# attitudes and their unintended consequence



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

There is a contingent on this board (thankfully not so much in what I have experienced in life) that has some attitudes that I don't think are realized to have a very DIRECT impact on undesired results. 

There are group of men who have this attitude that sex is a thing to get. They'll marry to get it. They'll pay in the form of dates or family provision to get it. It is a thing to "get". The delivery mechanism of this commodity is rated solely on hotness. 

There was once a time when this exchange was considered fair. That time has largely gone.

And what these people don't get, as they fail to adapt to a new world order where women don't NEED a guy to pay for them, is that there is and always has been a whole world of wonderful love and sexual relationship that treats both partners as ... well partners, fully, actually and wholly. And in the new world order where more women are requiring that or nothing at all, it is the very attitude of woman as sexual commodity that MAKES these guys so very, very unattractive.

I think of the people in my life. I have a relative who suffered a TBI at a young age. As a result of that he has had surgeries, suffered accidents that have caused more surgeries, has speech issues. Never had trouble getting dates. Is happily married to a wonderful woman. I have a brother who is super short. Never had trouble getting dates. Happily married. Teen aged kids complain about the noises from their bedroom. 

The list goes on from my friends, to more distant relations to coworkers. I obviously have no direct insight into many of their sex lives. But they sure don't come off as dolorous as the dudes on here. And the way they treat women in the rest of their lives makes it hard to imagine their attitude is one of commodity.

I see no evidence of this 80/20 thing. I think that is an excuse that sad sack, loser guys use to excuse the fact that they are, in fact, sad sack, losers. Who are the other 80% of women dating. Because don't we know that if you are a woman, you can date at the drop of a hat?

Or could it be that since sex is a commodity to get and women are its delivery mechanism rated solely on hotness, that they are just bitter that they can't get their California dime? Cuz women are gonna wanna hit THAT.

Am I off base?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Am I off base?


You are in a forum that is populated largely by people with issues of one kind or another in their marriage. There's a huge self-selection bias here that does not necessarily reflect the greater whole. The people in TAM were not chosen randomly from the population, so you should be very surprised to find it had attitudes representative of that group as a whole.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Cletus said:


> You are in a forum that is populated largely by people with issues of one kind or another in their marriage. There's a huge self-selection bias here that does not necessarily reflect the greater whole. The people in TAM were not chosen randomly from the population, so you should be very surprised to find it had attitudes representative of that group as a whole.


Strangely, the women who are unsuccessful in their marriage don't become generally bitter about men on this forum. How does that work?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Cletus said:


> You are in a forum that is populated largely by people with issues of one kind or another in their marriage. There's a huge self-selection bias here that does not necessarily reflect the greater whole. The people in TAM were not chosen randomly from the population, so you should be very surprised to find it had attitudes representative of that group as a whole.


And it is not a matter of representation of a group as a whole, as I mentioned. It is about the attitude itself being among the CAUSES of the failure that they lament.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Completely agreed with Cletus. I would not use TAM as a representation of what is going on in the real world, and instead rely on your own personal life experiences.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Completely agreed with Cletus. I would not use TAM as a representation of what is going on in the real world, and instead rely on your own personal life experiences.


Um. I am not. Since that is not what the topic of the thread was. So that's good.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> Um. I am not. Since that is not what the topic of the thread was. So that's good.


My point is, there are some guys who may be vocal about this, but even on TAM I don't find it to be the norm. From my time here I see just as many women who come across as bitter towards men. It may simply be perspective, I may be more quick to catch a female being bitter about men as you are about men and their views.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> My point is, there are some guys who may be vocal about this, but even on TAM I don't find it to be the norm. From my time here I see just as many women who come across as bitter towards men. It may simply be perspective, I may be more quick to catch a female being bitter about men as you are about men and their views.


Ok. It is not the norm. Granted in the OP. And not the point. The point is that the attitude itself is the cause of the difficulties that those with this attitude lament. Is that a problematic topic?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok. It is not the norm. Granted in the OP. And not the point. The point is that the attitude itself is the cause of the difficulties that those with this attitude lament. Is that a problematic topic?


Your post reads as if this is solely a guy issue, and there aren't bitter women here as you stated which I disagree with (which in part could be looking at things from a male vs. female perspective).

