# Apparently I’m very traditional



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

So I was talking to somebody about this the other day, and they were blown away that this is my view. They thought it was Uber traditional and not many have this mindset. 

I thought it was a normal view. Anyway... I think that a good rule of thumb is for the women in the relationship to make it a priority to try to satisfy their man sexually, and the man should make it a priority to try to satisfy their women romantically. 
Of course what they need sexually and romantically are individualized. 

One is not greater than the other. Men need to feel like men women need to feel like women. 


Is this not a common view?


----------



## IndianApple (Mar 27, 2016)

Hello,

there’s nothing wrong with your persceptive. Well, yes ! There has to a two way compromise / satisfaction to mke a relationship fruitful. But that never mean a couple is made for each other.There will be conflicts everytime. It is upto us if we are able to digest that person’s nature.

more on your reply !


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Yours is that view where all light does not emanate from yourself.
You share your light with your man, and he lights you up in return.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

After thinking about this, both of these would be satisfied for me through male initiation.

I respond well to sexual assertiveness, and if that's a consistent pattern, I'm more comfortable and willing to initiate myself.

So, if this is the dynamic, then prioritizing sex becomes almost second nature.

In terms of romance (feeling wanted/appreciated), having a man plan activities or showing thoughtfulness by getting me flowers, etc., is a huge turn on, which would lead to more sexual fulfillment.

But both of these needs begin with a man who sets the tone.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

minimalME said:


> But both of these needs begin with a man who sets the tone.


I can’t agree more. But I think us women can do a better job screening for these people. Like giving sex up without the man putting in effort. Or us putting in all the effort. This sets the tone early on in the relationship that sex is expected without effort. 

I think there are a lot of men not happy about that idea. That they shouldn’t have to work for sex, and sex should be given freely. I think a problem in relationships is that after marriage both partners stop trying and just expect things. They expect sex without dating us.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I agree with you, and the dynamics have been switched.

Up until around the industrial revolution (when 'dating' began), men were expected to put forth effort prior to marriage (prove themselves, so to speak) with women being the more resistant ones. But then once married, a woman was to comply.

Now, since women have allowed and encouraged sex before marriage, they're the ones put in the position of proving themselves by having sex right away. And the result, of course, is that many men have very little interest in marriage.



Girl_power said:


> I can’t agree more. But I think us women can do a better job screening for these people. Like giving sex up without the man putting in effort. Or us putting in all the effort. This sets the tone early on in the relationship that sex is expected without effort.
> 
> I think there are a lot of men not happy about that idea. That they shouldn’t have to work for sex, and sex should be given freely. I think a problem in relationships is that after marriage both partners stop trying and just expect things. They expect sex without dating us.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

minimalME said:


> I agree with you, and the dynamics have been switched.
> 
> Up until around the industrial revolution (when 'dating' began), men were expected to put forth effort prior to marriage (prove themselves, so to speak) with women being the more resistant ones. But then once married, a woman was to comply.
> 
> Now, since women have allowed and encouraged sex before marriage, they're the ones put in the posiiton of proving themselves by having sex right away. And the result, of course, is that many men have very little interest in marriage now.


Wow I never thought Of that before. And now I’m depressed lol.


----------



## DallasCowboyFan (Nov 20, 2012)

I couldn't agree more. This is the most selfless way to be. If we were all this way, everyone would be sexually satisfied and there would be fewer problems In other areas caused by resentment. If we aren't married to satisfy each other, I am not sure what the reason for marriage is


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

minimalME said:


> After thinking about this, both of these would be satisfied for me through maile initiation.
> 
> I respond well to sexual assertiveness, and if that's a consistent pattern, I'm more comfortable and willing to initiate myself.
> 
> ...


The problem I have with this is that relationships are dynamic, not static, and to have an expectation that the man sets the tone... that might work at the beginning, but there are so many things that can happen along the way, including the woman, for whatever reason, feeling that what worked well early in the relationship is no longer appropriate now. Her needs, her motivations, may change over the years. 

And it puts a ton of pressure on the guy, who has to recognize changes and adapt. Plus the guy who was confident and all-in with setting the tone early on... what happens if his confidence is shaken? Does the woman get upset that he no longer sets an appropriate tone? Or does she take responsibility for setting the tone at that point?

Us guys are not machines. We sometimes hear things about women as if they're incapable of change (the idea that, when a woman decides she's "gone" then she's gone and there's nothing that can change that... just one example) and I think expect men to be similar. We're not. I don't think it's true of women either. Change does happen; there are ebbs & flows in a man's life that can affect every part of a relationship, including setting the tone for sex.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> So I was talking to somebody about this the other day, and they were blown away that this is my view. They thought it was Uber traditional and not many have this mindset.
> 
> I thought it was a normal view. Anyway... I think that a good rule of thumb is for the women in the relationship to make it a priority to try to satisfy their man sexually, and the man should make it a priority to try to satisfy their women romantically.
> Of course what they need sexually and romantically are individualized.
> ...


Yes you have made good points and in general I agree with you. Also men need more respect while women need more love.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

@Casual Observer, I understand, and I agree - people change, and there is a need for flexibility/adaptability.

Having said that, and only speaking for myself, I know what turns me on. And I know what I need in order to maintain respect and attraction.

So, in terms of the original post...



Girl_power said:


> I think that a good rule of thumb is for the women in the relationship to make it a priority to try to satisfy their man sexually, and the man should make it a priority to try to satisfy their women romantically.


... a man who leads me will have a much greater chance of being in an all around satisfying relationship than a passive man would.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

I disagree. I think so many of the problems we see on these marriage forums is that women aren't being sexually satisfied. This LD stuff I think is just a lot of women married to men who don't get the job done. Surveys show many women don't orgasm during sex. Of course on this forum all women orgasm every time with PIV alone. LOL. There's a reason 50 shades of Grey was so popular. And I personally think it wasn't because the main man was rich and handsome, every book has that. It's because he knew how to orgasm a woman and he wanted to each and every time. He wasn't afraid of toys and he wasn't selfish about sex. Sure many women want security and money helps with security but face it that isn't the only thing that a woman wants or there would be no poor men who ever had a woman. 

