to do that with me, then I know it's probably best if we both move on, which we can both do without jealousy or animosity....
..... but if I find out after commingling domicile, finances, and having kids, that's probably going to be a problem, and understandably so.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I don't really get his responsibility other than not being a bit more demanding in the bedroom. He did try to spice it up and she shot everything down.
> 
> I suppose he could have called it off before getting married because she was such a dud in the sack but not too many other options.
> 
> ...


I think her husband needs to take responsibility for having poor boundaries. 

- He could have called off the marriage because the sex was not to his expectations. He probably overlooked the poor quality because either everything else in the relationship was good for him (acceptable), he assumed he could change her (unacceptable), he felt he couldn't do better (unacceptable).

- When he realized that the sex was not improving, he could have made a stand - sex therapy, open marriage, end of marriage.

My whole point is that if good and varied sex was important to him, then he probably should have taken the steps to ensure it was going to be a part of his marriage. None of his actions indicate sexual variety was an important factor UNTIL he learned about her history. 

I'll give you an example that does not involve sex. A friend of mine's second husband is someone who I will generously describe as "financially content". He is not driven by making money. He is happy making slightly over minimum wage at a job that provides him lots of schedule flexibility, which for him is life satisfaction. This is his 3rd marriage. His lack of drive has always been a sticking point with her but she nevertheless married him. A few years into their relationship she learned that early in his working career he'd worked in the pits of the NY Stock exchange making a lot of money. He loved doing that job. It was very stressful but exciting for him.....at the time. The stock market crashed about ten years into it which made him question his entire life's purpose. He gave up the rat race and chose a much more bohemian lifestyle. The bohemian was the man my friend "fell in love" with however, she still complained about her husband's lack of initiative after learning about his previous lifestyle. My response is, and will always be, "if money and initiative were a priority in your partner selection then you should have never married him". He presented her the person he is today. She married that person, not the stock market trader. Take responsibility for your choice.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> I think her husband needs to take responsibility for having poor boundaries.
> 
> - He could have called off the marriage because the sex was not to his expectations. He probably overlooked the poor quality because either everything else in the relationship was good for him (acceptable), he assumed he could change her (unacceptable), he felt he couldn't do better (unacceptable).
> 
> ...


I disagree. She commented that he was becoming resentful of her inability to open up. He was trying to introduce variety to their sex life and she was squashing it. It would have blown up eventually if nothing changed, it was just that the drunken night with a friend nuked it before his fuse could find the powder.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I've never asked those questions, but I can see their value and it may have nothing to do with insecurity.
> 
> If you loved giving head with previous partners but dont want to do that with me, then I know it's probably best if we both move on, which we can both do without jealousy or animosity....
> ..... but if I find out after commingling domicile, finances, and having kids, that's probably going to be a problem, and understandably so.


But why would you wait until finding out whether or not your partner liked giving head to make the decision to move on? Why not decide "I like getting head and if I am not going to get it from this partner, I will move on?"


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> I think her husband needs to take responsibility for having poor boundaries.
> 
> - He could have called off the marriage because the sex was not to his expectations. He probably overlooked the poor quality because either everything else in the relationship was good for him (acceptable), he assumed he could change her (unacceptable), he felt he couldn't do better (unacceptable).
> 
> ...


That is if course true.
But there is one huge difference exposing a flaw in that reasoning. He may have decided that he was willing to accept her being vanilla in light of all the other goodness in the relationship. He might have been happy going to his grave with that limitation.... IF that actually was the limitation. But it wasn't, as he found out she was anything BUT vanilla. That one crucial difference is at the core of this dilemma.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> I disagree. She commented that he was becoming resentful of her inability to open up. He was trying to introduce variety to their sex life and she was squashing it. It would have blown up eventually if nothing changed, it was just that the drunken night with a friend nuked it before his fuse could find the powder.


You do not know what could have or would have happened. He may have sucked it up, he may have taken action to fix it, he may have (insert action here). All we DO know is that he had not done anything other that bring it up to her. Fact. Everything else is supposition.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> But why would you wait until finding out whether or not your partner liked giving head to make the decision to move on? Why not decide "I like getting head and if I am not going to get it from this partner, I will move on?"


See last post. It answers exactly this question.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That is if course true.
> But there is one huge difference exposing a flaw in that reasoning. He may have decided that he was willing to accept her being vanilla in light of all the other goodness in the relationship. He might have been happy going to his grave with that limitation.... IF that actually was the limitation. But it wasn't, as he found out she was anything BUT vanilla. That one crucial difference is at the core of this dilemma.


Another difference, if money is that important to your friend, then she can earn some. What is this guy supposed to do? He can divorce, or settle, there is no option that allows him to remain married and attain what he is looking for.

Sex is a different ballgame than every other thing in a marriage.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

People do whatever they want to do. If your significant other isn’t doing something it’s because they don’t want to. It’s pretty simple. 

I have done stuff with some men that I haven’t done with others... because I didn’t want to. Why? It’s not anyone’s business. But a lot of things go into why someone feels the way they feel and it doesn’t always mean it’s easy to explain. And 9/10 times you would want to know the real answer. 

Men... haven’t you treated some of your past girlfriends “better” than you have treated your wife? Haven’t you ever gotten more flowers, wrote poetry, made music, have been more spontaneous and romantic in the past with other women and you don’t do it for your wife? Were you ever young and stupid and in love and did crazy things for her? It’s the same thing.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> You do not know what could have or would have happened. He may have sucked it up, he may have taken action to fix it, he may have (insert action here). All we DO know is that he had not done anything other that bring it up to her. Fact. Everything else is supposition.


What on this board isn't supposition? You are assuming there was not indication that things might spice up over time, or that she never deflected with saying it might happen later. There are a billion assumptions made everyday on this board.

I don't think when a wife comments that a husband is becoming resentful it is a stretch to say it is going to get worse until it blows up.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That is if course true.
> 
> But there is one huge difference exposing a flaw in that reasoning. He may have decided that he was willing to accept her being vanilla in light of all the other goodness in the relationship. He might have been happy going to his grave with that limitation.... IF that actually was the limitation. But it wasn't, as he found out she was anything BUT vanilla. That one crucial difference is at the core of this dilemma.




Fine. And then he can make the decision to leave if he wants. Some people make a mountain out of a mole hill. We don’t own anyone, we are free to leave whenever we want.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That is if course true.
> But there is one huge difference exposing a flaw in that reasoning. He may have decided that he was willing to accept her being vanilla in light of all the other goodness in the relationship. He might have been happy going to his grave with that limitation.... IF that actually was the limitation. But it wasn't, as he found out she was anything BUT vanilla. That one crucial difference is at the core of this dilemma.


Which is exactly my point. He prioritized other qualities in the relationship over the varied sex. He is only upset now because of buyer's remorse. Just like my girlfriend would have been happily married to her bohemian, carefree, and content husband until she learned of his previous work experience. 

Again, I think it's unfair to put the bulk of the responsibility for poor choices on the choice and not on the person making those choices.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> What on this board isn't supposition? You are assuming there was not indication that things might spice up over time, or that she never deflected with saying it might happen later. There are a billion assumptions made everyday on this board.
> 
> I don't think when a wife comments that a husband is becoming resentful it is a stretch to say it is going to get worse until it blows up.


Well if that's the case then I'm going to suppose that the husband will have sucked it up and continued to live in the marriage that he signed up for.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> People do whatever they want to do. If your significant other isn’t doing something it’s because they don’t want to. It’s pretty simple.
> 
> I have done stuff with some men that I haven’t done with others... because I didn’t want to. Why? It’s not anyone’s business. But a lot of things go into why someone feels the way they feel and it doesn’t always mean it’s easy to explain. And 9/10 times you would want to know the real answer.
> 
> Men... haven’t you treated some of your past girlfriends “better” than you have treated your wife? Haven’t you ever gotten more flowers, wrote poetry, made music, have been more spontaneous and romantic in the past with other women and you don’t do it for your wife? Were you ever young and stupid and in love and did crazy things for her? It’s the same thing.


Don't you think you would be upset to know that your husband used to do all kinds of **** for every girlfriend, but you? That he would show up with gifts, or flowers, or their favorite food at lunch, or sing their favorite song, or know stuff about them and meet their needs. But for you, who gives a ****, you're my wife, so deal.

Also, no, I have never treated anyone better than my wife, but I have never dated anyone else either, so that is easy.

Why aren't you crazy in love with your husband?


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> Well if that's the case then I'm going to suppose that the husband will have sucked it up and continued to live in the marriage that he signed up for.


Is that the one with honesty and openness? The one where people meet each others needs and work together with open communication to make all aspects of the marriage the best they can be?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Girl_power said:


> People do whatever they want to do. If your significant other isn’t doing something it’s because they don’t want to. It’s pretty simple.
> 
> I have done stuff with some men that I haven’t done with others... because I didn’t want to. Why? It’s not anyone’s business. But a lot of things go into why someone feels the way they feel and it doesn’t always mean it’s easy to explain. And 9/10 times you would want to know the real answer.
> 
> Men... haven’t you treated some of your past girlfriends “better” than you have treated your wife? Haven’t you ever gotten more flowers, wrote poetry, made music, have been more spontaneous and romantic in the past with other women and you don’t do it for your wife? Were you ever young and stupid and in love and did crazy things for her? It’s the same thing.


Uh, no, I haven't... at least not to the extent of the massive gulf between full menu and strictly missionary.

What's more, if I knew one or all of those things were that important to my wife, I would take great joy in doing them.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> Another difference, if money is that important to your friend, then she can earn some. What is this guy supposed to do? He can divorce, or settle, there is no option that allows him to remain married and attain what he is looking for.
> 
> Sex is a different ballgame than every other thing in a marriage.


I think it was less the money and more his lack of drive. She makes plenty of money to support both. She can divorce or settle but there is no option to allow her to be with a man with drive and initiative.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> Is that the one with honesty and openness? The one where people meet each others needs and work together with open communication to make all aspects of the marriage the best they can be?


It's the one he signed up for, whatever that happens to be.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Tasorundo said:


> Don't you think you would be upset to know that your husband used to do all kinds of **** for every girlfriend, but you? That he would show up with gifts, or flowers, or their favorite food at lunch, or sing their favorite song, or know stuff about them and meet their needs. But for you, who gives a ****, you're my wife, so deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would never want to know that information. Why do people ask questions that they know will upset them!? I swear people love to be miserable. 

I’m pretty sure my boyfriend has done more romantic stuff to his ex then he has to me... so far. But who really knows what goes on in a relationship. All I know is how I feel... and I’m happy. And I’m focusing on that. 

What does crazy in love have to do with specific sex acts or romantic gestures?!?!


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Girl_power said:


> Fine. And then he can make the decision to leave if he wants. Some people make a mountain out of a mole hill. We don’t own anyone, we are free to leave whenever we want.


Sure... but after how many years of being defrauded, dismissed, and disrespected? I dont think a little up front honesty is too much to ask for. I certainly would never treat someone I supposedly loved this way.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> I would never want to know that information. Why do people ask questions that they know will upset them!? I swear people love to be miserable.
> 
> I’m pretty sure my boyfriend has done more romantic stuff to his ex then he has to me... so far. But who really knows what goes on in a relationship. All I know is how I feel... and I’m happy. And I’m focusing on that.
> 
> What does crazy in love have to do with specific sex acts or romantic gestures?!?!


He didnt want to know it either. It was dropped on him like a bomb.

You are the the one that mentioned crazy love.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> It's the one he signed up for, whatever that happens to be.


You are supposing that there was no indication of increasing intimacy or variety in sex. We don't know that.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> He didnt want to know it either. It was dropped on him like a bomb.


And that was the part that I found most egregious in this whole debacle. He did not deserve her complete disregard when her friend mentioned the ex boyfriend.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Sure... but after how many years of being defrauded, dismissed, and disrespected? I dont think a little up front honesty is too much to ask for. I certainly would never treat someone I supposedly loved this way.




It’s crazy to hear such harsh words being used to describe this situation. And so many people here think women are crazy when they think it’s disrespectful when men watch porn. Some people will do anything to make a marriage work. People will stick by someone who has cheated, some people will stick by someone with mental illness, or addiction. But when a person limits their spouses sexual menu... a menu that use to be different years ago... they are being dismissive, disrespectful, and fraudulent.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> It’s crazy to hear such harsh words being used to describe this situation. And so many people here think women are crazy when they think it’s disrespectful when men watch porn. Some people will do anything to make a marriage work. People will stick by someone who has cheated, some people will stick by someone with mental illness, or addiction. But when a person limits their spouses sexual menu... a menu that use to be different years ago... they are being dismissive, disrespectful, and fraudulent.


If it makes you feel better, porn is awful, cheating is awful. Addiction and mental illness I would say is case by case.

Also, it wasn't years ago. She went from full on whatever man, to this guy, he was her next boyfriend. It wasn't like when she was 18, and she met this guy at 35.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Some people want to be miserable. They want to think about negative things, and focus on what they don’t have. Some people will never be happy, and they want to be angry and they need a place to turn their anger towards. I don’t know what to say to these people.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> You are supposing that there was no indication of increasing intimacy or variety in sex. We don't know that.


If everyone else is allowed to make up stories about the future of these people's lives, then so am I. :grin2:

I do hope that the couple in question can figure out a way to find happiness (however that is defined by them). There are things that need to be fixed on both sides of that relationship and a good marriage counselor should be able to help.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Tasorundo said:


> If it makes you feel better, porn is awful, cheating is awful. Addiction and mental illness I would say is case by case.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it wasn't years ago. She went from full on whatever man, to this guy, he was her next boyfriend. It wasn't like when she was 18, and she met this guy at 35.




Then leave her. Why does everything have to be such a big production.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> Which is exactly my point. He prioritized other qualities in the relationship over the varied sex. He is only upset now because of buyer's remorse. Just like my girlfriend would have been happily married to her bohemian, carefree, and content husband until she learned of his previous work experience.
> 
> Again, I think it's unfair to put the bulk of the responsibility for poor choices on the choice and not on the person making those choices.


But the choice was made under false pretenses. The bulk of the responsibility lies with the one presenting as something she's not. He accepted vanilla because she led him to believe she was inherently vanilla, which he found out was a lie. But because of the deceit, he didn't find out until commitments were made and their lives were fully intertwined.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But the choice was made under false pretenses. The bulk of the responsibility lies with the one presenting as something she's not. He accepted vanilla because she led him to believe she was inherently vanilla, which he found out was a lie. But because of the deceit, he didn't find out until commitments were made and their lives were fully intertwined.




So what are his options??


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> Then leave her. Why does everything have to be such a big production.


I think when you are talking about a multiple year marriage, it deserves more than just leaving. She came here looking for help on how to deal with it, and I think she did get that even through all of the mess.

This isn't my life, it is the life of some random people from London, or England at least.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Girl_power said:


> It’s crazy to hear such harsh words being used to describe this situation. And so many people here think women are crazy when they think it’s disrespectful when men watch porn. Some people will do anything to make a marriage work. People will stick by someone who has cheated, some people will stick by someone with mental illness, or addiction. But when a person limits their spouses sexual menu... a menu that use to be different years ago... they are being dismissive, disrespectful, and fraudulent.


See my last post. It explains why those words are appropriate.

And to that I will add that she loved those things in the past, so it's not just a matter of them having been part of an experimental phase. 

And to top it all off, she now says she wants to explore those thing again... but only said that after his learning about her real proclivities blew up the relationship, so yes, she was clearly being dismissive all those years.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Rocky, why do we get along so well everywhere but politics?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Girl_power said:


> So what are his options??


Accept the deceit 

Demand improvement

Move on


It sounds like she has decided to work toward improvement. I wish them well.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But the choice was made under false pretenses. The bulk of the responsibility lies with the one presenting as something she's not. He accepted vanilla because she led him to believe she was inherently vanilla, which he found out was a lie. But because of the deceit, he didn't find out until commitments were made and their lives were fully intertwined.


I disagree that it was under false pretenses. The bohemian presented himself as a bohemian. The OP presented herself as a sexually vanilla person. That was who they were at the time of meeting their future spouses. There was no bait and switch. 

The product was advertised as is. Their spouses liked the products enough to purchase them as is. 

I don't understand this need to have someone's entire sexual history when the person presenting themselves is not that person anymore. 

Imagine two people. Both offer the exact same things. One has a history of providing other qualities but that are no longer applicable. The other never had those qualities and will not be providing them in the future. Does it make a freaking difference?


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

I really think it depends on how it was presented.

If he said "Hey why dont you dress sexy?" and she said "I never dress sexy and I hate it" well, that is a lie.

If he said "Hey, let's try some light bondage" and she said "No, I never want that and I hate the idea of it, and it disgusts me", well, that is a lie.


The problem at the heart of this whole thing is that she appears she still wants to do those things, just not with him. That is what makes it hard. I think it is ok if she doesn't like those things anymore, but that is not how it was presented.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> I disagree that it was under false pretenses. The bohemian presented himself as a bohemian. The OP presented herself as a sexually vanilla person. That was who they were at the time of meeting their future spouses. There was no bait and switch.
> 
> The product was advertised as is. Their spouses liked the products enough to purchase them as is.
> 
> ...


Really? With her full sexual history including everything under the sun with multiple partners _and loving it, _and then suddenly in this case it's nothing but vanilla.... easy as flipping a light switch. You honestly believed she changed that much at her core completely independent of who her partner is ?

No. Who her partner is played a major role and she has said so herself. And again, the clincher is that she now, after crushing him and fearing losing him, wants to be wild again, proving she was just dismissive all those years _*when she thought she could get away with it.*_


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Really? With her full sexual history including everything under the sun with multiple partners _and loving it, _and then suddenly in this case it's nothing but vanilla.... easy as flipping a light switch. You honestly believed she changed that much at her core completely independent of who her partner is ?
> 
> No. Who her partner is played a major role and she has said so herself. And again, the clincher is that she now, after crushing him and fearing losing him, wants to be wild again, proving she was just dismissive all those years _*when she thought she could get away with it.*_


Your opinion is based in the assumption that the OP is lying about the underlying reasons for her change in lifestyle. 

I am basing my opinion on what the OP actually said so yes, I do believe her when she says her change in lifestyle was because of the relationship dynamic with her husband. And I say this knowing full well that there are things I will never do in a committed relationship again but I will consider doing in an uncommitted one for the exact same reason that OP gave - fear of losing a good partner.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> Your opinion is based in the assumption that the OP is lying about the underlying reasons for her change in lifestyle.
> 
> I am basing my opinion on what the OP actually said so yes, I do believe her when she says her change in lifestyle was because of the relationship dynamic with her husband. And I say this knowing full well that there are things I will never do in a committed relationship again but I will consider doing in an uncommitted one for the exact same reason that OP gave - fear of losing a good partner.


Don't you see how potentially harmful that is though? What if he asked to do those things? But you won't because you dont want to lose him? I mean, what a crazy scenario!


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

Lila said:


> ..... knowing full well that there are things I will never do in a committed relationship again but I will consider doing in an uncommitted one for the exact same reason that OP gave - fear of losing a good partner.


I really have nothing good to say about this; except, I hope you found the right man.

Men should run not walk away from any women like this.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Holy **** @Deejo . 14+ pages in one day...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> Your opinion is based in the assumption that the OP is lying about the underlying reasons for her change in lifestyle.
> 
> I am basing my opinion on what the OP actually said so yes, I do believe her when she says her change in lifestyle was because of the relationship dynamic with her husband. And I say this knowing full well that there are things I will never do in a committed relationship again but I will consider doing in an uncommitted one for the exact same reason that OP gave - fear of losing a good partner.


My opinion is also based on what she said, but also combined with actual actions which we know to be far more telling than words.

Your bottom line is devoid of logic... if he would ditch you for your past, then he's not a good partner.

It's bad enough you would do things outside of commitment that you won't do inside commitment, but it's far worse to be so blind to what that does to the one you would claim to actually love.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> Don't you see how potentially harmful that is though? What if he asked to do those things? But you won't because you dont want to lose him? I mean, what a crazy scenario!


No. Every relationship has its own dynamic and sets of rules/boundaries. There are certain benefits and boundaries that are necessary if a relationship is going to be emotionally, financially, romantically committed. There are certain activities that do not work across all relationships.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> No. There are certain activities that do not work across all relationships.


And _nothing_ here indicates that an act which

1. She has always loved in the past 
And
2. He has specifically requested and genuinely desires

could reasonably fit into that category.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

leftfield said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > ..... knowing full well that there are things I will never do in a committed relationship again but I will consider doing in an uncommitted one for the exact same reason that OP gave - fear of losing a good partner.
> ...


I don't think there are right or wrong men, especially at my age. I think there are "right for now". 

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> No. Every relationship has its own dynamic and sets of rules/boundaries. There are certain benefits and boundaries that are necessary if a relationship is going to be emotionally, financially, romantically committed. There are certain activities that do not work across all relationships.


I get it if you are talking about multiple partners or swinging, swapping, threesomes, etc. But if he is talking about some light bondage, maybe a finger in the butt, or some oral, no, I dont get it.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> I think her husband needs to take responsibility for having poor boundaries.
> 
> - He could have called off the marriage because the sex was not to his expectations. He probably overlooked the poor quality because either everything else in the relationship was good for him (acceptable), he assumed he could change her (unacceptable), he felt he couldn't do better (unacceptable).
> 
> ...


I get the broker example. What happened in that thread was different. She is still a freak but was worried about what her husband would think.

I will reiterate that I believe this is Penny's problem and not Steve's or her former partner Dave's.

People do often compromise on one or two issues because of the rest of the package but it doesn't mean they don't want the best their partner has to offer. Penny could have made her marriage much better but had a hang up.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> My opinion is also based on what she said, but also combined with actual actions which we know to be far more telling than words.
> 
> Your bottom line is devoid of logic... if he would ditch you for your past, then he's not a good partner.
> 
> It's bad enough you would do things outside of commitment that you won't do inside commitment, but it's far worse to be so blind to what that does to the one you would claim to actually love.


And therein lies the problem. Many of us do not make decisions based on logic. We make decisions based on feelings. That's why so many end up in relationships that are so mismatched from the beginning as to make other people scratch their heads in wonder. 

And maybe I am blind.... Or maybe I have enough experience to know what works and doesn't work.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> And therein lies the problem. Many of us do not make decisions based on logic. We make decisions based on feelings. That's why so many end up in relationships that are so mismatched from the beginning as to make other people scratch their heads in wonder.
> 
> And maybe I am blind.... Or maybe I have enough experience to know what works and doesn't work.


Agree that feelings have led many of us astray.

But one thing is evident... denying the one you supposedly love the things you loved with others _doesn't work._


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> I get it if you are talking about multiple partners or swinging, swapping, threesomes, etc. But if he is talking about some light bondage, maybe a finger in the butt, or some oral, no, I dont get it.


I don't think you will ever be able to see the side I represent just as I don't think I'll be able to see yours.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> I don't think you will ever be able to see the side I represent just as I don't think I'll be able to see yours.


Can you explain why having oral sex with your husband would destroy the relationship?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Agree that feelings have led many of us astray.
> 
> But one thing is evident... denying the one you supposedly love the things you loved with others _doesn't work._


There is so much more that goes into a sexual relationship than performing sexual acts. Without actually understanding the dynamics of the relationship and the people within them, it is impossible to say what will work or not work.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> There is so much more that goes into a sexual relationship than performing sexual acts. Without actually understanding the dynamics of the relationship and the people within them, it is impossible to say what will work or not work.


No one is asking you to do something you dont enjoy, or have bad memories with, or have had issues with. That is what we are not understanding here.

The guys here do not understand how you can say I will do all kinds of stuff with people I dont care about, but not with people I do. Because to them, it should be the opposite, you should do the most with the ones you love, not the least.

If doing some certain act would make you feel degraded, then that is your issue, not his. He is not degrading you, or judging you, he is trying to share an intimate moment with you, one he can only share with you.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you will ever be able to see the side I represent just as I don't think I'll be able to see yours.
> ...


The first one that comes to mind is the madonna/***** complex (from him or from her).


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> The first one that comes to mind is the madonna/***** complex (from him or from her).


Should probably just be celibate then.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Agree that feelings have led many of us astray.
> 
> But one thing is evident... denying the one you supposedly love the things you loved with others _doesn't work._


Stealing this.:grin2:


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> No one is asking you to do something you dont enjoy, or have bad memories with, or have had issues with. That is what we are not understanding here.
> 
> The guys here do not understand how you can say I will do all kinds of stuff with people I dont care about, but not with people I do. Because to them, it should be the opposite, you should do the most with the ones you love, not the least.
> 
> If doing some certain act would make you feel degraded, then that is your issue, not his. He is not degrading you, or judging you, he is trying to share an intimate moment with you, one he can only share with you.


I'm not speaking exclusively to the OP of that thread but am including all other scenarios. 

Just as an example, there are sexual activities that are intentionally degrading and can absolutely alter one's opinion of a partner. For example (this is not personal to me just as an example) sexually submissive men. Some women enjoy being a dominant top but would balk at the idea of their sub being their spouse or significant other. That's just one example.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> There is so much more that goes into a sexual relationship than performing sexual acts. Without actually understanding the dynamics of the relationship and the people within them, it is impossible to say what will work or not work.


True enough, but thete is _nothing _ here that could possibly account for such a watershed change.

Recall we're not talking about a slight change here. Also, now that her marriage is a dumpster fire, suddenly she's willing to do _what he was requesting all along ... *what could have prevented all this pain in the first place.*_

You cant explain away the timing of her changes, first to vanilla, and then back to the wild thing. Too many "coincidences." If she only wanted to do the wild things after he was ready to bail, then it's quite obvious she she had been dismissing him all along, and would have continued doing so had the issue not be forced.

Even now, if she changes, he may never know if she was sexually attracted to him or just giving in to keep from losing the marriage. The history and timing points to the latter. Even if she gets wild again, the damage may linger.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> True enough, but thete is _nothing _ here that could possibly account for such a watershed change.
> 
> Recall we're not talking about a slight change here. Also, now that her marriage is a dumpster fire, suddenly she's willing to do _what he was requesting all along ... *what could have prevented all this pain in the first place.*_
> 
> ...


I get it @Rocky Mountain Yeti. You think she's a conniving liar who tricked her husband into marrying her. I just don't agree with you and that's ok. 

Our life experiences color our perspectives. This is a subject matter where no one is going to change anyone's mind. I know I won't convince anyone to my way of interpreting the case study and I know no one will change mine with their interpretation.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

It’s actually a good thing that the men and women don’t see eye to eye on this. It suggests that the women who do this are not unattracted to their husbands. They just have a way of thinking/feeling that we find incomprehensible.

Normally, when things don’t add up (eg, the Epstein suicide), we speculate and presume facts, assuming things that would make more sense as far as motive and facts. But it seems to add up to the women here.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> We run into this very, very frequently. The threads almost always devolve into triggering, attacks and bans. It's not clear that we can actually have a reasonable and productive discussion about where this comes from, why it is, and what if anything can actually be done to overcome it.
> 
> I have stated before that I am not, and never have, been subject to this issue. But I've done some research. A number of people liken it to PTSD. Which once again takes me back to 'why' awareness of your partners sexual past, or knowledge that she performed acts prior to her current partnership, that she may no longer desire or be interested in, can be such a trigger point.


Although you mention "knowledge that she performed acts prior to her current partnership, that she may no longer desire or be interested in" (assumed to be not interested in ever doing this act with her present partner), I think this is clearly mis-classified as "retroactive jealousy" or "**** shaming"..

This was the situation in the thread that inspired this post. In the original post, the OP made no reference to her husband having a problem with her having sex with prior partners and OP made no reference to the *number* of prior partners being an issue. In fact, the OP only mentions one prior partner (although I think it's safe to assume that there were others).

Her husbands dismay was a result of the type of sex ("full menu" sex was the specific term used) that was not on the table for him and it was when the husband, who had been refused "full menu" sex by the OP found out that she had engaged in "full menu" sex with another previously (and had fond memories of it) that it became an issue.

While Retroactive Jealousy is an interesting issue and the "number of previous partners" issue (addressed by the first link) is an interesting issue; both are quite different issues than the issue that the OP of the inspiring post described. 

She was describing the classic "she did something with other men (and it was NOT a bad experience for her) that she won't do with me" situation (to which issue TAM has a several hundred page thread dedicated to it). I'm sure this topic is good for another hundred pages or so (I was considering bringing that thread back to life when I found the other thread suddenly closed. 

I think this issue is fascinating because I believe it is the topic with the largest, seemingly unbridgeable difference of opinion between men and women. 

Seeing as how this thread is already over 200 posts in less than 24 hours, I'd better get to reading it before I get too far behind!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But as soon as a woman decides that she's going to sleep with men she wants to bang like crazy and marry someone she feels is more "marriage material" then all hell breaks loose.


While women might feel that it's not right that guys with women who "sleep with guys she wants to bang like crazy" who want to marry guys who they don't like to bang like crazy, I doesn't do much good. 

The woman may feel good that it's the man who's wrong, but that's not going to do her much good if the guy she want to marry isn't happy about this and doesn't marry her, or her husband finds out and the result is serious marriage issues (assuming that she desires to remain married). 

And, yes, she could focus on finding men who don't think this way but that's going to be a pool with very few fish in it.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> A - there were posts suggesting she should now let her husband get a FWB who will do sexual things with him. It's very disturbing to see some of the male poster's views on women and sex that go otherwise unchallenged.


This was a reaction on the extreme end of the scale and shouldn't be used to represent what men, as a rule, think.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

As to the original thread, Steve did know that she was providing only vanilla sex. He accepted this based upon her false and fraudulent claim that she did not like “full menu sex.” 

Later, he learned that she’d lied to him about this critical aspect of marriage. No different than lying about religion, politics, etc.

To blame this on Steve seems unfair. Accepting a partner’s flaw is one thing. Being defrauded and marrying someone who is really a total stranger is another thing.

So no, you can’t say that the H and W agreed to a relationship of vanilla sex, so he must suck it up. He didn’t expect vanilla, he was resentful that she insisted on it, he only reluctantly accepted it because she claimed she didn’t like the other stuff, and then he learned that she lied. He is the victim.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Going to share what I am anticipating, may be a somewhat controversial perspective. In the regard of "What's on the sexual menu?" I see women being in a can't win situation.
> 
> To @lovelygirl 's point, if a sexually empowered, experienced, multi-partnered woman is with a less experienced or less sexually dynamic male with whom she WANTS to partner with over the long term ... if she brings sexual adventure to the table, it may trigger the kind of responses referred to in the post. Basically, it's a red flag to that kind of guy. In my case, much like Charlie, it's a banner to be waved and cheered rather than questioned or shamed.
> 
> In contrast, that guy ... that nice, stable, long term prospect, low sexual dynamism guy ... is highly UNLIKELY to either bring it up, or just straight up go for the thing that he wants to do, or will complain about not having the opportunity to do.


But that's like saying a guy really likes watching porn. He meets a woman with whom he WANTS to partner with over the long term. She hates porn (unreasonably, he thinks) and he knows that.

If he mentions that he likes porn, it's likely to trigger a bad reaction from her (which is unreasonable, he thinks). Basically, it's a red flag to that kind of woman. So, (because she's wrong to see this as a trigger, just like the guy above would be wrong to have a problem with a woman being a sexually empowered, experienced, multi-partnered woman). He says that he's never liked porn.

And the woman, ... that nice, naive, unworldly woman.... is highly UNLIKELY to question him, doubt him or check his browser history. 

Kind of puts men in a can't win situation, right?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Can some of this be rephrased as yet another form of sexual incompatibility. 

To one person, non-traditional / varied / wild (whatever you want to call it) is something you do with the person you love, more so than you would for anyone else, because you trust them at a deep level.

To the other person, sex in love is a sacred thing - something that should always be romantic - never "nasty". So while wild kinky sex might be fine for fun with someone you don't care about never with someone you love. 

The example of a dom / sub relationship is a good one. For some, that sort of relationship implies a complete level of trust that can only come with love. For others is is degrading play, never to be done with a loved on.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> Maybe it's age or maybe it's the experiences I had during my marriage but I feel like committed relationships are so much more than sex but we tend to make it the end all, be all of a successful relationship.
> 
> When I see people talk about divorcing a spouse after finding out they did X sexual acts for a previous partner that was never done with them, my first thought is always "if this was such a huge deal breaker, then why would you stay married to someone who does not meet those particular needs?" It seems like self actualization and accountability is completely lost in these conversations. It's always the denying partner's fault. 9/10 times the hurt party recognizes that relationships are defined by more than a series of sexual acts but at the same time, make the sexual acts the golden standard by which to judge the quality of the relationship. So which is it? Do we judge the success of a relationship based on ALL of the attributes that make a relationship good (intimacy, communication, emotional support, religious values, etc...) or do we focus on the sexual component, specifically he/she did X sex acts in the past but won't do it for me?


I'm going to answer this in depth and then try very hard to restrain my posting for a while so that there aren't 5 straight pages of Buddy400 posts.

I had written most of this for the other thread only to find, to my dismay, that the thread had been closed when I hit "post".

Marriage *is* about a lot more than sex and one particular sex act should not define the relationship.

However, I would have a serious problem if something similar happened to me as happened to the original OP's husband.

Here's why. It's NOT the particular sex act that's so important or defines the relationship. It's what the situation implies.

I'm going to use "finishing in a woman's mouth" as THE ACT because I just never desired anal sex and para-gliding takes too long to type.

Finishing in a woman's mouth DOES mean a lot to me. But, since marriage is about more than sex and one sexual act doesn't define a marriage I would consider marrying a woman for whom that was off the table. 

It would be incumbent upon me to make clear to her before the relationship had progress too far to just how much I enjoyed said act.

Then, I might consider marriage to her if she responded with any of the following:

1) If she explained that she had never done it, had no desire to do it and intended to never do it in the future.

2) If she had given it a try once, hated it and had no intention of trying it again.

3) She had done it before even though she hated it because her SO had insisted on it and she had so little self confidence that she felt compelled to do something she disliked because she was desperate not to lose him. She now was in a better place and would no longer to things she disliked just to keep a guy.

4) And, of course, if she was forced to do it against her will in the past.

So, if I was willing to live without it and agreed to marry her knowing I should never expect it, why would I have a problem if I found out she did it in the past and either liked it or felt indifferent about it?

Because that would mean one of the following:

1) There's a theory that certain acts are sort of disgusting (like swapping saliva with another person) but, if the attraction is high enough, the disgust factor is overcome. In this case, it's pretty clear that she married me for reasons other than her being attracted to me. She may not think that's a problem, but I would.

2) If she did this for a prior man even though she was indifferent about it, then it seems clear that she cared more about the other man's happiness that she does about mine.

3) If she did it before, felt indifferent or positive about it but didn't want to do it anymore because it just required too much effort and just she didn't want to put as much effort into sex with me as she had previously put into sex with another man, That's unacceptable.

4) If she simply refused to take my concerns seriously and refused to give any explanation, that would show that she was dismissive of what's important to me and doesn't even think I'm worthy of having my concerns taken seriously.

So, it's NOT about a particular sex act or one sex act being the only important part of a marriage or valuing a woman only for the sex acts that she's willing to perform.

It's actually about what it means to us. 

Specifically, it's about how we FEEL about our wives' attraction to us, their commitment to our happiness, how much they value us. 

Women may think it's weird that a particular sex act can mean that much to men emotionally but that doesn't mean it isn't true.


----------



## MrMystified (Aug 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well yes, she'd be better with someone who didn't get bothered about her sexual history and I would tell any woman who was with someone who was bothered by it to leave. I would tell any man who was bothered by it to leave.
> 
> But again the "who she is" bothers me.
> 
> ...


Not fair to a potential spouse. Who you are is very much tied to your sexual past. If you are not honest with a potential spouse you are stealing their right to marry someone with the same values. Some guys may not care. Some might care very much. It is their right to know.


----------



## MrMystified (Aug 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes- ask why, talk about it judgement free and understand their reason. Maybe you can work on it a bit or maybe you accept why they don't want to cook it anymore
> 
> No- "you gave your best to all the other people and I got garbage steak, you married me for money and went cooking chicken with all the hot girls!!"
> 
> ...


But you did cheat him out of knowing who you really were before he married you. Lies by omission are often the worst. If you are not willing to tell your prospective spouse everything, you should not be considering marrying them. There can be no secrets in marriage. None.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I decided to take group sex/threesomes/etc off my menu for THIS specific relationship. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I may even do it again if I happened to ever be in a different relationship.
> 
> *I didn't tell him I had done it before when I put it on my NO list*, but he accepted my list as is.
> 
> ...


This is very dangerous on your part.

If he finds out, it may not be a question of what he can or can't ask.

It might be a question of "where did he go?"

I'm not judging anything here, just pointing out how many men might respond to a discovery of this nature.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> It's foreign to you but it's reality to me.
> 
> I personally know friends whose BF have judged them for being way too "promiscuous" in bed and this has caused some sort of questioning from H's side like ..."where did you learn all that??"
> 
> ...


Well, if you actually ARE from Albania, that might have something to do with it.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Physical and emotional safety is of paramount importance in any decision I make to engage in any sexual act. That is the bottom-line folks and will determine what sex acts I engage in and with whom. I feel confident in saying that most women use those same criteria.

That said, I have concluded from the postings on this thread that I would not feel safe with the majority of men here. Most of you would do well to ask yourself if your SO feels safe with you.

This thread has been eye-opening for me … and, not in a good way.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> If I recall correctly, the OP on the other thread explained WHY she did not want to do those things with her husband. You don't have to like her reasons for not doing it but they were HER reasons..


She explained a possible reason why to US.

Unless there's been a new development, all she ever told her husband was "No".


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

The moral of the story find someone who has the same priorities as you when it comes to sex oh and hope your partner isn't a liar by omission. I think someone who is not very open about their past should be a very big red flag. Of course they could lie to you about it. 

In my mind there are three pillars in marriage. Emotional, physical and material. Material could be money but for some it may be something else that makes them feel prosperous, time, savings whatever. These are the things that you promise to save for only your partner. Good spouses give there best effort in all three phases. They priorities their partners over themselves. In my mind if you are not doing that your not doing it right. Marriage is about empathy. Love is about giving. Sex should be the same. 

I think what's missing on this thread is any discussion of sex as a kind of intimacy between you and your partner. I think if you attitude is I won't do that with you - hard stop then you probably aren't going to experience the kind of intimacy that leads to a good sex life. The same is true also if your attitude is you have to do that with me or else - hard stop. It's hard for me to believe that anyone who has this attitude ever had very good sex at all.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Girl_power said:


> Men... haven’t you treated some of your past girlfriends “better” than you have treated your wife? Haven’t you ever gotten more flowers, wrote poetry, made music, have been more spontaneous and romantic in the past with other women and you don’t do it for your wife? Were you ever young and stupid and in love and did crazy things for her?


Nope


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Girl_power said:


> What does crazy in love have to do with specific sex acts or romantic gestures?!?!


That's the crux of the issue.

For women.... nothing (apparently)

For men..... everything


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> Your opinion is based in the assumption that the OP is lying about the underlying reasons for her change in lifestyle.
> 
> I am basing my opinion on what the OP actually said so yes, I do believe her when she says her change in lifestyle was because of the relationship dynamic with her husband. And* I say this knowing full well that there are things I will never do in a committed relationship again but I will consider doing in an uncommitted one for the exact same reason that OP gave - fear of losing a good partner.*


If these things are things that your committed partner desires, I'd think you'd have less chance of losing a good partner if you reversed who you'd do what with.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> That's the crux of the issue.
> 
> For women.... nothing (apparently)
> 
> For men..... everything


I would suggest the people on here are the outlier both men and women. Remember it's not only the Men on here who have had bad experience with women, the same also holds true for the women.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> Physical and emotional safety is of paramount importance in any decision I make to engage in any sexual act. That is the bottom-line folks and will determine what sex acts I engage in and with whom. I feel confident in saying that most women use those same criteria.
> 
> That said, I have concluded from the postings on this thread that I would not feel safe with the majority of men here. Most of you would do well to ask yourself if your SO feels safe with you.
> 
> This thread has been eye-opening for me … and, not in a good way.


It could be the communication gap. I don't have a dog in the fight but I get where some guys are coming from.

I think it is important that you stressed feeling safe. There has to be a way for the men that feel strongly about this to be able to communicate about it without making anyone feel unsafe.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Give her all, unworthy of effort, etc. Again, this phrasing is putting sex above everything else your partner does for you.
> 
> I can have wild sex with a fling who I do nothing for
> 
> ...


For a lot of people sex is a way of experiencing that love in a physical way.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> I don't think you will ever be able to see the side I represent just as I don't think I'll be able to see yours.


But, if it's a man that you'd be in a committed relationship with, it's going to matter how most men see things. Whether that's how you see them or not.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> The guys here do not understand how you can say I will do all kinds of stuff with people I dont care about, but not with people I do. Because to them, it should be the opposite, you should do the most with the ones you love, not the least.


This appears to be how women think.

We never would have guessed it and have a hard time believing it.

But, there's plenty of evidence that it's true.

I hear all the time about young women who'll sleep with a guy on the first date as long he's *not* someone she's interested in having a relationship with.

Now, if he *IS* someone she's interested in, he waits.

They seem to be certain that this tactic works, but I'm skeptical.

If I was dating a woman, waited months and then found out that she had routinely slept with other men on the first date (or, worse yet, with no date) with whom she'd never consider a relationship; I'd be gone the next day.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Let's just talk about effort, not positions or types of sex. It doesn't seem like OP's wife put much effort at all into their sex life at all. I suspect he probably though this was the best she was capable of, but he has not found out then in general she is just kind of lazy when it comes to their sexlife. 

I do agree that this is the husbands fault as much as the wife's though. She didn't make it a priority but neither did he. The lesson is you should not settle for a lazy unimaginative partner when it comes to your sex life. And men need to stop thinking that it's all up to them, they need to expect more too. But I should probably qualify that, that that doesn't mean you can just demand it because sex doesn't work like that.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> I would suggest the people on here are the outlier both men and women.


I don't think so. 

At least not on this issue.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Changed that. 



Buddy400 said:


> This appears to be how *some* women think.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

minimalME said:


> Changed that.


Probably.

But we haven't heard here from many women who *don't* think that way.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't think that way, and I don't understand that thinking. 

I do think that promiscuous behavior in general lends itself to having experimentation and curiosity satisfied. Not for all, but for many.




Buddy400 said:


> Probably.
> 
> But we haven't heard here from many women who don't think that way.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> At least not on this issue.


Like everything else when you are looking for a mate, the good news is plenty of women don't think this way and plenty of men who do. This why you date then you marry the ones who fits. If you are married to someone who thinks a way you don't and you are unhappy with it then that is your own fault for not having lots of discussions about it and making sure you are sexually compatible. Just like any other kind of compatibly. The problem with the one in that thread is that the woman in it seemed to trick the guy she married, but also that he was willing to stay and be unhappy about it for years. He is also well within his right to just move on or maybe she can fix it. That was a pretty big lie of omission from her and that is where the problem is in my mind. Plenty of marriages break up over sex. 

To me this whole thread is and indictment in hookup culture in general. It's clear in today's culture that both men and women see sex as currency. They see sex in a very me-centric way. It seems to be a lot more about power then anything else. If I do this then you have power over me, I want you to do this so I can have power over you more then the other guy. But hookup culture does that, sex count is used as a kind of score of your worth, and giving up ones body for sex is used as a kind of currency. I personally think that is a very unhealthy way of looking at sex and it's no wonder that people have so much problems with it when they come out of that lifestyle and get married. 

To each his own but neither my wife and I came from that, I personally always saw sex as an expression of my love for her. It's something fun we can both do together in a very intimate way. I think she feels the same way but I think she was taught to think that way just like I was. Again this is just me personally but think that changes the dynamic.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Probably.
> 
> But we haven't heard here from many women who *don't* think that way.


I don't think that way and never have.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Again like what I said before sex is about intimacy. It's one of the two forms of intimacy you can have in your relationship. Sexual and emotional. I think the two go hand and hand and usually if you have trouble in one you probably have trouble in the other.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Well here comes a long one again. Read if you dare. 

I think men need to also try to see some of this stuff from a women's perspective too though. If nothing else then it will help you be a better husband. I have been big on the fact that that what happened in that thread would be very hurtful to OP's husband. The two issues as I see it are the fact that she lied, and the fact that she made no effort. 

In the same respect if I was a women and watched the media and read on the internet. If I saw porn and how now there are whole philosophies where Men judge their self worth and status by sex count, it would make me very jaded about sex and men in general. I think we men can relate in this way, we have a natural visceral reaction to the thought that we have been chosen or pursued for only our earning power or how we make our mates feel safe. I think the way some men use sex and women in general as a way to get a trophy probably causes the same reaction. 

I know that women have deal all the time with men who DO think of them as a way to up their sex count and that's it. Most women probably did have boyfriends who used them to get off with very little concern for other things in the relationship. Things that really nourish a typical women's nature. If you are a good husband you are kind of fighting against that, those men, that history. God forbid you are one of those men, you should apologize and do better. I think it's important that you are mindful of that when you are asking you wife to be vulnerable enough to have a very experimental sex life. I think you should be mindful of why you want that. If it's purely for selfish reasons she is probably going to sense that. You need to be introspective enough about your own feelings to check them at times so your wife will feel safe. I am not even saying that it's wrong to want to just get off at times, but that better not be your overall mindset. 

In that context and the context of this discussion it should be said if you are seeing your sexlife as a bunch of positions that you tried or didn't try you probably already have a problem. I think you have a right to expect a level of effort, but the positions and experiences should be something that can grow as intimacy grows, as comfort and trust grows. 

So much of these problems really stem from relationships where the two people are just not very emotionally close. I think a lot of that is the husbands job though. It can't be emphasized enough. If you want to have a good relationship and sex life with your wife, pay attention to her. Find ways to connect with her emotionally. Figure out what turns her on and play on that. Figure out what makes her safe and reinforce that. Figure out what makes her feel loved and do that over and over. And then tell her that you want to have crazy wild sex with her because it is a way you feel close to her or because you want to celebrate your togetherness. Assuming she is a good wife who loves you without some sort of past issue and assuming you have done the first three things she will want to do that for you. Do that enough and I suspect it will be a lot easier for you to ask to be more adventurous. Just the fact that you are emotionally close have good communication and your wife feels safe will put you in the position to have a healthy discussion about that. 

But if you treat your wife's body like a way to make yourself feel good then eventually she probably will stop wanting to do it with you. 

It should be said though there are some wives who are basically the female version of those selfish men. They have no empathy for their husbands and all the love in the world isn't going to change that. Again not much different then the guy who uses his wife to get off. 

Which leads to this "What you did for the other guy" discussion. Now lets assume we are not talking about bringing others into the relationship because once you bring others into it the dynamic changes and to me at least it's no longer about intimacy, how could it be. 

The sense I get from some of the women here is that the problem is really because they see it as their husbands just trying to get that trophy. They think why is he so crazy about it, he just wants to be able to say he had me that way. But I also suspect that there is a history demanding trophies or getting off, in many cases they probably are right. This is probably not the first time that they feel like their body is being used as a way to score. I suspect this is also why they are willing to act like that just for fun because doing so with someone you don't care about for selfish reasons doesn't seem demeaning even if you know they are just using you too. But when your husband treats you this way that sucks. In the same respect wild and crazy sex isn't demeaning by it's nature, to me it can be healthy crazy fun. 

I think what some of the women are missing is that for a lot of me the acts themselves become a form of intimacy that their wives have shared with someone else. We bond with our wives, I don't know about other guys but for me I want to be closer to my wife then she has ever been with any other man in her life. Only for the reason that I love and her and desire her. It's actually painful when you feel like there is something that you could share with her and she won't share it with you, when the only reason seems to be because she did it back then but doesn't feel like it now. It hurts worse when you know she enjoyed it with someone else. The thought is why not me? 

This is especially true if it's of a sexual nature because understand it or not sex is a way for men to bond with their wives. We feel it in our marrow probably like the way mothers feel with their babies. It's ingrained in our DNA, we are made to be that way. It's why we are naturally protective and will run into a burning house without any thought of our safety. It feels like such a loss if your wife isn't willing to at least try to understand that. Especially if she is dismissive of that. The best way I can describe it is like a wife thinking all day about wanting to tell her husband something she is excited to share with him and his response is, "That's stupid why are you telling me that." 

Again you need a wife who can be empathetic to that even if feeling that way is not in her nature. She has to want to be empathetic. I suspect that is harder to do if you have a history of relationships with guys who made having sex with you feel like winning a Superbowl trophy to be shown off. But just like men there are lots of women who just don't really care enough about there spouses to learn to be empathetic to something that might not be in there own nature. No one said it's easy but that quality really is a big factor in if you are going to be a good spouse or not. 

All that being said I think if you have a very healthy marriage, with a healthy sex life things like this can be communicated and solved, probably way before you find out at a party 15 years later. But if you do your spouse and your marriage probably sucks.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

What's the problem with changing your view about sex? It's not that the lady changed her view/behaviour during the marriage. I get that the husband is somewhat disappointed about the discovery, but that was in her past, when she was 21. She is a different person now. It's rather childish of him to be upset about that, IMO.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> I get it @Rocky Mountain Yeti. You think she's a conniving liar who tricked her husband into marrying her. I just don't agree with you and that's ok.
> 
> Our life experiences color our perspectives. This is a subject matter where no one is going to change anyone's mind. I know I won't convince anyone to my way of interpreting the case study and I know no one will change mine with their interpretation.


Whether or not she is a "conniving liar who tricked her husband," its pretty clear she was dismissive of his desires and only chose to respond to them when she thought she might lose him. 

Not sure what "life experience" you might have that explains that away.

Just being logical here. I've never been in this situation, so I'm no triggering here.


----------



## dadstartingover (Oct 23, 2015)

This subject comes up quite a bit amongst guys I talk to. From the male perspective, it boils down to this:

Men want validation. There is no higher form of validation than a wife who feels safe, open and turned on enough to gladly have sex with her man. There is nothing better than the wife who bites her lip, grabs her man, pulls him into the bedroom, and shows off the new ****ty nurse outfit she bought along with a suitcase full of toys she wants to try out. That means he has pushed her buttons in a big way. She feels safe and sexy with him. 

If that guy rarely gets any, and when it does happen it's the most boring "hurry up and get it over with I have laundry to do" kind of sex, then that's a problem. If that same guy finds out that his wife USED to be super sexy and felt safe and validating with OTHER men in her past... there is absolutely nothing more hurtful. They pushed her buttons. He doesn't. He doesn't make her feel safe and sexy. He's just the guy that helps pay the bills and take care of the kids. He's basically, in his mind, a stupid chump that's been taken advantage of all these years.

For a lot of guys, this huge "awakening" doesn't take place after discovering his wife's kinky fun past... but instead after discovering an affair. Cheating wives validate the hell out of their lovers, sexually and otherwise. 

It's the ol' Lover vs. Provider dynamic. I've seen it played out thousands of times.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> So, it's NOT about a particular sex act or one sex act being the only important part of a marriage or valuing a woman only for the sex acts that she's willing to perform.
> 
> It's actually about what it means to us.
> 
> ...





Buddy400 said:


> If these things are things that your committed partner desires, I'd think you'd have less chance of losing a good partner if you reversed who you'd do what with.





Buddy400 said:


> But, if it's a man that you'd be in a committed relationship with, it's going to matter how most men see things. Whether that's how you see them or not.


I quoted all three of your posts because the same response applies to all. 

**I'm not speaking specifically of the three things the OP of the other thread mentioned. I'm speaking in general terms.** 

I do not deny that men attach feelings to specific sexual acts but you are only accounting for those sexual acts that are associated with intimacy provoking feelings. But what about the sexual acts which do not provoke feelings of intimacy? 

Sex is a mental exercise just as much as physical one. What you and I are describing are two sides to the same coin - the feelings evoked by particular sexual acts. You are describing the positive, intimate feelings while I am describing the non-intimate ones that may not cross-over well within a committed relationship, ultimately affecting the other binding qualities of the relationship. There are monogamous sexual acts that although desired by one partner, may actually end up hurting the overall relationship - it affects our view of our partners (female dom on a male sub example I gave earlier). Whether we like to admit it or not, relationship dynamics do play a role in how we view our partners, especially in relationships where sex is viewed as an intimacy building exercise. 

So no, I don't think I will be reversing my stance on what I would do with whom. I know enough about the psychology of sex, anthropology, and sociology (in general) to understand how _most_ men view sex and relationships. I accept the constraints and work within the confines. 




Buddy400 said:


> She explained a possible reason why to US.
> 
> Unless there's been a new development, all she ever told her husband was "No".


She posted an update stating that she and her husband discussed the issue and were working through it.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Buddy400 said:


> Tasorundo said:
> 
> 
> > The guys here do not understand how you can say I will do all kinds of stuff with people I dont care about, but not with people I do. Because to them, it should be the opposite, you should do the most with the ones you love, not the least.
> ...


In a nutshell:

The idea is that a good girl waits for marriage, or at least makes a guy wait for many dates before having sex. If a woman has sex too freely, the guy she wants a relationship will think that she does that with everybody (ie, she’s a ****). By requiring 8 dates (or whatever), it implies chastity and a low partner count, and that chastity implies a very low likelihood of cheating on you.

So, do women act chastely? No, they simply adopt two sets of behaviors. If nobody will know about it (eg, on vacation away from home), she will have sex with a hot guy asking nothing in return. However, in order to convince the nice guys that she is chaste, she makes him wait until date 8 or whatever. (Kind of like dressing professionally for work to show that you are serious, then wearing a bikini that shows off your tattoos on the weekend.)

The problem is that men have caught on. They now know that women often have their easiest and best sex sexing around with strangers and losers, while she makes the nice guy wait to “prove” to him that she’s not a **** who would ever even consider banging strangers and losers.

Some women take this further. Not only do they make the nice guy wait, they heavily restrict the quality and frequency of sex because “she’s not that kind of girl.” But, of course, she totally is that kind of girl. So the bad boys get easy, great sex while the nice guys have to make a huge investment just to get a lifetime of crumbs.

When the guy finds out he was deceived, he gets angry. “How lucky am I. I married a nasty ***** who has sex like a prude with me.”

That is a totally different situation from a woman who is honest, tried an act in the past, didn’t like it and doesn’t want to repeat it. Or a woman who enjoys threesomes and was willing to do it while single or in a meaningless relationship, but doesn’t want to risk blowing up her marriage.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

There are a couple of reasons that immediately come to mind when I hear, "Wife did it for others but she won't do it for me".

1. Women are socially conditioned to believe sex, should be done in a "proper way", in a committed relationship. 

2. She may not be that much into her husband. I've know any number of women who married the man she did because of financial security he brought to the table, or because friends and relatives deemed him as a good catch. There's a big difference between loving you and loving what you can provide. Women should never get in a relationship with a man who they don't like the way he smells.

3. As said, our worth is often measured in relation to how much and what kind of sex we've had and participate in. If the chick, in a long term relationship, believe the act pushes the envelop and she'll be judged, post-coitus, by the man she has to look at for the next month, it ain't happening.

Addition, in relation to so called happiness in marriage, I've seen studies to suggest that people with more than 20 lifetime partners are twice as likely to be stuck in a unhappy and unfulfilling marriage as people with less than 5 partners.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

In the concept of men you don't care about getting uninhibited sex, does it not create the problem where you are rewarding men for being not worth caring about? At the same time, you are in effect punishing men you do care about.

The end of this cycle is what we are creating in society, relationships with no depth, random sex, and lonely people.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

dadstartingover said:


> If that guy rarely gets any, and when it does happen it's the most boring "hurry up and get it over with I have laundry to do" kind of sex, then that's a problem. If that same guy finds out that his wife USED to be super sexy and felt safe and validating with OTHER men in her past... there is absolutely nothing more hurtful.


But it's got nothing to do with the husband...


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Are you saying that your _married_ friends sit around and discuss the intimate details of what they do in their bedrooms?

Is this normal/common behavior for men?

I can't think of anything that would make me feel _less_ sexy and safe than knowing I'm sharing my most private self with my husband, and he's out bragging about it. 




dadstartingover said:


> *This subject comes up quite a bit amongst guys I talk to.* From the male perspective, it boils down to this:
> 
> Men want validation. There is no higher form of validation than a wife who feels safe, open and turned on enough to gladly have sex with her man. There is nothing better than the wife who bites her lip, grabs her man, pulls him into the bedroom, and shows off the new ****ty nurse outfit she bought along with a suitcase full of toys she wants to try out. *That means he has pushed her buttons in a big way. She feels safe and sexy with him.*


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

minimalME said:


> Are you saying that your _married_ friends sit around and discuss the intimate details of what they do in their bedrooms?
> 
> Is this normal/common behavior for men?


Details, no, not in my experience. Maybe, just maybe it may occasionally come out that we do have regular sex, but that’s it.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> dadstartingover said:
> 
> 
> > If that guy rarely gets any, and when it does happen it's the most boring "hurry up and get it over with I have laundry to do" kind of sex, then that's a problem. If that same guy finds out that his wife USED to be super sexy and felt safe and validating with OTHER men in her past... there is absolutely nothing more hurtful.
> ...


Then what does it have to do with? Please help us understand.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> In the concept of men you don't care about getting uninhibited sex, does it not create the problem where you are rewarding men for being not worth caring about? At the same time, you are in effect punishing men you do care about.


It depends on what you (collective you, not you specifically) value in a committed relationship. If sex is the only thing that matters in a committed relationship, then it would seem like some men are being punished. 



Tasorundo said:


> The end of this cycle is what we are creating in society, relationships with no depth, random sex, and lonely people.


It is what it is @Tasorundo.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

There is a saying: “Women give sex to get love. Men give love to get sex.”

Perhaps an addition: “Women give sex freely and wildly to bad boys and enjoy it immensely. Women give sexual crumbs to nice guys to get love. Nice guys give love to get sexual crumbs.”

The role of the husband to the wife reminds me of the Canaanite woman to Jesus in Matt 15:22-28:

“A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.’ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.’ The woman came and knelt before him. ‘Lord, help me!’ she said. He replied, ‘It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she said, ‘but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.’ Then Jesus answered, ‘Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.’ And her daughter was healed from that very hour.”

The wife sits at the sexual table with her invited guests, the bad boy losers and druggies. It would not be right for the wife to give her guests’ sexual privileges to her husband, who is the hungry dog at the wife’s feet. But if he is lucky he might occasionally catch some scraps that fall from the table.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

minimalME said:


> Are you saying that your _married_ friends sit around and discuss the intimate details of what they do in their bedrooms?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He has a site with a blog. It functions sort of like TAM but caters to men. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

minimalME said:


> Are you saying that your _married_ friends sit around and discuss the intimate details of what they do in their bedrooms?
> 
> Is this normal/common behavior for men?
> 
> I can't think of anything that would make me feel _less_ sexy and safe than knowing I'm sharing my most private self with my husband, and he's out bragging about it.


Through the years, I've lived in many places, had multiple careers, and as a result had a wide array of circles of friends running the gamut of society agewise, ethnicity wise, national origin wise, background wise, religion wise, and income wise.

Never has how our wives' performance in the bedroom been a topic of conversation. Never.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> Then what does it have to do with? Please help us understand.


I mean that she is attracted to her husband, so it's got nothing to do with him personally. Of course he is disappointed, but he shouldn't be. She's entitled to her sexuality... and it's not that she changed her behaviour during their marriage. I hope this is clear.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> It depends on what you (collective you, not you specifically) value in a committed relationship. If sex is the only thing that matters in a committed relationship, then it would seem like some men are being punished.
> 
> 
> 
> It is what it is @Tasorundo.


Again, there's this false narrative. Nobody here has ever said (nor is it collectively said) that sex is the only thing that matters in a relationship. 

Something can be an important thing without being the only thing. If something is important and ignored or dismissed, it's going to be a problem no matter how well all the other things are going. 

There's no shortage of reasons women complain about, or leave, their men, even though everything else is fine. Romance, respect, money.... and yes, even sex is sometimes one of them. As we're reminded time and time again on this site it's not only men who enjoy sex and it's not only women who are LD or withhold. Many are referred to the rather voluminous "sex starved wife" thread and others like it, and in some of those cases, Hubby is a dream in every way.... except sex.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Another possible explanation:

This is biological at its core. Women are attracted to nice guys (more feminine features) when they are not ovulating. When they are ovulating, they are attracted to bad boys (more masculine facial features, higher testosterone).

There are two sets of men. The dads and the cads. The cads have the superior genes, which women find sexually attractive. The dads are better providers and caretakers. The most reproductively successful women, who became our ancestors, were those who played it both ways and got the best of both worlds.

Mother Nature does not want women having great sex with genetically inferior men (husbands), and so it just “feels wrong” to wives. The single best predictor of a woman’s sexual desire is the length of the relationship - the longer the relationship, the less desire. Mother Nature wants the inferior men to have just enough sex to stick around and believe that he’s the father of her children.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

VladDracul said:


> I've seen studies to suggest that people with more than 20 lifetime partners are twice as likely to be stuck in a unhappy and unfulfilling marriage as people with less than 5 partners.


If this thread doesn't point that out. At least in my mind hookup culture really leads to a lot of problems in marriage and I think this thread and the attitudes in this thread illustrate it.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> I mean that she is attracted to her husband, so it's got nothing to do with him personally. Of course he is disappointed, but he shouldn't be. She's entitled to her sexuality... and it's not that she changed her behaviour during their marriage. I hope this is clear.


It just changed.... randomly.... for no reason at all..... but just happened to coincide with marrying him? 

C'mon... you stretch anything that far and it's going to break, just like this thread of so-called reasoning. 

Now let's assume, just for sake of argument, that that does happen with some regularity and can actually be a plausible explanation. Well, even if that's the case, it ain't the case in this case, because wife here, upon realizing she may lose hubby, is suddenly back into wanting to get freaky. Whatever fibers of that very tenuous thread of reasoning may still have been attached are now completely dissolved with no chance of reconnection. Put a fork in that logic; it's fried.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Again, there's this false narrative. Nobody here has ever said (nor is it collectively said) that sex is the only thing that matters in a relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When my wife and I were in the midst of our recovery, and she said sex shouldn't matter I put it to her like this:

"How about I continue to help with acts of service, but stop allowing you to vent to me and we eliminate or significantly diminish our amount of conversation? After all, if I am still doing the acts of service, that should be enough, right?"

Her response was a terse no.

Ignoring what matters to your partner has consequences...both ways.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I'm foggy this morning because we stayed up really late but there is something being missed here.

There are women feeling unsafe, which I don't know if I understand, and men feeling frustrated, which is something I can grasp even though I haven't ever experienced this situation IRL.

I've never quite been able to totally grasp the feminine side of this one but there is something very real to some women here that makes them very uncomfortable or even a little fearful.

I would like to understand why. 

I have never ran across a partner that denied me something happily given to another. I have been given pretty much everything a woman feels good giving and even things she isn't all that comfortable with. I'm not a man that has had someone behave that way with me but I empathize and understand why men would feel pretty terrible about it.

I've seen female posters saying "If you value sex above everything else, you might feel the way most men are expressing themselves here". I think that is an oversimplification and an inaccurate depiction of the motivations at play.

I give my best in my marriage and I expect Mrs. C to be doing her best as well.

She doesn't have to be my best ever sexual partner but she does need to do her best in that department as well as others, just as I do my best for her in and out of the bedroom.

I don't see desiring the best from your mate to be wrong at all as long as you are giving your best in return.

I get the Dom/Sub example that @Lila gave because that could easily impact her overall need to respect her husband and could damage the marriage.

This gets pretty tricky but it illustrates why communication and trust are so important.

It is interesting, and I might be able to grasp it, why a woman might do things with a man she doesn't respect or admire that she wouldn't with a man she truly looks up to.

It might not even be a place she really wants to be at inside herself. She might not have liked who she was overall even if she got off with a loser or three doing certain things.

Maybe she loves who she is with her husband and going to the places inside herself to get to where she could get off doing the things she did with losers would harm her and her emotions towards her husband.

If that is the case, I will take her admiration, love and respect, which other men will never have to the level she gives it to me, over the sexual behavior she displayed with men who meant far less to her than me.

Am I off totally ladies?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

minimalME said:


> Are you saying that your _married_ friends sit around and discuss the intimate details of what they do in their bedrooms?
> 
> Is this normal/common behavior for men?
> 
> I can't think of anything that would make me feel _less_ sexy and safe than knowing I'm sharing my most private self with my husband, and he's out bragging about it.


At least in my case we don't talk about the acts specifically but frequency is discussed. That is because that is a very large part of how we judge our wives love for us. I would say frequency as life goes on and you get older and free time gets shorter quality and effort is more important then frequency. 

Lets work from the premise that the marriage is a standard good marriage with some occasional fights but a strong love between both people. Both work on their communication and closeness. Also lets assume that we are not talking about bringing others into your bed which to me is no longer about a monogamous sexual relationship, which is what you pledges to. I am also not talking about one specific sex act that you just can't do even if you did it in the past but lets assume you don't like it. I am mostly talking about effort. Vanilla sex is not effort. 

Like it or not Men judge how much their wife loves them and the effort she puts into it. It works like how many women feel about romance. Does this thread not point that out? And if you are reading here now you know. Now you can be the wife and say well I don't think I have do this because it takes me out of my comfort zone if you want, just like the guy who feel that talking about his feelings makes him uncomfortable or buying flowers is a waste of money. You can think that your spouse feels love by your material effort and that should be enough, but I personally think you are foolish in both counts. 

If you do either of these things I think it shows a lack of understanding of your spouse, a lack of empathy or just plain laziness. Not good things in a spouse. 

However for way too long men have been conditioned to accept this. If you are a man in a relationship with a wife who pays no attention to this then like the wife with a disinterested lazy husband you should talk about it, work on it, but you shouldn't accept it. In the same way you wouldn't accept your spouse abandoning any other pillars of marriage. The thing is both Men and Women DO have marriage with a healthy active sex life. YES there are women out there that this is important to, and you picked a lemon. 

I think it's important to start teaching men to think about this the way that women think about romance. Is romance required for a marriage, nope. Do plenty of women judge their husband's love for them in the kind of effort they put into it? Absolutely. Lots of men think that is silly, if I was a woman I wouldn't want to be married to that guy. Same holds true.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Through the years, I've lived in many places, had multiple careers, and as a result had a wide array of circles of friends running the gamut of society agewise, ethnicity wise, national origin wise, background wise, religion wise, and income wise.
> 
> Never has how our wives' performance in the bedroom been a topic of conversation. Never.


Mrs. C and I have one very close couple that we all pretty much talk about anything but they are it.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I wonder how the husband would feel if he knew that his wife is doing certain sexual acts just to please him, although in reality she really hates doing them?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> I wonder how the husband would feel if he knew that his wife is doing certain sexual acts just to please him, although in reality she really hates doing them?


That would also be a problem. 
Incompatibility is incompatibility.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> VladDracul said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen studies to suggest that people with more than 20 lifetime partners are twice as likely to be stuck in a unhappy and unfulfilling marriage as people with less than 5 partners.
> ...


What is the connection between this issue and hookup culture or many partners? 

One of my SILs is very promiscuous and has always been sexual and HD. She gives her nice guy boyfriend of a few years great sex, including sex in public (she texted my wife that they “defiled” a changing room at a store).


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

farsidejunky said:


> When my wife and I were in the midst of our recovery, and she said sex shouldn't matter I put it to her like this:


Which explains why you are in recovery.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

This type of behavior seems very dysfunctional and attention seeking. It's sex as entertainment.

Personally, I find it really distasteful that you know this type of information about a relative. It's just grossly inappropriate.




CraigBesuden said:


> One of my SILs is very promiscuous and has always been sexual and HD. She gives her nice guy boyfriend of a few years great sex, including sex in public (she texted my wife that they “defiled” a changing room at a store).


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That would also be a problem.
> Incompatibility is incompatibility.


This is the real problem. Not that she used to have wild sex in the past...


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

CraigBesuden said:


> What is the connection between this issue and hookup culture or many partners?
> 
> One of my SILs is very promiscuous and has always been sexual and HD. She gives her nice guy boyfriend of a few years great sex, including sex in public (she texted my wife that they “defiled” a changing room at a store).


Read my posts on this thread specifically the one about power. Look at the disconnect at the men and women and their thinking on this thread in general. Sex has stopped being about intimacy and is now a power struggle. Both men and women think about it this way. I think that fits into the dynamic of hookup culture where men judge themselves by "getting" women and women use their bodies as commodities. Where they seem to think of sexual encounters that feel are degrading (even when they enjoy it) but are willing to do it for men they don't care about emotionally. My contention is they think it's degrading because they know the men look at them like buying stocks. They make the connection of the act being degrading because when they are done it feels that way. But I think it feels that way because the men are degrading them but not in the act but in using them as a commodity. 

This is not the same thing as doing it in a loving environment where it causes both people to be closer. 

On the men's side they judge women's willingness to do this by the women who them have experiences with who were using their bodies as commodities. As has been articulated on here lots have women have had experiences where that think happened. The tried to offer this up as a sign of love and the men immediately put them into the "****" category. It happens enough that there is a significant reasonable fear of that. 

The point of sex is obviously procreation, but in a relationship at least in my mind it's about building intimacy, closeness and trust. That idea is completely foreign in hookup culture. I think if you basically grew up with that commodity concept it's obviously becomes really hard to understand and empathize with someone who thinks of sex in the intimacy concept. Makes sense. But sex in marriage most definitely about intimacy and it seems to me SO many people have a hard time changing their mindset. BUT IT HAS TO BE INTIMACY, because no matter what without effort it loses the impact of excitement of new sex. The only way to get any excitement out of it after years is to change it and build trust and intimacy. 

The other thing I would say is if sex for you is like a having coffee, denying it, downplaying the importance of it, dismissing your partners desire for it probably would be no different than doing that about having coffee.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> I wonder how the husband would feel if he knew that his wife is doing certain sexual acts just to please him, although in reality she really hates doing them?


That would also make him feel bad. He wants her to genuinely desire him and enjoy their time together.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> That would also make him feel bad. He wants her to genuinely desire him and enjoy their time together.


Then he will have to forget what he knows about her past and accept her present sexuality. No sex life is perfect. At least he has one... :laugh:


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

minimalME said:


> This type of behavior seems very dysfunctional and attention seeking. It's sex as entertainment.
> 
> Personally, I find it really distasteful that you know this type of information about a relative. It's just grossly inappropriate.


Perhaps. Her sisters also know all sorts of stuff about us. And the one I mentioned is a snoop and knows our sex toys, etc.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

As a woman, I don't really see the problem with men valuing sex above everything else? If they do?

That doesn't bother me at all. At least it's honest.




ConanHub said:


> "If you value sex above everything else, you might feel the way most men are expressing themselves here". I think that is an oversimplification and an inaccurate depiction of the motivations at play.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

minimalME said:


> As a woman, I don't really see the problem with men valuing sex above everything else? If they do?
> 
> That doesn't bother me at all. At least it's honest.


I really appreciate your POV. I deal with truth, no matter how it might offend, better than any altruism.

I don't think that is what the majority of the men posting here are saying however.

Sex, attraction and desire are definitely vital and important but it isn't simply valuing sex above everything that is motivating the discussion.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

In Absentia said:


> I wonder how the husband would feel if he knew that his wife is doing certain sexual acts just to please him, although in reality she really hates doing them?


In my mind anytime your sex life becomes about one specific sex act you have a problem. To me there is also a problem if they are not talking about it. Now lets assume the issue is not some sexual trauma which I should state clearly that all my points on this thread do. The question would be why does she feel like that and I would hope she would be open to exploring that. Sometimes that feeling can be overcome, sometimes it can't. If it is sexual trauma then that can be worked on but it's very possible that he will just have to accept that there is damage there. I think they have a better chance if she is already able to do it though. But if it's always been off the table and trauma is why then that goes back to my empathy take, he will need to be empathetic to her. To me that means let her decide without guilt if she does it or not and when. 

This is also very different then, I love doing it but just not with you. No reasonable person would say she is NOT entitled to feel that way but I also think no reasonable person wouldn't understand his disappointment and hurt. Which is why the OP in that thread hid it. Not nice, to put it kindly, an certainly not a good spouse. This obviously this points to a bigger problem in their marriage then just one sex act. I think any spouse in that situation sex or whatever is going to feel cheated. Something is very wrong. Also my first though is sexual trauma mostly because of what I have read on here and other sites. That at least might take some of the sting out of it and maybe they can overcome it. Something is broken in her empathy gene though. 

I would compare your question to dancing. In my experience lots of wives would love to go dancing, but for lots of husbands it feels awkward, embarrassing and they hate it. Now some wives are lucky enough to have husbands who love to dance and are great at it. Some wives are really lucky and their husbands aren't into it but are empathetic and go above and beyond and are willing to take lessons and learn different styles of dancing just because they love them. Some wives are lucky enough to have husbands who do it anyway, probably not so good but understand that this is important to their wives and are willing to be uncomfortable. With practice probably a lot of men learn to grow at least comfortable with it even if it's not an activity they would choose to do on their own. 

But a lot husbands who feel uncomfortable about it won't do it. It's up to her if that is a deal breaker, but I would say it is paramount that if this was going to be a very important part of there relationship that it was discussed before they got married. If it wasn't then that is on her. If it was discussed and she agreed that they would never dance then she can't complain after the fact. But also I think it's wrong if it was, if he knew this, danced, was uncomfortable the whole time and then after they get married decides to say, hey I never liked this so now that we are married I am not doing it. If she brought it up and he pretended like he was into it he should not change that later, he should suck it up. She would have a right to be very disappointed and will have to decide what that means for the marriage. If I were the guy though you better be doing other social stuff together besides dancing that she enjoys if you are telling her she can never dance again (which is what you are doing with monogamous marriage).

I want to point out that this analogy is about about one specific sex act that she dislikes not sex itself. Sex itself is a hell of a lot more important then dancing is to marriage. 

Look marriage is work, and very often doing things that you don't enjoy, people you marry don't and aren't expected to love you unconditionally like your parents. Sex is no different then anything else in marriage. You marry a person for the same reason you love a person, because you are giving yourself to them. If both people go into it with that mindset it's much easier. Being married to someone is a privilege that the person you married lets you have. Again you both think that way then you have a basic framework to work out things like this. A framework where both parties feel they can express their needs and they are being met in some way. If this isn't your attitude then you are doing it wrong and your marriage is probably suffering.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Marriage is a boring, mundane small business. Things like caring for your partner, children, friends and relatives are important. Earning money and paying the bills are important. But so is sex, especially to men.

A man doesn’t want to believe that his wife deceived him and isn’t sexually attracted to him, and picked him solely for those other qualities. Behavior by the wife that appears to confirm a man’s worst fears is deeply hurtful.

(Probably not to a man like Trump, who just wants the arm candy. But most men want to be with a woman who genuinely is physically attracted to him and enjoys their lovemaking.)

If a man denied his housewife money except for necessities, you wouldn’t say “it’s his money to do with as he pleases. This is about power, about a woman trying to control a man’s money. If she wanted a man who would be generous, she should have specifically discussed this before marriage.” No, you’d understand that the husband was in the wrong.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

So many things have been said, I kind of get lost. 

For me, what is most offensive is feeling picked apart in terms of history. That's really all I have a problem with. 

And I don't consider it lying to refuse explaining myself. I'd have no problem being quite upfront with saying - I don't discuss x, y, or z. Then the man can stay or leave.

I tried anal sex once. He was a 'nice guy' - not a bad boy or a drug dealer. He wanted to try it, and I wanted to please him.

We didn't even finish, and I'll never do it again. For anyone. No matter what.

Why did I do it for him and not someone else? Because I'd never done it before. It's that simple. No one had ever asked.

Am I going to explain all that to someone? No. I'm simply gonna say - I don't do anal. Then the man can stay or leave.




ConanHub said:


> I don't think that is what the majority of the men posting here are saying however.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Again, there's this false narrative. Nobody here has ever said (nor is it collectively said) that sex is the only thing that matters in a relationship.
> 
> Something can be an important thing without being the only thing. If something is important and ignored or dismissed, it's going to be a problem no matter how well all the other things are going.
> 
> There's no shortage of reasons women complain about, or leave, their men, even though everything else is fine. Romance, respect, money.... and yes, even sex is sometimes one of them. As we're reminded time and time again on this site it's not only men who enjoy sex and it's not only women who are LD or withhold. Many are referred to the rather voluminous "sex starved wife" thread and others like it, and in some of those cases, Hubby is a dream in every way.... except sex.


When the comment is related to how sex is used as "reward or punishment", then yes sex is the only thing that seems to matter. It is the gauge by which someone is determined to be a good or bad partner. My point is there is much, much more to a committed and loving relationship. Just because XYZ was not ever on the menu with partner A does not mean that partner B is any less loved or cherished. 

I'll bring up a example to elaborate my point. This goes for both women and men. Bootie calls. These are people who are kept around for the sex. The person keeping them around does not want to hear about their day, their troubles, their feelings, or their thoughts. They only want to enjoy some good, superficial fun and then send the person packing. Compared to committed relationship, bootie calls type relationships are devoid of intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection among many other qualities. When I hear someone say, that men are being "rewarded with sex for being uncaring", makes me think all of the other qualities I mentioned above don't mean ****.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

I’ve seen men post countless analogies, in every case making it clear that the denial would be hurtful (buying flowers, dancing, vacations, etc.) I don’t recall the women explaining why these analogies fail, or even saying that they do.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

minimalME said:


> So many things have been said, I kind of get lost.
> 
> For me, what is most offensive is feeling picked apart in terms of history. That's really all I have a problem with.
> 
> ...


That's easier to understand than if you had been in a marriage with someone you really love for years but who you wouldn't do anal with and on day he discovers you always loved and got off doing anal with men you didn't even like up to meeting your husband and he always wanted to try anal but you refused him.

Your actual position is rational. The situation that spawned this thread wasn't rational. Penny did apparently have a Madonna/***** type complex.

BTW, Mrs. C had the same experience with anal you did. I never asked for it but she just told me about her one experience which barely started before it stopped, never to be repeated.

I've never been interested but even if I was, I would easily respect that reasoning behind not wanting your behind plundered.:wink2:


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

minimalME said:


> I tried anal sex once. He was a 'nice guy' - not a bad boy or a drug dealer. He wanted to try it, and I wanted to please him.
> 
> We didn't even finish, and I'll never do it again. For anyone. No matter what.
> 
> ...


Not sure why saying "I tried it once; did not like it." I realize you don't owe anyone an explanation, but it would seem to shut a path down without risk of misunderstanding. Nobody's going to think "Ah, she's *never* tried it, I can show her something new if I can get her to open up!" That line of thinking (on a guy's part) wouldn't be unreasonable nor indicate a guy is in any way bad or whatever. Which isn't that much different from the guy in your initial experience.

Point being a response can nicely shut down further thinking along such lines, or it can raise questions and potentially even be a pain in the butt. Began to realize that pun as I was typing it...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> When the comment is related to how sex is used as "reward or punishment", then yes sex is the only thing that seems to matter. It is the gauge by which someone is determined to be a good or bad partner. My point is there is much, much more to a committed and loving relationship. Just because XYZ was not ever on the menu with partner A does not mean that partner B is any less loved or cherished.
> 
> I'll bring up a example to elaborate my point. This goes for both women and men. Bootie calls. These are people who are kept around for the sex. The person keeping them around does not want to hear about their day, their troubles, their feelings, or their thoughts. They only want to enjoy some good, superficial fun and then send the person packing. Compared to committed relationship, bootie calls type relationships are devoid of intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection among many other qualities. When I hear someone say, that men are being "rewarded with sex for being uncaring", makes me think all of the other qualities I mentioned above don't mean ****.


I'm trying to zero in on this but it seems somewhat dysfunctional on the surface.

If you served casual, meaningless relationship guys prime rib with all the fixins but never cooked that for your husband and mostly cooked him meatloaf, it does seem that there is a dysfunctional something going on.

Now sex does involve far more intricate and complex emotional structures than cooking.

Is there something you would enjoy doing with a bootie call that you wouldn't with a man you love and respect?

Aside from sharing or Dom/Sub?