In terms of your OP, I don't necessarily disagree with any of your points. One thing I have learned on forums, you can't always take what you read seriously (or what I mean by that, not everything that someone writes on a forum is necessarily how they act in real life). As well, much of this may depend on the person's own experiences, their current environment, etc... Although I agree that more women have become independent, this doesn't mean that there still aren't those who look for a man to support them, so along with that you will always have that attitude from some men as well.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Your post reads as if this is solely a guy issue, and there aren't bitter women here as you stated which I disagree with (which in part could be looking at things from a male vs. female perspective).


Oh that is probably true. The post was mostly with some of the other recent posts in mind.



> In terms of your OP, I don't necessarily disagree with any of your points. One thing I have learned on forums, you can't always take what you read seriously (or what I mean by that, not everything that someone writes on a forum is necessarily how they act in real life). As well, much of this may depend on the person's own experiences, their current environment, etc... Although I agree that more women have become independent, this doesn't mean that there still aren't those who look for a man to support them, so along with that you will always have that attitude from some men as well.


The other thing I learned from my own experience many years ago, having done it myself for quite some time, is people will FIGHT REALLY HARD to maintain their version of "right" even when considering alternate points of view could actually be helpful to them. 

In terms of having a bad attitude that was self fulfilling, that was the state of my marriage many years ago.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

On this forum, I see a lot of both genders using or being used by the other in order to gain something.

From men, its more often sex...from women, its more often money.

There's a lot of men who think of women as a sexual commodity and there's a lot of dependent women who put themselves in situations where they zero power in the relationship, have to stay in bad marriages or can't take care of themselves in the event of marital dissolution because they're living on a deluded gravy train rather than being empowered to take care of themselves.

So it goes both ways for both genders.

I would agree that the world will be a better place when adults act like adults and have the respect for themselves and each other to have real relationships that aren't based on unhealthy dependencies and are instead about being with the other person purely because of choice and not need.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Strangely, the women who are unsuccessful in their marriage don't become generally bitter about men on this forum. How does that work?


Because men and women are different, I guess. Or maybe its confirmation bias on your part. Or maybe a hundred other things. 

I don't have a better answer. I'm not bitter about women.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Because men and women are different, I guess. Or maybe its confirmation bias on your part. Or maybe a hundred other things.
> 
> I don't have a better answer. *I'm not bitter about women.*


Which is why I regularly think you aren't experiencing a self fulfilling attitude.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

i'm not really getting your point.

maybe this is related to what you're saying, maybe not;
what i personally think is destructive to the soul is the mindset of 'doing this or doing that to get more sex'.
not necessarily from your spouse, but in general.

be more 'alpha' to get more sex. how to present yourself to get more sex. 
be 'successful', powerful and you'll get more sex.
i think that sex should be on a higher plane than gratification or conquest.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> i'm not really getting your point.
> 
> maybe this is related to what you're saying, maybe not;
> what i personally think is destructive to the soul is the mindset of 'doing this or doing that to get more sex'.
> ...


No that is not really the point. I don't buy the Alpha stuff, or at least think there is so much differing opinion on what that means as to render the word useless.

My point is that the very thing that they desire, a human glory hole of significant hotness, is the very thing that makes them so massively unattractive to the owners of the glory holes since they are human people after all and no longer need to sell their glory holes.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I get what you're saying, NS. I doubt the people it applies to will get it.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I get what you're saying, NS. I doubt the people it applies to will get it.


Wooooooosh. I am so misunderstood.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I don't think it is that....I think it is simply that the people who this applies to are not going to be able to see that they are creating their own problem. They won't even get it that this post is about them.


----------



## meson (May 19, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> Wooooooosh. I am so misunderstood.


I don't know if I understand exactly what you mean but I do see that there is frequently a disconnect with people's attitudes and what they expect. Their attitudes may arise from a specific world view and for many it's the only possible and correct view point. Since by their world view definition they are behaving correctly any issues must be outside of them and lies with others with differing world views. 

So you nailed it for the few guys that are still living the world view that men go out and conquer women for sex will enviably run across women who see through it and when this happens the issues will always be with the women and not themselves.

We see this a lot on TAM with differing views of marriage. Many abide by the provider/housewife notion while many do not. Often the husband and wife have a disconnect on what marriage is to each other. Some want equal partners while others want leaders and supporters. There is nothing wrong with this as long as the husband and wife share the same view. But unfortunately this is not always the case. We frequently hear the lament from husbands that they are great providers but their wife's don't appreciate them. While from wives we frequently hear about a lack of affection while their husband spends too much time working too much. And each think it's a problem with the spouse but each may be doing exactly what they think they are supposed to according to their view on marriage. 