Secondly, I don't think anyone should concern themselves with only one aspect of a relationship. While most men like and enjoy sex they are multifaceted creatures who also deserve words of praise, attention, respect, gifts, touch. And women deserve more than a few flowers every once in a while they deserve great orgasms, words of praise, attention, respect, gifts, and touch.

Above all in a relationship people should feel accepted, loved, secure in their relationship and their place.

I guess you could say your view is outdated but I don't think it was ever the foundation of a great relationship.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> So I was talking to somebody about this the other day, and they were blown away that this is my view. They thought it was Uber traditional and not many have this mindset.
> 
> I thought it was a normal view. Anyway... I think that a good rule of thumb is for the women in the relationship to make it a priority to try to satisfy their man sexually, and the man should make it a priority to try to satisfy their women romantically.
> Of course what they need sexually and romantically are individualized.
> ...


It is to me, but then again I am very traditional. 

How about you say that you are wise. 

I think romance is really about that moment when you look at the person you are with and understand they get you, and are making an effort to show they get you. That is what I understand they want. It doesn't have to be showy or flowers or any of that. It can be just seeing your wife is exhausted and telling her to go up to bed and you will take care of everything. Sometimes it should be showy too,

I would say that I think women want the romance true - but what I have learned is they want the hot sex too, to celibate the romance, and sometimes they want the hot raunchy sex (it's just years of a patriarchal society has created a stigma about it.) It's also told men that good girls don't want this. Which is false they just need to feel safe enough to give this. 

Not all men want romance though. Most do want spontaneous hot sex though, and most would love to see the raunchy side of their wives even if they are a little intimidated by it. 

I see lt like this, men need physical intimacy to really feel close to their wives, and women need emotional intimacy. But what I really think is that women need to see their husbands be emotionally vulnerable, because it makes them feel safe and loved. Men need to see there wives be physically vulnerable and I should clarify that because in today's day and age that can rightfully be taken the wrong way. It's her willingness to open herself up sexual that is a risk to most women but shows him how much she trust him. With the right kind of man this makes him feel incredibly close to her. In the same vain if a man is willing to be emotional open with his wife, I am not talking about crying and weak, I am talking about seeing who he is emotionally, it's his willingness to be vulnerable like that makes her feel incredibly close. Besides that both things are great.

If you do it right it works like a pinwheel each pushing the other. 

I say it all the time on here, but a modern man needs to partly be an emotional provider for his wife. Not the whole deal but the part that a Man provides. In other words he is not one of her girlfriends, but he is her husband. 

And wives need to understand that sex is a visceral part of a man's nature. Though I can never be sure I think it works in a primal way the same way that most women have for their kids. It's just in their being. Good healthy men feel that about their wives. The crave them, but because of a lot of abuse by some knuckleheads have turned that into something bad, but it's not. It's wonderful. 

Anyway two cents given.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Girl_power said:


> I thought it was a normal view. Anyway... I think that a good rule of thumb is for the women in the relationship to make it a priority to try to satisfy their man sexually, and the man should make it a priority to try to satisfy their women romantically.
> 
> Is this not a common view?


I don't think there is anything wrong with that point of view as it seems like you are advocating for mutually respecting each other's needs and desires. 

That view does however tend view men as being driven and motivated primarily by sex. In reflecting on my own life experiences when I was dating and looking for a serious relationship, my priorities were to find a woman with good moral values along with a passionate career path that I could appreciate and respect. Once I found those things, the next priority was to find out if we had good chemistry as friends. Without those things in place, there was zero sexual interest regardless of how attractive the person looked. So reflecting on that, my priorities were to find someone that I admired as a person both morally and career-wise as things that were more important than sex. 

As far as exchanging sex for romance and vice versa, that models relationship as a form of give and take bartering. That can work for a while, but it eventually breaks down. Like the "No More Mr Nice Guy" concept of happiness is more about being self sufficient and then sharing that with a spouse and expecting nothing in return. So what happens when the guy can no longer romance you no matter how hard he tries, or you can no longer pleasure him with sex no matter how hard you try? Does that mean that the relationship is over or that you no longer love one another? I would argue that you have each become too codependent on each other for happiness and possibly forgotten who you are in terms of being happy and self-sufficient individuals. 

Ideally a long term relationship works by each person being in touch with who they are as an individual. When something great happens, the first person you want to share that with is your spouse. The relationship is one in which things can be celebrated and shared both emotionally and physically. There is not often give and take unless working through a challenge or compromise during personal growth. 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Anastasia6 said:


> I disagree. I think so many of the problems we see on these marriage forums is that women aren't being sexually satisfied. This LD stuff I think is just a lot of women married to men who don't get the job done. Surveys show many women don't orgasm during sex. Of course on this forum all women orgasm every time with PIV alone. LOL. There's a reason 50 shades of Grey was so popular. And I personally think it wasn't because the main man was rich and handsome, every book has that. It's because he knew how to orgasm a woman and he wanted to each and every time. He wasn't afraid of toys and he wasn't selfish about sex. Sure many women want security and money helps with security but face it that isn't the only thing that a woman wants or there would be no poor men who ever had a woman.
> 
> Secondly, I don't think anyone should concern themselves with only one aspect of a relationship. While most men like and enjoy sex they are multifaceted creatures who also deserve words of praise, attention, respect, gifts, touch. And women deserve more than a few flowers every once in a while they deserve great orgasms, words of praise, attention, respect, gifts, and touch.
> 
> ...


Now if the guy is a lazy selfish lover then I don't blame her. I don't blame a guy if he becomes unsatisfied too.

However I don't think women being sexual satisfied need to be all on the guy. The problem with this is some women don't take agency in their own organism and lot of men have never been taught about how that works. I mean we all get how men work and it's not that complicated and for almost all of history that was the only think talked about when it came to this subject. I mean 150 years ago women's orgasm was called hysteria. How dumb were the men back then, denying one of the great things about women. That said women's orgasm is a whole different deal. And can be wildly different from each other. 