I think the problems are arising around enthusiastic oral, aggressive or uninhibited sex play possibly involving toys, outfits, etc. that kind of thing.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I'm foggy this morning because we stayed up really late but there is something being missed here.
> 
> There are women feeling unsafe, which I don't know if I understand, and men feeling frustrated, which is something I can grasp even though I haven't ever experienced this situation IRL.
> 
> ...


How about she won't do it because she doesn't want to do it anymore? No reason needed.

One of the things I loved doing with my first boyfriend was dropping X and having sex. My ex husband approached me about doing that a few years into our dating life. I told him simply that I had no interest in it. Why? Not something I'm interested in experiencing again. I did it. I enjoyed it when I did it. I don't want to do it again. If this was something he absolutely had to have then I was not the right woman for him. That item was not on the menu.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> I'll bring up a example to elaborate my point. This goes for both women and men. Bootie calls. These are people who are kept around for the sex. The person keeping them around does not want to hear about their day, their troubles, their feelings, or their thoughts. They only want to enjoy some good, superficial fun and then send the person packing. Compared to committed relationship, bootie calls type relationships are devoid of intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection among many other qualities. When I hear someone say, that men are being "rewarded with sex for being uncaring", makes me think all of the other qualities I mentioned above don't mean ****.


So, all of those things mean a great deal. In fact, it is the reason that the sexual denial hurts so bad. You are in the relationship that is supposed to be the most intimate, most affectionate, most vulnerable, most emotionally connected. It is the relationship you work the hardest to maintain and strengthen. You could pour your heart a soul in to it, sacrifice your time, money, emotional capital, friends, family, everything in your life, you would give to this person.

The reward for that, is she kept a part of herself hidden from you and will not let you enjoy that area of life.

Yes, she can give you all of the other stuff, but why is it ok to just decide to withhold this part? What part of the man's life does he get a free pass to withhold?

And I am not saying she has to do anything the guy wants, but there has to be open communication and give and take. The RJ stories that trigger here are almost always related to truth bombs that blow up a false narrative about the wife.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> When the comment is related to how sex is used as "reward or punishment", then yes sex is the only thing that seems to matter. It is the gauge by which someone is determined to be a good or bad partner.


Nobody disputes that an ugly, geeky, sexually undesirable nice guy can’t be a good partner. Of course “good partner” can (and should) include more things than sex.

You could argue that the hot, sexy studs are the ones being used. The only thing that women “reward” them are hot, wild, incredibly satisfying sex that men crave. However, the nice guys are rewarded with helping do house chores, paying bills, coaching little league, and occasional duty sex on Valentine’s Day and anniversaries.



> My point is there is much, much more to a committed and loving relationship. Just because XYZ was not ever on the menu with partner A does not mean that partner B is any less loved or cherished.


This appears to be an inadvertent admission that the fling guys are sexy while the husbands are not desirable. Yes, the husbands are “loved and cherished,” but that’s not the topic. The question is whether the wife who withholds sex is not attracted to (or substantially less turned on by) her husband. To reply that the bad boys are hot and sexy while the husbands are “loved and cherished” implicitly says it all, no?



> I'll bring up a example to elaborate my point. This goes for both women and men. Bootie calls. These are people who are kept around for the sex. The person keeping them around does not want to hear about their day, their troubles, their feelings, or their thoughts. They only want to enjoy some good, superficial fun and then send the person packing. Compared to committed relationship, bootie calls type relationships are devoid of intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection among many other qualities. When I hear someone say, that men are being "rewarded with sex for being uncaring", makes me think all of the other qualities I mentioned above don't mean ****.


It’s one thing to be a booty call and ONLY be valued for your sexuality. It’s another thing to be valued for many things, INCLUDING sex (which is what husbands are led to believe is going on). And another thing entirely to be valued for EVERYTHING BUT your sexuality/sexiness, and in fact to be selected DESPITE your gross sexual undesirability.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that your argument is that there’s more to marriage than sex, and men shouldn’t care if their wives are not sexually attracted to them and consequently limit the menu and frequency.

After she’s had her fun and sexually exhausted, around 30, she’s ready to retire from sex with a man she’s not attracted to, who will listen to her complain about her day and have genuine affection from her.

Maybe I’m misreading what you’re saying, but I’m reading you implicitly, if unintentionally, confirming men’s worst fears. I hear you saying that Red Pill is true, but it’s not so bad for beta males in that they are loved and cherished as wallets and caretakers.

The nice guy wins in the end, and his end is incredibly sore from all the pounding.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Im on my phone so I can’t go back and read everything. 

An ex of mine had often dated model types and beautiful women. He found they were too high maintenance for him and said he liked that I was more average. 

I will never be the most beautiful woman to someone but I can be overall more compatible in a wider range of ways. 

At the same time, a man may not be the most sexual and best in bed but can be overall more compatible in a wider range of ways. 

Also I read a bit about safety and women needing emotional safety to explore sex and I agree that many men here would prevent that. This is what I mean when I say phrasing matters, words matter. 

A change of wording can change how safe a woman feels with you.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I'm trying to zero in on this but it seems somewhat dysfunctional on the surface.
> 
> *If you served casual, meaningless relationship guys prime rib with all the fixins but never cooked that for your husband and mostly cooked him meatloaf, it does seem that there is a dysfunctional something going on.
> *
> ...


That's just it. Those casual, relationship guys are not getting prime rib with all of the fixins. They are getting sex. That's it. 

You had a bad day at work? Typical response: "Sorry to hear that. Call me when you are feeling better and we'll have some fun".

You are having family drama? Typical response: "I'm so sorry to hear that. Call me when you've settled that out and we'll get together for some fun".

You're hungry? Typical response: "Grab yourself something to eat and I'll meet you an hour at my place".

Yes, sex is important but in a committed relationship, there are so many more layers of connection that happen. There's also way bigger risk of loss.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm like the queen of miscommunication. 

And what I've discovered over my 52 years is that explanations don't help. People think what they want to think, and when people want to think badly of you, they just do no matter what your true intentions are.

Also, answering one question doesn't guarantee satisfaction. In fact, in my experience, it leads to more questions and more opportunities to twist the truth.

It just gets exhausting, and I really don't have the patience for it anymore. Hence, celibacy. 




Casual Observer said:


> Not sure why saying "I tried it once; did not like it." I realize you don't owe anyone an explanation, but it would seem to shut a path down without risk of misunderstanding. Nobody's going to think "Ah, she's *never* tried it, I can show her something new if I can get her to open up!" That line of thinking (on a guy's part) wouldn't be unreasonable nor indicate a guy is in any way bad or whatever. Which isn't that much different from the guy in your initial experience.
> 
> Point being a response can nicely shut down further thinking along such lines, or it can raise questions and potentially even be a pain in the butt. Began to realize that pun as I was typing it...


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Also I read a bit about safety and women needing emotional safety to explore sex and I agree that many men here would prevent that.


I think you are making an invalid assumption about most of the men here.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> So, all of those things mean a great deal. In fact, it is the reason that the sexual denial hurts so bad. You are in the relationship that is supposed to be the most intimate, most affectionate, most vulnerable, most emotionally connected. It is the relationship you work the hardest to maintain and strengthen. You could pour your heart a soul in to it, sacrifice your time, money, emotional capital, friends, family, everything in your life, you would give to this person.
> 
> The reward for that, is she kept a part of herself hidden from you and will not let you enjoy that area of life.
> 
> ...


There is no withholding and no false narrative. The person presented the qualities they were willing to express in a committed relationship. No more, no less. This was no bait and switch. This was a take it or leave it. The husband took it. She performed exactly as promised based on the qualities she promised to deliver. 

I agree with you that couples should discuss their desires and work together to meet each other's needs. However, I don't understand why something becomes an important factor in the relationship only after finding out it was part of your partner's history. If something is a personal need, then it's a need from the start and should be stated so clearly. It shouldn't become a need only because your partner did it previously for someone else.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Lila said:


> There is no withholding and no false narrative. The person presented the qualities they were willing to express in a committed relationship. No more, no less. This was no bait and switch. This was a take it or leave it. The husband took it. She performed exactly as promised based on the qualities she promised to deliver.
> 
> I agree with you that couples should discuss their desires and work together to meet each other's needs. However, I don't understand why something becomes an important factor in the relationship only after finding out it was part of your partner's history. If something is a personal need, then it's a need from the start and should be stated so clearly. It shouldn't become a need only because your partner did it previously for someone else.


It was always an issue, one he decided to compromise on based on the story he was given. Which was a false narrative about her. She does like those things, would continue to do those things, just not with him. There is no 'I dont like that anymore' there was in her own words 'shutdown that area to him'.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> Tasorundo said:
> 
> 
> > So, all of those things mean a great deal. In fact, it is the reason that the sexual denial hurts so bad. You are in the relationship that is supposed to be the most intimate, most affectionate, most vulnerable, most emotionally connected. It is the relationship you work the hardest to maintain and strengthen. You could pour your heart a soul in to it, sacrifice your time, money, emotional capital, friends, family, everything in your life, you would give to this person.
> ...


I disagree. She lied and said that she wasn’t into “full menu sex.” He agreed to vanilla, reluctantly and resentfully, given the false set of facts he was provided. Then he learned that she loves “full menu sex,” just not with him.

Tiger Woods lied about the money he had when his wife agreed to their prenup. Once she found out about the deceit, the prenup was invalidated. You can’t enforce an agreement when the agreement was procured through fraud.

Similarly, here, he believed his wife was attracted to him but she was a prude. He agreed to accept her despite her prudishness. Then he learned that she’d lied to him. She was a dirty ****, not a prude. She insisted on vanilla sex because Steve is what she called a “nice guy.” Men interpret this as proof that she isn’t attracted to him. If Steve knew the truth, that she wasn’t attracted to him sexually, he would have broke it off. But for her fraud, he would be happily married to another woman who actually desired him.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> It's the one he signed up for, whatever that happens to be.



So I guess everybody’s off the hook for growing, being open, and allowing for fun adventures that maybe you didn’t sign on for at the beginning. 

Sigh. That’s not love.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> How about she won't do it because she doesn't want to do it anymore? No reason needed.
> 
> One of the things I loved doing with my first boyfriend was dropping X and having sex. My ex husband approached me about doing that a few years into our dating life. I told him simply that I had no interest in it. Why? Not something I'm interested in experiencing again. I did it. I enjoyed it when I did it. I don't want to do it again. If this was something he absolutely had to have then I was not the right woman for him. That item was not on the menu.


Mrs. C wouldn't talk to me that way and I wouldn't do it to her. We get into each other a little deeper than that especially if something is important to one or both of us.

I might be interested in this scenario with Mrs. C but let's just say I really would love to do this and Mrs. C loved it with someone else but just didn't want to do it anymore.

She would open up to me more about why because she values me enough to value what is important to me and she is with it enough to realize that if she really loved doing a kind of sex with someone else that I really desired, just saying "I don't want to do it anymore." would not be relationship building.

If I treated something important to her as negligible, as something I just didn't want to do anymore and it was important to her, it would show a lack of value for her by me.

I could understand and accept any of her personal reasons or feelings about it but I wouldn't appreciate a quick write off of something important to me.

If I hadn't married Mrs. C until about 5 years ago, we still could have had daily sex but not the crazy amounts of sex we had when younger. Her body simply can't take as much as it use to.

She could go 5 or 6 times a day when we met. That is understandable.

If we met and she would only have sex with me every two days when we were younger but I discovered she had it 3-5x a day with the guy she was with right before me?????? There would be realistic problems if she just told me "I just don't want to anymore." It seems a defensive statement and not one that really promotes closeness or understanding. It seems to shut down communication which I could understand if the relationship was somewhat shallow or in trouble or strained.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Marduk said:


> So I guess everybody’s off the hook for growing, being open, and allowing for fun adventures that maybe you didn’t sign on for at the beginning.
> 
> Sigh. That’s not love.


That is a sterile contract.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that your argument is that there’s more to marriage than sex, and men shouldn’t care if their wives are not sexually attracted to them and consequently limit the menu and frequency.
> 
> After she’s had her fun and sexually exhausted, around 30, she’s ready to retire from sex with a man she’s not attracted to, who will listen to her complain about her day and have genuine affection from her.
> 
> ...


No but men do need to decide how to gauge their partner's physical attraction without needing to compare themselves to her previous partners or sexual history. Same as I would tell a woman to gauge her partner's interest in her based on the qualities he's presenting to you right now. What's in front of your face is what you judge. If it's not there, then move on. It ain't coming.

I am also saying that when it comes to long term committed relationships, the list of criteria is different and there is a lot more that goes into choosing a partner than the quality of sex. Not saying that sexual compatibility is not important but that the list of qualities is long. This is true for men and for women. Mental stability, financial compatibility, family values, emotional maturity....these are just some of the things that BOTH men and women look at when seeking a partner for a committed relationship. 

What I hear is that men's golden standard is to be the BEST sexual partner to their spouse. What I am saying is that women want to be the BEST overall partner to their spouse.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> It was always an issue, one he decided to compromise on based on the story he was given. Which was a false narrative about her. She does like those things, would continue to do those things, just not with him. There is no 'I dont like that anymore' there was in her own words 'shutdown that area to him'.





CraigBesuden said:


> I disagree. She lied and said that she wasn’t into “full menu sex.” He agreed to vanilla, reluctantly and resentfully, given the false set of facts he was provided. Then he learned that she loves “full menu sex,” just not with him.
> 
> Tiger Woods lied about the money he had when his wife agreed to their prenup. Once she found out about the deceit, the prenup was invalidated. You can’t enforce an agreement when the agreement was procured through fraud.
> 
> Similarly, here, he believed his wife was attracted to him but she was a prude. He agreed to accept her despite her prudishness. Then he learned that she’d lied to him. She was a dirty ****, not a prude. She insisted on vanilla sex because Steve is what she called a “nice guy.” Men interpret this as proof that she isn’t attracted to him. If Steve knew the truth, that she wasn’t attracted to him sexually, he would have broke it off. But for her fraud, he would be happily married to another woman who actually desired him.


I am not going to respond to this anymore because we are talking in circles at this point but if Steve chose to pursue and continue on with a woman who presented herself as a prude then that's the woman he chose to pursue and continue on with regardless her history. That's on him. He made that choice. He by no means has to stick with that choice but he does have to own the responsibility of making that choice.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

minimalME said:


> I'm like the queen of miscommunication.
> 
> And what I've discovered over my 52 years is that explanations don't help. People think what they want to think, and when people want to think badly of you, they just do no matter what your true intentions are.
> 
> ...


Assuming you actually enjoy or miss sex (curiously, as I type this, I wonder why I chose to use two different adjectives and suspect there may actually be a difference between enjoying and missing sex....), celibacy sounds like a Plan C or D or E or F, after all others have failed. Hopefully you haven't given up! 52 is much too young for that!


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> So I guess everybody’s off the hook for growing, being open, and allowing for fun adventures that maybe you didn’t sign on for at the beginning.
> 
> Sigh. That’s not love.


I never said that he couldn't grow and be open. What I did say is that to expect your partner to grow and be open in the same direction as you is a gamble. The only thing you can bet on is that she was who she was when he married her. Anything beyond that is a crap shoot.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> There is no withholding and no false narrative. The person presented the qualities they were willing to express in a committed relationship. No more, no less. This was no bait and switch. This was a take it or leave it. The husband took it. She performed exactly as promised based on the qualities she promised to deliver.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that couples should discuss their desires and work together to meet each other's needs. However, I don't understand why something becomes an important factor in the relationship only after finding out it was part of your partner's history. If something is a personal need, then it's a need from the start and should be stated so clearly. It shouldn't become a need only because your partner did it previously for someone else.



Not the case here at all. 

She did lie. She said she wasn’t into those things, closed the door on them forever, and she didn’t bother to even think about why. 

And yet, she was into those things. She took something off the table for both of them, did it without consideration or thought, and did it with something she’s actually open with. 

This is her right to do, but doesn’t make her brutal for doing it. 

There’s a quote from the Big Lebowski that’s appropriate here, but I won’t post it because I don’t mean to insult anyone by it. But it’s how I’d feel about myself if I did to my wife what the lady did to her husband. 

And the way she allowed it to happen made it a relationship extinction level event - again by her carelessness and thoughtlessness. 

She doesn’t have to do what she doesn’t want to do. Nobody does, with anything. But the fact that she doesn’t want to, and never even considered it, and then allowed him to get slapped in the face by somebody he didn’t even really know about it, makes her ‘not wrong,’ but not a good partner, either.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I never said that he couldn't grow and be open. What I did say is that to expect your partner to grow and be open in the same direction as you is a gamble. The only thing you can bet on is that she was who she was when he married her. Anything beyond that is a crap shoot.




Not wrong. 

But not loving either. 

See the difference?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> That's just it. Those casual, relationship guys are not getting prime rib with all of the fixins. They are getting sex. That's it.
> 
> You had a bad day at work? Typical response: "Sorry to hear that. Call me when you are feeling better and we'll have some fun".
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you which is why I can't quite get the dismissive shut down without discussion about something important to a husband that was done for someone else who was far less important.

If there are legitimate concerns they should be shared. Just writing off your spouses important desires with a quick "I just don't want to." won't help the relationship regardless of which way it is going.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

> I don't understand why something becomes an important factor in the relationship only after finding out it was part of your partner's history. If something is a personal need, then it's a need from the start and should be stated so clearly. It shouldn't become a need only because your partner did it previously for someone else.


Steve was “resentful” all along, but accepted it because he loved his wife in spite of her prudishness. It was always an unmet need, but he made an enormous sacrifice for her. Then he learned that it was all a lie.

Imagine if your neighbor, who is poor and paralyzed in a wheelchair, needs to move out of his apartment this weekend. He can’t afford to hire a moving company. He asks for help and others, including you, cancel your plans and spend a beautiful weekend moving his heavy furniture out to the moving truck for him. When you’ve finally finished loading the truck, he thanks you all. Then he says, “Let me show you my new Jag.” He stands up from the wheelchair, walks out to the garage and shows you his 2019 Jaguar.

Would you be angry? Why? Didn’t you agree to move his furniture? Isn’t there more to life than a beautiful weekend? If you were okay with performing the task before you knew he was wealthy and able-bodied, why should the new information change anything? If you didn’t want to help move, you shouldn’t have agreed to do it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Mrs. C wouldn't talk to me that way and I wouldn't do it to her. We get into each other a little deeper than that especially if something is important to one or both of us.
> 
> I might be interested in this scenario with Mrs. C but let's just say I really would love to do this and Mrs. C loved it with someone else but just didn't want to do it anymore.
> 
> ...


But that's just it. I had no deeper, hidden agenda into not wanting to drop the X and have sex. I literally wasn't interested in doing that anymore. 

Maybe I'm just not that deep of a thinker. I have, for the most part, accepted things at face value. If someone tells me they don't like something, I just move on whether it's food, leisure activities, anything. I assume they have their reasons. Their feelings are theirs to own. All I can do is determine how important those specific activities are to me and whether or not it's a deal breaker for me to go without.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Not wrong.
> 
> But not loving either.
> 
> See the difference?


I'm not the kind who believes in love anymore @Marduk.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Marriage *is* about a lot more than sex and one particular sex act should not define the relationship.
> .


As much as I agree with this and with your whole post, I think there's another side to the story of why a woman wouldn't give certain types of sex to her H. - and it's specifically to the other thread where OP *didn't* want to be more than vanilla with her H because *he's a nice guy* and she's not THA MUCH sexually attractive to him AS he was with Dave. 

So, it's pretty normal that you don't have to do all the sexual menu as you did before, but there's gotta be the reasons that you listed in this quoted post of yours. 

The OP of the other thread though, entered the marriage with some sort of lie, pretending to be prude in bed, giving off a different vibe and H thought she had always been like this!!! 

THAT'S the thing here which is not fair.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I'm not the kind who believes in love anymore @Marduk.




I don’t believe that at all.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> But that's just it. I had no deeper, hidden agenda into not wanting to drop the X and have sex. I literally wasn't interested in doing that anymore.
> 
> Maybe I'm just not that deep of a thinker. I have, for the most part, accepted things at face value. If someone tells me they don't like something, I just move on whether it's food, leisure activities, anything. I assume they have their reasons. Their feelings are theirs to own. All I can do is determine how important those specific activities are to me and whether or not it's a deal breaker for me to go without.


Ok. This speaks to how your mind is structured and not so much an "everywoman" response.

You also accept the same in return and that is fair play.:smile2:


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Well, if you actually ARE from Albania, that might have something to do with it.


I am from Albania and I know the reality here. I'm not saying guys want girls to be virgins, but at least they don't want them to have had more than a handful of partners.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> I'm not the kind who believes in love anymore @Marduk.


Ouch!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lovelygirl said:


> I am from Albania and I know the reality here. I'm not saying guys want girls to be virgins, but at least they don't want them to have had more than a handful of partners.


How do Albanian women feel about a man's partner count or how they are judged according to theirs?

Do most women just exercise caution to keep their count low, or just keep it on the down low and keep the info hidden from prospective mates?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> Steve was “resentful” all along, but accepted it because he loved his wife in spite of her prudishness. It was always an unmet need, but he made an enormous sacrifice for her. Then he learned that it was all a lie.
> 
> Imagine if your neighbor, who is poor and paralyzed in a wheelchair, needs to move out of his apartment this weekend. He can’t afford to hire a moving company. He asks for help and others, including you, cancel your plans and spend a beautiful weekend moving his heavy furniture out to the moving truck for him. When you’ve finally finished loading the truck, he thanks you all. Then he says, “Let me show you my new Jag.” He stands up from the wheelchair, walks out to the garage and shows you his 2019 Jaguar.
> 
> Would you be angry? Why? Didn’t you agree to move his furniture? Isn’t there more to life than a beautiful weekend? If you were okay with performing the task before you knew he was wealthy and able-bodied, why should the new information change anything? If you didn’t want to help move, you shouldn’t have agreed to do it.


Wrong analogy for me @CraigBesuden. If I felt like helping out, I would have helped out without resentment regardless of the neighbors financial situation. I would do it because I wanted to help him for no other reason than he asked. If I had plans for the weekend, I would have enjoyed the weekend without feeling guilty for not helping him out.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't think of it as giving up. I simply don't actively pursue a relationship.

If I were to meet someone, that'd be wonderful.

But I'm done with 'modern dating'. I'm done with online sites. I'm done with the expectation that I'm to have sex within some crazy, unrealistic timeline.

It would be nice to share my life with a man. But, it would take a lot.

Relationships have become very fragile, and I'm simply not going to go from one man to the next. I definitely never want to get divorced again. I can't imagine those who've gone through it over and over.

And if I did happen to meet someone, we'd have to be compatible and click as friends first - before any type of physical intimacy.

As I've written elsewhere, peace and quiet are my priorities. 




Casual Observer said:


> Assuming you actually enjoy or miss sex (curiously, as I type this, I wonder why I chose to use two different adjectives and suspect there may actually be a difference between enjoying and missing sex....), celibacy sounds like a Plan C or D or E or F, after all others have failed. Hopefully you haven't given up! 52 is much too young for that!


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> How do Albanian women feel about a man's partner count or how they are judged according to theirs?
> 
> Do most women just exercise caution to keep their count low, or just keep it on the down low and keep the info hidden from prospective mates?


Unfortunately, there's a double standard. 
Most women accept that men must've had many partners in the past so that's a given.

But when it comes to women, most men wouldn't want to marry a girl who's had plenty of partners.

The definition of "plenty" varies from man to man. Some think if it's more than a handful, then it's too much. Others think that if it's more than both hands, it's too much. 

But deep down, men don't want women to have gone through the same sexual experience that men have.

Do I think it's fair? Certainly not.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

minimalME said:


> I don't think of it as giving up. I simply don't actively pursue a relationship.
> 
> If I were to meet someone, that'd be wonderful.
> 
> ...


In Albania, if you are over 40 and a single woman - chances are you'll never find a partner to get married. 
It is scary and it's an unfortunate reality, but I know lots of women who are single in their 40s, never been married before (even those who were but are now divorced), have a hard time finding a life-time partner again.

Most Albanian men are judgemental. I also know divorced men who wouldn't want to get married to a divorced woman. They'd prefer her to have never been married/engaged before. 

Worse is if the woman has children. Most men won't bother dating her. Let alone marry her. 

:|


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lovelygirl said:


> In Albania, if you are over 40 and a single woman - chances are you'll never find a partner to get married.
> It is scary and it's an unfortunate reality, but I know lots of women who are single in their 40s, never been married before (even those who were but are now divorced), have a hard time finding a life-time partner again.
> 
> Most Albanian men are judgemental. I also know divorced men who wouldn't want to get married to a divorced woman. They'd prefer her to have never been married/engaged before.
> ...


WOW! Do older men go after younger women then? Do they succeed? If I'm ever single, I'm coming over there! Sounds like a great hunting ground for men looking for women over 40!:grin2:


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> To me this whole thread is and indictment in hookup culture in general. It's clear in today's culture that both men and women see sex as currency. They see sex in a very me-centric way. It seems to be a lot more about power then anything else. .


Gotta agree. I don't like how sex is objectified it today's culture and how "easy" it is to have it with anyone you passy by. 

I do think sex should remain a beautiful intimacy and not shared with everyone you date, but that's a personal opinion.

I haven't had sex with everyone I've dated, although it is expected that I do. I dislike it that sex while dating is considered a trend, rather than a genuine desire to be intimate with that person.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I understand, and I've made my peace with that.

Most men my age want someone 10 to 20 years younger, and I'm not getting involved with someone significantly older.

I'm very thankful for my life. For the most part, I'm healthy, and I do exactly what I want. I have the type of freedom that many others only dream of. 

So, for now, I'm content. 




lovelygirl said:


> In Albania, if you are over 40 and a single woman - chances are you'll never find a partner to get married.
> 
> It is scary and it's an unfortunate reality, but I know lots of women who are single in their 40s, never been married before (even those who were but are now divorced), have a hard time finding a life-time partner again.
> 
> ...


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> WOW! Do older men go after younger women then? Do they succeed? If I'm ever single, I'm coming over there! Sounds like a great hunting ground for men looking for women over 40!:grin2:


LOL.

Well, older men do go after younger women and generally speaking - women don't marry younger men - or don't date them. That depends on the person though. I have personally dated men 8-9 years younger than me but that was just for the good energy and playful time. Now at 31, I don't think I have any desire to date younger men because of the immaturity issues that younger men tend to have, but my girl-friends don't know about any of these younger men. They'd judge me.e

Because the trend could even be a 10 or 20-year difference between men and women where women should be younger. 

You'd have success though if you came over here .:grin2:


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> Wrong analogy for me @CraigBesuden. If I felt like helping out, I would have helped out without resentment regardless of the neighbors financial situation. I would do it because I wanted to help him for no other reason than he asked. If I had plans for the weekend, I would have enjoyed the weekend without feeling guilty for not helping him out.


Making this about OP feelings and not her husbands it the root of the problem. She should have a natural empathy for how her husband feels when it comes to their sexual health in their marriage if she doesn't she is NOT a good wife. Her instinct should be to care about that deeply. That is what you do when you love someone, you don't dismiss their feelings because you don't feel that way. THIS is the biggest problem with OP and with your take. It's also distinctly a take that people have about sex in general. For some reason because it's sex people are not allowed to have wants and desires and expect effort when it comes to that. I call bull**** on that. Selfishness in marriage is just that selfishness, if you are dismissive or your mates reasonable feelings you are being selfish. 

I would think that almost everyone would understand that wanting a sex-life that is more then vanilla is a pretty standard want in marriage. I am not trying to be offensive to you but comparing that to helping your neighbor move boxes shows a very serious disconnect on your part. I think you are the outlier on that.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Making this about OP feelings and not her husbands it the root of the problem. She should have a natural empathy for how her husband feels when it comes to their sexual health in their marriage if she doesn't she is NOT a good wife. Her instinct should be to care about that deeply. That is what you do when you love someone, you don't dismiss their feelings because you don't feel that way. THIS is the biggest problem with OP and with your take. It's also distinctly a take that people have about sex in general. For some reason because it's sex people are not allowed to have wants and desires and expect effort when it comes to that. I call bull**** on that. Selfishness in marriage is just that selfishness, if you are dismissive or your mates reasonable feelings you are being selfish.


I agree that people should want to work together to please each other in a marriage WITHIN the confines of their relationship dynamic. Feelings should not be dismissed but at the same time, if the husband wanted a sexual dynamo, then he should not have married the sexual dud. 

I would also argue that one person's "reasonable" feelings could be another person's "impossible" feelings. 




sokillme said:


> I would think that almost everyone would understand that wanting a sex-life that is more then vanilla is a pretty standard want in marriage. I am not trying to be offensive to you but comparing that want to moving your neighbor shows a very serious disconnect on your part. I think you are the outlier on that.


Craigsbuden is the one with the serious disconnect. He's the one that came up with the comparison.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

One more thing that should be noted. Man or women if you want your partner to desire you sexually then it is your responsibility to encourage that both emotionally (be it romance or helping out) but also by keeping yourself in shape. If you are grossly overweight and don't keep yourself in shape then don't be surprised that your wife desired the other guy she dated before who did. If she likes muscles, lift weights even if you are a nerd. 

Also if she needs to be wined and dined, do that and learn to appreciate doing that. If she needs an emotional connection talk to her and try to figure out what makes her tick emotionally so you can tap into that. 

Talk to her about the types of guys she finds attractive, ask her what she finds attractive in you. Work at being those things in your own way. If she likes your square jaw don't let yourself get fat enough that it becomes round. If she likes an assertive man learn to take charge. 

Sex and sexual health is a participatory exercise, it's very rare where a women is going to just want to jump your bones and even then probably only at the beginning.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> I have never ran across a partner that denied me something happily given to another. I have been given pretty much everything a woman feels good giving and even things she isn't all that comfortable with. I'm not a man that has had someone behave that way with me but I empathize and understand why men would feel pretty terrible about it.
> 
> I've seen female posters saying "If you value sex above everything else, you might feel the way most men are expressing themselves here". I think that is an oversimplification and an inaccurate depiction of the motivations at play.
> 
> ...


CH, it all comes down to how much the woman is attracted to her partner.

Full.

Stop.

End of discussion.

End of thread.

End of everything.

Because a woman can be a _beast _with a lover but a _vanilla_ with her H, it shows that she can be *a multi-dimensional sex creature *but her dimensions change depending on who she's dated/married.

I'm a woman myself, I know how it works. All of us women know it. 

UNLESS the woman is in menopause or is _asexual by nature_, any other argument she gives for less sex for her H, is b*****!!! Okay??? 

I said... b*****!!

_______________

Now, @Deejo can close the thread!:wink2:


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> One more thing that should be noted. Man or women if you want your partner to desire you sexually then it is your responsibility to encourage that both emotionally (be it romance or helping out) but also by keeping yourself in shape. If you are grossly overweight and don't keep yourself in shape then don't be surprised that your wife desired the other guy he dated before who did. If she likes muscles, lift weights even if you are a nerd.
> 
> Also if she needs to be wined and dined, do that and learn to appreciate doing that. If she needs an emotional connection talk to her and try to figure out what makes her tick emotionally so you can tap into that.
> 
> ...


Wait ... @Deejo, don't close the thread yet! I think that's just an amazing post!


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> I would also argue that one person's "reasonable" feelings could be another person's "impossible" feelings.


Feelings are feelings there are no rights or wrongs, someone only imposes their feelings on you if you let them or you allow yourself to feel guilty about them. It doesn't mean you can't try to appreciate them or that they don't have merit but in the end of the day if you feel imposed that is on you. And if you are feeling guilty maybe there is a reason. What you should never do is dismiss them. You may not agree, they may even feel hurtful but I would assume you don't want your partner to then turn around and dismiss the hurt you feel. 

Sames goes for sex, I don't believe there is any sexual act that is demeaning in the context of two consenting adults, only demeaning experiences. An action with one person when it's done out of fear or even as a form of currency may feel very degrading. The very same action done as a loving act can be almost holy and deeply connecting. It's really up to the person doing it how they decide to feel about it. For me I would want my partner to think this way and have an open mind, but I would also be mindful to check myself as to why I desire the act so much. 

Bottom line effort and empathy.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

sokillme said:


> One more thing that should be noted. Man or women if you want your partner to desire you sexually then it is your responsibility to encourage that both emotionally (be it romance or helping out) but also by keeping yourself in shape. If you are grossly overweight and don't keep yourself in shape then don't be surprised that your wife desired the other guy she dated before who did. If she likes muscles, lift weights even if you are a nerd.
> 
> Also if she needs to be wined and dined, do that and learn to appreciate doing that. If she needs an emotional connection talk to her and try to figure out what makes her tick emotionally so you can tap into that.
> 
> ...



Or, you could just say that “you got what you married and now you have to put up with it or leave.”
@Lila you’d be well within your rights to do so. But I wouldn’t want to be in that kind of marriage, and would think it was deeply unhealthy.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lovelygirl said:


> CH, it all comes down to how much the woman is attracted to her partner.
> 
> Full.
> 
> ...


I am not going to discount this at all. I'm also open to other contributing factors.

Like I have mentioned before, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to learn.

In my experience, if a woman feels safe and is excited, worked up, turned on and really attracted to a man, she is going to do her level best to rock his world.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Or, you could just say that “you got what you married and now you have to put up with it or leave.”
> @Lila you’d be well within your rights to do so. But I wouldn’t want to be in that kind of marriage, and would think it was deeply unhealthy.


 @Marduk, I don't think many people would want to be in the kind of marriage where the expectations are to behave in a way that is not who you presented yourself to be at the beginning of the relationship either. This could encompass sexual behaviors as well as personality. Some variation is expected over time (a deep olive color may lighten to a pear shade which may lighten to a parakeet) but to expect a complete change (a deep olive to change to a mauve) is unrealistic and unhealthy. Some change is healthy. A lot of change usually ends up in "we drifted apart".


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> I would think that almost everyone would understand that wanting a sex-life that is more then vanilla is a pretty standard want in marriage. I am not trying to be offensive to you but comparing that to helping your neighbor move boxes shows a very serious disconnect on your part. I think you are the outlier on that.


I wasn’t comparing a wife giving “full menu sex” to a woman carrying heavy furniture for a full weekend. I was comparing a husband unhappily agreeing to vanilla sex due to kindness (due to a pack of lies from W) to a person performing an undesirable task for a neighbor out of kindness (because of a pack of lies from the neighbor). Either way, when you learn that you were defrauded and used, you would rightfully feel angry. 

When you reluctantly and resentfully agree to give up critically important thing X because your gf (later wife) swears Y is true, then you learn 25 years later that she lied about Y the entire time, you should be outraged. It’s fraud of the highest order.

Here’s another: Husband desperately wants kids. However, his gf says she’s infertile. He’s very unhappy about it but loves her enough to marry her anyway. 25 years later, he learns that she wanted kids by her handsome ex-lover, but he insisted on using condoms. And after meeting Husband, she secretly started taking the Pill to avoid having his genetically mediocre babies. Upon learning this, does he have no right to be angry because he agreed to marry her without having children?

You can make countless analogies, and the men here have. This is really quite simple. Wives who do this are not attracted to their husbands. The husband should be deeply hurt upon learning the truth, that he’s married somebody who is highly sexual and strongly attracted to other men but finds him repulsive. No different than if he learned she’s actually a closeted lesbian.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> CH, it all comes down to how much the woman is attracted to her partner.
> 
> Full.
> 
> ...




I'm just curious, how do you decide which attractive quality unlocks a sex act?
Is it like a hot six pack get's anal?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> @Marduk, I don't think many people would want to be in the kind of marriage where the expectations are to behave in a way that is not who you presented yourself to be at the beginning of the relationship either. This could encompass sexual behaviors as well as personality. Some variation is expected over time (a deep olive color may lighten to a pear shade which may lighten to a parakeet) but to expect a complete change (a deep olive to change to a mauve) is unrealistic and unhealthy. Some change is healthy. A lot of change usually ends up in "we drifted apart".



I don’t believe I ever said that.

Respectfully, I think you - and a few others - keep trying to make this about something it’s not.

It’s like “lalalalalalaI can’t hear you I don’t wanna do something I don’t wanna do”

Which is technically right. It’s also right not to try to get your spouse to go from 0-100 kink-wise, and so many other things.

But I also think it’s remarkably disingenuous to just say “not her problem” like that’s actually true in a loving relationship.

You know it’s hurtful. You know why it’s hurtful. You also know that nobody doesn’t have to do something they don’t want to do. But it still makes it very reasonable for it to be hurtful, especially when so spectacularly mismanaged that I fail to believe it’s the only time she’s been hurtful - but “right” - in the past.

PS my wife and I have changed a lot, especially in the past few years. We’ve grown together, not apart, as a consequence.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

lovelygirl said:


> CH, it all comes down to how much the woman is attracted to her partner.
> 
> Full.
> 
> ...


The other answers from the females are basically incomprehensible, as if they are hiding a truth.

This answer of yours, whether right or wrong, makes perfect sense. Thank you.

The question: why does a woman act wildly sexual with one man, then give H only vanilla sex?

Your answer: she’s not very attracted to him physically.

The other answers are non-answers:

“There’s more to a relationship than sex.” 
“A woman has a right to control her body.”
“A man’s concern about the menu is about power, not desire.”
“He agreed to marry her knowing that she was only offering him vanilla sex.”

The unwillingness to answer the question is as telling as it is remarkable.

Perhaps we can ask a similar question: Why do women act all turned on when they see handsome guys with fit bodies, but not guys with dad bods?


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

This thread has covered more than one topic.

What rises to the surface for you? 

This is a genuine question, because in a couple of your responses to @Lila, it seems like you're taking her earlier points out of context?




Marduk said:


> Respectfully, I think you - and a few others - keep trying to make this about something it’s not.
> 
> It’s like “lalalalalalaI can’t hear you I don’t wanna do something I don’t wanna do”


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Are my posts incomprehensible to you?




CraigBesuden said:


> The other answers from the females are basically incomprehensible, as if they are hiding a truth.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

minimalME said:


> I don't think of it as giving up. I simply don't actively pursue a relationship.
> 
> If I were to meet someone, that'd be wonderful.
> 
> ...


QFT ... this is me. Although I wouldn't use the word fragile rather modern online dating has become "fake" and about "gaming" others. Add in all the ****-boys that orbit around IRL trying for hit-and-runs with an older women (yuck, I'm not a trophy) ... and I'm done.

And so, I enjoy my life, my friends and various hobbies ... and, if I happen to meet someone real and worth my time, lovely however until then I put zero effort into it.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I completely agree. 

By fragile I mean they come apart easily. That's been my experience.




Red Sonja said:


> QFT ... this is me. Although I wouldn't use the word fragile rather modern online dating has become "fake" and about "gaming" others. Add in all the ****-boys that orbit around IRL trying for hit-and-runs with an older women (yuck, I'm not a trophy) ... and I'm done.
> 
> And so, I enjoy my life, my friends and various hobbies ... and, if I happen to meet someone real and worth my time, lovely however until then I put zero effort into it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> I don’t believe I ever said that.
> 
> Respectfully, I think you - and a few others - keep trying to make this about something it’s not.
> 
> ...



The topic is retroactive jealousy, **** shaming, and madonna ***** complex. Where you hear "lalalalala I don't wanna do something I don't wanna do" I am saying "this is who I was when we dated. I presented a package that you chose to pursue and marry, just as I chose the package you presented and chose to pursue and marry. _Expecting _me to be something that was not presented, regardless of my history, is not fair. It puts the onus of "fixing" your feelings on my shoulders." 

Of course two people in a loving relationship should listen to each other, and should empathize with the other's hurt but empathizing does not entitle one to "getting their way". 

I'm really happy that you and your spouse have changed and grown together. Sadly, me and my ex husband changed and grew apart. It's a toss up and no one knows which side of that equation we will end up on. All we can say is that when we started together, we were on the same page.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> I am not going to discount this at all. I'm also open to other contributing factors.
> 
> Like I have mentioned before, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to learn.
> 
> *In my experience, if a woman feels safe and is excited, worked up, turned on and really attracted to a man, she is going to do her level best to rock his world.*


Yup. And @lovelygirl, menopause has nothing to do with it ... it's not a disease.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> The topic is retroactive jealousy, **** shaming, and madonna ***** complex. Where you hear "lalalalala I don't wanna do something I don't wanna do" I am saying "this is who I was when we dated. I presented a package that you chose to pursue and marry, just as I chose the package you presented and chose to pursue and marry. _Expecting _me to be something that was not presented, regardless of my history, is not fair. It puts the onus of "fixing" your feelings on my shoulders."


It’s not the woman’s responsibility to fix it. In fact, I don’t think the OP in the other thread CAN fix the problem by now agreeing to give Steve the “full menu sex.” He wanted that when he believed she was sexually attracted to him. Now that he knows the truth, he may not want any physical contact with her. Even if he does, he might not be able to get an erection.

You can change up the menu but you can’t change an utter lack of physical attraction to your partner.

“I can’t make you love me if you don’t. You can’t make your heart do something it won’t.... I’ll lay down my heart and I’ll feel the power, but you won’t.... Don’t patronize. Don’t patronize me.”


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> In my experience, if a woman feels safe and is excited, worked up, turned on and really attracted to a man, she is going to do her level best to rock his world.


My wife regularly does things with me that she rarely, if ever, did with other men. Some things took 10+ years for her to feel safe enough before they became regular and good.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Just because you tried sexual things at *21* with someone doesn't mean that if, a couple of years later, and in a completely different kind of relationship, you don't want to participate in those things anymore in your life, that you don't have attraction to your current partner.

It just means, you aren't interested in doing those kinds of things.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Red Sonja said:


> Yup. And @lovelygirl, menopause has nothing to do with it ... it's not a disease.


Pet peeve, “symptoms” of menopause, diseases have symptoms.

If anything my wife has picked up her game post menopause in an effort to make up for some of the mojo that left the building along with the hormones.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Livvie said:


> Just because you tried sexual things at *21* with someone doesn't mean that if, a couple of years later, and in a *completely different kind of relationship*, you don't want to participate in those things anymore in your life, that you don't have attraction to your current partner.
> 
> It just means, you aren't interested in doing those kinds of things.


Or stay in a relationship long enough. 

BRB, I need to start a thread, “She did things with me 25 years ago that she won’t do with me today”.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> The topic is retroactive jealousy, **** shaming, and madonna ***** complex. Where you hear "lalalalala I don't wanna do something I don't wanna do" I am saying "this is who I was when we dated. I presented a package that you chose to pursue and marry, just as I chose the package you presented and chose to pursue and marry. _Expecting _me to be something that was not presented, regardless of my history, is not fair. It puts the onus of "fixing" your feelings on my shoulders."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, but this thread was also spawned after the other woman’s story, which wasn’t actually about **** shaming or retroactive jealousy. 

And that’s kinda part of the problem here.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

minimalME said:


> This thread has covered more than one topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Possible. 

I guess I’m actually trying to dig into her thinking here, partly because she’s not usually so black and white in my experience, and I’m still troubled by her comment about love.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> @Marduk, I don't think many people would want to be in the kind of marriage where the expectations are to behave in a way that is not who you presented yourself to be at the beginning of the relationship either. This could encompass sexual behaviors as well as personality. Some variation is expected over time (a deep olive color may lighten to a pear shade which may lighten to a parakeet) but to expect a complete change (a deep olive to change to a mauve) is unrealistic and unhealthy. Some change is healthy. A lot of change usually ends up in "we drifted apart".


Which is exactly what we have been saying from the beginning of the other thread. OP hid herself from her husband which is why it's hurtful to him. She presented herself under false pretenses.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

CraigBesuden said:


> The other answers from the females are basically incomprehensible, as if they are hiding a truth.
> 
> This answer of yours, whether right or wrong, makes perfect sense. Thank you.
> 
> ...


You missed he makes her feel like an object he uses get off and not a person whom he wants to make love to. 
She has no understanding of the importance of this need and no empathy or desire to try to understand.
He has repeatedly done things to hurt her and dismiss her in other ways and she feels no closeness to him in a way that would make her feel safe and want to be intimate in a way where she has to be vulnerable.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > The other answers from the females are basically incomprehensible, as if they are hiding a truth.
> ...


The first and third are understandable. Yes, it could be H’s behavior over time.

The second one (she has no empathy) is beside the point - why does she WANT to give the full menu to the ex, but doesn’t WANT to give it to H?

But in the other thread (which inspired this one), the situation involved a woman deciding a different menu from the very get-go when she met the “nice guy.” So none of these would explain W’s behavior in denying “full menu sex” to Steve while loving it with Dave.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

sokillme said:


> I would think that almost everyone would understand that wanting a sex-life that is more then vanilla is a pretty standard want in marriage. I am not trying to be offensive to you but comparing that to helping your neighbor move boxes shows a very serious disconnect on your part. I think you are the outlier on that.


I don't think it's even about having a sex life that's not "vanilla." Rather, I think it's having a sex life where your partner helps you to feel he or she wants it, as well. Whatever it is. If it's missionary every single night, so be it, if it's something that makes each person feel desired.

But maybe we have an issue with definitions here. Maybe "vanilla" sex should be tossed aside and replaced with "bored" sex. Or not. There are multiple things going on here. But I, for one, would be very happy with "vanilla" sex, same position every time, if, and only if, I felt desired & wanted. "Adventurous" sex, done just because it seems like it's always the same old thing, would be less welcome if it was without actual passion. Passion doesn't mean "Hey, let's see if we can contort ourselves like it shows in the photo!" It means, oh my god it's such a wonderful thing that we have this passion to explore our bodies and make love to each other. Not "have sex" and not "F..." but really get into it.

A good "F..." once in a while is great too. But I think what I would want to avoid is "having sex" and, unfortunately, that's frequently what's on the table. Making love sounds corny, so corny that I think we've come to ignore & even abandon its soulfull meaning.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Livvie said:


> Just because you tried sexual things at *21* with someone doesn't mean that if, a couple of years later, and in a completely different kind of relationship, you don't want to participate in those things anymore in your life, that you don't have attraction to your current partner.
> 
> It just means, you aren't interested in doing those kinds of things.


This is true but I think it's just as reasonable to ask you to at least try when you are mated for life. It's a reasonable request because just because you didn't like something at 21 in a dating relationship doesn't mean you might not enjoy it in a safe loving marital environment. To me lets take the past out of it. If it's wrong to expect you to do something because you did it in the past but it's also wrong to assume you will hate it too. 

That seems fair to me. 

But hey maybe flowers and dancing maybe isn't your thing either, lots of guys are like that, and they are well within their rights.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> In fact, I don’t think the OP in the other thread CAN fix the problem by now agreeing to give Steve the “full menu sex.” He wanted that when he believed she was sexually attracted to him. Now that he knows the truth, he may not want any physical contact with her. Even if he does, he might not be able to get an erection.


Quoted for truth. 

I don’t think that relationship will ever recover from this revelation. Just the way the disclosure happened was the equivalent of dancing The Flamingo on her husband’s nuts. They may stay together for years in a zombie relationship, but he will resent her and her attitude for the rest of his life; of that I’m sure. Hopefully she will come back and we learn what happens over time and maybe I’ll be proven wrong (but I doubt it)

My opinion, which is not going to be popular with the women here, is that she needs to put full menu sex on the table, and be enthusiastic about it. If not, she may as well file. I know I couldn’t recover from something like this unless there was at least an real attempt to make amends.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Which is exactly what we have been saying from the beginning of the other thread. OP hid herself from her husband which is why it's hurtful to him. She presented herself under false pretenses.


Then that husband should file for divorce but I do hope in the future that he learns to ask for exactly what he wants from his future partner. I would expect that at his age (40+) he would have some knowledge of his expectations and boundaries.

ETA: And he should not settle for someone who does not meet his every need exactly.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

As in - he can do whatever he wants to her? 




The Middleman said:


> My opinion, which is not going to be popular with the women here, is that *she needs to put full menu sex on the table*, and be enthusiastic about it. If not, she may as well file. I know I couldn’t recover from something like this unless there was at least an real attempt to make amends.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> When the comment is related to how sex is used as "reward or punishment", then yes sex is the only thing that seems to matter. It is the gauge by which someone is determined to be a good or bad partner. My point is there is much, much more to a committed and loving relationship. Just because XYZ was not ever on the menu with partner A does not mean that partner B is any less loved or cherished.
> 
> I'll bring up a example to elaborate my point. This goes for both women and men. Bootie calls. These are people who are kept around for the sex. The person keeping them around does not want to hear about their day, their troubles, their feelings, or their thoughts. They only want to enjoy some good, superficial fun and then send the person packing. Compared to committed relationship, bootie calls type relationships are devoid of intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection among many other qualities. When I hear someone say, that men are being "rewarded with sex for being uncaring", makes me think all of the other qualities I mentioned above don't mean ****.


That was not my comment. But even if it was, theres no connection between viewing sex as reward or punishment 
and it being thought of as the only thing that matters. Reward and punishment can apply to ANYTHING that matters even when that thins is but one of many. You seem hopelessly fixated on reducing men who don't like being dismissed to nothing more than mindless horndogs.

And the bootie call concept is a total red herring here. If anything that just reinforces my point.... if you're doing more for some superficial fun than you would in a truly intimate relationship, you're doing it wrong.

There's no way you can spin this to justify the concept of enthusiastically giving an intimate part of yourself to someone you don't even care about not being a slap in the nuts to one you supposedly do. Yes, tastes and desires evolve over time, _but I will remind you yet again that in this case the woman didn't say that was the case; she specifically said she didn't want to with her husband, not in general. This is further backed up by her suddenly wanting to do that again upon learning she may lose him._ clearly, she was blowing him off (or not blowing him as it were) all those years.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

minimalME said:


> As in - he can do whatever he wants to her?


As in - she should be willing to do for her husband what she enthusiastically did for her former lover.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That was not my comment. But even if it was, theres no connection between viewing sex as reward or punishment
> and it being thought of as the only thing that matters. Reward and punishment can apply to ANYTHING that matters even when that thins is but one of many. *You seem hopelessly fixated* on reducing men who don't like being dismissed to nothing more than mindless horndogs.
> 
> And the bootie call concept is a total red herring here. If anything that just reinforces my point.... if you're doing more for some superficial fun than you would in a truly intimate relationship, you're doing it wrong.
> ...


I believe I have been nothing but respectful to everyone with whom I have exchanged thoughts. I ask the same respect in return. I am no more "hopelessly fixated" as you or anyone else who is posting their opinion. 

I will not be engaging you again on this topic @Rocky Mountain Yeti.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> I believe I have been nothing but respectful to everyone with whom I have exchanged thoughts. I ask the same respect in return. I am no more "hopelessly fixated" as you or anyone else who is posting their opinion.
> 
> I will not be engaging you again on this topic @Rocky Mountain Yeti.


You have been respectful. Much appreciated. 

Note that I said you _seem_, which acknowledges that is my interpretation, not a blanket statement of fact. I was very careful to avoid a direct accusation. Read the WHOLE statement you bolded.

Now the reason I said that is you keep, over and over, in post after post, accusing (some) men of valuing only sex bet without valid basis and ignoring the very simple fact that all the statements are still completely valid if sex, while important, is but one of many things which are so. That is further backed up by the fact that some women leave otherwise good partners because of sex, and nobody here, certainly not you, has criticized them for that. Let me know when you are ready to levy the same criticism against women who do the same thing.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Sure, but this thread was also spawned after the other woman’s story, which wasn’t actually about **** shaming or retroactive jealousy.
> 
> And that’s kinda part of the problem here.


True. There are many topics being discussed at once.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> I'm just curious, how do you decide which attractive quality unlocks a sex act?
> *Is it like a hot six pack get's anal?*


not necessarily! 

Let me make it clear first: *What rocks one woman's world, doesn't rock another's. *
For some women, it's important for the guy to have the six pack and he can bed her right away...even to the point of giving him anal. 

For me personally, what rocks my world is many other things - not necessarily related to the six-pack thing. 
If I'm attracted to the man physically *and mentally* - that's it for me. But he doesn't have to be the perfect body. I'm mostly attracted to nice looking guys but who have a *bigger inside world* - he's gotta be intellectual, creative, chivalrous, ... I don't know. It's important for me that we share the same principles and most importantly, he gotta respect me! All these things are related to my sexual desire for him. The more he has these things, the more sexually attracted to him I am - the more hardcore I go for sex. But that's just me.

And given that I'm not an ONS type, I have to get to know the guy much more in order to sleep with him. 

Now, as for anal - I haven't really tried it cuz I don't really like it but I'll refer to oral sex.

*Oral sex is the most intimate sex act for me*. Full Stop. I don't care about PIV or anal or anything. I have no problem giving them either. But when it comes to oral....things change. 

Out of the 35 + guys that I've dated/been in a relationship with.. in my life so far, I have given oral only to *2 of them*. That takes us back to square 1 and to the point of this thread. 

For the sex acts that are VERY important to a woman, she'll definitely give them ONLY to the guy(s) she deeply cares about and is sexually attracted to. Full stop. 

For some women, it's anal for other's is oral. For some women the guy gotta have 6-pack, for others, he gotta respect and treat her well. For me it's the latter.


----------



## dadstartingover (Oct 23, 2015)

minimalME said:


> Are you saying that your _married_ friends sit around and discuss the intimate details of what they do in their bedrooms?
> 
> Is this normal/common behavior for men?
> 
> I can't think of anything that would make me feel _less_ sexy and safe than knowing I'm sharing my most private self with my husband, and he's out bragging about it.


No, I run a website and have written books for men. I get a bazillion emails from guys and also do some "coaching" on the side. 

I most certainly DON'T talk about this stuff with my real-world guy friends.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Red Sonja said:


> Yup. And @lovelygirl, menopause has nothing to do with it ... it's not a disease.


I didn't mean to say that menopause is a disease, but during that time you naturally become less and less attracted to sex. 

It happens to all women out there. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

This link contains a very similar story to the W in the other thread. Here, the wife acts like a prude. Then years later, with kids, he finds a video tape of her from her college days....

* * *

I’ll sum up what happened thus far. I met my wife 7 years ago, she was extremely picky when it came to sex. She told me she only has been with 1 other guy before. She would never give a blow job, only would do certain positions and found almost every sex act degrading. I was frustrated by this, but I really liked her and hoped over the years she would open up sexually. Over the years, it never got any better but I learned to get over it. Well I ended up finding an old video from her college days of her engaging in group sex with 6 other people 5 guys 1 girl. In the video she has anal sex, oral sex, gets double teamed, and yells multiple times in the video she is a “I am a filthy *****.” All of it she was enthusiastic about it. I ended up feeling really sad. I can understand certain stuff people don’t want to do, but it wasn’t the fact she didn’t want to do them. She didn’t want to do them with me but every other guy she was their *****. I was angry hurt and I ended up saying some stupid **** to my wife.

I asked her if she could drop our daughter off at her sister’s house because I wanted to talk to her. She asked why, I told her we’d discuss after she came back.

I don’t remember all the details of the conversation, so I’ll try my best to sum it up. I was drinking a bit before she came which wasn’t the best idea.

Me: Is there anything about your past you have been hiding about me?

Her: Why are we talking about this?

Me: I just want to know were you in any type of porn or anything like that?

Her: are you taking drugs?

Me: I found your video from college with the other guys. I don’t know who you are anymore and I feel ill being around you.

She starts crying.

Me: Do you have anything to say?

She continues to cry. This was pointless I go to grab my keys to leave. And she tries to stop me.

Me: If you don’t want me to leave then I need you to be 100% honest with me, and tell me why you lied to me for all these years.

She: I didn’t want you to think I was a ****

Me: I would have been perfectly fine if you told me, I would have loved to have done those wild things with you. Look I get it I don’t turn you on like those other guys do. You liked sucking their ****s but not mine.

She: It’s not that, I didn’t want you to think less of me.

Me: No it is exactly that, there is a thing lying about sleeping with other guys. It’s not that you didn’t like doing those things. You didn’t like doing them with me.

She: I can do that stuff with you. I am attracted to you, you know that.

Me: I don’t want you to do it because you feel like you have to. I want someone that actually desires me.

She: I can change I promise don’t ruin our marriage over this we can work things out. We can go to marriage counseling seriously talk to me.

Me: Marriage counseling won’t change how you feel about me. Look I will try marriage counseling but I want a trial separation for now.

She: Please don’t do this. Don’t throw away our marriage for what I did in college please.

Me: Stop ****ing acting like it’s a one time thing. Be honest with me how many guys did you **** before me. How many guys ****s have you sucked, and how many guys have you let **** you in the ass.

She: why does it matter, I said I’ll do them with you

Me: I am so ****ing lucky. I got married to a *****, that ****s like a prude.

She: Please don’t waste all of our marriage for this. I am willing to change.

* * *

What we’re reading here is the script for negotiated desire. Her real desire isn’t for his satisfaction or any real resolution for the deception of her sexual pluralism, but rather a solipsistic maintaining of a normalcy for herself. Our author has no other rationalizations to fall back on, denial of his conditions are no longer sufficient, and he begins to realize a cruel red pill truth – you cannot negotiate genuine desire.

He wants her to want him, he wants her to desire sex with him with the same verve and enthusiasm she did with other men in her videos. He wants her sexual best, but her 7 years of unwillingness to give him that while enjoying the benefits of his provisioning, his patience, love and perseverance only puts her strategy, the Hypergamic strategy, into perfect focus. Her genuine desire, her sexual best was never intended for him in the first place.

{ deleted link per TAM rules - EleGirl }


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

lovelygirl said:


> For the sex acts that are VERY important to a woman, she'll definitely give them ONLY to the guy(s) she deeply cares about and is sexually attracted to. Full stop.


If true. This seems to reaffirm the notion that not doing the most intimate act with a partner is indicative of a lack of caring/bond.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> not necessarily!
> 
> Let me make it clear first: *What rocks one woman's world, doesn't rock another's. *
> For some women, it's important for the guy to have the six pack and he can bed her right away...even to the point of giving him anal.
> ...



For me how attractive a find a guy (physically or mentally) or how deeply care about them has no correlation to how hardcore sex is with them or what sex acts I do with them, It's a total foreign concept to me. That's why these types of threads always leave me baffled.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> For me how attractive a find a guy (physically or mentally) or how deeply care about them has no correlation to how hardcore sex is with them or what sex acts I do with them, It's a total foreign concept to me. That's why these types of threads always leave me baffled.


Are you a man or a woman? 

Couldn't find it in your profile.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> Then that husband should file for divorce but I do hope in the future that he learns to ask for exactly what he wants from his future partner. I would expect that at his age (40+) he would have some knowledge of his expectations and boundaries.
> 
> ETA: And he should not settle for someone who does not meet his every need exactly.


Maybe he asked and she said she doesn't like it and would never do such a thing. Which seems more likely in my mind. The fact that he basically left so upset is a clear tell that this had been discussed before and she had basically made him think that it wasn't in her wheelhouse.

Or she shouldn't marry someone just for her own comfort. It seems wildly selfish.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> Are you a man or a woman?
> 
> Couldn't find it in your profile.


Woman


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Then that husband should file for divorce but I do hope in the future that he learns to ask for exactly what he wants from his future partner. I would expect that at his age (40+) he would have some knowledge of his expectations and boundaries.
> ...


From that thread:

>>Forward 20 months and I met my future H "Steve". *Steve was a nice guy,* same age as me and two and a half years later we married followed after a while by two children. I love Steve very much and I know he feels the same but *our sex life has always been vanilla (my choice) and there has been some resentment from Steve,* don't know why I have not opened up with Steve but I never have and *as I told him I am not into what he calls "full menu sex" he has mostly accepted it.*<<

Yes, of course. She adamantly refused oral, anal, and other things, claiming that she’s not into that. It was a total lie.

Notice she never claims to find Steve sexy, even when specifically asked in the thread. She claims he’s “nice” and she “love Steve very much.” She also says that her feelings grew over months, implying that he was meh at first. Her utter repulsion to him physically is strongly implied, IMO.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Tiggy! said:


> For me how attractive a find a guy (physically or mentally) or how deeply care about them has no correlation to how hardcore sex is with them or what sex acts I do with them, It's a total foreign concept to me. That's why these types of threads always leave me baffled.


Is there some criteria you use or is it just luck of the draw?

Color of his tie? Car he drive? If he likes Takeo Ischi?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

CraigBesuden said:


> From that thread:
> 
> >>Forward 20 months and I met my future H "Steve". *Steve was a nice guy,* same age as me and two and a half years later we married followed after a while by two children. I love Steve very much and I know he feels the same but *our sex life has always been vanilla (my choice) and there has been some resentment from Steve,* don't know why I have not opened up with Steve but I never have and *as I told him I am not into what he calls "full menu sex" he has mostly accepted it.*<<


What a terribly cruel thing to do to someone.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> Woman


Well...coming from a woman...I was a bit surprised! I thought you were a man at first because you couldn't understand me. 

I'm wondering the same as @sokillme now.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> What a terribly cruel thing to do to someone.


Yep. Because it was a lie.

Because she didn't feel sexually attracted to Steve.

Because she thought of Steve as "nice guy". 

Because *hardcore* and _*Steve*_ are irrelevant to each other. 

Because it was her choice to satisfy Steve with just vanilla, meaning breadcrumbing. 

Because Steve was a safe bet, a "sure" thing.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> Yep. Because it was a lie.
> 
> Because she didn't feel sexually attracted to Steve.
> 
> ...


I think Steve is the other guy but I might be wrong. 

It's also cruel because she blocked her husband from finding someone else who may have been into him, assuming he was faithful. 

Like I said, please let me cook for you for the rest of your life please give me that honor. Then proceed to serve canned tuna every night and pork and beans on Saturday.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Maybe he asked and she said she doesn't like it and would never do such a thing. Which seems more likely in my mind. The fact that he basically left so upset is a clear tell that this had been discussed before and she had basically made him think that it wasn't in her wheelhouse.
> 
> Or she shouldn't marry someone just for her own comfort. It seems wildly selfish.


Most people marry because they are getting something meaningful out of the relationship and want permanence. It is essentially a selfish act. 

IMO, the key to good relationships is to make sure that each partner has good boundaries. Needs should be communicated and assumptions should not enter into the mate selection process. People should only marry if they feel their priority needs are being taken care of. 

No one should settle for less. If a man husband wants a bj loving, anal annie with a fetish for sucking toes, then he should not settle for anything less than that. I don't care how sweet, kind, loving, generous, familial, religious, understanding, compassionate she appears to be. Deal breakers are deal breakers.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> I think Steve is the other guy but I might be wrong.
> 
> It's also cruel because she blocked her husband from finding someone else who may have been into him, assuming he was faithful.
> 
> Like I said, please let me cook for you for the rest of your life please give me that honor. Then proceed to serve canned tuna every night and pork and beans on Saturday.


No no, Dave was the other guy. Steve is the H.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe he asked and she said she doesn't like it and would never do such a thing. Which seems more likely in my mind. The fact that he basically left so upset is a clear tell that this had been discussed before and she had basically made him think that it wasn't in her wheelhouse.
> ...


The real problem, of course, isn’t that Steve’s W wouldn’t perform those acts for him. The problem is that she lied. She loves performing those acts, just not with him.

If she were honest and simply a prude, it would be okay. That was acceptable to him.

Similarly, if she performed every sexual act but then learned from her friend Pauline that W isn’t sexually attracted to Steve but goes through the motions to please him, Steve would still be incredibly hurt.

The lack of certain acts isn’t the real problem. It’s learning that his W is a stranger, a liar, that his whole marriage has been an utter farce and fraud, and that W is not attracted to him and never has been. That’s the problem.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> The real problem, of course, isn’t that Steve’s W wouldn’t perform those acts for him. The problem is that she lied. She loves performing those acts, just not with him.
> 
> If she were honest and simply a prude, it would be okay. That was acceptable to him.
> 
> ...


Exactly! That's the problem. The lie. Not the performance or the lack of those sex acts, per se.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> The real problem, of course, isn’t that Steve’s W wouldn’t perform those acts for him. The problem is that she lied. She loves performing those acts, just not with him.
> 
> If she were honest and simply a prude, it would be okay. That was acceptable to him.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter if she did them for the entire Green Bay Packers, their coaches and the equipment staff. She never did them for her boyfriend, then husband. Full stop. That relationship should have never gotten to the altar. He should have stopped at the point where she said "I'm sorry, I don't give bjs" and run, not walk away. That's a boundary on a deal breaker.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

sokillme said:


> Is there some criteria you use or is it just luck of the draw?
> 
> Color of his tie? Car he drive? If he likes Takeo Ischi?


I admit he would get brownie points for liking Takeo Ischi.

What sex acts I've enjoyed (or tried) in the past always came down to what I enjoyed or wanted to try at the time. Of course attraction is involved to have sex in the first place but what kind of sex acts was down to what I desired to do, not some reactionary response to my sex partners attractiveness.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> Most people marry because they are getting something meaningful out of the relationship and want permanence. It is essentially a selfish act.
> 
> IMO, the key to good relationships is to make sure that each partner has good boundaries. Needs should be communicated and assumptions should not enter into the mate selection process. People should only marry if they feel their priority needs are being taken care of.
> 
> No one should settle for less. If a man husband wants a bj loving, anal annie with a fetish for sucking toes, then he should not settle for anything less than that. I don't care how sweet, kind, loving, generous, familial, religious, understanding, compassionate she appears to be. Deal breakers are deal breakers.


Love takes courage. People change their wants and needs change with age, if you love your spouse you should have the courage to at least try things that may not be comfortable with at first. If you have a good history you should assume that their motives are decent. If you have a history of examples you should trust your spouse. We are quick to say people should understand that things change with health conditions and you need to change too, why are we also not quick to say desires change and you should change too. Again assuming it's in a safe monogamous relationship. 

That is JUST AS MUCH what marriage is about. Not just what your personal priorities are. Love is about rising above yourself for the one you love too.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> Most people marry because they are getting something meaningful out of the relationship and want permanence. It is essentially a selfish act.
> 
> IMO, the key to good relationships is to make sure that each partner has good boundaries. Needs should be communicated and assumptions should not enter into the mate selection process. People should only marry if they feel their priority needs are being taken care of.
> 
> No one should settle for less. If a man husband wants a bj loving, anal annie with a fetish for sucking toes, then he should not settle for anything less than that. I don't care how sweet, kind, loving, generous, familial, religious, understanding, compassionate she appears to be. Deal breakers are deal breakers.


Great post, but I feel compelled to add that that selfishness should not include dishonesty and should be integrated with a healthy level of concern for the proposed spouse as well. One can be selfish about getting ones needs met and still be operate with, love honor, and integrity.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> I admit he would get brownie points for liking Takeo Ischi.
> 
> What sex acts I've enjoyed (or tried) in the past always came down to what I enjoyed or wanted to try at the time. Of course attraction is involved to have sex in the first place but what kind of sex acts was down to what I desired to do, not some reactionary response to my sex partners attractiveness.


But wasn't your desire attracted to the attraction???


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

sokillme said:


> Love takes courage. People change their wants and needs change with age, if you love your spouse you should have the courage to at least try things that may not be comfortable with at first. If you have a good history you should assume that their motives are decent. If you have a history of examples you should trust your spouse. We are quick to say people should understand that things change with health conditions and you need to change too, why are we also not quick to say desires change and you should change too. Again assuming it's in a safe monogamous relationship.
> 
> That is JUST AS MUCH what marriage is about. Not just what your personal priorities are. Love is about rising above yourself for the one you love too.



Yes!
Balance is key.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> It doesn't matter if she did them for the entire Green Bay Packers, their coaches and the equipment staff. She never did them for her boyfriend, then husband. Full stop. That relationship should have never gotten to the altar. He should have stopped at the point where she said "I'm sorry, I don't give bjs" and run, not walk away. That's a boundary on a deal breaker.


Why do you refuse to understand that she lied to him even when she wrote it with her own fingers? You seem to willfully ignore this even when the quote is posted on the same page about 5 lines above this just to put all of the blame all on him. This is why I think you have a problem with empathy and I wonder if it isn't because Steve is a man. 

She lied to him, he married her in good faith. Full stop. His only responsibility was to believe her.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> ....... I feel compelled to add that that selfishness should not include dishonesty and should be integrated with a healthy level of concern for the proposed spouse as well. One can be selfish about getting ones needs met and still be operate with, love honor, and integrity.





sokillme said:


> Love takes courage. People change their wants and needs change with age, if you love your spouse you should have the courage to at least try things that may not be comfortable with at first. ....................
> 
> That is JUST AS MUCH what marriage is about. Not just what your personal priorities are. Love is about rising above yourself for the one you love too.



:smnotworthy:

For the truth.


Glad TAM has some very decent men!


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> But wasn't your desire attracted to the attraction???


Do you mean was my desire influenced by my attraction or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> It doesn't matter if she did them for the entire Green Bay Packers, their coaches and the equipment staff. She never did them for her boyfriend, then husband. Full stop. That relationship should have never gotten to the altar. He should have stopped at the point where she said "I'm sorry, I don't give bjs" and run, not walk away. That's a boundary on a deal breaker.


Lila, Lila...

If I tell you that I don't like cake and then later....you find out I actually LOVE cakes, what do you think is the real problem here?

The lie or the cake?? 

It's the same with OP of the other thread. SHE LIED to her H. 

Who cares if she gave anal to Dave, and not her H ???? The issue is the lie she told (acting like a prude) with her H.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Tiggy! said:


> I admit he would get brownie points for liking Takeo Ischi.
> 
> What sex acts I've enjoyed (or tried) in the past always came down to what I enjoyed or wanted to try at the time. Of course attraction is involved to have sex in the first place but what kind of sex acts was down to what I desired to do, not some reactionary response to my sex partners attractiveness.


So essentially what you are saying is sex for you is entirely selfish pursuit, there is no giving action in it at all. That is not a criticism I think the way you think is very common both for men and women. But it is definitely a mindset.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> Do you mean was my desire influenced by my attraction or am I misunderstanding?


Yeah. That's what I mean. Wasn't your desire influenced by the attraction?
Or for you it mattered what you wanted to do at that very moment, regardless of the attraction?

Because that's how it'd work for me. The more attracted --> the more desire -- > the more sex positions.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Why do you refuse to understand that she lied to him even when she wrote it with her own fingers? You seem to willfully ignore this even when the quote is posted not one page before this just to put all of the blame all on him. This is why I think you have a problem with empathy and I wonder if it isn't because Steve is a man.
> 
> She lied to him, he married her in good faith. Full stop. His only responsibility was to believe her.


This is not a male/female issue. I give women as much if not more grief for making poor decisions in their mate selection. Buyer's remorse is a unisex issue. Steve for whatever reason, chose to marry a woman who was not meeting his sexual needs. Regardless of her sexual history, he made the choice to proceed with a prude rather than look for someone with whom he was sexually compatible. We all have to deal with the decisions we make every single day. We can call the woman in that story a liar all day long but at the end of the day, she produced exactly what she promised - a prude woman - and Steve agreed to marry the prude.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Lila, Lila...
> 
> If I tell you that I don't like cake and then later....you find out I actually LOVE cakes, what do you think is the real problem here?
> 
> ...


If having you eat my cakes is a deal breaker for me, then it doesn't matter whether or not you love them. If you won't eat them, then I no longer want to associate with you.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

lovelygirl said:


> I didn't mean to say that menopause is a disease, but during that time *you naturally become less and less attracted to sex.
> 
> It happens to all women out there.* Nothing wrong with that.


Speaking from experience ... no it does not. From what I have seen personally, the only women that become "less attracted" to sex after/during menopause are those who were not very sexual to begin with.

A few women have genuine physical problems due to menopause (all can be remedied) however I've seen many (low desire) women use it as an _excuse_ to stop having sex altogether.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila, if I understand you correctly, you think it’s okay to mislead a person as to whether you love them or find them attractive, so long as you deliver on what you promised?

So, if you meet a Christian man who appears to love you and you negotiate sex once a week and he will go to church with you every Sunday, then after married for ten years you learn that he never loved you, he’s an atheist and he’s gay, it’s totally fine? You have no room to complain so long as he performs the agreed-upon sex once a week, goes with you to church every Sunday, and any other acts you’ve negotiated?

I view that along the lines of “what she doesn’t know doesn’t hurt her” and “who cares if I cheated because I wore a latex condom.” Cheating isn’t all about pregnancy and disease.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Red Sonja said:


> Speaking from experience ... no it does not. From what I have seen personally, the only women that become "less attracted" to sex after/during menopause are those who were not very sexual to begin with.
> 
> A few women have genuine physical problems due to menopause (all can be remedied) however I've seen many (low desire) women use it as an _excuse_ to stop having sex altogether.


Then it goes back to what I stated in my previous post:

If you have to come up wit excuses not to have sex, then:

1- you're not sexually attracted to your SO (and you use the argument of menopause).
2- Menopause is impairing your libido. 
3- you're mostly asexual.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> Yeah. That's what I mean. Wasn't your desire influenced by the attraction?
> Or for you it mattered what you wanted to do at that very moment, regardless of the attraction?
> 
> Because that's how it'd work for me. The more attracted --> the more desire -- > the more sex positions.


Pretty much what I wanted to do in the moment, there has always had to be a lot of attraction in the first place to have sex with someone but that amount attraction has never influenced a sex act for me.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> Lila, if I understand you correctly, you think it’s okay to mislead a person as to whether you love them or find them attractive, so long as you deliver on what you promised?
> 
> So, if you meet a man who appears to love you and you negotiate sex once a week, then after married for ten years you learn that he never loved you and he’s gay, it’s totally fine? You have no room to complain so long as he performs the agreed-upon sex once a week, and any other acts you’ve negotiated?
> 
> I view that along the lines of “what she doesn’t know doesn’t hurt her” and “who cares if I cheated because I wore a latex condom.” Cheating isn’t all about pregnancy and disease.


I'll put it this way @CraigBesuden. I am currently dating. I have a whole list of "deal breakers" one of which is "must be heterosexual". If I meet a man who checks off every other item on my list but IS NOT hetero, then there will be no relationship. Why? Because it is a hard boundary for me.

Here's a better example.... another of my deal breakers is "must be physically affectionate". If I meet a man who checks off every other item on my list but IS NOT a physically affectionate person, it doesn't matter if he lies to me and tells me he was never an affectionate person I WILL NOT be pursuing a relationship with him. It doesn't matter if he was previously the snuggliest, cuddliest, yummiest guy. Right now, with me, he's not THAT guy and therefore we are not compatible.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

sokillme said:


> So essentially what you are saying is sex for you is entirely selfish pursuit, there is no giving action in it at all. That is not a criticism I think the way you think is very common both for men and women. But it is definitely a mindset.


Not entirely but it is to a extent (don't get me wrong I do care about my husbands pleasure), I've never understood the mentality of sex is something 'give' rather than have.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> Not entirely but it is to a extent (don't get me wrong I do care about my husbands pleasure), I've never understood the mentality of sex is something 'give' rather than have.


_Giving_ and _having _at times might mean the same thing (just as they differ in othe situations).

When you have duty-sex, you basically _give _sex.

When you have sex because you like that person a lot and you WANT to have sex with him, you actually GIVE for your own and his pleasure and you have sex just for the fun of two of you.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

lovelygirl said:


> Exactly! That's the problem. The lie. Not the performance or the lack of those sex acts, per se.


I think the problem is both. The lie is the big thing for sure, but this is about withholding sex (and that’s exactly what it was). Trust me, this guy is feeling like a chump right now, having put 20 years of his life into a relationship and now knowing that his wife withheld from him the sex he wanted, while she eagerly gave away the same to someone else.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> This is not a male/female issue. I give women as much if not more grief for making poor decisions in their mate selection. Buyer's remorse is a unisex issue. Steve for whatever reason, chose to marry a woman who was not meeting his sexual needs. Regardless of her sexual history, he made the choice to proceed with a prude rather than look for someone with whom he was sexually compatible. We all have to deal with the decisions we make every single day. We can call the woman in that story a liar all day long but at the end of the day, she produced exactly what she promised - a prude woman - and Steve agreed to marry the prude.


The reason is she lied to him. His problem isn't that he didn't meet his needs it's that her reasons why were a lie.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Tiggy! said:


> Pretty much what I wanted to do in the moment, there has always had to be a lot of attraction in the first place to have sex with someone but that amount attraction has never influenced a sex act for me.


OK this makes more sense. So what you are saying you are spontaneous but open to try new things.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Tiggy! said:


> Not entirely but it is to a extent (don't get me wrong I do care about my husbands pleasure), I've never understood the mentality of sex is something 'give' rather than have.


So you get no pleasure from giving him pleasure?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> The reason is she lied to him. His problem isn't that he didn't meet his needs it's that her reasons why were a lie.


It doesn't matter her reasons for not performing those sexual acts, he wasn't going to get them regardless. She never offered to do those things for him. He wanted BJs, anal, and crazy fun sex. She only offered vanilla missionary. Full.Stop.Steve. 

In my example, I like everything about a man except he's not physically affectionate. He tells "I've never been affectionate with anyone". I ignore my deal breakers and pursue a relationship with him. Years later I find out he used to be Mr. Super Affectionate. Who is to blame? Him for telling me he was not the affectionate kind or me for settling for someone who was obviously not compatible? I would feel like an idiot for choosing to ignore what he was presenting.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Another example. A woman I know, before her current boyfriend, had a number of lovers. One of them she really liked except for a couple of things, one being “his PTSD.” I later learned what that was about. She loves cunnilingus but that guy wouldn’t do it. Supposedly he had an experience in college where he was performing it on a drunk girl, she threw up and it went right into his mouth. Supposedly that gave him PTSD.

Imagine if she decided that the good things about him outweighed it and decided to accept him, despite the traumatic medical condition that stopped him from performing her favorite sex act. After being married for 20 years, she learns that for years after college, he loved performing cunnilingus on his girlfriends. It turns out that the whole PTSD thing was an excuse, and when confronted he admits he lied but simply cannot explain why he loved doing that with every other woman but not her, no matter how much she wanted it.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> It doesn't matter her reasons for not performing those sexual acts, he wasn't going to get them regardless. She never offered to do those things for him. He wanted BJs, anal, and crazy fun sex. She only offered vanilla missionary. Full.Stop.Steve.
> 
> In my example, I like everything about a man except he's not physically affectionate. He tells "I've never been affectionate with anyone". I ignore my deal breakers and pursue a relationship with him. Years later I find out he used to be Mr. Super Affectionate. Who is to blame? Him for telling me he was not the affectionate kind or me for settling for someone who was obviously not compatible? I would feel like an idiot for choosing to ignore what he was presenting.


Except you know and I know you can't have it all. Sometimes you make compromises and we are willing to do so for love. But the dynamic change when the compromises are made because of selfishness or lack of desire. If she had told him, look I love you I used to do these things and I like them but just not with you, which was the truth he would nave never married her.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter her reasons for not performing those sexual acts, he wasn't going to get them regardless. She never offered to do those things for him. He wanted BJs, anal, and crazy fun sex. She only offered vanilla missionary. Full.Stop.Steve.
> ...


Agreed. If she had told the truth, he would never have married her.

Like the woman who tried to have children with the love of her life. After he died, one of his friends informed her that he’d had a vasectomy. That’s just wrong. You don’t treat someone you love that way.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Let’s say that I’m sitting on the couch watching TV. My W asks me to drive to the store to buy groceries. On the way to the store, while texting on my cell phone, I crash into another car.

Who is responsible for the crash?

A) My wife is responsible because if she hadn’t asked me to go to the store the crash would never have happened, or

B) I’m responsible because I was driving while distracted and hit the other car.

In a sense both answers are correct. My wife caused the crash in a very indirect way. I caused the crash in a very direct way. To me, blaming my wife for the crash would seem so wrong. But that’s just me.

Similarly, I can’t blame Steve for compromising on some sex acts and marrying what he believed was a prude who was genuinely attracted to him. I have to blame the liar who tricked him into marrying somebody who isn’t attracted to him.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> Similarly, I can’t blame Steve for compromising on some sex acts and marrying what he believed was a prude who was genuinely attracted to him. I have to blame the liar who tricked him into marrying somebody who isn’t attracted to him.


Yep!

@Lila - Steve made a decision to marry OP BASED on what he was told. And maybe, the lack of hardcore sex was not a dealbreaker for Steve, eventhough he would've prefered for his wife to be hardcore. Nonetheless, he thought "Oh well, maybe that's how she is so I'll have to accept her as she is". 