So their attitude towards marriage which differs from their spouse is the source of their discontent not necessarily their spouse as they think.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I get what you're saying, NS. I doubt the people it applies to will get it.


No they don't see it as evidenced many times here, it is never their fault, it is women, not just their wives but women in general.
You can see it dripping from their words here they don't get it and they refuse to think they are part of their own problem.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Two comments not for clarification just my opinion. 
I've always viewed sex as transactional. Even from the evolutionary model. Probably because of the evolutionary model. Your proclaiming a brave new world order does not make it so.

Second, you are absolutely right that separated women here on this forum are way less bitter than my life experienced percentages. I'll probably be wondering why for a long time.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> Two comments not for clarification just my opinion.
> I've always viewed sex as transactional. Even from the evolutionary model. Probably because of the evolutionary model. Your proclaiming a brave new world order does not make it so.


I have no knowledge of or interested in whether or not this is an evolutionary model or a social model. Humans have developed to a place where evolutionary models don't have the same impact in areas from food acquisition to child rearing. So even if this were rooted in evolution, which I see no reason to suspect, the fact is irrelevant today.

Today women don't have to accept the transactional model. If they don't want a transactional model, they have other options. Many of us clearly don't. We find it from distasteful to down right unattractive to sexist, depending on their point of view. One can insist that it is. But if it does not have to be for half of a partnership, and that half does not want it to be, where does that leave the people who insist it "is". Out to lunch. Out in the cold. And without the tools to move into what can be, rooted as they are in what they think "is".


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I don't understand what you mean by "transactional". I thought that in general sex was something done for the enjoyment of both parties (with obvious exceptions like prostitution). A particular session may be done for the pleasure of one or the other, but in a relationship in general isn't it generally mutual?


Maybe this is what I don't understand about all the PUA stuff. If you just want sex and don't care if your partner enjoys it, then why not buy it? In most parts of the world prostitutes are readily available at quite low prices. More money can get extremely attractive prostitutes. 





Mr. Nail said:


> Two comments not for clarification just my opinion.
> I've always viewed sex as transactional. Even from the evolutionary model. Probably because of the evolutionary model. Your proclaiming a brave new world order does not make it so.
> 
> Second, you are absolutely right that separated women here on this forum are way less bitter than my life experienced percentages. I'll probably be wondering why for a long time.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm willing to go further since there are questions.

I understand the problems with the evolutionary model and with transactional sex. I think many women would prefer non transactional relationships.

The evolutionary model is something like this. The man has nearly limitless supply of sperm cells. His best path to dna propagation is to spread it as far as he can. Wander and breed, Viking. The Woman on the other hand has a strictly limited number of eggs (or pregnancy time). Her best bet for DNA propagation, is to protect each one as much as possible. Cities, marriage, civilization.

Enter the Transaction. The man agrees to limit his natural desire to wander, adventure, and have lots of sexual partners, in return for Comfort, and security, and unlimited sex from one partner. Or he agrees to have sex with only one partner in exchange for assurance that his sexual needs will be filled.

Now we have this casual sex. Women are agreeing to accept men's desire to have lots of partners, but they still want him to provide for her precious egg. Is it a surprise that men don't like this deal?

OK so this thread (I know I wandered a lot) is saying that men and women should engage in sex freely and with no expectation other than they are attracted to each other. Non procreative sex. What this does is open up the market for sex. Men are no longer required to give up something to get sex. This weakens women's pro civilization power. Over all, in the long run it doesn't seem like a great idea. 

Men not required to be something different will quite quickly revert to the wandering model they evolutionarily prefer. There are societies currently that follow this model. The women settle and raise the children the men wander from partner to partner.

In the recent past women wanted men for status. Now they don't need a husband to be respectable. There are still things they want, and I see plenty of evidence that they are willing, young and old, to sell sex to get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Did you know that all of this has been debunked by many scientists?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you know that all of this has been debunked by many scientists?


And pretty much beside the point.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Evolution is dead!


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

OK OK I'm feeling Snarky today and should probably just sit on my hands. 

I did due diligence and reread the opening post, which I have no problem with. Women want partners. Women don't want to be a commodity. Women aren't attracted to men who are trying to get sex. All of that matches with my observations. But I observe women violating those ideals every day. Either some women are not on board with the program, or these ideals are not all that absolute.