There is really good blog by a women who talks about this. She never really learned her body and what turned her own, then her younger sister who grew up in a different age was all about that. So when she found out her sister regularly orgasmed and she felt she never had (which really isn't that uncommon something like 10 to 15%) she made it her mission to really get to know her body. The she taught her boyfriend and is much happier. 

I mean I never understood this crazy notion that sex should be excellent the first time and that it shouldn't evolve. To me it just has the makings of being good at first, then it can grow to something wonderful.

By the way I completely agree with how you describe a man should be about sex, but I think there are just as many women who are not open to toys. Also I think for a lot of women they have to be just in the right mood, which with normal modern life those times are rare. Lots of women can be very self cautious about their body's for instance. That being said the right man can really help her with that. And that is where romance and emotional closeness, the feeling of being safe really plays into that.

I don't think OP was saying this is the only thing in marriage just one of the important things. I took it more as a reactions to the modern notion that men and women are basically the same and their priorities are the same when it comes to the dynamics of sex and romance in marriage.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

badsanta said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with that point of view as it seems like you are advocating for mutually respecting each other's needs and desires.
> 
> That view does however tend view men as being driven and motivated primarily by sex. In reflecting on my own life experiences when I was dating and looking for a serious relationship, my priorities were to find a woman with good moral values along with a passionate career path that I could appreciate and respect. Once I found those things, the next priority was to find out if we had good chemistry as friends. Without those things in place, there was zero sexual interest regardless of how attractive the person looked. So reflecting on that, my priorities were to find someone that I admired as a person both morally and career-wise as things that were more important than sex.
> 
> ...


This is really nicely put. Aren't you the spanking guy too, why didn't you put that in there?


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I'm good with this, but I think its a bit one way for both.

I like being satisfied sexually too and if a man isn't willing to make an effort then I have no particular desire to satisfy him.

I'm an engaging partner with my own needs, not a blow up doll.

And I've found that men have varying needs when it comes to romance and emotional intimacy, so they need a partner for that too.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Girl_power said:


> So I was talking to somebody about this the other day, and they were blown away that this is my view. They thought it was Uber traditional and not many have this mindset.
> 
> I thought it was a normal view. Anyway... I think that a good rule of thumb is for the women in the relationship to make it a priority to try to satisfy their man sexually, and the man should make it a priority to try to satisfy their women romantically.
> Of course what they need sexually and romantically are individualized.
> ...


The only thing I find wrong with your view is an implied pre-conception as to what it means to feel like a man or a woman. Many men are naturally as romantic as the stereotypical woman, and many women whose sexual drive is that of the stereotypical man.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

I hadn't really thought about it before.

The other night I took him a cuppa tea served with a brownie and 'love note' which was a small blank piece of paper with my imprinted 'kiss' (where I'd put lipstick on and kissed the piece of paper). I was pulling an all-nighter for study, went to the kitchen around 3am for a drink and was surprised to see that he'd saved the 'note' and put it on the fridge.

In the morning was a big spider which he came and sorted out - took it outside. Oh, be still my beating heart, Batman. Rescuer from spiders. I'll give your concept more thought!


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Bartering insincere romance for insincere sex does sound magical!

But I worry that at least occasionally it will be sincere on one or both ends, which would eff up the spousal market place.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

SunCMars said:


> Yours is that view where all light does not emanate from yourself.
> You share your light with your man, and he lights you up in return.


This is elegantly worded. As are much of your words!

What I disagree with, GP, is the concept of 'giving up' sex... my view is that sex is being shared. And, as raised by others, the concept of romance and sex will differ in terms of whether that's important to the individual regardless of gender roles. What has me desiring sex with Batman, is basically sex... the physical connection keeps me wanting more physical connection. The romantic gestures and be still my beating heart moments (haha) are more about feeling considered. Ah this is where it gets scrambled though - as the consideration outside the 'bedroom' flows to consideration inside the bedroom. And then in a LTR / marriage there's the other pieces of the puzzle that creates closeness depending on what the other needs, and, as SunCMars wrote - lighting one another up.

Where I've had single friends who had ONS or casual sexual relationships, they haven't been wanting or needing romance. They have wanted to share sex.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Girl_power said:


> I think a problem in relationships is that after marriage both partners stop trying and just expect things. They expect sex without dating us.


I think you have missed a part of this view... you expressed 'both partners stop trying and just expect things' then continue 'they expect sex without dating us' which from that stance, you could also be saying, 'they expect romance without sexing us'. And who is this 'they' anyway?

There's a difference in 'just expecting things' which could be a positive and natural element to relationships - knowing what is important to the other and doing so. 

Compared to taking one another for granted.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Now I'm listening to this because of this thread!

_I got a spooky feeling you just want me for the sex
The thrills of it, the chills of it, the spills of it





_


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

I offer caution here.

The only thing we really own, outright, upright and by birthright, is our physical form.
When we share it with another we trust them with all that is our own.

Tis' quite a gesture, though rarely thought of in that way.

If it is only sex that you desire, then you become such that object of sex..... just bones and skin, and nothing more desirable.

I love sex a lot.
Yes, I am conflicted.
Yes, I am that hypocrite.

{unsigned}-


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

It seems....

When men get what they want, they cease to woo.
When men get what they _don't_ want, they cease to woo.

Which is it?

Damn it! 

Boo-woo-hoo, woe is me!

Both, it seems.


_Lilith-_


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

SunCMars said:


> Yes, I am that hypocrite.


And it’s possible that I am, too. Or perhaps haven’t shared my thoughts too accurately.

For me, that physical connection does inspire continued physical connection - yet it’s likely due to the other elements of our relationship - with our dynamic and personalities being part of this. Unsure if that came across before or not. It’s not purely physical for physical sake. I’ve only had one lover - as I wasn’t casual with sex. Nothing to do with religion or marriage. And then it turned out, my first (and only) lover became my husband.