BUT later finding out that he has LIED.....??? 
That changes the energy. The vibe. 

Because OP PRETENDED to be someone she wasn't. It's not that she told H:
"_Steve, I want you to know that I won't do hardcore* anymore*. Then..it's up to you to want to marry me or not_."

But she was like "_Steve, I've never been into hardcore. So I can't do it with you either_".


*Therefore, Steve made a decision based on a lie, not on the truth.*


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

The Middleman said:


> I think the problem is both. The lie is the big thing for sure, but this is about withholding sex (and that’s exactly what it was). Trust me, this guy is feeling like a chump right now, having put 20 years of his life into a relationship and now knowing that his wife withheld from him the sex he wanted, while she eagerly gave away the same to someone else.


Sure, denying sex acts could be a problem, but in this case it was a 2nd-hand problem. Not a prior one.

The lie itself is more hurtful.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Accept you know and I know you can't have it all. Sometimes you make compromises and we are willing to do so for love. But the dynamic change when the compromises are made because of selfishness or lack of desire. If she had told him, look I love you I used to do these things and I like them but just not with you, which was the truth he would nave never married her.


I do recognize that no one is perfect and compromises are needed however, hard boundaries and deal breakers are just that. These are things on which you're either compatible or not. I will tell you that I would rather not hear the reasons why someone cannot meet my deal breaker needs. I just need to know that they don't and it's enough for me to decide to move on. And the men I've dated are the same.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> I do recognize that no one is perfect and compromises are needed however, hard boundaries and deal breakers are just that. These are things on which you're either compatible or not. I will tell you that I would rather not hear the reasons why someone cannot meet my deal breaker needs. I just need to know that they don't and it's enough for me to decide to move on. And the men I've dated are the same.


First of all I should use the right except. Grrr.

Besides that are you not more willing to compromise depending on the reasons why though. Context matters. By not being honest she gamed there whole marriage. For her own advantage. Besides that whose to say they have not be slowly progressing to this point and there was no discussion about it at all. He was willing to let it happen honestly whatever that would be. But she was not honest with him. 

How can you have a good marriage when one partner is not honest. That enough is a deal breaker. I think it's wrong to just assume he is partly to blame.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Yep!
> 
> @Lila - Steve made a decision to marry OP BASED on what he was told. And maybe, the lack of hardcore sex was not a dealbreaker for Steve, eventhough he would've prefered for his wife to be hardcore. Nonetheless, he thought "Oh well, maybe that's how she is so I'll have to accept her as she is".
> 
> ...



So the sexual incompatibility was not a deal breaker for Steve? If it wasn't important enough for him to decide to move forward with marriage, then why is he so upset about not getting what he didn't feel was important? 

I get Steve could be upset but all of this talk about choosing not to marry someone based on a quality that wasn't even critical enough to be a deal breaker is a bigger lie IMO. If it's a quality that will make or break a decision to move forward with something as permanent as marriage, then it's a deal breaker, and the reasons behind it should not matter.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> So the sexual incompatibility was not a deal breaker for Steve? If it wasn't important enough for him to decide to move forward with marriage, then why is he so upset about not getting what he didn't feel was important?


HE WAS LIED TO. They are only incompatible because she lied to make them so, or she has no interest in trying to be that with him. One is commission the other is omission. Do you see the difference? He can accept it if this is her nature, he can't accept that this is a willful rejection of him without even a discussion about it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> Agreed. If she had told the truth, he would never have married her.
> 
> Like the woman who tried to have children with the love of her life. After he died, one of his friends informed her that he’d had a vasectomy. That’s just wrong. You don’t treat someone you love that way.


 @CraigBesuden, your analogies are not comparable to the case study. In this case, your analogy would be something like this - a woman meets a man and tells him she wants children. He tells her he can't have them. She accepts his answer and marries him anyways only to find out later that he was fully capable of having them. Again, if this was a deal breaker for her, then she should have dumped the man who said he couldn't have kids and gone off to find her baby daddy. I blame her for her decision to move forward with someone who so obviously could not meet her needs.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

The Middleman said:


> lovelygirl said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly! That's the problem. The lie. Not the performance or the lack of those sex acts, per se.
> ...


Everyone is saying the wife "lied". She told her husband she isn't into that stuff. I don't see the ****ing lie. Just because she was into that stuff *at a past point in her life*, doesn't mean she always will be into those things!! And she obviously wasn't, anymore, or she would have done them. At no point did she say she wasn't attracted to her husband. She did, however, imply that in her view that past sexual escapade was ****ty. And she didn't want to do many of those things anymore.

Repeating that: she didn't want to do those things anymore. 

She's *not* into that stuff. 

She didn't lie.

For ****s sake. When I was 21I had a grand time my last semester of college. I've never been "****ty" and I've never had a one night stand, BUT I had a really really good time and did some things in that timeframe that two years later I certainly wouldn't be into anymore.

It's called growing, maturing, trying some things as a really young woman, and perhaps deciding that you don't want to conduct your life that way.

The guy married her knowing what she was and wasn't presenting as how she wished to participate in a sexual relationship.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> HE WAS LIED TO. They are only incompatible because she lied to make them so, or she has no interest in trying to be that with him. One is commission the other is omission. Do you see the difference? He can accept it if this is her nature, he can't accept that this is a willful rejection of him without even a discussion about it.


So what you're saying is that it's more acceptable if she was a "genuine" prude who loves him rather than a "fake" prude who loves him?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> @CraigBesuden, your analogies are not comparable to the case study. In this case, your analogy would be something like this - a woman meets a man and tells him she wants children. He tells her he can't have them. She accepts his answer and marries him anyways only to find out later that he was fully capable of having them. Again, if this was a deal breaker for her, then she should have dumped the man who said he couldn't have kids and gone off to find her baby daddy. I blame her for her decision to move forward with someone who so obviously could not meet her needs.


Except the almost contemptuous the complete and utter rejection of her and of Steve. Just the fact that this guy lied about something that was so important to get her to make a decision without the whole truth i enough. But there is difference to not having a baby because you can't and because you won't. Again you don't see that difference? You don't see how hurtful that would be? You can't see the rejection involved.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> So what you're saying is that it's more acceptable if she was a "genuine" prude who loves him rather than a "fake" prude who loves him?


One is an active rejection the other is her nature. I would be much more quick to overlook someone for their nature then because they deliberately deprived me of something and then lied about it to get me to show them grace.

I might be willing to support someone who can't work because of injuries but I am going to be pissed if they are lying about so I will support them, and they really are just lazy.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> So the sexual incompatibility was not a deal breaker for Steve? If it wasn't important enough for him to decide to move forward with marriage, then why is he so upset about not getting what he didn't feel was important?
> 
> I get Steve could be upset but all of this talk about choosing not to marry someone based on a quality that wasn't even critical enough to be a deal breaker is a bigger lie IMO. If it's a quality that will make or break a decision to move forward with something as permanent as marriage, then it's a deal breaker, and the reasons behind it should not matter.


Beacause the lack of hardcore was not such of a dealbreaker as the act of lying! 
So it's moslty about the lying itself that causes the hurt. Then it might be about the subject of lying. But the lie could be a dealbraker for Steve.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> So what you're saying is that it's more acceptable if she was a "genuine" prude who loves him rather than a "fake" prude who loves him?


She didn't have to be fake in the first place! 

Better dirty genuine, than fake prude.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Except the almost contemptuous the complete and utter rejection of her and of Steve. Just the fact that this guy lied about something that was so important to get her to make a decision without the whole truth i enough. But there is difference to no having a baby because you can't and because you won't. Again you don't see that difference? You don't see how hurtful that would be?


I understand the hurt that revolves around rejection but I also know that if something is critical to my happiness, then the reasons behind the rejection should not matter. Maybe it's because I am harder on myself than anyone else, but I would be more disappointed in myself than the lie for willfully choosing to ignore something that was critical to my happiness.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Lila said:


> So what you're saying is that it's more acceptable if she was a "genuine" prude who loves him rather than a "fake" prude who loves him?


I don't see why it matters how someone got there, if the activity is the same, then the outcome is the same. 

If someone settles for less, they will get less. At the end of the day people would do well to actually own what they choose, rather than pine after what they didn't choose.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> She didn't have to be fake in the first place!
> 
> Better dirty genuine, than fake prude.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


I'm going to respond to this by quoting @Livvie who said it better than probably I could have said it.




Livvie said:


> Everyone is saying the wife "lied". She told her husband she isn't into that stuff. I don't see the ****ing lie. Just because she was into that stuff *at a past point in her life*, doesn't mean she always will be into those things!! And she obviously wasn't, anymore, or she would have done them. At no point did she say she wasn't attracted to her husband. She did, however, imply that in her view that past sexual escapade was ****ty. And she didn't want to do many of those things anymore.
> 
> Repeating that: she didn't want to do those things anymore.
> 
> ...



It's kind of like you were saying about the blow jobs. You only give them to guys you choose to give them to. With your logic, the rest of the 30+ guys you've dated should have received blow jobs because you DO enjoy giving blow jobs.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Personal said:


> I don't see why it matters how someone got there, if the activity is the same, then the outcome is the same.
> 
> If someone settles for less, they will get less. At the end of the day people would do well to actually own what they choose, rather than pine after what they didn't choose.


Yep and I say this as someone who has sat in that victim chair wondering the exact same thing. There was no question I was responsible for choosing the bed I laid in even after knowing full well that bed was not the right one.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Lila said:


> So what you're saying is that it's more acceptable if she was a "genuine" prude who loves him rather than a "fake" prude who loves him?


Pretty much ... yes.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

I don't care how many people individually or collectively, any of my sexual partners have been with before or after me.

I don't care if any of my sexual partners don't want to do things with me, that they have enjoyed doing with others.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

I have never considered any of my sexual partners to be my property. So I have no problem with them deciding for themselves, what they want to do. For whatever reason they feel, without having to justify their choices to me.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

If a man settled for a woman who shared less despite once enjoying sharing more with others. It is still extremely likely he will have always chosen a woman who shares less, since it was his choice that got him exactly that.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Lila said:


> So what you're saying is that it's more acceptable if she was a "genuine" prude who loves him rather than a "fake" prude who loves him?


Several years ago there was a story in the news about a woman on Wall Street who was having a sexual relationship with a guy she thought was a successful CPA. Long story short, she found out he was lying and was not who he said he was. She then went on a mission to show people the seriousness of what she called "rape by fraud." She consented based on a lie. I don’t see that what Penny did to Steve as being any different.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

sokillme said:


> So you get no pleasure from giving him pleasure?


I do get pleasure giving him pleasure, but I think sex should be mutually enjoyable.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Personal said:


> If a man settled for a woman who shared less despite once enjoying sharing more with others. It is still extremely likely he will have always chosen a woman who shares less, since it was his choice that got him exactly that.


I don't agree he was willing to show her grace because he loved her, turns out she lied to receive that grace. It's the difference between I can't and I won't.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Personal said:


> If a man settled for a woman who shared less despite once enjoying sharing more with others. It is still extremely likely he will have always chosen a woman who shares less, since it was his choice that got him exactly that.


:iagree:
If someone is more into kink and gets with someone who is more into vanilla then is getting with someone who isn't sexually compatible the problem in the first place?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

The Middleman said:


> I don’t see that what Penny did to Steve as being any different.


It's very different.

Steve settled for what he got.

She didn't tell him she was going to share more.

If Steve wanted more he should have chosen a partner, who was into sharing more.

I don't settle for less sexually, so I don't get less.

Those that do settle for less, get exactly that. Which is exactly what they ought to get, since that is what they settled for.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Lila said:


> It doesn't matter if she did them for the entire Green Bay Packers, their coaches and the equipment staff. She never did them for her boyfriend, then husband. Full stop. That relationship should have never gotten to the altar. He should have stopped at the point where she said "I'm sorry, I don't give bjs" and run, not walk away. That's a boundary on a deal breaker.


I agree. If any man or woman puts up with this nonsense, its on them. Like its often said, an affair is 100% the fault of the betrayer, staying in a relationship where you know she/he was doing something for others but they won't do and/or withhold from you, its 100% your fault. Bellyaching about it just proves you don't have what it takes to do anything about it. You need to walk away from any contract, including marriage, when the other person willfully fails to perform in accordance with its terms; which should have been worked out before you signed on the dotted line. 
As the future rolls around however, you'll be making one of two choices, choosing to be a chump and a victim or choosing not to. Ain't no other way of putting it.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

I just don't see it that way. She rejected him and has been rejecting him for 20 years, but she has been hiding that fact under the guides of being incapable of unwilling to do more because it was her nature. It's a subtle difference but one to me implies malice. Though I would say it's wise to not accept even the first premise.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Personal said:


> I have never considered any of my sexual partners to be my property. So I have no problem with them deciding for themselves, what they want to do. For whatever reason they feel, without having to justify their choices to me.


The overall theme of this website is about marriage. Talking about "sexual partners" and what's permissible and what's not, in bed, is a very different thing, I think, for the married person than for the person who has a "partner" they have sex with. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. Most "partnerships" aren't, and some explicitly stated so. I think within marriage there are shared responsibilities, including many aspects of sex, that are different because there is that lifelong commitment. There will nearly always have to be compromises, in terms of not just the physical but also notions of privacy.

My wife is not my "property" nor am I hers. But we are, together, one. Two halves of a whole. To some extent we will appear to be one another's "property" but not in the negative way that some portray. Again, this is marriage we're talking about here. The topic is under the category "Sex in Marriage."


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

VladDracul said:


> I agree. If any man or woman puts up with this nonsense, its on them. Like its often said, an affair is 100% the fault of the betrayer, staying in a relationship where you know she/he was doing something for others but they won't do and/or withhold from you, its 100% your fault. Bellyaching about it just proves you don't have what it takes to do anything about it. You need to walk away from any contract, including marriage, when the other person willfully fails to perform in accordance with its terms; which should have been worked out before you signed on the dotted line.
> As the future rolls around however, you'll be making one of two choices, choosing to be a chump and a victim or choosing not to. Ain't no other way of putting it.


A better analogy might be hiring someone who says the have a disability which makes them unable to perform certain duties in a job but then finding out they are perfectly fit but have lied to get out of doing those functions.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> It's kind of like you were saying about the blow jobs. You only give them to guys you choose to give them to. With your logic, the rest of the 30+ guys you've dated should have received blow jobs because you DO enjoy giving blow jobs.


She said blowjobs are reserved for guys who are special to her. She gives her best sex to the best guys.

It seems strange to deny your best to your husband unless he’s not as special or not as sexually attractive.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

VladDracul said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter if she did them for the entire Green Bay Packers, their coaches and the equipment staff. She never did them for her boyfriend, then husband. Full stop. That relationship should have never gotten to the altar. He should have stopped at the point where she said "I'm sorry, I don't give bjs" and run, not walk away. That's a boundary on a deal breaker.
> ...


You may be right. Steve’s W said in the initial post that it was tearing her marriage apart and it may end her marriage. But I wouldn’t say the W failed to uphold the contract. I would say that she fraudulently induced Steve into entering into the contract. Had she told the truth - that she desperately wants to continue performing those acts but finds Steve utterly repulsive - Steve would never have married her.

Another option is that he remains in an unhappy, cold marriage. That might be worse than a divorce.

Hopefully she can convince him that she’s attracted to him, that she felt that doing anything other than missionary would make him think less of her, that she believed it was a “white lie,” and now that he knows she’s “that kind of girl” she’d like to do those things.

Frankly, “I didn’t want you to think I’m a **** by doing anything but missionary” — as implausible as it is —may be the only possible explanation that wouldn’t be devastating. She must convince him that husbands don’t respect wives who do anything more than missionary.

But reading between the lines of her posts, it seems obvious to me that she’s just not that into Steve. She loves him but she’s not sexually attracted to him and she never was.

I honestly don’t know what I’d do if I were Steve. But a fit divorced guy in his 40’s with grown kids, and willing to have more, would be a hot commodity in the dating market.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Personal said:


> It's very different.
> Steve settled for what he got.
> She didn't tell him she was going to share more.


We are going to have to agree to disagree. Steve was duped into living a less fulfilling sexual life based on a lie. He has every right to leave her, and I personally wouldn’t blame him if he did. Frankly, the way he found out was reason enough to leave.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Would it be fair to say that his W is a stranger? That if she lied about that, she might be lying about anything and everything?

He loves the woman he thought that he married. That woman does not exist.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Tasorundo said:


> I think you are making an invalid assumption about most of the men here.


Lots of that going around here.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Lots of that going around here.


If you listen closely, you can hear Helen Reddy singing.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> VladDracul said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. If any man or woman puts up with this nonsense, its on them. Like its often said, an affair is 100% the fault of the betrayer, staying in a relationship where you know she/he was doing something for others but they won't do and/or withhold from you, its 100% your fault. Bellyaching about it just proves you don't have what it takes to do anything about it. You need to walk away from any contract, including marriage, when the other person willfully fails to perform in accordance with its terms; which should have been worked out before you signed on the dotted line.
> ...


Yes, that’s it. The fake “disabled” person fulfilled the contract. But the employer would never have made those costly accommodations if it knew the truth. It’s fraud in procuring the contract.

If an employer found out that you had done this, what would it do to you, if anything? Chuckle and congratulate you for performing a good rib?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> No but men do need to decide how to gauge their partner's physical attraction without needing to compare themselves to her previous partners or sexual history. Same as I would tell a woman to gauge her partner's interest in her based on the qualities he's presenting to you right now. What's in front of your face is what you judge. If it's not there, then move on. It ain't coming.
> 
> I am also saying that when it comes to long term committed relationships, the list of criteria is different and there is a lot more that goes into choosing a partner than the quality of sex. Not saying that sexual compatibility is not important but that the list of qualities is long. This is true for men and for women. Mental stability, financial compatibility, family values, emotional maturity....these are just some of the things that BOTH men and women look at when seeking a partner for a committed relationship.
> 
> What I hear is that men's golden standard is to be the BEST sexual partner to their spouse. What I am saying is that women want to be the BEST overall partner to their spouse.


How does withholding something you love from someone you love make you a "best overall partner?"

This is not a out purring sex above all things, no matter how many times you say it despite all the evidence to the contrary.

It's about meeting the basic minimum in all important areas, of which sex is one, as which is honesty, and by extension honesty about ones sexuality. In this case the latter was violated as explained by the OP herself.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> I'm not the kind who believes in love anymore @Marduk.


That explains a lot.

What are you doing on a marriage site?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> Wrong analogy for me @CraigBesuden. If I felt like helping out, I would have helped out without resentment regardless of the neighbors financial situation. I would do it because I wanted to help him for no other reason than he asked. If I had plans for the weekend, I would have enjoyed the weekend without feeling guilty for not helping him out.


Are you saying his perceived state would have no bearing whatsoever on your desire to help?

I'm not buying that.

Let's say he's a strapping young lad who could bench press a Buick. You may still want to help, but you would damn sure expect him to do the heavy lifting. If you did all that heavy lifting, and maybe hurt yourself in the process as the result of a deliberate deception, you'd be hopping mad. And that's just a single day event. We're talking a out a lifetime here.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Casual Observer said:


> I think within marriage there are shared responsibilities, including many aspects of sex, that are different because there is that lifelong commitment.


I don't think marriage entitles anyone to have their spouse, do anything sexually with them that they don't want to do whether they have enjoyed it with others or not.



> My wife is not my "property" nor am I hers. But we are, together, one. Two halves of a whole. To some extent we will appear to be one another's "property" but not in the negative way that some portray. Again, this is marriage we're talking about here. The topic is under the category "Sex in Marriage."


Well having been very happily married for over 20 years, to my luscious sex partner of 23+ years. I hope that qualifies me to talk about sex in marriage.

Then if that isn't enough I hope having also been married, to my ex-wife for 2½ years is.

Like you my wife is also not my property and nor am I hers.

We are also not one and never have been one. Nor are we two halves of a whole, since we are two complete autonomous individuals with our own boundaries, desires, preferences, wants and needs.

Yet we have a great marriage where most importantly I enjoy her company, have fun with her, like her and also love her.

Plus I have oodles of sex with her in a kaleidoscope of many different ways. Like vanilla, fisting, golden showers, anal sex, prostate play, rimming, cum facials, public places, making our own porn and much more.

My wife and I only share what we want to and we're both okay with that, which is a big part of why we share more.

That said I do find it interesting that my perspective, is so often at odds with many of the men here. Yet I have always enjoyed an extraordinarily rich sex life because of it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the kind who believes in love anymore @Marduk. <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/redface.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" ></a>
> ...


Moderating it.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Lila said:


> if the husband wanted a sexual dynamo, then he should not have married the sexual dud.


Still ignoring the key issue here. He did accept marrying a sexual dud. The problem is that she *was not a sexual dud.*

It was straight up deceit and disrespect on her part.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

^^^ No it wasn't.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> So, all of those things mean a great deal. In fact, it is the reason that the sexual denial hurts so bad. You are in the relationship that is supposed to be the most intimate, most affectionate, most vulnerable, most emotionally connected. It is the relationship you work the hardest to maintain and strengthen. *You could pour your heart a soul in to it, sacrifice your time, money, emotional capital, friends, family, everything in your life, you would give to this person.*


I don't get the whole sacrifice thing as being healthy in marriage.

If being married to someone requires considerable sacrifice to be with them, then I think you've chosen the wrong partner.

I'm not with my wife because I feel an obligation to her, I am with her because I like being with her.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> In the concept of men you don't care about getting uninhibited sex, does it not create the problem where you are rewarding men for being not worth caring about? At the same time, you are in effect punishing men you do care about.
> 
> The end of this cycle is what we are creating in society, relationships with no depth, random sex, and lonely people.


The issue is that women don't seem comfortable with the idea of sex being seen as a *reward*. Which is understandable.

But, men *do* see sex as something they get for being worthy (which equates to a reward even though they'd prefer not to think of it that way).

So, regardless of how women would *prefer* to think about it, the net effect *is* that men may begin to find the goal of being of being worthy as no longer worth the effort (and it is harder than living in your parent's basement, watching porn and playing video games).

A result of this could well be that there are less men that women feel are worth being in a relationship with. 

If being in a committed relationship with a man is a goal for many women, then this would be a problem for them.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> It depends on what you (collective you, not you specifically) value in a committed relationship. If sex is the only thing that matters in a committed relationship, then it would seem like some men are being punished.


I think it would also be true if sex was not the only thing that mattered in a committed relationship, but it was one of several things that mattered.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> So, regardless of how women would *prefer* to think about it, the net effect *is* that men may begin to find the goal of being of being worthy as no longer worth the effort (and it is harder than living in your parent's basement, watching porn and playing video games).


Not all of us.

I don't see getting sex as being a reward for being worthy.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Again, there's this false narrative. Nobody here has ever said (nor is it collectively said) that sex is the only thing that matters in a relationship.


This happens all the time.

If a man says "sex is important to me".

The woman changes that to "sex is the only thing that is important to me" and then responds.

I assume it's due to their having a confirmation bias that all men care about is sex.

So, they "hear" what they're actually inserting themselves unconsciously.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> Moderating it.


And fielding a lot of posts.

Your mind works a certain way and you are fair about it by expecting no different treatment in return.

My mind works a little differently but I get your POV and I appreciate learning about it.:smile2:


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Sex isn’t a reward for being worthy. But women choose to mate with the most desirable men. Those are guys like Dave.

They want companionship and assistance from weaker men. Those are guys like Steve.

Men want to believe that women marry them because they consider them sexually attractive as well as a good partner and future father.

BTW, the other thread’s OP appears to confirm (or at least conform to) the Alpha Fux Beta Bux theory. That is, the Red Pill belief that modern women spend their best years (young and beautiful) having sex with genetically superior bad boys (alpha fux). This is called hypergamy. (Not marrying up, but having sex with men out of your league, as women can do.) Then, after they’ve “had their fun,” got good sex out of their system, they settle for a boring dork provider who they aren’t sexually attracted to. A responsible guy who shows up on time and makes good choices. There will be no fun for the dork - his role is a workhorse for the woman. He is nothing but a tool.

I’ve never met a woman like this in real life. I hope and believe they are rare. But that woman is confirming men’s worst fears about women. Her story will probably end up on a Red Pill site as an example of how all women act.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> This happens all the time.
> 
> If a man says "sex is important to me".
> 
> ...


When my wife and others have said "you only want me for sex", I have always agreed with them.

Why any heterosexual man would want there sexual partners to think otherwise is beyond me.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> Sex isn’t a reward for being worthy. But women choose to mate with the most desirable men. Those are guys like Dave.
> 
> They want companionship and assistance from weaker men. Those are guys like Steve.
> 
> ...


Very well said. This is exactly what I was thinking and I am convinced that this is what Penny was doing (perhaps not consciously). The thing is that there really isn’t enough information in her first post to get the whole story, but based on what she did say, she fits the mold.



CraigBesuden said:


> I’ve never met a woman like this in real life. I hope and believe they are rare. But that woman is confirming men’s worst fears about women. Her story will probably end up on a Red Pill site as an example of how all women act.


I’ve known a few such women in my life time. Their behavior was exactly as you described above, almost like they read it in a text book.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> When the comment is related to how sex is used as "reward or punishment", then yes sex is the only thing that seems to matter. It is the gauge by which someone is determined to be a good or bad partner. My point is there is much, much more to a committed and loving relationship. Just because XYZ was not ever on the menu with partner A does not mean that partner B is any less loved or cherished.
> 
> I'll bring up a example to elaborate my point. This goes for both women and men. Bootie calls. These are people who are kept around for the sex. The person keeping them around does not want to hear about their day, their troubles, their feelings, or their thoughts. They only want to enjoy some good, superficial fun and then send the person packing. Compared to committed relationship, bootie calls type relationships are devoid of intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection among many other qualities. When I hear someone say, that men are being "rewarded with sex for being uncaring", makes me think all of the other qualities I mentioned above don't mean ****.


If you truly think that men in a committed relationship value sex less than "intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection" then I think you don't understand men.

For men, all of those other qualities to mention generally come along as a result of a satisfying sex life.

If you're sure your right, tell men that would like to be in a committed relationship with that, while you'll have sex with random hookups, you don't really anticipate wanting sex with them but they can count on "intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection". 

Let's see how that goes.

I think you're mostly venting that men don't behave they way that you'd prefer them to.

Join the club. Lots of men are complaining that women don't behave the way men would prefer them to.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> How about she won't do it because she doesn't want to do it anymore? No reason needed.
> 
> One of the things I loved doing with my first boyfriend was dropping X and having sex. My ex husband approached me about doing that a few years into our dating life. I told him simply that I had no interest in it. Why? Not something I'm interested in experiencing again. I did it. I enjoyed it when I did it. I don't want to do it again. If this was something he absolutely had to have then I was not the right woman for him. That item was not on the menu.


I don't really understand the "no reason needed" meme.

This isn't a rando, it's your committed partner, the person you love, the person who has committed themselves to you, the person whose happiness is supposedly important to you.

And you're really just going to say "no reason needed"?

If my wife said "I'd really, really like us to see Paris together soon, can we do that?"

I say "Nope" 

She says "Why not?"

Is it really okay for me to respond with "No reason needed"?

If she has a problem with that, then I'm just not the right guy for her? If it means that much to her she should just file for divorce and start looking for men who want to go to Paris?

Wouldn't it be a better option for me to explain the reasons why I don't want to go or why I don't think going to Paris together is possible?

She doesn't deserve an explanation?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

> If my wife said "I'd really, really like us to see Paris together soon, can we do that?"
> 
> I say "Nope"
> 
> ...


Sure, you can respond as you please.

I would say "I don't feel like it", or "I am not interested". Sometimes that's as far as the reason goes.

If my wife then has a problem with that, it's her problem to resolve as she pleases.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think RJ is a combination of low confidence in yourself and a sense of control and ownership of your partner.


Yep, that pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Personal said:


> Not all of us.
> 
> I don't see getting sex as being a reward for being worthy.


True.

I would propose that this has to do with you always having found sex will willing women easily available.

No one sees something as a reward when it is easily obtained.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Personal said:


> Sure, you can respond as you please.
> 
> I would say "I don't feel like it", or "I am not interested". Sometimes that's as far as the reason goes.
> 
> If my wife then has a problem with that, it's her problem to resolve as she pleases.


First. "I don't feel like it" or "I'm not interested" aren't the same as "No reason needed". They're still pretty dismissive, but not quite as dismissive.

Also, since you said "sometimes", I'll add another question to be sure.

If your wife said "could you tell me more about why you don't feel like it or aren't interested?"

Would you respond? Or would you just repeat your previous answer?


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Where I come from, "No reason needed" earns you a middle finger salute, no matter what the topic.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> No one sees something as a reward when it is easily obtained.


Sure it happens easily enough, yet I don't expect it or feel entitled to it.

Likewise I don't do things that I don't choose to do, and don't expect anyone else to do things that they don't choose to. Plus I also own my choices without resentment regardless of the outcome, since they're my choices and I am responsible for the choices I make.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> If your wife said "could you tell me more about why you don't feel like it or aren't interested?"
> 
> Would you respond? Or would you just repeat your previous answer?


If I'm not interested it is invariably because it literally doesn't interest me. Likewise if I don't feel like doing something, it's invariably because I don't feel like doing something.

I can't help what I feel, yet I am true to how I feel.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

So if someone isn't all of that sexually, with the generic you. And you don't like it then let them go.

It really is that simple, if you don't like something don't put up with it.

That said if you do put up with something you don't like, have the integrity to own your choices and accept all responsibility for the choices you make.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Every sexual relationship I have been in, has been different and sometimes vastly so. There are things I have enjoyed with others, that I haven't done with my wife. Plus things that I have enjoyed with my wife, that I haven't done with others. Or the way I have enjoyed things have been very different, what works with some people doesn't work in the same ways with others.

I have found that presuming my sexual partners have probably had fantastic sex with others, in ways different from me. Combined with thinking I am not owed their past and that we will do what we do, regardless of our respective pasts works very well.

If I am ever wanting to substantially limit my sex life. I reckon I could quickly achieve that, by convincing myself that I am owed my sexual partners past.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Wow, this sure blew up fast! It seems like a re-run of the "women cannot have empathy for men" thread. 

Steve is, I guess, dismayed to learn that his W doesn't find him all that sexy. She was willing to marry him for other good qualities. It seems a bit strong to describe it as "lying" that she didn't bluntly inform him of that from the beginning. But he's bound to be disappointed and hurt. I'm sure the OP gets that, even if apparently some on this thread don't. 

One view seems to be that if Steve has any feelings about what has happened, that that is "being controlling" and "thinking she's property". Men just are not allowed to have feelings.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> I do recognize that no one is perfect and compromises are needed however, hard boundaries and deal breakers are just that. These are things on which you're either compatible or not. I will tell you that I would rather not hear the reasons why someone cannot meet my deal breaker needs. I just need to know that they don't and it's enough for me to decide to move on. And the men I've dated are the same.


I've thought of a way to discuss this in terms of dealbreakers that you may understand.

Other that the usuals; like intelligence, wit, sense of humor and my being attracted to her, I have two other dealbreakers:

Deal Breaker 1. She must find me sexually attractive. There are no clear ways to determine this, so I have no choice but to go with frequent and enthusiastic sex. Enthusiastic sex includes doing everything in her sexual past repertoire (assuming that they were done willingly and happily and that nothing has occurred in the meantime to make them disappear, such as physical incapability and there are no issues such as my penis being so enormous that she isn't capable of anal sex). What she's doing at the beginning of our relationship is no indication of what she may do 10 years down the road when the NRE wears off and she's feeling secure. It isn't the sex act that's on my dealbreaker list, it's her attraction, effort and desire to give me pleasure. So, lets say Mary has never let anyone cum in her mouth (she thinks the idea is disgusting and vows that she will never do it), but shows enough attraction to me to give me NSA blowjobs that don't finish in her mouth. Another possibility is Sue who routinely let ONS that she barely knew cum in her mouth (and she always swallows because it's more convenient) seems to be only focused on her self and she never gives NSA blowjobs because she's not horny and wouldn't get anything out of it. 

According to Deal Breaker 1: Mary is a candidate for an LTR but Sue is not.

That's how my Deal Breaker 1 sees it at the time with only the information at hand.

With Sue I'd get more of what I wanted, but it wouldn't mean a thing about how she feels about me and there's no guarantee they'll keep coming in the future. With Mary, I'd get more frequent and more enthusiastic blowjobs for longer.

If ten years later, I am at a party and one of Mary's drunk friend's is talking about an old boyfriend of Mary's named Joe and how hot Mary thought he was. Mary tries to divert the conversation by saying that she wasn't that attracted to him, Her girlfriend responds with "that's not true. You thought he was so hot he was one of only two guys you ever let cum in your month. You even swallowed didn't you? I think I remember you gargling with it at one party".

My Deal Breaker didn't change, the information at available to me at the time wasn't complete. Mary misled me. Had I know of Mary's past, I wouldn't have accepted a marriage with no complete blowjobs since, for her, that would indicate a lack of attraction to me and make me think that she might be settling with me for other reasons.. 

So the woman who will not perform my favorite sex act passes the DealBreaker and the woman who routine performs the act doesn't. 

Deal Breaker 2 is that anyone I marry must be truly committed to my happiness (and me to hers).

Sex at the moment will indicate what kind of sex you'll get at that moment.

Having a partner who is truly committed to your happiness says more about the sex you'll likely be having 10 years down the road.

Using these Deal Breakers probably does a much better job of ensuring a good sex life in the future than Deal Breakers that value acts performed at that time.

Blowjobs are interesting. Google Blowjobs on Reddit and you'll find half of the posts are men complaining about not getting blowjobs (or how to get more) from their partner, The other half are women wanting to get better at giving blowjobs. It's not that they are going to this effort to increase the pleasure *they receive* from giving blowjobs; it's an effort to increase the pleasure *they're giving* their partner.

I'd prefer to pick from the later group, Women who are focusing on their partner's happiness instead of just focusing on their own.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

The wife before knowing the husband for 10 years vacationed in Italy.
She is fluent in Italian.
She knows all the best places to go see and eat.
After 10 years she no longer wants to go to Italy.
She is now 28, marries her husband.
Husbands ancestors came for Italy.
He has always wanted to go there.
Does not speak the language.
He wants to go there with his wife.
She refuses, I have been there, done that and even got the T shirt.
Husband you are out of luck.

Is this fair to the husband?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> The wife before knowing the husband for 10 years vacationed in Italy.
> She is fluent in Italian.
> She knows all the best places to go see and eat.
> After 10 years she no longer wants to go to Italy.
> ...


If she's no longer interested, of course it's fair.

Likewise if the husband wants to go, there is nothing stopping him from learning the language himself, putting the money together and going there without his wife.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I think it's very childish for Steve (husband) to expect the full sex menu when it was *never* on the table in their marriage... just because she did anal and had wilder sex when she was 21. People change, their sexuality change. She is not the same person and she doesn't want to perform some sexual acts. She is attracted to him. It has nothing to do with Steve.

If my wife refused to have anal sex with me and then she told me she did it with another guy when she was younger, I would be maybe a bit annoyed at the beginning, but I would respect her choice. If I'm unhappy with my sex life, then I would seek a different sexual partner. Yes, we are in a marriage, but we need to respect boundaries. It's not a difficult concept to understand. I'm with @Lila in all of this. She's made very good points, from a female perspective.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> She said blowjobs are reserved for guys who are special to her. She gives her best sex to the best guys.
> 
> It seems strange to deny your best to your husband unless he’s not as special or not as sexually attractive.


Yep...I'd say "unless you married your H for other benefits..." safety, one of them.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Deal Breaker 1. She must find me sexually attractive. There are no clear ways to determine this, so I have no choice but to go with frequent and enthusiastic sex. *Enthusiastic sex includes doing everything in her sexual past repertoire* (assuming that they were done willingly and happily and that nothing has occurred in the meantime to make them disappear, such as physical incapability and there are no issues such as my penis being so enormous that she isn't capable of anal sex).


If the below bolded part were true, then the above bolded part wouldn't apply.



> What she's doing at the beginning of our relationship is no indication of what she may do 10 years down the road when the NRE wears off and she's feeling secure. *It isn't the sex act that's on my dealbreaker list*, it's her attraction, effort and desire to give me pleasure.


Enthusiastic sex is determined by the enthusiasm shown, not via fulfilling a transactional checklist of all actions past.

Someone can have enjoyed a kaleidoscope of sexual things in the past, yet not feel like doing all of those things going forward with someone else. Yet that doesn't prevent that person from still enthusiastically sharing sex with their current partner going forward.

That kind of demand is a terrific way to make a woman think that a man is terribly insecure, and thinks of them as property, since wanting to tick off acts from the past is transactional.

If I want a sexual partner to think fondly of past lovers, while thinking I am insecure and inadequate. I will do all that I can to make her remember her sexual past, by demanding she provide me with a sequel. Of which most sequels suck, so why any man would want that for a sex life is beyond me.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Had I know of Mary's past, I wouldn't have accepted a marriage with no complete blowjobs


Except in this scenario on the evidence, choosing a marriage without complete blowjobs is exactly what you would accept.

I have never had an ongoing sexual relationship with anyone who hasn't shared very frequent complete blowjobs, facials and all the rest with me.

The reason why I have always enjoyed such things, is because I didn't and don't settle for anything less.

If you accept less, you have chosen less and there is no way around that.

If someone wants complete blowjobs, they're not going to get them via accepting incomplete blowjobs or none at all. Nor are they entitled to them, if they have chosen a partner who won't do those things with them.

If you want more, don't settle for less.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Personal said:


> If you want more, don't settle for less.



Or, if you want more, don't accept less and complain afterwards...


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> I don't get the whole sacrifice thing as being healthy in marriage.
> 
> If being married to someone requires considerable sacrifice to be with them, then I think you've chosen the wrong partner.
> 
> I'm not with my wife because I feel an obligation to her, I am with her because I like being with her.


You like being with her because she has revealed her own self with you (sexually, mentally....etc) for who she is. NOT for who she isn't. 
You had the right to make a choice based on a truth. 

Steve chose based on a lie. A lie he was told by his W.

How would you feel if your whole 23 years with your W were a lie???

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

lovelygirl said:


> Steve chose based on a lie. A lie he was told by his W.


Why is it a lie? She never gave her husband the idea he would get wild sex when they married (or before, for that matter). The wild sex is in her past. She is entitled to change her mind regarding her sex life, what she likes and what she doesn't like, for whatever reason. She didn't change during their marriage... her approach to sex has always been the same with her husband. If he feels resentful, he is an idiot...


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> .
> 
> I’ve never met a woman like this in real life. I hope and believe they are rare. But that woman is confirming men’s worst fears about women. Her story will probably end up on a Red Pill site as an example of how all women act.


Not all women act like this but some do.
It's the same equivalency as some men's behavior prior to marriage.

Many of them hook up with sexy women to have porn-like sex but they don't consider these women as marriage-material....

...until these men meet a "good girl" who acts prudish and would be a good housewife, who'd give birth to kids and be loyal to him (even is sex is wayyy too far from the porn-style). But the prudish side of the W gives these men a sense of security.

In these scenarios, men and women have the same psychology - before & after marriage.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> When my wife and others have said "you only want me for sex", I have always agreed with them.
> 
> Why any heterosexual man would want there sexual partners to think otherwise is beyond me.


You married your wife ONLY for sex?????

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> You like being with her because she has revealed her own self with you (sexually, mentally....etc) for who she is. NOT for who she isn't.
> You had the right to make a choice based on a truth.


No I like being with her for exactly the same reasons that I did, when we started together for some temporary winter sex fun. I liked her company and thought she was fun, and I like sharing sex with her. It has never been anything about revealing herself or any other nonsense like that.

As to making decisions based on truth, since that is so often a moveable feast. I figure the only right I have is to make my choices based on what is presented, regardless of whether that is the truth or otherwise.

Oh and as an aside I certainly didn't know all about my wife's past, and I can happily say I still don't know it all.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter to me what she did or didn't do with others. Since I can't be arsed, worrying about things that I can't change. Combined with the fact that I'm not a man who suffers from a terribly fragile ego.



> Steve chose based on a lie. A lie he was told by his W.


No he didn't, there was no lie. She made it clear she wouldn't do such things and he accepted that, end of story.

He does not own her and her past does not belong to him.

He got exactly what he chose.



> How would you feel if your whole 23 years with your W were a lie???


I would get over it, life is too short and fleeting to waste it pining after might have beens.

Some things come to an end, some things don't work out, sometimes we don't get what we want or expect. Life isn't fair get over it.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

We can sit here all day and give our opinions on who we think is allowed to be hurt, but it doesn't make a bit of difference. We all fill in a million bits of conversations we were not privy to, we don't know how things were said, what was promised, how requests were denied and on it goes. We don't know what happened, we don't know why he was resentful, but even his wife knows he was, prior to this.

Some of us think he is a 'nice guy' and his resentment is his fault. Some of us think he might have been lead to believe things would change, and it is her fault. Personally, I think she thought things would change, because it seems that she actually wanted them to, but has some things she needs to process. 

The end result here is that obviously the guy was hurt, or is hurt by this situation. I am not sure how many times you guys have had the successful mitigation of pain by having someone telling you that you have no pain, or no reason to be in pain. It doesn't work. There also appears to be a wife that has some issues of her own, and seems to have been denying herself the life she would rather live as well.

In the end, like almost every thread, in every section of this forum that deals with relationships, there is a problem of communication and honesty. It always ends up with hurt people.

I find myself identifying with the guy, and while Personal may think the idea of sacrifice is stupid, that is what builds a marriage. It isn't martyrdom, it is giving of one's self for the greater good. The sum should be greater than the parts, and if the two parts are only looking out for themselves, then the whole will never be better. It should be a beautiful relationship of giving, trust, honesty, communication. So I identify with the guy, because I put myself in his place, as a person that was giving everything he had for his marriage, and it would be hurtful to find out that my partner was not. It is not that she is breaking a covert contract, or that she owes me something specific. What she owes me is living up to the vows that we made to each other, to give all of our selves to each other and work together to make our marriage the best it can be for both of us.

When I say all of our selves, I don't mean a sex act either, I mean everything. Communication, trust, honesty, compassion, time, money, sex, and most importantly working through difficulties and trying to support and love each other with all of our being.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> You married your wife ONLY for sex?????


No not only, yet it is the first and most significant reason.

That said if I didn't strongly desire her sexually, I wouldn't have married her.

As to saying "yes I only want you for sex". I say yes because it is the best answer, to give to a woman who is asking that.

Saying yes is a confirmation that I consider them to be a very lustful and highly sexual being and that I want to be with them because they are exactly that. Which can be quite exciting and on top of that, denying it will get one nowhere if the person asking finds it hard to believe.

Plus as a former professional practitioner of the dark art of Psychological Operations, I was also taught that it was better to exploit the bias and prejudices of a target audience, instead of challenging them.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

I think it’s good that the split opinion on this no longer is straight down gender lines. Some people think what Steve’s W did was an incredibly terrible thing by misleading Steve about her sexuality and lack of desire for him, and others think she did nothing wrong because she continued to deliver the vanilla sex she’d always offered. We’ll never agree on this.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> I find myself identifying with the guy, and while Personal may think the idea of sacrifice is stupid, that is what builds a marriage. It isn't martyrdom, it is giving of one's self for the greater good.


Are you saying that she should give him _fake wild sex_ for the greater good? How is the husband going to like that, knowing that this is would be the _real lie_?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> Some people think what Steve’s W did was an incredibly terrible thing by misleading Steve about her sexuality and *lack of desire for him.*


She never said that. And she never mislead him.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Tasorundo said:


> I find myself identifying with the guy, and while Personal may think the idea of sacrifice is stupid, that is what builds a marriage. It isn't martyrdom, it is giving of one's self for the greater good. The sum should be greater than the parts, and if the two parts are only looking out for themselves, then the whole will never be better. *It should be a beautiful relationship of giving, trust, honesty, communication.*


My wife and I share exactly that and much more, yet that doesn't require us to sacrifice ourselves by compromising who we are in order to accommodate each other.

It's one thing to risk ones own life, to protect a sexual partner from violence. Or to give them first aid following sudden life threatening trauma with multiple casualties, while they're bleeding all over you. Which are all things I have done for my wife.

Yet it is another to sacrifice ones right to choose and think for oneself in order to accommodate another, which is something my wife and I won't do.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> Tasorundo said:
> 
> 
> > I find myself identifying with the guy, and while Personal may think the idea of sacrifice is stupid, that is what builds a marriage. It isn't martyrdom, it is giving of one's self for the greater good.
> ...


The problem in their relationship is 10% that she denied Steve satisfying sex, and 90% that her denial of satisfying sex combined with the new information about her past proves that she’s physically repulsed by sad, ugly, pathetic, genetically inferior, worthless Steve. He is not a sexual being to her. He’s just a wallet, a friend, and a caretaker to her - a tool. A useful idiot.

Now that Steve knows the truth - that his wife finds him physically and sexually repulsive - he may not want anything to do with her. If she starts to work on the 10% by providing sex that would be consistent with finding him sexually attractive, he will know that it is a bogus act of desperation to save her marriage. Furthermore, he was denied satisfying sex for something like 25 years and there’s simply no way of fixing that.

Steve has learned the equivalent of finding out that his wife is a closeted lesbian. She was living a lie and never was sexually attracted to Steve. The woman he loved does not and never did exist; that woman is dead. A lesbian can act like she’s attracted to a man but she is not. W putting on a show, pretending to be attracted to Steve, can’t fix the underlying truth here. He must make the decision of whether to continue the sham marriage to a partner who isn’t sexually attracted to him or move on.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> proves that she’s physically repulsed by sad, ugly, pathetic, genetically inferior, worthless Steve. He is not a sexual being to her. He’s just a wallet, a friend, and a caretaker to her - a tool.


Well, these are your wild speculations...


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

@CraigBesuden nothing that she has done proves anything that you claim.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> Tasorundo said:
> 
> 
> > I find myself identifying with the guy, and while Personal may think the idea of sacrifice is stupid, that is what builds a marriage. It isn't martyrdom, it is giving of one's self for the greater good.
> ...


I am saying she owes him the truth and to work towards making their marriage the bed it can be. If that’s all it is, then he deserves to know why, what can be done, and then to make informed decisions.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Personal said:


> If she's no longer interested, of course it's fair.
> 
> Likewise if the husband wants to go, there is nothing stopping him from learning the language himself, putting the money together and going there without his wife.


Separate vacations are a sign of an unhealthy marriage.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> You may be right. Steve’s W said in the initial post that it was tearing her marriage apart and it may end her marriage. But I wouldn’t say the W failed to uphold the contract. I would say that she fraudulently induced Steve into entering into the contract. Had she told the truth - that she desperately wants to continue performing those acts but finds Steve utterly repulsive - Steve would never have married her.
> 
> Another option is that he remains in an unhappy, cold marriage. That might be worse than a divorce.
> 
> ...


I am going to respond to just the bolded comment. I will never understand why this is a proposed as incentive for men to leave long term marriages. Contrary to what the internet may say, dating in your 40s (whether woman or man) is no walk in the park. Not for women and not for women. A divorced man can be an Adonis with chiseled abs, a pocketful of benjamins, and head full of salt and pepper hair.......but he still comes with a butt load of baggage just like every divorced person out there. Baggage, that unless dealt with, will affect every future romantic relationship. He will continue to make the same mistakes.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Personal said:


> Tasorundo said:
> 
> 
> > I find myself identifying with the guy, and while Personal may think the idea of sacrifice is stupid, that is what builds a marriage. It isn't martyrdom, it is giving of one's self for the greater good. The sum should be greater than the parts, and if the two parts are only looking out for themselves, then the whole will never be better. *It should be a beautiful relationship of giving, trust, honesty, communication.*
> ...


I am not saying you have to change who you are, or some fundamental part of yourself, or hurt yourself, or subject yourself to humiliation.

I am saying you owe it to your partner to be honest, work on yourself, your marriage, question yourself and be willing to have a dialogue. You should be open to new things, willing to share and grow together over time.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

@Tasorundo
Hopefully Penny will scan this thread and read your post. She needs to see it.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

In Absentia said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > proves that she’s physically repulsed by sad, ugly, pathetic, genetically inferior, worthless Steve. He is not a sexual being to her. He’s just a wallet, a friend, and a caretaker to her - a tool.
> ...


I agree with IA. She never said she wasn't attracted to her husband. Never even hinted at it.

He's also not a "wallet". She's in finance, started early in it, and earns $$$.

Craig, it's like you are making things up and presenting these things as fact.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Livvie said:


> I agree with IA. She never said she wasn't attracted to her husband. Never even hinted at it.
> 
> He's also not a "wallet". She's in finance, started early in it, and earns $$$.
> 
> Craig, it's like you are making things up and presenting these things as fact.


I agree that she needs to open up more and give us more background, because there is way too much speculation going on here. However, there is enough information in her limited posts to draw the conclusion that she was far more sexually attracted to Dave than her husband, consciously or subconsciously. I’m very comfortable saying that.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> I am saying she owes him the truth and to work towards making their marriage the bed it can be. If that’s all it is, then he deserves to know why, what can be done, and then to make informed decisions.


They've had a long chat and she says she is not worried about their marriage anymore... we don't know what they've agreed, but I'm sure the husband will be able to make an informed decision now...


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> She never said that. And she never mislead him.


After reading her first post, I don’t know how you cannot draw the conclusion that she was more sexually attracted to Dave than her husband. She all but directly said it.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

In Absentia said:


> Well, these are your wild speculations...


More accurately, they are projections.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> More accurately, they are projections.


I think this topic is always includes a massive amount of projection.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Tiggy! said:


> I think this topic is always includes a massive amount of projection.


From all sides. It is hard not too. It doesn't even affect me, never has, and I still get visceral reactions from what I'm reading. LoL!:grin2:


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> Why is it a lie? She never gave her husband the idea he would get wild sex when they married (or before, for that matter). The wild sex is in her past. She is entitled to change her mind regarding her sex life, what she likes and what she doesn't like, for whatever reason. She didn't change during their marriage... her approach to sex has always been the same with her husband. If he feels resentful, he is an idiot...


It is a LIE because she enthusiastically had wild full menu porn star sex with Dave for 2 years, going on
numerous banging all over Europe. Wear skimpy hot dresses.

Steve comes along.

PD is not only a nice person she is hot. God how did I get such a hot looking woman.
Steve marries her.

PD, you would look good in a dress like that, would you wear one?
She responds never, so disgusting.

PD, I was not a virgin but I never got to explore sex that much. Lets explore the full menu
porn star sex?
She responds never, so disgusting.

Steve, that is not who she is, at least I am getting a lot of vanilla sex with a hot looking wife.

Along comes the GF, and says look at the photo of Dave the Stud and the Karma Sutra book remark.
The cat is out of the bag. The best part is PD thinks it was her Shades Of Gray remark that did the
damage. That was jus the icing on the cake. Her enthusiastic response to her GF's prompt showed
Steve how much PD enjoyed her 2 years banging full menu sex all over Europe with Dave.
Sad she thinks her GF should not be dumped.

Steve, can only think that his wife was more attracted to Dave to dress that way for Dave.
And, PD was morre turned on by Dave then Steve does to do all those full menu sex activities.
PD was willing to pull out all the stops to impress Dave.

Steve can only put 2 and 2 together that PD's position is for Steve to feel lucky he has a wife
that looks as hot as me an accept just plain vanilla sex.

Lying by omission.

A husband and a wife should both be willing to explore sex together. Go past their confort zones.
Can there be a hard no such as getting whipped.
Can be compromising such as do a BJ but does not have swallow. Swallowing does not make the
play and orgasm feel better.

PD's logic is no different than the single girl that was easy till felt it was time to get married.
Until she found a man that wanted to marry her. Then she became a virgin again till her 
wedding night.

This man would feel the same way Steve did when he was to find out about his wife's single years
before him.

I am sure Steve when dating PD before they got married they were sexually involved and Steve
was always trying to get full menu porn star sex from PD.

If PD would of been honest up front, look Steve I did all that porn star sex before you I will not do that
any more. Steve would of made the decision to dump her or marry here based on the truth.

Instead PD said I do not like that stuff, I am not a ****. I am not doing porn star sex with you.
Which only led Steve to think that she has never given better to any other man. So he thought
is out based on a lie and married her based on a lie.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> Tiggy! said:
> 
> 
> > I think this topic is always includes a massive amount of projection.
> ...


Agreed. This has never affected me personally, but I find it outrageous.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Okay, let’s review the original post.



Penny Dreadful said:


> I am "Penny" (47) and I have a problem that my finish my M. This problem has been caused by my actions within a relationship that started back before i met my H.
> 
> ... Flash forward three years and I am now 21. One day I am sitting at my desk reading a running magazine (this was and remains a passion of mine) when "Dave" a senior manager walks by... Dave is 39 and divorced... The sex with Dave was the very best I have ever had and very varied.
> 
> ...


also



> I have an idea why I refused Steve full menu sex. I did not care what Dave thought of me I was young and not in any relationship and I did what i wanted to do, when I met Steve there was an attraction that grew over the months and when we started to have sex I did care what he thought and did not want to come across as a **** and i walled off that part of me.


OP said that she’s not into “full menu sex.” That was a lie. Her preferences didn’t change. It was only 20 months after Dave. She doesn’t claim that her preferences changed; to the contrary, she admits that she has no good explanation for why she denied Steve anything but vanilla sex. In their conversation (second to last paragraph), she admits to always refusing oral sex and toys to Steve, let alone anything more interesting. Possibly just missionary starfish sex, but that’s not clearly stated. She also wouldn’t even dress sexily for Steve, giving him only a bland version of herself.

Steve reluctantly and resentfully accepted the vanilla sex because he believed that OP was a prude who didn’t like “full menu sex.” Now he knows the truth. She loves “full menu sex,” just not with him.

Please read the OP’s initial post. It’s all there.

The only area for speculation is WHY. I believe OP is not, and never was, physically attracted to Steve. I asked the OP to answer that question but it hasn’t been answered. All we know is that she views him as “nice” and she “loves him,” with no words or actions suggesting any physical attraction. 

We know that when she met him, she thought Steve was “nice.” Recently, watching the reality show Summer House, a girl was asked about a guy in the house she’d dated. She said he was nice. The other girls said that is a death blow - you don’t describe a man you are attracted to as “nice.” I agree.

We know from the second post I quoted above that her attraction to Steve grew over a period of months. That suggests that she lacked much physical attraction to him, and that his kind personality was enough to overcome his physical undesirability. I suspect that her attraction to Dave was powerful and immediate, though that isn’t clearly stated.

I also note that she stated that Dave was “the very best I have ever had and very varied.” That implies that she had a number of lovers before Steve and those other guys were all much better than Steve, though Dave was “the very best.” In Steve’s defense, he was never provided any opportunity to be even a decent lover. He never had the opportunity to learn and improve. It appears that Steve is the only lover in her entire life to whom she denied almost anything pleasurable or affirming (“do you know anyone else you have refused all of them to? and in a small voice i said you.”).

She describes it as a problem that may finish her M and is tearing her M apart. I would say rightfully so. I’m curious to see how this all turns out.

These are all clearly documented facts or reasonable deductions, not speculation or projection.

I would divorce her. No counseling, no discussions. Marry somebody worth a damn.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

CraigBesuden said:


> The first and third are understandable. Yes, it could be H’s behavior over time.
> 
> The second one (she has no empathy) is beside the point - why does she WANT to give the full menu to the ex, but doesn’t WANT to give it to H?
> 
> *But in the other thread (which inspired this one), the situation involved a woman deciding a different menu from the very get-go when she met the “nice guy.” So none of these would explain W’s behavior in denying “full menu sex” to Steve while loving it with Dave.*


I think we should be really clear here. This thread was NOT really inspired by the thread to which virtually ALL of the men here are referring. Although it absolutely provides ample evidence as a result, in the gulf between how females feel about this versus the males.

This thread has played out hundreds of times in my tenure here, I referenced only a handful with the opening post. Overwhelmingly, it's men starting, and posting to those threads and they usually don't go well. In fact I'm hard pressed to recall a female ever posting here about retroactive jealousy. Although as I indicated, I know that my wife has a romanticized idea of the sex that we share, should be the most mind-blowing sex that we've ever had. Which it is ... but she's not the only woman that I've ever had mind-blowing sex with. And I suspect, but don't particularly care ... that my spouse has probably had her mind blown by dudes other than me in the past. We're at the half century mark after all, and both have previous marriages and relationships.

Take the dishonesty and disinterest in a desire to perform or explore sexually with her husband from the OTHER thread, out of the equation, and the emotions behind the posts still aren't much different from what I've seen in the past.

As for why women choose to marry men they aren't wildly sexually attracted to? Well folks I imagine that could be a thread all of it's own. I also imagine it will be rather barren ... aside from a chorus of frustrated men. It would take a very brave woman to make that acknowledgment and attempt to reasonably explain why. The attacks on her would be withering. Ironically, we do have that opportunity in the OTHER thread, by which we can hope to glean information, or attack the character of the poster. I'm pretty confident on which way it will roll if she comes back.

Again, I've made abundantly clear in my posting history here. My ex-wife developed a full blown sexual aversion to me. She didn't even want non-sexual touching due to the fact that doing so could be construed as a precursor for sex. Any kind of physical contact or connection, effectively became a negative feedback loop.

But ... that is most definitely NOT where we started. She was HIGHLY sexually attracted to me while pursuing during dating and early in our marriage. And then it vanished. I can identify 4 easy factors right out of the gate; kids, self-perception (moms don't give blowjobs), physical issues (she had a number of gynecological issues).Age, what she was game for at 25 could not be used as a benchmark as to what she was game for at 35, after 2 kids. Lack, or loss of attraction to me was certainly a factor as well.

But let me make another relevant comparison. Fifty Shades of Grey. All the rage not all that long ago. Women thrilled and titillated reading about a young woman serving as a submissive to her mysterious, billionaire, emotionally scarred, sexually dominant man. People everywhere shocked and amazed that this was a 'thing'.

Were women suddenly very interested and excited by the concept of kink and D/s? Yes they were.

Were they interested and excited by the concept of exploring those subjects with their husbands? No. They most certainly were not.

I feel compelled to dip my toe back into the 'Nice Guy' pool for a moment with regard to this subject. I know that goal here is to NOT keep conflating topics ... yet they seem irretrievably intertwined.

I could be wrong ... but don't think I am, that for many men who fit the scope of 'Nice Guy', sex comes with a ton of covert contracts. If I do this, she'll want to do that. 
My blanket statement being, that if you are the kind of man that defers to, or seeks approval from his spouse, and modify your behavior to achieve those ends, odds are, you aren't the kind of guy to wrap your hand around the back of her neck, pull her in and start tongue kissing while tearing her clothes off, to bend her over the ottoman ... without asking her if that's ok first. And importantly ... if you aren't that guy and try to be? It's probably not going to go very well or be well received. It's out of character. It is not part of the dynamic that has been established.


I do feel that a lot of ground has been made however.

I cannot disagree with a man or a woman being able to express their own sexual agency. If a woman or man has participated in any given sexual activity at one point in their life (we'll use the alligator ****house for this example) and enjoyed it or not, I in no way shape or form, feel that act is 'owed' to any partner in the future.

This whole, you did it for him, but not for me? 

To me, it's sophomoric. The occurrence of the event is usually in the distant, foggy, past of youth. Unless we're talking about an affair ... which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I know it isn't all just a matter of a dude's feelings being hurt and him whining about it. But despite being aware that it affects a substantial number of man, and it's no doubt painful ... that's what it looks like. And it isn't flattering in any way, shape, or form. I don't know how a couple comes out of it, or if a man can overcome it.

Again, even in that other ongoing thread, the OP made it pretty clear, those activities and her enjoyment of them are roughly 20 years in the rear view mirror from where she is with her husband today. I'm making the contrast about time ... not advocating that lying to your spouse about what flavors you've had previously and whether or not you enjoyed them.

I think I've typed enough for now. 

For clarity ... this isn't directed at you Craig. You just made the post reference that spawned the thoughts I wanted to share with all participating.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Again, even in that other ongoing thread, the OP made it pretty clear, those activities and her enjoyment of them are roughly 20 years in the rear view mirror from where she is with her husband today.


I liked this post and agreed with much of it. Just wanted to point out that it was 20 months between the end of Dave and the beginning of Steve.:wink2:


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

ConanHub said:


> I liked this post and agreed with much of it. Just wanted to point out that it was 20 months between the end of Dave and the beginning of Steve.:wink2:


Well, **** ... so much for my reading comprehension.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

> But ... that is most definitely NOT where we started. She was HIGHLY sexually attracted to me while pursuing during dating and early in our marriage. And then it vanished. I can identify 4 easy factors right out of the gate; kids, *self-perception (moms don't give blowjobs)*, physical issues (she had a number of gynecological issues).Age


Although I find it strange, if women have this view, it can explain away the worst of PD’s behavior. If she believes that good wives only have starfish sex, she might be attracted to Steve after all.

I’m reminded of a scene in Me, Myself & Irene. The old men are leering at a beautiful young woman pushing a baby cart. Jim Carey’s retarded character gives them a strange look says, “She’s a mommy.” The old men look at each other and start laughing uproariously.

>>There's something both incredibly touching and annoying about his Charlie. When he catches the guys down at the local barbershop leering at a young knockout as she pushes a baby stroller along the sidewalk, he cries out in innocent outrage, "Guys, she's a mom!" -- and you're not sure whether you'd rather give him a reassuring hug or hang a "Kick me" sign on his back.<<

https://www.salon.com/2000/06/23/irene/


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I figured people would be focused on googling 'alligator ****house'.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> I figured people would be focused on googling 'alligator ****house'.


I'm going to admit to being afraid of going there.:grin2:


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> Sure, you can respond as you please.
> 
> I would say "I don't feel like it", or "I am not interested". Sometimes that's as far as the reason goes.
> 
> If my wife then has a problem with that, it's her problem to resolve as she pleases.


That's a very selfsish statement and POV. 
Then, if you are not willing to fulfil your SO's needs, why be with her???

The same goes with sex and EVERYYHING in marriage.

Why have sex with your SO? Go and masturbate or go with someone just for sex or even FWB.

What if she tells you she doesn't want to have sex for 2 months straight....?? no reason nedeed....
You likely would have divorced her because your needs wouldn't be met. 

So why don't you bother meeting hers as well?? 
If I saw my parnter post such selfshish statements, I would never ever want to see him again! 

Sorry, but this post of yours makes me throw up. 
I have usually liked your posts.... but this one...just...I don't know. 



Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

The Middleman said:


> Where I come from, "No reason needed" earns you a middle finger salute, no matter what the topic.


Yep. Truest words ever! I'd probably act the same way...

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> So if someone isn't all of that sexually, with the generic you. And you don't like it then let them go.
> 
> It really is that simple, if you don't like something don't put up with it.
> 
> That said if you do put up with something you don't like, have the integrity to own your choices and accept all responsibility for the choices you make.


You make it sound so black&white as if things were so easy. The lack of empathy and compassion and understanding...is something that makes me have a very low respect for that person.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

The Middleman said:


> After reading her first post, I don’t know how you cannot draw the conclusion that she was more sexually attracted to Dave than her husband. She all but directly said it.


I'm afraid, I can't. She never said it and it's your own speculation (again).


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

oldtruck said:


> If PD would of been honest up front, look Steve I did all that porn star sex before you I will not do that
> any more. Steve would of made the decision to dump her or marry here based on the truth.
> 
> Instead PD said I do not like that stuff, I am not a ****. I am not doing porn star sex with you.
> ...



Why is it a lie? She never promised him porn star sex. There rest are just speculations. I'm out of this thread.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Have you ever heard the expression, “If you don’t already understand, you wouldn’t understand it if I explained it to you”?

I generally don’t like that approach. I’d prefer to hone in clearly on the facts and distill things down to their essence, and keep repeating until one of us convinces the other that he or she is wrong. But after countless attempts, I don’t think that’s possible here.

Someone noted that it seems that only men have retroactive jealousy. Have you ever seen “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants”? I’m not sure if this is “retroactive” jealousy, but she’s comparing how she is treated versus the way her dad treats his new family. She’s upset with her dad about the other family. He says it’s his fault, he should have warned her. She replies yes, but it is more than that. Carmen is upset that her father prays with his new family and goes to church with them, but wouldn’t do that with her family. And so much more:

https://youtu.be/GH0oQTL0HKA

I’m sure that some will look down on Carmen, that’s she is irrational for noticing how her father treats his new family better than he ever treated hers, and how he treats her stepbrothers better than her. They are totally different relationships, right?

What is Carmen’s problem? Is it lack of self-esteem? Is she controlling and wants power to control her father’s behavior? What is wrong with Carmen to be upset about the situation?

These are entirely different relationships. Her father didn’t promise Carmen anything that he didn’t deliver on.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> oldtruck said:
> 
> 
> > If PD would of been honest up front, look Steve I did all that porn star sex before you I will not do that
> ...


If you say you don’t like doing X, but in reality you love it but don’t want him to think you are a **** for liking/doing X, is that a lie?

If you say you don’t like X, but in reality you love X but just not with him, is that a lie?

PD claims that the former is true. Many of us question whether the latter is actually the case. But either way appears to be a lie in my eyes.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> I'm afraid, I can't. She never said it and it's your own speculation (again).


That’s your opinion, or your own speculation, or possibly poor reading comprehension.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> I think it would also be true if *sex was not the only thing that mattered in a committed relationship*, but it was one of several things that mattered.





Buddy400 said:


> If you truly think that men in a committed relationship value sex less than "intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection" then I think you don't understand men.
> 
> *For men, all of those other qualities to mention generally come along as a result of a satisfying sex life*.


So which is it @Buddy400? Is sex the only quality needed for a man or not because what I'm reading in your first statement is that it's not, but then in the second bolded statement you're saying it's the basis for every other relationship value. In other words, the other qualities will never manifest unless their is satisfying sex. That's pretty much like saying flour isn't the most important ingredient to baking a cake but without the flour, there is no cake. That makes flour the most important ingredient, correct?

And I'm going to make a correction to one of your statements.......
"_For SOME men, all of those other qualities to mention generally come along as a result of a satisfying sex life_." as indicated by the very many men who self-report only needing their belly to be full and their balls to be empty. 



Buddy400 said:


> If you're sure your right, tell men that would like to be in a committed relationship with that, while you'll have sex with random hookups, you don't really anticipate wanting sex with them but they can count on "intimacy, vulnerability, emotional connection, understanding, compromise, and genuine affection".
> 
> Let's see how that goes.


I never said that sex wasn't important but I have been saying that it's not the ONLY thing. There needs to be compatibility all of the way around for a successful relationship.



Buddy400 said:


> I think you're mostly venting that men don't behave they way that you'd prefer them to.
> 
> Join the club. Lots of men are complaining that women don't behave the way men would prefer them to.


I am not venting any more or less than all of the other people who have posted here with opposing views to mine, yours included.

Again I will correct your statement: I am posting my observation that "_men don't behave the way they say they do _". 





Buddy400 said:


> I don't really understand the "no reason needed" meme.
> 
> This isn't a rando, it's your committed partner, the person you love, the person who has committed themselves to you, the person whose happiness is supposedly important to you.
> 
> ...


You're correct. "No reason needed" is not acceptable however "I'm not interested" is acceptable. Unfortunately, "I'm not interested" does not appear to be an acceptable response to many people. To them it's the equivalent of "no reason given" when in fact lack of interest is a valid reason. 

In all honesty, the people I have interacted with who do not accept "I'm not interested" are the same ones that will get upset with every reason given unless it's a reason they find personally acceptable.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Deejo said:


> Were women suddenly very interested and excited by the concept of kink and D/s? Yes they were.
> 
> Were they interested and excited by the concept of exploring those subjects with their husbands? No. They most certainly were not.


I've never read 50 shades but have watched and got off to some porn that I have zero interest in trying in real life, there's a difference between getting excited about a concept and wanting to explore those concepts. Some women get off on the thought of rape, doesn't mean that she actually wants to be raped or doesn't want her husband to rape her because he's a 'nice guy' who she's not sexually attracted to, it's just a fantasy.




> I cannot disagree with a man or a woman being able to express their own sexual agency. If a woman or man has participated in any given sexual activity at one point in their life (we'll use the alligator ****house for this example) and enjoyed it or not, I in no way shape or form, feel that act is 'owed' to any partner in the future.
> 
> This whole, you did it for him, but not for me?


I think that's the issue for me, as someone who has enjoyed certain sex acts in the past but now don't enjoy them anymore I find these threads both amusing and disturbing. There are numerous reasons someone could not want to do a, b and c in bed with their partner (even though they've done it in the past) that has zero to do with how attracted she is to her partner, less attraction could be a reason but it isn't the only possible reason like some try to claim.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

The Middleman said:


> That’s your opinion, or your own speculation, or possibly poor reading comprehension.


Likewise... :wink2:


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

In Absentia said:


> oldtruck said:
> 
> 
> > If PD would of been honest up front, look Steve I did all that porn star sex before you I will not do that
> ...


I'm with IA. 

Because here's the thing. Just because you liked something in the past, DOESN'T MEAN YOU LIKE IT forever. Doesn't mean you want to always engage in it, or even again. Doesn't mean that not liking a past action a couple of years later is LYING.

Reading people opine that changing likes and dislikes are **lying** is raising my blood pressure, and this stuff isn't even part of my life experience---it's not like I'm having a reaction based on experience.

I just really dislike it when people make judgments and keep pounding their subjective judgments as if they are truths.

I am out, as well.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

The Middleman said:


> As in - she should be willing to do for her husband what she enthusiastically did for her former lover.



No. Just no. 

People can change and that’s ok. 

I just think she should think about why that’s the case, and have an open conversation about it is all.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> It doesn't matter if she did them for the entire Green Bay Packers, their coaches and the equipment staff. She never did them for her boyfriend, then husband. Full stop. That relationship should have never gotten to the altar. He should have stopped at the point where she said "I'm sorry, I don't give bjs" and run, not walk away. That's a boundary on a deal breaker.




I think you’re missing the point: honesty. 

And I wonder why.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> This whole, you did it for him, but not for me?
> 
> To me, it's sophomoric. The occurrence of the event is usually in the distant, foggy, past of youth.



Wow, do I ever disagree.

For one thing, it’s very different to say “I did that in the past and I don’t want to do it again,” and “that’s a hard no forever... just for you.”

The first answer can inspire an interesting conversation about likes and dislikes, and can yield a very positive result for both if handled correctly and lovingly by both sides.

The second can yield a similar result if handled correctly, but is going to be a lot more uncomfortable even if true. Because if attraction or sexually settling is the issue, then both sides can now make an informed - if ****ty - decision about where to take the relationship.

The worst case scenario, I think, is “I’ve never done that and won’t do it” when they have done it, did like it, would be open to doing it again, just not with their husband... and the husband gets blindsided by it after years/decades of not being honest about it, and being led down the garden path by his wife.

And for what it’s worth, I have been hit up by retroactive jealousy myself - meaning, a girlfriend in the past became very jealous about my past. I spectacularly mismanaged that situation, and I totally blew any chance of a relationship with her as a consequence. And that’s on me.

The problem is not necessarily just one of autonomy. It’s also one of responsibility and accountability to your partner.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Again I have too much to catch up on but I’d like to note that for myself and all the women I have talked to, being more sexual with a man has very little to do with attraction and much more to do with feeling emotionally and physically safe. 

I am freakier with men who I feel safe showing that side of me to. Men who I know won’t use hurtful phrasing and words or judge me. 

I think women shouldn’t marry a man she doesn’t feel this safety with. 

Some things that make women feel unsafe are: when men act like a victim, pout, be passive aggressive, lose their temper, break boundaries, sl** shame other women, not caring for her emotionally (hey babe, I see that you’re tired. Leave the dishes for me and go soak in the tub for a bit) 

This is why many times it is done with ONS because the safety then becomes that you never see them again so you don’t care.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

@Marduk
People can change and that’s ok. 
_Absolutely_ 

I just think she should think about why that’s the case, and have an open conversation about it is all.
_This is a must, and there should be no holding back on the discussion. Part of that examination and conversation needs to be “will you do that for me if I ask?” I know I would ask the question. Depending on her husband’s personality and how upset he is, an answer of “No” could mean the end of the marriage. Now Penny might be OK with that, but she is at fault, not so much that she doesn’t want to do that stuff now, but because how the truth came out. Putting myself in his shoes, the best she can hope for is a zombie marriage, just going through the motions. So, I stick by my original statement._

Edit: This couple will need professional counseling.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Marduk said:


> I think you’re missing the point: honesty.
> 
> And I wonder why.


She has a take it as is hard line that she both accepts and gives. She isn't trying to represent every woman with her statements in reality she is sharing insights into how her mind works.

Mine doesn't work that way and neither does Mrs. Conan's and many others don't either but I respect that she would accept the same deal she is giving.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> She has a take it as is hard line that she both accepts and gives. She isn't trying to represent every woman with her statements in reality she is sharing insights into how her mind works.
> 
> 
> 
> Mine doesn't work that way and neither does Mrs. Conan's and many others don't either but I respect that she would accept the same deal she is giving.



It would seem that many of the stories share common elements:

Wife’s side:
1. deceit as to her past
2. deceit as to her preferences (maybe even with herself)
3. deceit as to her sexual relationship with her husband
4. fear of how her husband would judge her, or fear for the marriage
5. perceptions of societal norms for how a wife should be
6. maybe the biggest thing - mismanagement of the relationship, particularly how this information comes to light

Husband’s side:
1. building resentment for what they want sexually, but moving forward with the relationship anyway
2. believing the sexual relationship is better than it is
3. not being able to disconnect ‘who she was’ from ‘who she is’
4. being jealous that other men got to experience her in ways he cannot
5. not setting up non-judgemental conversations/relationship to enable honesty
6. mixing together responses to dishonesty, jealousy, and feelings of inadequacy 

So I think it’s both sides.

Unfortunately both sides lead to a crisis point for the relationship - and I for one would likely just walk away at that point, because by then you’re both in a no-win scenario.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> The first answer can inspire an interesting conversation about likes and dislikes, and can yield a very positive result for both if handled correctly and lovingly by both sides.


I'm very curious what you consider "a very positive result for both"?


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Marduk said:


> It would seem that many of the stories share common elements:
> 
> Wife’s side:
> 1. deceit as to her past Check
> ...


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

When PD said that she has no idea why she denied nearly all sex acts to her H will giving them openly and freely to her prior lovers, and later thought that it might be that didn’t want Steve to think that she’s a ****...

Was she lying in her posts and actually had a sudden change in preferences upon meeting Steve? Why are you calling her a liar, without any evidence in her posts that her preferences changed? Is your claim that her preferences changed just wild speculation or projection?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

OK so people can change and she decided that she didn't need to make any effort in their sex life. Well her husband saw she happily gave herself more openly to another man before he met him and he changed. Maybe he is deciding that sacrificing his sexual life to an ineffectual wife isn't something he wants to do anymore. Using your logic why should she should just get over it right? People change. :yawn2:


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> She has a take it as is hard line that she both accepts and gives. She isn't trying to represent every woman with her statements in reality she is sharing insights into how her mind works.
> 
> Mine doesn't work that way and neither does Mrs. Conan's and many others don't either but I respect that she would accept the same deal she is giving.


You are correct @ConanHub. I don't think I've once said "women think like this". I have expressed my personal opinions and defended those as such.

I don't expect what I can't myself give or not give. I try to express myself as efficiently as possible in terms of deal breakers and boundaries with potential partners. Less words, less chance of confusion. I present my likes/dislikes in terms that do not reference my history. My goal is simply to figure out if the person in front of me will be compatible today. Tomorrow is not guaranteed. 

The men I am most attracted to are the ones who say what they mean and mean what they say, and are unafraid to state their boundaries and deal breakers and stick to them. I don't need to know the reasons behind them only whether or not those boundaries/deal breakers work with me. Example.. I went out a couple of times with a man who was as straight shooter as they come. He knew exactly what he wanted and he was not afraid to express that to me. I really, really liked him but didn't continue the relationship beyond the second date. One of his deal breakers was that he expected to see any woman he dates a few days a week. I told him that his schedule wouldn't work for me. He didn't ask my reasons why (it was due to custody scheduling). He just let me know that a relationship with me would not work for him. Done, and I have the utmost respect for him for making his boundaries known.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

To me if it's reasonable for the wife's mindset to be sex is really unimportant in the marriage. She doesn't need to put effort into it. If she chooses a husband basically for security and because he makes a good father. Then once the kids are grown the husband should leave her move on to someone who wants to put some sexual effort into him. After all he has fulfilled what she married him for. He basically put about the same effort into what there mutual goals were maybe even unbeknownst to him. She has no right to complain. 

Now I don't agree with that but that is the kind of selfishness that people who think this is OK are advocating for. 

Being married to a women who never gives herself to you passionately is like being married to a husband who never tells you your beautiful.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I'm very curious what you consider "a very positive result for both"?



OK let’s use BDSM as an example.

Husband: “I’ve always wanted to tie you up.”

Wife: “I don’t want to do that.”

Decision 1: husband to take it further respectfully.

Husband: “Ok, I respect your decision, but can I ask why?”

Decision 2: wife to crack the door open to honesty a little.

Wife: “I’m just not comfortable doing it with you.”

Decision 3: husband to set up a safe space.

Husband: “I want to talk about this more, but I want you to know that you can tell me anything and I won’t judge you, and I will never try to force you to do something you don’t want to do. Is this something you’ve done in the past and didn’t like it, or is it something you did like but you don’t want to do it with me, or is the whole idea of it not interesting to you?”

Decision 4: wife to be compassionately honest

Wife: “I did it before, and I did like it sometimes. It’s just not something I’ve ever considered doing with you because:
A: we don’t have that kind of relationship
B: I’m not that person anymore and aren’t interested
C: I’m afraid you’ll think less of me if we do it”

A means they can then choose to work on their sexual relationship and push some boundaries that they’re both interested in, or do gentle trial runs, or just accept that they don’t have that kind of relationship because she’s not that sexual with her husband. Like using soft bondage like “hold your hands above your head for me,” safe words, or other power dynamics that aren’t BDSM could be explored. Or just an acknowledgement that sex doesn’t take primacy in their relationship because it’s primarily about other things. The husband could either accept this, or choose to leave as a result - both are positive in my view.

B means it’s a hard no, probably forever, and he should drop it unless she brings it up at a future point.

C means they can now expand the boundaries of the “wife” role, or what it would mean to him if she were more sexual, and how they both can create a more trusting and compassionate environment. Plus things like safe words, exploring light bondage that she can get out of, etc.

That’s kinda what I was thinking. Handled right, and any way it goes it’s a good thing. Ignore it, or have the information come out the wrong way, and it’s a very bad thing.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> OK let’s use BDSM as an example.
> 
> Husband: “I’ve always wanted to tie you up.”
> 
> ...


This is honestly such a foreign conversation to me. 

My conversation would look like this:

Husband: “I’ve always wanted to tie you up.”

Wife: “I am not interested in doing that.”

Decision 1: husband to take it further respectfully.

Husband: “Ok, I respect your decision, but can I ask why?”

Decision 2: Wife being 100% honest.

Wife: “I am just not interested in being tied up but I will gladly tie you up if you are interested.”

That's kind of it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> So which is it @Buddy400? Is sex the only quality needed for a man or not because what I'm reading in your first statement is that it's not, but then in the second bolded statement you're saying it's the basis for every other relationship value. In other words, the other qualities will never manifest unless their is satisfying sex. That's pretty much like saying flour isn't the most important ingredient to baking a cake but without the flour, there is no cake. That makes flour the most important ingredient, correct?


To clarify, it is my belief that the most important thing for most men in a committed relationship is sex. However, that is not to say that it's the ONLY thing that matters. In reality, those other qualities are most often found in committed relationships where the man is happy with his sex life.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> This is honestly such a foreign conversation to me.
> 
> My conversation would look like this:
> 
> ...


Husband has two choices.

Choice 1:

Husband: Sure!

Choice 2:

Husband: Nah that's not my thing, but you tell me something we can do to spice up our sex life?

Wife has two choices"

Choice 1:

Wife:  How about role play? (Or whatever it is but effort is made/.)

Husband: Great sounds like fun! "Thinks to himself this isn't my first choice but great this should be fun for us, we can grow closer."