How about the other side of the equation? What is it that men (potential partners) want?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think simple evolutionary pressures have very little to do with sex in modern humans. As evidence, consider the much discussed BJ. It does not result in procreation, so why is it something so many men want? 

Or alternately why are men not most attracted to women with physical characteristics that suggest good prospects of having health children - wide hips and a solid (but not unhealthy) amount of body fat. The traditional Russian farm woman - large, strong, healthy, should be the centerfold in playboy.


There is evolutionary pressure, but 500 generations of civilization have made that pressure very complex and very different from what is seen in mating animals.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm willing to go further since there are questions.
> 
> I understand the problems with the evolutionary model and with transactional sex. I think many women would prefer non transactional relationships.
> 
> ...


but all this presumes that we are primarily driven by biological evolutionary impulses, which i doubt and reject. we are quite a bit more complex than that. we are driven more by logic, trial and error, morality, history and human psychology more than internal primitive impulses.

that's what distinguishes us from the animal world. and in that sense we are quite a bit different. yes, we are physically animals and have those genetic codes that push us, but our whole society is an extremely complex structure that was designed by way more than simple genetic impulses. you simply can't reduce our motivations to biological evolution.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

If I did not firmly believe that marriage provides a positive pressure towards more civilization. I wouldn't have Partnered.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> There is a contingent on this board (thankfully not so much in what I have experienced in life) that has some attitudes that I don't think are realized to have a very DIRECT impact on undesired results.
> 
> *There are group of men* who have this attitude that sex is a thing to get. They'll marry to get it. They'll pay in the form of dates or family provision to get it. It is a thing to "get". The delivery mechanism of this commodity is rated solely on hotness.
> 
> ...


I suspect that I might be a member of this group since we've been on opposite sides on several threads. If by some chance I'm not, maybe I can represent them regardless.

"There are group of men who have this attitude that sex is a thing to get."

The view used to generally be that men* got *sex and women *gave* sex. I believe that you're conceding that that is indeed the way it used to be. I know that you, FW and AA believe that this is no longer the case. In my case, I've never been a fan of having sex "given" to me. However, to the degree that this is still a common view, I'd contend that just as many women hold this view as men. 

"There was once a time when this exchange was considered fair. That time has largely gone." 

I agree. It used to be that a woman needed a man to provide for them and that was part of the man's contribution to the marriage. This is often not the case these days. Both men and women have to adapt to the fact that this is no longer as important as it once was. Some men need guidance on what it is that women DO want now and some women may have to reconsider what it is that attracts them to a man. Nevertheless, many women still seem to want men (i.e. there are at least as many "Where have all the good men gone" articles as there are about how women no longer need men. 

"it is the very attitude of woman as sexual commodity that MAKES these guys so very, very unattractive."

Most of the guys that I would guess are in your "group" contend that this isn't personal, that they have girlfriends or wives. I've been very happily married to a high powered tech consultant for 25 years, it's embarrassing sometimes for me to hear how she raves about me to her friends. Of course, I could be lying. The other guys could be lying. But you should consider that, since we're NOT saying that we can't get any women, maybe that's not the reason why we think what we do.

The 20/80 thing is about having access to possible mates. It doesn't mean that 80% don't have partners. In fact, if the 20% really do have far more access to potential partners than the 80%, than there are likely more successful marriages among the 80% than the 20%. 

"women are ..... rated solely on hotness"

This is your confirmation bias at work. I don't recall any poster saying that they judge women only on "hotness". They've said hotness is important. They haven't said it's the only criteria. In fact, there's quite a bit of literature by men warning other men away from women with excessive "hotness" (i.e. strippers and hair dressers).

My POV is that there is a difference between unconscious thought and rational thought (Kahemann, Haidt) and that they are often in conflict. That personality is mostly determined by genes (Pinker). That evolution affects genes (everybody). That men and women have responded to different evolutionary pressures for hundreds of thousands of years and therefore are unlikely to be *exactly* the same about anything (including sex). And that, therefore, it's possible that both genders are having some trouble adjusting to relatively very recent changes in society in the developed world.

Then, my POV is that we're not going to adapt easily as long as many women (including the most vocal) decide that the only problem is guys being d!cks.

Or, you can just decide that I'm just a loser who's bitter because I can't find any women to have sex with, guys are losers and women have no problems at all.