----------



## JustTheWife (Nov 1, 2017)

SunCMars said:


> I offer caution here.
> 
> The only thing we really own, outright, upright and by birthright, is our physical form.
> When we share it with another we trust them with all that is our own.
> ...


So true and I understand the conflict. I had that conflict too. Such a monumental and sacred act to share your body with another. The ultimate gesture from one to another. Yet it "just happened" so easily. Lust, pleasure, pain, tears.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> I can’t agree more. But I think us women can do a better job screening for these people. Like giving sex up without the man putting in effort. Or us putting in all the effort. This sets the tone early on in the relationship that sex is expected without effort.
> 
> I think there are a lot of men not happy about that idea. That they shouldn’t have to work for sex, and sex should be given freely. I think a problem in relationships is that after marriage both partners stop trying and just expect things. They expect sex without dating us.


Such is dating in the modern world, say, from 1960 onwards.

Most experts 'now' recommend _test driving_ a partner before marriage, and to include 'living together' first.

One would think that this lessons those marriage mistakes, such that, committing to a person or partner for life without really knowing them is too risky. 

Sleeping together prior to marriage is therefore the norm. 

Risque', no longer exists, except in very religious families. 

The problem with this 'present' approach is that men and women enjoy and get accustomed to the test driving and not the driving force behind dating itself.

_Feels good_, replaces _do good_, that, _do no harm_ to others.

_Do no harm to others_ is a platitude, in all facets of life, it is such a dream.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

minimalME said:


> I agree with you, and the dynamics have been switched.
> 
> Now, since women have allowed and encouraged sex before marriage, they're the ones put in the position of proving themselves by having sex right away. And the result, of course, is that many men have very little interest in marriage.


Many women have very little interest in marriage. What for? so you can be taken for granted?


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

WandaJ said:


> Many women have very little interest in marriage. What for? so you can be taken for granted?


A bitter truth, a quandary..
What is the solution?


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Cynicism follows on the dirty heels of sexual freedom.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

WandaJ said:


> Many women have very little interest in marriage. What for? so you can be taken for granted?


Perhaps a similar trend can be seen in software. A long time ago one would pay a hefty price for software and be committed to using for the long term. Now almost all software is free with a freemium or premium subscription model (keep paying to enjoy playing). No commitments and cancel anytime. Even put your software or subscription on "pause" if you just want to take a break and think you might come back. Hello future where everything is in the cloud. Tomorrow's new girlfriend can automatically know all your preferences that your previous girlfriend learned by downloading all your profile data before the first date.



> Harold does NOT like a slice of melted cheese to drip through the center hole in his bagel. Please poke a hole in his cheese before assembling his bacon, egg and cheese bagel.
> 
> Also Harold is very sensitive about how often the batteries get replaced in a vibrator, so you may wish to purchase a rechargeable model if you use one for both couple and solo play.
> 
> If you give Harold a HJ, please be to his left. For some reason this works much better than trying from his right side. I think he mostly likes to have his right arm unobstructed to play with your boobs.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

badsanta said:


> Tomorrow's new girlfriend can automatically know all your preferences that your previous girlfriend learned by downloading all your profile data before the first date.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

minimalME said:


> But both of these needs begin with a man who sets the tone.


You have cleverly talked yourself out of the need to be proactive in a relationship. Either partner can set the tone, but it is more satisfying if both are in tune.


minimalME said:


> Now, since women have allowed and encouraged sex before marriage, they're the ones put in the position of proving themselves by having sex right away. And the result, of course, is that many men have very little interest in marriage.





WandaJ said:


> Many women have very little interest in marriage. What for? so you can be taken for granted?


Romance has always been available outside of marriage, which more accurately describes why women have less interest in marriage. There is still plenty of female interest in weddings.


----------



## aaarghdub (Jul 15, 2017)

Girl_power said:


> I thought it was a normal view. Anyway... I think that a good rule of thumb is for the women in the relationship to make it a priority to try to satisfy their man sexually, and the man should make it a priority to try to satisfy their women romantically.


In a healthy relationship, there should be a drive to love the person how they want to be loved. It’s a compatibility-selfishness thing. You’re either upfront and compatible or you’re selfish and conceal intentions to get what you want then fight having to give what you previewed to your partner once the commitment is there.

If a woman is putting out audition sex while dating but in reality sex was a “could take it or leave it”, “not worth the effort” or traumatic before, eventually you will revert to that when comfortable in relationship. If a guy pulls out all the stops romantically but really thinks it’s dumb, he’ll quit. She wants the romance but has no vested interest in sex really. He wants sex but soon the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. So he quits chasing and she takes a self esteem hit for no dating and terrible sex. He heads to porn. 

Real love is a sense of ownership/pride in what you provide for your partner that they can’t get elsewhere. Not focusing on what you aren’t getting. A guy should take pride in meeting his wife’s needs in terms of companionship, safety, non-sexual affection and talking. And if he’s worth anything, he will be sensitive to a wife who is not enjoying sex. By the same token, she should be taking pride in that she knows for a fact that he has no reason to seek love (in the form of sex) elsewhere because no other woman would ever be as good to him sexually as she is. In other words, her drive for a great sex life is there without hoops to jump through or having it be a “cost of business.”

My opinion has always been provide something worth desiring and pursue your partner. Your partner should have zero reason to look elsewhere because it would only be worse. This is like a market-based approach, you stay in the relationship because you enjoying being there. The opposite however is autocratic-based which is things are done out of obligation/fear. Improvements are not incentivized and you have no ability to leave and are punished for even having needs. The sentiment is having no obligation to do anything for their partner but if they cheat, they would have their life burnt to the ground.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> You have cleverly talked yourself out of the need to be proactive in a relationship. Either partner can set the tone, but it is more satisfying if both are in tune.
> 
> 
> Romance has always been available outside of marriage, which more accurately describes why women have less interest in marriage. There is still plenty of female interest in weddings.