Choice2:

Wife: Thinks to herself "Why is he bothering me with this, this is really unimportant. This is who I am why should I have to change it. 

Wife: I am happy with how it is.

Husband: thinks to himself, "We are not growing in your sex life, She doesn't care about me enough to even try, maybe I made a mistake marrying this person." 

Marriage suffers.

Now I am not saying she should do something she is uncomfortable with but I am saying she would do better to make some effort. Understand where your advice leads. It doesn't operate in a vacuum and problems will lead to problems in the marriage if not worse. But hey she gets to have a short time of comfort.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Is it all that different though?

Part of me has had to try and put myself in the shoes of others on this whole thing ... because the circumstances that everyone is referring to, have just never happened to me. Although, as I've pointed out, I've had a partner close and lock the door on sexuality ... but after we had already had a period of high sexuality.

I just can't shake that everyone is putting this into the context of that new thread. A woman logged on, and with her first post, started throwing around trigger terms that DIRECTLY appear in other RJ threads. The details are extreme and quite obviously damning. People are STILL posting on that thread telling the poster what evil she's done, and how she's trashed her marriage. I'm not defending what she did. But c'mon ... this subject and it's attendant behavior ... regardless of whether or not deceit is in play, gets beat into the ground. At least 10 guys logged onto that thread and basically posted the exact same thing.

So yes, I do not disagree with you in that being openly disingenuous if/when asked about your sexual past is never a good call. Yet I completely get why women do it. Because they get judged. Harshly. For the guy that rather than using his own sexual agency, and decides to walk, but instead stays, and continues to take out his 'pain' on his partner, rather than leave or insist on, work towards a solution? 

I have no sympathy for that guy. Yes. I stand by my statement that his behavior is sophomoric.



I'm referring to the guys that think their partner has a low/no partner count ... and find out they do. Woman discloses she was sexually abused after marrying and the guy STILL feels betrayed, rather than acknowledging his partner shared a highly private trauma. Finds old letters, comes into contact with a former lover ... and on and on. It's all happened here. 

Still seems pretty easy to blame the woman for lying at that point ... yet STILL involves the very topic of this thread. **** shaming.

We've had some women here share some very personal details and opinions. There is yet a man to post about how he feels about retroactive jealousy, what impact the struggle has on his relationship, and how or if he has overcome it. 

Why is that, I wonder?

But there are plenty of guys saying, "Well of course he's going to be devastated." And I don't disagree with that fact. But being devastated, even about being lied to, and punishing your partner or suffering quietly, and developing resentment as a result of retroactive jealousy, I believe, are different things. 


Now I'm rather curious if anyone has read any of the other links I posted.





Marduk said:


> Wow, do I ever disagree.
> 
> For one thing, it’s very different to say “I did that in the past and I don’t want to do it again,” and “that’s a hard no forever... just for you.”
> 
> ...


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

I don’t think a person has a responsibility to treat all lovers (past, present and future) equally. If you didn’t like something in the past, you shouldn’t have to repeat it.

If I were to be single again, I might ask a lot more questions up front. OLD helps with doing this, though I don’t know if a list of requirements on your profile would get you immediately passed over. It’s also considered bad form to do that on a first date.

I would certainly discuss all marriage-type issues (finances, sex, etc) ahead of engagement. I think that’s a good policy. 

Maybe being older I wouldn’t assume as much about marriage. If the person met my requirements, I probably wouldn’t care about the whys and wherefores. And if the person didn't, I wouldn’t care why, either.

I don’t think, though, that you can avoid marrying a closeted homosexual by saying you must be heterosexual. Especially given that many Christians, seeing scripture that homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom, will interpret homosexual to refer to conduct rather than orientation.

A knew a single woman who would ask questions like, “Do you have a girlfriend?” When he says no, she asks, “Is there a woman who believes she is your girlfriend?” Surprise, the questions didn’t work - the guys lied and she briefly ended up dating a guy with a girlfriend.

I also think that having a long list of disqualifiers might mean that you’re eliminating many quality people. And it seems awkward and unsexy to many.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> Decision 2: Wife being 100% honest.
> 
> Wife: “I am just not interested in being tied up but I will gladly tie you up if you are interested.”


Jeez, that level of honesty would get me pegged. 

That was a joke, she is not interested in pegging and I respect that.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Personal said:


> When my wife and others have said "you only want me for sex", I have always agreed with them.
> 
> Why any heterosexual man would want there sexual partners to think otherwise is beyond me.


I know I am about 100 posts behind at this point, but it bears repeating.

Never...ever...ever agree with your partner shaming you for being (or wanting them to be) sexual.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Personal said:


> Sure, you can respond as you please.
> 
> I would say "I don't feel like it", or "I am not interested". Sometimes that's as far as the reason goes.
> 
> If my wife then has a problem with that, it's her problem to resolve as she pleases.


Also worth repeating.

Nobody has to explain why they are not okay with something. In fact, explaining it can give the impression that it may be negotiable. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Deejo said:


> I just can't shake that everyone is putting this into the context of a thread that from a moderation perspective, is still highly suspect. A woman logged on, and with her first post, started throwing around trigger terms that DIRECTLY appear in other RJ threads. The details are extreme and quite obviously damning. People are STILL posting on that thread telling the poster what evil she's done, and how she's trashed her marriage. I'm not defending what she did. But c'mon ... this subject and it's attendant behavior ... regardless of whether or not deceit is in play, gets beat into the ground. At least 10 guys logged onto that thread and basically posted the exact same thing.


If you weren't a moderator you would be warned for that, but since you are I can say I agree. The tell to me is she bolds the fact that he doesn't care about her previous adventures therefore effectively taking away the retroactive jealousy argument. 

In the same respect people should be able to respond however they want assuming they follow the rules. If 10 people log on and say the same thing it's because the feeling is pretty much universal. Sorry if a few posters disagree and happen to be moderators doesn't mean they aren't the outliers. No really to get upset about it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

sokillme said:


> If you weren't a moderator you would be warned for that, but since you are I can say I agree. The tell to me is she bolds the fact that he doesn't care about her previous adventures therefore effectively taking away the retroactive jealousy argument.
> 
> In the same respect people should be able to respond however they want assuming they follow the rules. If 10 people log on and say the same thing it's because the feeling is pretty much universal. Sorry if a few posters disagree and happen to be moderators doesn't mean they aren't the outliers. No really to get upset about it.


You're right. Bad judgement on my part. But I don't feel compelled to remove it under the circumstances, we're now discussing.

And I don't have a problem with the fact that 10 guys logged on and said the same thing, aside from acknowledging that this is quite obviously a HUGE trigger for people, which is why I hoped we could isolate the discussion about why, outside the confines of the thread.

It ain't pretty, and it doesn't have to be. I've read lots of great posts on this thread.

I've made more 'Likes' in the last 48 hours than I think I have in the previous 6 years.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

In retrospect, I wish I’d never posted in these two never-ending threads. I won’t quite use the word “awesome” but I’ll say incredible and unbelievable.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Husband: Nah that's not my thing, but you tell me something we can do to spice up our sex life?
> 
> Wife has two choices"
> 
> ...



See my responses would be different in this scenario as well:

Husband: Nah that's not my thing, but you tell me something we can do to spice up our sex life?

Wife: I am content with our sex life. If you would like to spice things up why don't you suggest something you're interested in doing?

Husband: thinks to himself, "We are not growing in your sex life, She doesn't care about me enough to even try, maybe I made a mistake marrying this person." 

Meanwhile wife is thinking: "He doesn't seem content with our sex life. I must not be exciting to him anymore. He needs more and more and more to keep him sexually satisfied. " 

And if it was me I'd tell him "stop watching porn. it's poisoning your mind" :grin2:

But seriously, the wife's side is just as valid as the husband's. One person is asking for more while the other is wondering WTF? What I was doing was good enough but now it's not. Why would that be?


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> Okay, let’s review the original post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I assume married 20+ years now. I see this becoming turned around if PD can get
over her aversion to having full menu sex with Steve.


----------



## curious2 (Jan 13, 2013)

10 TAM posters saying the same exact thing doesn’t make something universal.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

> The tell to me is she bolds the fact that he doesn't care about her previous adventures therefore effectively taking away the retroactive jealousy argument.


I failed to catch that. I noticed the all caps, thought it odd, but thought nothing more of it. Agreed.

Let me reiterate that I have never met a AFBB woman IRL. I believe they are very rare and exist primarily in the minds of the Red Pillers.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

TAM is not universal. TAM is bordering on MGTOW most of the time. 

It goes through stages but I’ve been on and off for years and it’s always the same type of men because they validate each other here.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> "He doesn't seem content with our sex life. I must not be exciting to him anymore. He needs more and more and more to keep him sexually satisfied. "


In the context of what I asked which was basically putting the ball in your court but asking for more, then you would not be operating out of empathy. Not a good place to be as a spouse IMO. Your marriage will suffer, and IMO is should.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> In the context of what I asked which was basically putting the ball in your court but asking for more, then you would not be operating out of empathy. Not a good place to be as a spouse IMO. Your marriage will suffer, and IMO is should.


Sometimes these impasses happen for a reason when the couple is no longer sexually compatible And I think when that happens, the marriage should end. 

Mine ended. It was not a happy thing for me to go through but my ex is much happier with the woman with whom he is with now. She is more sexually compatible to him than I could ever be and there is nothing about what she provides him that would make me feel good. Their dynamic works for them. It could never have worked for me.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> This is honestly such a foreign conversation to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That’s fine if that’s as far as you want to take this stuff. 

But it’s also kinda static, no?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> See my responses would be different in this scenario as well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Except one is closed and restrictive and the other is open and expansive. 

Which is kinda what sex and love should be, to me.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> That’s fine if that’s as far as you want to take this stuff.
> 
> But it’s also kinda static, no?


No, why do you think that? There is change, and the couple is trying something new.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> Sometimes these impasses happen for a reason when the couple is no longer sexually compatible And I think when that happens, the marriage should end.
> 
> Mine ended. It was not a happy thing for me to go through but my ex is much happier with the woman with whom he is with now. She is more sexually compatible to him than I could ever be and there is nothing about what she provides him that would make me feel good. Their dynamic works for them. It could never have worked for me.


OK, that' a fair take, sad but fair, I would say it's hard to do marriage if you are not willing to work on compromise. That being said, I don't necessarily think it's good advice in a thread like the one we are referencing here. She is specifically asking for help to SAVE her marriage. Now if she was saying, I can't and won't change but I want to save our marriage, then this makes sense and is often the advice I give to people who were cheated on. Everything in life ends and some things should. 

Truthfully the problem in that thread doesn't have anything to do with sexual compatible, they have no basis to even decide that because she has never been honest about who she is.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Is it all that different though?
> 
> Part of me has had to try and put myself in the shoes of others on this whole thing ... because the circumstances that everyone is referring to, have just never happened to me. Although, as I've pointed out, I've had a partner close and lock the door on sexuality ... but after we had already had a period of high sexuality.
> 
> ...




It’s still a polarizing stance, when I don’t think it needs to be. 

In fact, I think that’s kinda the problem. You’re not working together on stuff, you’re singing from two different song sheets, and you’re doing it while intentionally managing each other’s perception instead of just being sincere. 

I know you’re trying hard to take this in a different direction, but I think people are missing the opportunity in this, and taking a stance that contracts and restricts experience for artificial, or ego-based reasons.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> No, why do you think that? There is change, and the couple is trying something new.




I should have been clear, sorry. Was ruminating on the “stop watching porn” and the “I’m never enough for my husband” stuff.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Marduk said:


> It’s still a polarizing stance, when I don’t think it needs to be.
> 
> In fact, I think that’s kinda the problem. You’re not working together on stuff, you’re singing from two different song sheets, and you’re doing it while intentionally managing each other’s perception instead of just being sincere.
> 
> I know you’re trying hard to take this in a different direction, but I think people are missing the opportunity in this, and taking a stance that contracts and restricts experience for artificial, or ego-based reasons.


Yeah I agree, anytime you are inauthentic in marriage you are doing it wrong and your marriage will probably suffer.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Except one is closed and restrictive and the other is open and expansive.
> 
> Which is kinda what sex and love should be, to me.


I think that what you and I are describing is basic incompatibility. Where one person needs more variety and the other person needs more consistency. 

I see this type of incompatibility often on TAM where someone posts that their spouse has "no imagination", "no creativity", "no fantasies", etc... This usually comes out when the person asks their spouse to tell them what they want to try sexually. And the spouse responds with "nothing, I am content with the way things are". 

There are people who are completely content with keeping the status quo. There are others who need lots of variety and always interested in trying new things. Nothing wrong with either but they aren't compatible.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> OK, that' a fair take, sad but fair, I would say it's hard to do marriage if you are not willing to work on compromise. That being said, I don't necessarily think it's good advice in a thread like the one we are referencing here. *She is specifically asking for help to SAVE her marriage*. Now if she was saying, I can't and won't change but I want to save our marriage, then this makes sense and is often the advice I give to people who were cheated on. Everything in life ends and some things should.
> 
> Truthfully the problem in that thread doesn't have anything to do with sexual compatible, they have no basis to even decide that because she has never been honest about who she is.


The only thing that may help save her marriage is marriage counseling with someone specialized in sexual therapy.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I think that what you and I are describing is basic incompatibility. Where one person needs more variety and the other person needs more consistency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see that. Although I find I personally go through periods where I just want the good old tried and true great experience for both... and then periods of “hey I have this crazy idea.”

9 times out of 10 it’s either a hard no, or we try it once and decide it’s not for us, or it only lasts a few minutes before we tap out. 

But that 1 time out of 10 when we discover something that’s going to be added to our tried and true list is pure magic. 

Thanks for pushing me around on this Lila. I see your side, please don’t think that I don’t.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> OK, that' a fair take, sad but fair,* I would say it's hard to do marriage if you are not willing to work on compromise. * That being said, I don't necessarily think it's good advice in a thread like the one we are referencing here. She is specifically asking for help to SAVE her marriage. Now if she was saying, I can't and won't change but I want to save our marriage, then this makes sense and is often the advice I give to people who were cheated on. Everything in life ends and some things should.
> 
> Truthfully the problem in that thread doesn't have anything to do with sexual compatible, they have no basis to even decide that because she has never been honest about who she is.


Another thing, it is incredibly important to recognize that compromise is not an automatic, nor should it be. Again, each person has boundaries and deal breakers.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> Why is it a lie? She never promised him porn star sex. There rest are just speculations. I'm out of this thread.


20 months prior to meeting Steve was giving Dave full menu porn star sex.
For 2 years. Then she tells Steve I am not into that. What kind of girl do you think
I am?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> I can see that. Although I find I personally go through periods where I just want the good old tried and true great experience for both... and then periods of “hey I have this crazy idea.”
> 
> 9 times out of 10 it’s either a hard no, or we try it once and decide it’s not for us, or it only lasts a few minutes before we tap out.
> 
> ...


Oh I know you see all sides of the argument. 

I bring it up to show that every decision we make has an impact on the future.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Lila said:


> So which is it @Buddy400? Is sex the only quality needed for a man or not because what I'm reading in your first statement is that it's not, but then in the second bolded statement you're saying it's the basis for every other relationship value. In other words, the other qualities will never manifest unless their is satisfying sex. That's pretty much like saying flour isn't the most important ingredient to baking a cake but without the flour, there is no cake. That makes flour the most important ingredient, correct?
> 
> And I'm going to make a correction to one of your statements.......
> "_For SOME men, all of those other qualities to mention generally come along as a result of a satisfying sex life_." as indicated by the very many men who self-report only needing their belly to be full and their balls to be empty.
> ...



Different words same meaning when: I'm not interested is given when a woman is
hiding her past with Dave to her new man Steve.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> Different words same meaning when: I'm not interested is given when a woman is
> hiding her past with Dave to her new man Steve.


I can't speak for the OP on that thread. I can only speak for myself. When I say "I'm not interested" it means "I'm not interested". No hidden agenda. I lack interest in whatever action is being proposed.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> Another thing, it is incredibly important to recognize that compromise is not an automatic, nor should it be. Again, each person has boundaries and deal breakers.


This is true but also some people just shouldn't be married.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> This is true but also some people just shouldn't be married.


I totally agree. Compatibility is so important.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> To clarify, it is my belief that *the most important thing for most men in a committed relationship is sex*. However, that is not to say that it's the ONLY thing that matters. In reality, those other qualities are most often found in committed relationships where the man is happy with his sex life.


I want agree with you but then I would have to accept that stereotype that men are horndogs, easily manipulated with some ***** and tits, is true. And if you want to talk about red pill truths being hard to swallow.....this one is just as hard to swallow for women like me.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

I feel like we are all going to hug each other any second now.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Made me smile! 



Tasorundo said:


> I feel like we are all going to hug each other any second now.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> I want agree with you but then I would have to accept that stereotype that men are horndogs, easily manipulated with some ***** and tits, is true. And if you want to talk about red pill truths being hard to swallow.....this one is just as hard to swallow for women like me.


I wouldn't say it's the most important but it certainly very very important and for most of us a big part of how we relate to our spouses. It very often is when we feel the closet, most connected or most intimate with them. Not saying you were saying this because I know your post is a response to the quote you replied to but that idea that Men who want to have sex with their wives and specifically in deep and intimate ways are horn-dogs in my mind is the equivalent to when a wife wants her husband to be emotionally attentive and romantic and is dismissed as being irrational and overly emotional. It's quite frankly sexist. 

Let me repeat so there is no misunderstanding, I am NOT saying you are or even that your post is the context it was made, but the horn-dogs thing really bothers me because it's completely dismissive of most of our natures. It needs to stop.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Lila said:


> I want agree with you but then I would have to accept that stereotype that men are horndogs, easily manipulated with some ***** and tits, is true. And if you want to talk about red pill truths being hard to swallow.....this one is just as hard to swallow for women like me.


Yeah, I think I agree with Sokillme. 

To me a good analogy might be if it is really important to a woman to have children, if she feels that is going to be the primary source of fulfilment at least in this phase of her life. We wouldn't want to reword that contemptuously in some way.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

oldtruck said:


> 20 months prior to meeting Steve was giving Dave full menu porn star sex.
> For 2 years. Then she tells Steve I am not into that. What kind of girl do you think
> I am?


As far as I'm concerned, the chick's a dumb azz in two respects. (1) She likes porn star sex and getting involved with a man who causes her to lose her appetite for it. 2. Telling aspects of her private life to people. The only bigger dumb azz is Steve for thinking that somehow he needs a plan to change her attitude. Anybody who believes sex is not a potential wreaking ball in marriage is a bigger dumb azz than either of these two.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Now I am going to make this statement as I have all my other posts in this thread, under the understanding that I am talking about a normal healthy relationship without sexual abuse by someone in the past or neglect or abuse by the husband, and we are not talking about adding other people to the relationship. Under the grounds that the husband is a descent man, they have a decent relationship and the wife loves the husband.

Lot's of husbands seem like horn-dogs because that is a stereotype that has been created by the media over the years. Also because men abuse this desire and DO make it the most important thing in their marriage which is wrong. Also I am sure most women have experience with men like this, but in that case it' unfair to judge ones spouse by the abuse of someone in your past. Still also because lots of women don't understand our nature, some even go so far as to refuse to understand it. I personally think for the same reason why lots of men refuse to be romantic or emotionally attentive with their wives, because it's foreign to them and at first it makes them uncomfortable. There is a genuine fear of failing, and that can be embarrassing. It's much easier to just dismiss the importance of it and call it stupid or assign some nefarious reason for the desire. 

Very often though this is really about the husband deeply wanting to connect with his wife, really wanting to feel closer to her and in that way it's not that much different then a wife wanting that intimate form of communication and closeness. Now I don't think a lot of men are able to articulate it that way, but for so many of them that is what it is. By the way the reason why I say this with some confidence is because the person who taught me this was my Mom. I was taught this from a very young age NOT from my father, who I believe knew how to be romantic but used sex as a form of status and then followed that patter into having affairs, but from my mother. I learned everything else about this from 3 men, Marvin Gaye, Barry White and Prince. But I digress. 

I have very little sympathy for a wife who dismisses her husband in this area who doesn't at least try to understand and have some empathy for her husbands nature. The same way I have no sympathy for the guy who doesn't talk to his wife, who doesn't try to be romantic or do things like make her birthday special. This **** is important. Assuming there is no abuse or pain then feeling uncomfortable is a pretty lame excuse in my mind when you profess to love someone. Stuff like this uncomfortable at first, doesn't mean it's bad. 

A man desiring his wife is a wonderful things. If your husband desires you you should think yourself lucky. If he desires you after many years you should assume he loves you.

Anyway that is my two cents.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> I feel like we are all going to hug each other any second now.


:rofl::rofl:

D'awwww!!!!!

It's crazy though, I can't even read any other damn thread and it's been 2 days I'm in this thread alone. The list of subscribed threads to read is getting bigger and bigger, but I'm stuck here. :|

I still think that no matter if the pages reach 100, STEVE is not to blame!!

:lol:


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> 
> D'awwww!!!!!
> 
> ...


Steve is responsible for where he is in his life, but the blame is on his wife because she is the only one who acted out of malice at least in my mind. IMO.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Now I am going to make this statement as I have all my other posts in this thread, under the understanding that I am talking about a normal healthy relationship without sexual abuse by someone in the past or neglect or abuse by the husband, and we are not talking about adding other people to the relationship. Under the grounds that the husband is a descent man, they have a decent relationship and the wife loves the husband.
> 
> Lot's of husbands seem like horn-dogs because that is a stereotype that has been created by the media over the years. Also because men abuse this desire and DO make it the most important thing in their marriage which is wrong. Also I am sure most women have experience with men like this, but in that case it' unfair to judge ones spouse by the abuse of someone in your past. Still also because lots of women don't understand our nature, some even go so far as to refuse to understand it. I personally think for the same reason why lots of men refuse to be romantic or emotionally attentive with their wives, because it's foreign to them and at first it makes them uncomfortable. There is a genuine fear of failing, and that can be embarrassing. It's much easier to just dismiss the importance of it and call it stupid or assign some nefarious reason for the desire.
> 
> ...


How does the bolded statement correlate to the need for variety on the sexual menu in a relationship? How does needing to add "spice" make men feel closer to their partners? I mean sexually connecting is sexually connecting, correct?


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> I have very little sympathy for a wife who dismisses her husband in this area who doesn't at least try to understand and have some empathy for her husbands nature. The same way I have no sympathy for the guy who doesn't talk to his wife, who doesn't try to be romantic or do things like make her birthday special. This **** is important. Assuming there is no abuse or pain then feeling uncomfortable is a pretty lame excuse in my mind when you profess to love someone. Stuff like this uncomfortable at first, doesn't mean it's bad.
> 
> A man desiring his wife is a wonderful things. If your husband desires you you should think yourself lucky. If he desires you after many years you should assume he loves you.
> 
> Anyway that is my two cents.


Agreed 100%!

The huge problem that I have with most men, is what you mentioned indirectly. Men are not taught by their parents, especially the mother, to properly behave with a woman. 
Such thing is HUGELY important and it should be taught at a very young age...., even before the boy gets his first GF during teenage years. It all starts from here. 

There's a lack of constructive communication between parents with each other, parents with children, especially moms with children. - especially mothers with boys!!! Most bys/ men don't know what is to respect the woman, respect and understand her needs, and as a result they don't understand her sexual mindset. 

On the other hand, the woman gets frustrated and is unwilling to fix the sexual problems in marriage/relationship because she feels her man doesn't listen to her needs, to beginB with. 


But there are extreme cases, like RJ where Steve's W didn't take into account what was important for Steve, but entered in the marriage acting prude - without giving him a chance to make a choice. 

If I were his W - I'd definitely do those things for him to save the marriage.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> Steve is responsible for where he is in his life, but the blame is on his wife because she is the only one who acted out of malice at least in my mind. IMO.


I think Steve should have been MORE demanding, more confident in asking for more than vanilla!

that's where he failed the test! 

We would have a different OP if Steve would've been more determined to have more from the menu!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lovelygirl said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> 
> D'awwww!!!!!
> 
> ...


This is a really hot topic!!!>


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> This is a really hot topic!!!>


 :lol:


Finally somethig's hot in the Sex forum. Beening missing some hottness in these 40 pages. 


>


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> How does the bolded statement correlate to the need for variety on the sexual menu in a relationship? How does needing to add "spice" make men feel closer to their partners? I mean sexually connecting is sexually connecting, correct?


I can understand it with the equivalency that you want your H to fulfill you with variety outside of the bedroom.

Don't you want him to be romantic in as many ways as possible??

Don't you want him to change his routines and never get boring by showing you how much he loves you?

The same goes with sex and men. Vanilla gets boring and becomes a job for them.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> TAM is not universal. TAM is bordering on MGTOW most of the time.
> 
> It goes through stages but I’ve been on and off for years and it’s always the same type of men because they validate each other here.


It is an interesting observation that betrayed women come here as well, but just never seem to be as vociferous or bitter as the boys.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

sokillme said:


> This is true but also some people just shouldn't be married.


The rub seems to be, that neither party is aware of that fact until they are up to their necks in a marriage.

Both my ex and I really, and truly thought we had our bases covered. We actually discussed how 'wise' we were with waiting until we were a bit older, had been dating for over 4 years. Quite honestly, at the time we wed, both of us would have enthusiastically agreed, that EVERYTHING, clicked for us.

I can even remember when my ex and I had the big sex talk, and even at that time, it was apparent that she was very anxious about sharing that fact that she went through a promiscuous phase in college when she was looking for love and acceptance.

I keep thinking about what it is that prompts the need for a woman to feel that she needs to obfuscate her past? Is it hers alone? Is it something that her male partner says or gives off, telling her she'd better not come completely clean?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> How does the bolded statement correlate to the need for variety on the sexual menu in a relationship? How does needing to add "spice" make men feel closer to their partners? I mean sexually connecting is sexually connecting, correct?


No it correlates to vulnerability and how vulnerability leads to bonding. It's like sharing secrets. It's about knowing your partner very similar to the way deep and at times vulnerable communication the kind where your tell you things about yourself that only you know, and you know in that moment they have taken a risk but you become closer for it. But it's also correlates to that feeling you have when you have been struggling with something for month and have not told anyone and then your spouse does or says something that lets you know that they get it. Or going on vacation and getting caught in the rain on some crazy date and then years later talking about that story and laughing. That's what it is for us. It's your wife willing to be vulnerable with you enough to trust you to try something new. It's a wonderful shared experience. 

Now in this next paragraph, I am speaking in generalities, so I will add the usual disclaimer that this doesn't mean everyone is like this, as the usual suspects will accuse me of being whatever. We (men) are physical beings. Watch how boys play, we wrestle, we compete, we are physical. Even when we play with figures or dolls we play in a physical way. Ask a man about being close to his father what is the typical thing he says, sports or action movies. When we are with our friends we will spend about 10 minutes talking about emotional stuff and then spend the rest talking about games or sports or whatever. We bond playing basketball or football. Is it any wonder that we want to physically "know" our wives. This is how we relate, how a lot of our bonding works. Now of course I am being a little over the top here we are not neanderthals but I am doing that to emphasize a point. Wives want to "know" their husbands emotionally usually by talking, and husbands want to "know" their wives physically usually by sex. 

One other thing I will say and I can't say for sure obviously, but I have heard it said and have noticed that many women have an almost visceral reaction when they see a baby. They want to hold the baby they want to squeeze it and smell it. There is the joke my ovaries are burning to signify a almost primal feeling that overcomes women. That is just in their nature. Men have that same intensity of feeling with women about our wives. At times it can be primal. Now because a rare amount of men have abused that and abused women it's is seen as something dangerous or nefarious. But it's not wrong when you have it for your wife, your supposed to. Your supposed to want to harness it and let it drive your passion for her. 

That's the thing isn't it? We're different. Sometimes it seems like we are not even the same species. Somehow that has become seen as a bad thing, but that is the point. When it's at it's best you work, sometimes against your nature to connect with your spouse. Which makes it that much more rewarding. If you are not trying to be closer to your spouse in everything you do Emotionally Physically Spiritually your doing it wrong. That should be your goal. Now this whole post is written in a style that your usual 9-5 husband of 10 years wouldn't say. He wouldn't say it in such a profound manner, but he feels it. 

In my mind your sex-life in your marriage needs to be handled like the ongoing conversations you have with your spouse. You don't just talk about one thing over and over, some are long, some are funny some or deep and meaningful. Sometimes it's exciting and sometimes it's a few words of comfort. As the saying goes happy wife happy life, but the saying works because your wife IS YOUR LIFE. She should be. Your spouse IS YOUR LIFE. If your spouse is your life you should care about like that. More then your car or your sports team, the TV drama you watch, or your job or anything else. Even more then your comfort. Besides when you love someone enough to take a risk and have the courage to do something out of your comfort zone and it brings joy to someone else it's just as rewarding for you than it is for your spouse. 

Again cent 1 and cent 2.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> How does the bolded statement correlate to the need for variety on the sexual menu in a relationship? How does needing to add "spice" make men feel closer to their partners? I mean sexually connecting is sexually connecting, correct?



C’mon. 

This is like saying you can have the same conversation with your spouse every time you talk, and call it good communication.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> The rub seems to be, that neither party is aware of that fact until they are up to their necks in a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven’t come clean about some things. 

Because I didn’t want to hurt my wife, and they were things I didn’t want to do again.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

My question would be why are so many men (or people in general) uncomfortable with the concepts of privacy and discretion? 

I'm interested to see if there's an explanation that doesn't get twisted into accusations of hiding, lying, deceit, etc. 

Because to me, those words are used to manipulate. They put people on the defensive so that they feel the need to prove their innocence. It seems like the sort of attitude that's imposed by those who don't like being told 'no'.

So, yes - it is mine alone. Unless I choose to share it.




Deejo said:


> I keep thinking about what it is that prompts the need for a woman to feel that she needs to obfuscate her past? Is it hers alone? Is it something that her male partner says or gives off, telling her she'd better not come completely clean?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > How does the bolded statement correlate to the need for variety on the sexual menu in a relationship? How does needing to add "spice" make men feel closer to their partners? I mean sexually connecting is sexually connecting, correct?
> ...


No it's more like do I feel the same connection when he's telling me jokes, or we're discussing philosophy, or talking about neighbors drama as when we're discussing deep emotional thoughts? I don't. I only feel bonded when I'm talking about deep emotional things with my partner. The rest is nice but that connection is only really there when the topic is about us.

Same with sex. I only feel that bond/connection when I have boring ol missionary vanilla sex. Being face to face, kissing, touching, and having slow intercourse is the most intimate kind of sex I can have. I can have fun with other types but they don't connect me to my partner.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

minimalME said:


> My question would be why are so many men (or people in general) uncomfortable with the concepts of privacy and discretion?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is an overly binary portrayal of something that is a matter of degree. 

It’s one thing to fudge numbers - or in my case just not bother to count or be sure. It’s another to do group sex porn, and not tell your partner (referenced earlier in the thread.)

It’s one thing to say “I’ve never done X and never want to” than it is “I used to like X a lot, and would probably do it with someone that’s not you.”

You can be compassionate and honest and still be vague. As I said to my wife one night, it’s one thing to joke about your ex’s at a party, it’s quite another to go into details about their pensis sizes.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Okay - that's fine. 

I'm still a seperate person, and I get to decide what words come out of my mouth. 

It's still my decision what to share and what not to share. And to judge each situation accordingly.




Marduk said:


> This is an overly binary portrayal of something that is a matter of degree.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

My parents were married four months after they met. My wife and I decided to get married three months after we met, though the marriage was the fall the next year.

We didn’t negotiate anything. Thankfully things turned out okay. But I feel for people who expected one thing, ended up with something different, and now are trapped.

It appears there are a lot of sexually judgmental men, women who are afraid to disclose their pasts as a result, and a lot of deceit all around.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

minimalME said:


> My question would be why are so many men (or people in general) uncomfortable with the concepts of privacy and discretion?
> 
> I'm interested to see if there's an explanation that doesn't get twisted into accusations of hiding, lying, deceit, etc.
> 
> ...


Maybe not specifics but you better make sure you are on the same page when it comes to attitudes.

If this thread doesn't illustrate the point, I would feel a lot safer with a women who confidently and without shame talks about her past others opinions be damned then one who keeps it a secret.

Also I would be weary of man or women and hook up culture. It's not healthy for either. I turns sex into numbers and scores.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

minimalME said:


> Okay - that's fine.
> 
> I'm still a seperate person, and I get to decide what words come out of my mouth.
> 
> It's still my decision what to share and what not to share. And to judge each situation accordingly.


No one said you can't but it's easier when you don't care if they judge you or not.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

You twisted. 

You get to ask whatever questions you want to feel safe. And I get to respond in a way that makes me feel safe.

And if we aren't communicating in a way that serves us both, then we can go our seperate ways. 




sokillme said:


> Maybe not specifics but you better make sure you are on the same page when it comes to attitudes.
> 
> If this thread doesn't illustrate the point, I would feel a lot safer with a women who confidently and without shame talks about her past others opinions be damned then one who *keeps it a secret*.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

minimalME said:


> My question would be why are so many men (or people in general) uncomfortable with the concepts of privacy and discretion?


Generally speaking, as you suggest, I interpret a lack of transparency as deceit. I’d much prefer uncomfortable truths to sweet lies or silence.

People tend to end up with people who are like them. My wife, and the various women who might have been my wife, AFAIK, were not promiscuous except for one of them. She was a deeply religious Christian woman. Her naughty sexuality was one of the things I liked about her, though she was ashamed of it.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> I think Steve should have been MORE demanding, more confident in asking for more than vanilla!
> 
> that's where he failed the test!
> 
> We would have a different OP if Steve would've been more determined to have more from the menu!


How? He asked for it but that is all we know. Now my advice would be to really talk about what the issues are, but look on here no one will say that anyone should go out of their comfort zone. I don't even say you have to I say it's something you should consider. He asked and she probably said I am uncomfortable doing that. She probably wasn't lying. Again if none of us feel it's right to push anyone to go out of their comfort zone he is stuck. 

Now you can say they should have talked about this before they get married but I am not willing to give his wife the benefit that she was honest when they discussed it because she has proven she is willing to go as far as lying so that she doesn't have to do anything out of that comfort zone or even be questioned. 

Nah one she lied in my mind at least nothing is done in good faith and the whole thing is suspect.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

And I'd say it's easier when you can let people be who they are without trying to control them.



sokillme said:


> No one said you can't but it's easier when you don't care if they judge you or not.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

minimalME said:


> You twisted.
> 
> You get to ask whatever questions you want to feel safe. And I get to respond in a way that makes me feel safe.
> 
> And if we aren't communicating in a way that serves us both, then we can go our seperate ways.


100% agreed. And that was my point.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

We're two for two. 



CraigBesuden said:


> Generally speaking, as you suggest, I interpret a lack of transparency as deceit. I’d much prefer uncomfortable truths to sweet lies or silence.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I can even remember when my ex and I had the big sex talk, and even at that time, it was apparent that she was very anxious about sharing that fact that she went through a *promiscuous phase in college when she was looking for love and acceptance*.
> 
> I keep thinking about what it is that prompts the need for a woman to feel that she needs to obfuscate her past? Is it hers alone? Is it something that her male partner says or gives off, telling her she'd better not come completely clean?


I knew women like this in my teens and 20’s and felt bad for them … not because of any notion of sexual-shaming or other such nonsense, but because they were looking for validation in the wrong place, i.e. outside of themselves and, as a result ended up feeling used and confused. It wasn’t my business to interfere, but when asked for advice I would tell them about more optimal paths to self-validation and self-acceptance.


I am a highly sexual woman, I don’t believe there is any shame involved in human sexuality. Hence, I don’t care what society in general thinks about my sexuality or sexuality in general … it’s none of their ****ing business anyway. I have no problem talking to a potential partner about my sexuality, however if it becomes an interrogation leading to evidence used to shame, demand equivalent sexual behavior or to start a cry-baby-fest about being entitled to my sexuality (which is what some posters are doing on this thread) … well then, I will always Next(!) that type of person. I would never date or marry such a person. I have never had such an experience IRL, only seen this **** on TAM, Red Pill and MGTOW sites. In all my relationships, past and present, the sexuality discussions were always about preferences initially and then later perhaps new/untried sexual experiences.

I think it was one of my first comments on TAM, years ago, and I’ll say it again … this thread and most of the comments from men herein make me want to join a ****ing convent. Not that I’d actually do it because sex is too much fun, but damn some of you have neuroses concerning this subject.

P.S. None of you have any idea what women (or men) think as a general population group because women (and men) don’t have hive-minds. Human sexuality is complex and varied and, that’s part of the beauty of it.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Yes.











Red Sonja said:


> ...it’s none of their ****ing business...


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

minimalME said:


> And I'd say it's easier when you can let people be who they are without trying to control them.


No one is trying to control you by asking you questions. If you feel that way it's because YOU are giving them and their questions power over you. You can easily say that is to personal a question, and then your date or whatever is free to decide if that is a red flag or not. But asking questions especially difficult one (doesn't have to be about sex) is the best way to get to know someone assuming they are honest. 

Now if they lie then you run into situations like the thread. I mean you are only hurting yourself. Think about it. Say you were really sexually active in you collage years, but you lie about it to marry a husband who have a problem with it. Then he proceeds to be an ******* call women who are active ****s and *****s. Every time he does that it's going to cause damage to your bond with him. Why wouldn't you just tell him that you did and you were fine with that, that guy would bug off and maybe the next guy would be excited by it and think cool a women who likes sex. Maybe he had the same experience. 

Or maybe you are a women who really only has sex with whom she loves, why wouldn't you wait for a man who feels the same way how would you know if you don't talk about it openly. Then the dynamic is much easier. 

Even if you are not happy about your past and feel like you did things that you are not proud of for the wrong reasons why wouldn't you want to open your self up even as a test to see how he is going to respond. If he can't handle it then you dodged a bullet, again you don't want to be married to a man who is judging you by third party. You may be able to find a guy who can bring some healing to you. 

Seriously how does it make sense to hide stuff. It always comes out anyway.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

minimalME said:


> Okay - that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, but if you aren’t sharing yourself then why are you getting married to begin with?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

lovelygirl said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> > Steve is responsible for where he is in his life, but the blame is on his wife because she is the only one who acted out of malice at least in my mind. IMO.
> ...


Steve did nothing wrong. PD was clear about that in so many ways, such as the all-caps sentences making clear that his concerns were not about retroactive jealousy. Steve is a saint. 

Similarly, Dave did nothing wrong. PD was clear that, while she loved his money and power over her, Dave did not abuse his work position of power. PD was also clear that Dave did nothing wrong with respect to his other woman. They were divorced so he didn’t cheat, and he was such a good person that he went back to her to try and make his family work and care for sick family members. Dave is also a saint.

While PD presents the men as saints, she portrays herself as being terrible. She viewed Steve as a “nice guy,” using that loaded term as well as many others. She denied her husband her sexual best for no reason whatsoever, after giving it away to FBs. Over and over, she carefully damns herself with her own words, implicitly and explicitly, throughout her posts, especially what she said in the OP.

It’s almost as if......... oops, sorry, I forgot what I was going to say?!?! 🙂


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Red Sonja said:


> I knew women like this in my teens and 20’s and felt bad for them … not because of any notion of sexual-shaming or other such nonsense, but because they were looking for validation in the wrong place, i.e. outside of themselves and, as a result ended up feeling used and confused. It wasn’t my business to interfere, but when asked for advice I would tell them about more optimal paths to self-validation and self-acceptance.
> 
> 
> I am a highly sexual woman, I don’t believe there is any shame involved in human sexuality. Hence, I don’t care what society in general thinks about my sexuality or sexuality in general … it’s none of their ****ing business anyway. I have no problem talking to a potential partner about my sexuality, however if it becomes an interrogation leading to evidence used to shame, demand equivalent sexual behavior or to start a cry-baby-fest about being entitled to my sexuality (which is what some posters are doing on this thread) … well then, I will always Next(!) that type of person. I would never date or marry such a person. I have never had such an experience IRL, only seen this **** on TAM, Red Pill and MGTOW sites. In all my relationships, past and present, the sexuality discussions were always about preferences initially and then later perhaps new/untried sexual experiences.
> ...


I am curious what is your take on the situation in the thread. It seems kind of like the same thing but in reverse. Instead of judging the past she pre-judged his reaction before even talking to him about it.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

minimalME said:


> My question would be why are so many men (or people in general) uncomfortable with the concepts of privacy and discretion?
> 
> I'm interested to see if there's an explanation that doesn't get twisted into accusations of hiding, lying, deceit, etc.
> 
> ...


I'm kind of clueless on this one. Most of the subjects of this thread I can't even grasp like RJ.

I can imagine some consternation about doing something for a previous lover, and loving it, but not for a current spouse. That has never happened to me, Mrs. Conan has gone way beyond anything she has done with anyone else with me and my previous partners were very enthusiastic.

As far as past experience and partner count?...... I could care less as long as it is solidly in the past.

If a woman is in my arms I am not that concerned about anything else. There is a lot of good work to be done that has nothing to do with her past.

I don't mind talking about histories because I'm fascinated about human relations and sexuality and attraction. I'm also interested in my partner and love knowing about them.

I do not understand hang ups about histories. If a women gets my attention, she is worth it.

My partners have talked to me about pretty much everything without me even prying. They felt accepted and safe with me and it also translated into sexual performance.

I can't discount that they were very physically attracted to me but maybe that's what gave me the confidence and easy nature that allowed them to open up but just being totally present with them regardless of any history helped a lot too.

Mrs. C is an amazing partner who is incredibly generous in and out of the bedroom but her previous mates dropped the damn ball. I picked it up and ended any chance another had at her game.

I took all of her and owned it gratefully. She was waiting and needing someone to take her regardless of her past. The other guys lost and they realized it too late.

Her first husband tried to get her back and so did her second. Her first husband was trying while we were dating!

I'm probably rambling....:smile2:


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> I think it was one of my first comments on TAM, years ago, and I’ll say it again … this thread and most of the comments from men herein make me want to join a ****ing convent.


Can you elaborate a little about how some of the men are making you feel?

I think it is important because I get the motivations of many and I think there might be a communication gap happening.

I think I understand where you are coming from but I wouldn't mind more illumination.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> I'm kind of clueless on this one. Most of the subjects of this thread I can't even grasp like RJ.
> 
> I can imagine some consternation about doing something for a previous lover, and loving it, but not for a current spouse. That has never happened to me, Mrs. Conan has gone way beyond anything she has done with anyone else with me and my previous partners were very enthusiastic.
> 
> ...


Seems to me the guys who are hung up on count usually feel that way because they are jealous and their counts are low. 

That being said I never had sex with anyone I wasn't in love with. That was a choice on my part that involved some sacrifice. Lots of girls never even gave me a chance and were not willing to wait the time it would take to figure that out. So naturally it was important to me that I married someone who felt the same way and had the same history. In that sense it would have been a terrible thing to lie to me and imply that you felt the same way just to get me to move forward with you. In that way I don't think it's wrong to talk about that. If people think that is judging then so be it. 

I am not judging anyone else's experience, I really don't care about yours or Red S's lifestyle or whatever. If no one is getting hurt it's your life but it's just not for me that's all. 

I guess I should clarify too, I don't think having an active sex life with lots of partners means you relationship with sex is unhealthy. But also just because people have a lot of sex doesn't mean you are healthy also. So that is not what I mean by hookup culture, I think it's a lot closer to what Red S said in her post about the girls using sex to get affirmation. It's girls and guys both do this, and I think the whole sex count and do what you did for the other guy is just a continuation of that culture. It's about judging yourself on counts and positions which to me misses the point of sex all together. I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR THAT AT ALL. 

I don't think just because you did it for one guy you should have to do it for your husband. I do think that it's a shame that if you had a bad experience if it automatically puts you off on ever doing it again. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, a bad experience in collage when you were drunk or trying to get affirmation from you frat boy boyfriend may be very different in the safety of your home with a loving husband, but I get sometimes once is enough. All I have ever been advocating for is effort and openness.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Is it all that different though?


Yes.

To me, the 3 topics of 

1) A woman having done sexual things with other men (which she did not dislike) but not doing them with her husband

2) Retroactive Jealousy. A woman having had sex with other men (a number that he sees as reasonable) before having sex with her husband and the husband having a problem with that.

3) **** Shaming. A woman having sex with a number of men that the man considers too high prior to having sex with her husband

are three completely different things that bear almost no relationship with each other and I can't quite understand why they would all be addressed as if they were related to each other.

This thread, despite it's title, has been almost completely about the first instance and I'm sure I've made my thinking on this clear.

I would prefer to see Retroactive Jealousy and **** Shaming addressed separately and if that was done I would have plenty to say about both.

But briefly, 

2) Retroactive Jealousy. This almost seems like a mental condition. Most men posting on TAM about this agree and greatly wish that they didn't suffer from this. They generally start out by asking how they can deal with their problem. Obviously, if you're not marrying a virgin, she's has sex with guys before you. Personally, my wife was fairly promiscuous prior to meeting me. Although it probably would distress me a bit to hear all the details (especially if she was telling them to me with a tone of "those were great times", actually I have spent almost no time thinking about such things. As long as I tell her that I'd rather not hear the details, she doesn't and we don't get into a situation where her drunk friends are reminiscing about her past loves and she's joining in (on the very off chance that would happen, my wife would shut it down), there's no problem. I understand that I'm probably not the best she's ever had on every possible measure, but I don;t really need that pointed out to me. My ex-wife was a lot better than my wife at one thing; going to Los Vegas. Obviously, although true, this was not important to me. Early in our relationship, I would talk with others about how my ex-wife was good only at this and my wife wasn't. I didn't intend any harm by this (knowing that my wife didn't value being good at going to Los Vegas and that I didn't value it much either). After a while, I noticed my wife would get a bit quite when I told this story and I slowly became aware that I was being a ****. I was being disrespectful by mentioning anything my wife was not good at compare to my ex. I apologized for my earlier behavior and stopped doing that.

3) **** Shaming. As mentioned above, my wife was fairly promiscuous from her teens to a year or so before we met. This didn't bother me at all. I also didn't take it as some automatic sign that she enjoyed sex. There can be a lot of reasons other than enjoying sex for women being promiscuous (this was the case for my wife). She regretted most of it, but there was no need to do so on my behalf. I suppose I could think that a woman with 100+ partners who just really loved sex is at a somewhat higher risk of just banging the hot FedEx guy for fun but , as long as she agreed that doing so would be wrong while she's in a relationship with me, I wouldn't worry about it. I suspect that there may be a real risk for a woman with that many partners to run across a "magic ****" or two and spend the rest of her life knowing what she's missing, but that would be a problem for *her*, not me. There's also the issue that a woman with that many partners doesn't see having sex with a particular guy as being anything special so I'd know that her having sex with me wasn't due to any particularly good qualities I possess. So I couldn't feel good about that, but that's not really necessary for me so, personally, I don't have a problem with that. I also wouldn't think that the number of partners she'd had (whether 0 or 100) indicated anything about how much sex we'd be having 10 years down the road after marriage and childbirth.

In short. I would have a problem with 1) but no problem with 2) or 3).


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Yet I completely get why women do it. Because *they get judged. Harshly.*


So what?

If I'm a Republican and I suspect that I'll be judged harshly as a result, I should lie and say I'm a Democrat? Then what do I do if we get married? Spend the rest of my life pretending I'm a Democrat? 

If I *do* watch porn and know that many women will judge that harshly, I should claim I never do?

I mean if I'm in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo asks me if I'm Jewish, I'll probably lie (I doubt I'd be brave enough to do the right thing and tell the truth), but having a guy dump you because you had what *he* considers too many partners? You should be happy he relieved you of the need to end the relationship.

If someone is afraid of being judged harshly for something that they don't feel should be judged harshly, the thing to do is tell the truth.

If the person judges them harshly, walk away.

Now if, for whatever reason, the woman isn't happy about how many partners she's had, feel free to point that out.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Minimal,

Amen to that.

There is absolutely nothing inherently deceitful about silence. 

I think it’s fair to say that most adults who possess decent interpersonal skills and are honest:
- Don’t weaponize silence by using it as a tool for misdirection 
- Don’t choose to interpret silence as meaning more or less than it does

People talk about demanding transparency. IME transparency is a gift. If you create trust, you get a lot. If you are jealous, controlling, judgemental or hypocritical you tend to get much less. 

I also find it - puzzling - that people employ a highly invasive strategy instead of simply reversing the polarity of the conversation.

Invasive: How many partners have you had? 
Boundary communication BEFORE having sex with someone: I wouldn’t want to get physically involved with anyone who has had more than X partners. 





minimalME said:


> And I'd say it's easier when you can let people be who they are without trying to control them.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

I asked my wife how many former partners she had, and I told her mine. But that’s because I was inexperienced at dating and I was just doing the things I thought people are supposed to do. If I were single today, I doubt I would ask the question.

I think it’s fine for people to want a virgin, or want a person with fewer than X partners, or to not care at all. Hopefully the people who are insync find each other.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> I can't speak for the OP on that thread. I can only speak for myself. When I say "I'm not interested" it means "I'm not interested". No hidden agenda. I lack interest in whatever action is being proposed.


I just have a reaction to "I'm not interested"

It feels like "*I'm* not interested and what you're interested in really doesn't matter to me".

When I'd be much happier with "I, personally am not interested, but I *am* interested in your happiness, so let's talk about it"


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> I mean sexually connecting is sexually connecting, correct?


Nope


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

One example of toxic behavior that I’m seeing - is equating silence with deceit. 

The basic subtext goes like this: Me Tarzan get to interrogate you Jane about all the other primates you played THAT game with. If you refuse to answer, it get to call you deceitful. 

Of course the single most disgraceful aspect of the really ugly cases is that the guys wait until they are either married or have children to decide they SIMPLY MUST run their wives sexual history through the scanning, tunneling electron microscope. 

When pressed as to why they chose not to raise this critical topic - before engagement, much less marriage and much much less having kids. When pressed, they claim to have no answer. Which I don’t believe. Instead, the answer is: she would have dumped him if not bound together by children and financial ties. 





Red Sonja said:


> I knew women like this in my teens and 20’s and felt bad for them … not because of any notion of sexual-shaming or other such nonsense, but because they were looking for validation in the wrong place, i.e. outside of themselves and, as a result ended up feeling used and confused. It wasn’t my business to interfere, but when asked for advice I would tell them about more optimal paths to self-validation and self-acceptance.
> 
> 
> I am a highly sexual woman, I don’t believe there is any shame involved in human sexuality. Hence, I don’t care what society in general thinks about my sexuality or sexuality in general … it’s none of their ****ing business anyway. I have no problem talking to a potential partner about my sexuality, however if it becomes an interrogation leading to evidence used to shame, demand equivalent sexual behavior or to start a cry-baby-fest about being entitled to my sexuality (which is what some posters are doing on this thread) … well then, I will always Next(!) that type of person. I would never date or marry such a person. I have never had such an experience IRL, only seen this **** on TAM, Red Pill and MGTOW sites. In all my relationships, past and present, the sexuality discussions were always about preferences initially and then later perhaps new/untried sexual experiences.
> ...


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> Can you elaborate a little about how some of the men are making you feel?
> 
> I think it is important because I get the motivations of many and I think there might be a communication gap happening.
> 
> I think I understand where you are coming from but I wouldn't mind more illumination.


The implication of all this discourse is that (heterosexual) men think once a woman enters a monogamous relationship her sexuality, past and present, is his to know and control, as if he is entitled to it. This appears to stem from some type of insecurity, need to control or perhaps a mistrust of women in general. These same posters imply that most men think this way.

I have never experienced this attitude IRL however, if it is true and the men I’ve known or will know are just likely hiding this attitude … then I am ****ed (not in the good way) because I will not tolerate this type of nonsense … it’s not loving or even respectful and, the insecurity it implies is NOT attractive in any way.

Hence, the convent or just self-chosen celibacy.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for the OP on that thread. I can only speak for myself. When I say "I'm not interested" it means "I'm not interested". No hidden agenda. I lack interest in whatever action is being proposed.
> ...


I do respect how "I'm not interested" makes you feel but i'll be honest, my reaction to the bolded statement is to want to flee. It sounds like the responsibility for the happiness of my partner is on my shoulders even at the risk my happiness. 

Does it feel better because you are voicing your thoughts on the subject or because you feel you are being given an opportunity to convince her to change her mind?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

As my wife once told me: we are not having a cup of tea... I get to get your penis in my vagina, so if I don't feel like doing what you want to do, today or tomorrow, nothing personal, I just don't want to do it - I'm not interested - and I hope you will respect my choice, my body and my integrity, now and in the future.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I keep thinking about what it is that prompts the need for a woman to feel that she needs to obfuscate her past? Is it hers alone? Is it something that her male partner says or gives off, telling her she'd better not come completely clean?


It's the judgment that she receives by her male partner with the risk that he might not take her seriously, thinking low of her. Some men don't see these women as "marriage-material".


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> In my mind your sex-life in your marriage needs to be handled like the ongoing conversations you have with your spouse. You don't just talk about one thing over and over, some are long, some are funny some or deep and meaningful.


That'd be great but hardly any couple does this. 
I think people should educate themselves about sex. Especially couples. 
They gotta conversate, read, try it out, ...it should be just as any other meaningful topic within marriage/family - like finances/babies/jobs...etc.

For most couples it's a taboo to even be able to talk freely about it, yet many marriages "suffer" from the lack of meaningful sex convos - as a result, partners are not clear about each-other's sexual needs and preferences *at a deep level. *

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> I just have a reaction to "I'm not interested"
> 
> It feels like "*I'm* not interested and what you're interested in really doesn't matter to me".
> 
> When I'd be much happier with "I, personally am not interested, but I *am* interested in your happiness, so let's talk about it"


There are many things that my wife has an interest in that I don't. Just as there are many things that I am interested in that my wife isn't.

Neither of us are hurting the other, by not being interested in all of the same things.

Not sharing the same interests is not a reflection of our care for each other. We are not our interests and our worth is not tied up in what we are interested in, each of us is so much more than that.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I haven’t come clean about some things.
> 
> Because I didn’t want to hurt my wife, and they were things I didn’t want to do again.


I think many details about my SO's sexual past should remain private to him, *unless there has been some real life-changing situation that made him who he is today with me.*

Therefore, I'm not a big fan of sharing the sexual past ....just as I wouldn't want him to reveal to me every sexual experience. - unless it is worth mentioning it during a conversation. For example, we share our opinion on something sex-related...and he comes up with an example from his past experiences just to make his point clear to me. That's it..... but I wouldn't want randomn sexual details about his past. Actually, I have never wanted to know about any exes of my partners or details about them - unless it was something very important like LTR, or marriage or anything serious. 

Sure, if my SO asks about my sexual past, I'd have no problem sharing details with him, but to ask about HIS details, no. That'd turn me off. 

Actually, every randomn conversation or mentioning about exes, turns me off.

Literally. 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Marduk said:


> You can be compassionate and honest and still be vague. As I said to my wife one night, it’s one thing to joke about your ex’s at a party, it’s quite another to go into details about their pensis sizes.


totally agreed. 

Sometimes, randomly joking and talking about them with a sense of humor, is way different than seriously talking about some explicit details that would turn your partner off or that would make them question your attraction to them. 

Let's be honest. Any talk about exes, triggers something in your SO's brain or makes them wonder "Does he/she feel the same way about me? Am I better or worse in that regard? ...." 

Comparison is unavoidable so it's better to be tactful/discreet about references to your exes - especially when it comes to sexual details - which would make your SO wonder more and more...


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> Maybe not specifics but you better make sure you are on the same page when it comes to attitudes.


There's a fine line between unnecessary sexual details of your SO's past and actually talking about attitudes and opinions. 

I don't agree with sharing details that add nothing meaningful to the conversation that you're having with you SO but I do agree with sharing those sexual past experiences that make you get to know your SO better in that department.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> Steve did nothing wrong. PD was clear about that in so many ways, such as the all-caps sentences making clear that his concerns were not about retroactive jealousy. Steve is a saint.
> 
> Similarly, Dave did nothing wrong. PD was clear that, while she loved his money and power over her, Dave did not abuse his work position of power. PD was also clear that Dave did nothing wrong with respect to his other woman. They were divorced so he didn’t cheat, and he was such a good person that he went back to her to try and make his family work and care for sick family members. Dave is also a saint.
> 
> ...


PD loved that sexual side of her.
She enjoyed it and had fond memories of it.

Her men liked that side of her.

She should of had the open and honest talk with Steve years ago. Look Steve, when I was young
I did a lot of sexual experimenting and exploring to find out what I really want.

At this stage in my life I no longer want or like to do those things.

Then her options, lie or be honest:

Steve I am not the woman for you go find a woman that wants to explore sex with you.

Or

Steve I am not into these things any more but understand your need learn and explore sex.
I am afraid that if I do these things now a good man will not respect me.
However if you will not think less of me I am willing to help you discover sex and will revisit
many things that I will feel safe to do. Though eventually I want to just be a vanilla sex kind
of woman with you.

Or

Steve maturity has now made me too uncomfortable to behave as if I was 21 now. I cannot give
you the type of sexual experiences that you want.

See how being honest and extending herself in the beginning instead of lying by omission
would of prevented Steve's world from imploding on him 25 years later.

PD, still cannot see that her friend, the one with the big mouth is not her friend, not a friend to
her husband, or their marriage.


PD, only worries about not wanting to be thought of as a tramp. She ignores her husbands pain
from being denied the full sex menu. After trying all the stuff that PD had done there is a very
good chance that Steve would of quickly out grown most of it and would of contently slipped into
routine vanilla sex.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Red Sonja said:


> . I have no problem talking to a potential partner about my sexuality, however if it becomes an interrogation leading to evidence used to shame, demand equivalent sexual behavior or to start a cry-baby-fest about being entitled to my sexuality (which is what some posters are doing on this thread) … well then, I will always Next(!) that type of person..


Interrogation is one thing.

Asking about the sexual past for the purposes of getting to know your SO better, is another. 

I'm a fan of the 2nd strategy, not the 1st.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

In general people should not talk about their past relationships.
All that it does is create retroactive jealousy and pain.

Though if a woman did porn films should she tell and when should she tell?

When should she talk about her past and why, and why not?

PD made her husband to feel as a pig and a pervert for wanting her to wear those
slinky little black dresses in too tall heels and to explore sex. She told him no, what
kind of a girl do you think I am.

Her telling him no what kind of girl do you think I am and her friends big mouth
revealed what kind of girl she would be for other men.

I wish PD would continue posting to find out what is going on with her husband.
I do not agree with PD handled things 25 years ago though I truly wish they can
recover form this and have a better marriage.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> That being said I never had sex with anyone I wasn't in love with. That was a choice on my part that involved some sacrifice. Lots of girls never even gave me a chance and were not willing to wait the time it would take to figure that out.


Unfortunately, in the hook up culture you need to have the fast-sex type of dating, just like the fast-food.

As much as I wish many guys waited a bit longer for me to have sex with them, many times I have felt some sort of internal pressure to "give it" to them. And I say "give" though I wish I could use "have sex". 

In the hookup culture you're tested in how willing you're able to give sex a.s.a.p. 

It has always frustrated me and made me feel like I need to give sex to keep the guy. 

Then there were many times that I felt like "_.If he's not willing to wait a bit more, then we're not meant to be together. If he's genuinely into me, he'll wait. If not, I'll happily let him go_." 

As much as sex is important to me and I'm very sexual as a person, I do appreciate the intimacy, the emotional bond before going into sex. 
Although men say they create the bond through sex, I still think this argument is over-used as an excuse to have more sex, asap.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> The implication of all this discourse is that (heterosexual) men think once a woman enters a monogamous relationship her sexuality, past and present, is his to know and control, as if he is entitled to it. This appears to stem from some type of insecurity, need to control or perhaps a mistrust of women in general. These same posters imply that most men think this way.
> 
> I have never experienced this attitude IRL however, if it is true and the men I’ve known or will know are just likely hiding this attitude … then I am ****ed (not in the good way) because I will not tolerate this type of nonsense … it’s not loving or even respectful and, the insecurity it implies is NOT attractive in any way.
> 
> Hence, the convent or just self-chosen celibacy.


I don't think you have ever encountered this for the same reasons I haven't encountered the flip side. We both have healthy sexuality.

I don't believe you ever will encounter this IRL. If a man was exhibiting behavior that appears controlling or insecure, you wouldn't keep something going with him and men who don't behave like that obviously don't have an issue.

I've never been in a situation where a woman wouldn't open up to me sexually, probably because women are safe with me and if they were exhibiting any kind of behavior I considered off, I never allowed something to start or called it quits myself.

There are some legitimate situations where a woman has some hang ups and her husband is being subjected to cold treatment that has nothing to do with him and digging into her past to figure out what is going on will possibly be the only way to get the marriage healthy.

Same goes for husbands.

Mrs. C had some sexual issues to work through and I had many patient talks with her about it including talks about her past. We have improved a lot in our sex life as a result.

We have also been in a committed relationship for 28 years. Her issues didn't all surface immediately but, when they did, I didn't ignore them or put up with any nonsense myself.

I have never felt a need to control her sexuality or know everything about her past for control purposes. I also don't put up with silly behavior or nonsense.

I do not believe what is being discussed here is coming off clearly to either where you're coming from or where many of the men are.

I understand the insecure and controlling man in your example being unattractive and repulsive. I don't believe that is what most of the men here are displaying

Likewise, when taking several of the statements of the women posting here and applying them to the general topic of "you did this enthusiastically with him but not me?", I can understand why men would feel repulsed.

I don't believe all men are secretly insecure control freaks or all women are secretly conniving hypergamers.

I think we are viewing this subject through different lenses and both sides are getting an unpleasant picture.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

oldtruck said:


> In general people should not talk about their past relationships.
> All that it does is create retroactive jealousy and pain.
> 
> Though if a woman did porn films should she tell and when should she tell?
> ...


I'm a man who would marry an ex prostitute or porn star. I would need to know just so we could take the appropriate precautions to protect our family.

That type of information should be given for full disclosure if a relationship is getting serious.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I just have a reaction to "I'm not interested"
> 
> It feels like "*I'm* not interested and what you're interested in really doesn't matter to me".
> 
> When I'd be much happier with "I, personally am not interested,* but I am interested in your happiness, so let's talk about it"*


exactly! I so much agree with this because it shows compassion, caring and you're willing to still be able to satisfy your SO by finding a middle-ground that is pleasurable to both of you.

But a cold, straight answer "Not interested" shows selfishness and carelessness. I'm not necessarily saying that @Lila is this type of woman, but I'm trying to say that this is the vibe that I'd get from the partner if I were told that in such a blunt, cold way.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> There are many things that my wife has an interest in that I don't. Just as there are many things that I am interested in that my wife isn't.
> 
> Neither of us are hurting the other, by not being interested in all of the same things.
> 
> Not sharing the same interests is not a reflection of our care for each other. We are not our interests and our worth is not tied up in what we are interested in, each of us is so much more than that.


It's perfectly normal to *not* have/share the same interests, just as it's perfectly normal to please each-other even in those areas where you don't share the same level of interest. 

Got me?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> > I just have a reaction to "I'm not interested"
> ...


Since you referenced me.... Do you think it cold and selfish because I'm a woman? I believe there were men (@farsidejunky and @Personal come to mind right away) who posted on this thread saying the same exact thing about giving a "not interested" response without explanation.

Eta:. I'm asking because I run into this perception IRL where men are expected to be direct and have strong boundaries but I'm considered cold and selfish for doing the same. I'm just wondering if this is a gender bias much the same way RJ, **** shaming etc...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> > There are many things that my wife has an interest in that I don't. Just as there are many things that I am interested in that my wife isn't.
> ...


I am not going to speak for @Personal but I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with choosing to please a partner whose interest you don't share..... Just as there is nothing wrong with choosing not to partake in an activity that doesn't interest you.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> Since you referenced me.... Do you think it cold and selfish because I'm a woman? I believe there were men (@farsidejunky and @Personal come to mind right away) who posted on this thread saying the same exact thing about giving a "not interested" response without explanation.


If you have read my previous posts in this thread, I have specifically told @Personal that his POV of not doing things for his SO and being strictly interested in what pleases him, is WAY selfish, cold and careless. A huge turn'-off I read such thing from my man.

So I hold no double standard.

But at the same time, to each their own. As long as @Personal is happy with his SO, that's what matters in the end. The sync between a couple matters more than a 3rd party's opinion on an issue.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Lila said:


> I totally agree. Compatibility is so important.


Part and parcel with this is the ability to be compatible.

In other words, how narrow is one's comfort zone.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> It's perfectly normal to *not* have/share the same interests, just as it's perfectly normal to please each-other even in those areas where you don't share the same level of interest.
> 
> Got me?


If I want to end my 23+ year sexual relationship with my wife, I will take your advice.

Absent wanting to end that relationship, I'll keep doing what actually works for my wife.

My wife isn't fond of being in relationships with men who put her on a pedestal, are into soppy romance, who are accommodating who are always eager to please and are worried about upsetting her feelings.

She spent time dating and being with a few men like that (including a couple that wanted to marry her) and dumped them all. They weren't bad guys, they simply weren't up to being with her. Since they weren't willing to challenge her and stand up for themselves and they needed their egos stroked as a consequence of their insecurities. She didn't want to be with a man who was a doormat, since she found such men to be too demanding and weak so she had to let them go.

I am the only man my wife hasn't dated then dumped. Just as I am the only man, she has asked out on a date and the only man she asked to marry. She also says I am like no other man that she has ever known.

If I were to start having an interest in things she is interested in that I am not interested in, she would hate it. She would also find my interest annoying, since I would be crowding her. My wife likes her own private time and space which is why she likes that I am independent as well. She doesn't need reassurances to stroke her ego and she isn't interested in flattery either.

My wife is an INTJ, while I am an ENTJ so we are a great match.

The following on dating INTJ women, found on Quora describes my wife's perspective well.



> The men who have managed to outlast my boredom threshold (2 months) were intelligent, challenging, somewhat arrogant and not timid about asserting themselves when necessary. Lapdogs & doormats need not apply.


While this woman as quoted below, is channeling my relationship with my wife.



> We’re never going to be that girlfriend who checks your phone when your back is turned. We value our privacy (and expect you to) and likewise we will respect yours.
> 
> We don’t care if you have female friends. If I’m in a relationship with you it’s because you’ve earned my respect and thus my trust. If you violate that I’m not going to let it fester and be passive aggressive, I will simply leave and end the relationship and move on with my life.
> 
> ...


Here is some more from another website where Nancy Da Costa which also describes her well.



> Women with the INTJ personality type really are rare (0.8% of the population are INTJ females) and while uniqueness is a wonderful thing, it does have its pitfalls. INTJ women tend to be honest, capable, intellectually deep, and more intelligent than the average person, and the majority of people have a hard time keeping up with that — especially given that these traits are traditionally considered to be more male characteristics.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong — INTJ women are emotional beings and we are passionate and committed to those we love — we simply don’t display those traits as our default.
> ...
> ...


So thanks for your thoughts, yet I'll just keep being myself since it works for me and my wife.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> Eta:. I'm asking because I run into this perception IRL where men are expected to be direct and have strong boundaries but I'm considered cold and selfish for doing the same. I'm just wondering if this is a gender bias much the same way RJ, **** shaming etc...


No, no. It's not about genders (to me personally). I'd say the same thing, be it a man or a woman. I'd consider it selfish to almost never do things that please your SO, even if you don't have the same level of interest for such activities.

For example, I'm not a football fan and I don't give a sh*t about it, but I wouldn't mind pleasing my SO by going to watch a sports event with him. 

Just like you or @Personal, I could easily say "_not interested. go by yourself or with friends_" but a common-sense answer by him would be _"I know I can go by myself or with friends, but I'm happier to go with you..._" 
Again me " _I said not interested. I don't care what makes you happier. I don't have to go against my desires._" 

:|

Can you imagine this sh*tty childish behavior/conversation? This wouldn't be a healthy couple.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Don’t some women find it hot when a guy is selfish? A guy who just takes what he wants and uses her body for his pleasure. Particularly the stronger, more dominant guys. I’ve heard women say that that behavior, by that type of guy, makes them orgasm easily.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> I'd consider it selfish to almost never do things that please your SO, even if you don't have the same level of interest for such activities.


My wife and I share many interests and do lots of things together. Yet we also have many interests that don't coincide, which we happily pursue on our own or with other friends.

At no point have I said I almost never do things that please my wife. We are highly compatible, yet that compatibility includes being okay with "I'm not interested and "I don't feel like it".


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> If I want to end my 23+ year sexual relationship with my wife, I will take your advice.


If you end your 23+ year sexual relationship with your wife, I'd be more than happy to turn you down and restrain myself from giving you advice, as I can't advise someone who is the opposite of me in terms of values. I'm not saying mine are better, I'm just saying we're totally different. 

But thanx for your consideration, anyway! 



> Absent wanting to end that relationship, I'll keep doing what actually works for my wife. So thanks for your thoughts, yet I'll just keep being myself since it works for me and my wife


I already said it in my previous posts that as long as it works for both of you, that's what really matters. 
So you're not saying anything I haven't said so far. You wrote my own words.

Thanks for agreeing, anyway! 



> My wife isn't fond of being in relationships with men who put her on a pedestal, are into soppy romance, who are accommodating who are always eager to please and are worried about upsetting her feelings.


So who cares what your wife is like?? As long as you match....that's all fun. 

Thanx for describing her, anyway! 




> The following on dating INTJ women, found on Quora describes my wife's perspective well.
> 
> While this woman as quoted below, is channeling my relationship with my wife.
> 
> ...


Who cares what these women are saying? Not all women share the same opinions on the ratio between privacy, secrecy and sharing. Great that they "are your wife", though. 

Thanx for sharing, anyway! :wink2:


but if your wife was sexually selfish, you'd be totally writing a different story here.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> Don’t some women find it hot when a guy is selfish? A guy who just takes what he wants and uses her body for his pleasure. Particularly the stronger, more dominant guys. I’ve heard women say that that behavior, by that type of guy, makes them orgasm easily.


You're confusing _selfishness_ with _confidence_ . 2 different things. 

the 1st is a turn off, the 2nd a turn on. 

Some women don't know how to articulate what they want, but what they really want is the 2nd.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

farsidejunky said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree. Compatibility is so important.
> ...


I agree. I also think the older we get the more narrow our comfort zones become in general. 

I was having this same discussion with a friend last week. I used the modeling clay analogy. When we're young we are like a lump of clay just waiting to be molded. Over time we get molded into something (a pot, saucer, cup, lid) by our experiences. About mid life we are placed in a kiln and set, never to become anything else than what it experiences made us (a pot for this example). We can paint and decorate it differently, but a pot is a pot. Molding the clay into two pieces that fit together is easier than trying to find the perfect lid for a pot that's already been set. Finding the lid for a pot that's been shattered and glued back together...... Good luck.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> but if your wife was sexually selfish, you'd be totally writing a different story here.


No I wouldn't.

My wife is selfish sexually.

She enjoys the sex she has and only has it because she enjoys it.

She started dating me in large part, because her first sexual partner couldn't bring her to orgasm. She then dumped him, because I could bring her to orgasm. As it turned out quite easily via hand, or oral clitoral stimulation, or penis in vagina sex.

I can't imagine wanting to be with a sexual partner, who wasn't in it for their own sexual pleasure. Or having a sexual partner maintain their sexual desire, if they weren't in it for the pleasure they got out of it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Eta:. I'm asking because I run into this perception IRL where men are expected to be direct and have strong boundaries but I'm considered cold and selfish for doing the same. I'm just wondering if this is a gender bias much the same way RJ, **** shaming etc...
> ...


I don't know about all that @lovelygirl. In all of my relationships the conversation goes like this...

Him: want to come watch the football game with me tonight?

Me:. Not really but I would like to spend time together. You go have fun with your friends and we can do X (something we both enjoy doing) after the game, just you and me?

Seriously, it doesn't have to be childish or sinister. It's just different.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Lila said:


> I don't know about all that @lovelygirl. In all of my relationships the conversation goes like this...
> 
> Him: want to come watch the football game with me tonight?
> 
> ...


Then I guess it depends on the tone that you use... and the situation. 

If you put it in the words you just said now, it's pretty fine. 

But in your earlier posts, you simply wrote that you told your H _"not intrested_". Full stop. End of convo. End of everything. 

That way, made it sound very selfish. Very much like: "_I said mine. Don't care what you think or what you have to add next._."* type of attitude.* which is way different from how you put it above as quoted.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about all that @lovelygirl. In all of my relationships the conversation goes like this...
> ...



Full stop in the request to have me join him for football. If he didn't let it go out got upset that I didn't want to go with him, that would be an issue for me. I'm not interested in doing what he wants and I don't. I'm interested in doing mutually enjoyable things.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

lovelygirl said:


> Unfortunately, in the hook up culture you need to have the fast-sex type of dating, just like the fast-food.
> 
> As much as I wish many guys waited a bit longer for me to have sex with them, many times I have felt some sort of internal pressure to "give it" to them. And I say "give" though I wish I could use "have sex".
> 
> ...


If women do not value themselves then men will not value them.
Unfortunately todays feminist women think it best to as bad as men when it comes to sex.

I would wait for the "Bill Clinton" definition of sex with a woman. Kissing and petting does
not have to lead to PIV to have a fun date.

Dating should not be about banging as many people you can but finding the right one to
start a relationship that will lead to marriage.

Dating is the job interview for marriage. You do not have to hire everyone.
You may hire the first one or the tenth one.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Personal said:


> No I wouldn't.
> 
> My wife is selfish sexually.
> 
> ...


Outside of you using this post to brag your wife is not selfish for dumping a man that could not get
the job done. She was suppose to marry a man and never have an orgasm makes her selfish in your book?
That is crazy.

Though if you said my wife refused to teach him how to be a better lover. Then she is selfish at the worst,
lazy at the best, or both.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

oldtruck said:


> In general people should not talk about their past relationships.
> 
> All that it does is create retroactive jealousy and pain.
> 
> ...




I think their marriage will never be the same, and might be over. 

I’d walk if I were her husband. The way that all came out belies a fundamental lack of respect, responsibility, empathy, and attraction. 

While you could recover from this one event, I highly doubt it’s an isolated incident. And at any rate, I would never feel the same way about her again. Not because of her behaviour in past relationships. Because of her behaviour this one.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Lila said:


> 'm interested in doing mutually enjoyable things.


Yep that's what works for us.

My wife likes going to markets, while I don't. So she mostly goes to them with friends, and or our daughter or alone.

I like going to scale model hobby stores, while my wife doesn't. So I mostly go alone or sometimes with friends.

Yet we both like going to art galleries and music concerts together, so we often go together. Yet that doesn't stop us, from sometimes going to those activities with other friends separately as well.

We also both had the day off together today, so we spent the day out before our daughter came home from school.

Yet there were several occasions when we split up.

For example on one occasion I wanted to go to an art supply store, and she said: "I'm not interested." then went to a clothing store. While on another occasion she went to a jewellery store and I said: "I'm not interested." then went to a bookstore.

Yet we still both went to a cafe, some other stores and then had lunch together, because we were both mutually interested in those things as well.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Personal said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > 'm interested in doing mutually enjoyable things.
> ...


Same here. Not a ton of overlap but we find some things. And anything else you can eat/do by yourself.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> She started dating me in large part, because her first sexual partner couldn't bring her to orgasm. She then dumped him, because I could bring her to orgasm. As it turned out quite easily via hand, or oral clitoral stimulation, or penis in vagina sex.


What's selfish about this?? 

What she did was pretty normal. Everyone in her shoes would've done the same thing. 

I'd have to laugh at you thinking she did something extraordinary. 

Seriously? 

I mean...that's common sense. It's normal. Actually, she'd be stupid to even think of staying with a man who couldn't make her reach O, while she had another one who made her reach it. Simple. 




> I can't imagine wanting to be with a sexual partner, who wasn't in it for their own sexual pleasure. Or having a sexual partner maintain their sexual desire, if they weren't in it for the pleasure they got out of it.


Again, what you're saying is pretty normal. Obviously, no one in this world does something if they don't receive pleasure for their own effing self. 


What I'd call selfish would be her always reaching O and* not caring* and not giving a f*** if you reached it too. Ever.

Got me???

So, next time you brag about your wife, try to read your post again... because maybe...she's doing something all random women do.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

oldtruck said:


> Outside of you using this post to brag your wife is not selfish for dumping a man that could not get
> the job done. She was suppose to marry a man and never have an orgasm makes her selfish in your book?
> That is crazy.
> .


:rofl:


yeah.... 'xactly! I was like "WTF is he talking about?? :slap:" 


Maybe we need to open e new thread about selfishness.
Apparently, the definition is the real problem.

:lol:

_________________________________________



Lila said:


> Full stop in the request to have me join him for football. If he didn't let it go out got upset that I didn't want to go with him, that would be an issue for me. I'm not interested in doing what he wants and I don't. I'm interested in doing mutually enjoyable things.


Sure, him insisting on you going with him, _*would be selfish of him*_, not of you. 

We need to realize that just as there are things to do apart, there are things that both want to do together - in those instances where the interest level is maybe similar or not the same.

I'm not referring to cases where the interest level is *EXTREMELY opposite. * For extremely opposite hobbies, none of the partners is obligated to join the other.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> Outside of you using this post to brag your wife is not selfish for dumping a man that could not get
> the job done.


My wife often tells me, that she's with me for "selfish" reasons. She will even sometimes say if I didn't meet those "selfish" reasons she will dump me.

That's cool, since I'm with her because of what I get out of being with her as well.



> She was suppose to marry a man and never have an orgasm makes her selfish in your book?
> That is crazy.


I don't know where you get the idea she was supposed to marry some man.

My wife's first sexual partner, was just a guy (fling No 1), she picked to finally start having sex with. Since she had waited till she was 25 years old (until she stopped believing in religion & a god etc), when she decided that her waiting for marriage to have sex was a stupid thing to do.



> Though if you said my wife refused to teach him how to be a better lover. Then she is selfish at the worst,
> lazy at the best, or both.


When she started with me as fling No 2, she was very inexperienced.

So I don't know what she could have taught him. Especially since he was a divorced man in his 30s who had been with other women. 

As to her inexperience, after we had sex together for the first time. She told me that she'd never given anyone a blowjob before, and that she was worried about doing it. At the time I told her: "Don't worry, you're going to get lots of practice".

Then about 2-3 years ago, my wife told me, that the other guy before me. Said something along the lines of: That's okay, there's no pressure if you don't want to do it, if you do you can take it really slow.

She said that the difference between us, was she didn't do it with him because he didn't inspire confidence. Since his response to her and was too accommodating. Whereas she started doing it with me, because she found my confidence reassuring and my directness exciting.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> What I'd call selfish would be her always reaching O and* not caring* and not giving a f*** if you reached it too. Ever.
> 
> Got me???


My wife doesn't care if I reach orgasm, on the occasions it happens she says "bad luck for you". Likewise there are occasions when my wife doesn't reach orgasm as well, and she also gets the same response from me.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> Yep that's what works for us.
> 
> My wife likes going to markets, while I don't. So she mostly goes to them with friends, and or our daughter or alone.


That's not selfish. No rocket science. Just like my dad hated going shopping with mom. 

Next??




> I like going to scale model hobby stores, while my wife doesn't. So I mostly go alone or sometimes with friends.


 No rocket science. Just like dad was into engineering stores, while mom didn't accompany him there. 

Next??




> Yet we both like going to art galleries and music concerts together, so we often go together. Yet that doesn't stop us, from sometimes going to those activities with other friends separately as well.


Same thing with my parents. Some mutual activities with friends, some alone activities, some separate activities with other friends. 
Again, no rocket science. And nothing selfish about any of these things.

Next??




> We also both had the day off together today, so we spent the day out before our daughter came home from school.
> Yet there were several occasions when we split up.


Completely normal.

Next??



> For example on one occasion I wanted to go to an art supply store, and she said: "I'm not interested." then went to a clothing store. While on another occasion she went to a jewellery store and I said: "I'm not interested." then went to a bookstore.
> 
> Yet we still both went to a cafe, some other stores and then had lunch together, because we were both mutually interested in those things as well.


Totally and absolutely completely normal. No rocket science.