Whichever floats your boat.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> I suspect that I might be a member of this group since we've been on opposite sides on several threads.


I have no idea who you are. If we have shared topics, I don't recall.



> If by some chance I'm not, maybe I can represent them regardless.
> 
> "There are group of men who have this attitude that sex is a thing to get."
> 
> The view used to generally be that men* got *sex and women *gave* sex. I believe that you're conceding that that is indeed the way it used to be. I know that you, FW and AA believe that this is no longer the case. In my case, I've never been a fan of having sex "given" to me. However, to the degree that this is still a common view, I'd contend that just as many women hold this view as men.


I don't actually care, never have, about how common something is. I care about what is possible and what can be. What now can be that was not formerly possible is that women can choose not to be sex commodities in exchange for sustenance. More and more and more can. And more and more and more do.



> "There was once a time when this exchange was considered fair. That time has largely gone."
> 
> I agree. It used to be that a woman needed a man to provide for them and that was part of the man's contribution to the marriage. This is often not the case these days. Both men and women have to adapt to the fact that this is no longer as important as it once was. Some men need guidance on what it is that women DO want now and some women may have to reconsider what it is that attracts them to a man.


Ok. To the degree that I observe women complaining about their difficulty in attracting a mate, I don't think this seems to be a compelling motivator.




> Nevertheless, many women still seem to want men (i.e. there are at least as many "Where have all the good men gone" articles as there are about how women no longer need men.


Huh. When I sought that, the first hit was for the song lyrics. There weren't many more. But that is not what my topic group was. My topic group was here.




> "it is the very attitude of woman as sexual commodity that
> MAKES these guys so very, very unattractive."
> 
> Most of the guys that I would guess are in your "group" contend that this isn't personal, that they have girlfriends or wives.


Well then you are missing the group.



> I've been very happily married to a high powered tech consultant for 25 years, it's embarrassing sometimes for me to hear how she raves about me to her friends.


I am glad for you. Happy marriage is a joy.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

jorgegene said:


> but all this presumes that we are primarily driven by biological evolutionary impulses, which i doubt and reject.


Not me. The primary driver - the thing that makes us even bother to try to attract a mate in the first place - is a billion years in the making.



> we are quite a bit more complex than that. we are driven more by logic, trial and error, morality, history and human psychology more than internal primitive impulses.


Those aren't the drivers, those are the moderators and the modifiers of our drives. Those are the things that make us select one potential mate over another, not the things that drive us to look for that mate when we could be eating Cheetohs on the couch while playing video games.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Not me. The primary driver - the thing that makes us even bother to try to attract a mate in the first place - is a billion years in the making.
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't the drivers, those are the moderators and the modifiers of our drives. Those are the things that make us select one potential mate over another, not the things that drive us to look for that mate when we could be eating Cheetohs on the couch while playing video games.


If your talking about the simple urge to have sex and why we do, then yes, but thats not I think what OP had in mind. They were discussing HOW men pursue sex and interpersonal relationhips, not WHY.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> .
> 
> There are group of men who have this attitude that sex is a thing to get. They'll marry to get it. They'll pay in the form of dates or family provision to get it. It is a thing to "get". The delivery mechanism of this commodity is rated solely on hotness.
> 
> ...


Just my $0.02, since we have bickered about this on other threads:
1) Sex is important to men, probably much more important to men than women, on average
2) Of course men marry to get sex, that is part and parcel of why they do it. The words you utter during the ceremony imply fidelity and an active sex life.
3) Many of the men complaining typically aren't married to someone who makes enough to live on their own at the current standard of living. Your modern women model probably doesn't hold much water with part time or SAHM.
4) There is a strongly held belief by some and it is reinforced a lot with discussions here, that men need to provide for their family. I still think this applies to most relationships.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> Just my $0.02, since we have bickered about this on other threads:
> 1) Sex is important to men, probably much more important to men than women, on average
> 2) Of course men marry to get sex, that is part and parcel of why they do it. The words you utter during the ceremony imply fidelity and an active sex life.
> 3) Many of the men complaining typically aren't married to someone who makes enough to live on their own at the current standard of living. Your modern women model probably doesn't hold much water with part time or SAHM.
> 4) There is a strongly held belief by some and it is reinforced a lot with discussions here, that men need to provide for their family. I still think this applies to most relationships.