I know. I was replying to the post saying that many men do not have interest in marriage because they can get sex without it. It is the same for women. Considering that divorce rate is around 50%, I think that makes them rational.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

badsanta said:


> Perhaps a similar trend can be seen in software. A long time ago one would pay a hefty price for software and be committed to using for the long term. Now almost all software is free with a freemium or premium subscription model (keep paying to enjoy playing). No commitments and cancel anytime. Even put your software or subscription on "pause" if you just want to take a break and think you might come back. Hello future where everything is in the cloud. Tomorrow's new girlfriend can automatically know all your preferences that your previous girlfriend learned by downloading all your profile data before the first date.


Or, you know that there is no reason to commit to software, since 50% of them break anyway. Why would you buy something with such high fail rate?


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

SunCMars said:


> A bitter truth, a quandary..
> What is the solution?


I know that after divorce, I am done with marriage for good. 50% rate of failing, odds are too high against it.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

No. I have absolutely no problem being proactive. That's like the least of my issues.

And, yes. I agree with you - either person can set the tone. A man _or_ a woman can represent the 'masculine energy'_ and lead. _

But, in my opinion, being in tune with one another and setting the tone are two different aspects of the relationship.

Harmony is more likely to occur when each is consistently willing to stay in the role they've chosen. Unless they've agreed to do othewise. (Like when they're older and a woman looses estogren and a man looses testosterone. I can see a change then.)

Two passive people or two assertive people are going to have issues. A person in the relationship who constantly switches up on the other is going to have problems.

I prefer assertive men to passive men. That's how it works for me. That's what turns me on, and that's what I respect.

It has little to do with being clever. It's more just how I'm wired - and having the self-awareness to recognize it and be honest about it.



Mr. Nail said:


> You have cleverly talked yourself out of the need to be proactive in a relationship. Either partner can set the tone, but it is more satisfying if both are in tune.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

You're right - there are women who have little interest in marriage.

It would take a lot for me to get married again, _but_ I'm also not having sex with others. I'm not gonna go from man to man to get off - especially since I can give myself a much better orgasm.

Sex would be great, but I only want it with one person, and I'm not gonna live with anyone or be a perpetual girlfriend/fiance.

But generally speaking, I'd say that women are more interested in marriage than men. Especially if they're young and wanting a family.



WandaJ said:


> Many women have very little interest in marriage. What for? so you can be taken for granted?


And I disagree. I don't see it as rational. 

Going from partner to partner has nothing to do with reason - it's about lust. Which, unrestrained, is an immature character quality.

To me, the relationships between men and women are a mess right now.

Generally speaking, promiscuity isn't good for women and children or for society as a whole. Stable relationships are.



WandaJ said:


> I know. I was replying to the post saying that many men do not have interest in marriage because they can get sex without it. It is the same for women. Considering that divorce rate is around 50%, I think that makes them rational.


----------



## pastasauce79 (Mar 21, 2018)

I consider myself to be pretty traditional. I like the traditional roll I have in my marriage, BUT, I like sex too. My husband likes sex and romance too. 

Are we untraditional, traditional? 

If I were single I would like to be pursued. I won't have sex on the first, or the second, or the third date. It's not that I don't want to have sex, it's that I need a romantic connection to have sex. 

As a married woman, I don't really need that much romance anymore. If my husband does a chore for me, that's pretty romantic. If he's fixing something around the house, that's romantic and sexy. 

Like everything else, the idea of romance and sex can change within a marriage. 

I really enjoy discovering new ideas of romance and new ideas in the bedroom. 

And I still consider myself very traditional.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

minimalME said:


> You're right - there are women who have little interest in marriage.
> 
> It would take a lot for me to get married again, _but_ I'm also not having sex with others. I'm not gonna go from man to man to get off - especially since I can give myself a much better orgasm.
> 
> ...


Just because someone is not married, doesn't mean they are promiscuous.

And you do not have to be married to be in committed relationship.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I agree with both.

I'm not married, and I'm not promiscuous.

But if you're 'dating'? Anyone who expects you to have sex by date three? Anyone who immediately offers you hotel rooms, vacations, weekends at their house? Strangers who think a normal, healthy part of getting to know someone is sexting, along with nudes photos and videos? They're undiscriminating, and they expect you to be too. At least with them.

And you most certainly can be in that committed relationship, where there's just as much of a chance that you'll be taken for granted. Remaining unmarried in no way guarantees you'll be appreciated and valued.

/End highjack. 😬



WandaJ said:


> Just because someone is not married, doesn't mean they are promiscuous.
> 
> And you do not have to be married to be in committed relationship.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

WandaJ said:


> I know that after divorce, I am done with marriage for good. 50% rate of failing, odds are too high against it.


I get it!

Si' 'comprende'!

Just do not turn off your plush oven, there are still a few good _roosters_ out there.

They only need a good washing, pre-heating, and lastly, a loving plucking.
Um, feather plucking?


_The Typist-_

Who else would write this?


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

minimalME said:


> To me, the relationships between men and women are a mess right now.
> 
> Generally speaking, promiscuity isn't good for women and children or for society as a whole. Stable relationships are.


I will grant you children are best raised by dedicated parent figures, but that doesn't have to be the two biological parents. If a woman decides promiscuity is good for her, I don't fear for society as a result. It may be good for her, or not, that's her lookout.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

WandaJ said:


> I know that after divorce, I am done with marriage for good. 50% rate of failing, odds are too high against it.


Wouldn't it be great if when two people dated that you automatically assume that things will just end in a disaster of a break up or divorce. So then instead of making a good impression, each does the opposite and reveals all the horrible things about themselves. That way you know realistically what you are working with and can preemptively start dealing with some serious problems to see if it will be a viable relationship or not. 

Hi my name is Timmy and I have some serious conflict avoidance issues along with an underlying fear of abandonment because my dad left when I was young. I am super controlling but in a very passive aggressive kind of way. My mom is very protective of me and I will manipulate her into addressing all my problems I have with you so that I never have to play the part of the bad guy. Can you work with that as long as I give you lots of romance and you really take good care of me sexually (like the OP suggests)? 