BUT *Irrelevant to the type selfishness that I was talking about.*


Next???
.......


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> My wife doesn't care if I reach orgasm, on the occasions it happens she says "bad luck for you". Likewise there are occasions when my wife doesn't reach orgasm as well, and she also gets the same response from me.


Being a woman myself, :wink2: she has gotten comfortable to the fact that you've acknowledged each other for what you are and she knows you're not going anywhere, anyway.


Typical. 

Again, no real selfishness here. I can even figure out *her sense of humor* when she says "bad luck for you".


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> That's not selfish. No rocket science.


So you finally understand, even if it took lots of posts.

That in itself it isn't selfish to tell ones partner "I'm not interested" or "I don't feel like it" and act accordingly.

Hopefully given time, you will also understand that being a bit selfish when it comes to sex. Can be very healthy and mutually rewarding in sexual relationships if all participants are great at sex.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I suspect that is most often when "what he wants" happens to match what she wants. 





CraigBesuden said:


> Don’t some women find it hot when a guy is selfish? A guy who just takes what he wants and uses her body for his pleasure. Particularly the stronger, more dominant guys. I’ve heard women say that that behavior, by that type of guy, makes them orgasm easily.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Being a woman myself, :wink2: she has gotten comfortable to the fact that you've acknowledged each other for what you are and she knows you're not going anywhere, anyway.
> 
> 
> Typical.
> ...


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Not going anywhere.

My current wife is the only woman I have been in a sexual relationship that I haven't dumped so far and that includes another who wanted to marry me.

If she crosses any of my boundaries, I will end our marriage. I have done it before with my ex-wife and wouldn't hesitate to do it again.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Personal said:


> So you finally understand, even if it took lots of posts.
> 
> That in itself it isn't selfish to tell ones partner "I'm not interested" or "I don't feel like it" and act accordingly.
> 
> Hopefully given time, you will also understand that being a bit selfish when it comes to sex. Can be very healthy and mutually rewarding in sexual relationships if all participants are great at sex.


Your definition of selfishness is wayyyyyy different from mine. You need to go back to school and learn it properly.

It didn't take me any post to understand the time apart of the couple, but it's still taking me a lot of posts to understand where your wife's selfishness lies .... in all your time-wasting posts and selfishness in sex .... 
?? 

Your bad examples are so IRRELEVANT to the selfishness is sex,* that I want those minutes of my life back! Like right now! *

Your wife is sooo ordinary and just so normal, along with you,...that I need to open a new thread (if not join another forum) to detox myself ..... and start talking about selfishness in sex, separately altogether. COMPLETELY SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT to your posts! 

But for now, I'll remain within RJ.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

lovelygirl said:


> You're confusing _selfishness_ with _confidence_ . 2 different things.
> 
> the 1st is a turn off, the 2nd a turn on.
> 
> Some women don't know how to articulate what they want, but what they really want is the 2nd.




I think it’s actually important to be selfish - temporarily. 

When somebody’s giving you something selflessly, you better do your best to enjoy it to the highest extent you can. Be really selfish in that moment. 

Just make sure it’s temporarily and not a lifestyle.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> This is very dangerous on your part.
> 
> If he finds out, it may not be a question of what he can or can't ask.
> 
> ...


Most men really don't want to know the details of your sexual past or your partner count. It's seems to be another TAM thing. 
I'm not worried. 

If it is important to someone to know, it's on them to ask these questions before it gets serious.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Marduk said:


> I think it’s actually important to be selfish - temporarily.


Yep!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> Don’t some women find it hot when a guy is selfish? A guy who just takes what he wants and uses her body for his pleasure. Particularly the stronger, more dominant guys. I’ve heard women say that that behavior, by that type of guy, makes them orgasm easily.


Women like to orgasm. Despite what movies show, throwing a woman on the bed and, without foreplay, having grunting PIV for 3 minutes isn't going to be sexy. 

Pushing you up against a wall and kissing hard while putting a hand down her pants and saying you'll be licking her later-- hot. 

As a general rule, women like confidence and a partner who cares about our orgasm. 
Some men think dominant "take what they want" sex means forgetting about their partner's orgasm. It's not fun at all. 

Taking what you want should include giving her what she wants. That's what makes it sexy, it's in HIS control so you aren't feeling guilty or selfish.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

@lovelygirl



> *Is Sexual Selfishness the Key to Erotic Passion?*
> A new take on sexual selfishness suggests it may benefit your sex life.
> 
> ...
> ...


Most long term sexual relationships that go on for several years, diminish significantly in their intensity and frequency over time. Yet ours hasn't, as we still share enthusiastic and varied sex together, at a frequency of 4-6x a week and often more.

One of the reasons for this longevity, is as a consequence of having a degree of selfishness within the sex that we share.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Taking what you want should include giving her what she wants.


Indeed.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> I do respect how "I'm not interested" makes you feel but i'll be honest, my reaction to the bolded statement is to want to flee. It sounds like the responsibility for the happiness of my partner is on my shoulders even at the risk my happiness.
> 
> Does it feel better because you are voicing your thoughts on the subject or because you feel you are being given an opportunity to convince her to change her mind?


It makes me feel better because it lets me know that she's not dismissive of things I'm interested in. It would make me feel that she in genuinely interested in my happiness.

Now, whether she can do anything about it is another question.

IRL, I'd be loathe to continue asking for something she clearly would rather not do and almost certainly wouldn't. But, at least I wouldn't think she was being dismissive.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I do respect how "I'm not interested" makes you feel but i'll be honest, my reaction to the bolded statement is to want to flee. It sounds like the responsibility for the happiness of my partner is on my shoulders even at the risk my happiness.
> ...


Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you want to be genuinely heard, regardless the outcome, correct? After being heard, you'd be okay accepting a "still not interested"?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

In Absentia said:


> As my wife once told me: we are not having a cup of tea... I get to get your penis in my vagina, so if I don't feel like doing what you want to do, today or tomorrow, nothing personal, I just don't want to do it - I'm not interested - and I hope you will respect my choice, my body and my integrity, now and in the future.


Of course you don't get to do it if she doesn't feel like doing what you want to do, today or tomorrow.

No one her is questioning that. Everyone would respect that.

What she can't do is decide that you have to be happy with whatever frequency or quality of sex that she's interested in having with you.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Personal said:


> My wife is an INTJ, while I am an ENTJ so we are a great match.


That's so interesting. I took that test again recently and was told I am an ENTJ but I must be a borderline one with one of the others (most of the characteristics were 60%). Maybe this is why I can agree with you on this topic 😄


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> Since you referenced me.... Do you think it cold and selfish because I'm a woman? I believe there were men @farsidejunky and @Personal come to mind right away) who posted on this thread saying the same exact thing about giving a "not interested" response without explanation.


No, it doesn't have anything to do with your being a woman.

I disagree with @Personal's take on almost everything and usually skip 99% of what he posts.

I did see a comment along the lines you mention from @farsidejunky. It actually did jar me for a moment but I agree with him on so many other things I suspected that he just didn't state it clearly or his feelings were more nuanced than they appeared. 

Also, you were the person I was having the exchange with, so I'm more likely to address you and not any peripheral posters.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> That'd be great but hardly any couple does this.
> I think people should educate themselves about sex. Especially couples.
> They gotta conversate, read, try it out, ...it should be just as any other meaningful topic within marriage/family - like finances/babies/jobs...etc.
> 
> ...


Well it's a touchy subject. Egos on both sides can be bruised if you are not careful, but you're right.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> No, it doesn't have anything to do with your being a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is more nuanced in that if it is important to F2, then to some degree it becomes important to me as well.

Furthermore, because I love my wife, I will give her an explanation...once. 

And because I love my wife I will consider what she wants. 

However...it is not required. 

It also becomes a slippery slope from things that aren't hard boundaries to those that are.

That said, at the end of the day, I will give her the same amount of consideration that she gives my wants. 

If she shows genuine concern and openness to my desires, she will get the same from me. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> I agree. I also think the older we get the more narrow our comfort zones become in general.
> 
> I was having this same discussion with a friend last week. I used the modeling clay analogy. When we're young we are like a lump of clay just waiting to be molded. Over time we get molded into something (a pot, saucer, cup, lid) by our experiences. About mid life we are placed in a kiln and set, never to become anything else than what it experiences made us (a pot for this example). We can paint and decorate it differently, but a pot is a pot. Molding the clay into two pieces that fit together is easier than trying to find the perfect lid for a pot that's already been set. Finding the lid for a pot that's been shattered and glued back together...... Good luck.


Would this account for men wanting to date younger women then?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Most men really don't want to know the details of your sexual past or your partner count. It's seems to be another TAM thing.
> I'm not worried.
> 
> If it is important to someone to know, it's on them to ask these questions before it gets serious.


I never want to know details, but I would have wanted to know *these* details.

And I never would have thought to ask.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

farsidejunky said:


> It is more nuanced in that if it is important to F2, then to some degree it becomes important to me as well.
> 
> Furthermore, because I love my wife, I will give her an explanation...once.
> 
> ...




Tit for tat strategy is a good backstop if things are not good, I think. 

Once you get into a positive virtuous cycle with it though, I think you just move forward in an expansive, sincere way. 

9/10 out of 10 - with my wife and with most relationships - a no often becomes a yes eventually if you create the right context, create a safe non-judgemental consequence free environment, and perhaps most importantly, hear and accept no the first time you hear it. 

Maybe it’s me, but I’ve heard more than once something to the effect of “remember that thing you asked about and I said no to? Well I might be open to trying it tonight.”

If things start to fail or she’s pulling back or not putting in effort, then it’s back to tit for tat after a gentle conversation or two.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Most men really don't want to know the details of your sexual past or your partner count. It's seems to be another TAM thing.


I think the word M in TAM attracts a crowd that leans religious and conservative.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you want to be genuinely heard, regardless the outcome, correct? After being heard, you'd be okay accepting a "still not interested"?


I'd almost certainly (**) be okay accepting "Sorry, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm still not going to do it" 

I would not be okay if she listened, genuinely heard me and then just repeated "I'm still not interested" (How would I know that she genuinely heard me?) .

** An example of not accepting would be if she said "I have no problem giving head to guys with attractive penises but your **** repulses me" (Well, technically, I *would* accept that answer, I would just never have sex with her again).


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Since you referenced me.... Do you think it cold and selfish because I'm a woman? I believe there were men @farsidejunky and @Personal come to mind right away) who posted on this thread saying the same exact thing about giving a "not interested" response without explanation.
> ...


 @Buddy400, I responded to a post made to @lovelygirl. I'm not sure what you're responding too.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> I never want to know details, but I would have wanted to know *these* details.
> 
> And I never would have thought to ask.


I specifically look for, and date, men who are open minded and pro-feminism/non-s*** shaming types so I can avoid this anyway. 

It's pretty clear to any new sexual partner I have that I'm a bit of a freak. I give plenty of time to watch for clues that a man may have too poor self esteem or too high ego requirements to be compatible. Sex is discussed often. 

And again-- Who I am right now and who I am in the future is what matters. I put any sex that involves other people on my no list. He agreed. Me doing it in the past doesn't change that one bit. Doesn't change who I am one bit.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Lila said:


> Since you referenced me.... Do you think it cold and selfish because I'm a woman? I believe there were men (@farsidejunky and @Personal come to mind right away) who posted on this thread saying the same exact thing about giving a "not interested" response without explanation.
> 
> Eta:. I'm asking because I run into this perception IRL where men are expected to be direct and have strong boundaries but I'm considered cold and selfish for doing the same. *I'm just wondering if this is a gender bias *much the same way RJ, **** shaming etc...


Gender bias, maybe ... lack of respect for women more likely. For example I am wondering why none of these men lambasted the man on this thread who admitted that he lied to his wife about his "numbers" and yet they are crucifying Penny D.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Buddy400 said:


> ** An example of not accepting would be if she said "I have no problem giving head to guys with attractive penises but your **** repulses me" (Well, technically, I *would* accept that answer, I would just never have sex with her again).


How about “I only enjoy giving head to guys with small penises. Yours would make me gag and hurt my jaw”?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Red Sonja said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Since you referenced me.... Do you think it cold and selfish because I'm a woman? I believe there were men (@farsidejunky and @Personal come to mind right away) who posted on this thread saying the same exact thing about giving a "not interested" response without explanation.
> ...


The story told by PD was that she gave great, wild sex to her “super stud” Dave and probably the other guys she dated as well. Then she met a nice guy, made him wait months for sex, then only permitted him missionary PIV, despite his requests for more and his resentment over it. She wouldn’t even dress sexy for him, as she did for Dave. Steve only accepted it because she insisted (falsely) that she was a prude who didn’t like “full menu sex.” Then he learned the truth in a humiliating way, that she loved and craved “full menu sex,” just not with him. PD’s desires had not changed. Rather, she claimed that she had no idea why she denied the man she claimed to love for 25 years any of the things she gave away freely to everyone else. PD’s story pushes all the right buttons, uses the right buzzwords, and is told in such a way as to be highly inflammatory (at least to men). It conforms to the “alpha fux beta bux” Red Pill theory that women use and abuse beta males in this way, despite the fact that I’ve never seen such a woman IRL.

That’s a totally different thing from a man or woman lying about their number.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you want to be genuinely heard, regardless the outcome, correct? After being heard, you'd be okay accepting a "still not interested"?
> ...


Okay, so the correct way to word it is "Sorry, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm still not going to do it". I'm just trying to figure this out in case I'm ever put in a position where I have to respond with a no.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Red Sonja said:


> Gender bias, maybe ... lack of respect for women more likely. For example I am wondering why none of these men lambasted the man on this thread who admitted that he lied to his wife about his "numbers" and yet they are crucifying Penny D.


Please point the way, I would be happy to lambast him. I don't believe any of this was about Penny's numbers I don't think that even came up in the discussion about that thread. It was about her telling her husband she was not into sex, when the truth is for whatever reason she was no into sex with him.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> @Buddy400, I responded to a post made to @lovelygirl. I'm not sure what you're responding too.


Ah, since @lovelygirl and I seem to be saying the same thing, I must have gotten confused as to who you were responding to.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> How about “I only enjoy giving head to guys with small penises. Yours would make me gag and hurt my jaw”?


That would probably do the job.

As long as she really means it and didn't just hear about it on TAM :smile2:


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Personal said:


> My wife isn't fond of being in relationships with men who put her on a pedestal, are into soppy romance, who are accommodating who are always eager to please and are worried about upsetting her feelings.
> 
> She spent time dating and being with a few men like that (including a couple that wanted to marry her) and dumped them all. They weren't bad guys, they simply weren't up to being with her. Since they weren't willing to challenge her and stand up for themselves and they needed their egos stroked as a consequence of their insecurities. She didn't want to be with a man who was a doormat, since she found such men to be too demanding and weak so she had to let them go.


Yes, this is me! And, that may be the reason the subject and discussions on this thread are so foreign to my life experience and ways of thinking.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Red Sonja said:


> Gender bias, maybe ... lack of respect for women more likely. For example I am wondering why none of these men lambasted the man on this thread who admitted that he lied to his wife about his "numbers" and yet they are crucifying Penny D.


Going to need to name drop, as I'm still catching up. Are you referring to Marduk? I don't think his reference was with regard to numbers. I'm also going off what I know of his relationship over years. He and his wife have been very open.

I think the thing I'm trying to get at revolves around a response @lovelygirl made to my post wondering why women feel compelled to obfuscate. I wonder if it is due to feeling that somehow they landed a virtuous man, and for reasons unknown, they feel that is at risk if they are perceived as not virtuous?

I certainly can't get behind the 'tough luck' aspect if a man chooses to judge a woman harshly.

Again ... I can only defer to my history here. I've had this discussion a lot ... particularly as a dating adult. And when I say this conversation, I mean about sex and sexual boundaries. It's never an interrogation or accusatory. Usually it's really fun. Sometimes it is very somber. I've had multiple partners disclose that they were sexually abused.

I have had relationships take a turn as a result of that conversation. For example, when a partner (non-sexual) discloses that won't ever do oral. I'll respectfully look contemplative and nod. And the next day let them know that I don't think it's going to work out. Never had anyone ask if it was because they wouldn't give a blowjob. But ... hard boundary for me. Take that off the table and you have just removed the singular way that I most consistently can achieve orgasm. So, yes I respect your boundary and I'm not going to criticize or belittle. But I'm also smart enough to recognize human nature that if I said in the moment, "Time out. You don't do oral? Oh ... then forget it. To me that is just not emotionally smart.

The point that has actually been mentioned, and I often wonder if we are dancing around, is whether or not the culmination of the issues of **** shaming and Madonna ***** complex still dip their toes into the dark water of men feeling compelled to 'manage', judge, or own, women via their sexuality.

I certainly don't expect anyone to own up to that point participating here. 

But read enough on this board, and under the covers, it often looks that way. There has even hints of it here in this very thread.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> Gender bias, maybe ... lack of respect for women more likely. For example I am wondering why none of these men lambasted the man on this thread who admitted that he lied to his wife about his "numbers" and yet they are crucifying Penny D.


Point me to the thread so that I can pile on.

I generally don't participate in threads here women are having sexual problems with men since I really don't have anything worthwhile to say. 

When I read those "my wife wants to leave me because I've been a bad husband for 20 years" threads, I usually just think "Idiot, what did you expect would happen?"

And since that wouldn't really be very helpful, I just don't post.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> Okay, so the correct way to word it is "Sorry, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm still not going to do it". I'm just trying to figure this out in case I'm ever put in a position where I have to respond with a no.


Well, that would work for me.

Any man who isn't like me isn't worth dating :smile2: so you should be okay.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> The point that has actually been mentioned, and I often wonder if we are dancing around, is whether or not the culmination of the issues of **** shaming and Madonna ***** complex still dip their toes into the dark water of men feeling compelled to 'manage', judge, or own, women via their sexuality.
> 
> I certainly don't expect anyone to own up to that point participating here.


But why the attempt to classify bad behaviors as "managing, judging or owning women via their sexuality"? That sounds like we're listening to a Women's Studies lecture at Smith.

How about we just focus on bad behaviors and say, "don't do those"? 

I think there'll be more cooperation and less push back.

This is looking like the "toxic masculinity" stuff that men are responding to so well.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. I also think the older we get the more narrow our comfort zones become in general.
> ...


I don't understand your question. What would account for older men dating younger women?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Buddy400 said:


> But why the attempt to classify bad behaviors as "managing, judging or owning women via their sexuality"? That sounds like we're listening to a Women's Studies lecture at Smith.
> 
> How about we just focus on bad behaviors and say, "don't do those"?
> 
> ...


Gonna guess, by bad behaviors you mean lying, or omitting details you believe are important? Don't think anyone is going to argue that lying makes a relationship better. I'm not.

Do you have it figured out why women choose to lie about their sexual history? Because that's what I'm asking.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Going to need to name drop, as I'm still catching up. Are you referring to Marduk? I don't think his reference was with regard to numbers. I'm also going off what I know of his relationship over years. He and his wife have been very open.


I'll dig into this a little bit.

When my wife and I got together, we were both deeply broken. Both had been cheated on in very bad ways in our last relationship, both had trust issues, and both were very cynical in our approaches. But we saw something in each other, rooted deeply in attraction.

She is very blunt, to the point of making other people uncomfortable. Her natural style is to tell a stranger everything if they ask. She's an open book, maybe too much. Plus, she comes from a very religious family that judged her - and attempted to shame her a lot. So when we got together, it was very much "I'm going to drag you through every past relationship in exquisite detail to see if you get all judgy or jealous." I mean, quite often on a date she'd point to some random guy in the crowd and tell me she'd slept with him, and what he was like, and what they did together. 

What I learned later was a lot of that was just screwing with me - to test me. After a while, it became very tiresome, and I'd start to do the same. She'd get very upset. So we talked, and I just told her "let's run through our pasts with a focus on stuff that is meaningful, and stuff we gotta talk about." So we went away on a trip and did exactly that. Was one of the most painful trips of my life, but we got through it. And then we just stopped talking about the past unless it impacted our relationship together.

She still makes mistakes sometimes - a number of years ago she spontaneously started talking about other guy's penises in a party with very close friends of ours because she thought it was funny. But I shut that down, because I just found it to be tasteless and disrespectful. Many drinks were flowing so I dropped it after that. But it did hurt.

But I will be honest - I have not asked her number because I don't want to know, and I've told her that. I have insecurities like anyone else that there's really no reason to trigger, and there's things I just don't want to think about. I'm like that with my own past as well - sometimes when I post a story here it's because I had totally forgotten about some event in my life, and I wonder what that means to me now.

But I have asked her to be somewhat guarded and sensitive to my insecurities - or maybe sensitivities - about needing to think about her having sex with some other guy. And I think that's OK as long as it doesn't come into our present.

She is extremely jealous as well, so it helps her, too. I mean, all I needed to do was point out one girl I had slept with in the crowd at a hockey game once and she was upset for days - once she thought of me as "hers."

We have been very open and explicit... but we are now more careful and intentional these days. Besides, we've been together almost 20 years. And been through a lot.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Marduk said:


> I think their marriage will never be the same, and might be over.
> 
> I’d walk if I were her husband. The way that all came out belies a fundamental lack of respect, responsibility, empathy, and attraction.
> 
> While you could recover from this one event, I highly doubt it’s an isolated incident. And at any rate, I would never feel the same way about her again. Not because of her behaviour in past relationships. Because of her behaviour this one.


She did not cheat on him which would of been far worse.

Maybe it was she wanted a husband and was afraid that a good man would not marry
her wild side. Then she cheated on herself and him of a more fulfilling sex life.

This is something a sex therapist can get them through.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

CraigBesuden said:


> The story told by PD was that she gave great, wild sex to her “super stud” Dave and probably the other guys she dated as well. Then she met a nice guy, made him wait months for sex, then only permitted him missionary PIV, despite his requests for more and his resentment over it. She wouldn’t even dress sexy for him, as she did for Dave. Steve only accepted it because she insisted (falsely) that she was a prude who didn’t like “full menu sex.” Then he learned the truth in a humiliating way, that she loved and craved “full menu sex,” just not with him. PD’s desires had not changed. Rather, she claimed that she had no idea why she denied the man she claimed to love for 25 years any of the things she gave away freely to everyone else. PD’s story pushes all the right buttons, uses the right buzzwords, and is told in such a way as to be highly inflammatory (at least to men). It conforms to the “alpha fux beta bux” Red Pill theory that women use and abuse beta males in this way, despite the fact that I’ve never seen such a woman IRL.
> *
> That’s a totally different thing from a man or woman lying about their number.*


Wait.. so lying about numbers is ok?


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> It makes me feel better because it lets me know that she's not dismissive of things I'm interested in. It would make me feel that she in genuinely interested in my happiness.
> 
> Now, whether she can do anything about it is another question.
> 
> IRL, I'd be loathe to continue asking for something she clearly would rather not do and almost certainly wouldn't. But, at least I wouldn't think she was being dismissive.


Yep. Sometimes the refusal itself doesn't hurt as much as the lack of trying and understanding why your SO doesn't want to do something with you.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Marduk said:


> .
> 
> ." I mean, quite often on a date she'd point to some random guy in the crowd and tell me she'd slept with him, and what he was like, and what they did together.
> 
> ...


See for example...If I had a man pointing out (randomly) at the girls he might have slept with... (true or not or even to test me..) I WOULD DROP HIM. In. That. Very. SECOND.

More than immediately! At the speed of light!!

I don't care about his past whatsoever! 
We all have a past at the end of the day, but I think CHOOSING to have some respect for the person you're dating/SO is more important. 

To each their own @Marduk , but I personally wouldn't tolerate it. Very immature. Sorry.


Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

oldtruck said:


> She did not cheat on him which would of been far worse.
> 
> Maybe it was she wanted a husband and was afraid that a good man would not marry
> her wild side. Then she cheated on herself and him of a more fulfilling sex life.
> ...



I’m not sure it would have been worse. I mean, I’d hate to have either one happen, but it somehow would feel a lot like cheating to me.


----------



## 2&out (Apr 16, 2015)

Some fascinating reading. So many people fired up about what someone did in the past and didn't advertise it. What I find particularly interesting is the original situation did not involve any deceit, lies, or cutoff yet so many are fired up about this. It came to light by 2 miss-steps. 1) Loosed mouthed friend. 2) Drunk verification. Yes I said no deceit - I don't see any. Time, situation, her wants changed. In my book that is called growth, not deceit. I feel bad for her. I totally get where she didn't or doesn't want to do certain things with someone who matters vs. someone who doesn't.

This subject has made me think and realize something I never really thought about. This could easily happen to me and I need to be cognoscente of who I bring someone special around/to meet. Have I lied about my count ? No - but only because no one has ever asked. If they did - yep - likely I would. Would I still do some of the things I did before with my current partner ? Umm - no -- I don't want to. I don't regret AT ALL most of the stuff I did/experienced. As SlowlyGC said, some things just aren't on my menu anymore. My body isn't what it used to be where I was very proud of and willing to show all of it without hesitation as in group sex, in front of others, in a bar/dance club. I don't want to watch my current interest take turns on me orally. But it was effin great when I did with chicks I had no future intent with and/or may never see again. I don't do variety packs or different women the same day any more. I'm not particularly fond of anal and don't need/want for me. Maybe that is part of the deal. Been there, done that, this is what I am into and like now. I am different than 25 years ago. I don't think I've done anything wrong or am "cheating" anyone (my current and maybe permanent interest) of anything.

I hope her husband doesn't feel as so many here seem to - that she presented a false image/goods. She didn't. He may have wanted more but he accepted it. That is on him. From what I read the menu never changed and has been consistent the whole marriage. I really don't see and think she did anything wrong. Even admitting it in a drunken state. A lapse of judgement maybe but then many here would be arguing she should have told him vs. keeping her mouth shut - which is another no win deal.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

lovelygirl said:


> See for example...If I had a man pointing out (randomly) at the girls he might have slept with... (true or not or even to test me..) I WOULD DROP HIM. In. That. Very. SECOND.
> 
> More than immediately! At the speed of light!!
> 
> ...



Sure. I mean, it was 20 years ago and not yesterday. I did walk away from dating her more than once, and she did as well. 

I would not tolerate that again, and it really only happened over a few week period when we were first together. 

If I were to date again, I wouldn’t accept it.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2&out said:


> Some fascinating reading. So many people fired up about what someone did in the past and didn't advertise it. What I find particularly interesting is the original situation did not involve any deceit, lies, or cutoff yet so many are fired up about this. It came to light by 2 miss-steps. 1) Loosed mouthed friend. 2) Drunk verification. Yes I said no deceit - I don't see any. Time, situation, her wants changed. In my book that is called growth, not deceit. I feel bad for her. I totally get where she didn't or doesn't want to do certain things with someone who matters vs. someone who doesn't.




She lied about it, mismanaged their sex life, and then rubbed it in his face in front of someone else. 

It all started with the lies. And yes, she did lie when she claimed not to be open to such things when in fact she was. And she lied by omission about her past for her own reasons that had nothing to do with him. He didn’t judge her for it. 

He judged her for pretending to not be open to such things, misleading him, and (likely) then humiliating him in front of her friend. 

She didn’t have her husbands back here at all.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

"I'm not open to sex involving more than 2 people" is not a lie even though I've done it before. It's who I am now. I used to be a size 0 but that's not relevant anymore either. 

I have a suspicion that many of those kinds of threads are .... bait (and/or proving a point) 
Going from doing *everything* with one guy to *nothing but missionary PIV* with the next is a rare situation that I think is such an outlier that it doesn't need to be used as the model for the topic. IMO. 

Many people will have a few things they no longer want to do for whatever reason. 
Many people don't share their partner # or personal details. 

These aren't lies.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

It would have been tragic if he was looking for this exact relationship "if only she was a little bit more willing and varied in sexual relations" but he dumped her early on because she would experiment in their sex life at all.

And because she wasn't honest the whole relationship went the other way and didn't last from the get go.

Or would it be tragic?

Now, pre marriage DW and I had great sex, and FFM threesomes here and there but after M, no more other other women in our romps.

But never, ever would I've considered pointing out other women I'd slept with at the clubs we went to. 

She knew I still dated a couple after we met but after I cleared those and she turned a couple away at my door for early morning pool times we were committed. 👍

Once, early on a Sat my door bell rang and she beat me to the door in one if my t shirts only, and informed one regular I was no longer available for early morning sex and pool time.

I was ready though, so I rolled with it.

I admit I had grabbed some shorts and was hot on her trail down the stairs and got there as she opened the door so I heard the exchange. She was polite, but firm. I figured discretion was the better part if valor then. Although I did explain to "x" as well, later.

Gotta love her. 😍😍😍


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> I don't understand your question. What would account for older men dating younger women?


You said basically when people get older they are not open to try new things and that got me thinking maybe that is part of the motivation for men to go for younger women. I personally don't understand that, that wouldn't be my thing but maybe that is a part of it.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I have a suspicion that many of those kinds of threads are .... bait (and/or proving a point)
> Going from doing *everything* with one guy to *nothing but missionary PIV* with the next is a rare situation that I think is such an outlier that it doesn't need to be used as the model for the topic. IMO.


Indeed. PD’s story is well-written but incredible, unbelievable..... in how rare it is, that is. Incredibly rare.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> "I'm not open to sex involving more than 2 people" is not a lie even though I've done it before. It's who I am now. I used to be a size 0 but that's not relevant anymore either.
> 
> I have a suspicion that many of those kinds of threads are .... bait (and/or proving a point)
> Going from doing *everything* with one guy to *nothing but missionary PIV* with the next is a rare situation that I think is such an outlier that it doesn't need to be used as the model for the topic. IMO.
> ...


Except that she would be open to doing BDSM things (if I remember right) again in her future. Just not with her husband.

Again, I think people are trying to make this a "I used to like it and now don't" when it's "I used to like it and still do, just not with you, and I'm not going to tell you that when I say no."

That last part makes it a lie when she just says no and shuts down the conversation, triggers resentment, etc. Because the "no, I'm not into that" is a lie. It's actually "I'm into that, just not with you."

And like I said waaaay back when... if you're going to BS your partner like that, you damn well better make sure they never find out. Especially by joking about it with your friend and laughing about it.

If you told your partner "I'm not into group sex" and made him believe that you never were, and then he found out about it when you were laughing with one of your friends about those things in front of him, I bet they'd feel pretty lied to. Especially if you actually still were into group sex, you just didn't want to involve your partner in it.

But I highly suspect you're far more adept and subtle about managing your relationships than she is.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

2&out said:


> Some fascinating reading. So many people fired up about what someone did in the past and didn't advertise it.


I think those of you who say that are missing the point. Most of us are not so much fired up about the fact that she denied him a part of herself that she gave to someone else but that she lied about the reason why. OP even says it has nothing to do with what she did with someone else. Again it's the difference between "I can't" or "I will not". People will react very differently depending on those two statements especially when you are talking about something that that person saying it is the only resource for. If she had said "I will not" he may have left or never married her in the first place, as exemplified by his reaction and the possibility of doing that very thing. 

My personal feeling would be that she doesn't love me enough to do it or even tell me the true reason why. The assumption would be this decision was made because of me personally. That is different at least in my mind then a decision that has to do with her nature. I can overlook nature but not the personal. 

She changed the nature of her refusal and that has caused him to reassess his decision to stay married to her.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And again-- Who I am right now and who I am in the future is what matters. I put any sex that involves other people on my no list. He agreed. Me doing it in the past doesn't change that one bit. Doesn't change who I am one bit.


So then asking if you have been in open relationships, threesomes, swinging is OK in your book?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

sokillme said:


> I think those of you who say that are missing the point. Most of us are not so much fired up about the fact that she denied him a part of herself that she gave to someone else but that she lied about the reason why. OP even says it has nothing to do with what she did with someone else.


Yup. I think there's some willful blindness going on.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

oldtruck said:


> She did not cheat on him which would of been far worse.
> 
> Maybe it was she wanted a husband and was afraid that a good man would not marry
> her wild side. Then she cheated on herself and him of a more fulfilling sex life.
> ...


I think this may be the case and may be the only reason they could make it. Because then it was not personal even though it still was a lie by omission. I also have to put some of the fault on him too then. How can you be married to someone and not be close enough to talk about this stuff. 

That said some here have gotten real defensive about the thought of their partner asking them why they are so against doing something. Maybe he tried and her answer was just "I don't feel comfortable", therefore shutting down all discussion. If that is the case I guess you can't blame him. Again cheating herself again and probably doing permanent damage to her marriage and her life. 

Generally speaking it's never good to shut down conversation in marriage until it has really be dissected. I don't want to is an acceptable response but it's probably not the best strategy especially on things that you have asked your spouse to make you the arbitrator of.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

sokillme said:


> So then asking if you have been in open relationships, threesomes, swinging is OK in your book?


He can ask me whatever he wants and I can decide if I want to answer or not.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> Indeed. PD’s story is well-written but incredible, unbelievable..... in how rare it is, that is. Incredibly rare.


Well...you haven't heard stories in Albania...
Especially in the '90s this was a trend.

In rural areas or in the_ least developed areas_, many non-virgin women underwent the surgery to reconstruct the hymen in their vagina - so that their H would think these women were still virgins until marriage.

They might have had another partner in the past.... but when meeting their STBH, they used to tell him they had never had any other partner before, never had kissed anyone else, and obviously had always been virgins. (supposedly had never had ANY type of sexual practice).


Yeeeep, virgin Mary!!!












So yeah, there's wayyyyy worse than PD!


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> He can ask me whatever he wants and I can decide if I want to answer or not.


So basically you get to control the whole dialogue when it comes to this, the future is not negotiable and if he is lucky you might talk about your past. Interesting.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

lovelygirl said:


> Well...you haven't heard stories in Albania...
> Especially in the '90s this was a trend.
> 
> In rural areas or in the_ least developed areas_, many non-virgin women underwent the surgery to reconstruct the hymen in their vagina - so that their H would think these women were still virgins until marriage.
> ...


This is so sad in multiple ways. Why would you want to be married to someone so bad that you do that to yourself, but also knowing that if he knew your true story he wouldn't want you.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

sokillme said:


> So basically you get to control the whole dialogue when it comes to this, the future is not negotiable and if he is lucky you might talk about your past. Interesting.


These are things that are discussed during the getting to know you stage. If it's not compatible then you move on. That's why you get to know each other. 

The things on my NO list are non-negotiable. That's why they are there. They are very clear from the start. I also have a must have list that is non-negotiable. 
He has his own. Ours matched. That's why we are together. 

As for my past, yes I will choose who I share what with. Most men don't care anyway. If it mattered to my partner, we wouldn't be together.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I have a suspicion that many of those kinds of threads are .... bait (and/or proving a point) .



Be careful about suggesting that that kind of thread is fictional, misogynistic drivel intended to inflame. That’s against the rules.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Who cares if it is fictional or not we got 50 pages of good dialog.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> These are things that are discussed during the getting to know you stage. If it's not compatible then you move on. That's why you get to know each other.
> 
> The things on my NO list are non-negotiable. That's why they are there. They are very clear from the start. I also have a must have list that is non-negotiable.
> He has his own. Ours matched. That's why we are together.
> ...


What if things in your past are his deal breaker and non-negotiable but he doesn't know about them because you don't talk about them? First of all seems a little one sided but besides that wouldn't you want to know ahead of time?


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

sokillme said:


> This is so sad in multiple ways. Why would you want to be married to someone so bad that you do that to yourself, but also knowing that if he knew your true story he wouldn't want you.


Because men in rural areas want to marry ONLY virgin women. I emphasize...ONLY virgin women. 

Most likely those who are not virgins will remain unmarried for life!!! 

Being divorced or being unvirgin, meant the woman was not deserving to get married to a man under normal conditions. Only, if the man was divorced himself - he might get married to her. 

But even divorced men didn't want unvirgin women. So because of this judgemental situation, these women would reconstruct their hymen.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your question. What would account for older men dating younger women?
> ...


It's possible that both men AND women date younger people because they feel younger people are open to new things. It still doesn't change the fact that they themselves are probably not as open to new things as they think they are (as evidenced by how few people are able to enjoy long term age gap relationships). Experience and baggage are mother ****ers. 

This could be a topic for another thread.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Do you have it figured out why women choose to lie about their sexual history? Because that's what I'm asking.


Sure. It's because they're afraid that men will judge them based on how many past sexual partners they had.

How many previous partners a potential mate has had may or may not make a difference to a man. Whether you or I think that should or should not make a difference to that man is immaterial (although we are free to hold a low opinion of him ourselves).

If I voted for Trump and I wanted to go out with @Faithful_Wife, would my saying that reduce my chances of her accepting the date? (for those who don't know the answer, it most certainly would!). 

Now you and I may think that it makes no difference who one voted for and potential sex partners shouldn't be judged on that but, @Faithful_Wife *IS* going to judge me.

Are you saying that, since I know that I may be judged unfairly (in my opinion), it's understandable that I decline to tell the truth? I hope not.

I could also say, "I don't feel comfortable answering that". That's not likely to be enough for FW, and it shouldn't be. What happens when, 5 years down the line when we've got a mortgage and two kids and we're out drinking with some friends and some drunk old idiot says "Hey, remember back in 2016 when you voted for Trump and were so happy he won!"?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

sokillme said:


> What if things in your past are his deal breaker and non-negotiable but he doesn't know about them because you don't talk about them? First of all seems a little one sided but besides that wouldn't you want to know ahead of time?


We talk to each other? I ask things like "What are your deal breakers?" "What kinds of things do you enjoy in bed and what things do you not want?" 

I have no interest in knowing about the sex he had with people before me. Most people do not care to know the details or partner count. IF it is something that is important to a person, say so. At the start. Then I can leave. 

On a personal level, there's very little on my no list and it's pretty clear based on some things I own and wear that I'm not very vanilla. If anyone is shocked that I have had some fun in my life, they aren't very bright and I don't date dim men. Doesn't mean I should go into detail about every penis I have had. 

"I like anal sex" is enough information. "I like anal sex and I've had it with John, and Matt, and Joe, and Ken who had a massive penis" isn't required. 
My private sex life is between me and the man I was with. 

I also don't date men that have religious views, anti-feminist views, or self esteem issues so I avoid this issue anyway.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> It's possible that both men AND women date younger people because they feel younger people are open to new things. It still doesn't change the fact that they themselves are probably not as open to new things as they think they are (as evidenced by how few people are able to enjoy long term age gap relationships). Experience and baggage are mother ****ers.
> 
> This could be a topic for another thread.


Interesting, I always thought it was about recapturing your youth but I think the sex thing plays into that. End of thread jack.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

A woman has sovereignty over her body. She can choose to withhold certain sexual acts from her husband or boyfriend that she previously did for other men. That is her right and is a given. 

Conversely, the husband has a sovereign right to his masculinity and self-respect and to say to said wife: "That won't fly with me. Please sign this divorce petition and I will be on my way. Thank you. You've been great. Se ya round."


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> We talk to each other? I ask things like "What are your deal breakers?" "What kinds of things do you enjoy in bed and what things do you not want?"
> 
> I have no interest in knowing about the sex he had with people before me. Most people do not care to know the details or partner count. IF it is something that is important to a person, say so. At the start. Then I can leave.
> 
> ...


I would think things like swinging and multiple partners at the same time might be deal breakers for both men and women though and better to get that out in the open.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> Wait.. so lying about numbers is ok?


Nah, he's just changing the goal posts.  Number of partners is a well-known element of ****-shaming.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

bandit.45 said:


> A woman has sovereignty over her body. She can choose to withhold certain sexual acts from her husband or boyfriend that she previously did for other men. That is her right and is a given.
> 
> Conversely, the husband has a sovereign right to his masculinity and self-respect and to say to said wife: "That won't fly with me. Please sign this divorce petition and I will be on my way. Thank you. You've been great. Se ya round."


I don't think anyone on this thread would deny this.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> Sure. It's because they're afraid that men will judge them based on how many past sexual partners they had.


It would be disingenuous to not also mention that some lie to give themselves more options. As the Hyman reconstruction surgery which is a real thing illustrates. Whether it's fair or not they are being judged on these things not withstanding.


----------



## curious2 (Jan 13, 2013)

Sexual history...I don’t suffer from this but for men it may be about what you did sexually but won’t do now. For a woman it may be non sexual things you did for an ex or something current that elicits the same feelings- you. You can do it for this person but not me...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

sokillme said:


> I don't think anyone on this thread would deny this.



But denying it is exactly what’s being advocated by refusing to even discuss it with your partner. 

You can’t make decisions on this stuff without having the information to begin with. 

You can’t have it both ways - pick whether to be with me or not but I won’t tell you what I don’t want you to know. You can’t manage perceptions and negotiate in good faith. 

Within reason, of course.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

sokillme said:


> I don't think anyone on this thread would deny this.



Still, there are some guys here who don't get it. You don't need to get pouty or mean or petulant when your wife or girlfriend refuses you sex acts they have done with other men. All you can do is control your response and do what you need to do for yourself. If a completely uninhibited woman is what you want, one who will give you everything she has given others and more, then properly divorce or break up with your partner and go find that woman. They are out there. It may take some work and lots of fishing but you can find one.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone on this thread would deny this.
> ...


I can make a decision about if I want to be with my partner based on his NOW list. I don’t need to know his past to make a choice.

How many times I’ve given a bj doesn’t mean crap. If I give them to partner is what he is basing his choice off of. That should be done well before marriage. 

If he chooses to be ok with no X and accepts that, he can’t decide that he’s suddenly not ok with no X just because he found out I did it before. 

Take responsibility for who you chose to be with and accepted.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Gonna guess, by bad behaviors you mean lying, or omitting details you believe are important? Don't think anyone is going to argue that lying makes a relationship better. I'm not.
> 
> *Do you have it figured out why women choose to lie about their sexual history? Because that's what I'm asking*.


I am going to take a stab at providing a few possible reasons for lying about sexual history. I'm going to preface it by admitting that my response is based solely on the information and feedback I've read online and threads like this one on TAM. And I think the women who outright lie about their sexual history do so when they fear theirs is more "adventurous" or "colorful" than their partner's. 
-They may not want to deal with justifying their previous actions to the their partner (**** shaming). 
-They may not want to deal with the expectation to have to perform the acts again (you did it for them, I expect you to do it for me). 
-They may not want to hurt their partner's ego (best sex ever)

Just a few explanations off the top of my head.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

bandit.45 said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone on this thread would deny this.
> ...


As long as he can accept that a woman with low inhibitions likely also has an adventurist past. If he’s the type to get jealous or not understand that there will be things that she has done with others that she’s not into anymore, and you’ll likely not be the biggest and best, then stay away. 

Don’t go for a woman with a past because the sex is good and then complain about it. 

Also, as a woman who has been picked because of my sexual advantages after men were in sexless marriages, it was annoying to me that basically all saw me as some sort of novelty and not a woman. 
The ex was Mary Poppins wife material and I was Stormy Daniels and it’s like they couldn’t see anything beyond sex and fun. It got old.


----------



## Bluesclues (Mar 30, 2016)

Lots and lots to digest with this post. 

I don’t believe PD lied. I do however believe that her behavior was damaging to herself, her husband and their marriage. I will add to all the suppositions about her story by saying it only makes sense to close yourself off sexually to that extreme if you have been hurt in the past by being sexually open. I don’t buy that Dave was just a FWB that she was cool to end it with. I imagine a very young woman being wined and dined by an older supposedly just divorced man who tells her how much better she is than his vanilla sex wife. And she does whatever he desires to prove she is indeed “better”. And one day he tells her he is going back to the vanilla sex wife. What does that teach her? Vanilla sex keeps the mate for life and wild sex let’s you be his entertainment for a bit until he is ready to throw you away. I doubt she started her relationship with Steve consciously thinking she will do only vanilla to keep him locked down. It was just a protection mechanism she installed after Dave. Not everyone is a healthy well adjusted adult from the get go - some of us really need to **** up our lives (and the lives of those around us) before we even know we are unhealthy. I don’t think she was lying when she said “I can’t” and I believe she really didn’t know “why”. That doesn’t change things for Steve and I don’t see him expressing being upset as RJ. She put up a wall that must have impacted their intimacy at all levels, not just sex. BTD. Therapy could help but the focus should be on IC for her, not MC. 

There has been subtle **** shaming in this thread when it comes to speaking about PD’s story. She said she enjoyed the sex with Dave, she said nothing about being open to full menu sex in the future as long as it wasn’t her husband. But posts say things like “she loves and craves full menu sex”. She didn’t mention any other men but Dave and Steve and yet people say things like “she gave great wild sex to her super stud Dave, and probably the other guys she dated as well” and “she denied the man she claimed to love for 25 years any of the things she gave away freely to everyone else”. (I am on my phone or I would quote actual posts). See this a lot here. If a man comes on and says he is worried his wife is flirting with a coworker there is inevitably people (males) who reply that she must be doing half the office. Don’t really see that kind of embellishment of the situation when I woman comes on thinking her husband is cheating. 

I can’t remember who posted about going to a wedding and realized they slept with everyone at the table. The women at the table all made jokes about it other posters laughed at the story. Reverse the sexes and it wouldn’t be a funny story - a female poster would be told she disrespected her husband, should have told him advance if there was even a chance he would run into someone she even kissed let alone ****ed and that she wasn’t marriage material. 

I experienced RJ ten months ago. There is a thread here about it that you are welcome to look for, but I won’t post a link because I don’t want to look at it ever again. It was beyond painful, maybe worse than his cheating. So were some of the comments - talk about **** shaming. After going back to rehab (alcohol) and therapy he was able to articulate that his RJ was about him and his insecurities, not me. 

Same husband above and I have an amazing sex life. I had my first orgasm at 38 with him - not because he is so great in bed (he is) but because I got right in the head and was able to open up and allow myself to be vulnerable and get emotionally hurt (which I did). I had been promiscuous, had lots of sex, but never actually enjoyed it because I didn’t understand it as a means of connection, not currency. 

We have done things that I have never done before and never will again, even with him. We are open with each other and sometimes just let it ride. (I can’t believe i am even going to share this)...One night we were hot and heavy and I used his foot to pleasure myself. I have an aversion to feet in general but he has the most beautiful pristine feet...it was really hot for us both, but in hindsight it was a WTF moment and is now a running joke. We both liked it but there will not be a repeat performance. If we should ever split and some new partner tells me he has a foot fetish, sorry but I am not obligated to say I dabbled in feet and owe him the same because I didn’t hate it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> What if things in your past are *his deal breaker and non-negotiable* but he doesn't know about them because you don't talk about them? First of all seems a little one sided but besides that wouldn't you want to know ahead of time?


Where is personal accountability and responsibility is this entire process? Why is it "my" responsibility to ensure that "your" deal breakers and non-negotiables are brought up and discussed? 

I can assure you, I OWN my deal breakers and non-negotiables and make damn well sure that I ask about them with those with whom I am thinking of entering into a relationship. 

If it's that important to you that you would consider not pursuing or ending a relationship, then it's on you to make sure you are bringing the topic up.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As long as he can accept that a woman with low inhibitions likely also has an adventurist past. If he’s the type to get jealous or not understand that there will be things that she has done with others that she’s not into anymore, and you’ll likely not be the biggest and best, then stay away.
> 
> *Don’t go for a woman with a past because the sex is good and then complain about it. *
> 
> ...


i just want to say AMEN! to this post.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As long as he can accept that a woman with low inhibitions likely also has an adventurist past. If he’s the type to get jealous or not understand that there will be things that she has done with others that she’s not into anymore, and you’ll likely not be the biggest and best, then stay away.
> 
> Don’t go for a woman with a past because the sex is good and then complain about it.
> 
> ...


Then you should understand how a man feels when he is picked only because of his potential financial advantages and because he seem grounded and is dedicated to making a safe environment for a potential family one day. Because the ex was Charley Sheen, frat boy and he is Richie Cunningham, like just because that ******* was selfish doesn't mean that wanting to have an exciting sexual relationship with her he is using and objectifying her the way that ******* did. That also gets old too, he is more then just a good paycheck and responsibilities. 

No one likes to be objectified. That is what a lot of us are trying to say. 

Steve may have been able to deny it before but now I am sure there is no doubt he feels like that's all he is to her a paycheck and a roof over her head.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> Where is personal accountability and responsibility is this entire process? Why is it "my" responsibility to ensure that "your" deal breakers and non-negotiables are brought up and discussed?
> 
> I can assure you, I OWN my deal breakers and non-negotiables and make damn well sure that I ask about them with those with whom I am thinking of entering into a relationship.
> 
> If it's that important to you that you would consider not pursuing or ending a relationship, then it's on you to make sure you are bringing the topic up.


When did I say that? But if you are NOT going to talk about when it IS brought up then it is your responsibility. Remember my question was in the context of "I will tell you if I feel like it."


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Bluesclues said:


> Lots and lots to digest with this post.
> 
> I don’t believe PD lied. I do however believe that her behavior was damaging to herself, her husband and their marriage. I will add to all the suppositions about her story by saying it only makes sense to close yourself off sexually to that extreme if you have been hurt in the past by being sexually open. I don’t buy that Dave was just a FWB that she was cool to end it with. I imagine a very young woman being wined and dined by an older supposedly just divorced man who tells her how much better she is than his vanilla sex wife. And she does whatever he desires to prove she is indeed “better”. And one day he tells her he is going back to the vanilla sex wife. What does that teach her? Vanilla sex keeps the mate for life and wild sex let’s you be his entertainment for a bit until he is ready to throw you away. I doubt she started her relationship with Steve consciously thinking she will do only vanilla to keep him locked down. It was just a protection mechanism she installed after Dave. Not everyone is a healthy well adjusted adult from the get go - some of us really need to **** up our lives (and the lives of those around us) before we even know we are unhealthy. I don’t think she was lying when she said “I can’t” and I believe she really didn’t know “why”. That doesn’t change things for Steve and I don’t see him expressing being upset as RJ. She put up a wall that must have impacted their intimacy at all levels, not just sex. BTD. Therapy could help but the focus should be on IC for her, not MC.
> 
> ...


This is the nature of the internet isn't it? You are going to find people and post that you disagree with that even offend you.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I can make a decision about if I want to be with my partner based on his NOW list. I don’t need to know his past to make a choice.
> 
> How many times I’ve given a bj doesn’t mean crap. If I give them to partner is what he is basing his choice off of. That should be done well before marriage.
> 
> ...



Again, missing the point.

You can’t negotiate in good faith without negotiating honestly. 

If you’re going to take it as a contractual view negotiated before marriage, you have to disclose. Just like with a merger - of which I’ve helped negotiate along with several multimillion dollar deals. 

You’re not buying a cell service plan that just requires a credit check. You’re merging organizations, and that requires full disclosure l. 

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Again, missing the point.
> 
> You can’t negotiate in good faith without negotiating honestly.
> 
> ...


Seriously, what is there to negotiate? It's not a negotiation. The product is being sold as is. The buyer can choose to purchase it or walk away. Real simple.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > I can make a decision about if I want to be with my partner based on his NOW list. I don’t need to know his past to make a choice.
> ...


My cell phone provider doesn’t need to know how many penises I’ve had and neither does a partner lol 

Relevant information is needed. Private sex details are not. Those are between you and the partner you shared them with. 

I expect my private details to be kept private and not shared with a next girlfriend too. 

If you don’t know you’re own deal breakers and yes/no list then figure that out. It has nothing to do with someone’s past. It is *yours*.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> When did I say that? But if you are NOT going to talk about when it IS brought up then it is your responsibility. Remember my question was in the context of "I will tell you if I feel like it."


A non-answer IS an answer. It's up to the person whose deal breaker it is to decide to walk away.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> Seriously, what is there to negotiate? It's not a negotiation. The product is being sold as is. The buyer can choose to purchase it or walk away. Real simple.



My point is that you don’t know what you’re buying because they won’t tell you, and are actively managing their perception of the product.

Should you have to disclose that you were married before? That you have children that you’re estranged from? That you have wealth in a trust fund that can never be accessed while married? That you were a soldier that killed people? That you have a terminal illness that won’t kick in for 20 years? That you have a genetic disease, and that’s the reason you don’t want kids? That you’ve cheated on every single one of your other partners? That you previously had AIDs but are now test virus free? That you own vast wealth in the Middle East but cannot access it while living with you in the US?

One could plausibly make an argument that any of those don’t apply to future relationships if you squint at them right and are prone to rationalization. However, I would argue that one should have to disclose all of the above and more before marriage - within reason.

I’m thinking of this in a whole new way. It’s very much like fraud or an affair - part of the basis of the problem is information asymmetry and management of perception.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> My point is that you don’t know what you’re buying because they won’t tell you, and are actively managing their perception of the product.
> 
> Should you have to disclose that you were married before? That you have children that you’re estranged from? That you have wealth in a trust fund that can never be accessed while married? That you were a soldier that killed people? That you have a terminal illness that won’t kick in for 20 years? That you have a genetic disease, and that’s the reason you don’t want kids? That you’ve cheated on every single one of your other partners? That you previously had AIDs but are now test virus free? That you own vast wealth in the Middle East but cannot access it while living with you in the US?
> 
> ...


If these things are important to "you", then you should ask. If you don't get responses to the question...... walk away. Better safe than sorry.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> My cell phone provider doesn’t need to know how many penises I’ve had and neither does a partner lol


Uh, that was exactly my point. If you’re buying a service, you only expect limited disclosure based on the relevant parameters of that service.



> Relevant information is needed. Private sex details are not. Those are between you and the partner you shared them with.
> 
> I expect my private details to be kept private and not shared with a next girlfriend too.
> 
> If you don’t know you’re own deal breakers and yes/no list then figure that out. It has nothing to do with someone’s past. It is *yours*.



The point is that you don’t get to decide what’s relevant and what’s not in a merger or partnership. There’s extremely broad criteria of disclosure that must happen to negotiate in good faith.

You can of course say no, but that usually means that any partnership or merger is then off the table.

It doesn’t mean you get to make **** up so you can sign the deal, and then hope your partner doesn’t find out.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> If these things are important to "you", then you should ask. If you don't get responses to the question...... walk away. Better safe than sorry.



Totally agree.

My problem, I think, is when they ask or it becomes clear that your partner believes something that isn’t true about you, and you allow it because it’s convenient for you to do so.

One thing to say “I’m not going to tell you how many people I’ve slept with.” 100% I’m good with that as long as you know they may bail.

Another thing to kinda sideways make it seem like you have only been with a couple people and they are the best lover you’ve ever had... when neither thing is true but you didn’t technically tell them otherwise. That’s a bad faith agreement right there, and totally deceptive.

Again - I haven’t asked my wife how many guys she’s been with, and I don’t plan on it because I don’t care and don’t want to know.

But we’ve been totally explicit as to what we’ve liked, what we’ve disliked, and if we’re not open to doing something anymore as to why... even if that answer stung.

And my point on top of that point is that you shouldn’t be looking at this from a transactional viewpoint, but a relational one - which means you have to continually negotiate. But if you’re not, you’re going to contract, and then you can’t BS.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Bluesclues said:


> I don’t believe PD lied.


I’ve explained repeatedly and relentlessly how she did, using her own words.



> There has been subtle **** shaming in this thread when it comes to speaking about PD’s story. She said she enjoyed the sex with Dave, she said nothing about being open to full menu sex in the future as long as it wasn’t her husband. But posts say things like “she loves and craves full menu sex”.


She clearly admitted she loved the “full menu sex” with Dave. She then admits that she told Steve that she will only do vanilla sex with him because she doesn’t like “full menu sex.” (I call this a clear, blatant lie.) Then, by saying in her second post that she didn’t know why she denied nearly everything to Steve, she clearly implied that it was not due to a sudden, magical change in her sexual preferences. (And it was only 20 months after Dave.) The restrictions were clearly limited to Steve, for some reason that she can’t quite explain. And she never lifted those restrictions for 25 years of marriage.

If any of these conclusions are unfair, please explain specifically how.



> She didn’t mention any other men but Dave and Steve and yet people say things like “she gave great wild sex to her super stud Dave, and probably the other guys she dated as well”


True, she didn’t directly say that she’d had any other lovers but Steve and Dave. She just clearly implied it by stating that Dave was her best lover by far and very varied.

If she were referring to only two lifetime lovers, Steve and Dave, it would be strange wording IMO. In fact, if she is referring to only the two men, by saying that Dave was her best sex partner “by far” in comparing only Steve and Dave, and praising Dave for being incredibly varied in his repertoire when she adamantly prevented Steve from doing anything but vanilla, and prevented Steve from learning how to be a decent lover, she would be incredibly cruel.



> and “she denied the man she claimed to love for 25 years any of the things she gave away freely to everyone else”.


Again, she said that Dave was her best lover by far and very varied. That implies to me that she was having more varied sex with other lovers. Not as varied as Dave, but not the missionary-only that she forced upon Steve.

By “gave away free,” I’m referring to requiring no commitment from them. FWB situation. As another poster put it, instead of giving away the milk for free, she gave away the cream for free. Steve bought the cow and she only gave him fat free skim milk.

If that’s not a reasonable interpretation, please explain why its not.

It’s not in any way **** shaming. The problem wasn’t that she was having great sex with other guys. It’s that she denied one of the most important things to man (his sex life) by using a blatant lie, and thereby inducing him to marry her under false pretenses. What she did was utterly cruel and evil, far worse than adultery, and I would divorce her if I were Steve.

I would have thought that women here would argue that women do not act in the evil manner that the Red Pillers suggest, rather than arguing that they see nothing unethical in the RP stereotype and that women who do such things are honorable and justified.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Moderator Note:

We may not all agree with each other but let's try to keep the conversation civil.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As long as he can accept that a woman with low inhibitions likely also has an adventurist past. If he’s the type to get jealous or not understand that there will be things that she has done with others that she’s not into anymore, and you’ll likely not be the biggest and best, then stay away.
> 
> Don’t go for a woman with a past because the sex is good and then complain about it.
> 
> ...




Totally, unabashedly, 100% agree with this post. 

Very well said. I did this consciously after my first marriage that had a terrible sex life with a virgin. 

I specifically wanted someone with some experience and knew what she wanted. And that wanted me!


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Steve may have been able to deny it before but now I am sure there is no doubt he feels like that's all he is to her a paycheck and a roof over her head.


Steve would be a fool to think that, since his wife is the higher earner.

In the modern era it is not unknown, for women to be the primary earner in marital relationships.

Just like in my marriage where my accomplished and educated wife, is the primary bread winner. Yet she isn't alone amongst our friends in being the primary earner.

In fact this kind of dynamic is quite common amongst our friends, where the woman has a university education and a successful career.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Personal said:


> Steve would be a fool to think that, since his wife is the higher earner.
> 
> In the modern era it is not unknown, for women to be the primary earner in marital relationships.
> 
> Just like in my marriage where my accomplished and educated wife, is the primary bread winner. Yet she isn't alone amongst our friends in being the primary earner.


Well there is more to being a provider then just a paycheck though. My point was he was picked because he was safe and stable.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

OK OK OK...

I think I’ve arrived at some conclusions for myself. And I’m at a bit of a different spot than I was at the start of this thread, so thank you everyone.

I think where I’m at is that for me relationships are a continual negotiation with most things. Are we going to live in house A or house B. Are we going to prioritize going on a vacation or buying a new car. And if one of us have a new interest in something sexual if we’re going to try it, and what trying it even means.

I think that’s healthy and allows for growth and change. And should be done with a spirit of openness and love.

I think the hard “no” stuff should be negotiated before marriage for the most part - if you believe that it’s likely to be a hard no forever. Like, I’m never going to want to live in the USA, I never want to own a mcmansion, and I’m never going to be into swinging. (For example).

I think that the ‘basics’ of your past should be disclosed in a safe and judgement free environment before marriage. So you know who it is that you’re partnering with. Things like past relationships, baggage, or things that you think they should know. And it’s at this time that you should ask any questions that you want to know. Like numbers or things you’ve done. And I think that this should be answered freely - within limits. Like, round numbers or well-intentioned fudging. Like, if you’ve been with 20 guys and you say 10... well... does that really matter? Is it really wrong if you say “about 10” or whatever? Maybe not. but if you’ve been with 200 guys and you say “about 10” that feels very different. Just like it would feel different if I said I had never been married before but I had been, or that I had spent a decade in a poly community, or had 10 kids that I just never mentioned. 

I’m not a numbers guy so it doesn’t matter to me so much, but that feels like something that’s reasonable. A white lie that doesn’t change much. 

Just like if you’ve been into BDSM, liked it, but aren’t that person any more... or didn’t like it... well... maybe you should say that. Again, within reason and generalities, not HD-porn levels of detail. But if you’re going to take something off the table that wasn’t off the table for you previously... maybe in the spirit of wanting to partner, you should disclose that. 

And if your partner asks if he/she is the best sex you’ve ever had, I think you should answer that. Within reason, again. Like if you were in a 10 year relationship where the guy knew how to ring your bell because he worked at it over a decade, and you’re one year in and having fantastic sex with the new guy you’re marrying, and honestly believe he will be even better for you... maybe it’s ok to say your new guy is. Because you believe he has the potential to be. Again, I hate the “best” stuff, but if they’re going to ask you’re going to have to say something that at least approaches honesty, without treating your partner like a child.

And if you’re not comfortable with that, I would ask why you’re getting married then, but at least say you’re not going to say. Don’t fundamentally mislead someone about your past. Because your past helped make you, well you.

Treat that conversation and those negotiations about stuff within your boundaries in a loving and compassionate way and I think you’ll do well.

Lie outright, or know your partner believes something to be true about you that you know isn’t... and that is going to be a flaw in the foundation of your relationship. That flaw can bring the whole house down, or it can make a leaky basement... but I doubt it’s going to make your relationship stronger.

If you’re lying because you’re afraid of being judged, then you’re accountable to say that outright, or walk away from the relationship altogether because who would want that?

And if you’re going to think of your relationship as a fixed contract forever - that doesn’t just fix you in position but fixes the person you claim to love - then you had better damn well be clear about the partnership that they’re walking into.

Am I making sense? Do I have anything wrong?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Personal said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> > Steve may have been able to deny it before but now I am sure there is no doubt he feels like that's all he is to her a paycheck and a roof over her head.
> ...


I disagree.

Yes, PD made that argument in the thread. Steve isn’t just a paycheck to her - in fact, she can prove it because she made more money when they met and she lives in a house she inherited from her grandparents, and that proves it!

Of course, a man will see right through that. Sure, Steve is not the sole breadwinner. But it appears that PD picked him because he’s a boring, reliable guy with a steady job who will help with the dishes, change diapers, etc.

The real issue isn’t being just a wallet. It’s the fear that women spend their best years (15-26 or so) having their “party years.” They date bad boys and have wild sex. Then, nearing 30, they realize they've “had their fun” and are ready to settle down with the awkward geek from IT who could never get a date. There will be no fun for him. He gets responsibilities and either a sexless marriage, with perhaps missionary sex to make her babies or on his birthday.

The Red Pill crowd believes this is common female behavior. I don’t. Sure, the preferences/standards move more toward good partner characteristics as a woman moves up in her twenties. But the “had my fun,” retirement from sex, the bad boy losers get all the fun and the nice guys get used... I think very few women do this.

Steve would feel that he has been used by PD. Other guys got the cream, he got the skim milk, and he’s an utter (udder?) fool for marrying PD. Worse, he accepted the limited sex only because she lied and presented herself as a prude. There’s no way he would have married her if she’d been honest with him.

“Steve, I love ‘full menu sex.’ But for some reason, I will only give you missionary and dress conservatively. This is because I care what you think of me. The guys before me got whatever they wanted, but only missionary for you. This is a compliment - I care what you think about me!”

Yeah, she’d be dumped immediately.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Lila said:


> I am going to take a stab at providing a few possible reasons for lying about sexual history. I'm going to preface it by admitting that my response is based solely on the information and feedback I've read online and threads like this one on TAM. And I think the women who outright lie about their sexual history do so when they fear theirs is more "adventurous" or "colorful" than their partner's.
> -They may not want to deal with justifying their previous actions to the their partner (**** shaming).
> -They may not want to deal with the expectation to have to perform the acts again (you did it for them, I expect you to do it for me).
> -They may not want to hurt their partner's ego (best sex ever)
> ...


But what about the man that wants to marry A WOMAN that has been there done that, got the whole full menu checked off done.
He's done very little. He wants to get to explore and be wild before he settles on his favorite menu items.
Does he tell the girl, I want to marry you but I have not been able to as much as varied sex as you. You need to not date
and wait for me to catch up to where you are?

Would it not be better to be his guide through his sex exploration, her future husband/husband? Guide with the disclaimer 
that people after exploring delete things from the full menu. I have deleted things because of personal growth. Though I
do not want you to catch up to me and explore with other women. Though as we go through the full menu as somethings
are done we will not revisit them.

Even while having this talk she can rule out a few things such as I did anal once and it was such a bad experience I will never
do that for you. Much better that to say I no and quote Eliza Doolittle: I am a good girl I am.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Marduk said:


> My point is that you don’t know what you’re buying because they won’t tell you, and are actively managing their perception of the product.


That's what we call, "buying a pig in a poke". It ain't the sharpest tool in the shed that falls for this trick. In relationships, unless you're experienced, its best to go with, "rent to own". The longer the rental, the more influence it has on the knowledge of what you're getting.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

VladDracul said:


> That's what we call, "buying a pig in a poke". It ain't the sharpest tool in the shed that falls for this trick.


This is one of those sayings that we no longer relate to. Apparently, in the old days, you would go to buy a pig. Some scammers would put a cat into the bag so that it would move around. You’d buy it, get home, and realize you were duped.

That’s the origin of two phrases: “Don’t buy a pig in a poke” and “don’t let the cat out of the bag.”


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

CraigBesuden said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Yes, PD made that argument in the thread. Steve isn’t just a paycheck to her - in fact, she can prove it because she made more money when they met and she lives in a house she inherited from her grandparents, and that proves it!
> Of course, a man will see right through that. Sure, Steve is not the sole breadwinner. But it appears that PD picked him because he’s a boring, reliable guy with a steady job who will help with the dishes, change diapers, etc.


So basically a guy who pulls his own weight.



> The real issue isn’t being just a wallet. It’s the fear that women spend their best years (15-26 or so) having their “party years.” They date bad boys and have wild sex. Then, nearing 30, they realize they've “had their fun” and are ready to settle down with the awkward geek from IT who could never get a date. *There will be no fun for him. He gets responsibilities and either a sexless marriage, with perhaps missionary sex to make her babies or on his birthday.*
> 
> The Red Pill crowd believes this is common female behavior. I don’t. Sure, the preferences/standards move more toward good partner characteristics as a woman moves up in her twenties. But the “had my fun,” retirement from sex, the bad boy losers get all the fun and the nice guys get used... I think very few women do this.


We have no idea if the bolded applies to the OP of that thread, she never went into specifics about their sex life (only that they weren't having 'full menu' sex).
The rest I don't think is that uncommon for either sex, be fun and carefree when young, sleep with people they wouldn't want to be in a relationship with ect and settle down. The red pill seems to think this should only apply to men. 




> Steve would feel that he has been used by PD. Other guys got the cream, he got the skim milk, and he’s an utter (udder?) fool for marrying PD. Worse, he accepted the limited sex only because she lied and presented herself as a prude. There’s no way he would have married her if she’d been honest with him.


Did he want to know about her sex life with her previous partners?
It isn't clear from the OP's post of her husband had asked her about her past sexual encounters.



> “Steve, I love ‘full menu sex.’ But for some reason, I will only give you missionary and dress conservatively. This is because I care what you think of me. The guys before me got whatever they wanted, but only missionary for you. This is a compliment - I care what you think about me!”


Just shows me how the damaging the Madonna ***** complex is.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

sokillme said:


> My point was he was picked because he was safe and stable.


Since it's a good idea to pick people who are safe and stable, I hope that's true for his sake and hers.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> But what about the man that wants to marry A WOMAN that has been there done that, got the whole full menu checked off done.
> He's done very little. He wants to get to explore and be wild before he settles on his favorite menu items.
> Does he tell the girl, I want to marry you but I have not been able to as much as varied sex as you. You need to not date
> and wait for me to catch up to where you are?


No one is stopping anyone from finding someone exactly what they are looking for. If a guy wants to explore xyz, then he should look for a woman who would enjoy exploring xyz. He can do that by saying "I'm interested in doing xyz. Would you be interested in doing that with me?". If she says yes, then it's a win. If she says no, then he can keep looking for that perfect partner



> Would it not be better to be his guide through his sex exploration, her future husband/husband? Guide with the disclaimer
> that people after exploring delete things from the full menu. I have deleted things because of personal growth. Though I
> do not want you to catch up to me and explore with other women. Though as we go through the full menu as somethings
> are done we will not revisit them.
> ...


He can ask her to be his guide but he's certainly but entitled to it. Some women have no desire to go back to doing what they did in the past. And if the guy in your example wants to try those things, then he needs to state so. If she says "not interested" then it's up to him to decide to accept the limitations with this particular woman or move on. And if he chooses to move on then she can move on as well to finding a man who is looking for what she's looking for. No harm, no foul.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

I didn't read this thread - full disclosure. I've been a member of TAM for a pretty long time though I don't participate nearly as much as I used to. Having said that, I think I've seen this same type of thread 5 or 6 times already. The emotional responses read in these threads are normally more insightful than the discussions themselves. Bottom line - if you are a guy - is that you should not settle for anything less than what you want when it comes to intimacy. Everyone's "full menu" of sexual intimacy is different - but statistically most people would probably have closely aligned lists while the rest of us will be on the fringes where one group will think anything less than swinging is an incomplete menu while others think that missionary AND doggystyle sex is REALLY pushing the envelope. But at the end of the day, communication is key. Dating is very much a job interview. Why more people don't think of it in that light remains a mystery to me. JMHO. Also, I'm sure there are woman out there who want more than their husbands and BFs are willing to give them as well.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Marduk said:


> You can’t have it both ways - pick whether to be with me or not but I won’t tell you what I don’t want you to know.


Of course people can and plenty do have it both ways, it's naive to think otherwise.

Since I can't control what other choose to do. I find it easier to just accept that, instead of tilting at windmills to no end.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Deejo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have it figured out why women choose to lie about their sexual history? Because that's what I'm asking.
> ...


This just happened to me this week.

A guy I was attracted to, we matched on bumble. We exchanged hellos. I then noticed he had not marked his political affiliation on his profile.

As I always do in these cases, I asked him, can I ask you a question? Please don’t be insulted, I ask everyone this question. He said of course.

I asked, What are your feelings about Trump?

I did not ask did you vote for Trump I asked his feelings on Trump.

His answer was “I don’t think he should tweet”.

My response was, “sorry, we are not going to be a match.” There is only one answer I would accept and he did not give that answer.

If it was a sex question on my part and he didn’t answer the way I wanted, my response would be the same. Sorry, we are not a match (and yes I do ask sexual questions in the getting to know you texts as well).

I’m all for weeding people out as early as possible. 

However, to me sex stuff is not the same as values. A guy who values whatever Trump values is not on my menu, period. His values in the overall world are not the same as mine and I will va-clang on him for those values alone, even if he for some reason doesn’t shut down on me for the same reasons. Don’t care. He has his reasons, I have mine.


Maybe guys can relate better to this.

Let’s say your new partner or potential partner expects you to tell her all the types of porn you have ever watched and wanted a run down of exactly why you liked each type of porn. She expects you to tell her exactly what turned you on about every random porno you’ve seen, and also you need to explain why things that are not in your normal menu of sex are in your porn feed.

You then are faced with the dilemma, tell her the whole truth or don’t.

Do you guys really think that if she’s standing there with her arms folded demanding answers, that you will tell the truth?

The fact that most guys are not faced with this dilemma is very telling. We women know better than to ask. We know you will not tell the truth. We know you will not be able to be that open with us.

Except for people like me who actually are open to that stuff. There are some of us who are.

But most men know by the moment they begin to answer such questions what the outcome will be, and you curb your answers based on that.

In my case, whether it is about Trump or about sex, the answer a guy gives me is all I need...and if I don’t feel fully on board with what he says, I do not proceed.

If guys could do the same, that would be great. Yes, reject us immediately if we don’t give you the answer you need. Please do us and yourselves the favor of saving time in this process.

Guys, if her being chaste or you being her best is important to you, stop fooling yourself and you will know the answer to this. Stop pretending it is a game. Just ask,

You will know by what is said or not said. Don’t proceed unless you know for sure.

I didn’t need to know if the guy voted for Trump or not, I knew by his answer that he was ok with Trump and just wished he didn’t tweet.

If you guys can’t get your answers from what she is saying, then do not proceed.

If you do, it’s on you.

If I proceeded with mr “he should not tweet” I already know what the future would look like.

If you can’t read between the lines, you are doomed.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband (Jul 3, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> This just happened to me this week.
> 
> A guy I was attracted to, we matched on bumble. We exchanged hellos. I then noticed he had not marked his political affiliation on his profile.
> 
> ...


On this we are in agreement, honesty is the best policy. Your potential date probably knew what you were getting at with your Trump question, but answered it anyway. He could have lied, and wasted your time for a few months / years until you opened the trunk of his car & found his collection of MAGA hats.

Your example of porn usage hit a nerve with me. Before I became a christian, I viewed porn quite regularly.
When our pastor did the pre-marital counseling, he asked about it, I answered truthfully, didn't shy away from the questions at all.

When he asked my fiance about past history, any trauma, anything that could possibly cause an issue, the answer was "no, I am a virgin & have not had any sexual experience, other than kissing a boy". By the way, he asked us both all the questions.

I think the reason this topic brings out so many comments is there are a lot of people (male & female) that attempt to do their due diligence in finding out if someone is compatible with them, but the OP is not honest with them.

I know of a couple, now divorced, where in his younger days, guy thought he was a real player. So much so, he got a vasectomy so he "wouldn't get tied down". He met & married a woman who up front, made it very clear she wanted at least 2-3 kids. He wasted 5 years of her life, 3 before the truth came out, 2 more while reversal attempts were made. She finally divorced him, then he would be at work complaining about how he couldn't believe she dumped him.

Your statement of "If you guys can’t get your answers from what she is saying, then do not proceed." is a way of placing blame back on person who may be trying to be up front about everything.

The only blame I place on myself is when my wife informed me that "I won't do x,y,z because of a 4 year undisclosed abusive relationship that I lied about to you", I should have walked at that point.

Her expecting me to meet her needs while totally ignoring what I wanted/needed in a relationship should have been my clue. But by 1-2 years into relationship the damn "feels" got in the way!

ps- I should have dated longer. I attempted several times to go down on fiance, but she deflected with "I'm on my period", "I'm too sweaty & need a shower first". I replied "Let's take a shower together", unknowingly bringing up another trigger, her response "Let's just get to PIV". Unfortunately, I let the "Let's just get to ****ing" be the shiny dot that distracted me from "WHY" the deflections.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> What she can't do is decide that you have to be happy with whatever frequency or quality of sex that she's interested in having with you.



Of course not... but I was talking more about the type of sex act and her sexuality in general than the frequency and quality...

And it is true: at the end of the day, it's up to me to choose...


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> ps- I should have dated longer. I attempted several times to go down on fiance, but she deflected with "I'm on my period", "I'm too sweaty & need a shower first". I replied "Let's take a shower together", unknowingly bringing up another trigger, her response "Let's just get to PIV". Unfortunately, I let the "Let's just get to ****ing" be the shiny dot that distracted me from "WHY" the deflections.


I was briefly with a woman who didn't want me to go down on her. In response to that, I ended our relationship. The whys didn't matter, since all that really mattered was the outcome.

She didn't want it, while I did, which made it evident that we weren't compatible sexually. So as someone who is not willing to compromise my wants and desires, I respected her boundary and moved on.

If such things mattered to you, then you should have moved on. The fact that you didn't was a demonstration by you that you were willing to settle for less.

So as has been said before if you settle for less you will get less. If you want more, then don't settle for less.

Likewise blame is largely superfluous, simply because it won't get you what you want or notably assuage how you feel.

If you are not happy or satisfied with something, then don't accept it and act accordingly.

On the other hand if you aren't happy with something, yet you volunteer for it anyway. Then that is entirely on you for accepting less, and not respecting your own wants and desires.

Volunteering for a marriage in the face of X not being on offer, doesn't make you a victim, when you don't get X in that marriage.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I didn't read this thread - full disclosure. I've been a member of TAM for a pretty long time though I don't participate nearly as much as I used to. Having said that, I think I've seen this same type of thread 5 or 6 times already. The emotional responses read in these threads are normally more insightful than the discussions themselves. Bottom line - if you are a guy - is that you should not settle for anything less than what you want when it comes to intimacy. Everyone's "full menu" of sexual intimacy is different - but statistically most people would probably have closely aligned lists while the rest of us will be on the fringes where one group will think anything less than swinging is an incomplete menu while others think that missionary AND doggystyle sex is REALLY pushing the envelope. But at the end of the day, communication is key. Dating is very much a job interview. Why more people don't think of it in that light remains a mystery to me. JMHO. Also, I'm sure there are woman out there who want more than their husbands and BFs are willing to give them as well.


Yep. this post says it all.

Whether you did everything in the menu before and whether your SO did everything or not, are you OKAY/HAPPY with what they are offering now??

Thoroughly knowing the sexual type of your SO, is indicative of the future sex life with him/her.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Tiggy! said:


> So basically a guy who pulls his own weight.


Yes. There’s nothing wrong with looking for those characteristics in a potential husband. (I think a woman would be a fool not to.) But a man wants to believe that the woman is sexually attracted to him. He doesn’t want to be picked only because he’s a useful tool.

Of course, the woman could be honest about not looking at him as a sexual being. But if she did, he would never date her. 



> *There will be no fun for him. He gets responsibilities and either a sexless marriage, with perhaps missionary sex to make her babies or on his birthday.*
> 
> We have no idea if the bolded applies to the OP of that thread, she never went into specifics about their sex life (only that they weren't having 'full menu' sex).


In the OP, Steve confronted her about the sex acts she performed with Dave. She admitted to everything, including oral and anal. Then he asked her, is there any lover you’ve had that you denied all of these things to. She replied you. So no, this isn’t mere speculation - it’s there in black and white. By “vanilla” and “not full menu sex,” she didn’t mean a normal sex life but no BDSM.



> The rest I don't think is that uncommon for either sex, be fun and carefree when young, sleep with people they wouldn't want to be in a relationship with ect and settle down. The red pill seems to think this should only apply only to men.


If you look at it as men and women as a whole, that might seem right. There are men having hot NSA sex and women doing the same. The RP argument, though, is that there are nice guys (beta males) and bad boys (alpha males). The nice guys do not sleep around and, in fact, are unable to because the women reject them and are having fun with the bad boys. Then, after they are approaching 30 and the bad boys no longer want them (preferring younger, hotter women), the women pretend to be attracted to a nice guy and just use him as a tool. They are still pining for the hot guys they had in their past and compare their husbands very negatively to them, and he comes up very short.

By their reasoning, a woman’s worth is her fertility (youth and beauty), while a man’s worth is his providing. Fifty years ago, a man would get the benefit of his wife’s sexuality, youth and beauty while building his career. Later, when his value is higher (career advancement) and her value was lower (age), she would get to enjoy the benefit. Over a lifetime, it all evens out. But today, women give their beautiful, young, fun best away to losers and then try to dump the carcass onto a sex-starved nice guy who has finally advanced in his career and she can use him to raise her babies.



> Did he want to know about her sex life with her previous partners?
> It isn't clear from the OP's post of her husband had asked her about her past sexual encounters.


He probably didn’t. The past lovers weren’t the problem; they were the proof that his wife lied to him. He wanted “full menu sex,” but she denied him nearly anything. She claimed she didn’t like to do any of those things. Although he was resentful at her, he reluctantly accepted it because she claimed that she didn’t like anything but vanilla. He was reluctantly willing to accept her, despite her prudishness, because he loved her.

Then, in a drunken conversation, he learned that he was defrauded and she actually loved doing those things. By her own admission, the only lover she denied all those acts to was Steve. By her own admission, she couldn’t think of any good reason for her actions and dishonesty, though later she speculates that she didn’t care what her other lovers thought of her. Apparently, supposedly, she feared that if she agreed to oral sex in addition to PIV, her husband would look down on her.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> By their reasoning, a woman’s worth is her fertility (youth and beauty), while a man’s worth is his providing. Fifty years ago, a man would get the benefit of his wife’s sexuality, youth and beauty while building his career. Later, when his value is higher (career advancement) and her value was lower (age), she would get to enjoy the benefit. Over a lifetime, it all evens out. But today, women give their beautiful, young, fun best away to losers and then try to dump the carcass onto a sex-starved nice guy who has finally advanced in his career and she can use him to raise her babies.