I can't remember if you are one of the posters who regularly complains about lack of sex. That would be telling.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I can't remember if you are one of the posters who regularly complains about lack of sex. That would be telling.


used to be until I did MMSLP. Which is basically the opposite of what you post.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I am just glad I am not married to you!


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Likewise, I'm sure.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> Likewise, I'm sure.


Yup. He does not like me.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I am just glad I am not married to you!


well, since you don't know me and know why I followed advice from MMSLP, I am glad that I am not married to you as well. Sheesh.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> well, since you don't know me and know why I followed advice from MMSLP, I am glad that I am not married to you as well. Sheesh.


I was goofing around. Sorry. Did not mean to be harsh. Just was not funny.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I was goofing around. Sorry. Did not mean to be harsh. Just was not funny.


no sweat, sometimes it is hard to understand humor over the 'net.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> no sweat, sometimes it is hard to understand humor over the 'net.


Especially when I was not even actually funny.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> Just my $0.02, since we have bickered about this on other threads:
> 1) Sex is important to men, probably much more important to men than women, on average
> 2) Of course men marry to get sex, that is part and parcel of why they do it. The words you utter during the ceremony imply fidelity and an active sex life.


So I guess this is less ideal that marrying someone for THEM because one loves THEM and choosing something with whom a rocking sex life exists. 





> 3) Many of the men complaining typically aren't married to someone who makes enough to live on their own at the current standard of living. Your modern women model probably doesn't hold much water with part time or SAHM.


I have no idea what that even means.



> 4) There is a strongly held belief by some and it is reinforced a lot with discussions here, that men need to provide for their family. I still think this applies to most relationships.


I don't actually. Here is the ONLY place I have seen this attitude maintained.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> So I guess this is less ideal that marrying someone for THEM because one loves THEM and choosing something with whom a rocking sex life exists.
> 
> Practically speaking for men sex = love (at least in marriage). I get that this isn't the total picture and disagree with 'rocking sex' as a requirement, but for most men, marriage is perceived to be the road for sex/love/etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

YMMV. That is not at ALL how my DH works. So I am less certain that this is a "man" thing that is cast in stone.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

So this:


Practically speaking for men sex = love (at least in marriage). 

Would be part of a problem for me. In that model, neither the love nor the sex need be SHARED. It just needs to be present. Like anyone could give it. And poof it would be love.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> So this:
> 
> 
> Practically speaking for men sex = love (at least in marriage).
> ...


Oh, I agree 100% that they need to be shared. No doubt about that at all. However, it is my belief that men are more invested into sex than women (on average) and the opposite for love. But in a solid relationship, most of the time both need both. I think we agree more than you think :grin2:


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

This kind of topic has been on here before in many different forms and while it may spark some interesting discussion, it's a veritable Mobius band. 

My takeaway from topics like these is that usually the person or group initiating the discussion is seeing things from his or her gender's or personal POV. That's the only way we can really see things in the world so inherently, it's where the discussion is going to start from.

But when you wear a female hat and then talk about a man's world you're automatically and instantly out of your element. The same holds true for men trying to make and take perspective on the female gender and their idiosyncrasies. In my mind there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Once you're out of your element, you impart the knowledge that you have learned by perspective and introspection alone... and there are no "right" answers or resolutions. It's whatever you experience and make of it.

I like to think that I know my SO pretty well, yet there are things he does that still surprise me to this day because I thought I knew him and his gender pretty well. There are many issues revolving men that I simply do not and cannot understand. For instance, my experience has taught me that men value sex in particular ways that typically women often do not. Sex is like their bread and butter, their validation that a woman loves them, their emotional fulfillment. Are all men like that? No, but I think that fundamentally, many are. Do I understand it from an empathetic POV? Yes, I really try to. Do I understand it from a personal POV? No, because the ways in which I draw the same feelings come from other things... so I'm rather incapable of knowing what it's like for a man. Therefore, I don't pretend to know about it with my SO... I ask him to help explain so at least I can give him more support around it.

I can't ask my SO to always know from my POV why I feel about certain things... for instance, I shared a story about a female friend that never once received so much as a "thank you" from her husband for pushing out two 9+ .lb babies without a c-section (to clarify... not both at the same time). This woman is very skinny. She was actually quite hurt that her husband never once showed thanks for what she carried and pushed out. My SO's response was that it's not something men really think about in the same terms. They were both committed to creating the children, so why does he need to thank her for carrying and pushing them out? You know.... at first I was in support of my friend comletely because being female I understood where she was coming from.... but honestly, my SO wasn't wrong and he opened me up to a whole new perspective. Did it make my friends' husband an arse? No, maybe because he thought of it in the ways my SO described... maybe because he can't carry a baby to term or push one out he is incapable of knowing the kind of emotional, physical, and spiritual rush it can be? Maybe he felt that he was showing her how much he loved and appreciated the children and what she brought by being a fantastic father by his actions?