Imagine?

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

minimalME said:


> I agree with both.
> 
> And you most certainly can be in that committed relationship, where there's just as much of a chance that you'll be taken for granted. Remaining unmarried in no way guarantees you'll be appreciated and valued.
> 
> /End highjack. 😬


Yes, but I can leave this kind of relationship much easier, instead of being stuck there because of piece of paper for another twenty years.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

minimalME said:


> I agree with both.
> 
> I'm not married, and I'm not promiscuous.
> 
> ...


Define appreciated.

How does a lady feel appreciated?
How does a man feel appreciated?

Don't bother answering.
Yes, I know what the popular responses would be.
...............................................

Love making certainly holds a high value quotient with the majority of humans. 

I see that it is on the low end on your_ scale_ of needs. 

*Which is fine. Its your life. *

You have given up. 
You have fought the sex wars and have the scars to prove it.
You have stated in previous posts that you are* independent* and an introvert (except here!).

Likely for you, most men are those low-hanging _scales_, found on the belly of rascally, and horned reptiles.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

WandaJ said:


> Yes, but I can leave this kind of relationship much easier, instead of being stuck there because of piece of paper for another twenty years.


Yes, until you meet _*'The One'.*_
The next one, hopefully the last one!!

If you meet a man and you really get in deep, you will dig your nails deep in him to keep those other lonely ladies from snatching him away.

Lordy, talk is cheap, and time waits for no single person.

Emotions are not reasonable and rational forces.
For most.

Yes, there is a good share of folks who view life.....coolly.
Their passions are low key and they calculate their way through life.
Again, OK. 

They do exist. I know a few.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I understand.

Many like to see themselves as openminded and progressive, even if their opinions are completely divorced from how reality actually plays out.

And I say that because it's not just one promiscuous woman, is it?

There's this disconnect between 'we're all in this together' and 'two consenting adults'.

The myth is - 'What you do in private is on you. You go for it.'

But it doesn't stay private, does it?

No, it doesn't!

It's astonishing how generous folks are with their sharing.

So this one person's behavior ends up affecting her children and her family and her friends and her neighbors. And pretty soon, everyone's doing 'it'.

And it just doesn't take that long.

The blow job that was only performed by prostitues 50 to 70 years ago? It's now been normalized and expected with a stranger who's last name you don't even know.

/Truly ending the highjack. 😰



SpinyNorman said:


> If a woman decides promiscuity is good for her, I don't fear for society as a result. It may be good for her, or not, that's her lookout.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

SunCMars said:


> Yes, until you meet _*'The One'.*_
> The next one, hopefully the last one!!
> 
> If you meet a man and you really get in deep, you will dig your nails deep in him to keep those other lonely ladies from snatching him away.
> ...


I know it is not as simple. But I still won't make it even more complicated. I already have kids, will have my own house, job. If I decide to stay with someone it will be because I want to, not because I am in the corner again. I will never let myself to be cornered again, where I do not see a way out because of all the complications. At this moment, I do not even believe in love that lasts longer than few years. Maybe it will change one day, when this is all over, and my bruises are healed... If they are healed.

Back to our regular programming


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

minimalME said:


> I understand.
> 
> Many like to see themselves as openminded and progressive, even if their opinions are completely divorced from how reality actually plays out.
> 
> ...


yes, what I do in private, is my business. let's not turn it into crusade against non-marital sex.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

minimalME said:


> I understand.
> 
> Many like to see themselves as openminded and progressive, even if their opinions are completely divorced from how reality actually plays out.
> 
> ...


Wow!


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm enjoying this conversation, and I'm not ignoring anyone, but I've stopped reading cause I'll want to reply and continue my highjacking ways. 😬😰🤭


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

minimalME said:


> I understand.


This remains to be seen.


> Many like to see themselves as openminded and progressive, even if their opinions are completely divorced from how reality actually plays out.


While others project irresponsibly.


> And I say that because it's not just one promiscuous woman, is it?


It doesn't matter.


> There's this disconnect between 'we're all in this together' and 'two consenting adults'.


I for one do not feel like when it comes to sex, we are all in it together.


> The myth is - 'What you do in private is on you. You go for it.'
> 
> But it doesn't stay private, does it?
> 
> No, it doesn't!


Actually, it often does.


> It's astonishing how generous folks are with their sharing.
> 
> So this one person's behavior ends up affecting her children


In the first place, not every woman has children. In the second place, if she does and her children are a party to her sex life, there is the problem and not how promiscuous she is.


> and her family and her friends and her neighbors. And pretty soon, everyone's doing 'it'.
> 
> And it just doesn't take that long.


Not everyone, only the people who can't make their own decisions.


> The blow job that was only performed by prostitues 50 to 70 years ago?


Not familiar w/ that, how is it different from the blow job amateurs didn't admit to 50 years ago?

But you're right, we need self-appointed moral police to condemn people whose sex lives don't conform. And if they watch young studs bang their wife, well we're still better off, right?


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

badsanta said:


> Wouldn't it be great if when two people dated that you automatically assume that things will just end in a disaster of a break up or divorce. So then instead of making a good impression, each does the opposite and reveals all the horrible things about themselves. That way you know realistically what you are working with and can preemptively start dealing with some serious problems to see if it will be a viable relationship or not.
> 
> Hi my name is Timmy and I have some serious conflict avoidance issues along with an underlying fear of abandonment because my dad left when I was young. I am super controlling but in a very passive aggressive kind of way. My mom is very protective of me and I will manipulate her into addressing all my problems I have with you so that I never have to play the part of the bad guy. Can you work with that as long as I give you lots of romance and you really take good care of me sexually (like the OP suggests)?
> 
> ...


I get what you’re saying in that it takes time to get to know someone. Then again, if you’re grown-folk ain’t it time to sort out your issues and take responsibility?