Why do you keep posting vile and hateful statements about women, that are prefaced with the caveat that this is what red pill men think.

If you do not share this opinion, why do you keep posting this kind of thing.

If you do you share this opinion, why don't you own it without the caveats?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Personal said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > By their reasoning, a woman’s worth is her fertility (youth and beauty), while a man’s worth is his providing. Fifty years ago, a man would get the benefit of his wife’s sexuality, youth and beauty while building his career. Later, when his value is higher (career advancement) and her value was lower (age), she would get to enjoy the benefit. Over a lifetime, it all evens out. But today, women give their beautiful, young, fun best away to losers and then try to dump the carcass onto a sex-starved nice guy who has finally advanced in his career and she can use him to raise her babies.
> ...


Why do I keep repeating the facts of the OP? Because people keep disputing them.

Why do I keep repeating the context? Because people seem to not understand the context. Some women seem to have difficulty understanding why the other thread angers men so greatly, so I was trying to explain it as clearly as possible.

I can only assume that some people have not read PD’s posts in the other thread, or at least not carefully, and that they have not read all the posts in this thread. I agree that it should only need to be stated once. Some other forums refer to these as PRATTs - a Point Refuted A Thousand Times. (In British English, a “prat” is an idiot.) Perhaps it would be best to just have explained it once, then every time respond with “I disagree. Please read this post.” And then link to the one post.


----------



## 2&out (Apr 16, 2015)

The other thread does not anger all men. This one pretty clearly shows some with serious entitlement issues.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

CraigBesuden said:


> Yes. There’s nothing wrong with looking for those characteristics in a potential husband. (I think a woman would be a fool not to.) But a man wants to believe that the woman is sexually attracted to him. He doesn’t want to be picked only because he’s a useful tool.
> 
> Of course, the woman could be honest about not looking at him as a sexual being. But if she did, he would never date her.


Cleaning dishes you help to create, paying towards a house and bills you live in and changing diapers of your baby don't make you a useful tool, it makes you a adult.




> In the OP, Steve confronted her about the sex acts she performed with Dave. She admitted to everything, including oral and anal. Then he asked her, is there any lover you’ve had that you denied all of these things to. She replied you. So no, this isn’t mere speculation - it’s there in black and white. By “vanilla” and “not full menu sex,” she didn’t mean a normal sex life but no BDSM.


I was replying to to your comment about sexual frequency, yes that is speculation.



> The real issue isn’t being just a wallet. It’s the fear that women spend their best years (15-26 or so) having their “party years.” They date bad boys and have wild sex. Then, nearing 30, they realize they've “had their fun” and are ready to settle down with the awkward geek from IT who could never get a date. *There will be no fun for him. He gets responsibilities and either a sexless marriage, with perhaps missionary sex to make her babies or on his birthday.*





> If you look at it as men and women as a whole, that might seem right. There are men having hot NSA sex and women doing the same. The RP argument, though, is that there are nice guys (beta males) and bad boys (alpha males). The nice guys do not sleep around and, in fact, are unable to because the women reject them and are having fun with the bad boys. Then, after they are approaching 30 and the bad boys no longer want them (preferring younger, hotter women), the women pretend to be attracted to a nice guy and just use him as a tool. They are still pining for the hot guys they had in their past and compare their husbands very negatively to them, and he comes up very short.


Red pill underestimates how easy it is for a women at 30 to get laid by hot guys and overestimate how many women marry a much older man, none of this applies to the OP of that thread though. The OP said herself when her FWB at the time was giving it another go with his wife it was no problem and she she didn't see the relationship was just fun and didn't see it as ever going into long term (to big of age gap), it doesn't sound like she pining for this previous FWB or that he was a bad boy.




> By their reasoning, a woman’s worth is her fertility (youth and beauty), while a man’s worth is his providing. Fifty years ago, a man would get the benefit of his wife’s sexuality, youth and beauty while building his career. Later, when his value is higher (career advancement) and her value was lower (age), she would get to enjoy the benefit. Over a lifetime, it all evens out. But today, women give their beautiful, young, fun best away to losers and then try to dump the carcass onto a sex-starved nice guy who has finally advanced in his career and *she can use him to raise her babies.*


Unless they are stepchildren, he's raising his babies.



> He probably didn’t. The past lovers weren’t the problem; they were the proof that his wife lied to him. He wanted “full menu sex,” but she denied him nearly anything. She claimed she didn’t like to do any of those things. Although he was resentful at her, he reluctantly accepted it because she claimed that she didn’t like anything but vanilla. He was reluctantly willing to accept her, despite her prudishness, because he loved her.
> 
> Then, in a drunken conversation, he learned that he was defrauded and she actually loved doing those things. By her own admission, the only lover she denied all those acts to was Steve. By her own admission, she couldn’t think of any good reason for her actions and dishonesty, though later she speculates that she didn’t care what her other lovers thought of her. Apparently, supposedly, she feared that if she agreed to oral sex in addition to PIV, her husband would look down on her.


So if Steve knew sex was pretty vanilla with his wife and didn't ask what her her what sex life was like in the past how was he lied to and defrauded?
I do have sympathy for Steve and for how he found out but making Steve he isn't a complete victim of the situation (he married someone who wasn't sexually compatible with him) and not wanting to have 'full menu' sex with someone even though you have in the past doesn't make you a liar of fake (unless they did actually talk about past sexual encounters and she did actually lie about them).


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> (unless they did actually talk about past sexual encounters and she did actually lie about them).


The posts seem to imply that she talked about it, and said that she never had nor would be interested in such things. She would not dress sex, she would not have anything other than missionary PIV sex, as the rest was uninteresting or off the table for her.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Faithful Wife said:


> If you can’t read between the lines, you are doomed.


I agree. You can ask the right questions. If the person is honest, he or she will refuse to answer the question, which tells you all you need to know. It’s not baseless speculation; it’s reading between the lines.

But let’s say a guy tells you that he’s a liberal but he just doesn’t like talking about politics. Although you are resentful that he won’t talk about current events, you marry him. Then you learn 25 years later that he’s a far right alt-right conservative who always loved talking about politics with his friends. He didn’t want to share those conversations with you because he didn’t want you to think less of him. I would assume that you would be outraged.

(You could say, “I would not date a man who didn’t like to talk about politics.” But that’s not the point. Nobody likes finding out that their marriage was a farce and that you are married to a stranger.)

Yes, if you insist that a new partner agree to perform certain acts, you don’t have to worry that the partner is lying about his or her reasons for denying them to you. That would successfully weed out a woman like PD. If you are single and dating, I agree that you should ask these questions.

If I were single, I wouldn’t date a woman who didn’t love cunnilingus. I also wouldn’t date a woman who wanted to perform 50 Shades of Gray stuff, on either end of it.

I think this works perfectly for OLD, where people fill out profiles and understand that questions will come before dating. But meeting somebody at the office, at church, at a friend’s party... it would be awkward to ask 100 job interview-like questions before agreeing to date. In fact, I’ve read advice that making the first date seem like a job interview in that way is a common reason that you won’t get a second date. You’re supposed to keep things light and fun until the relationship has progressed. By then, though, you’re kinda stuck.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

CraigBesuden said:


> Why do I keep repeating the facts of the OP? Because people keep disputing them.
> 
> Why do I keep repeating the context? Because people seem to not understand the context. Some women seem to have difficulty understanding why the other thread angers men so greatly, so I was trying to explain it as clearly as possible.
> 
> I can only assume that some people have not read PD’s posts in the other thread, or at least not carefully, and that they have not read all the posts in this thread. I agree that it should only need to be stated once. Some other forums refer to these as PRATTs - a Point Refuted A Thousand Times. (In British English, a “prat” is an idiot.) Perhaps it would be best to just have explained it once, then every time respond with “I disagree. Please read this post.” And then link to the one post.


I don't disagree with your accurate account of what PD said. I appreciate your accuracy but I disagree with some of your conclusions about women in general.

We can take PD at her word and that is damaging enough. At least she was honest in her posting and didn't try to make herself look better online.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Tiggy! said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the woman could be honest about not looking at him as a sexual being. But if she did, he would never date her.
> ...


Agreed. But a man wants to be married to a woman who finds him sexually attractive, too.



> Red pill underestimates how easy it is for a women at 30 to get laid by hot guys and overestimate how many women marry a much older man


Agreed.



> *she can use him to raise her babies.*
> 
> Unless they are stepchildren, he's raising his babies.


Agreed. And polling shows that men want children more than women, so it’s not something that men reluctantly do for women.



> * The past lovers weren’t the problem; they were the proof that his wife lied to him.... She claimed she didn’t like to do any of those things. Although he was resentful at her, he reluctantly accepted it because she claimed that she didn’t like anything but vanilla. He was reluctantly willing to accept her, despite her prudishness.*
> 
> So if Steve knew sex was pretty vanilla with his wife and didn't ask what her her what sex life was like in the past how was he lied to and defrauded?


Her lie was that she didn’t like anything but missionary PIV. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. That was the lie.

If she had told the truth — that she loves “full menu sex” but, for some reason that she cannot explain, she will adamantly refuse to do anything but missionary PIV with Steve — he never would have married her. If he did, he would deserve what he got.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Tiggy! said:


> Cleaning dishes you help to create, paying towards a house and bills you live in and changing diapers of your baby don't make you a useful tool, it makes you a adult.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of this but she was intentionally deceptive by her own admission because she wanted Steve to think of her in a certain way.

I'm far more of a Dave in that story than a Steve but I feel the sting for him and Penny did her marriage a great disservice at least. This can be concluded by just reading her own admissions. She limited the sex with Steve for the purpose of having him think of her in a certain light while knowing full well that it wasn't close to the best sex of her life.

That is something she came up with and I hope those two are able to get to the heart of the matter to repair and revitalize their marriage. Maybe she can finally stop being such a dud for her husband in the sack.:wink2:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

@Deejo

Thank you for all of your posts on this thread. I don’t know why there is such a disparity on how people feel here. I can say that in my life I haven’t been interrogated by men who insist on trying to own my past or future. So since I haven’t really encountered this, I can’t really imagine it. Very foreign to me, and then when I read some of the posts here I’m just scratching my head, like you.

I had one boyfriend who used to playfully make jokes about my past, and I knew he was quite intrigued by it. He may have been a tinge jealous but even if he was, that was not on the forefront of his comments. He said things that were giant exaggerations of the truth just to make me laugh. Things like “ok I hope I can trust you around this guy, I’ve heard he has an anaconda in his pants and you’re a big **** for that and all”. The way he said these things was hysterical and he had me belly laughing all the time. And it was actually sexy too, the way he was just so direct with me and still confident in himself. He was playful, never weird or accusatory. He just recognized me as a sexual being and didn’t punish me for it, he actually praised me for it in his silly way. He never asked me for details or to make a list or a number. I had given him an outline (which was totally honest, I got nothing to hide) and he knew from there that there were more details but that they weren’t relevant.

He had almost as much varied experience as I did, and a far higher number, so we were kind of even in that sense.

I have to guess that the couples who end up in these situations are not like me to begin with, so I can’t even put myself in their shoes.

In my experience too, I’m usually the one who is going to want more, different, maybe freaky things. Guys claim all the time (while trying to date me) they can easily keep up but they usually can’t. All of my LTR’s have eventually been not even close to keeping up. So I have learned to gauge a guys actual potential by estimating how good they are at estimating themselves. I take what they say and cut it down by 25% or so, and that’s usually about accurate.

Boyfriend I just mentioned was the closest to keeping up, and his hilarious sexual banter was a good sign that he was super randy all the time.

I’ve learned that men who “like sex” but aren’t that vocal about it are usually the ones who are going to ultimately beg for mercy. So I usually don’t proceed with a man who isn’t showing me a lot of sexual energy upfront. This can be done with just his eyes, by the way. He doesn’t have to be saying certain things, I can feel his energy if it is strong. 

I don’t think most guys are trying to bait and switch me, they just have no idea how to imagine what I’m ultimately going to be like and what I will want. Even though I make it pretty clear and they will guarantee me that they can rock me....the reality of this is not what men usually believe about themselves. They seem to think that all the fantasy sex they have had in their heads counts as if they can really have sex like that in real life, and then they just can’t when I’m there asking for it. But I expect this now, thus my deducting at least 25% off their stated abilities. That way my expectations are in check.

No matter how many threads like this there are, I will never quite understand either side. I’m not a withholder, and I’m happy to discuss the overview of the past, and I don’t date men who interrogate me or who have double standards, so I’m outside of the whole topic. But it still makes me really feel yucky to read all these angry posts. Ugh.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I’m wondering if there isn’t a toxic shame element to both sides of the discussion. 

I won’t say a man and a woman’s side, because I’ve been on both sides of this. It happens to us too, ladies. Maybe not as much and maybe not so damaging. But it does. 

So I’ll use “non-disclosure side” as to the role we have traditionally ascribed to women, and “non-aware side” as to the role we traditionally ascribe to men. 

On the non-disclosure side we have fairly clear toxic shame elements: I’ll be judged for what I did in the past, I’ll be judged for what I may want now that I’m in a wife/husband role, I don’t think of myself that way anymore now that I’m in that role, etc. 

On the non-aware side you also have toxic shame sometimes, I think. Shame of inadequacy, shame of being fooled, and I think the shame that you’re in one place and your spouse is in quite another: you may think they’re everything to you sexually and otherwise, but you find out they don’t think the same about you. 

I certainly have felt both sides of that, even in my current marriage. Toxic shame is a *****. I think there’s internal work to do on both sides of this, but I think there’s also relationship work and sensitivity required.

Which leaves me a bit baffled by how polarizing some people think it is, and the lack of sensitivity to the other side. One side has a “take it or leave it approach” with a side order of “I may not actually tell you what you’re taking or leaving” which is disingenuous and lacks empathy... and shames the people that have already been shamed more. 

The other side is becoming dangerously red pill and acting like they own their partners body and soul, from the beginning of time until the end of it. Which triggers people to not disclose in a safe way more, and to set even more boundaries and barriers to honesty. 

I think both sides have to meet in the middle here, and understand each other.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> @Deejo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That right there is the difference between you and PD, and likely others. 

You were honest. That’s what I’m advocating for here from the one side. Just be honest and spend some time thinking about it. Within reason. And with a whole lot of compassion for someone that you’re supposed to care about. 

Which is what you did and probably a big part of it being no big deal. That likely took a lot of courage for you.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> I agree with a lot of this but she was intentionally deceptive by her own admission because she wanted Steve to think of her in a certain way.





> *I have an idea why I refused Steve full menu sex*. I did not care what Dave thought of me I was young and not in any relationship and I did what i wanted to do, when I met Steve there was an attraction that grew over the months and when we started to have sex I did care what he thought and did not want to come across as a **** and i walled off that part of me.


From the PD's wording I read the post about why she think she refused Steve 'full menu' sex as her reflecting on why she refusing Steve full menu sex rather than her admitting to be having intentionally deceptive, that just how I read it though I could be wrong.




> I'm far more of a Dave in that story than a Steve but I feel the sting for him and Penny did her marriage a great disservice at least. This can be concluded by just reading her own admissions. She limited the sex with Steve for the purpose of having him think of her in a certain light while knowing full well that it wasn't close to the best sex of her life.
> 
> That is something she came up with and I hope those two are able to get to the heart of the matter to repair and revitalize their marriage. Maybe she can finally stop being such a dud for her husband in the sack.:wink2:


Considering the lack of full menu sex seems to come from worrying about her husbands opinion of her rather than her simply not liking certain sex acts anymore I hope they can work through it, however nothing she said implies this issue has anything to do with a lack of attraction for Steve.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> From the OP's wording I read the post about why she think she refused Steve 'full menu' sex as her reflecting on why she refusing Steve full menu sex rather than her admitting to be having intentionally deceptive, that just how I read it though I could be wrong.


She doesn't explicitly state the lack of attraction for Steve, but deep consciously, she's not AS SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to Steve as she was to DAVE. Hence, no full menu. 



PD said:


> *Steve was a nice guy, *........ I love Steve very much ... but our sex life has always been vanilla *(my choice) *......, don't know why I have not opened up with Steve but I never have and as I* told him I am not into what he calls "full menu sex" *he has mostly accepted it.


She says "don't know why" but deep down she knows it and she's not honest with HER OWN SELF as well as with Steve.

Simply, the lack of a high-degree sexual attraction for Steve.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> Considering the lack of full menu sex seems to come from worrying about her husbands opinion of her rather than her simply not liking certain sex acts anymore I hope they can work through it, however nothing she said implies this issue has anything to do with a lack of attraction for Steve.


That is the why behind the what. The what being, I denied him things that I liked and led him to believe I did not like those things.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

lovelygirl said:


> She doesn't explicitly state the lack of attraction for Steve, but deep consciously, she's not AS SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to Steve as she was to DAVE. Hence, no full menu.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok so if this is the case, is that really so bad to not be as sexually attracted? 

I have had some men where the sex just clicks like crazy and it's fireworks and chemistry and nothing else was compatible and I've had men who I could share a future and a life with that had average sexual connection. 

Some men also have women who they can have wild sex with but don't feel are the "marrying kind" and pick vanilla women to be wife and Mom.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Tiggy! said:


> From the PD's wording I read the post about why she think she refused Steve 'full menu' sex as her reflecting on why she refusing Steve full menu sex rather than her admitting to be having intentionally deceptive, that just how I read it though I could be wrong.
> 
> Considering the lack of full menu sex seems to come from worrying about her husbands opinion of her rather than her simply not liking certain sex acts anymore I hope they can work through it, however nothing she said implies this issue has anything to do with a lack of attraction for Steve.


I think she's taking the easy answer here, and not the factual one. Because Steve explicitly said he doesn't judge her, which must have been hard given the way he found out about it. 

This is one of the things I think she's not being honest about. With Steve, and maybe even with herself. Which makes it doubly suck to be Steve, because she's trying to portray it like "I love you so much that I don't want you to think badly of me, so I say no to what you want and say you won't judge me for." Which is a pretty irrational position to try to swallow if you're Steve. Or if you're me, reading about it.

In fact, it's squarely in DARVO territory if you ask me - in the sense that it's emotionally manipulative and attempts to put the problem all right back on Steve.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ok so if this is the case, is that really so bad to not be as sexually attracted?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't necessarily say whether it's good or bad. 

That depends on who you pick, why and if you settle or not. So, good or bad, depends on you. There's no b&w answer.

What I did was just read between PD's lines and what she was implying. She says one thing but actually implies another. Whether she does this on purpose or not,.that's another issue.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> That right there is the difference between you and PD, and likely others.
> 
> You were honest. That’s what I’m advocating for here from the one side. Just be honest and spend some time thinking about it. Within reason. And with a whole lot of compassion for someone that you’re supposed to care about.
> 
> Which is what you did and probably a big part of it being no big deal. That likely took a lot of courage for you.


I’m not quite on the same page with you here, because no, it wasn’t courageous in my view since I’m not ashamed of any of my past. And because I definitely have a take it or leave it attitude. I’m not going to spend time getting involved with any one who needs me to have compassion for their judgement of me. 

The compassion you are talking about is necessary after you get into a relationship. But when I’m just talking to someone getting to know them, no I don’t feel compassion yet. I don’t want to “make it work”. I actually want to weed them out as fast as possible rather than “compromise”.

I don’t want to comment on PD, I think that whole topic has been dragged too far off into the bushes and it’s weird that it is being used to make people’s arguments. I’m just going to stick to me.

As I already said I can’t directly relate. But for me to be honest is super easy and I have scared some men off with it. I did not expect them to have compassion for me and try to compromise. I was glad they ran off when they did. I was not hurt or insulted by it. People have different needs and they knew immediately that I would not meet theirs.

I did have one guy date me because he knew I am bi sexual and he falsely assumed this would mean he would somehow get an FMF threesome out of me. After being asked or him hinting about it enough times I finally dumped him. No means no, jackhole. Even if I’ve done it before, which has nothing to do with you. 

If that guy had actually just tried to get to know me and understand what being bi means to ME instead of making it all about himself I would not have such a bad taste in my mouth for him forever after. Still would not have had a threesome with him but I would have at least been more open about myself. 

That was a good lesson for me and now I ask questions to help me know if a guy is going to get weird about my orientation or not.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

lovelygirl said:


> She doesn't explicitly state the lack of attraction for Steve, but deep consciously, she's not AS SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to Steve as she was to DAVE. Hence, no full menu.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's abundantly clear to me. She settled sexually for Steve, but didn't actually inform him of that. It might have been for the right reasons - because she loved him so much or whatever... but it's clear to me that she implicitly deceived Steve as to the nature of her feelings for him.

Then she doubled down and attempted to claim it's because she didn't want Steve to judge her... when Steve was asking for these same things and he explicitly didn't judge her when it all came out. Which is another attempt at deception.

These might not be intentional deceptions... but hell, I wouldn't be buying that if I were Steve. Nor would I buy that she's trying to protect him. She's not that sensitive to him - as evidenced by laughing about doing those things with another guy in front of Steve and somebody he barely knew.

My read is that she's dishonest and insensitive in her dealings with Steve. And doesn't care enough to actually manage her relationship with him. She's thoughtless about it, which is a level of unkindness that's hard to put together with 'I don't want Steve to judge me.'


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m not quite on the same page with you here, because no, it wasn’t courageous in my view since I’m not ashamed of any of my past. And because I definitely have a take it or leave it attitude. I’m not going to spend time getting involved with any one who needs me to have compassion for their judgement of me.


OK, you might not think you're courageous, but I do.



> The compassion you are talking about is necessary after you get into a relationship. But when I’m just talking to someone getting to know them, no I don’t feel compassion yet. I don’t want to “make it work”. I actually want to weed them out as fast as possible rather than “compromise”.


Sure.



> I don’t want to comment on PD, I think that whole topic has been dragged too far off into the bushes and it’s weird that it is being used to make people’s arguments. I’m just going to stick to me.
> 
> As I already said I can’t directly relate. But for me to be honest is super easy and I have scared some men off with it. I did not expect them to have compassion for me and try to compromise. I was glad they ran off when they did. I was not hurt or insulted by it. People have different needs and they knew immediately that I would not meet theirs.


Sure, but imagine *not* telling a guy about yourself, marrying him, then having kids with him... and then him finding out. And then amplifying it by taking a bunch of stuff off the table that he wants that you used to be into without explanation.

That would heavily suck, too.



> I did have one guy date me because he knew I am bi sexual and he falsely assumed this would mean he would somehow get an FMF threesome out of me. After being asked or him hinting about it enough times I finally dumped him. No means no, jackhole. Even if I’ve done it before, which has nothing to do with you.
> 
> If that guy had actually just tried to get to know me and understand what being bi means to ME instead of making it all about himself I would not have such a bad taste in my mouth for him forever after. Still would not have had a threesome with him but I would have at least been more open about myself.
> 
> That was a good lesson for me and now I ask questions to help me know if a guy is going to get weird about my orientation or not.


100% with you there.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Tiggy! said:


> From the PD's wording I read the post about why she think she refused Steve 'full menu' sex as her reflecting on why she refusing Steve full menu sex rather than her admitting to be having intentionally deceptive, that just how I read it though I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah. I'm not reading too much more into it over what she posted. She said her attraction for Steve grew over time so it is implied Dave might have been more of a rock star than Steve but it is also clear that she really loved Steve and wanted to marry him and did not want that from Dave.

I'm definitely not in the red pill camp on this one though if Steve had been a little more confident and demanding, things might have progressed a little differently.

I speculated about this positively but the thread was closed. You can still see my post to see what I think might have happened.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ok so if this is the case, is that really so bad to not be as sexually attracted?


It's not bad at all. 

What's bad is not telling your "partner" about the nature of your relationship. Because then you're not actually being their partner at all.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I appreciate that @Faithful Wife.

Gotta say, for a 50+ page thread discussing some tough stuff, it has remained remarkably civil. Disagreement sure, but folks have generally been both curious and civil. (I probably just jinxed it)

It's easy to see the consequences of how this plays out. They are all over the boards. I'm still most interested in how we get there. For both men and women.

We keep referring to the 'discussion' about what is, and isn't on the menu ... but again, if I'm being honest? I don't have that discussion a whole helluva lot. The closest I think I've come to that was with that woman I dated who pretty much used her sexuality much like your question above. She made it clear she had been in a couple of drunken threesomes, had been in a relationship with a woman, and stated, "You can't stick it in my ass, and you can't cum on my face." And then she kind of looked at me with those eyes waiting to see if I was going to bolt for the door. I chose to remove her clothes instead. (And never complained or pushed her stipulated 'no-go's')

That ubiquitous sexual 'bad boy' that so many men (even me) have referred to in the past that gets women's panties wet and is irresistible? Odds are he ISN'T what many people perceive him to be. But I can state unequivocally what he isn't, is someone who wants to have a discussion about what is or isn't 'on the menu' or what he intends to do to/with his sexual partners. He just does it. And by 'it' I don't mean coming at someone with a collar and chain, ball gag and nipple clamps.

My personal belief is this is another factor in the whole emotionally vested, planning for the future, sex, vs. uninhibited, I know I'm likely never to see this person again sex. Which of course is a feeder scenario for a lot of what we've seen presented here.

I dated several HIGHLY sexual women. One being a standout in her overt sexuality that I've referred to earlier here in the thread (I think?). I'm generally not a 'slow hand' kind of guy when it comes to sex. Can be ... but not my default setting. Those women were THRILLED with my DE. Others?

Nope. And they told me so ... which is good. And we are not together ... which is also good. For both of us.

I have no problems stating that being disingenuous is rarely going to serve a relationship well.

But I continue to be very interested in the cultural or moral reasons why women may choose just that, particularly when it comes to being perceived favorably by a potential long term partner.

And why men, who have often been partnered with these women for years, or decades, become so wounded, angry and critical when they discover their spouse and mother of their children, did a spit roast in her 20's before she even knew who he was.

Maybe it's just the way it always will be?

But it's also important to point out, that I'm not quite so sure it is as common, at least here in the west, as the sample size on TAM would indicate.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> It's not bad at all.
> 
> What's bad is not telling your "partner" about the nature of your relationship. Because then you're not actually being their partner at all.


I don't want my partner to tell me "Listen, I'm not as sexually attracted to you. We don't have as much sexual energy and connection but overall you are a better choice for me and overall more compatible so I'm picking you" 

Some things are better left unsaid. 

I can still have fun and varied sex without that fireworks connection and there are much more important things to base a relationship on. 

At the same time, I don't want the same kind of relationship with current partner as I had with previous ones (mostly just BDSM stuff and multiple partners is off the table now) because I'm building this one into something potentially forever and not just a fun, wild sex filled fling. 
Other compatibility areas matter more when it's forever.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Marduk said:


> I think she's taking the easy answer here, and not the factual one. Because Steve explicitly said he doesn't judge her, which must have been hard given the way he found out about it.
> 
> This is one of the things I think she's not being honest about. With Steve, and maybe even with herself. Which makes it doubly suck to be Steve, because she's trying to portray it like "I love you so much that I don't want you to think badly of me, so I say no to what you want and say you won't judge me for." Which is a pretty irrational position to try to swallow if you're Steve. Or if you're me, reading about it.


So you think she's not being honest as a anonymous poster on a random forum, what's the incentive?
The fear of being judged comes from her, Steve explicitly saying he doesn't judge her isn't going to magically erase that and If she isn't being honest with herself then she isn't being intentionally deceptive.
In your eyes her position may be irrational, that doesn't make it a lie.



> In fact, it's squarely in DARVO territory if you ask me - in the sense that it's emotionally manipulative and attempts to put the problem all right back on Steve.


FFS she is NOT sexual predator or offender, this is just ****ing ridiculous. Not once has she blamed Steve , the **** that's being fabricated about her posts says way more about making up the BS that PD.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't want my partner to tell me "Listen, I'm not as sexually attracted to you. We don't have as much sexual energy and connection but overall you are a better choice for me and overall more compatible so I'm picking you"
> 
> Some things are better left unsaid.


Then say so. Just like I told my wife that I don't want to know how many guys she's been with, or explicit details of what they did - unless she needs to talk about them with me. And because I said that, I can't get mad at her or judge her for the fact that I don't know - because that's on me.

But he doesn't get to decide this for you. You get to decide it. And I don't personally think you get to decide it for him when the roles are reversed.



> I can still have fun and varied sex without that fireworks connection and there are much more important things to base a relationship on.
> 
> At the same time, I don't want the same kind of relationship with current partner as I had with previous ones (mostly just BDSM stuff and multiple partners is off the table now) because I'm building this one into something potentially forever and not just a fun, wild sex filled fling.
> Other compatibility areas matter more when it's forever.


And that's your right to do. Do what you want. Just do it honestly - which is exactly what it sounds like you're doing.

That, for me, would make all the difference. It's light years away from your partner asking for BDSM and having you say no to it, without enlightening him as to why.

Or how you actually feel about him, sexually. If I were with you, asking for these these things and having you say no but not tell me why, and be honest about your past and how you feel about me sexually...

Well, I guess I'd feel deceived and probably a little stupid for thinking I meant more to you than I actually did when it comes to sex.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Tiggy! said:


> So you think she's not being honest as a anonymous poster on a random forum, what's the intensive?


I don't know what you mean by what's the intensive, sorry.



> The fear of being judged comes from her, Steve explicitly saying he doesn't judge her isn't going to magically erase that and If she isn't being honest with herself then she isn't being intentionally deceptive.
> In your eyes her position may be irrational, that doesn't make it a lie.


Yes it does. I don't believe her comment about not being judged by Steve. I would believe her comment about her judging herself in a wife/mother role, at least slightly more. But I still think it's too easy. She hasn't bothered doing the work, and it looks very much to me like she's just coming up with easy placations and not actual answers.



> FFS she is NOT sexual predator or offender, this is just ****ing ridiculous. Not once has she blamed Steve , the **** that's being fabricated about her posts says way more about making up the BS that PD.


I never said she was a predator. I said she was being emotionally manipulative by putting it back on Steve. Which aligns with her not bothering to consider her relationship with him to begin with, or manage this conversation with her friend that Steve was a part of.

This is on her, not on Steve at all. She needs to understand that.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> And why men, who have often been partnered with these women for years, or decades, become so wounded, angry and critical when they discover their spouse and mother of their children, did a spit roast in her 20's before she even knew who he was.


I'll tell you why. Because for me, I'm not going to tolerate anything half assed. No partial anything. No settling for anything.

I want it all and will not accept anything else. If there's a rock we've left unturned sexually - as in an experience we both could have had together and enjoyed, and we die before having it, then that's a missed opportunity. I want it all. I want to bring it all. No halfhearted measures. I'd rather be alone than live half a marriage. Everything on the table. No missed opportunities. I want to give her everything I can possibly give, and I want the same from her.

"Some people get by
With a little understanding
Some people get by
With a whole lot more
I don't know
Why you gotta be so undemanding
One thing I know
I want more"

More/ Sisters of Mercy


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Amen.

And this is something that's hard for me to understand.

People filter. All day long we're deciding what to say and what not to say. _No one gets 100% unfiltered honesty all the time._

And I'll be the first to admit that my filter has taken a lot of work over the years. If I'm asked a direct question, it's like I have Wonder Woman's Lasso of Truth around me, and I feel compelled to answer truthfully.

More often than not, I'm usually pissed off at myself for a long time afterwards for answering questions that are actually nobody's business - and quite bold and invasive. 

Having said that though, what are the benefits of knowing a person's sexual past? Because I think that's what I have a problem with. It's not pragmatic. For me, it serves no purpose to know.

If strangers (men I hardly know) are asking questions about my past, it comes across as a form of entertainment, and not at all to know me better or to make a new relationship stronger.

And even when people do know me and care about me, is it best to share? 

My dad asked me a couple of years ago about my sex life. Was I 'honest' with him? Hell no. 

Does anyone seriously think it's appropriate to be asked and answer that type of question by their father???




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Some things are better left unsaid.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> I'll tell you why. Because for me, I'm not going to tolerate anything half assed. No partial anything. No settling for anything.
> 
> I want it all and will not accept anything else. If there's a rock we've left unturned sexually - as in an experience we both could have had together and enjoyed, and we die before having it, then that's a missed opportunity. I want it all. I want to bring it all. No halfhearted measures. I'd rather be alone than live half a marriage. Everything on the table. No missed opportunities. I want to give her everything I can possibly give, and I want the same from her.


This has nothing to do with if she's done it before. 

If you want no hard nos in your sex life, pick a woman with no hard nos. 
Or pick someone that has the same hard nos as you do. 

What she's done before you changes nothing in regards to her hard nos now.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> This has nothing to do with if she's done it before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not what I’m talking about at all. Either I’m not explaining myself well - for which I apologize, or you’re not trying to get it. 

I have tried to be clear that I’m 100% ok with “I tried that and didn’t like it” or “I used to do that and don’t want to do it anymore because I’m different now.” I wouldn’t want to make someone I love do something she didn’t want to do. 

I am not talking about disrespecting a hard no for any reason given. 

What I am talking about is that for me it’s not ok to examine and discuss such things, and not assume for me that I’ll judge you when I won’t. Or assume for me that I don’t need to know at least the broad outlines of what drives you. 

Let’s say the person I’m with used to have MFM trysts and she loved them. She knows involving other people is a hard no for me, and she doesn’t tell me that she used to love it because I’ll judge her. And she’s ok with giving it up to be with me. 

What that leaves off the table is a whole unexplored side to her - that we could explore through fantasy play, porn, or many other ways that don’t actually involve another guy. 

That is what I mean by I want it all. 

If she loved those things and didn’t tell me, I’d feel sad for her that I denied expression of that side of her, and I’d feel ripped off that I didn’t get to experience at least some of it.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Marduk said:


> I don't know what you mean by what's the intensive, sorry.


Lol I meant to write incentive, sorry I don't know how I missed that.



> Yes it does. I don't believe her comment about not being judged by Steve. I would believe her comment about her judging herself in a wife/mother role, at least slightly more. But I still think it's too easy. She hasn't bothered doing the work, and it looks very much to me like she's just coming up with easy placations and not actual answers.


It seems like you'll only think the PD is being honest if says what YOU believe to be true, that's on you not PD.




> I never said she was a predator. I said she was being emotionally manipulative by putting it back on Steve. Which aligns with her not bothering to consider her relationship with him to begin with, or manage this conversation with her friend that Steve was a part of.
> 
> This is on her, not on Steve at all. She needs to understand that.


No you just said this is "squarely in DARVO territory", I seriously have seen less **** given to serial cheaters on this site than to PD on this thread. She never blamed Steve so where is this crap coming from?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> But I continue to be very interested in the cultural or moral reasons why women may choose just that, particularly when it comes to being perceived favorably by a potential long term partner.


I think it all boils down to judgement. I know we shouldn't care about what others think of us but rejection hurts. It feels better to play it safe than to risk being judged as lacking, especially by someone who we respect or care for deeply. We all want to be accepted. The man wanting the woman who finds him sexually attracted and the woman wanting the man to accept her.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> Not what I’m talking about at all. Either I’m not explaining myself well - for which I apologize, or you’re not trying to get it.
> 
> I have tried to be clear that I’m 100% ok with “I tried that and didn’t like it” or “I used to do that and don’t want to do it anymore because I’m different now.” I wouldn’t want to make someone I love do something she didn’t want to do.
> 
> ...


But again, do you really need to know all the past details to ask questions? 
Me and my partners fill out a quiz type worksheet of things we would like to do, things that are a maybe and things that are a hard no. 

You can add things like "role play or fantasy adding other people" to your questions and if you both say yes or maybe then you can go from there. What do you like about this idea? Where would your boundaries be? Etc. 

Someone doesn't need to know that I liked MFM to know what I am and am not willing to do now. 

Interestingly enough, I never used to care who I told what to until TAM years ago. Seeing all the men who went nuts if their wife so much as thought another man was cute before she met him made me say "F that, those details are mine" and it's never been an issue for me. 

Men who need details would raise a red flag for me that I wouldn't ever be safe with them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Let’s say the person I’m with used to have MFM trysts and she loved them. She knows involving other people is a hard no for me, and she doesn’t tell me that she used to love it because I’ll judge her. And she’s ok with giving it up to be with me.
> 
> What that leaves off the table is a whole unexplored side to her - that we could explore through fantasy play, porn, or many other ways that don’t actually involve another guy.
> 
> ...


I understand the sentiment, but I don't understand the need to know about past stuff.

My ex h and I had unending, constant fun and renewal in our sex life. Yet we never discussed specifics of what we had done with others before. Why would that be necessary in order to be with each other in the now? I know for sure he had done things he would never tell me about and although I was curious about them, I also knew it had nothing to do with me and if he wasn't going to discuss them with me, I felt no "loss" or anything unexplored. 

Maybe since you have not experienced someone sharing their all with you without also sharing their past with you, you can't relate. 

For me, I can give and share my all with someone without their past details or mine. It's about right now, you and me. I don't understand why it is about anything or anyone else.

Please don't accuse me of trying not to understand like what you said to SGC. That was not necessary and this topic shouldn't be so triggering. We can feel differently about this without one of us being wrong and the other right.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> This just happened to me this week.


FW, sorry to drag you in on this! Hope you had some time on your hands.

For the record, I was using you as an example of someone who would judge a potential partner based on something that the potential partner might think was unjust.

And, *I have absolutely no problem with that!* You are doing the right thing and I think you are wise to weed out problems before they occur. 

I also have no problem with men (or women) turning down a potential partner due to the number of previous partners. The possibility that one may be judged unjustly (in their eyes) is no reason to lie. In fact, it would seem that finding out that a potential partner would judge you for something that you don't believe you should be judged for would be good information to have. 

For the record, I have never asked about previous partners and don't care (well, there might be some extreme cases where it might turn out that I cared, but I haven't run into those IRL).


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Tiggy! said:


> So you think she's not being honest as a anonymous poster on a random forum, what's the incentive?


Easy. Validation that the easy answer is ok and she can go back to not examining herself, her intentions, or how she manages her relationship with Steve.



> It seems like you'll only think the PD is being honest if says what YOU believe to be true, that's on you not PD.


My point is that is factually untrue. She claimed that she didn't tell Steve because he would judge her. Only he explicitly said that he wouldn't. And he asked for these same things from her. And she had no problem laughing about it with her friend in front of Steve - she only had a problem when she saw the look on his face and when he held her feet to the fire about it.

So it's just not true. It can't be true.



> No you just said this is "squarely in DARVO territory", I seriously have seen less **** given to serial cheaters on this site than to PD on this thread. She never blamed Steve so where is this crap coming from?


1. This thread is an exploration of the thinking that goes into RJ and the madonna/***** complex, and PD is a recent case study of that. So I'm using it as an example.

2. When she said she didn't want Steve to judge her... that kinda does put it back on Steve. I mean, if he would be less judgemental, there wouldn't be a problem, would there? It's his fault she didn't share this part of herself. Only it isn't true, and Steve in fact was remarkably non-judgemental in his response. If there's a madonna/***** thing going on here, it seems to only be going on in PD's mind. Which means she should examine that and stop trying to foist the blame on Steve. That is emotional manipulation 101 - if I did something wrong, it's because you made me.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

2&out said:


> The other thread does not anger all men. This one pretty clearly shows some with serious entitlement issues.


I've never gotten the "entitlement" thing.

I can want a Ferrari without thinking that the world owes me a Ferrari and I shouldn't have to do anything to get one.

The purpose of using the word "entitlement" seems to just be an attempt to make it seem as though men are wrong to want what they want and make it easier to dismiss their opinions.

Do we talk about women who would like their husbands to be more romantic negatively as being "entitled to romance"?.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I also have no problem with men (or women) turning down a potential partner due to the number of previous partners. The possibility that one may be judged unjustly (in their eyes) is no reason to lie. In fact, it would seem that finding out that a potential partner would judge you for something that you don't believe you should be judged for would be good information to have.


I have no problem with it either and men have rejected me because of (I assume) my past. I have to assume because it is not like they told me directly, they just did not ask me out on further dates after we had some initial discussions. 

OTOH, I've found most men are NOT as forthcoming as I am. I have to do a little digging to really get them to let their guard down. Usually they don't until I start being honest, then they feel maybe they can trust me a bit.

I think a lot of people who haven't been dating for years or decades just aren't used to what happens out there in the world now.

Even the case study people keep talking about is a more than 20 year marriage.

You can't really compare people who are newly dating to people who have been married that long. Things have changed, they have changed, the world around them has changed, and if that couple end up back in the dating market after a long marriage they will see that their ideals are not necessarily the same as they were when they were young and dating.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Lila said:


> I think it all boils down to judgement. I know we shouldn't care about what others think of us but rejection hurts. It feels better to play it safe than to risk being judged as lacking, especially by someone who we respect or care for deeply. We all want to be accepted. The man wanting the woman who finds him sexually attracted and the woman wanting the man to accept her.


I had one guy who went WAY too far and when I was finally able to stop him I got a "What? I thought you liked rough sex?!" 

Sometimes judgement for women gets dangerous. 

And there's still a lot of men, even here, that will warn against marrying a sexually experienced woman because they think she's more likely to cheat or have bad behavior. They don't have anything against sleeping with her though. 

I'd rather someone get to know me as me and not just the sex part.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I understand the sentiment, but I don't understand the need to know about past stuff.


I think you need to understand the past stuff to a level that brings understanding to your current self.

I resoundingly disagree with what someone said earlier on - that their past sex life has nothing to do with who they are now as a person. I think it does. Not in the gory details, but in the broad outlines.

And for me in my first marriage - to a virgin that ended up shutting down our sex life and cheating on me - not being open and honest about her past and her sexuality would be a deal breaker for me. Again, within reason.



> My ex h and I had unending, constant fun and renewal in our sex life. Yet we never discussed specifics of what we had done with others before. Why would that be necessary in order to be with each other in the now? I know for sure he had done things he would never tell me about and although I was curious about them, I also knew it had nothing to do with me and if he wasn't going to discuss them with me, I felt no "loss" or anything unexplored.


All of that I think is OK - right up until one of you asks for something and the other one gives a hard no without giving some kind of explanation.

And all of that I think is OK if you both understand where you're at sexually with each other. 



> Maybe since you have not experienced someone sharing their all with you without also sharing their past with you, you can't relate.


I have, and I can relate. And I have also done that to someone, and I can relate to that, too.



> For me, I can give and share my all with someone without their past details or mine. It's about right now, you and me. I don't understand why it is about anything or anyone else.


As explained above, that's ok as long as you're remaining compatible and being honest. If you're not remaining compatible or being honest, that's where I have a problem.



> Please don't accuse me of trying not to understand like what you said to SGC. That was not necessary and this topic shouldn't be so triggering. We can feel differently about this without one of us being wrong and the other right.


I'm not being triggered. I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over again - that it's not about respecting a hard no, or not accepting limits. Of course I respect and accept both.

It's like as soon as thinking gets challenged, well all of a sudden it's because it's about not respecting your partner's boundaries.

Even about full disclosure. If you're not going to tell someone everything, that's fine - but you have to tell them that you're not going to tell them if they want to know.

And I say that as a guy that's explicitly said "I don't want to know."


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I don't disagree with your accurate account of what PD said. I appreciate your accuracy but I disagree with some of your conclusions about women in general.
> 
> We can take PD at her word and that is damaging enough. At least she was honest in her posting and didn't try to make herself look better online.


True. It doesn't help to speculate about anything that isn't known. Doing so just focuses attention on the bias of the poster and away from the actual issue at hand.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> I also have no problem with men (or women) turning down a potential partner due to the number of previous partners. The possibility that one may be judged unjustly (in their eyes) is no reason to lie. In fact, it would seem that finding out that a potential partner would judge you for something that you don't believe you should be judged for would be good information to have.
> 
> .


This is fine but if you answer is "I'm sorry but I'm not willing to give that information" then that's your answer and do with it what you will. 

Or tell a woman upfront that you only date if they have less than X partners. No biggie. Just don't wait until after you are married to suddenly need this information because it's important to you. 

I once said "if it matters, we aren't compatible" to that question. We went our separate ways with no hurt feelings.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> OTOH, I've found most men are NOT as forthcoming as I am. I have to do a little digging to really get them to let their guard down. Usually they don't until I start being honest, then they feel maybe they can trust me a bit.


And that right there is why I think it happens to both sides. Men get it, too. Men lie about their pasts, too. I'm one of them. It bothers me. I think I did the right thing with the right intention, but I'm not sure.

But I am totally sure that if it did come out to my wife she'd be upset about it, and it would be my fault. I don't think I'd say "you made me" or blame my role or society or something. I think I'd fall on my sword about that.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> All of that I think is OK - right up until one of you asks for something and the other one gives a hard no without giving some kind of explanation.


I'm sorry, but I respect a hard no with no explanation. Full stop. No further probing.

If it is something very important to me, I take my leave and find someone who does not have a hard no on that menu item.

We all keep saying the same things.

We just don't agree.

But it *seems* as if you think you are *right*. That you don't see it is merely a difference of opinion and how we each operate in relationships. We are not all the same. That doesn't make some of us wrong.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry, but I respect a hard no with no explanation. Full stop. No further probing.
> 
> If it is something very important to me, I take my leave and find someone who does not have a hard no on that menu item.
> 
> ...


Ya, OK, I can see that. What I had in my mind by "explanation" included "I'm not going to talk about it." But it discluded lying about it, or knowing your partner believes one thing but you don't correct them on that.

I can see what you're saying. There is certainly stuff my wife won't talk to me about - but I understand loosely the reasons why via other conversations - and stuff I won't talk about, either. And some stuff we just don't talk about. And that's ok. It still feels honest.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ok so if this is the case, is that really so bad to not be as sexually attracted?
> 
> I have had some men where the sex just clicks like crazy and it's fireworks and chemistry and nothing else was compatible and I've had men who I could share a future and a life with that had average sexual connection.
> 
> Some men also have women who they can have wild sex with but don't feel are the "marrying kind" and pick vanilla women to be wife and Mom.


If it's a guy whose SO is not sexually attracted to him, *yes*. Of course, very few wives who are not attracted to their husbands actually admit this to him.

If its a woman whose SO is not sexually attracted to her. I'd assume yes as well, but I'd just be guessing.

It seems to me that it's more women marrying men to whom they are not sexually attracted. I've seem plenty of "Cosmo" articles suggesting that women are best off doing this. 

On the other side, there's pretty much just "Never Make a Pretty Woman Your Wife" by Jimmy Soul.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Ya, OK, I can see that. What I had in my mind by "explanation" included "I'm not going to talk about it." But it discluded lying about it, or knowing your partner believes one thing but you don't correct them on that.
> 
> I can see what you're saying.


I'm glad you can see what I am saying.

Even if a person's hard no was actually backed up with "I did this before and liked it but I will not want to do it with you", I would still respect their answer. It really doesn't matter why. No means no. Again, it is then my choice if I want to find someone else who won't hard no this topic. Sometimes I would, sometimes I would not. It seems like some of the guys here don't think men ever do this, like all men are just up for everything and want all you have ever had and need to know exactly what that was. That is foreign to me.

My ex h told me to mind my own business when I started getting too nosey with questions about his past. Do I think this is because he was hiding something I wouldn't like? No, I think it was because it was none of my damn business and I'm too curious for my own good sometimes. If I had pressed him for answers, he would have dumped me for that alone, for not respecting his boundary, and for being weird.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Marduk said:


> Tiggy! said:
> 
> 
> > So you think she's not being honest as a anonymous poster on a random forum, what's the incentive?
> ...


I would also point out that in her initial post PD said Steve asked her why she did this. She said she had no reason why.

Later, after a fierce blowback on the board (apparently including posts that were deleted by mods), she then posted that she thinks she might know why. The answer she gave was self-serving, though possibly true.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> If it's a guy whose SO is not sexually attracted to him, *yes*. Of course, very few wives who are not attracted to their husbands actually admit this to him.
> 
> If its a woman whose SO is not sexually attracted to her. I'd assume yes as well, but I'd just be guessing.
> 
> ...


This is because you seem to only know what men like yourself and men at TAM think.

Trust me, for the most part, men in general are not thinking like the men of TAM. Go on a lot of dates with a lot of different guys and then you will know more about how men behave in relationships.

You keep slipping in little "warnings" to women that we better understand how "men" think or else we may be sorrrrryyyyyyy when they dump us for not being exactly what they want and how they want.

What you don't seem to understand is that women like me (highly sexual, happy to be sexual with a new partner) will run as fast as she can from a man who would think the way you are warning us of. Do you really think we have to wait around until some guy chooses US and we have no say in all of this, we just get dumped if we don't comply?

It isn't like that, Buddy.

Men are usually the ones who chase and they will chase even when you don't behave exactly the way they want you to.

And most men who are under 50 understand that women are unique, that we have past sex lives, that no means no, that you don't get to interrogate your new partners about their past (male or female). The younger crowd just know how to meld themselves together with someone who is compatible - - which typically means you are both on the same page on those things.

We aren't trying to get with guys who feel so opposite as we do. We are trying to run AWAY from those guys. Therefore, your "warnings" are so odd to me. As if we have to watch what we do and say or else some judgmental jackhole won't be with me? Lolz.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Buddy400 said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so if this is the case, is that really so bad to not be as sexually attracted?
> ...


If you had to choose, would you rather have an average looking woman who is sexually attracted to you, or a beautiful woman who is not?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> My ex h told me to mind my own business when I started getting too nosey with questions about his past. Do I think this is because he was hiding something I wouldn't like? No, I think it was because it was none of my damn business and I'm too curious for my own good sometimes. If I had pressed him for answers, he would have dumped me for that alone, for not respecting his boundary, and for being weird.




Was it about stuff you wanted to do that he was saying no to? 

If so, how did you feel about that?

Would that be different if he lied to you about it?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Was it about stuff you wanted to do that he was saying no to?
> 
> If so, how did you feel about that?
> 
> Would that be different if he lied to you about it?


I was just plain curious and wanted to hear everything (similarly to how and why I read so much sex stuff at TAM. Just endlessly curious).

I'm trying to remember if there were things I was asking for which he said no to, but it was just so long ago I don't remember. I don't recall there ever being anything either of us wanted that was off the menu.

One of the things he said was that it was rude of me to expect him to kiss and tell. That the women in his past were human beings he cared about (even if ONS's) and he was not going to talk about them to me at all and I was being an ass by asking him to. That was completely correct, he was right, and I shut my trap.

He was more than happy to give me an overview and a whole list of DO's, which was far more than enough to keep us happy for well over a decade.

I'm sure he has lied to me by omission. Who cares? It was none of my business to begin with.

He never EVER asked me for any detail about any man I had been with before. Ever.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I was just plain curious and wanted to hear everything (similarly to how and why I read so much sex stuff at TAM. Just endlessly curious).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It sounds a lot like where my wife and I are at with such things. 

But that feels a lot different than a lot of situations being discussed here. The differences being honesty, clear boundaries, and being fairly open sexually otherwise. It feels like you brought your whole self to the table here in ways it feels like some others haven’t. 

Not necessarily with the details, but with the intent, if that’s making sense?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> It sounds a lot like where my wife and I are at with such things.
> 
> But that feels a lot different than a lot of situations being discussed here. The differences being honesty, clear boundaries, and being fairly open sexually otherwise. It feels like you brought your whole self to the table here in ways it feels like some others haven’t.
> 
> Not necessarily with the details, but with the intent, if that’s making sense?


I don't feel that any woman who is posting here on this thread has done anything wrong, either with their actions or their intent. And I don't quite understand why anyone would be judging each other that way. We are having a discussion, not trying to date each other. We can disagree without it meaning that some of the women here don't have the correct "intent".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't want my partner to tell me "Listen, I'm not as sexually attracted to you. We don't have as much sexual energy and connection but overall you are a better choice for me and overall more compatible so I'm picking you"
> 
> Some things are better left unsaid.
> 
> ...


True, some things are better left unsaid. Obviously, no one wants to hear "I'm not sexually attracted to you". Say that and the relationship is over.

And, I can understand why a woman (or a man) may want to marry someone for other qualities than sexual attraction.

But, the trick is that if one does that and wants it to work, they'd better be prepared long term to have the sex their SO wants and, if they can't manage that, then it's cruel to get married under false pretenses. 

The worst thing to happen is if a woman (to pick a gender) marries a man that she's not sexually attracted to, stops wanting to have sex with him and, when asked why, doesn't give the real reason. That leaves the husband to flail around trying to solve a problem he doesn't understand and can't fix.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't feel that any woman who is posting here on this thread has done anything wrong, either with their actions or their intent. And I don't quite understand why anyone would be judging each other that way. We are having a discussion, not trying to date each other. We can disagree without it meaning that some of the women here don't have the correct "intent".


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anybody that posted in this thread. I meant PD, or others being discussed. I seem to remember another recent example raised where a guy's wife wouldn't do certain things, but then he found a video of her doing all those things happily and more when she said she never had.

And again, I throw myself in that mix, too. I said no to having ever done a threesome when that wasn't true. I don't feel good about that, but my intentionality was never to have her feel good enough. When she is more than enough, and I didn't enjoy the threesome and don't want to have another one. And she doesn't. So that's my rationalization, as uncomfortable as I am with it.

Maybe I should have taken a page from your playbook and said that I'm not going to answer it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

lovelygirl said:


> She doesn't explicitly state the lack of attraction for Steve, but deep consciously, she's not AS SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to Steve as she was to DAVE. Hence, no full menu.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This again, touches on what I've been thinking about. We keep making this a zero sum game. IS sexually attracted to the older, powerful, married guy. IS NOT sexually attracted to the man she's been married to for nearly 20 years, and clearly declares she loves.

It's a spectrum. But everyone wants to make it a coin toss.

I don't think it's that absolute. I'm guessing virtually everyone here can relate to a relationship where off the hook was normal at one point ... and then at another point, it simply wasn't. Happens all of the time. Nobody freaks out about that ... unless and until ... you couch it in the kind of circumstances that starts this debate.

I never cared about what my ex wife had done in her sexual past. But I very much cared when she ceased being sexual with me. And at that point in time, I could generally only frame it from the viewpoint of my dissatisfaction.

Now that I consider myself older, fatter, balder, and more enlightened ... I can look back and see that my ex-wife wasn't being honest with me through a lie of omission. Truth be told, this thread just made me realize that.

I was hurting her. We would have intercourse for 30, 40 or more minutes at a time, again ... because I just thought that's what everyone did. She developed an 'abraded cervix'. I believe the frequency and duration of intercourse was a huge contributor to the issues she developed, both physically and mentally, because in the early years of our relationship ... she enjoyed it. Then she didn't. And for a very long time, she didn't disclose she didn't. She tried to grin and bear it. When it became apparent to me, that I was actually causing her physical pain, I was devastated.

I've framed a large part of why I'm no longer with my ex, from the perspective that she developed a sexual aversion to me. And this is seriously like a bat in the head moment. I think I now know why, or a substantial part of the reason why.

And I'm not foisting the development the problem and outcome of our circumstances on her. But cripes. It's sad.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> True, some things are better left unsaid. Obviously, no one wants to hear "I'm not sexually attracted to you". Say that and the relationship is over.


The point is that for me the relationship should be over at that point. If I was with someone that lied to me about it so the relationship could continue with false pretences, I'd feel defrauded. And probably pretty insecure about it.



> The worst thing to happen is if a woman (to pick a gender) marries a man that she's not sexually attracted to, stops wanting to have sex with him and, when asked why, doesn't give the real reason. That leaves the husband to flail around trying to solve a problem he doesn't understand and can't fix.


Ya, my ex wife did that. She had already moved on from me, but kept inventing reasons why that weren't true. Dishes, cleaning, whatever. Didn't help and just frustrated her because she'd have to invent a new hoop for me to jump through that wasn't "I'm not attracted to you any more, and oh by the way I'm ****ing someone else."


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> And I'm not foisting the development the problem and outcome of our circumstances on her. But cripes. It's sad.


You're being too easy on her and too quick to take on accountability for her decisions.

My 2c.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anybody that posted in this thread. I meant PD, or others being discussed. I seem to remember another recent example raised where a guy's wife wouldn't do certain things, but then he found a video of her doing all those things happily and more when she said she never had.
> 
> And again, I throw myself in that mix, too. I said no to having ever done a threesome when that wasn't true. I don't feel good about that, but my intentionality was never to have her feel good enough. When she is more than enough, and I didn't enjoy the threesome and don't want to have another one. And she doesn't. So that's my rationalization, as uncomfortable as I am with it.
> 
> Maybe I should have taken a page from your playbook and said that I'm not going to answer it.


I actually wish we would all just speak of ourselves and stop re-hashing the PD story. She isn't here and all is speculation beyond what she wrote. Everyone has already stated their position. Why keep going back and forth? No one is going to change their position. Yeah, we get it that some think she is a horrible liar and others think her husband should have rejected her if he wasn't ok with what she offered. We heard you all. We know where you stand. 

I have no thoughts on your lie. It is none of my business. The fact that you seem to have a double standard is more interesting to me.

Men are this way about porn all the time. They tell every woman in their life that they really don't watch that much of it, and that if they do it is always garden variety hetero stuff. And men seem to think if a woman wants to know more than this, she is cray. They think she will then not want to be with him if he is honest. So they lie, they hide it, they tell themselves this is harmless to her.

If you all were outed for everything you've ever watched and were expected to give a reason for why this one or that one turned you on, you'd all run for the hills before you would answer.

yet.....women are expected to do the same about their actual sex lives and if they don't, they are lying *****es.

This crap is so confusing.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And there's still a lot of men, even here, that will warn against marrying a sexually experienced woman because they think she's more likely to cheat or have bad behavior. They don't have anything against sleeping with her though.


Well, men *DO* usually care more about their wife sleeping with other men than if the woman they picked up at a bar last night is sleeping with other men.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Marduk said:


> You're being too easy on her and too quick to take on accountability for her decisions.
> 
> My 2c.


I don't abdicate any her of her ****ty behavior. But if I'm thinking about the 'how' we got to where we got to, I'm thinking that was a watershed event.

I posted about her diagnosis years ago, Dyspareunia. She said it felt like razor blade around her labia, vagina, even if it were a tongue.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I have no thoughts on your lie. It is none of my business. The fact that you seem to have a double standard is more interesting to me.


Ya, me too now that I'm examining it. I mean, would I be hurt if she did and didn't tell me about it when I asked? I probably would. **** me. I don't think I'd judge her, I'd be hurt that she felt she couldn't tell me, and I'd be hurt that she lied to me.



> Men are this way about porn all the time. They tell every woman in their life that they really don't watch that much of it, and that if they do it is always garden variety hetero stuff. And men seem to think if a woman wants to know more than this, she is cray. They think she will then not want to be with him if he is honest. So they lie, they hide it, they tell themselves this is harmless to her.


Is that the same thing?



> If you all were outed for everything you've ever watched and were expected to give a reason for why this one or that one turned you on, you'd all run for the hills before you would answer.


Ugh. That's the kind of **** my wife holds my feet to the fire on exquisitely well. There's not a lot hidden between the two of us that way. Or at least on my side.



> yet.....women are expected to do the same about their actual sex lives and if they don't, they are lying *****es.


I'm struggling with the comparison with porn (because that seems like fantasy stuff not reality stuff), but yes I see your point.



> This crap is so confusing.


Ya. I thought I had a handle on it for a bit there and now I'm doubting I had a handle on it at all.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I don't abdicate any her of her ****ty behavior. But if I'm thinking about the 'how' we got to where we got to, I'm thinking that was a watershed event.
> 
> I posted about her diagnosis years ago, Dyspareunia. She said it felt like razor blade around her labia, vagina, even if it were a tongue.


What I'm specifically getting at is if there was something you were doing that triggered that pain for her and she knew it, she should have told you that.

And if her attraction for you was faltering or gone, she should have told you that, too.

You have big metaphorical shoulders man. Don't take her burdens on.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I'm struggling with the comparison with porn (because that seems like fantasy stuff not reality stuff), but yes I see your point.


Because men LIE so that women will not judge him, all the time. Supposedly it is the LIE that matters, right?

Because for many men, their solo sex life is a HUGE part of their overall sex life. But then when she wants to know anything about it, all of a sudden it is "only fantasy" and is "none of her business" and she is cray if she keeps asking, other men will advise him to run for the hills.

Because many men DO have latent bizarre or kinky or perverse fantasies, and for many women we DO feel this is something we need to know.

Flip the roles. Say your new girlfriend watches some extremely bizarre type of porn. If she didn't tell you about it or at least hint and she is watching it regularly and if you end up finding it on her phone, you WILL feel that this was something you need to know about her. Because men are the ones who actually make everything mean something.

But since many of you have not experienced this, you will doubt me.

Since I have actually experienced men being wigged out by the type of porn I may want to watch, I've learned to do what you do. Pretend I'm super vanilla in porn viewing habits and hide my ****.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

My ex-husband was off masturbating to pornography, while I was consistently trying to figure out how to fix our 20 year sexless marriage.

Did he tell me he was doing this? Nope. Not until we were separated.

It was deceitful behavior and deliberately hidden from me. And he never apologized for it.




Marduk said:


> I'm struggling with the comparison with porn (because that seems like fantasy stuff not reality stuff), but yes I see your point..


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Marduk said:


> Easy. Validation that the easy answer is ok and she can go back to not examining herself, her intentions, or how she manages her relationship with Steve.
> 
> 
> My point is that is factually untrue. She claimed that she didn't tell Steve because he would judge her. Only he explicitly said that he wouldn't. And he asked for these same things from her. And she had no problem laughing about it with her friend in front of Steve - she only had a problem when she saw the look on his face and when he held her feet to the fire about it.
> ...





> I have an idea why I refused Steve full menu sex. I did not care what Dave thought of me I was young and not in any relationship and I did what i wanted to do*, when I met Steve there was an attraction that grew over the months and when we started to have sex I did care what he thought and did not want to come across as a **** and i walled off that part of me*.


a. this is her evaluating , just because answer in your opinion it a 'easy' answer does not mean isn't looking at herself to why she didn't want 'full menu' sex with Steve.
b. she said she didn't want to come across as a ****, that fear comes from her, she owned from the beginning this came from her.
Also this all came out on a drunk night out, it's not like she randomly answered her friend at afternoon tea.





> 2. When she said she didn't want Steve to judge her... that kinda does put it back on Steve. I mean, if he would be less judgemental, there wouldn't be a problem, would there? It's his fault she didn't share this part of herself. Only it isn't true, and Steve in fact was remarkably non-judgemental in his response. If there's a madonna/***** thing going on here, it seems to only be going on in PD's mind. Which means she should examine that and stop trying to foist the blame on Steve. That is emotional manipulation 101 - if I did something wrong, it's because you made me.


She said she cared about what he thought and didn't want to come across as a ****, that's not the same as saying if Steve wasn't judgemental I would of has 'full menu' sex . I agree it does sound like the Madonna/***** thing was going on in PD's mind, she hasn't suggested otherwise.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Because men LIE so that women will not judge him, all the time. Supposedly it is the LIE that matters, right?


**** you're challenging. 

OK. Where I was at was that to me if my wife had a passing fantasy that turned her crank and she never wanted to have happen, that's her business. If she never told me about it, I think I'd understand that. Just like if I see some hot babe that winds me up, I don't come home and tell my wife about it.

But **** me, you're right in a very big way - the dishonesty. If I were to secretly be into something, say being dominated. But only in porn I like to watch and not real life. I think I'd be ok with keeping that to myself. But... if my wife disclosed that she wanted to try dominating me and I said no without disclosing that I actually do like it, I just don't want to do it - because I'm afraid or something - then I would think I wasn't being honest. I get it. I think.



> Because for many men, their solo sex life is a HUGE part of their overall sex life. But then when she wants to know anything about it, all of a sudden it is "only fantasy" and is "none of her business" and she is cray if she keeps asking, other men will advise him to run for the hills.


I'm back to intention now. When my wife digs into my fantasy life, it's typically with a wry grin on her face. And she digs in, and digs in hard. I mean, the time when I said a schoolgirl skirt looked sexy when we were watching something yielded an immediate excursion into all kinds of places to see where the attraction came from. And it was difficult, because really I hadn't thought about it. But the result of having my feet held to the fire there yielded a lot of understanding - and exploration from both sides. And her intention at the end of the day with that grilling wasn't to "own" me, it was to "understand" me. And then (ahem) be leveraged.



> Because many men DO have latent bizarre or kinky or perverse fantasies, and for many women we DO feel this is something we need to know.


Yup. And I want to know what mine are, too - an unexamined life is an unlived life. But sometimes a short plaid skirt is just a short plaid skirt, too - it's not closeted pedophelia, power, etc for example.

And I want to know what those are from my partner, too. But gently and safely, I guess, because there's less at stake for me in terms of being physically at risk maybe.



> Flip the roles. Say your new girlfriend watches some extremely bizarre type of porn. If she didn't tell you about it or at least hint and she is watching it regularly and if you end up finding it on her phone, you WILL feel that this was something you need to know about her.


Can you give me an example of this? Like, is it something threatening or very far out there and therefore something that would worry me?



> Because men are the ones who actually make everything mean something.


I obviously have had a far different experience than most people, because all of the women that have been very sexual with me, maturely or not, have very much held my feet to the fire with this stuff. 

Now that I think about it, it's really only my ex wife that didn't care about my past, or what my fantasies were, or what I wanted to do. I've come full circle now.



> But since many of you have not experienced this, you will doubt me.
> 
> Since I have actually experienced men being wigged out by the type of porn I may want to watch, I've learned to do what you do. Pretend I'm super vanilla in porn viewing habits and hide my ****.


See, when I discover that kind of stuff, I think it's awesome. My limits are pretty broad, though. If she wants something, I want it for her. 

Damn, you're challenging. Thanks for this.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I
> Even if a person's hard no was actually backed up with "I did this before and liked it but I will not want to do it with you", I would still respect their answer. It really doesn't matter why. No means no. .


Absolutely agree. I would respect that answer. No means No and I am a VERY strong believer in that.



Faithful Wife said:


> Again, it is then my choice if I want to find someone else who won't hard no this topic. rd.


This is the point. I have a choice. The woman has agency with her sexuality and I have agency with mine.

If I got an answer like "I tried that once and absolutely hated it", I'd probably continue the relationship if everything else was great. For me, it's the thought that counts more than the action.

If I got "I did this before and liked it but I will not want to do it with you", I'd probably choose to find someone else. Because, to me, that means that they either are not as attracted to me as they were to the person they did this with or they care less about my happiness than they did his. You may feel that I'm wrong to feel this way and you can try to convince me that I shouldn't feel this way (and I know that, IRL, you have no obligation to do so), but that *IS* the way I feel and that's why the explanation would matter to me. 

Of course, I have am not entitled to an explanation but, if I don't get one, I'll have no choice but to assume the worst. The sad part would be if she really had no problem with explaining, wanted to have a relationship with me and just stuck to "I'm not going to answer" because she'd heard that that's what she "should" do and didn't understand my point of view. But, that would be her problem, not mine.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Can you give me an example of this? Like, is it something threatening or very far out there and therefore something that would worry me?
> 
> .......
> 
> See, when I discover that kind of stuff, I think it's awesome. My limits are pretty broad, though. If she wants something, I want it for her.


Ok, let's say it is BBC. There is a LOT under that heading. Let's say she watches ALL of it. Regularly. And that is the only kind she watches. And she apparently watches it every day, sometimes multiple times.

Now a lot of guys may want to tell themselves that they would not care, good for her, she at least gets to SEE if even if she doesn't get to have an actual BBC....that's not what will actually happen if the reality of it happens to you.

Yet men do something similar to women (by hiding it and lying about it) every day and they think we are cray *****es if we dare to try to discuss it OR if we have any issue with it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Marduk said:


> What I'm specifically getting at is if there was something you were doing that triggered that pain for her and she knew it, she should have told you that.
> 
> And if her attraction for you was faltering or gone, she should have told you that, too.
> 
> You have big metaphorical shoulders man. Don't take her burdens on.


Life finds a way. She's good. I'm good. Understand what you are saying and appreciate it. If anything, I think this occurrence with my ex, just helped me frame this concept of getting sexually out of whack with your partner, based on your communication dynamic. Or simply honesty and disclosure of any circumstance that can have an adverse reaction upon the relationship. At the end of the day, the issue didn't resolve, and the relationship continued to deteriorate ... and I exercised my option, and went and got what what I wanted.

What remains unclear, is determining if sexual history disclosure is a big factor, with adverse reactions to the relationship. For me, overwhelmingly it was not. The more experienced, the better in my opinion.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

minimalME said:


> My ex-husband was off masturbating to pornography, while I was consistently trying to figure out how to fix our 20 year sexless marriage.
> 
> Did he tell me he was doing this? Nope. Not until we were seperated.
> 
> It was deceitful behavior and deliberately hidden from me. And he never apologized for it.


This is absolutely relevant to the discussion. But men generally don't get shamed for it, no? On the contrary, its perceived as ordinary that most of them view porn.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> If I got "I did this before and liked it but I will not want to do it with you", I'd probably choose to find someone else. Because, to me, that means that they either are not as attracted to me as they were to the person they did this with or they care less about my happiness than they did his. You may feel that I'm wrong to feel this way and you can try to convince me that I shouldn't feel this way (and I know that, IRL, you have no obligation to do so), but that *IS* the way I feel and that's why the explanation would matter to me.
> 
> Of course, I have am not entitled to an explanation but, if I don't get one, I'll have no choice but to assume the worst. The sad part would be if she really had no problem with explaining, wanted to have a relationship with me and just stuck to "I'm not going to answer" because she'd heard that that's what she "should" do and didn't understand my point of view. But, that would be her problem, not mine.


I don't understand why you think there is such loyalty with someone you have just met and are just getting to know. There's nothing "sad" about dropping someone earlier than later if they are not a match, for ANY reason. Relationships are not so rare that we need to bend over backwards for someone we JUST met. In fact, doing so is a fool's game.

I don't feel you are wrong, we all get to handle our own lives the way we want to.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m not quite on the same page with you here, because no, it wasn’t courageous in my view since *I’m not ashamed of any of my past*. And because I definitely have a take it or leave it attitude. I’m not going to spend time getting involved with any one who needs me to have compassion for their judgement of me.


Perhaps the bolded is what some posters are missing about my view (and others) on this subject. There is *no *shame (for me) involving any aspect of my sexuality (past or present) and, so one has the ability to "shame" me.

However, a potential partner who insists on interrogating me on my past sexual experiences has waved a big red flag that indicates that _they_ have shame concerning sexuality ... I would be incompatible with a partner that was harboring any sexual shame.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

minimalME said:


> My ex-husband was off masturbating to pornography, while I was consistently trying to figure out how to fix our 20 year sexless marriage.
> 
> Did he tell me he was doing this? Nope. Not until we were seperated.
> 
> It was deceitful behavior and deliberately hidden from me. And he never apologized for it.


Ouch. Sorry.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> This is absolutely relevant to the discussion. But men generally don't get shamed for it, no? On the contrary, its perceived as ordinary that most of them view porn.


Why would you think men don't get shamed for it?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Tiggy! said:


> So if Steve knew sex was pretty vanilla with his wife and didn't ask what her her what sex life was like in the past how was he lied to and defrauded?
> I do have sympathy for Steve and for how he found out but making Steve he isn't a complete victim of the situation (he married someone who wasn't sexually compatible with him) and not wanting to have 'full menu' sex with someone even though you have in the past doesn't make you a liar of fake (unless they did actually talk about past sexual encounters and she did actually lie about them).


Objectively, we don't have enough info from the PennyD thread to gauge whether she was misleading or not. Thread's locked and most likely she'll not be back. What I SUSPECT happened between the 2 is the following: 1) She told him that she does not engage in several sex acts; however, maybe in the future she would. 2) He saw pretty early with her that several acts were off the table from the start; however, he probably thought "I can get her to come around later on". I think she dangled carrots, and I think he planned to play "missionary" and convert her as the marriage unfolded.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, let's say it is BBC. There is a LOT under that heading. Let's say she watches ALL of it. Regularly. And that is the only kind she watches. And she apparently watches it every day, sometimes multiple times.


OK I think I know what BBC means.



> Now a lot of guys may want to tell themselves that they would not care, good for her, she at least gets to SEE if even if she doesn't get to have an actual BBC....that's not what will actually happen if the reality of it happens to you.


I think what I'd be doing is heading for the toy store, and excited to try some stuff out. Unless she told me that she wanted to really have it with someone else. Or not try anything at all.

Or if she just wanted to watch it, I think it would get incorporated into our routine. We have a pretty firm line between "stuff we watch or say to each other during" and "stuff that's actually gonna happen" though.

But I 100% could see a lot of guys getting freaked out by that, me being perhaps one of them, and I'd probably have some questions for her about it. Because I think those answers would likely flip the insecurity into excitement for me, and if they didn't, well I guess I'd want to know about that. Specifically if it's something that she wants in reality but is OK with giving up forever to be with me, or if it's something she's going to pine for.



> Yet men do something similar to women (by hiding it and lying about it) every day and they think we are cray *****es if we dare to try to discuss it OR if we have any issue with it.


That's a crappy no win scenario. For anyone. My default is that if I want to know something I'll ask, and if I don't I'll say so. 

Hmm. With your example above, if you didn't tell your partner, wouldn't that be a missed opportunity for you both maybe?

I mean, this exact example came up once at a party years ago. My wife gets into crazy sex conversations with her girlfriends. As in, they were talking about this kind of thing at a sex toy party they had gone to, and how one of the husbands was uncomfortable with big toys. My wife laughed and said my response would be something like "I dare you, but I want to watch you try." And she's probably right about stuff like that.

But it would be another thing to me if she wanted a human being attached to it in reality.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

What's relevant to the discussion for me is that he was hiding it, lying about it (by omission), AND withholding sex.

He was watching it at his office and never said a word.

At the time, I wouldn't have wanted to shame him. I wanted to have sex with my husband - who was basically blocking my efforts and getting himself off in secret.

Now I shame him because when we did finally discuss it, he wanted to act like he was doing me a favor. Which was total bs.




Deejo said:


> This is absolutely relevant to the discussion. But men generally don't get shamed for it, no? On the contrary, its perceived as ordinary that most of them view porn.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Marduk said:


> Why would you think men don't get shamed for it?


Mostly because I just haven't seen it. I mean we see it here ... in the event you have a guy turning to porn rather than his wife. But a guy who just watches or uses to masturbate on occasion? That's down right pedestrian isn't it?

In contrast what I have seen is women, shamed for watching or enjoying porn.

Again ... a partner who loved watching porn, the ex-husband rather than seeing it as an opportunity ... I'm presuming felt less than, because he belittled and shamed her for it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Hmm. With your example above, if you didn't tell your partner, wouldn't that be a missed opportunity for you both maybe?


If my partner is a white guy with an average penis, then no I don’t see how discussing this with him would provide any opportunity for “us”.

And no, going out and buying a huge black dildo isn’t going to do anything for me with regard to this type of porn I want to watch for my own personal enjoyment.

If he wanted to know “why” I like it, I would have no explanation other than “I just like it because it turns me on because big black ***** are hot and I want to look at them smashing a vag”.

If he wanted to watch it with me because he thinks it’s hot too, then great. 

And once in awhile there will be a guy who feels this way.

But most don’t and they freak the **** out if they know this is something you enjoy on a regular basis.

And the ones who know you’ve already been with a black guy then assume he has a huge **** and they will never measure up.

By the way, ha ha! I made it into a penis thread again.

You’re all welcome :x


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Red Sonja said:


> Perhaps the bolded is what some posters are missing about my view (and others) on this subject. There is *no *shame (for me) involving any aspect of my sexuality (past or present) and, so one has the ability to "shame" me.
> 
> However, a potential partner who insists on interrogating me on my past sexual experiences has waved a big red flag that indicates that _they_ have shame concerning sexuality ... I would be incompatible with a partner that was harboring any sexual shame.


Yes, the shamey shame type of men are pretty obvious. And somehow they want a woman who feels safe enough to be open and have a wild sex life with him. Even though it’s obvious he isn’t a safe person. They actually want to be the only guy who made her feel safe, and feeling that way in itself means he is not safe enough to be open with.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

minimalME said:


> What's relevant to the discussion for me is that he was hiding it, lying about it (by omission), AND withholding sex.
> 
> He was watching it at his office and never said a word.
> 
> ...


How old was he at the time? I 100% agree with you that you were robbed of a full marriage since he put his energy into porn and not his willing partner. I admit that it seems strange to me that he'd be able to get ALL of his sexual needs met by porn and masturbation alone. He must have had a very long refractory period or maybe couldn't get it going more than once a day?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

minimalME said:


> What's relevant to the discussion for me is that he was hiding it, lying about it (by omission), AND withholding sex.
> 
> He was watching it at his office and never said a word.
> 
> ...


Sounds to me pretty much like a reverse in terms of behaviors, no? Again ... can't understand why a man that has a willing live body, would defer to a virtual one.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> We aren't trying to get with guys who feel so opposite as we do. We are trying to run AWAY from those guys. Therefore, your "warnings" are so odd to me. As if we have to watch what we do and say or else some judgmental jackhole won't be with me? Lolz.


I'm NOT trying to tell women that they should do anything other than what they want to do or behave in any way they don't want to behave. In fact, I would recommend just the opposite.

I just think that both genders should have as clear an understanding of how the other thinks (in general) as possible so that they can make informed choices. This point of this would be for everyone to have a better chance of finding happiness and getting what they want.

Two examples:

1) I often hear that that young women will have sex right away with guys they don't see as "relationship material" and wait to have sex with guys who they do see as relationship material. It's my belief that most "relationship material" guys would not be happy to find this out. This doesn't mean that these women are doing something "wrong" (they can do whatever they please). I'm just saying that, knowing this, they can make more informed decisions. This includes making no changes whatever but just telling guys up front how it works to avoid issues in the future or just being prepared for what might happen. There's always the possibility that they aren't actually doing what they want, they're doing it because they misunderstand what men actually think. Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe most young guys are happy when they find a woman who has sex right away with others but not with them because they know that that makes them special. Again, I'm NOT telling women what to do or not to do. I have no interest in doing so. I just want them to be informed. The rest is up to them.

2) Men often think that when a woman asks them what they want that the best answer is "whatever you want, dear". It's the "Happy Wife, Happy Life" meme. My experience and what I've read of the experience of others (men and women) suggests that the right answer is for the man to actually say what it is he wants (I'll avoid going into details as to why this might be). So, I try to tell men how women (in general) actually feel about this. I'm not saying that they're "wrong" to do this and I'm not saying that they should do this even if they don't want to. The most interesting part is that they usually actually would like to just be direct and say what they want but they fear that their wife would not like it. A better understanding of the situation often leads to a better marriage for both and both getting more of what they want. Of course, I may be wrong and there are many women who want their husbands to be indecisive and passive and just do whatever they're told.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'm NOT trying to tell women that they should do anything other than what they want to do or behave in any way they don't want to behave. In fact, I would recommend just the opposite.
> 
> I just think that both genders should have as clear an understanding of how the other thinks (in general) as possible so that they can make informed choices. This point of this would be for everyone to have a better chance of finding happiness and getting what they want.
> 
> ...


I would never tell a man or woman that what men or women think, because we are not a hive mind.

I would tell them to try to find out what their new potential partner thinks and then decide if it matches them well enough to continue.

P.S....we have a male poster here who openly admits that he tries to **** every woman on the first date, and that it is actually a **** test. If she does it, he takes the sex and then never calls again because she’s a ****. If she doesn’t, he might consider her long term material.

Given this, how in the world are we going to be able to tell men or women what men and women “think”. How many of them are like the guy I just described? We have no way of knowing. 

For myself, any guy who thinks they need to pressure for sex at ALL is an auto NEXT. If they aren’t chill about sex in general, they are waving red flags at me.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Yes, our marriage was very strange in a lot of ways.

I don't know his age at the time. I don't know any of the details - I didn't ask. I was told when we had already separated, and I was done.