My point is, there are just some things that men and women are not meant to "get." To tell the truth, I love that we are made this way. I think that our differences and what domain we each "own" in this universe is what makes us attractive, endearing, and valuable to each other in the first place. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

naiveonedave said:


> Practically speaking for men sex = love (at least in marriage). I get that this isn't the total picture and disagree with 'rocking sex' as a requirement, but for most men, marriage is perceived to be the road for sex/love/etc.


I would amend this slightly. Sex doesn't necessarily mean love, but lack of sex is definitely seen as lack of love. It's rejection of _you_, saying that you aren't good enough, aren't worthy of your partner's affection and intimacy.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> I would amend this slightly. Sex doesn't necessarily mean love, but lack of sex is definitely seen as lack of love. It's rejection of _you_, saying that you aren't good enough, aren't worthy of your partner's affection and intimacy.


Here is a sticky wicket. What if you aren't? What if she does NOT feel loved, loving, affectionate?


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

Personal said:


> If you acknowledge that sex isn't always love, it is rather spurious to claim that a lack of sex is a lack of love.
> 
> One can be loved by someone who doesn't want to have sex with you or likewise one can love someone they don't want to have sex with, I sometimes call such people friends or family.


Talking isn't always love. If your partner consistently chooses not to talk to you and rejects your attempts at conversation, would you consider that a lack of love?



NobodySpecial said:


> Here is a sticky wicket. What if you aren't? What if she does NOT feel loved, loving, affectionate?


If this is the normal state of the relationship, then you're both probably in the wrong relationship.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> Talking isn't always love. If your partner consistently chooses not to talk to you and rejects your attempts at conversation, would you consider that a lack of love?
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the normal state of the relationship, then you're both probably in the wrong relationship.


No I mean. What is a person to do when their partner IS the problem? That changes with the partner could help bring back the love?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I am one of those women who looked upon sex / intimacy as something we GIVE to each other, there is, always was , a great depth of meaning attached to sex -for me.. I don't feel this means there is something wrong with me or my views.. even though others have wanted me to see just that... 

Sex is not something I've ever taken lightly.. it represents the deepest of commitment ... it's not something I can separate or compartmentalize -without it hurting ME..

It is about sharing with someone not only physically, but mentally, spiritually.. experiencing the whole person.. feeling "as one"... 

It saddens me how this sexual view is looked upon with a certain disdain anymore...my husband has always appreciated how strongly I felt.. it's one reason we were so right for each other even.. 

Not that what I am expressing here is what you are taking about.. but the GIFT GIVING VIEW is a Romantic view of sexuality.. there is nothing wrong with this.. if both parties deeply value & attachment exclusivity / lasting commitment with their intimacy.. 

Though you may have a different meaning over what I am talking about here ?? .. something more sinister, selfish.. I don't know... I can't look upon this view in this light ... yet it's still about "giving" of yourselves to another.....I wouldn't throw the word "commodity" in there at all.. this blackens or tramples on the meaning -for me .. 



> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> No I mean. What is a person to do when their partner IS the problem? That changes with the partner could help bring back the love?


My answer is the same. If it is an ongoing situation to the extent that both partners feel this way often enough that it is a problem, it is time to question whether you are right for each other.

I would also suggest that your* partner who you suggest is the problem may feel the exact same way about you (that you are the problem, and that if you would just change and make an effort to meet their needs it would bring the love back).


*I'm not trying to call you out by using "you" and "your", I tried to write it at first referring to both parties in third person and it sounded awkward.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> My answer is the same. If it is an ongoing situation to the extent that both partners feel this way often enough that it is a problem, it is time to question whether you are right for each other.
> 
> I would also suggest that your* partner who you suggest is the problem may feel the exact same way about you (that you are the problem, and that if you would just change and make an effort to meet their needs it would bring the love back).
> 
> ...


Saying "one" is awfully stiff!