Not ‘your’ meaning badsanta... the collective ‘your’... and yet, we also can learn a lot about ourselves within relationships with others. That’s kinda part of the journey. None of us are really complete and finished in our learning.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

heartsbeating said:


> I get what you’re saying in that it takes time to get to know someone. Then again, if you’re grown-folk ain’t it time to sort out your issues and take responsibility?
> 
> Not ‘your’ meaning badsanta... the collective ‘your’... and yet, we also can learn a lot about ourselves within relationships with others. That’s kinda part of the journey. None of us are really complete and finished in our learning.


To be serious, I think it takes being married to someone for a long time and going through monumental challenges before someone can truly understand who they are. With that understanding one can work on themselves to become a better person or remain set in their ways.

According to the divorce rate approximately 50% of people are unable to change once they realize who they are and clearly see all their own faults. 

Badsanta


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

I'm not in favor of genderizing the world myself. A lot of people, however, may find that catagorizing makes their world appear safer and more predictable. If it works for you to do that, as long as you understand that others may disagree with that viewpoint, then go for it. 

I personally have a problem with "women want this and men want that" because it has caused misunderstandings. Like, I'm not supposed to like to F just to F - I'm supposed to fit into a category where, because I'm female, I'm supposed to want what females in general SUPPOSEDLY want. 

NOPE. I like daily sx and I like it all kinda fun ways. I don't like playing head games about it. It's not tied to any kind of exchange - it's we both like it, let's take what we both know about each other and have fun.

As for pleasing a partner, I do what I want to do in bed. That's going to vary time-to-time. I find that if I do what I want, then I have more fun doing it. 

I have had to train my partner - A LOT. Because he had some of these preconceived 60s notions about men and women - all hogwash. And no partner before me had ever bothered to talk to him about what they desired. 

Really, I'm glad for my grandchildren that they are going to have a more free, open sexual society. Older generations have some really messed up ideas that make zero sense. Generalizing about what a man is like or wants and what a woman is like or wants is such a waste of opportunity. How exciting it is to meet and be with people with a wide variety of interests, potentials and desires.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

happiness27 said:


> I'm not in favor of genderizing the world myself. A lot of people, however, may find that catagorizing makes their world appear safer and more predictable. If it works for you to do that, as long as you understand that others may disagree with that viewpoint, then go for it.
> 
> I personally have a problem with "women want this and men want that" because it has caused misunderstandings. Like, I'm not supposed to like to F just to F - I'm supposed to fit into a category where, because I'm female, I'm supposed to want what females in general SUPPOSEDLY want.
> 
> ...


I understand where your coming from. I love sex too and it’s super important to me. I’m verbal, and I tell them what I like and need and I’m not shy. In my limited experience with relationships, I’ve never had a problem with my sex life. I’ve always ended it because I don’t feel happy in other ways, like feeling love, prioritized, understood, supported etc. 

From my experience, I want to be with a guy that I want to please. And let me make this clear, just because I want to please someone does not mean I want to be neglected. I want to be pleased as well. Which is what I was going for. 

I like to know what they like. I literally have asked for a partner to teach me how to give him a BJ the way he likes it. Because if I’m going to put in the work, I want it to be what he loves. And at the same time, I’ll list off things that make me feel loved, and happy, romantic things. And at the end of the day, it’s all about effort. 

When I stop wanting to please my man, I know there is a problem. And I have gotten there with everyone I’ve dated, and its because they failed me on their end of making me happy in a loved/romantic way. They become low effort. And I am not Into those types of relationships because I have a lot of love to give.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

Girl_power said:


> I understand where your coming from. I love sex too and it’s super important to me. I’m verbal, and I tell them what I like and need and I’m not shy. In my limited experience with relationships, I’ve never had a problem with my sex life. I’ve always ended it because I don’t feel happy in other ways, like feeling love, prioritized, understood, supported etc.
> 
> From my experience, I want to be with a guy that I want to please. And let me make this clear, just because I want to please someone does not mean I want to be neglected. I want to be pleased as well. Which is what I was going for.
> 
> ...


Bless you.

If everyone was as willing to give and take advice or direction the world would be a much happier and satisfied place.

Some have worried about the 50% divorce rate but statistics aren't destiny. In a way my marriage beat the odds. Since I had a bachelor's degree there was a 65% chance my marriage was going to last 20+ years. A woman with a bachelor's degree has a nearly 4/5 chance of having a 20+ year first marriage. Link



> Higher education increased the probability of survival of first marriage, particularly for women. Women with at least a bachelor’s degree had a higher probability of a first marriage lasting 20 years (78%), compared with 49% among women with some college, and 41% among women with a high school diploma. Men with at least a bachelor’s degree had a higher probability of their first marriage lasting 20 years (65%), compared with 54% among men with some college, and 47% among men with a high school diploma.


A second marriage would have to deal with blended families and exes and things so it isn't surprising that those stressors lead to a higher divorce rate. There should have been some learning done during and after the first marriage, both in how you pick who you are with and how to conduct yourself in the relationship though. I would expect slightly higher percentage of people in the dating pool 40+ to have personality issues that led to them being single as well as a higher percentage of people who've at least figured out one way that relationship failures happen and how to avoid them. 

Between shared or split chores, pooled resources and reduced expenses, and a shared bed, it is surprising that we humans screw something like marriage up so reliably.


----------



## StarFires (Feb 27, 2018)

Girl_power said:


> I can’t agree more. But I think us women can do a better job screening for these people. Like giving sex up without the man putting in effort. Or us putting in all the effort. This sets the tone early on in the relationship that sex is expected without effort.


So, if you know the modern position of there being no expection of effort and the modern practice of sleeping with a guy the day they met or certainly within the first couple of days, then how does it surprise you that modern views differ from your tranditional ones? I share your views, but our views are antiquated, never to be valued again, and never to return.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

I think one traditional view was that women didn't enjoy sex. Consequences of this were that men had to provide some external incentive on the front end, pursue them, romance them, etc. but on the back end, no point trying to make the act enjoyable as nature had ripped them off in that department.