Plan 9 from OS said:


> How old was he at the time? I 100% agree with you that you were robbed of a full marriage since he put his energy into porn and not his willing partner. I admit that it seems strange to me that he'd be able to get ALL of his sexual needs met by porn and masturbation alone. He must have had a very long refractory period or maybe couldn't get it going more than once a day?



Yes. That's why I brought it up. 



Deejo said:


> Sounds to me pretty much like a reverse in terms of behaviors, no?.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Because men LIE so that women will not judge him, all the time. Supposedly it is the LIE that matters, right?
> 
> Because for many men, their solo sex life is a HUGE part of their overall sex life. But then when she wants to know anything about it, all of a sudden it is "only fantasy" and is "none of her business" and she is cray if she keeps asking, other men will advise him to run for the hills.
> 
> ...


I agree that these are comparable situations.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

minimalME said:


> My ex-husband was off masturbating to pornography, while I was consistently trying to figure out how to fix our 20 year sexless marriage.
> 
> Did he tell me he was doing this? Nope. Not until we were seperated.
> 
> It was deceitful behavior and deliberately hidden from me. And he never apologized for it.


His behavior was ridiculous. It is probably common for men to lie about porn. I ran into it enough in ministry.

I never lied about porn use and was watching it openly when I met Mrs. C. She even watched it with me several times. We decided it wasn't going to be part of our relationship at one point and I did use it a couple of times after our agreement but I told her about it.

I always masturbate a lot but she does not lack sexual attention.

I don't think men should get a pass on lying about this. I don't know how it stacks up against lying, by omission or otherwise, about the past but I don't think it is good in anyway and men shouldn't get a pass about lying about it.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Faithful, in reading your post, it kind of gave me a thought.

Would I be upset if my wife was at home watching bbc porn? Yes, for a number of reasons, but none that couldn't be worked though.

However, as I thought about it, if we had a relationship where porn was allowed, and if we had always had a mutually satisfying, open, loving, sharing sex life. I don't think it would bother me. I am sure at some point there would be a thought of if that is what she wanted, and could I ever be enough, or something along those lines. That is not the point though.

The point was, as we all read this thread through the lenses of our own experience, it is easy to see why some people are hurt, some people think men are judgmental, and on and on. The original thread hurts me, because if I was that guy, and his marriage was like mine, it would be very hurtful.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Yes!!!

People protect themselves. They shade the truth, and they manage the way others see them. 

It's as common for human beings as breathing air. 

And it's why I have absolutely no issue (in terms of integrity) with refusing to answer questions that make me uncomfortable.

Some want to act like pure, unadulterated communication is possible between people. That in itself is a lie.




ConanHub said:


> It is probably common for men to lie about porn.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

minimalME said:


> Some want to act like pure, unadulterated communication is possible between people. That in itself is a lie.


I've always been pretty straight with people. I've been very transparent about sex, history and present, including porn use with pretty much anyone who I was involved with long enough to have a conversation.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I understand. 



ConanHub said:


> I've always been pretty straight with people. I've been very transparent about sex, history and present, including porn use with pretty much anyone who I was involved with long enough to have a conversation.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> If my partner is a white guy with an average penis, then no I don’t see how discussing this with him would provide any opportunity for “us”.
> 
> And no, going out and buying a huge black dildo isn’t going to do anything for me with regard to this type of porn I want to watch for my own personal enjoyment.


First of all, whew, I got BBC right. I was worried about not being sexually hip any more.

I guess you answered how it would provide an opportunity below, though.




> If he wanted to know “why” I like it, I would have no explanation other than “I just like it because it turns me on because big black ***** are hot and I want to look at them smashing a vag”.


Hulk Smash!



> If he wanted to watch it with me because he thinks it’s hot too, then great.
> 
> And once in awhile there will be a guy who feels this way.


Bingo! 



> But most don’t and they freak the **** out if they know this is something you enjoy on a regular basis.
> 
> And the ones who know you’ve already been with a black guy then assume he has a huge **** and they will never measure up.
> 
> ...


I think we all knew that was going to happen eventually.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

minimalME said:


> What's relevant to the discussion for me is that he was hiding it, lying about it (by omission), AND withholding sex.
> 
> He was watching it at his office and never said a word.
> 
> ...


How the hell could it be a favour to you? Man, I hate that kind of manipulative BS.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, the shamey shame type of men are pretty obvious. And somehow they want a woman who feels safe enough to be open and have a wild sex life with him. Even though it’s obvious he isn’t a safe person. They actually want to be the only guy who made her feel safe, and feeling that way in itself means he is not safe enough to be open with.


Hmm.

I actually once (laughingly) toasted some of my wife's ex's with a glass of scotch, thanking them for not screwing up sex for her. And for me!


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Sounds to me pretty much like a reverse in terms of behaviors, no? Again ... can't understand why a man that has a willing live body, would defer to a virtual one.


I had a buddy like that. He was depressed and it was just too much of an effort to have sex with his wife, because she'd expect him to do some work for it, too. 

Porn was just easy and asked nothing of him.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, let's say it is BBC. There is a LOT under that heading. Let's say she watches ALL of it. Regularly. And that is the only kind she watches. And she apparently watches it every day, sometimes multiple times.
> 
> Now a lot of guys may want to tell themselves that they would not care, good for her, she at least gets to SEE if even if she doesn't get to have an actual BBC....that's not what will actually happen if the reality of it happens to you.
> 
> Yet men do something similar to women (by hiding it and lying about it) every day and they think we are cray *****es if we dare to try to discuss it OR if we have any issue with it.


I don't think men should hide it. Or lie about it.

But then, with a lot of women, they guy* knows* what's going to happen if he doesn't.

Women shouldn't hide past sexual experiences even though, with a lot of guys, they *know* what's going to happen if they don't.

I think that what most men say about porn is that it's unrealistic to expect to find a guy who doesn't view porn (which I agree with).

There's nothing wrong with women not liking the fact that their man views porn. 

I don't recall men saying that it's wrong for a woman to ask a guy why he views porn, what kind of porn he likes or why he prefers a certain type of porn.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> There's nothing "sad" about dropping someone earlier than later if they are not a match, for ANY reason. Relationships are not so rare that we need to bend over backwards for someone we JUST met. In fact, doing so is a fool's game.


I don't think it's "sad" to drop someone earlier rather than later. Better now than later.

I think it would be sad if you dropped someone you would have been very happy with due to a miscommunication.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Tasorundo said:


> Faithful, in reading your post, it kind of gave me a thought.
> 
> Would I be upset if my wife was at home watching bbc porn? Yes, for a number of reasons, but none that couldn't be worked though.
> 
> *However, as I thought about it, if we had a relationship where porn was allowed, and if we had always had a mutually satisfying, open, loving, sharing sex life. I don't think it would bother me.* I am sure at some point there would be a thought of if that is what she wanted, and could I ever be enough, or something along those lines.


That's a big part of it, I think.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Red Sonja said:


> Perhaps the bolded is what some posters are missing about my view (and others) on this subject. There is *no *shame (for me) involving any aspect of my sexuality (past or present) and, so one has the ability to "shame" me.
> 
> However, a potential partner who insists on interrogating me on my past sexual experiences has waved a big red flag that indicates that _they_ have shame concerning sexuality ... I would be incompatible with a partner that was harboring any sexual shame.


This 100% 

I believe that my experiences have made me (not universal- just me) a better future partner because I know my like and dislikes more and can more accurately negotiate and find sexual compatibility. 

I have 0 shame but I wouldn't be with a partner who was concerned about my sexual past or had any kind of negative views towards women who have lots of sex and/or lots of partners.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Lila said:


> He can ask her to be his guide but he's certainly but entitled to it. Some women have no desire to go back to doing what they did in the past. And if the guy in your example wants to try those things, then he needs to state so. If she says "not interested" then it's up to him to decide to accept the limitations with this particular woman or move on. And if he chooses to move on then she can move on as well to finding a man who is looking for what she's looking for. No harm, no foul.


Never said he was, a man is entitled. But in this case the woman had an honest talk and she made it known
that she did the full sex menu and will not revisit it with him.

DP did her best Audrey Hepburn-Eliza Doolittle impression: no, what kind of girl do you think I am. I am a good girl I am.
She hid that part.

I am a man I do not need anal, giving a pearl necklace, or a facial needed to have a good sex life.

I assumed her husband when being refused the full sex menu, say DP refused to do those three things above.
His brain said, she is very attractive to me, treats me well, trust worthy, will make a good wife, mother, and life
partner. We share the same retirement goals. And she gives me lots of enthusiastic sex.

He concludes with everything that she brings to the table, being she will not do the full sex menu,
more than makes ups for the less common sex acts.

How is he to feel now after all these years that her telling I am good girl I do not dress that way and will
not do those disgusting things in bed?

Where just before she met him there was nothing that she had not done in bed, and there never was a
dress too skimpy for her to wear.

She lied by omission and thought her past was never going to catch her.

And she still thinks that GF is a good friend, a true friend. After this GF ambushed DP's husband with 
Dave's photo and the Karma Sutra book remark.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think it's "sad" to drop someone earlier rather than later. Better now than later.
> 
> I think it would be sad if you dropped someone you would have been very happy with due to a miscommunication.


There's thousands of people we "may" have a happy relationship with. We can't meet them all, we can't avoid miscommunication sometimes, we can't look into alternate futures to see what "may" have happened.

I don't know why even one moment of time would be spent on worrying about this, for myself or me worrying about any other person.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Sex was always like a wall between us. We truly never, ever got on the same page.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I don't think he was deliberately being manipulative. 

I think we were both clueless and doing the best we could.

But, him refusing to own the struggle still makes me mad when I think about it. I never felt like intimacy was something we were working on together. We always seemed at odds.

But, what's done is done. 

My main point for this thread is that people protect themselves first. And they do what makes them feel good/right.

You yourself have shared that you've withheld certain information from your wife. Do I think badly of you for that? Not at all. To me, you've done what you've needed to do for your relationship. And it's none of my business. 




Marduk said:


> How the hell could it be a favour to you? Man, I hate that kind of manipulative BS.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I guess you answered how it would provide an opportunity below, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't get it.

Like I said if I'm with an average white guy, then no, what we do is not going to make me stop wanting to watch BBC. No, he is not going to somehow magically make me "fulfilled" in my desire to watch what I want to watch.

And no, watching it together is not some kind of "better" thing for me. I want to watch it alone so I don't have to hear whatever my guy thinks about it, good or bad.

If we watch it a couple of times along with other types, then sure, that's fun.

If I want to watch it every day without him, then his interest in it is irrelevant to me. He can watch it alone too if he digs it.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

@Faithful Wife a closer corollary using your example I think might be if you watched and loved BBC in private secretly, and then your partner approached you saying “hey babe, I have this weird ask but it means a lot to me. I have this fantasy about watching BBC porn with you.”

And let’s say you said no, you never will, and you’re not into that. 

That feels a lot closer to some stuff we’re describing here.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But you’re right there open to it, and might have fun with that occasionally.

That’s kind of my point.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't recall men saying that it's wrong for a woman to ask a guy why he views porn, what kind of porn he likes or why he prefers a certain type of porn.


What they say is "every woman asks and we lie to all of them".

The end.

Also, porn is something they KEEP doing while in a relationship with us. Not something they only did before they were with us. And yet, here they are needing to know everything a woman did in her past while they are CURRENTLY doing something she doesn't know about because they lie.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> But you’re right there open to it, and might have fun with that occasionally.
> 
> That’s kind of my point.


Nope.

I gave an example of what may occur if I'm caught red handed.

I do NOT want to share it with him at all, but I might once or twice because HE insists he likes it, too.

This would in no way be any kind of cool thing for me. It would be not even close to the FUN I have ALONE.

It's not about him. It's about ME.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> @Faithful Wife a closer corollary using your example I think might be if you watched and loved BBC in private secretly, and then your partner approached you saying “hey babe, I have this weird ask but it means a lot to me. I have this fantasy about watching BBC porn with you.”
> 
> *And let’s say you said no, you never will, and you’re not into that*.
> 
> That feels a lot closer to some stuff we’re describing here.


I would definitely say that if I felt his underlying need to control me or insert himself into my private life.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Deejo said:


> I appreciate that @Faithful Wife.
> 
> Gotta say, for a 50+ page thread discussing some tough stuff, it has remained remarkably civil. Disagreement sure, but folks have generally been both curious and civil. (I probably just jinxed it)
> 
> ...


The problem is not that she was split roasted or whatever.

Until she says to husband eew that is disgusting I will not do it.
Then years later her husband found out just how disgusting his wife was in her past.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> It would be not even close to the FUN I have ALONE.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

oldtruck said:


> The problem is not that she was split roasted or whatever.
> 
> Until she says to husband eew that is disgusting I will not do it.
> Then years later her husband found out just how disgusting his wife was in her past.


It is noted how you feel.

Can we now talk about ourselves and our actual experiences instead of that couple?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I would definitely say that if I felt his underlying need to control me or insert himself into my private life.



No, that’s not what I mean. Say you’re into watching it by yourself. Say he independently approaches you wanting to watch it with you, without knowing you’re into it. He doesn’t have a clue. It’s a fantasy for him.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope.
> 
> I gave an example of what may occur if I'm caught red handed.
> 
> ...



Right. But you’d be open to sharing it with him. 

That sense of openness seems to be a piece of the puzzle as noted by others.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> No, that’s not what I mean. Say you’re into watching it by yourself. Say he independently approaches you wanting to watch it with you, without knowing you’re into it. He doesn’t have a clue. It’s a fantasy for him.


Just because it may be a fantasy for him doesn't mean doing it with him will turn ME on.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Bluesclues said:


> I experienced RJ ten months ago. There is a thread here about it that you are welcome to look for, but I won’t post a link because I don’t want to look at it ever again. It was beyond painful, maybe worse than his cheating. So were some of the comments - talk about **** shaming. After going back to rehab (alcohol) and therapy he was able to articulate that his RJ was about him and his insecurities, not me.
> 
> Same husband above and I have an amazing sex life. I had my first orgasm at 38 with him - not because he is so great in bed (he is) but because I got right in the head and was able to open up and allow myself to be vulnerable and get emotionally hurt (which I did). I had been promiscuous, had lots of sex, but never actually enjoyed it because I didn’t understand it as a means of connection, not currency.
> 
> We have done things that I have never done before and never will again, even with him. We are open with each other and sometimes just let it ride. (I can’t believe i am even going to share this)...One night we were hot and heavy and I used his foot to pleasure myself. I have an aversion to feet in general but he has the most beautiful pristine feet...it was really hot for us both, but in hindsight it was a WTF moment and is now a running joke. We both liked it but there will not be a repeat performance. If we should ever split and some new partner tells me he has a foot fetish, sorry but I am not obligated to say I dabbled in feet and owe him the same because I didn’t hate it.


I'm confused.

Isn't Blueclues a man?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> Perhaps the bolded is what some posters are missing about my view (and others) on this subject. There is *no *shame (for me) involving any aspect of my sexuality (past or present) and, so one has the ability to "shame" me.
> 
> However, a potential partner who insists on interrogating me on my past sexual experiences has waved a big red flag that indicates that _they_ have shame concerning sexuality ... I would be incompatible with a partner that was harboring any sexual shame.


Seems pretty healthy to me.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Just because it may be a fantasy for him doesn't mean doing it with him will turn ME on.



Sure. 

But what would you say?

Some possible responses off the top of my head, and my responses to those if I were your partner:

A. I’m into that, but only by myself. Me: ok cool, thanks for letting me know. (Secretly turned on by the idea maybe)

B. I’m into that by myself and am willing to try it once or twice with you, but it will kinda just be for you and don’t expect it to be a regular thing. Me: awesome! How’s next Saturday for you? Just hit the pause button if it gets weird and we’ll stop and do something else. 

C: No, and I’m not talking about it. Me: ok, I can respect that... (and then spends the night thinking about how you now think I’m perverted and maybe I shouldn’t have asked about it)

D: No, and I’m not into BBC at all. Me: same as C, only more so. 

The consequence of A, C, and D is that you might each be watching the same porn in two different rooms secretly at the same time, which is ok I guess. 

But a slight potential consequence of C and a higher likelihood with D if I find your porn stash or something would be a feeling of betrayal about the whole thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> But a slight potential consequence of C and a higher likelihood with D if I find your porn stash or something would be *a feeling of betrayal about the whole thing*.


Something women experience all the time and are told they have no right to feel that way.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

oldtruck said:


> The problem is not that she was split roasted or whatever.
> 
> Until she says to husband eew that is disgusting I will not do it.
> Then years later her husband found out just how disgusting his wife was in her past.


You're being hyperbolic.

Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of covering this ground.

Lets just assume she did find it disgusting, never wanted to do it again, didn't enjoy it, and chose not to tell her husband, because as evidenced in the handling of this thread ... it's far more likely he'd pout or be angry about the fact that she WON'T do it again with him, then the WHY she doesn't want to do it again with anyone.

We are down to cherry picking literally a handful of posts to drive a narrative by a user who I don't think we are going to see again.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Something women experience all the time and are told they have no right to feel that way.



That’s part of the reason why I’m asking.

Toxic shame sucks and both sides can feel it.

Hell it could be you finding his stash and him feeling shame about that without knowing you’re watching the same thing.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Hello my friend. I missed you.




Faithful Wife said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> Like I said if I'm with an average white guy, then no, what we do is not going to make me stop wanting to watch BBC. No, he is not going to somehow magically make me "fulfilled" in my desire to watch what I want to watch.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> That’s part of the reason why I’m asking.
> 
> Toxic shame sucks and both sides can feel it.


And that's why I won't discuss this topic because regardless of how hip you may think men can be, the scenario you are describing is NOT what happens.

What actually happens is....OH MY GOD YOU WATCH THAT?????? Now I will never feel the same about you or about my own penis!!! Thanks a lot, hoochie!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> Perhaps the bolded is what some posters are missing about my view (and others) on this subject. There is *no *shame (for me) involving any aspect of my sexuality (past or present) and, so one has the ability to "shame" me.
> 
> However, a potential partner who insists on interrogating me on my past sexual experiences has waved a big red flag that indicates that _they_ have shame concerning sexuality ... I would be incompatible with a partner that was harboring any sexual shame.


I don't get the "shame" part.

I'm aware that this seems to be the central issue for women, so it's very important, but I don't get it. 

Let's say Susie gives blowjobs to all the guys at the local bar every Saturday night. She's not the least bit ashamed about it. Good for her. She happy. The guys at the bar are happy. I don't think she should be ashamed if she isn't.

But, does that mean that if we were on a second date and I learned about this that I have some obligation to ignore it and keep dating her anyway? 

Why would my opinion even matter? If did something that I felt was perfectly okay, what do I care what someone else thinks? People can try to shame me about it, but it's not going to work.

I'm not interested in dating a woman who was in the habit of blowing all the guys in the bar on a weekly basis. I have no interest in shaming any woman who does that. I don't judge any woman who wants to do that. But I do think that I have the right to not date a woman who did it (and it doesn't matter what my reasons for that are. I may not even know exactly why myself, I may just think it's kind of "icky"). I also don't know why it would be in anyone's interest to tell me I'm wrong in feeling that way. If there are a lot of people who think that bar blow bangs are great, they don't need to have my approval. 

If you don't feel that you should be ashamed of your sexual past then, by all means, don't be! There's no reason for anyone to be ashamed of anything they did that they feel good about (or felt good about at the time).

Now, on the off chance someone does feel shame about some of their past sexual behavior, don't look to others to solve that for you. Either decide that you did nothing to be ashamed of or realize that you could have made better decisions in the past (which is always the case in everyone's life) and own it.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> And that's why I won't discuss this topic because regardless of how hip you may think men can be, the scenario you are describing is NOT what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> What actually happens is....OH MY GOD YOU WATCH THAT?????? Now I will never feel the same about you or about my own penis!!! Thanks a lot, hoochie!



Sigh. I guess we’re all the same and just *******s that victimize and shame women’s sexuality, I guess. 

Thanks for the talk.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> And that's why I won't discuss this topic because regardless of how hip you may think men can be, the scenario you are describing is NOT what happens.
> 
> What actually happens is....OH MY GOD YOU WATCH THAT?????? Now I will never feel the same about you or about my own penis!!! Thanks a lot, hoochie!


You're making the right decision (which you already know).

I assume you've got the BBC tapes under lock and key?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Sigh. I guess we’re all the same and just *******s that victimize and shame women’s sexuality, I guess.
> 
> Thanks for the talk.


In this case, it isn't about shaming me it is about their insecurities.

And no, not one white guy I've ever been with has been into BBC porn.

Not to say some aren't into it, but the ones I've been with are only into garden variety hetero....which I accept at face value to their face, and privately know that they are full of crap and watch all kinds of things they don't want me to know about.

But here's the thing: it is none of my business either way, and I'll never know the full truth anyway, because men do NOT discuss this. Which is why I won't discuss it with them, either.

I think it's cool you and your wife have discussed some porn scenarios and why you like them.

I think you are overall more secure and more confident then some men and that's why you can do that with her. 

When dating, I am looking for men like this, who are secure and confident and not all shamey. But when it comes down to porn habits, I just keep my mouth shut because I know he will, too. If I bother to ask what kind does he like, I know I will hear "garden variety hetero".

Every time.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Faithful Wife said:


> And that's why I won't discuss this topic because regardless of how hip you may think men can be, *the scenario you are describing is NOT what happens*.
> 
> What actually happens is....OH MY GOD YOU WATCH THAT?????? Now I will never feel the same about you or about my own penis!!! Thanks a lot, hoochie!


Yh I've been in that scenario, we ended up breaking up the same day lol.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> There's thousands of people we "may" have a happy relationship with. We can't meet them all, we can't avoid miscommunication sometimes, we can't look into alternate futures to see what "may" have happened.
> 
> I don't know why even one moment of time would be spent on worrying about this, for myself or me worrying about any other person.


Some people don't have all that many relationship opportunities.

It would matter for them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't get the "shame" part.
> 
> I'm aware that this seems to be the central issue for women, so it's very important, but I don't get it.
> 
> ...


The example you give is not the usual situation.

The usual situation would be a much more normal amount of sexual activity and not on this level.

And even the more normal amount is still sometimes shamed.

It is fine to move on and reject, not fine to shame.

I know you wouldn't shame, I get that.

But even by typing out such a long and wild "type" of gal, you are coming across as if you "fear" these types of women are everywhere. That fear is shame and insecurity based (or at least it comes across that way).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Some people don't have all that many relationship opportunities.
> 
> It would matter for them.


I don't worry about hypothetical people.

If someone I know personally describes to me what sounded like a miscommunication and I thought there might have been a nice relationship there, I might try to offer a different way to see things. But most likely I wouldn't.

I have set up lots of friends with each other. When/if it doesn't work out, many times I do think there was just a misunderstanding, because I know them both and hear both sides. Yet I don't try to talk them into trying it again.

I believe we will be with those we are supposed to be with.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> You're making the right decision (which you already know).
> 
> I assume you've got the BBC tapes under lock and key?


We don't have tapes anymore. 0


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Tiggy! said:


> Yh I've been in that scenario, we ended up breaking up the same day lol.



I have too. Should have seen when I told my ex wife that I had watched porn in the past. 

A-freaking-pocalypse and “you made me ashamed of my own body” and “all you want to be with is porn star looking girls with big fake boobs.” Hell, everything FW said about ****s applies to boobs, too (she was small chested). I hid that side big time after that. A mistake, of course. 

I’ve also been shamed for stuff I did in the past. “Oh, you were the guy that got a BJ on the dance floor at that rave? Eww, gross, I’m not dating you any more.”

Etc. 

This stuff isn’t as one sided as men on one side and women on the other.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> But even by typing out such a long and wild "type" of gal, you are coming across as if you "fear" these types of women are everywhere. That fear is shame and insecurity based (or at least it comes across that way).


I'm pretty sure that, tops, there may be one or two women like this in the world (actually, I think there was a news piece a while ago about an English girl on vacation, so that's one!).

If I were single and thought there were a lot of these women, I'd probably be going to bars every night.

The benefit of using extreme examples is that it eliminates the haggling and confusion that would come with a less clear cut example. The down side, of course, is that they don't happen IRL.

So, what *were* you planning on doing today?:smile2:

Sorry about that


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I have too. Should have seen when I told my ex wife that I had watched porn in the past.
> 
> A-freaking-pocalypse and “you made me ashamed of my own body” and “all you want to be with is porn star looking girls with big fake boobs.” Hell, everything FW said about ****s applies to boobs, too (she was small chested). I hid that side big time after that. A mistake, of course.


Knowing what you know now, how should you have handled this?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Knowing what you know now, how should you have handled this?


Dumped her and done a better job of owning my sexuality.

Sorry, wrong order. Done a better job of owning my sexuality and been upfront about it, and then dumped her if she wasn’t ok with it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Dumped her and done a better job of owning my sexuality.
> 
> Sorry, wrong order. Done a better job of owning my sexuality and been upfront about it, and then dumped her if she wasn’t ok with it.


And so you can see why the younger you has lied about certain acts, and has hidden various desires/porn, and that at that time, you felt you were doing the right thing because you loved the woman you were with and did not want to rock the boat.

But you can't see how a young woman could be in the same position, and may hide things or lie, without it meaning that she was being deliberately deceitful?

We all make choices about how to present ourselves. Our own self awareness will definitely dictate what we present. But a lot of times, especially when young, we don't know ourselves completely yet anyway and we can't stand up to scrutiny about these issues because we don't know what the other will feel and there is a general feeling of not wanting to hurt them.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> But a lot of times, especially when young, we don't know ourselves completely yet anyway and we can't stand up to scrutiny about these issues because we don't know what the other will feel and there is a general feeling of not wanting to hurt them.


The job of the elders among us is to educate the young ones that hiding your true self from your partner is likely to do more harm to them (and yourself) than being honest and seeing if the relationship can handle the honesty. My wife hid her sexuality from me for years. We are both worse off for it


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> The job of the elders among us is to educate the young ones that hiding your true self from your partner is likely to do more harm to them (and yourself) than being honest and seeing if the relationship can handle the honesty. My wife hid her sexuality from me for years. We are both worse off for it


Yes, that is not cool. However, I'm not going to call her a lying deceiving *****, I'm going to assume she had no idea how much of a mistake that was going to be.

And she's paying the price for that now, and so are you.

But there's still no need for me or anyone else to judge you or call you names for the ways you didn't serve yourselves authentically back then.

That was my point.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> And so you can see why the younger you has lied about certain acts, and has hidden various desires/porn, and that at that time, you felt you were doing the right thing because you loved the woman you were with and did not want to rock the boat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would think that I failed my side of the bargain as we became serious and certainly after we married. Specifically for the stuff I hid from her about myself. 

If she would have found out about all of my behaviour in the past and felt deceived, I would have understood that. 

Her ****ty behaviour doesn’t relieve my accountability for mine. 

I can certainly understand why women compassionately fudge things. 

But I don’t understand why some people may cut off both themselves and their partner from stuff they actually enjoy. Seems like a “cutting your nose of to spite your face” situation to me. 

And I do not condone total dishonesty with the intention of distorting reality, and I do not believe that your past doesn’t help create your future. 

Respectfully, I’ll close with where I started the other day: I think some people want to have their cake and eat it, too. I don’t think this about you, but I do think that you’re willing to plead for compassion for women on the one side, and then whitewash men on the other side negatively. 

I’ve tried very hard to be open to you challenging my thinking here but it hasn’t progressed much past that. 

So I’m going to step back from this for a while.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, that is not cool. However, I'm not going to call her a lying deceiving *****, I'm going to assume she had no idea how much of a mistake that was going to be.
> 
> And she's paying the price for that now, and so are you.
> 
> ...


Agreed 100% with the first part. For the second, yes, one needs to move on from any sort of guilt or ****-bashing or whatever totally inappropriate thing might be thought or said. That's different from the need to address lies (and possibly but not certainly omissions, since something not asked about is arguably the responsibility of the person who didn't ask). 

What's important to recognize is that the damage done to a relationship may not be direct to the partner that didn't lie, but primarily to the partner who did lie and may be suffering guilt because of it, and it could be something where that guilt snowballs because the original lie has to be frequently backed up down the road. And that can lead to dysfunction in how the person who lied handles relationships. 

So can we agree that outright lies to questions asked by someone who becomes an LTR can be hazardous to the health of the relationship? And that it isn't appropriate to claim that what appears to be retroactive jealousy (in such cases) may in fact not be the case?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Casual Observer said:


> So can we agree that outright lies to questions asked by someone who becomes an LTR can be hazardous to the health of the relationship? And that it isn't appropriate to claim that what appears to be retroactive jealousy (in such cases) may in fact not be the case?


I don't think anyone would argue that outright lying to your partner is ok. 

Omitting isn't lying. Saying "I'm not interested in doing X" even if you've done it and liked it before, isn't lying. Saying 'it's none of your business and we aren't going to discuss my private sex details" isn't lying.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> Never said he was, a man is entitled. But in this case the woman had an honest talk and she made it known
> that she did the full sex menu and will not revisit it with him.
> 
> DP did her best Audrey Hepburn-Eliza Doolittle impression: no, what kind of girl do you think I am. I am a good girl I am.
> ...


I really don't care what that OP did on the other thread nor am I interested in arguing about whether she's right or wrong. I am over it. I responded to your scenario where a man is looking for an experienced woman to learn the ropes. 

As to the scenario you posted above in bold, it reeks of entitlement. If a woman says to you that she's not interested in performing XYZ sex acts then *take her for her word*. She's not lying to you. Regardless of whether she did it in the past or not, *YOU* will not be getting XYZ sex acts. Base you decisions for the future with that knowledge.

If her other qualities, such as attractiveness, trustworthiness, kindness, motherliness, and financial objectives are more important than having XYZ performed on you, and you choose to make her your wife, then that choice is yours to own. You are certainly not entitled to anything other than what she has offered you. Period. End of conversation.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Casual Observer said:


> Agreed 100% with the first part. For the second, yes, one needs to move on from any sort of guilt or ****-bashing or whatever totally inappropriate thing might be thought or said. That's different from the need to address lies (and possibly but not certainly omissions, since something not asked about is arguably the responsibility of the person who didn't ask).
> 
> What's important to recognize is that the damage done to a relationship may not be direct to the partner that didn't lie, but primarily to the partner who did lie and may be suffering guilt because of it, and it could be something where that guilt snowballs because the original lie has to be frequently backed up down the road. And that can lead to dysfunction in how the person who lied handles relationships.
> 
> So can we agree that outright lies to questions asked by someone who becomes an LTR can be hazardous to the health of the relationship? And that it isn't appropriate to claim that what appears to be retroactive jealousy (in such cases) may in fact not be the case?


I think I remember your story. I'm sorry but I don't really feel the way you do about it. 

That does not mean I think you are wrong, you get to feel whatever you feel, and feelings are not wrong.

I'm just saying that I myself would not care about finding out that my H lied about something that happened over 20 years ago.

The fact that there IS damage to your marriage, I do not dispute.

And my opinion really doesn't matter to your sitch at all.

But my opinion is that you really really over reacted and I understand why your wife feels you are still over reacting.

Again that's just my opinion and doesn't change anything for you. I respect that you are very unhappy about the whole thing and that you feel betrayed. Just because I would not feel that way doesn't mean I can't appreciate the fact that you or others might. And I have empathy for you for that feeling, because you do feel it regardless of whether others would or not. And that's a sucky feeling.

I also do feel people should be open and honest, but I know most of the time they are not 100%. I know most of the time people will hold back truths they think they will be judged and shamed for or which they feel will hurt their partner.

Separate from actual cheaters and (aware) bait and switchers, I think people are normally trying to get through life with the least amount of pain (to self and others) and there are times when they believe the fib will net less pain. Whether they are right or not won't become an issue until or unless the fib is discovered.

I do NOT advocate any fibbing at all. I just know it happens and there's no escaping that fact.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I think I remember your story. I'm sorry but I don't really feel the way you do about it.
> 
> That does not mean I think you are wrong, you get to feel whatever you feel, and feelings are not wrong.
> 
> ...


The only thing missing here is an understanding of the damage that lying can do to the person who lies. Some can deal with lying better than others. For my wife, the lie had been causing grief the entire time, with severe damage to how she saw intimacy in the bedroom. For most people, I'll bet it wouldn't have been a big deal. And I'd never have had reason to believe she'd done something that she is now being treated for as a traumatic event. 

So, oddly, if a person can handle lying well, it's likely not going to be nearly as big a deal to the partner as the person who is trying everything they can to pretend their past didn't happen. That's an odd thing for me to say! But I do respect your viewpoint.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think anyone would argue that outright lying to your partner is ok.
> 
> Omitting isn't lying. Saying "I'm not interested in doing X" even if you've done it and liked it before, isn't lying. Saying 'it's none of your business and we aren't going to discuss my private sex details" isn't lying.


I would never argue that those were equivalent or even similar to lying. If the person getting that response isn't happy with it, it is their's to deal with *at that time.* Bringing it up later and acting all butt-hurt about it is unfair. He or she had the opportunity. He or she was told, in that response, what their partner's boundaries were. If those boundaries were the cause of a problem, so be it, deal with it then, move on, whatever. But don't make a big deal of it years down the road.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Casual Observer said:


> The only thing missing here is an understanding of the damage that lying can do to the person who lies. Some can deal with lying better than others. For my wife, the lie had been causing grief the entire time, with severe damage to how she saw intimacy in the bedroom. For most people, I'll bet it wouldn't have been a big deal. And I'd never have had reason to believe she'd done something that she is now being treated for as a traumatic event.
> 
> So, oddly, if a person can handle lying well, it's likely not going to be nearly as big a deal to the partner as the person who is *trying everything they can to pretend their past didn't happen*. That's an odd thing for me to say! But I do respect your viewpoint.


To the bolded, do you mean since you read the diary or before?

Because if I recall correctly, your wife had not even thought about those diary entries for decades. So it doesn't seem like she was going out of her way to deceive you all that time. She deceived you at first and then put it to bed since then.

Not saying she was right, but I don't agree with your stance either. For myself.

For you and her, yes this is a ball of wax to figure out and hopefully get past. And I do hope you will.

It's just that - let's take it slightly differently. Let's say my ex-h came across an old journal, didn't know what it was (because he doesn't snoop like that), the page fell open and his eyes fell upon some words of mine that did not match something I told him at the time. Let's further say it was about another guy I was with before him.

I'm almost certain he would snap the journal shut and never, ever bring it up nor ever feel bad about it because it was BEFORE we were together. 

Not everyone would feel the way you do so it is difficult to just throw it out there as if everyone is the same. My ex-h would not want to know any such details and would not care if I lied about something that happened before we met (actually he would have never asked the questions you asked to begin with back then).

Again - I am not dismissing that this hurts you and I do have empathy for that. Also not saying you should see it a different way than you do.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> And that's why I won't discuss this topic because regardless of how hip you may think men can be, the scenario you are describing is NOT what happens.
> 
> *What actually happens is....OH MY GOD YOU WATCH THAT??????* Now I will never feel the same about you or about my own penis!!! Thanks a lot, hoochie!


Yep, I've had some over-the-top reactions, on occasion, when a past partner discovered that my favorite porn is gay (male) porn. 

I just shrug and say "hot naked guys ****ing ... what's not to like?"


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

Well, this thread jumped the shark.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

All of these topics share a common root. The gap between our spirit and our chassis. And that gap can create a huge amount of emotional torque. That torque oft expresses as guilt, shame, embarrassment, fear, etc...

This is one of those situations where my belief in evolution relieves me of most of my anxiety. I’m sadly certain that my distant family tree is full of rapists and murderers. And with no intent to offend anyone here - I believe that to be true for all humans. 

With that rather unfortunate disclosure as a backdrop, I will now share that: A rape scene, presented in a certain way will turn my chassis on. This is an unfortunate but true statement. That said, a rape scene zoomed in on the victims face - not only kills ANY desire I might feel - it sickens me. Age thresholds are the same. There is nothing magical about your 18th birthday - or 17th or .... save for the local laws regarding the age of consent. 

Outside of sexual offender treatment programs - this stuff isn’t typically discussed because it’s a type of third rail conversation about the predatory wiring of humans. It makes most people very, very uncomfortable. 




Faithful Wife said:


> What they say is "every woman asks and we lie to all of them".
> 
> The end.
> 
> Also, porn is something they KEEP doing while in a relationship with us. Not something they only did before they were with us. And yet, here they are needing to know everything a woman did in her past while they are CURRENTLY doing something she doesn't know about because they lie.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Priceless 

I believe that is verbatim what guys say about girl on girl porn. 



Red Sonja said:


> Yep, I've had some over-the-top reactions, on occasion, when a past partner discovered that my favoritegir porn is gay (male) porn.
> 
> I just shrug and say "hot naked guys ****ing ... what's not to like?"


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> Yep, I've had some over-the-top reactions, on occasion, when a past partner discovered that my favorite porn is gay (male) porn.
> 
> I just shrug and say "hot naked guys ****ing ... what's not to like?"


Hahahaha!!!!!:grin2:

I'm rolling!>


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM2020 said:


> All of these topics share a common root. The gap between our spirit and our chassis. And that gap can create a huge amount of emotional torque. That torque oft expresses as guilt, shame, embarrassment, fear, etc...
> 
> This is one of those situations where my belief in evolution relieves me of most of my anxiety. I’m sadly certain that my distant family tree is full of rapists and murderers. And with no intent to offend anyone here - I believe that to be true for all humans.
> 
> ...


I get it. That's why I don't expect men to try to explain to me why this or that turned them on.

Just wish there were not so many double standards still.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

OnTheFly said:


> Well, this thread jumped the shark.


But it was only jumped in the missionary position.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

CraigBesuden said:


> But it was only jumped in the missionary position.


That's funny!:laugh:


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> To the bolded, do you mean since you read the diary or before?
> 
> Because if I recall correctly, your wife had not even thought about those diary entries for decades. So it doesn't seem like she was going out of her way to deceive you all that time. She deceived you at first and then put it to bed since then.
> 
> ...


This is being gone over in a different thread, but here's the deal. 6 months before the diary I had about had it. I was thinking D, and the timing was good because the biz wasn't making money. What the diary had brought forward was something that had been causing my wife a ton of grief since the beginning, something she's held bottled up inside and has been the cause of great fear that it would ever be found out. It finally came to light that the issue her, lying about the "missing person" and what had gone on, has caused her a ton of problems and subsequent therapy (during our marriage) and so on. It has made her suffer. It had required that she construct a weird timeline with a missing section at a very important time of her life (issues with her parents). 

The diary was not just about the past. It was relevant to the present. It was very relevant to the views my wife has held towards sex and fun and joy because she had convinced herself that what she had done was wrong and found me as a "way out." All I knew was that she was REALLY bothered by something in her past. I has ideas, but she would break down and cry over something she wanted to tell me but couldn't. So it became a "thing" over the years. Are you ready to talk about it? No, not yet. Then later it alternated between not yet and there's nothing to talk about. In the meantime, she built an increasing resentment towards sex. Which she wouldn't divulge. 

In retrospect, I should have dealt with this eons ago. But once known, I'm supposed to ignore it, or go the IC & MC route and deal with it as a traumatic event from the past that has affected her ability to be open & honest & look forward to life? 

That diary may have saved our marriage. It's the cause of a great amount of pain, but so many things have surfaced that I needed to hear. I had no clue she was in such a bad way (not from 42 years ago, but today). 

But within the context of this thread, somehow the diary has become all about ****-shaming (am I allowed to say that?) and blaming me for holding something against her from the way-back days. I just want things fixed. I want someone who's not paralyzed by fear that tomorrow will be no better than today, and today was bad. And I want to stop having to personally become so intimately aware of what depression can bring to a marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Red Sonja said:


> Yep, I've had some over-the-top reactions, on occasion, when a past partner discovered that my favorite porn is gay (male) porn.
> 
> I just shrug and say "hot naked guys ****ing ... what's not to like?"


I once had a guy who was kinda clueless ask me what females I'm attracted to, like celebrity crush. And before I could answer he said "like Ellen, or....?"

I was like, "you don't really understand how this works, do you?" :laugh:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I do have to say, the position thing always confuses me. I'll do it in whatever, but I also have to wonder what the point it. Most feel the same way. Some are more comfy than others. I got my basic 4 (missionary, doggie, girl on top, reverse girl on top) and is there really all that much more variety that needs to be done ?
I'm a woman who will be middle aged soon, not a pretzel. If I wanted to do yoga I would have signed up for a class. Sometimes I think it's more about wanting porn sex than desire. And porn sex is filmed for camera angles, not pleasure.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

And you still don't seem happy maybe it's not your wife's history but just the fact that you guys just don't fit.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> I once had a guy who was kinda clueless ask me what females I'm attracted to, like celebrity crush. And before I could answer he said "like Ellen, or....?"
> 
> I was like, "you don't really understand how this works, do you?" :laugh:


Geez, if only I had a dollar for every time a man thought I'd just be all in for a FFM because I like sex. I'm not bisexual. I like penis. That's one too many vaginas for my liking. Talk to me when you are in for a MMF and I'll be down.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Geez, if only I had a dollar for every time a man thought I'd just be all in for a FFM because I like sex. I'm not bisexual. I like penis. That's one too many vaginas for my liking. Talk to me when you are in for a MMF and I'll be down.


They all apparently want an FFM but are shocked and horrified at the thought of a MMF or even MFM.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I appreciate you sharing this.

I actually left your thread because you didn't answer my question about what motived you to go snooping for her diary, and I found it really offensive. 

I felt violated for her and totally understood why she was angry with you.

At least what you've written here sounds more compassionate and loving - and more about her, as opposed to you blowing up your marriage over something that happened decades ago, and bullying your wife into therapy that she doesn't want to go through.




Casual Observer said:


> But within the context of this thread, somehow the diary has become all about ****-shaming (am I allowed to say that?) and blaming me for holding something against her from the way-back days. I just want things fixed. I want someone who's not paralyzed by fear that tomorrow will be no better than today, and today was bad. And I want to stop having to personally become so intimately aware of what depression can bring to a marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

@Casual Observer

Since this is reality for you and your marriage and life are in the picture, I most certainly do not want to be disrespectful. I can see I do not have all the details. So if I want to make any more comments about your sitch I will go over to your thread and make sure I have all the relevant information.

Also, just want you to know that your being in pain makes me feel badly, and I will be softer in responding to you because it is not just a hypothetical situation for you.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> The worst thing to happen is if a woman (to pick a gender) marries a man that she's not sexually attracted to, stops wanting to have sex with him and, when asked why, doesn't give the real reason. That leaves the husband to flail around trying to solve a problem he doesn't understand and can't fix.


Why does the husband need to flail around trying to solve a problem at all? 

If someone no longer wants to have sex with you, then dump them (quickly) full stop!

If sex matters to you and you find yourself in a sexual relationship without sex. Do yourself a favour and respect yourself enough to not yield on things that matter to you.

The Steve's of the world find themselves at the wrong end, because they settle for less and don't stand their own boundaries.

If a man doesn't like having someone stand on their face, then they shouldn't lie down and let them.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Personal said:


> Why does the husband need to flail around trying to solve a problem at all?
> 
> If someone no longer wants to have sex with you, then dump them (quickly) full stop!
> 
> ...



Yup. I try to hear what others are saying but this sums it up for me.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> It is noted how you feel.
> 
> Can we now talk about ourselves and our actual experiences instead of that couple?


No because the mods directed us from there to here. And this is not just about PD but this 
situation in general. Lack of honesty, poor communication, willing to settle and compromise
only to find out that what a wife said she would never do, did it before you, and enjoyed it,
deception.

Then the parallel situation with a WW and her AP. Wife dates future husband, married. Told
husband most of the things on the full sex menu are never going to happen. With the OM
she repeatedly gave the OM the full sex menu.

BH finds out, WW wants to recover, now all of a sudden she is a prude again and tells her BH
you are never getting to eat of the full sex menu and I don't care and don't want hear how
well I sexually fed the OM.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Personal said:


> Why does the husband need to flail around trying to solve a problem at all?
> 
> If someone no longer wants to have sex with you, then dump them (quickly) full stop!
> 
> ...



Part of the reason I tried so long in a sexless or nearly sexless marriage is because I was shamed for “only caring about sex.” That I was some kind of horndog ******* for not being ok with living celibately. I was explicitly told - by my wife, by members of her family - and by the therapist she found us - that I should “accept her how she is even if we never have sex again, and should love and stay with her anyway without pressure.”

I find it fascinating that this whole side of men getting shamed is being totally pushed aside by many of the women here.

While broad brushing how men act in a negative light. It’s like “be compassionate to these poor women that get judged for their past and lying is totally ok... but I’m going to judge all men harshly the same way at the same time.”

While complaining about double standards no less!

No wonder any attempt at taking about this honestly is so ****ed.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

oldtruck said:


> No because the mods directed us from there to here. And this is not just about PD but this
> situation in general. Lack of honesty, poor communication, willing to settle and compromise
> only to find out that what a wife said she would never do, did it before you, and enjoyed it,
> deception.
> ...


I'm aware of what has been said on that thread and here.

If you want to keep talking about it, okee doke.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Part of the reason I tried so long in a sexless or nearly sexless marriage is because I was shamed for “only caring about sex.” That I was some kind of horndog ******* for not being ok with living celibately. I was explicitly told - by my wife, by members of her family - and by the therapist she found us - that I should “accept her how she is even if we never have sex again, and should love and stay with her anyway without pressure.”
> 
> I find it fascinating that this whole side of men getting shamed is being totally pushed aside by many of the women here.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure I have been saying we ALL are dishonest with each other at times and that we ALL get shamed at times.

The double standard part I mentioned is mostly about porn (as the example I gave).

Yes, men are shamed all the time for sex and that is stupid, IMO.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm pretty sure I have been saying we ALL are dishonest with each other at times and that we ALL get shamed at times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just like I’ve been propositioned for threesomes a handful times by women, and each one was looking for a FFM threesome explicitly. 

Just like I know women that love gay porn, and haven’t been shamed for it. 

Just like I know plenty of guys that don’t shame their partners about their past. 

Just like I know plenty of women that have lied about their pasts while not being shamed about them. 

Just like it can’t be claimed to just accept someone for who they are without being allowed to know who they are. 

Stop broad brushing us all as some kind of evil villain brotherhood when it comes to these issues while side stepping your own double standards here.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Personal said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> > The worst thing to happen is if a woman (to pick a gender) marries a man that she's not sexually attracted to, stops wanting to have sex with him and, when asked why, doesn't give the real reason. That leaves the husband to flail around trying to solve a problem he doesn't understand and can't fix.
> ...


You do understand that divorce is serious business. Children, finances, friends, family, etc are all affected. Divorcing whenever you are in a sexless marriage would end, what, 90% of marriages at some point?

Steve was happily married to what he believed was PD until he realized that he’d been catfished. Once he realized that he was exactly like Manti Te’o — in love with a person who never even existed — he was devastated. His choices are to divorce the catfisher or else start a relationship with the stranger who lied and pretended to be PD.

If you’ve seen the movie Catfish or the MTV show, you know how these duped individuals feel. The catfisher claims he or she wouldn’t be accepted if they posted a real profile, but usually claim their love for the victim was genuine. Only a small percentage of victims decide to continue the romance with the real person behind the fake profile.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Just like I’ve been propositioned for threesomes a handful times by women, and each one was looking for a FFM threesome explicitly.
> 
> Just like I know women that love gay porn, and haven’t been shamed for it.
> 
> ...


I don’t feel I’m broad brushing but I’ll take your word for it that it I am coming across that way.

I could talk about my dating experiences with women and how messed up they can be if you like.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> @Casual Observer
> 
> Since this is reality for you and your marriage and life are in the picture, I most certainly do not want to be disrespectful. I can see I do not have all the details. So if I want to make any more comments about your sitch I will go over to your thread and make sure I have all the relevant information.
> 
> Also, just want you to know that your being in pain makes me feel badly, and I will be softer in responding to you because it is not just a hypothetical situation for you.


Don't worry, this is TAM, I understand the context and lack of context that creates the emotions in a thread. Sometimes it takes something that seems completely wrong to get you to try and see things differently. I know you want the best for my wife and I. Thank you, always, for your comments. Harsh, kind & funny. All appreciated!



minimalME said:


> I appreciate you sharing this.
> 
> I actually left your thread because you didn't answer my question about what motived you to go snooping for her diary, and I found it really offensive.
> 
> ...


I totally get where you could see that. It's not as if there wasn't a huge breach of trust on my part. But knowing my wife as I do, if not for the, er, interesting pages, she would have had no issue. That still doesn't make it right; I should have asked. But the final outcome of this, I believe, will be a stronger marriage without me looking for a way out. As I've said elsewhere, my measure of a positive outcome will be hearing my wife, someday, tell me she looks forward to seeing me tonight, or sorry that things didn't work out but I'll make it up to you tomorrow. That's not too much to ask, but it's been missing pretty much our entire marriage. 

Tonight I may be walking into a buzz-saw. She had a separate meeting with our MC, something I suggested, so she can openly discuss things without looking over at me to see my reaction, and then tone things accordingly. She will receive 3rd-party validation for her feelings, as well as a 3rd-party view of what each of us bring to the table. The IC therapist can't pull that off because they meet only with one of us. Her therapist and shrink knew nothing whatsoever about her traumatic encounter. The MC does. Adding to the drama is how my wife acts anytime she hears something she doesn't like. My wife won't say "I can see why you think that; here's my point of view." Rather, she'll say you don't understand, this is ridiculous, why are you saying these things, is it just to make me sad?" and tune someone out. It will take great skill to navigate what I've dealt with all these years. 

And it's really a tough sell, I'll bet, to convince someone just how much I love my wife, how attractive I find her extremely-disfigured body (what breast cancer 3 times can do to you isn't pretty; I think the reconstruction surgeon was auditioning for one of those real-life medical horror story shows), how much I look forward to doing special things for her like 30 minute massage at night among other things. My biggest failing is not recognizing her problems earlier. I've said it a zillion times already, how she broke down 3 years after we were married because of something she'd done that she hadn't told me about. And various subsequent conversations. I didn't really understand the intimacy I was missing. I didn't have a model for it. I only had one other girlfriend in my life so I really didn't know what was normal and not.

And here I am today. Hopeful that she can once again feel hope.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t feel I’m broad brushing but I’ll take your word for it that it I am coming across that way.


You have gotten exceptionally good at this internet thing!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> > Buddy400 said:
> ...



She is who he married and has been for their entire marriage. 

He married her accepting vanilla sex and he got vanilla sex. What when did before him is not important. 
No one was Catfished. He got exactly what he married. A woman who isn’t interested in non-vanilla sex with him. 

I am who I am now. What I did in the past doesn’t change that. It doesn’t make me a different person.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > I don’t feel I’m broad brushing but I’ll take your word for it that it I am coming across that way.
> ...


Sincerely trying to be better at communication. Thank you!


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> You do understand that divorce is serious business. Children, finances, friends, family, etc are all affected. Divorcing whenever you are in a sexless marriage would end, what, 90% of marriages at some point?


Well I've been divorced and I was the one that put an end to that marriage. Not forgetting that my ex-wife and I also made a child (now adult) together as well. So I figure I understand that divorce is serious.

From experience I have found that divorce, isn't the end of the world. I got over it and happily moved on, just as my ex-wife got over it and happily moved on.

As to divorcing over a sexless marriage, I don't share your perspective.

From 17 through to 48+ I've never been in a sexual relationship that is sexless. In fact if I ever found myself in a sexless nominally sexual relationship (for example a marriage), I wouldn't hesitate to end that relationship, since it no longer meets the criteria of being a sexual relationship (marriage).

If people didn't maintain sexless marriages, there wouldn't be any sexless marriages for people to whinge about.

That said if finances, friends, family and whatever is more important, than sex in a sexual relationship to you. Then by all means, do settle for a sexless relationship. That said if you do settle, at least have the dignity to own the fact that sex isn't that important to you and don't complain about it.



> Steve was happily married to what he believed was PD until he realized that he’d been catfished. Once he realized that he was exactly like Manti Te’o — in love with a person who never even existed — he was devastated. His choices are to divorce the catfisher or else start a relationship with the stranger who lied and pretended to be PD.


Catfished!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

She promised him a limited menu and kept her word by never sharing more with him.

If he wanted more he should have let her go and looked for someone else. Yet instead of doing that, he settled for what she offered and rightly got exactly that and nothing more.

No one is entitled to or owns a persons past, unless they actually together in person at the time have shared that past with each other. All anyone is entitled to is what they have together, all else doesn't belong to the other person.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> The most interesting part is that they usually actually would like to just be direct and say what they want but *they fear that their wife would not like it*.


If a man can't respect himself, why should anyone else feel compelled to respect them.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Part of the reason I tried so long in a sexless or nearly sexless marriage is because I was shamed for “only caring about sex.” That I was some kind of horndog ******* for not being ok with living celibately. I was explicitly told - by my wife, by members of her family - and by the therapist she found us - that I should “accept her how she is even if we never have sex again, and should love and stay with her anyway without pressure.”


Own it!

That's what I keep saying over and over.

I want men and women to stand up for themselves and not settle when they don't like what they're settling for.

If a woman says "you only care about sex" say *YES*. Don't ever let yourself let them, take that away from you.

Sadly here on TAM, I have said that kind of thing before and I have had other men argue with me. Saying it's wrong to give that kind of answer or it doesn't work, yet they're the guys who have the ****ty sex lives.

If a man always puts himself last in a relationship or treats himself as second best, how on earth do they think that their partners will view them?

I'm sorry that you got that kind of crap from others. Yet I have never given people such real estate in my head and I never will. Of which I hope going forward you also never cede your headspace, to others at your own expense again.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Casual Observer said:


> But within the context of this thread, somehow the diary has become all about ****-shaming (am I allowed to say that?) and blaming me for holding something against her from the way-back days. I just want things fixed. I want someone who's not paralyzed by fear that tomorrow will be no better than today, and today was bad. And I want to stop having to personally become so intimately aware of what depression can bring to a marriage.


That's the thing.

Many times it's women who do the ****-shaming because they want to keep sex difficult for men to obtain.

Sometimes it's actually the woman herself who regrets (rightly or wrongly) decisions she has made.

But, somehow it's always men who get blamed.

I never wanted my daughter to have sex that she wasn't sure she wanted. Not because I was worried about some guy in the future judging her. I didn't want her to have to worry about her future self judging her.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I can make a decision about if I want to be with my partner based on his NOW list. I don’t need to know his past to make a choice.
> 
> How many times I’ve given a bj doesn’t mean crap. If I give them to partner is what he is basing his choice off of. That should be done well before marriage.
> 
> ...



If you don't want to give specifics about your past, that's fine and within your right. 

It is not, however, honest or appropriate to lie, or give misleading answers. 

And I vehemently disagree with your "if he chooses to be ok with no X and accepts that, he can't decide that he's suddenly not ok with no X just because he found out I did it before."

That would only be an acceptable attitude to me if a woman was up front and said, "I don't think it's your business to know my past. I will say that my boundaries change depending on my relationship, and what I have done in the past may no longer be acceptable to me with anther partner, INCLUDING YOU, but may once again be acceptable in a future relationship." To me, that's an honest statement and that level of frankness is necessary for me to make an INFORMED decision about whether I would move forward under those circumstance. (I wouldn't by the way, for reasons I can expand on later.)

Any sort of other response that would allow the guy (in this example) to falsely think that the boundaries are hard boundaries which have never been crossed in the past is, quite frankly, dishonest. Even if those exact words were never used, if the information is conveyed in a manner so that the guy will reach the wrong conclusion---and, really, in a marriage or similar relationship, the woman really would know the guy well enough to know what kind of conclusion he is going to draw--then it is still a lie. It would be a lie of omission or misrepresentation. I would never accept being with a deceitful woman like that. I don't care what sort of twisted justification was done in her mind, it's not acceptable, it is not honest, and it is not a moral way to treat another person. It would be better to be honest, find that we are not compatible, and go our separate ways.

So, no, I don't agree with you at all. I think a guy CAN "decide he's suddenly not ok with X" if his partner was not honest and forthright with him. And in my book, it's the woman who misrepresented the situation to him that is the deceitful, lying one.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> She is who he married and has been for their entire marriage.
> 
> He married her accepting vanilla sex and he got vanilla sex. What when did before him is not important.
> No one was Catfished. He got exactly what he married. A woman who isn’t interested in non-vanilla sex with him.
> ...



No, but it finally REVEALS to him who you are now. He didn't know it before. Your past doesn't make you a different person, but it changes the UNDERSTANDING of you by other people.
And if you were not honest up front, it's deceit.

I look at this kind of post and wonder if you really understand other peoples' psychology. On the face of it, your statements demonstrate no empathy for the Catfished victim. (And yes, he WAS Catfished.)
Here's why :

First of all, I realize that no person is the perfect human being, and there are always some limitations in anyone you would choose as a partner and spouse. You have to make a decision if those limitations are deal breakers, and ESPECIALLY IF THE LIMITATIONS ARE MORE THAN OFFSET BY THE GOOD. Indeed, for a spouse, it should be so much more offset, that it should be OVERWHELMED by the good. 

Secondly, sex is really the most MOST important factor in most relationships. Why do I say this? Well, if it wasn't, then I could just as easily decide to marry another guy with great qualities rather than a woman. But sex is SO dominant a factor, that it would never happen. That is why people partner with the sex that they are oriented toward. We can get other kinds of social interactions-- friendship, love, support, spending time together, intellectual stimulation, etc. from all sorts of other people--friends, acquaintances, parents, siblings, coworkers, fellow members of clubs with shared interests, etc. But sexually intimacy is ONLY reserved for your spouse/partner (except for swingers, etc.). 

Therefore, the part of your life you should make the least compromises in when choosing a partner should be in the area of sexual compatibility. If that doesn't work, then generally the whole relationship will be miserable. There are plenty of threads in TAM that testify to this.

Now, although there may be compromises, the other thing that really underpins a marriage/relationship is a deep love for each other. And by love, I use a definition that I once heard---that to love someone means that their happiness is necessary for your own. Your partner should be the most important person in the world to you, and you'll do everything you can within reason to make that person happy. In a figurative (or maybe not always figurative) way, you'd "take a bullet for that person".

So, with this kind of relationship, I would agree with the sex/relationship columnist Dan Savage that you should be Good, Game and Giving (GGG) for your partner. It results in a stronger, better relationship. And there's actually data to back that up. It's how the human brain works. Here's a link to a layman-type website that summarizes this concept and refers to the research:

https://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/science_proves_it_dan_savage_is_right/

Note that what this research shows is that it's the willingness to go to extra mile for you by your partner (and vice versa) -- referred to as "sexual transformations" in this research--- that leads to the strengthening of the relationship.

And put another way, it's the EFFORT that is appreciated. So, when a guy is told by his wife that she has a boundary that she won't cross with him, part of the reason he can accept that compromise is that he would believe that she "just can't cross that boundary" but within her limitations she is GGG to the best of her ability. And I really mean, best of her ability, not some gobbledy-**** of "as defined by our relationship now, which is not what might have been in the past or will be in the future with others." (Obviously, forced actions/abuse, etc. aren't part of this discussion.) Otherwise, it's not the "sexual transformation" referred to by the researchers at Univ. of Arizona/Hanover College.

So, when a guy finds out his wife/partners boundaries are only boundaries for HIM, and not really boundaries in the hard, conventional sense, and that they have not been boundaries in the past, and may not be boundaries in the future, then his understanding of her changes. She THINKS she didn't change and he shouldn't be upset that he compromised with "vanilla sex", but really in his eyes she DID change because she is now revealed to be deceitful. She is also revealed to be unwilling to be truly GGG in his eyes. And his compromise was made under false pretenses. And anyone who argues otherwise, in my opinion, does not understand human psychology very well.

First of all, he is going to feel rejected. He's going to feel that he was not good enough or desirable enough or whatever, for his wife/partner to even WANT to have boundaries which were not boundaries before. He's also going to feel that her love and willingness to sacrifice for him are not to the all-consuming level that I described above. And I think he'd be right, personally.

Furthermore, I think that the kinds of statements which have been posted earlier in this thread--calling a man who is upset about finding out about the shifting boundaries as "whining" or "entitled" demonstrate a lack of understanding about human psychology, a lack of empathy and, in particular, and lack of understanding of a true, loving, sacrificing relationship is about. From my standpoint, the REAL response should be to call out the woman as "deceitful, dishonest and uncommitted to a true loving, self-sacrificing relationship with her partner. The kind of love where his happiness is essential for her to be happy."


So, no, I think you are completely wrong on this. He WAS CATFISHED. She DID misrepresent herself to him, even if she did it in an unspoken way. She knew what she made him believe about her even without saying it. And that's was a lie really is, after all---knowingly conveying false information. Even if that conveyance was done in an indirect fashion--it's still a lie. Which means he was still Catfished.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think anyone would argue that outright lying to your partner is ok.
> 
> Omitting isn't lying. Saying "I'm not interested in doing X" even if you've done it and liked it before, isn't lying. Saying 'it's none of your business and we aren't going to discuss my private sex details" isn't lying.



I agree with you that the second statement, "it's none of your business..." is indeed NOT lying.

I do NOT agree with you that the first statement, "I'm not interested in doing X" isn't lying IF it was said in a context that you would believe that your partner would interpret that as "I've NEVER been interested in doing X". And I think most people are quite well aware of how their partner is going to interpret that. I think if you're going to parse that kind of statement, you're going to end up like Bill Clinton saying "it depends on what IS IS". 

The knowing transmission of false information is a lie, any way you cut it, whether you did it outright or whether you did it by a half-truth that you knew would be taken the wrong way. Quite frankly, I would never want to have anything to do with a person with whom I would have to worry about playing tricky word games. In my view, they know what I am asking, what they are saying, and how it will be interpreted. They can say, "It's none of my business" or they can answer TRUTHFULLY, but legalease word tricks are simply unacceptable in my book.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Wolfman1968 said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > She is who he married and has been for their entire marriage.
> ...


PD did not mislead through silence. She did it in a spoken, explicit way. Steve did not fail to ask the right questions. This is not debatable. As to what PD told Steve:



> Forward 20 months and I met my future H "Steve". Steve was a nice guy.... I love Steve very much.... our sex life has always been vanilla (my choice) and there has been some resentment from Steve.... as I told him I am not into what he calls "full menu sex" he has mostly accepted it.


She said that she won’t allow her husband oral or toys because “I am not into ... ‘full menu sex.’” And Steve, though resentful, had mostly accepted it because she lied and said she isn’t into those things.

No, she did not say, “I’m not into these these things _with you_, and you’re so stupid you won’t catch that I’m implying that I absolutely love these acts but just not with your sexually unattractive ass.” People can keep misstating the facts and twisting it around, but the facts remain.

She did not say I will only do vanilla without providing any explanation. Nor did she say that I’m not into doing those things with you. Nope, she clearly stated that she is not into anything but vanilla. The Steve learned the humiliating truth - not only is she into oral and toys, but anal, BDSM, varied positions (Kama Sutra), etc. She states: “The sex with Dave was the very best I have ever had and very varied.” These are the facts as she related them.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

What we are talking about, really, is women who objectify men, who look at them as tools to use in their life for their purposes. Dave was useful sexually. Steve was useful as a provider. PD used them both.

Women should not cry **** shaming as a dodge to justify the objectification of men. Men are not tools.

Further, using “**** shaming” the way that Christmas carolers use “fa la la la la” makes a mockery of the issue of **** shaming.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> PD did not mislead through silence. Steve did not fail to ask the right questions. This is not debatable. As to what PD told Steve:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First Wolfman, thank you for putting my position into words much better that I could.


CraigB, his wife played the Bill Clinton game. She carefully chose her words, I am not into full 
menu sex. Woman tells a man this he will interpret it to mean that she has not done it before.
This is playing the word game.

Deliberately lying, lying by omission, willfully misleading. 

Best answer for DP when asked to do full menu sex was to tell Steve I did all kinds of sex
when young because I was curious and wanted to learn what I liked and did not like. 
I am done with that stage of my life and I no longer will do full menu sex.

At this point Steve would of weighed whether DP brought enough to the table to think that
DP was still worth marrying without full menu sex or find another woman.

I think Steve would of said: I get DP for a wife without full menu sex is worth it because
of all the things that she brings to the table.

Why can that statement be taken to bank?

Because he still wanted her without getting full menu sex from her.

Maybe after the talk with Steve and with time DP would not feel [email protected] shamed
and would feel comfortable enough to start doing some full menu sex.
Then maybe Steve would of had the chance to give his wife, DP, the best sex she ever had.

Instead DP kept her husband playing minor league ball, instead of giving him a try at making
it good in the big league.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

I keep seeing the word "selfish" used to describe women who will not perform sexual acts for their partners. 

They're labeled "deceitful, dishonest, and uncommitted to a true loving, self-sacrificing relationship with their partner" when they are unwilling to overlook boundaries and hard limits......even if they did communicate those boundaries clearly early on. 

They are labeled as resistant to "change and growth" when she is unwilling to make "his happiness essential to hers". 

So my question is where's the same self-sacrifice and commitment to true love from the requester towards his unwilling partner? The kind of love where her happiness is essential for his? 

Where's the same commitment to "change and growth" when she elects to stop performing certain acts that were previously performed? 

My point is that the word "selfish" is a two way street. If one is selfish for not willing to perform specific acts for a requesting partner in order to make them happy, then the requesting partner is just as selfish for their unwillingness to put aside those acts for the happiness of the other.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I never wanted my daughter to have sex that she wasn't sure she wanted.


The hard part is inculcating BOTH (i) never have sex you don't want, and (ii) sex can be great for you and hopefully you will want alot of it and get lots of great sex.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

oldtruck said:


> CraigB, his wife played the Bill Clinton game. She carefully chose her words, I am not into full menu sex. Woman tells a man this he will interpret it to mean that she has not done it before.
> This is playing the word game.
> 
> Deliberately lying, lying by omission, willfully misleading.


I interpret “I’m not into [anything but missionary PIV]” to mean:

1) I’ve never tried those things because I have no interest; or

2) I tried those things but learned I didn’t like them; or

3) I tried those things and liked them at one time, but I no longer do because my tastes have changed; or

4) I never liked those things. I tried those things in the past with previous partner(s), even though I didn’t like them, because I lacked boundaries, but now I have boundaries and won’t do those things any more.

No matter which way you interpret it, she lied. All four are untrue. She was and still is into “full menu sex.”


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> I keep seeing the word "selfish" used to describe women who will not perform sexual acts for their partners.
> 
> They're labeled "deceitful, dishonest, and uncommitted to a true loving, self-sacrificing relationship with their partner" when they are unwilling to overlook boundaries and hard limits......even if they did communicate those boundaries clearly early on.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. Nobody needs to be GGG. Prudes are wonderful people just like ****s. At the same time, ideally I think, people should be GGG.

Some men here are saying that a woman is “selfish” if she’s not willing to do things she’s not into for her man’s pleasure. You turn it around and say that the man is “selfish” if he wants his partner to do things she may not enjoy.

Why, then, is it Steve’s fault that he was unselfish and accepted PD’s unwillingness to do anything but vanilla because (supposedly) she isn’t into anything else? Why is he the one at fault and got what he deserved?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Lila said:


> I keep seeing the word "selfish" used to describe women who will not perform sexual acts for their partners.
> 
> They're labeled "deceitful, dishonest, and uncommitted to a true loving, self-sacrificing relationship with their partner" when they are unwilling to overlook boundaries and hard limits......even if they did communicate those boundaries clearly early on.
> 
> ...



Generally speaking loving someone is about allowing yourself and your partner to be completely known, seen, and accepted. When a partner says something to the notion of, "I don't like this and I never want you to do it or talk about it ever again" it can come across as a form of rejection. 

For example let's use an example of anal sex. Early in a relationship the woman was eager to please and willing to do things outside her comfort zone. Later in the relationship she decided that she decided she could no longer tolerate it from one moment to the next and that it would never happen again without any discussion with her partner about it what so ever. As a result the male in the relationship finds himself feeling shamed and rejected because he still desires something that was once OK but is suddenly labeled as something that causes pain and is off limits. He may wonder if it was always painful, and those memories of anal in the relationship will be problematic at best. 

So this in my opinion is a result of women being over eager to please her man in order to establish the relationship. Perhaps she lied about something being enjoyable when indeed it was the opposite. Then once everything in the relationship was secure enough for her to set boundaries, the list of things that are OK and not OK suddenly changed without any opportunities to discuss.

So how should this relationship proceed? Does the man have to just feel shamed for being allowed to desire something that caused pain early in the relationship? Should the woman be open to talking about it and still making her man feel loved and accepted because he still has those desires? Is there any possible alternate forms of sexual play that would facilitate this desire that is not painful in any way? Did you know if you wear your hair in a pony tail and stick your finger inside it that it feels exactly like anal? 

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Regardless of PD’s specific situation that is not the norm;
Outside of TAM types, religious couples, and virgin couples, typically people do not want to know details of private sex lives. 

Basic information is just fine (I like anal sex, I don’t like being tied up) 

If someone says they aren’t into “full menu” sex and you accept that, that’s your choice. 
That’s what you’ll end up with. 
If she did it before doesn’t matter. She is who she is now and that’s someone who will only have vanilla sex. 

Sex is important to me so I make damn sure I find someone compatible with me there. That’s my responsibility. 

All relationships are different and I’ve done, and enjoyed, things with some men that I won’t do with others because the relationship dynamics are different.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> I agree with you. Nobody needs to be GGG. Prudes are wonderful people just like ****s. At the same time, ideally I think, people should be GGG.
> 
> Some men here are saying that a woman is “selfish” if she’s not willing to do things she’s not into for her man’s pleasure. You turn it around and say that the man is “selfish” if he wants his partner to do things she may not enjoy.
> 
> Why, then, is it Steve’s fault that he was unselfish and accepted PD’s unwillingness to do anything but vanilla because (supposedly) she isn’t into anything else? Why is he the one at fault and got what he deserved?


Again, I don't care about Steve or PD. I'm speaking in general terms to the subject of this thread.

GGG is the goal however there are two things that are always missing from the GGG argument and that's GGG _within "acceptable" limits_ and "Price of Admission". Dan Savage talks about these hand in hand but people seem to always toss those out of the conversation. No, everything WILL NOT be on the menu. We all have our boundaries. The "price of admission" to be with a person in any kind of sexual relationship is to accept that those boundaries are off the menu, regardless of history. Period. If the price of admission is too high, then that relationship has to end.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

PD’s post specifically excluded the possibility of retroactive jealousy or **** shaming as being a factor:



> he also said THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DID BEFORE WE ME BUT WHAT YOU HAVE REFUSED ME DURING OUR MARRIAGE.


If this is the thread about the contentious issues that were raised by the other closed thread, shouldn’t the thread be called “Women Objectifying Men - Sex Objects and Wallets/Providers”?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

badsanta said:


> Generally speaking loving someone is about allowing yourself and your partner to be completely known, seen, and accepted. When a partner says something to the notion of, "I don't like this and I never want you to do it or talk about it ever again" it can come across as a form of rejection.
> 
> For example let's use an example of anal sex. Early in a relationship the woman was eager to please and willing to do things outside her comfort zone. Later in the relationship she decided that she decided she could no longer tolerate it from one moment to the next and that it would never happen again without any discussion with her partner about it what so ever. As a result the male in the relationship finds himself feeling shamed and rejected because he still desires something that was once OK but is suddenly labeled as something that causes pain and is off limits. He may wonder if it was always painful, and those memories of anal in the relationship will be problematic at best.
> 
> ...


What you bring up is an important point. I don't like using examples of painful acts only because there's a thin line between welcomed pain (sadism) and unwelcomed pain. And then there is the added complication of thresholds of pain. Some acts may be tolerable at one point and intolerable at others. 

I think we need to find ways to express ourselves in ways that are not purposefully hurtful to the other party. Having made that effort, there's only so much responsibility we can take for the other person's feelings. That does not mean one is not entitled to their feelings, only that your partner is expected to 'fix' those feelings. 

In your example above, "fixing" your feelings should not come at your partners expense (maybe her PTSD?).


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Someone doesn’t need to be outright shaming to make a situation not feel safe for someone to open up in IF they want to. 

Shaming other women (I had one guy mention a girl he knew that “slept with entire football team” with a lol) 

Hyperbolic or judgemental language when you DO share something (“Oh so nothing was too skimpy for you to wear for him?” or “you loved banging him like you were in 50 shades of grey”) 

High ego requirements. All the men I have been with require some who stroking. This is fine. Some need more than others. High need = jealous behaviour, poor self esteem, and red flags for shaming others to feel better about themselves. 

Anti-feminist views. Lots of men still have, even subconsciously, feelings that women should be less sexual. 
There’s feelings like she should “respect herself” by not “letting” a bunch of men sleep with her. There’s feelings that a woman who likes sex will cheat and/or isn’t wife material. 

Red pill/blue pill guys can’t be trusted at all. Just for obvious reasons. 

Now, it is a much better option for women to just stay away from these men and find someone compatible. 

Just like it’s a much better option for men to stay away from women who don’t have the sex they need and find someone compatible. 

I don’t worry about RJ or shaming in my relationship because I picked well and I don’t have to share every detail.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> If this is the thread about the contentious issues that were raised by the other closed thread, shouldn’t the thread be called “Women Objectifying Men - Sex Objects and Wallets/Providers”?


Why do you keep insisting women are objectifying men as "wallets/providers"? Have you looked at economic reports lately? This isn't 1955 and more women than ever are bringing home the bacon. They also continue to cook it and serve it up.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > If this is the thread about the contentious issues that were raised by the other closed thread, shouldn’t the thread be called “Women Objectifying Men - Sex Objects and Wallets/Providers”?
> ...


I’ve already addressed that argument earlier. Provider doesn’t just mean money.

I guess “Women Objectifying Men - Some Are Sex Objects, Others Are Caretakers” would be a better thread title.

In addition, Pew Research in 2017:



> In about a third of married or cohabiting couples in the United States, women bring in half or more of the earnings, a significant increase from the past. But in most couples, men contribute more of the income, and this aligns with the fact that Americans place a higher value on a man’s role as financial provider.
> 
> Roughly seven-in-ten adults (71%) say it is very important for a man to be able to support a family financially to be a good husband or partner. By comparison, 32% say it’s very important for a woman to do the same to be a good wife or partner, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
> 
> Men are especially likely to place a greater emphasis on their role as financial providers. While a nearly equal share of men and women say a man needs to be able to provide for his family to be a good husband or partner (72% and 71%, respectively), men are less likely than women to say the same about women. Just a quarter of men say this is very important for a woman to be a good wife or partner, compared with 39% of women.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-providers-even-as-womens-contributions-grow/


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> I’ve already addressed that argument earlier. Provider doesn’t just mean money.
> 
> I guess “Women Objectifying Men - Some Are Sex Objects, Others Are Caretakers” would be a better thread title.


Is this any different from how some men objectify women as "some are sex objects, others are caretakers"? 

It's not like you just get paired with someone random and it sucks if you get a bad one, you CHOOSE your partner. Choose someone you are compatible with. 

We all have a list of what we need and what we refuse. That list is set on personal importance. 

Sex is near the top of mine but it's not required that I end up with the best I ever had if he meets the other checkboxes. 

You are responsible for your own check boxes and making sure someone fits them. Don't get pissed when you end up with someone who has a different list than you.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve already addressed that argument earlier. Provider doesn’t just mean money.
> ...


Agreed. It’s no different.



> You are responsible for your own check boxes and making sure someone fits them. Don't get pissed when you end up with someone who has a different list than you.


Agreed, everybody should do this. As long as everyone is honest and agrees, you get what you bargained for. But there must be a “meeting of the minds” to have a contract.

Using people for sex? In the words of Bob Seger: “I used her, she used me, but neither one cared / We were getting our share.”

Using people as a caretaker in a companionate marriage? As long as everyone is honest, I think it’s fine. 

Presenting yourself as sexually attracted to your spouse, when in fact you are asexual, gay, only like secretly masturbating to fetish porn, or just not into that person physically but want the other benefits of marriage? Falsely claiming to be an evangelical to secure a wife who won’t say no to sex? Not cool IMHO.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> Presenting yourself as sexually attracted to your spouse, when in fact you are asexual, gay, only like secretly masturbating to fetish porn, or just not into that person physically but want the other benefits of marriage? Falsely claiming to be an evangelical to secure a wife who won’t say no to sex? Not cool IMHO.


These are such rare situations that I don't see why they need to be quantified.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > Presenting yourself as sexually attracted to your spouse, when in fact you are asexual, gay, only like secretly masturbating to fetish porn, or just not into that person physically but want the other benefits of marriage? Falsely claiming to be an evangelical to secure a wife who won’t say no to sex? Not cool IMHO.
> ...


IRL, very rare. On TAM they seem to happen all the time.

Even a woman who allegedly said, on her honeymoon after sex, something like, “There, now it can’t be annulled.” She no longer needed to perform sex any longer.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> *Presenting yourself as sexually attracted to your spouse*, when in fact you are asexual, gay, only like secretly masturbating to fetish porn, or just not into that person physically but want the other benefits of marriage? Falsely claiming to be an evangelical to secure a wife who won’t say no to sex? Not cool IMHO.


I guess my first question is what do you use to decide if your partner is presenting themselves as sexually attracted to you? 

I think most here are in agreement that flat out lying is not acceptable. 

Where people seem to disagree is when the truth is placed before them and the reasons behind that truth are not disclosed.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> IRL, very rare. On TAM they seem to happen all the time.
> 
> Even a woman who allegedly said, on her honeymoon after sex, something like, “There, now it can’t be annulled.” She no longer needed to perform sex any longer.


Take TAM with a grain of salt. It is a lot of angry men who find situations to suit their opinion and agenda and there's been more than a few trolls who post either as crappy women that prove their theory or as BH with unbelievably outside the norm stories. 

I've read through incel forums, MGTOW forums. People see the world how they want to and we only get one side of the story here.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > CraigBesuden said:
> ...


There will always be women aplenty that are more than willing to rip your wallet out through your ******* if things go south.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> There will always be women aplenty that are more than willing to rip your wallet out through your ******* if things go south.


You are responsible for your own picker. There are bad men and bad women out there. You control you and your choices.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > There will always be women aplenty that are more than willing to rip your wallet out through your ******* if things go south.
> ...


Even so, I wonder what % of married women see their husbands as wallets with legs?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld said:


> There will always be women aplenty that are more than willing to rip your wallet out through your ******* if things go south.


My SIL’s boyfriend makes a ton of money. His homemaker wife got full child support and alimony, with only 50-50 custody. His XW’s behavior is the primary reason he hasn’t married my SIL (yet). He doesn’t want to be seen as an ATM.

I’m not worried about it personally because my wife and I are happy and happier now than ever. (And she’s almost always made more than me, and her starting compensation at her new job is now a staggering six times what I make.)


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Even so, I wonder what % of married women see their husbands as wallets with legs?


Do you wonder how many men see their wives as vaginas on legs or their new Mommy on legs? Let's not get melodramatic here, there's a lot of bad on both sides. 

Some men use money to get a woman outside of his attractiveness level and then complains that she's with him due to money. 

Again-- you are responsible for your own picker. If you keep finding yourself attracting the same type of woman, you need to figure out why, not blame women.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Even so, I wonder what % of married women see their husbands as wallets with legs?


My guess:

1% married a guy for his money.

10% didn’t marry for money, fell out of love, but are staying for the money, social reasons, etc.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

@Deejo seriously....it IS interesting how this ends up being the same discussion every time. And how full of angst people get about it.

I think for me and you, since we don't really experience this phenomenon, it doesn't hit us the way it hits others. Fascinating, interesting, but not relevant to us, so also kind of confusing.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

It doesn’t seem too complicated to me. It’s just a matter of perception. Guys experiencing this are perceiving prior sex acts as indicative of desire level. Which makes sense to a point. In GENERAL higher attraction will open the door for more adventurous sex. But there’s not always a direct correlation. 

I suspect in a case where a wife was successful in making her attraction clear, the husband would be less likely to worry about what positions happened with whom. The catch is: Is she really attracted? And does he perceive it that way?


I suspect some would argue that his worrying about her attraction to him is a sign of insecurity. Maybe so, maybe not. I think in some cases a little worry may be justified.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> I keep seeing the word "selfish" used to describe women who will not perform sexual acts for their partners.