But I think you are touching on the edge of my point. SOMEONE has to be willing to rethink changing the dynamic. Or as you say, the relationship is doomed.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Saying "one" is awfully stiff!
> 
> But I think you are touching on the edge of my point. *SOMEONE has to be willing to rethink changing the dynamic. Or as you say, the relationship is doomed*.


And I think in the most loving relationships, BOTH would make the effort rather than stubbornly dig in their heels.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> And I think in the most loving relationships, BOTH would make the effort rather than stubbornly dig in their heels.


Of course.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

For most of the guys who come here frustrated, they do want a connection. They don't just want to have sex with - anyone. N
Instead they want to connect with their wife. 




NobodySpecial said:


> So this:
> 
> 
> Practically speaking for men sex = love (at least in marriage).
> ...


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> For most of the guys who come here frustrated, they do want a connection. They don't just want to have sex with - anyone. N
> Instead they want to connect with their wife.


It seems pretty unidirectional to me, like you can acquire a connection despite her not beign connected in any way. You hear words like "excuses" and "avoiding". How can you achieve a connection when someone gives in under that kind of circimstance.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> And I think in the most loving relationships, BOTH would make the effort rather than stubbornly dig in their heels.


Problems also arise when both parties feel as if they are making an effort but the other doesn't recognize it or feel it is enough. Then both may feel like the victim, like they are making the effort and it is not being reciprocated.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Nobody,

Given the choice between protecting their egos and truly connecting, many of these folks choose the former. 

I have read more than a few posts from supposedly LD folks about how resistant their spouses are to 'feedback'. 






NobodySpecial said:


> It seems pretty unidirectional to me, like you can acquire a connection despite her not beign connected in any way. You hear words like "excuses" and "avoiding". How can you achieve a connection when someone gives in under that kind of circimstance.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Nobody,
> 
> Given the choice between protecting their egos and truly connecting, many of these folks choose the former.
> 
> I have read more than a few posts from supposedly LD folks about how resistant their spouses are to 'feedback'.


Exactly. It is depressing actually. The keys to the kingdom within reach. But too scared to pick them up.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

One of the themes I see a lot, and not only on TAM but in my personal experience, is that men do women a huge favor by marrying them. The thought seems to be that marriage is something women want and is somehow a much better deal for them, so the very act of marrying a woman does her such a huge favor that they guy should be rewarded with unlimited sex of his choosing. 

So because of this a lot of guys will stop making a lot of effort, because the act of marriage should be enough guarantee sex. 

This was only true in the days when women couldn't support themselves and needed to find a guy, and a wife and family as a burden on a guy as he was the sole support. This also caused women to marry guys they were less than attracted to becausew attraction couldn't be her top priority like it could be for him. And she HAD to put out because he could easily leave her with nothing, and marital rape and abuse was acceptable. 

I think a lot of men are still adjusting to what's desired of them in this new era, and are secretly angry that marriage didn't guarantee them sex on demand because they do in fact believe they did her a favor. I've found many men believe they are a much better catch than they are. 

Now for sure women aren't angels here. .. plenty pull bait and switches, trade sex for stuff they want, claim to be independent but then quit working. Women are not perfect. I do think it's important to understand this dynamic though. 

My hb didn't do me a big fat favor to marry me, we did each other a favor. Both of us benefit, and his job as the one with the penis is not more important than mine. That's what being partners is about. Statistically his health will benefit more than mine from being married. 

Also, life isn't solely about getting sex. Even men may have times in their life where sex doesn't work for them. Besides, I like sex as much as anyone but isn't there more to life than how many holes you can bang? What a sad way to live. By all means seek out a rewarding sex life but when you're gone you want people to remember you for more than the fact that you banged a bunch of people and got lots of std's.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

An egregious recent example looked like this.

Guy is losing it over his sex starved marriage. Gets asked - what are your issues/flaws. 

Posts a list of strengths/weaknesses. The first 40 (I admit it - I counted) items on this list were strengths. The last half dozen were a short list of non essential - weaknesses. It looked like little real thought went into the weaknesses. 

That level of ego protection makes real connection impossible. 




NobodySpecial said:


> Exactly. It is depressing actually. The keys to the kingdom within reach. But too scared to pick them up.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

The first part of rebuilding is demolitions. For someone who wants to rebuild a marriage, they have to start by tearing down the stuff that doesn't work. And as we've established time and again, you can only really change yourself. People that aren't prepared to look at the ugly truth in the mirror are going to have a really bad time.


----------