A more contemporary view is both people ought to enjoy sex, so both ought to be equally motivated on the front end while on the back end, be a team player.

Not saying either of these is my view, so if you don't like either feel free to say so but don't blame me.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

StarFires said:


> So, if you know the modern position of there being no expection of effort and the modern practice of sleeping with a guy the day they met or certainly within the first couple of days, then how does it surprise you that modern views differ from your tranditional ones? I share your views, but our views are antiquated, never to be valued again, and never to return.


I don’t believe everyone has the same view. I agree that todays views are shifting one way, but that doesn’t mean everyone believes the same thing. 

My views have shifted. When I was young and super liberal and feminist and blah blah what I thought I wanted is different than what I need. Thinking about it in my head... yes I want my relationship to be equal, no I don’t want to be told who I can be friends with or what to wear, yes I want to split the chores etc. when your young and inexperienced of course that sounds normal. But then having been through relationships, I realized that’s not what I want at all. 

I think there is this discrepancy when it comes to what we think we want, and what we realize we want. And that comes to getting to know yourself. I think a lot of times women think they want to be a stay at home mom, but the reality is, it sucks. This is different for everyone obviously. 

And I have come to the conclusion that what I want/need does not make me less of a feminist just because I like more traditional roles. Everyone is different. I do not think genders should be a certain way. I just know the way I am, and I would like my man to be a certain way for me.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

SpinyNorman said:


> I think one traditional view was that women didn't enjoy sex. Consequences of this were that men had to provide some external incentive on the front end, pursue them, romance them, etc. but on the back end, no point trying to make the act enjoyable as nature had ripped them off in that department.
> 
> .


Also the US religion was primarily Christian. And traditionally, women were suppose to be help mates to their husbands. People thought women were literally there for the sole purpose of helping men. So there was no such thing as women’s needs. What a women needed was to get married, so she can “be a person”, since they didn’t have a legal identity. Women were allowed to take out a loan, vote, own property, handle money, literally do anything without a man.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

StarFires said:


> So, if you know the modern position of there being no expection of effort and the modern practice of sleeping with a guy the day they met or certainly within the first couple of days, then how does it surprise you that modern views differ from your tranditional ones? I share your views, but our views are antiquated,* never to be valued again, and never to return.*


Logan's Law #3: Don't ever say never. Things come and go in cycles. Pretty much every generation thinks that those that follow don't have the same values they had and those views will never be seen again. Now we may not see their return (assuming they actually ever left) in our lifetimes, but eventually they will and the preceding generations will look at it as a loss of _their _values, never to be seen again.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

StarFires said:


> So, if you know the modern position of there being no expection of effort and the modern practice of sleeping with a guy the day they met or certainly within the first couple of days, then how does it surprise you that modern views differ from your tranditional ones?


Actually there is a lot of evidence from primary archival sources, court records, church records, diaries, autobiographies, birth and marriage records etc and scholarly articles on such things. That show such practices are not modern or untraditional at all. In fact sex early on and outside of marriage in Western societies, for more than a thousand years to date are triflingly common.

And if one thinks that the Victorian era was staid, a slow read (because it is incredibly long) of "My Secret Life by Walter" amongst many other works plus the explosion of printed pornography, should dissuade someone of that notion.

Northeastern Scotland saw pregnant brides come in at 44% of all marriages during the nineteenth century. While Colyton in England saw more than 50% of pregnant brides during the latter half of the nineteenth century as well.

In fact pregnant brides were so common throughout Western Europe through both the 19th and 20th centuries, to the point that a quarter to half of them were variously pregnant when they got married. There are quite a number of scholarly articles with lots of supporting references which show this well. In fact one notable trend as well in Western countries is that pregnant brides were also a more common fixture in Protestant societies than Catholic ones.

There were even sex communes and a flourishing of free love in the United States in the 19th century as well.

That said such things are unevenly distributed, for example the trend towards being more open to sex early on and having free access sans supervision. Was more common among proletarians as opposed to middle-class and upper-class groups. Although the middle-class certainly played before marriage as did upper classes as well. It was not uncommon for the more well to do to go away for a time for an abortion.

In fact on my own reading of My Secret Life, it is quite notable how easy and open to sex before marriage just after meeting someone lower class people were. While on the other hand middle-class people were the most staid all round (although there were exceptions). While upper class women played the chaste game until they were married and then were as willing and keen to have affairs with abandon as the men were.

As for my own experience with my peers and myself, many were open to sharing sex just after meeting each other in the latter half of the 1980s through to today as many of my friends still are. Not forgetting the baby-boomers and their proclivities combined with a freeness that was expressed by plenty of people who were young adults during the Second World War.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Girl_power said:


> I like to know what they like. I literally have asked for a partner to teach me how to give him a BJ the way he likes it. Because if I’m going to put in the work, *I want it to be what he loves.* And at the same time, I’ll list off things that make me feel loved, and happy, romantic things. And at the end of the day, *it’s all about effort. *
> 
> When I stop wanting to please my man, I know there is a problem. And I have gotten there with everyone I’ve dated...


What ever happened to just being yourself and allowing your partner to love you for that?

From everything I have read if you are putting in the effort to be someone that you are not, at the end of the day you are not teaching a partner how to love you.

Back to the BJ... of course you need to be aware of your partner's likes and dislikes. But when "effort" is required to do something for a partner and you expect the same in return, you are setting yourself up for failure. Sexual chemistry can not be traded, it does not work on demand and it can not be forced or expected. Some might argue it can be done that way, but it would be rather one-sided.

All you can do is create an opportunity and encourage it. Using the analogy of a BJ it would work best by demonstrating primarily the way you enjoy really giving a BJ and seeing if he enjoys that. If you both don't enjoy something mutually then it is not sustainable. 

There is an old saying that, "it is better to give than to receive" and I think that holds true with sex. So why not focus the most on what you enjoy giving and the things that require no effort nor expect anything in return. 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

I left for few days only to come back to such amazing discussion. This was awesome!


----------