I don't recall seeing "selfish" used very much to describe women who will not perform sexual acts for their partners, but maybe it's one of those things that doesn't conform to my confirmation bias so I don't register them.

I would use "selfish" for a woman who doesn't mind performing certain acts, knows how much their husband would enjoy it yet still doesn't do it.

Same as a husband who doesn't mind giving his wife an orgasm, knows how much she would enjoy it but just decides to roll over and go to sleep.

If a woman is repulsed by the idea of performing a certain sexual act with her partner, then her not doing it would not be selfish.



Lila said:


> They're labeled "deceitful, dishonest, and uncommitted to a true loving, self-sacrificing relationship with their partner" when they are unwilling to overlook boundaries and hard limits......even if they did communicate those boundaries clearly early on.


My read is that they are only labeled as deceitful and dishonest if they implied that the boundaries and hard limits had applied to others as well. 

"uncommitted to a true loving, self-sacrificing relationship with their partner" seems to be a Dan Savage GGG thing. There may be something to this, but I don't think I recall this being seen elsewhere in this thread. 



Lila said:


> They are labeled as resistant to "change and growth" when she is unwilling to make "his happiness essential to hers".
> 
> So my question is where's the same self-sacrifice and commitment to true love from the requester towards his unwilling partner? The kind of love where her happiness is essential for his?
> 
> ...


If "change and growth" is going to include stopping things that had previously been done in the relationship and could reasonably have been expected to continue, then I think we have to consider a situation where a man has decided to stop "dating" his wife as something his wife just needs to adapt to if she's genuinely interested in his happiness. I'm not ready to go there.

I think the key factor in both situations would be " things that had previously been done in the relationship and could reasonably have been expected to continue".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> I guess “Women Objectifying Men - Some Are Sex Objects, Others Are Caretakers” would be a better thread title.


Yes. Using the term "Wallets" these days is just going to prompt an automatic response about women not being as dependent on a man's earnings as previously (correctly so).

So, let's drop that from our conversations


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> These are such rare situations that I don't see why they need to be quantified.


According to Alan Dershowitz, the people arrested for crimes are almost always guilty.

So, why bother with trials?

Because it's the exceptions to the rule that matter.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Fozzy said:


> I suspect in a case where a wife was successful in making her attraction clear, the husband would be less likely to worry about what positions happened with whom. The catch is: Is she really attracted? And does he perceive it that way?


I think most first marriages involve a wife who is more sexually experienced than the man. Most of these marriages last a lifetime. And I think a lot of inexperienced people would like to try things, at least once.

Beyond that, if she said, “I feel a connection with you I’ve never felt before. It’s not just about physical pleasure with you. You’re special. I want physical pleasure with you, sure, but I really want to look into your eyes and kiss you while we make love. I want to make love to you, not **** you. ****ing is just entertainment. You’re so much more to me than that. I want missionary lovemaking.” Yes, that would be a totally different situation. If he found out that she had fun with other guys doing more things but it was “just sex,” he wouldn’t feel inferior.

Assuming, of course, that she was telling the truth (or he believed that she was). You can’t strictly limit your H from any positional variety that you crave and from improving as a lover, perhaps trying your best not to orgasm or get any enjoyment from sex with H, and then praise the “just sex” guy as “my very best lover by far and very varied” in positions, toys, etc. That lets the cat out of the bag, and its clear that W doesn’t even want anything remotely sexually satisfying from H. In fact, she’s probably subconsciously trying to ensure that she doesn’t enjoy it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> I guess my first question is what do you use to decide if your partner is presenting themselves as sexually attracted to you?
> 
> I think most here are in agreement that flat out lying is not acceptable.
> 
> Where people seem to disagree is when the truth is placed before them and the reasons behind that truth are not disclosed.


We disagree because we think (rightly or wrongly) that it's actually the "reasons behind that truth" that matter.

To us, "I won't let you come in my mouth. I've never allowed it (or I tried it once and puked)" is something we might be willing to accept.

"I won't let you come in my mouth. I've done it for others and not minded, but I just don't see you that way" isn't.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> It doesn’t seem too complicated to me. It’s just a matter of perception. Guys experiencing this are perceiving prior sex acts as indicative of desire level. Which makes sense to a point. In GENERAL higher attraction will open the door for more adventurous sex. But there’s not always a direct correlation.
> 
> I suspect in a case where a wife was successful in making her attraction clear, the husband would be less likely to worry about what positions happened with whom. The catch is: Is she really attracted? And does he perceive it that way?
> 
> ...



I can understand being hurt that you don't feel desired by your spouse, and in fact, I would divorce immediately if I felt this was true. (Not saying D is the answer, just saying that is what I would do).

I also think you really should know if they desire you or not because, it is really very evident. And very evident when they don't. I don't even see why people are "unsure" about this.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

buddy400 said:


> yes. Using the term "wallets" these days is just going to prompt an automatic response about women not being as dependent on a man's earnings as previously (correctly so).
> 
> So, let's drop that from our conversations


yes, please.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Yes. Using the term "Wallets" these days is just going to prompt an automatic response about women not being as dependent on a man's earnings as previously (correctly so).
> 
> So, let's drop that from our conversations


Also, I think we should be able to drop from our conversations that men "only" want women for sex, that they are unemotional and just all horn dogs, that they all want to hit it and quit it.

This just isn't true and it is insulting to both men and women to keep saying this type of thing (not saying anyone here is doing that, just pointing out that it is silly to do so, just like it is silly to imply women "need" a man's wallet).

Men and women want each other for the whole package. We all want love, hot sex, devotion, depth of emotions and intimacy, raising children, partner in crime, and so on. We all also want to be truly desired by our spouse and all of us feel the lack of it when it isn't there.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The unfiltered behavior described below - demonstrates an absence of fear. 

And perhaps the single most interesting thing I have learned from my extensive post reading on TAM is that the subset of men who maintain an intense physical connection with a life partner:
- Are rarely afraid 
- And are remarkably at ease acknowledging the occasional situations that make them fearful 




ConanHub said:


> His behavior was ridiculous. It is probably common for men to lie about porn. I ran into it enough in ministry.
> 
> I never lied about porn use and was watching it openly when I met Mrs. C. She even watched it with me several times. We decided it wasn't going to be part of our relationship at one point and I did use it a couple of times after our agreement but I told her about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Fozzy said:


> I suspect some would argue that his worrying about her attraction to him is a sign of insecurity. Maybe so, maybe not. I think in some cases a little worry may be justified.


So this is covered by men staying fit and attractive to all women, including his wife, but also as a whole person the man stays fit and solid for himself and women in general. 

So the worry is a bare minimum or non-existent. 

A man shouldn't depend on one woman for his happiness quota to be met, he's responsible for that on his own.

Now, that includes who he lets into his life but if he's independent minded that improves his appreciation for those he's in a good relationship.

While he's always strong and solid, mobile, he could do anything at anytime so his confidence is high.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> While he's always strong and solid, mobile, he could do anything at anytime so his confidence is high.


The trick here is that most men can't "do anything at anytime" regarding women. 

Sure, most men can improve themselves and some may gain more options with respect to women.

The real trick is to realize that the ability to do "anything at anytime" applies to life, not just women.

Way too many men stay in relationships because they're believe that there are few other options available to them.

That may actually often be the case, but they need to realize that the option of "not having a woman" is usually better than staying in a bad relationship.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

QFT

By FAR the most disturbing thing that I consistently see on TAM is the request that a female partner pretend to be more turned on than she is. This attempt to combine intimacy and deceit (aka anti-intimacy) is analogous to combining matter and antimatter. Both scenarios produce the same result: annihilation




Faithful Wife said:


> I can understand being hurt that you don't feel desired by your spouse, and in fact, I would divorce immediately if I felt this was true. (Not saying D is the answer, just saying that is what I would do).
> 
> I also think you really should know if they desire you or not because, it is really very evident. And very evident when they don't. I don't even see why people are "unsure" about this.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> The unfiltered behavior described below - demonstrates an absence of fear.
> 
> And perhaps the single most interesting thing I have learned from my extensive post reading on TAM is that the subset of men who maintain an intense physical connection with a life partner:
> - Are rarely afraid
> - And are remarkably at ease acknowledging the occasional situations that make them fearful


Interesting observation that I never noticed or thought about.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> So this is covered by men staying fit and attractive to all women, including his wife, but also as a whole person the man stays fit and solid for himself and women in general.
> 
> So the worry is a bare minimum or non-existent.
> .


Attraction is more than just staying fit and while I wouldn't want someone unhealthy, I prefer Dad bods by far. 

I've been with the 6 pack, fit kind of guys and the ones I was with had over sensitive egos that needed too much work. It was not sexy. 

If a guy is a jerk or not attentive or has a temper or ignores my needs, he becomes unattractive. 

Hot only goes so far and anyone who thinks they can ride on that without putting it the relationship work is bound to end up in trouble.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Yep, the ability to do anything at anytime is there to imply life as a whole, not just women, but includes female companionship or at least the confidence is kept up to remain one's best self to include knowing they're ready anytime if they choose to dive back into chasing women.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Attraction is more than just staying fit and while I wouldn't want someone unhealthy, I prefer Dad bods by far.
> 
> I've been with the 6 pack, fit kind of guys and the ones I was with had over sensitive egos that needed too much work. It was not sexy.
> 
> ...


Staying a "whole, solid, your best self" person in my description means don't be a jerk or a rude, crude person but kind, compassionate when needed, not bogged down by being in a hole physically or financially. I never promote rude behavior ☹☹.

"Your best self" means work with what you've got, stay able to get out and about, don't be too stationary in unhealthy ways.

Some women like dad bods, some don't, most men fall in between, and that works just fine getting attraction from women; which ever group women's tastes prefer, not all women have same preferences. 

😊😊😊


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Oldtruck,

I am not speaking as a mod. Merely a fellow traveler, and a parent. As a father of daughters I will frame for you - what is perhaps simplistically called: the daughters dilemma

She wondered why the guys were so proud of their hot/crazy matrix. She was baffled at their lack of self awareness. Did they not realize that the other half of humanity saw them the same way? That 8 scale crazy might make for wild dates, but near guaranteed piss poor parenting. And that above a certain level of hotness, partners tend to have excessive expectations and an insufficient level of commitment and loyalty for a life partner. 

And that trading stability for passion was NOT a self serving choice, but a very difficult decision to weigh the present against the future. 

As to the couple you describe, it is sad that you don’t see that for what it was. A test of strength and will and determination. A test that he failed and as a result they both lost out. 

If he had said: I’m sorry we aren’t compatible one of two things would have happened.
1. She would have proven otherwise in the normal manner of these things or
2. He would have accepted they weren’t compatible and moved on to a partner who was more physically into him 






oldtruck said:


> No because the mods directed us from there to here. And this is not just about PD but this
> situation in general. Lack of honesty, poor communication, willing to settle and compromise
> only to find out that what a wife said she would never do, did it before you, and enjoyed it,
> deception.
> ...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM2020 said:


> Oldtruck,
> 
> I am not speaking as a mod. Merely a fellow traveler, and a parent. As a father of daughters I will frame for you - what is perhaps simplistically called: the daughters dilemma
> 
> ...


The hot/crazy matrix doesn't seem to get women too worked up (if they have a sense of humor) because I don't think they have that big a problem with being valued for things other than sexual attraction (perhaps many even prefer it). Since sexual attraction is something that most don't find difficult to obtain from men.

Men would have problems with a hot/stable matrix because they *DO* value sexual attraction. For most, this is not something easily gained.

Of course women, like men, take more into account than hotness when making decisions about a lifetime commitment. Men know this but would prefer not to think about it. 

I'm not saying men are right. I'm saying this is how men *think*. Women can take that into account or not as they prefer. But just seems to be something they should be aware of. 

My wife knows that there's a lot more than her hotness that attracted me to her (it's a weird mix, she doesn't want to be wanted for her hotness but she wants me to think she's hot), but she wouldn't be happy if didn't want to have sex with her as often as I had with previous partners or refused to give her oral if she knew I'd happily done it with other women. 

I just think that, since women don't value men being sexually attracted to them as much as men, they spend a lot less time being paranoid about it than men.

I don't really think men spend all that much time being paranoid about it either, as long as they aren't reading about it on TAM, 

Also, talking about this sure seems to set off all kinds of alarms for women. It seems to me to be related to my wife's cognitive dissonance about wanting to be valued for things other than sex while at the same time wanting me to be so overcome with desire for her that I just HAVE to have her.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> The hot/crazy matrix doesn't seem to get women too worked up (if they have a sense of humor) because I don't think they have that big a problem with being valued for things other than sexual attraction (perhaps many even prefer it). Since sexual attraction is something that most don't find difficult to obtain from men.
> 
> Men would have problems with a hot/stable matrix because they *DO* value sexual attraction. For most, this is not something easily gained.
> 
> ...


I can appreciate when you are trying to educate us about how men think. But it does seem that no matter how many things we say or try to educate you (specifically you) about the ways women think, they are dismissed for one reason or another.

Also, a lot of the things you say men think are not the things other men in my life have said about how they think. So I'm not sure you are all that representative of "men".

And when you make estimates as to how women think, you are IMO way off base a lot of times.

However, this could all be just the format we are in and maybe sitting having a beer and laughing about it all would make everything much more clear.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I can appreciate when you are trying to educate us about how men think. But it does seem that no matter how many things we say or try to educate you (specifically you) about the ways women think, they are dismissed for one reason or another.
> 
> Also, a lot of the things you say men think are not the things other men in my life have said about how they think. So I'm not sure you are all that representative of "men".
> 
> ...


I should have a signature that says "Faithful Wife disagrees with my ideas on what men and women think". :smile2: 

At least I'm always aware that you will, so I've learned that much! 

I've paid a lot of attention to what you have to say about what women think and I admit that, while I believe everything you say is true for you, I tend to think of you as a non-representative women. I've always wanted to note all the times that women on TAM say something different than you'd say (they generally don't show up in threads like this one) just to provide some evidence that I'm not just making stuff up, but I've never had the discipline.

For one, it's all generalizations, so there will always be plenty of exceptions.

And, obviously, I could be wrong. That's a decision anyone paying attention to me is going to have to make.

It's good that there's someone like you providing a dissenting opinion. 

I don't see the downside of someone looking at what I'm saying that they hadn't heard before and then either thinking "he's full of crap" or "hmmm.... that's something to think about". I hope I've successfully conveyed the fact that I don't think that everything I say is the absolute truth, that everything I say applies to everyone or that I think anyone has any obligation to pay attention to me. 

On the topic at hand, there does seem to be a near consensus from the men's side. Is what we've had to say what you would have anticipated ahead of time?

Edit: When you say that you "appreciate" when I try to educate women about how men think, it sounds like you're accusing me of of something along the lines of "man-splaining". But, I do the same with men and what women think. So, I'm at least an equal opportunity offender, right?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

You should already know what men are thinking. And it isn't about your political views or education or job.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I value a man being sexually attracted to me. Why do women not value a man being sexually attracted to her? Most of the women I know have high sexual needs. 

People can value whatever they want, they should then use their personal value needs to find a compatible partner. It's about personal responsibility. 

If you settle for a woman who doesn't show that she's sexually attracted to you, that's what you're going to end up with.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> On the topic at hand, there does seem to be a near consensus from the men's side. Is what we've had to say what you would have anticipated ahead of time?


I don't actually see the consensus at all. I see the men who think one way are completely ignoring the men who think the opposite way.

Deejo, Mem and Personal seem to have roughly the same position. Which is basically that they feel empathy for women because they can see why (based on what many TAM men are saying here and on other threads) women get shamed for being sexual, and then in the next breath are expected to be sexual with only their husband (this is a massive generalization, and I hope I'm representing their thoughts accurately). I believe Uhtred also feels this way, based on previous threads.

Then I see you and a lot of other men who are saying a lot of things that are clearly how you think, but they don't match what men in my life have said about what they think. Men I've encountered who I actually get to know and talk to about more than just surface stuff sound more like Deejo and Mem.

Obviously part of this is because of course I know other men who I don't talk about deep subjects with, and many of them might think like you and others who share your thoughts, so maybe there are more men who think like you than I realize.

But absolutely, there is not a consensus here. Not at all. It seems some of you guys just willfully ignore the men I've mentioned and what they are saying.

I'll come back with a couple more thoughts in a moment on a new post.....


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You should already know what men are thinking. And it isn't about your political views or education or job.


Maybe men without many sexual options don't look at other compatibility issues but most men do care about things like education and views and being compatible in a wide range of areas. 

I think it would be very insulting to many men to think they don't care about overall companionship and just want something to put their penis in.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > You should already know what men are thinking. And it isn't about your political views or education or job.
> ...


Not at first. They are just trying to get their **** wet. Later on, once in a relationship, that stuff is useful to scrutinize.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't actually see the consensus at all. I see the men who think one way are completely ignoring the men who think the opposite way.
> 
> Deejo, Mem and Personal seem to have roughly the same position. Which is basically that they feel empathy for women because they can see why (based on what many TAM men are saying here and on other threads) women get shamed for being sexual, and then in the next breath are expected to be sexual with only their husband (this is a massive generalization, and I hope I'm representing their thoughts accurately). I believe Uhtred also feels this way, based on previous threads.
> 
> ...


Okay, then I'll re-phrase it.

Would you have thought that as many men think the way I do about this topic (happily doing sexual things with others that you won't do with your husband)?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Maybe men without many sexual options don't look at other compatibility issues but most men do care about things like education and views and being compatible in a wide range of areas.
> 
> I think it would be very insulting to many men to think they don't care about overall companionship and just want something to put their penis in.


I agree that it doesn't say anything good about men.

Edit: I should clarify that I don't think that men without many sexual options ONLY care about something to put their penis in, but I believe they *do* attach more value to it than is healthy, to their detriment.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Not at first. They are just trying to get their **** wet. Later on, once in a relationship, that stuff is useful to scrutinize.


I'm happy you don't represent all men and that I've met enough good ones to know that you don't. This is a YOU problem, not a MEN problem.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You should already know what men are thinking. And it isn't about your political views or education or job.


See, this kind of stuff drives me crazy when men don't challenge it.

Upside down openly admits that he tries to **** every girl on the first date, then rejects her as being a **** if she goes for it.

And while I know most men do not feel this way, men here don't challenge him. Why is that? It seems like some of you are afraid to stand up to other men when they behave badly. And then us women come in and battle against him, but men don't back us up.

Why?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > You should already know what men are thinking. And it isn't about your political views or education or job.
> ...


How is that behaving badly? I never **** shamed. I just had no interest in them after they gave themselves so easily.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Not at first. They are just trying to get their **** wet. Later on, once in a relationship, that stuff is useful to scrutinize.


And then @Buddy400 goes and likes this post.

At that point, I just scratch my head.

I thought there was an actual dialog going on, but apparently men being complete *******s to women is something you "like", Buddy.

So if you "like" this kind of statement, then I am even more convinced you do not represent men nor are you in consensus with men in general.

Men are actually decent human beings who care about people and women, who are not just looking to get their **** wet, and who do want a woman who meets their standards. I keep saying this. And then you and others say things that dispute this, and then you tell me I am not in the ordinary range and you are.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> How is that behaving badly? I never **** shamed. I just had no interest in them after they gave themselves so easily.


Sure, whatever you say.

I'll step out and let you represent the men of TAM. Have fun.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Ya, I noticed the like. 

I'm well aware that productive conversations with men like upsidedown aren't going to happen, but men who like and even just willfully ignore when guys behave like that are also part of the problem. 

Speak up boys. Letting it slide makes everyone else look bad.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> ...


True. You didn’t shame them, you just show through your actions that you think they are worthless.

Many happy marriages today began with sex on the first date.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Women shouldn't be naive. And parents not delusional. Especially if you have a daughter. I notice fathers start their gun collection around their daughters teenage years 🙂 . They understand.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

You must be having sport with me. 

For what is hot/crazy if not ‘bad boy’. 

I can’t speak to how men think. But will gladly share that I don’t think the way you describe males as a group - thinking. 



Buddy400 said:


> The hot/crazy matrix doesn't seem to get women too worked up (if they have a sense of humor) because I don't think they have that big a problem with being valued for things other than sexual attraction (perhaps many even prefer it). Since sexual attraction is something that most don't find difficult to obtain from men.
> 
> Men would have problems with a hot/stable matrix because they *DO* value sexual attraction. For most, this is not something easily gained.
> 
> ...


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> ...


Umm, no. Most men want a relationship. They screen for education before dating. Men with college degrees want women with college degrees (and vice versa). Same goes for advanced degrees. Though now, happily for men, women will now have to date down as there are fewer educated men.

A Groupon poll shows men think sex should not happen before the fifth date and women think it shouldn’t happen before the ninth date. In practice it tends to happen on the eighth date.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...-date-Rule-Groupon-Dating-Trends-Survey-Finds

If I were dating today and a woman had sex with me on the first date, I wouldn’t not date her again over it. Actually, I wouldn’t let it happen. I would be clear that I found her attractive and wanted to see her again, but wouldn’t go into her place or invite her into mine until we’d dated at least three dates and first agreed that we were dating exclusively. If she did it on the third date, I would assume she is operating on the old, outdated 1980’s three date rule and not hold it against her.

Many women have ONSs, FWB, etc. Then they meet a guy they like and make him wait X dates. Some women know that men know this game, so why bother with this nonsense? So they go for it on the first date. But most men don’t care about the game - they want a relationship build before sex begins. You, though, are apparently fooled by the game, believing that a woman is chaste if she makes you wait X dates and a **** if she demands fewer.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Women shouldn't be naive. And parents not delusional. Especially if you have a daughter. I notice fathers start their gun collection around their daughters teenage years 🙂 . They understand.


Millennials and especially Gen Z want love and want to go steady. “Only about a tenth of young daters (15% of men and 8% of women) are casual daters.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1861101001

College virgins are almost a majority. There are more male virgins on campus than females.

>>According to the Online College Social Life Survey, a study of more than 24,000 students at campuses across America, 20 percent of college students graduate without ever having sex — a minority, to be sure, but a much larger percentage than even the students themselves might expect. In our own poll, which included underclassmen, 40 percent said they were virgins. “These college campuses are portrayed as being this hotbed of hookup culture, this idea that that’s what everybody is doing,” says Rachel Hills, author of The Sex Myth. “But a lot of people have sex for the first time when they meet someone who they really like and who really likes them back. For some people, that happens at 14 or 15. For some people it happens at 35 or later.”<<

https://www.thecut.com/2015/10/college-virgins-silent-almost-majority.html

For better or worse, the 1970s and 1980s are over. It’s not Porky’s and Animal House out there.

And sex isn’t something that teenage boys do to teenage girls. It’s something they do together.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> See, this kind of stuff drives me crazy when men don't challenge it.
> 
> Upside down openly admits that he tries to **** every girl on the first date, then rejects her as being a **** if she goes for it.
> 
> ...


There are a lot of posts I ignore as lost causes. I'm mostly observing this thread because I can't relate to most of it.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You should already know what men are thinking. And it isn't about your political views or education or job.


First sight is going to be physical attraction, poise, body language and outward personality.

If things progress, social and political views come to be important.

I'm not overly concerned about anyone's career be it multi millionaire business woman or waitress.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> See, this kind of stuff drives me crazy when men don't challenge it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah many man out there have double standards and insecurities.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ya, I noticed the like.
> 
> I'm well aware that productive conversations with men like upsidedown aren't going to happen, but men who like and even just willfully ignore when guys behave like that are also part of the problem.
> 
> Speak up boys. Letting it slide makes everyone else look bad.


There are some posters that are exhausting to interchange with and they are still going to be stuck in their quagmire.

Some boldly , broad strokes with a wide brush that are blatantly wrong get answered by me regardless.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> How is that behaving badly? I never **** shamed. I just had no interest in them after they gave themselves so easily.


Yeah...? And men complain why sex is not given easily ....then the'll move on to the next chick.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> How is that behaving badly? I never **** shamed. I just had no interest in them after they gave themselves so easily.


Doesn't that cut your way as well?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> How is that behaving badly? I never **** shamed. I just had no interest in them after they gave themselves so easily.


I pray that you marry a chaste woman like PD. Making you wait for months, then limiting you to missionary PIV, will prove her sexual virtue. She won’t have any orgasms, as that would be ****ty, and consequently it’ll be a sexless marriage. But it’ll be worth it.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

badsanta said:


> Generally speaking loving someone is about allowing yourself and your partner to be completely known, seen, and accepted. When a partner says something to the notion of, "I don't like this and I never want you to do it or talk about it ever again" it can come across as a form of rejection.
> 
> For example let's use an example of anal sex. Early in a relationship the woman was eager to please and willing to do things outside her comfort zone. Later in the relationship she decided that she decided she could no longer tolerate it from one moment to the next and that it would never happen again without any discussion with her partner about it what so ever. As a result the male in the relationship finds himself feeling shamed and rejected because he still desires something that was once OK but is suddenly labeled as something that causes pain and is off limits. He may wonder if it was always painful, and those memories of anal in the relationship will be problematic at best.
> 
> ...


1st wife:

Because she tried anal, after several attempts she tells her husband it does nothing for her 
and lately it leaves her feeling sore or in pain afterwards. Anal is off the menu.

Husband says thank you trying it with me. I hear you, it does not get you off and worse
it causes you pain. No problem with you taking anal off of the full sex menu.

2nd wife:

She never did anal. She told her husband that. Said you marry me your never getting anal.
Husband accepts that and because it is the truth what happened to Steve will never happen
to him.

3rd wife:

There was nothing left on the full sex menu that she did not do. Though when asked for the full sex menu,
she choose her words carefully hoping her husband to be will interpret that she is not into full sex menu and she
has never done the full sex menu. So husband marries her because he can live without the full sex menu.
Then an old friend from his wife's past tells him that his wife did the full sex menu.

I applaud wife #1 and 2#. They were honest.

Wife #3 is a manipulator.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Lila said:


> Again, I don't care about Steve or PD. I'm speaking in general terms to the subject of this thread.
> 
> GGG is the goal however there are two things that are always missing from the GGG argument and that's GGG _within "acceptable" limits_ and "Price of Admission". Dan Savage talks about these hand in hand but people seem to always toss those out of the conversation. No, everything WILL NOT be on the menu. We all have our boundaries. The "price of admission" to be with a person in any kind of sexual relationship is to accept that those boundaries are off the menu, regardless of history. Period. If the price of admission is too high, then that relationship has to end.


It is not about taking things off the menu even if they were done before.
It is about lying, misleading, manipulating, lying by omission.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> It is not about taking things off the menu even if they were done before.
> It is about lying, misleading, manipulating, lying by omission.


Again, I don't understand how not wanting to do something that was done before is lying, misleading, manipulating or lying by omission. I am not sure how much more honest a person can be when they say "I'm not going to do XYZ with you".


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

oldtruck said:


> Though when asked for the full sex menu, she choose her words carefully hoping her husband to be will interpret that she is not into full sex menu and she has never done the full sex menu. So husband marries her because he can live without the full sex menu. Then an old friend from his wife's past tells him that his wife did the full sex menu.


PD straight up said that she didn’t like anything but vanilla. No carefully chosen words, no implying, just saying she’s not into anything but vanilla.

Steve is a terrible lover. The vast majority of women can’t (or don’t) orgasm from intercourse, and even with those who do, few can orgasm consistently that way. The easiest ways for a woman to orgasm in sex are cunnilingus and vibrators, but Steve never uses those with his wife. He doesn’t use different positions to try and hit the right spots. Women who don’t orgasm with their partners generally try to avoid sex, and rightfully so. Especially when it’s the same thing every time, over and over, with no variation.

After 25 years of sex, he still fails his wife completely in the bedroom and consequently he richly deserves the sexless marriage he no doubt suffers. He’s not a real man, and deep down PD knows it. He’s never progressed beyond the futile moves of an inexperienced young boy. Not only is he physically unattractive, he sucks in bed to boot. And woman talk. No doubt PD’s girlfriends know that Steve sucks in bed and look down on him for it, snicker about him behind his back. Rightfully so. Some have no doubt told their husbands, who know that Steve isn’t a real man and can’t satisfy his wife in bed.

At least PD has the memories of Dave, a magnificent lover who was far and away better than Steve. He did whatever it took to please her, and he kept things varied so that sex never got boring. Again, women talk. She raved about her sex life to her friends, leading one of them to speak glowingly of Dave as a ”super stud.” On the downside, though, not only does Steve still suck at sex after 25 years of experience (!!!), but the gap between Steve and a real man like Dave is so vast that he suffers all the more in comparison. PD may love still but there’s no way that she can respect that sexually ineffective boy of a man.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Every couple's individual and combined chemistry is different. I think we go to way too much trouble trying to establish norms and what's ok and what's not when the reality is nearly the entire conversation should be about boundaries. I think if both parties are HONEST about boundaries, you're good. If one party doesn't accept the boundaries of the other, and says so, great. But if they claim to accept them and then end up holding back on things the other party expected to know... that's bad. Really bad.

This is stuff that should come up anytime a relationship begins to get serious. There really isn't any excuse for not bringing it up. If you have "no boundary issues" that doesn't mean the other person doesn't. There are two people in a relationship, not one.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > How is that behaving badly? I never **** shamed. I just had no interest in them after they gave themselves so easily.
> ...


My lady keeps me happy and she was chaste (relatively) before we met. My ex however was the opposite and we had a dead bedroom. Funny how that works.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Lila said:


> Again, I don't understand how not wanting to do something that was done before is lying, misleading, manipulating or lying by omission. I am not sure how much more honest a person can be when they say "I'm not going to do XYZ with you".


Read PD's thread.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> Read PD's thread.


I don't care about PD's thread. My posts are in response to the OP of THIS thread. 

If you want to discuss PD's specific issues, then stop responding to my posts because they are not specific to that situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > Ya, I noticed the like.
> ...


I do understand your position and I know your general posting habits. They are consistent.

However, let’s say I am a woman posting and am consistently saying things like...

Men are just a wallet to me. I am not really interested in him unless he buys me things.

Even if he does, I won’t really give my best sex to him because he is a chump.

I save my best sex for just my **** buddies who are super hot.

My main game is to get a guy to commit to me so I can drain his wallet and then give him little in return sexually. I think it’s hilarious when he buys me a diamond bracelet and all he gets back is a kiss on the cheek. I don’t even thank him I just expect it.

One of these days I’ll get one of them to marry me and pay for everything, but I’ll still be keeping my **** buddy around for sex on the side.

Now....

According to red pill dudes, there are lots of women like this.

So here I come, telling all the men that you are idiots and most women are like me.

It seems that you and all the men would not only come to beat me down, every woman here would also curb stomp me. The women would tell me I’m an idiot and an ******* and that I do not speak for them.

Some of the red pill dudes might say “oh hey a woman who is being honest for once!”

And the regular men at TAM would tell me I’m full of crap and that they hope I meet a guy who leaves me high and dry some day with a bunch of kids and no money.

And yet....

We have upside down who regularly posts the male version of the idiot woman I just described.

He’s not run out of town on a rail. He is just ignored by decent men and is “liked” by others who I thought were decent.

Why?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I do understand your position and I know your general posting habits. They are consistent.
> 
> However, let’s say I am a woman posting and am consistently saying things like...
> 
> ...


There are some here that I don't take seriously and as for the other posters liking a post from him??? Sometimes I like a post that has one aspect I agree with even if I don't agree with the poster in general or even the rest of their post. Laziness on my part for not quoting what I like....


There are some posters that I couldn't disagree with more but "dancing" with them just leaves me with sore feet.:wink2:

I did question him a couple times and received no response.

I guess I wonder how him sleeping with a woman on a first date makes her unworthy but not him? That kind of blows the old noodle out of the pot.

I'm not sure if it is even in line with the thread.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

“I guess I wonder how him sleeping with a woman on a first date makes her unworthy but not him? That kind of blows the old noodle out of the pot.”

Really? Reading any of his posts will show you how horrible his views of women are in general. It’s not about sex. It’s about shaming and putting down women 

This isn’t even close to his worst post. Doesn’t look like anyone calls him out ever.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

Lila said:


> I keep seeing the word "selfish" used to describe women who will not perform sexual acts for their partners.
> 
> They're labeled "deceitful, dishonest, and uncommitted to a true loving, self-sacrificing relationship with their partner" when they are unwilling to overlook boundaries and hard limits......even if they did communicate those boundaries clearly early on.
> 
> ...



That's a complete distortion of my post. I said very clearly that it would be HONEST if the woman would say right out that "I have these sexual boundaries WITH YOU that I did not have before with other and may not have again in future relationships." That's honest. Even if she says that the details of any prior boundary crossing is none of his business, it is still honest. The deceit and dishonesty occur when the limits are presented in a way that lead her partner to believe these are fixed hard boundaries which have never been crossed. (Hence the use of the word "hard limits". If they've been crossed before, they're fluid/situational, not "hard".) 

And a woman who, BY OMISSION, leads her partner to think these are constant, immutable limits when they actually have been crossed willingly before, she is NOT "communicating these limits clearly early on". She is MISREPRESENTING the situation with a half-truth. And she knows it too. That's deceit. 


And her partner is perfectly free to demonstrate his self-sacrifice by accepting her rules, AS LONG AS HE KNOWS THE TRUTH/IS NOT BEING DECEIVED EVEN BY OMISSION. Otherwise he's not demonstrating his love, he is only being a victim of deceit.

Don't distort my post to try to, in effect, defend deceit. It's only a two-way street if honesty is involved. You're doing verbal somersaults to try to defend the indefensible.

It's very easy. Say from the start: "These are my boundaries WITH YOU. They have been crossed with others before, and may be with others in the future. I'm not going to discuss the details of other relationships. But this is all you get."
THAT'S honest. THAT gives her partner the full information to make a truly informed decision. Otherwise, by hiding the SITUATIONAL nature of the boundaries, she is being dishonest and deceitful, particularly when she knows damn well he interprets her statement to mean she has never crossed these boundaries, even though she may not have said that outright.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

Lila said:


> Again, I don't understand how not wanting to do something that was done before is lying, misleading, manipulating or lying by omission. I am not sure how much more honest a person can be when they say "I'm not going to do XYZ with you".


 By saying "I'm not going to do XYZ with you even though I may have done it with others". 

That's a FULL truth rather than a half-truth.

And a half-truth is lying.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > I do understand your position and I know your general posting habits. They are consistent.
> ...


Okee doke. 

I guess other men feel similar.

Yet like I said, if I came here blasting the kinds of posts I made up in my scenario, the women of TAM would respond to me letting me know I’m an asshat. Every one of them would beat me to a pulp. Not one of them would agree with me or like any of my posts. Most would probably think I’m a troll because women don’t think like that.

And yet, the equivalent happens with upside down over and over and the men just let it ride, or they like what he has to say.

IME, this is part of the picture of the TAM demographic. 

There are men like upside here, but I do not see women like the red pill describes women here. Supposedly women are gold digging hypergamous *****s. Somehow those women do not come here and talk openly.

But the red pill men who hate women like that come and represent.

Man hating women who just want a mans wallet are not represented here and we would kick her ass if one showed up.

I try to have empathy for men, especially red pill men because it seems like all of them got there via a heartbreak of some kind.

Some people just snap and there are women who hate and fear men because one of them broke her heart or harmed and traumatized her.

I give a pass for some of the times in a person’s life while they are adjusting to a huge painful life event.

If they continue on and encourage others to be cruel to the opposite sex after they have moved on from the event, then they are just so different from me that I distance myself.

I still try to be compassionate.

I don’t talk about men like they are chumps and dumpable for reasons like not spending enough on me on a date, like test them just to see if they will spend $100 or $500 on me without even “giving” him sex. Just to see if he’s an idiot or not and take his money if he is and then make fun of him for being an idiot and so deserves to be chumped and dumped by every woman he meets.

If I was saying those things, there is not one person at TAM who would support me.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> I guess I wonder how him sleeping with a woman on a first date makes her unworthy but not him? That kind of blows the old noodle out of the pot.
> 
> I'm not sure if it is even in line with the thread.


I once questioned him about this once and the conversation descended into madness.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Tiggy! said:


> I once questioned him about this once and the conversation descended into madness.


Well at least he answered you.:laugh:

I guess I just don't interact that much with, as you accurately describes it, madness.

On the subject of the OP, I have to work hard to come up with a hypothetical scenerio to even find something to relate to.

The only thing, hypothetically, that I could see having a problem with, is if Mrs. C refused to do oral at all while claiming she never did it and didn't want to or did it a few times and hated it and I somehow found out that she use to do it a lot and really liked it with others.

We would have a real problem but the scenerio is hypothetical for the reason that it is so outlandish.

I have never encountered anything like any circumstance in this thread.

I just don't get it but I'm trying to understand what is going on with those this has happened to.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Wolfman1968 said:


> That's a complete distortion of my post. I said very clearly that it would be HONEST if the woman would say right out that "I have these sexual boundaries WITH YOU that I did not have before with other and may not have again in future relationships." That's honest. Even if she says that the details of any prior boundary crossing is none of his business, it is still honest. The deceit and dishonesty is when the limits are presented in a way that leads her partner to believe these are fixed hard boundaries which have never been crossed. (Hence the use of the word "hard limits".) And her partner is perfectly free to demonstrate his self-sacrifice by accepting her rules, AS LONG AS HE KNOWS THE TRUTH/IS NOT BEING DECEIVED EVEN BY OMISSION. Otherwise he's not demonstrating his love, he is only being a victim of deceit.
> 
> Don't distort my post to try to, in effect, defend deceit. It's only a two-way street if honesty is involved.


Nope no distortion. You just feel that anything short of full disclosure of history is lies and deceit. Whereas I think facts are facts regardless of their history. 

Example, you interview for a managerial job. The offer is for $x. When you attempt to negotiate, they tell you "sorry, this position pays $x". Regardless of what they historically paid others in that same position, they are being honest with you by saying "this position pays $x" because that is what they are offering. Would you call them liars for learning later on that the guy who had the job before you got paid more than you? Of course not. It's job negotiation. You can have gone somewhere else for job if the $x was so important.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Wolfman1968 said:


> By saying "I'm not going to do XYZ with you even though I may have done it with others".
> 
> That's a FULL truth rather than a half-truth.
> 
> And a half-truth is lying.


I do not agree with you but it's nevertheless interesting to learn how others think.


----------



## 2&out (Apr 16, 2015)

I will jump in and again say this thread is just fascinating. Has been difficult for me to keep up ! LOL. I will say I've lost respect for several of the men and will skip their posts going forward - which I was already doing on some. I applaud the ladies who are willing to ask why ? / really ?? on posts. I am personally floored by some of the reading on this thread. Do some really believe what they are writing or is it just to get a rise / reaction ? I hope the second. I seriously doubt they would except what they are saying if imposed on them.

Reading TAM is therapeutic and in some ways great for me. Yes I failed on 2 relationships I really hoped and planned to last. And why I read. To manage my relationships going forward, see red flags/BS, and what NOT to do.  I have a question - especially to the men. If you are married is this how you manage your relationship ? Are the comments here what your wife also thinks and agrees ? The demands / expectations. If not married/in long term relationship is the stuff on this thread what you expect ? 

I'm kind of on the Alpha side and proud and rather successful. Don't need to take BS from much of anyone. But I realized many years ago that ZZ Top was right - "It's a planet of women" (What a cool song) We don't dictate the relationship to a real woman of quality. They do. And we do our best to maintain our identity and be an equal. If we get to equal we've won. Admit it.

Peace to all.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> This isn’t even close to his worst post. Doesn’t look like anyone calls him out ever.


Except when they do.



Personal said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think so, but I do value women who aren't promiscuous. I am taken now, but when I was single, I'd try to get in their pants on the first date. If it succeeded, then I'd get sex then I'd never contact them again. If I failed, I'd see them as LTR material. Its a win win.
> ...





Personal said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone like what? If you are willing to jump in bed on the first date, what are you expecting? There is nothing underhanded about it. Got to weed out the bad bets to get to the good ones.
> ...





Personal said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > Its no different than any body else. We all have values and standards. I don't see any value in a woman with a high count that jumps in bed on the first date. I've already had sex with her, why would I want to take time to get to know her? Most men prefer a little bit of a challenge...
> ...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> And then @Buddy400 goes and likes this post.
> 
> At that point, I just scratch my head.
> 
> ...


"Like"s are weird.

To me, it can mean that I agree, or "that's a valid point". 

I do think many guys only care about "getting their ****s wet" (or at least, as I think I explained in a comment, they give it too much weight). I don't "Like" that many guy's ARE like this (I don't, I think guys who do that are idiots), I was "Agreeing" that I think this is often the case.

Then again, often times I "Like" a post by you or someone else that I don't agree with but I think you've made a fair point or I like the spirit in which you're participating in the discussion.

I think we could use two buttons.

To be clear in the future, I'll try to "Agree" in a response and stick to using "Like" in the second meaning. 

We've been at this long enough that, if I post ( or Like) something that seems out of character, I'd appreciate it if your asking me to explain. It may turn out that I really am a ****, but at least we'll be certain of it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Personal said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > This isn’t even close to his worst post. Doesn’t look like anyone calls him out ever.
> ...


Thank you.

This is why I mentioned you earlier.

You are far closer to the men I know in real life than most here. Even though sometimes I can’t relate to some of your specific experiences, I can relate to your respect for women and your willingness to call bull****.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > And then @Buddy400 goes and likes this post.
> ...


I respect you but I feel very anxious about a lot of your posts and I fear you to some extent because of some of things you say (my interpretation of you).

I don’t fear anything physical, it is a different level of fear.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Upside,

I’m not speaking as a mod, just a fellow male traveler.

What you’re doing is IDENTICAL to when a woman keeps encouraging a guy to take her to nice places, when she has zero intention of ever sleeping with him. 

The trouble with this type predatory behavior (yours or its mirror image above) is that it is difficult to turn on and off. 



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> How is that behaving badly? I never **** shamed. I just had no interest in them after they gave themselves so easily.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> See, this kind of stuff drives me crazy when men don't challenge it.
> 
> Upside down openly admits that he tries to **** every girl on the first date, then rejects her as being a **** if she goes for it.
> 
> ...


Hmmm.... 
@UpsideDownWorld11 does seem to be the most "Red Pill" of the regular posters.

I do think he says some things that ring true for me although I think the attitude sure isn't helping get the point across. I've often said that just because someone you don't usually agree with says something, that doesn't mean it's not true. There are threads where I've taken a clear stand against some of the Red Pill stuff (like female hypergamy).

I'd say that I probably let a lot of things slide because, in my view, they seem so out of line that I don't believe anyone is taking them seriously. Most of his posts (and those like it) seem to be about just tossing grenades into the room than attempts to genuinely make a point. I'll try to focus on this more.

In the mean time, if you'd like to hear more from guys about a troubling post, maybe post that you'd like to hear other guy's views on the subject?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You should already know what men are thinking. And it isn't about your political views or education or job.


Speak for yourself, all of that and more matter to me as well.



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Not at first. They are just trying to get their **** wet. Later on, once in a relationship, that stuff is useful to scrutinize.


I've had sex with women minutes through a few hours after meeting them and from first through third dates at the latest as well. Yet I was never just looking for sex, with all of them if the sex worked for all, and we both still liked each other then an ongoing relationship would often happily begin.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM2020 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> You must be having sport with me.
> 
> ...


I thought I was agreeing that hot/crazy for women was equivalent to hot/stable for men (which, I now realize would be an incorrect answer on an IQ test, but I still thought that the point I was trying to make was clear) .

I was just saying that I thought women weren't as paranoid about being chosen for something other than sex appeal as men are.

Or am I still missing something?

Looks like I was on a bad roll there and I've still got two pages to catch up on :surprise:


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure, whatever you say.
> 
> I'll step out and let you represent the men of TAM. Have fun.


Ack! No. Don't let yourself be chased away!

Edit: Good, I see you didn't


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> See, this kind of stuff drives me crazy when men don't challenge it.
> 
> Upside down openly admits that he tries to **** every girl on the first date, then rejects her as being a **** if she goes for it.
> 
> ...


I do and I'm not the only man that does.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

lovelygirl said:


> Yeah...? And men complain why sex is not given easily ....then the'll move on to the next chick.


Ignore men who complain about sex not being given easily, that's how you avoid men like him.

But, you already know that.

Not that I have a problem with having sex whenever one pleases. For my wife and I it was our second date (and the first one where it was a possibility). It was her idea (even though she'd promised herself that she wouldn't).


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lila said:


> Again, I don't understand how not wanting to do something that was done before is lying, misleading, manipulating or lying by omission. I am not sure how much more honest a person can be when they say "I'm not going to do XYZ with you".


I know you don't understand it and certainly don't agree with it.

But several people have tried to explain in detail why it would matter to them (along the general line of "it's the thought that counts") and you've never really acknowledged their points. You've just kept repeating that you don't understand. I know you don't understand, it's certainly okay to not understand, but it really doesn't seem to me as though you've tried. Obviously, that's okay too. Of course you don't owe anyone a responsive reply.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> *I don’t fear anything physical*, it is a different level of fear.


God, I would hope not!

Really, my wife thinks I'm the greatest guy in the world!

Women I work with like me! 

Both ** of my ex-wives would speak well of me if asked! 

I've never done anything that would even *approach* sexual harassment!

(** short, early marriages. Married to my wife for 30 years, all my kids with her, etc, etc,)


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > *I don’t fear anything physical*, it is a different level of fear.
> ...


I get that but that’s why it’s scary when you “like” upside’s posts. Because it feels like you are a decent good guy and then you agree with or like something completely vile that he says.

If I did the same, but I can’t because there are no equivalent women posting here about how they ****ed over a stupid chump, I believe you would pummel me or at the very least stand up against what I was saying on behalf of decent people.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

2&out said:


> I will jump in and again say this thread is just fascinating. Has been difficult for me to keep up ! LOL. I will say I've lost respect for several of the men and will skip their posts going forward - which I was already doing on some. I applaud the ladies who are willing to ask why ? / really ?? on posts. I am personally floored by some of the reading on this thread. Do some really believe what they are writing or is it just to get a rise / reaction ? I hope the second. I seriously doubt they would except what they are saying if imposed on them.
> 
> Reading TAM is therapeutic and in some ways great for me. Yes I failed on 2 relationships I really hoped and planned to last. And why I read. To manage my relationships going forward, see red flags/BS, and what NOT to do. <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" ></a> I have a question - especially to the men. If you are married is this how you manage your relationship ? Are the comments here what your wife also thinks and agrees ? The demands / expectations. If not married/in long term relationship is the stuff on this thread what you expect ?
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

Lila said:


> Nope no distortion. You just feel that anything short of full disclosure of history is lies and deceit. Whereas I think facts are facts regardless of their history.
> 
> Example, you interview for a managerial job. The offer is for $x. When you attempt to negotiate, they tell you "sorry, this position pays $x". Regardless of what they historically paid others in that same position, they are being honest with you by saying "this position pays $x" because that is what they are offering. Would you call them liars for learning later on that the guy who had the job before you got paid more than you? Of course not. It's job negotiation. You can have gone somewhere else for job if the $x was so important.



Of course it's a distortion. In fact, you just distorted my post again---and in fact, said the exact opposite. 

I NEVER said that "anything short of full disclosure of history is lies and deceit". I say that MISREPRESENTING the nature of the boundary as a fixed an immutable one rather than a situational one is deceit. And it is. 
In fact, I specifically said it would be honest to say "I will not discuss any details of prior relationships." *Full disclosure of history IS NOT REQUIRED to be honest, just honest about the nature of the boundary.* You're flat out lying about what I post, as I have posted the *exact opposite* of what you claim I say.

Your position reeks of approval of manipulation and deceit through omission. Why would someone ever try to justify legalistic word games with the person whom they are supposed to value above all else? If the relationship is at that point, it's trashed. 


And your managerial salary negotiation argument actually undermines your position. 
The candidate knows damn well that his offer is dependent of his worth to the company. The employer may not want to outright tell the candidate that others may have been paid more before, but at the same time, the candidate would not typically think that no one else could be paid more, either. There is not the IMPLIED falsehood in that situation that is likely to arise when stating sexual boundaries. It's not lie because no false information is transmitted, either explicitly or implicitly, and no false conclusions are drawn by the candidate. On the other hand, it is quite likely that a woman's partner will interpret the boundaries incorrectly as truly fixed ones, and what's more, the woman will typically know damn well that's how he understood it as well. And THAT'S what makes it a half-truth and THAT'S what makes deceitful. 

Furthermore, your whole job negotiation example illustrates exactly why the shifting boundaries issues are so hurtful. The salary offer, and the maximum salary that the employer is willing to pay is going to be dependent on the value of the candidate to the company. In a similar fashion, I firmly believe that in the vast majority of cases, the fluid/relationship-dependent boundaries (as opposed to TRULY fixed boundaries) are dependent on the level of sexual interest, excitement, passion, etc. the woman has for the partner and/or even the value that she places on him so that she would want to expand those boundaries to keep him interested. There are obviously going to be some exceptions to this, but I think that in the vast majority of cases, this is true. Just like the salary offer of your example.


In the end, your way of thinking not only makes no sense, in my opinion it leads to a manipulative, distrusting relationship.
Since the whole "fluid boundaries" issue is about transmitting a FALSE understanding through omission, much BETTER hypothetical examples (better than your job interview example) would be:

My wife's car is low on gas, not enough to make a commute to work. For reasons of my own, I only put 10 cents of gas in the car. I tell her, "I put gas in your car". She finds out later that it's still almost empty, not enough to get her to work. What I said was true, but it lead to a false understanding on her part. Was I deceitful? Did I misrepresent? Following your logic, it would be "no". By my logic, that false information was communicated, the answer is "yes".

We're packing for a trip. My wife takes 4 medications necessary for her health. I tell her, "I put your medication in my suitcase". Only later does she find out that the medication packed was only 1 of the 4. Was what I said strictly true? Did it lead to a false understanding? Did I know damn well that she would misinterpret it? Is it therefore a deceit/misrepresentation? Your logic says "no", but mine says "yes."

I tell my wife that before we met I had a two-year torrid sexual affair with a woman in which we were really wild, but I don't want to talk about it. I don't tell her that the woman is her man-eating sister, whom we now live near and have daily contact with and to whom she always felt inferior. Did I tell her a half-truth? Is there a level of deceit here?

We could go on with countless other examples, all the way down to Bill Clinton saying he didn't lie about sex with Monica Lewinsky because it depends on what "IS" is. It doesn't matter. Any way you cut it, if you transmit false information, even by omission, then it's deceit.

I'm going also ask you, and any other reader to step back and really think about the situation:

A woman knows what's important to her partner. She tells him her boundaries, but knows damn well that he believes they're fixed boundaries which have never been crossed, even though she's done XYZ with others before, and may with others in the future, just not with him. She knows that in his MISTAKEN understanding of the situation, and even though he would like XYZ, he loves and values her so much that he his willing to respect that boundary and doesn't want to hurt her or make her feel bad about sex. (Right there is a sexual transformation on his part, consisted with the research I referenced and which you snarkily mocked during your misrepresentation of my posts.) She is willing to use his misunderstanding for her own purposes and needs, rather than clear up his misconception and come to a compromise with both parties fully informed (or go their own way if no compromise is possible). 

Is this how you would like your life partner to approach your relationship? By getting what they want by keeping you in the dark? By misrepresentation and deceit? And not just in sexual matters, but in any aspect of your relationship? I mean, you have gone through all sorts of contortions to try to justify the half-truths, but is that REALLY how YOU would want to be treated in your relationship? Would it really not matter to you? I would never want to be with a person who would go through all sorts of legalese justifications in situations like this. 

In the end, we're supposed to live by the "Golden Rule", even though it seems not many people do these days. I would never want to be led to false conclusions by my spouse's half-truths, and would not live that way myself. I believe that these half-truths really violate the way anyone would want to be treated, and for the that reason, they shouldn't trade in half-truths themselves.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

MEM2020 said:


> Upside,
> 
> I’m not speaking as a mod, just a fellow male traveler.
> 
> ...



And this is why I don't respond to Upside. I called him out once on a post of his (long ago) and he did not respond, I then began noting the patterns in his posts and, concluded he was (or pretends to be) a predator when it comes to relationships with women. Not to mention I think he is intentionally a ****-stirrer.

I don't take his bait ... it's a waste of my time.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Nope no distortion. You just feel that anything short of full disclosure of history is lies and deceit. Whereas I think facts are facts regardless of their history.
> ...


Wolfman, your examples of "like" scenarios aren't nearly the same. 

The gas in the car: the scenario you describe isn't the same at all. Here's one that is: Your girlfriend wants you to be the kind of guy who takes her car and goes and fills it up with gas for her when it is running low. You let her know you aren't going to be doing that for her, you aren't interested in doing that. She needs to be responsible for her own car and it's fuel level. What you don't tell her is that you used to do that for a woman you had a fling with a couple of years ago. While you were in the throes of this fling you had, you did a whole bunch of intense relationship things-- heck you were only 21 and experimenting with experiences and dynamics with a woman. Ultimately, the fling ends. You think to yourself that doing that gas service for her during your fling ultimately made you feel ***** whipped, you learned from that experience--and you don't want to feel that way about yourself in this current relationship nor do you want her to see you that way.

Bottom line is this is something you now aren't interested in doing. You let her know that being "gas man" is something you don't want to be. She decides she can live with that and proceeds with the relationship and even marries you.

You were honest with your current girlfriend: you don't want to be hey gas man. She accepted that and still continued the relationship. There was no lie. 

Just because you experimented with some behavior in a previous relationship at a young age doesn't mean you are lying if in a new relationship a couple of years later that behavior is something you AREN'T INTERESTED IN DOING and you let you new partner know you aren't into that.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Of course it's a distortion. In fact, you just distorted my post again---and in fact, said the exact opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sometimes mirroring what you believe a person is saying can help show where you disagree. Getting it wrong in a clear, explicit way helps to show you what she’s hearing you say so that you can correct the misunderstanding.





> Your position reeks of approval of manipulation and deceit through omission. Why would someone ever try to justify legalistic word games with the person whom they are supposed to value above all else?


I disagree.





> On the other hand, it is quite likely that a woman's partner will interpret the boundaries incorrectly as truly fixed ones, and what's more, the woman will typically know damn well that's how he understood it as well. And THAT'S what makes it a half-truth and THAT'S what makes deceitful.


I think deception requires intent. Saying “I won’t do X with you” is not generally intended to mean anything but what it literally says. “I won’t do X with you because I’m not into doing X with you,” that’s different and could be deceitful if the meaning is that I love doing X but just not with you.





> Furthermore, your whole job negotiation example illustrates exactly why the shifting boundaries issues are so hurtful. The salary offer, and the maximum salary that the employer is willing to pay is going to be dependent on the value of the candidate to the company. In a similar fashion, I firmly believe that in the vast majority of cases, the fluid/relationship-dependent boundaries (as opposed to TRULY fixed boundaries) are dependent on the level of sexual interest, excitement, passion, etc. the woman has for the partner and/or even the value that she places on him so that she would want to expand those boundaries to keep him interested. There are obviously going to be some exceptions to this, but I think that in the vast majority of cases, this is true. Just like the salary offer of your example.


Everyone wants the highest salary possible and the most salary to the most valuable employee (in theory, not practice). Sex is different. I agree that women will often dress more sexually and do more sexually with a guy that they are more sexually attracted to. She might do a threesome for a very hot guy, but not for a less attractive guy. At the same time, a woman may not want to perform threesomes in an important relationship, such as her marriage or one that might lead to marriage. So, although it is counter-intuitive, the more valuable guy might get less in some ways as evidence of his _higher_ value. Unlike salary.




> My wife's car is low on gas, not enough to make a commute to work. For reasons of my own, I only put 10 cents of gas in the car. I tell her, "I put gas in your car". She finds out later that it's still almost empty, not enough to get her to work. What I said was true, but it lead to a false understanding on her part. Was I deceitful? Did I misrepresent? Following your logic, it would be "no". By my logic, that false information was communicated, the answer is "yes".


Your example is one where the statement is literally, technically true but wildly misleading. I see no comparison to that and “I won’t do X with you.” A fairer comparison might be if a woman said I will give you oral sex, then she puts her mouth on you for one second. Or you think her best friend is hot and ask for a threesome. She finally agrees to a threesome, you’re waiting in bed, and she steps into the room with Tyrone and his BBC. 

But “anal won’t be a part of our relationship” means exactly what it says, nothing more and nothing less. You can ask her why, whether she’s done it before, etc. But nothing is being implied as to reasoning or past actions by the statement. Maybe she hates it. Maybe your penis is larger than her previous boyfriends, who knows.

She isn’t implying anything by “I won’t do X with you,” and you are probably being unreasonable if you infer anything from it about her past or motivations. The problem in on you, not her.





> I'm going also ask you, and any other reader to step back and really think about the situation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If H says to W that you really should try anal sex once, just to see if you like it, and she replies, “no thanks, I won’t even try anal sex with you,” but she’d done it a million time in her past, her factually true statement of the boundary would be deceitful in that context. But only because of the context.

If H suddenly brings up wanting to try anal and she says, “no, we won’t be doing that,” it’s not deceitful even if she did it a million times before and always loved it. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I don't really see the point of telling her husband about her past sexual relationships in the first place? What is that going to achieve? Hold on... he is going to be pissed off, because he's married the bland copy and not the sexual predator of 20 years ago... that's going to do a lot of good to their marriage... sometimes, you have to be a bit economical with the truth.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> I guess I wonder how him sleeping with a woman on a first date makes her unworthy but not him? That kind of blows the old noodle out of the pot.


It's men like @UpsideDownWorld11 that have put women off from giving themselves freely without prejudices. 
I know that most men here in Albania think like _UpsideDown_ and it's unfair and double standard-ish and hypocrisy, but unfortunately, it's how it works.

That's why women have to lie about their past, have to lower the number of their exes, have to act prudish even when married / relationship. It all stems from the mentality of guys like _Upside_. These guys were either raised in a family where the female gender is seen as weak and less worthy or from a conservative family where virginity is what values a woman. 

Therefore, the fewer the number, the better the woman. The more prudish she acts during the first dates, the more valuable this woman is considered. 

And yeah, these type of guys test the "waters" of such women and even try to play them or provoke them, to see if they'll easily give themselves sexually to these men. If they do, they fail. If they don't, they're worthy and wife-material. 

I am around these type of men very frequently, therefore I double/triple think before "giving myself" to a guy in general. 
I know it sounds stupid, as there's nothing to "give" yourself for. After all, I don't have to consider it as "giving" myself because I am supposed to have the same fun and desires as the other person. Men and women are sexual beings and it's normal for both genders to have sexual desires, but the mentality of the conservative families or undeveloped societies, consider sex as a valuable prize to "GIVE". 
They see women as something either weak or with less sexual desires. Therefore, women are stigmatized if they talk about sex or express their sexual desires as freely as men do.

For example, I know that (where I live) women like @Faithful Wife or @SlowlyGoingCrazy would be considered b*tches for their upfront personality and expressive sexual desires (which is normal), but most men over here would find them "over-the-top" or would only consider them for ONS, or would simply run away from them, feeling insecure. Crazy, isn't it?

That's why I don't blame most women and maybe I don't fully blame PD because there's a reason why women don't want to be fully transparent about their sexual past, and it's because of men's mentality about _prudish_ and "_good girl_" - ish.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Man hating women who just want a mans wallet are not represented here and we would kick her ass if one showed up.
> 
> I try to have empathy for men, especially red pill men because it seems like all of them got there via a heartbreak of some kind.


Exactly. 

There's been a trend in Albania in recent years where men complain about being "used" by women who see men only as a monetary source. 

And I always argue with my guy friends telling them that at the end of the day, women are not stupid. They make their own calculation just like men make theirs as well. 

Guys use women for sex so women use guys for money. Equal team players.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Lila said:


> Nope no distortion. You just feel that anything short of full disclosure of history is lies and deceit. Whereas I think facts are facts regardless of their history.


It is not that anything short of full disclosure is lying.

It is choosing words carefully let the other person to deliberately come to the wrong
conclusion.

One thing for a woman to refuse to talk about her past sex life.
Ok for her to not want to do certain sex acts.

Not ok to use words to make her BF/husband think that she also had never
done those things before she knew him. That is the deception.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

oldtruck said:


> Not ok to use words to make her BF/husband think that she also had never
> done those things before she knew him. That is the deception.


We don't know that... this is all she said:

_I told him I am not into what he calls "full menu sex" he has mostly accepted it._


*I'm not sure what men in this thread are getting out of distorting the truth at all cost? *


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> If H says to W that you really should try anal sex once, just to see if you like it, and she replies, “no thanks, I won’t even try anal sex with you,” but she’d done it a million time in her past, her factually true statement of the boundary would be deceitful in that context. But only because of the context.
> 
> If H suddenly brings up wanting to try anal and she says, “no, we won’t be doing that,” it’s not deceitful even if she did it a million times before and always loved it.
> 
> ...


I do not see any difference. In both statements the wife issues such a hard no to
anal sex that it is normal for the husband to assume his wife never did anal
before.

Why can a GF/wife be honest and just say I will not do anal because it hurts, it does 
nothing for me, I never orgasm from it. She is being honest. Her BF/husband knows
he is not her first kiss, she is not a virgin. No shame on her part trying new things.
No anger on his part because he has done and is now trying to do with her that is
trying new things.

The BF/husband knows that having a sexual relationship is finding a common
ground where both can have things that they do not want to do. She tried anal.
She did not like anal. She will not do anal ever again. He accepts this and he appreciates
her being honest.

Though when a wife leads the husband to believe that she never did anal, finds the
thought of doing disgusting. 25 years later the husband finds out that in her past the wife
did anal for years and for different lovers.

For 25 years a husband would say let's do anal just once I want to see what it is like.
Wife says no, I am not that kind of girl. At 25 years the husband asks, this time his
wife confesses that she did anal before she met him but it brings back such bad memories
that I do not want to go back their. Husband says I understand, we have a good sex life
without anal no problem.

Or after 25 years couples are out drinking and the wife's GF says I just ran into your
old BF, the one you dated for 2 years just before you started dating your husband. 
You know the one where the both of you could never get enough anal sex. Does your
husband like anal sex.

People here will claim he should not be mad because technically he was not lied to.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

oldtruck said:


> I do not see any difference. In both statements the wife issues such a hard no to
> anal sex that it is normal for the husband to assume his wife never did anal
> before.
> 
> ...



she never said any of this... it's your fabrications... can you point me to the post where Penny said all this? Thanks...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Could it be a shade of the Madonna Ho complex to judge a woman who sleeps with you on a first date harshly while giving yourself a pass?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> Wolfman, your examples of "like" scenarios aren't nearly the same.
> 
> The gas in the car: the scenario you describe isn't the same at all. Here's one that is: Your girlfriend wants you to be the kind of guy who takes her car and goes and fills it up with gas for her when it is running low. You let her know you aren't going to be doing that for her, you aren't interested in doing that. She needs to be responsible for her own car and it's fuel level. What you don't tell her is that you used to do that for a woman you had a fling with a couple of years ago. While you were in the throes of this fling you had, you did a whole bunch of intense relationship things-- heck you were only 21 and experimenting with experiences and dynamics with a woman. Ultimately, the fling ends. You think to yourself that doing that gas service for her during your fling ultimately made you feel ***** whipped, you learned from that experience--and you don't want to feel that way about yourself in this current relationship nor do you want her to see you that way.
> 
> ...


I'm in lockstep with this scenario. This isn't what happens all the time but I would guess that this is mostly what happens with people's histories.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> Could it be a shade of the Madonna Ho complex to judge a woman who sleeps with you on a first date harshly while giving yourself a pass?


Guys like that will often respond: “A key that opens many locks is a master key. A lock that opens for any key is a ****ty lock.”


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> We don't know that... this is all she said:
> 
> _I told him I am not into what he calls "full menu sex" he has mostly accepted it._
> 
> ...


Fair enough. She never stated or implied that she’d never done those things. But the women here are doing the same in the opposite direction.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

It was claimed that if one of the women here logged on as a troll and asserted that she (and women generally) want men only for their money, as the Red Pillers claim, that the TAM women would denounce her.

Perhaps they would.

Here’s my question: If she were to log in as a troll and claim that she follows Alpha Fux Beta Bucks (as the Red Pillers claim women do), that she had wild sex with sexy powerful alpha males, in every act and position possible, while young and then married a boring beta male “nice guy” and denied him any sexual activity except for missionary PIV for 25 years of marriage (thereby causing her husband to resent her refusals), telling him that she’s simply not into any sex acts other than vanilla, and now her H learned the truth and is angry and hurt and her marriage is in danger...

If that were to happen, would the women of TAM denounce the woman’s behavior, defend it, or sit by silently?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> I know you don't understand it and certainly don't agree with it.
> 
> But several people have tried to explain in detail why it would matter to them (along the general line of "it's the thought that counts") and you've never really acknowledged their points. *You've just kept repeating that you don't understand. I know you don't understand, it's certainly okay to not understand, but it really doesn't seem to me as though you've tried. *Obviously, that's okay too. Of course you don't owe anyone a responsive reply.


Lol. Let me fix that sentence for you.

"* everyone, including myself and you * are repeating that *we* don't understand * each other's side * I know *neither side* understands, but it really didn't seem to me as though * either side * has tried. That's okay. " 

For clarification, the word I should have used is agree. I don't agree with those who consider people who do not disclose their reasons for making a decision as liars, deceitful, manipulators.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Faithful Wife said:


> If I did the same, but I can’t because there are no equivalent women posting here about how they ****ed over a stupid chump, I believe you would pummel me or at the very least stand up against what I was saying on behalf of decent people.




True, technically. PD, the woman who posted about how she ****ed over a stupid chump isn’t posting here; she posted in the _other_ thread that the mods closed. But that’s a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Of course it's a distortion. In fact, you just distorted my post again---and in fact, said the exact opposite.
> 
> I NEVER said that "anything short of full disclosure of history is lies and deceit". I say that MISREPRESENTING the nature of the boundary as a fixed an immutable one rather than a situational one is deceit. And it is.
> In fact, I specifically said it would be honest to say "I will not discuss any details of prior relationships." *Full disclosure of history IS NOT REQUIRED to be honest, just honest about the nature of the boundary.* You're flat out lying about what I post, as I have posted the *exact opposite* of what you claim I say.
> ...


 @Livvie and @CraigBesuden did an excellent job of explaining why your analogies are not the same as the scenario I'm discussing with you. I'll admit that my scenario with the salary is probably not a good one either because it is more complicated than it needs to be. 

At the end of the day, you and I will never agree. All I need to make a go or no go decision is whether my needs are being met and my boundaries are being respected presently. 

If they are, then I'll take a chance and hope he continues to meet those needs and respect my boundaries in the future. I say hope because nothing in the future is guaranteed. 

If they are not, I don't need to know that he's specifIcally not doing those things for me or that he had a traumatic event that caused him to not want to do it do it for me. I am going to base my decision on the fact that he will not be doing it for me. I'm not moving forward regardless of how great and wonderful the person appears to be in every other area.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

oldtruck said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Nope no distortion. You just feel that anything short of full disclosure of history is lies and deceit. Whereas I think facts are facts regardless of their history.
> ...


 @oldtruck what words in this sentence are deliberately deceiving?

"I am not interested in doing x"

"X is not on the menu"


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

lovelygirl said:


> That's why I don't blame most women and maybe I don't fully blame PD because there's a reason why women don't want to be fully transparent about their sexual past, and it's because of men's mentality about _prudish_ and "_good girl_" - ish.



I don’t blame her for making a nice guy potential H wait for months for sex, even if she didn’t make alpha lovers wait at all. I wouldn’t blame her for lying about her number. I wouldn’t blame her for denying any sex acts other than PIV, oral and toys, and refusing sex anywhere but in bed. But I simply can’t imagine any man who would look down on a W for having sex in multiple positions, oral sex or using a vibrator with her H.

The story of PD is carefully written so as to preclude any reasonable person from defending her behavior. RJ and **** shaming by H are specifically excluded through the text of the OP, and put in all-caps. She didn’t just refuse H, but lied and said she’s not into anything but vanilla. The story is clear that she enjoyed those acts and calls it her very best sex by far and praises it for being varied, while refusing to allow H any variety. When confronted, she initially claims to have no reason for doing something that made her H feel resentment for 25 years. Etcetera.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Oldtruck,
Yours is a well written post that clearly pinpoints the symptom. IMO if you’re gonna ask, than ask the real question:

Did you ever love anyone more than me? 

Of course I would not ask that, but rather:

Are you still in love with an ex?

As to how physically ‘into’ you someone is, that really is easily gauged. 



oldtruck said:


> It is not that anything short of full disclosure is lying.
> 
> It is choosing words carefully let the other person to deliberately come to the wrong
> conclusion.
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Did I mention that I missed you FW.... 




Faithful Wife said:


> @Casual Observer
> 
> Since this is reality for you and your marriage and life are in the picture, I most certainly do not want to be disrespectful. I can see I do not have all the details. So if I want to make any more comments about your sitch I will go over to your thread and make sure I have all the relevant information.
> 
> Also, just want you to know that your being in pain makes me feel badly, and I will be softer in responding to you because it is not just a hypothetical situation for you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

In my experience, only highly skilled trolls write stories such as this. 




CraigBesuden said:


> I don’t blame her for making a nice guy potential H wait for months for sex, even if she didn’t make alpha lovers wait at all. I wouldn’t blame her for lying about her number. I wouldn’t blame her for denying any sex acts other than PIV, oral and toys, and refusing sex anywhere but in bed. But I simply can’t imagine any man who would look down on a W for having sex in multiple positions, oral sex or using a vibrator with her H.
> 
> The story of PD is carefully written so as to preclude any reasonable person from defending her behavior. RJ and **** shaming by H are specifically excluded through the text of the OP, and put in all-caps. She didn’t just refuse H, but lied and said she’s not into anything but vanilla. The story is clear that she enjoyed those acts and calls it her very best sex by far and praises it for being varied, while refusing to allow H any variety. When confronted, she initially claims to have no reason for doing something that made her H feel resentment for 25 years. Etcetera.
> 
> ...


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

lovelygirl said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I wonder how him sleeping with a woman on a first date makes her unworthy but not him? That kind of blows the old noodle out of the pot.
> ...


Well, there is a very easy remedy to this. Wait until you are in a committed relationship to have sex. Otherwise, see it for what it is, 2 people using each other for their bodily organs and nothing more. No one owes anyone anything until a committment has been made.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> lovelygirl said:
> 
> 
> > ConanHub said:
> ...


Decent people owe each other common decency.

I guess you are not one so of course you don’t owe anyone that.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

TAM is great for my relationship. It reminds me that there are men like upside down in the world and I am lucky as heck to have one that gladly sees me as both a sexual person and a exclusive partner, as had been since the time we had sex on the first date. 

Serious note:

Men like upside down are dangerous. It’s not just words on a forum. There’s an increasing problem from these types of angry, anti-feminist males that is becoming a threat to all of us women. 

They need to be shut down and not given encouragement to their hatred, that means the good men (because they don’t respect women enough to listen to us anyway) have to step up and speak out every time.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Decent people owe each other common decency.
> 
> I guess you are not one so of course you don’t owe anyone that.


Again, you can't explain how I was indecent. I never used deceit or anything underhanded.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> She didn’t just refuse H, but lied and said she’s not into anything but vanilla. The story is clear that she enjoyed those acts and calls it her very best sex by far and praises it for being varied, while refusing to allow H any variety. When confronted, she initially claims to have no reason for doing something that made her H feel resentment for 25 years. Etcetera.
> o


True. Actually, it's not about hiding her past. It's also about shutting H's mouth early on in marriage.... so that he wouldn't dare to ask for a full sex menu, because the truth was...she wasn't really sexually attracted to him. 

I'm afraid she was hiding behind her "good girl" fake image, not because of shame, but because she didnt want more than just vanilla with her H. Therefore she used the "good girl" as a cover because of lack of sexuality for her H, not because of a shameful past.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Again, you can't explain how I was indecent. I never used deceit or anything underhanded.


Provoking women and making them sleep with you so that you could test their "decency" is, in itself, indecency on your part.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> TAM is great for my relationship. It reminds me that there are men like upside down in the world and I am lucky as heck to have one that gladly sees me as both a sexual person and a exclusive partner, as had been since the time we had sex on the first date.
> 
> Serious note:
> 
> ...


Haha. You are only a victim if you don't give consent. Don't be so dramatic.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

lovelygirl said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you can't explain how I was indecent. I never used deceit or anything underhanded.
> ...


I didn't make anyone do anything. Its how I filtered out serious LTRs from the rest.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I partially agree with this. Only partially because 'committed' sex doesn't mean very much.



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, there is a very easy remedy to this. Wait until you are in a committed relationship to have sex. Otherwise, see it for what it is, 2 people using each other for their bodily organs and nothing more. No one owes anyone anything until a committment has been made.


And I partially disagree with this.



Faithful Wife said:


> Decent people owe each other common decency.
> 
> I guess you are not one so of course you don’t owe anyone that.


The modern hookup culture is not based on common decency. It's based on instant gratification with no commitment (of any true weight or value), responsiblity or obligation.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

The toxic males on TAM are why I end up leaving every time I try to come back here. No one shuts them down, they get validation for their hatred. They would be called out for their behavior in other places so they seem to hang out here because it's a safe place for their type, like incel forums that work each other up and feed off each other's bitterness. 

I keep hoping that some new men will join and have changed the skew because there's a lot of people here that I really enjoy reading, but I think a lot of men just get scared away from the extremism that is accepted. 

The men I know and respect wouldn't mingle with men like upsidedown and would call him out every single time because they don't want him speaking for all men. 

Maybe an I hate women club sub-forum is needed to keep them to one spot.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Decent people owe each other common decency.
> ...


Unless you told women up front that you specifically would not call them again if they had sex with you, which is called the truth, then were not decent because you were a lying *******.

Lying is deceit. And indecent. 

But you can tell yourself whatever you want. We know the truth.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

minimalME said:


> The modern hookup culture is not based on common decency. It's based on instant gratification with no commitment (of any true weight or value), responsiblity or obligation.


I've found many men that are wanting something committed and long term and will put the work in to get it, even when I sleep with them on the first date (which I very often do) 

There is absolutely a subset of men who just want easy sex but they are pretty easy to spot once you know the red flags and warning signs, then you just avoid them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

minimalME said:


> I partially agree with this. Only partially because 'committed' sex doesn't mean very much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When someone specifically knows they will not call again after sex, if they do not say so upfront, it is deceitful on purpose.

Do you think upside down actually told these women the truth? Do you think they would have slept with him if he did?

That’s the thing. If both parties know it’s just a one time hookup, then cool.

If one party pretends to actually like the other one and is interested but in reality they PLAN in advance to not call again if sex occurs, sorry this is just plain vile behavior and indecent.

Whereas the women he did this to probably actually liked him and wanted to keep seeing him. Meanwhile, he walked away and laughed about them being stupid ****s which he continues to laugh about here.

Decent? NO.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I have a hard time with this, and maybe I've misunderstood you?

Are you suggesting that shutting them down means censoring them? That they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions?

We either believe in free speech for all, or we don't. It's very dangerous territory to say who has a right to speak up and who doesn't.

We can disagree, we can block people, we can ignore their posts. 

But, unless folks are violating the forum rules, they have the right to post unpopular opinions. That's equality.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> *No one shuts them down*, they get validation for their hatred.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> > TAM is great for my relationship. It reminds me that there are men like upside down in the world and I am lucky as heck to have one that gladly sees me as both a sexual person and a exclusive partner, as had been since the time we had sex on the first date.
> ...


If other men and some mods do not step in and shut you down I’m going to leave TAM forever.

If you stay and keep this **** up, I’m out.

If TAM accepts your bull****, then it’s toxic and not somewhere I want to be. 
@Deejo
@MEM2020
@Lila


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > Faithful Wife said:
> ...


Why would I need to tell them that? There were plenty I didn't sleep with... there was just no chemistry. I never told them I wouldn't be calling them back. Was I lying to them to? Why is having meaningless sex anymore than that?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

minimalME said:


> I have a hard time with this, and maybe I've misunderstood you?
> 
> Are you suggesting that shutting them down means censoring them? That they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions?
> 
> ...


What he is talking about is equivalent to rape.

Deceit in order to get consent based on lies and mis truth.

Then laughing and bragging about it here.

If that’s ok with TAM, then they can have him.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Yes, those are excellent points.

I don't know how UD behaves - I haven't read any of his history. 

But many of my experiences have been as you've said (withholding intent), and that's basically what led me to stop dating. From the first date, I could see it for what it was, and it was consistently not what I wanted.




Faithful Wife said:


> When someone specifically knows they will not call again after sex, if they do not say so upfront, it is deceitful on purpose.
> 
> *Do you think upside down actually told these women the truth? Do you think they would have slept with him if he did?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> ...


Stop being disingenuous. 

Love your own bull**** all you want but no one else has to accept it or you.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

minimalME said:


> I have a hard time with this, and maybe I've misunderstood you?
> 
> Are you suggesting that shutting them down means censoring them? That they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions?
> 
> ...


"Free speech" doesn't come without consequences or the freedom from having people call you out when you say something horrible. Most men would not agree with or put up with men like upsidedown's views and would call them out every time they saw or heard it but it's not only rarely ever challenged here, but often encouraged. That is going to push away the good men who WOULD speak up and call them out. 

There's also no such thing as "free speech" on an internet forum anyway, BTW, but that's a pet peeve of mine when people use it improperly. People are free to say what they want without going to jail but that doesn't give anyone a pass to be a DB wherever they want to without getting called out. Forums can make whatever rules they want to.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

All,

I think it’s important to accept that there is an exceptionally wide range of behavior that is biologically predatory, but not illegal. 

I made an earlier post comparing different ways of doing this. Given the polarizing nature of the posts in question I’m going to provide a more precise description of MY OPINION AS A HUMAN PERSON. I am not posting as a moderator, solely a citizen of earth. 

IMO, what is happening in situations where someone is intentionally misleading another in sexual situations, is this: 

The deceitful person is parasitically transferring self esteem from the target of their conduct to themselves. I am not going to comment on which is worse: 

(1) A man leading a woman on by acting as if he really is “into her”, when he knows that he will only feel contempt for her if she sleeps with him ‘quickly’, however he defines quickly. This conduct is a man teaching women that their ROLE in a sexual relationship is to gatekeep. To decide when, how and where sex may happen. This is not a worldview in which the woman has sex WITH you, but instead one where the woman is allowing an act to be done TO her. 

(2) A woman leading a man on and encouraging his best efforts, and then feigning outrage when at the end he is hurt and angry at her rejection. This isn’t just an inherently cruel transfer of self esteem, just as (1) is. It is sometimes amplified by gas lighting at the end. Sometimes this is dating behavior and sometimes we read about this happening in sexless marriages. 

I am a very lucky person, and am married to a terrific life partner. Because of this - I am entirely un-triggered by the subject. 

It does make me sad to see humans parasitically vacuuming up each other’s self esteem in this manner. And more than sad to see them boasting about it. 





Faithful Wife said:


> If other men and some mods do not step in and shut you down I’m going to leave TAM forever.
> 
> If you stay and keep this **** up, I’m out.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

All,*
I am speaking as a mod. 
*
The TAM mods are managed in a disciplined manner. We do not get to threaten, punish or ban posters solely because we disagree with their lifestyle. This does not mean we are unfeeling robots. It does mean that absent rule breaking, we don’t censor viewpoints based on some measure of agreeableness/disagreeableness.

If a female poster was posting / boasting about how many free dinners, dates, etc. she obtained by playing unsuspecting male suitors, I would be saying the exact same thing. 





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> "Free speech" doesn't come without consequences or the freedom from having people call you out when you say something horrible. Most men would not agree with or put up with men like upsidedown's views and would call them out every time they saw or heard it but it's not only rarely ever challenged here, but often encouraged. That is going to push away the good men who WOULD speak up and call them out.
> 
> There's also no such thing as "free speech" on an internet forum anyway, BTW, but that's a pet peeve of mine when people use it improperly. People are free to say what they want without going to jail but that doesn't give anyone a pass to be a DB wherever they want to without getting called out. Forums can make whatever rules they want to.


----------

