# "5 Reasons You Should Have Sex With Your Husband Every Night"



## Theseus (Feb 22, 2013)

Normally I hate the Huffington Post, but this article was like a breath of fresh air:

5 Reasons You Should Have Sex With Your Husband Every Night, by*Meg Conley

_I was getting a manicure the first time I learned that not all wives want to, ahem, go for a roll in the hay with their husbands. I was 16 and had picked out orange nail polish (oh, sixteen). I had a book with me but it wasn't long before I found another source of entertainment. In-between buffings and polishings, the two women next to me talked about how much their husbands wanted IT and how little they wanted to give IT.

For a girl that had not even been asked out on a date this was a whole new world. I had a suspicion that their experience was more realistic than the articles I sneaky read in Cosmo while getting my hair done at the salon. (I am supposed to put my hand WHERE? while simultaneously doing WHAT?) So I kept my eyes on my book, let the words blur into lines and listened closely.

"Doesn't he know how tired I am by the end of the day? As if after the kids are finally asleep I have the energy to do anything but sit down and watch some TV."

"For me, it isn't even the energy it takes. I am still losing weight from the baby. I don't feel sexy. I can hardly undress in front of a mirror, let alone in front of him. I honestly think it is selfish that he expects me to pretend to feel something that I don't."

"Selfish? That's a good word. Maybe if he took care of the kids when he got home or made dinner once in a while I would be more interested. Hell, just pick up the milk on the way home from work. I am not asking for much. Now that I think about it, I don't think we have done it in the last three weeks."

"Yeah. It's been at least two for us."

Wait. These women were married...they lived with a guy....who slept in their bed. They could have sex all the time! And they didn't want to? It made no sense. It was like turning down a zero calorie but as delicious-as-creme-brulee dessert. (Or at least I assumed. At that point everything I knew about romance was gleaned from Anne of Green Gables and Moulin Rouge.)

How sad. How wasteful. How stupid. When I got married, I would always want to have sex with my husband! And I would never be too tired. My goodness, it was just ridiculous to want him to bring home a gallon of milk just to prove he cared. Wasn't it just like a woman to make a grocery run a test of love. As the final coat of polish was applied to my nails, I swore to never be like them. My life would be different. I would be better. I would never feel too fat or too tired. Ever.

And then I grew up.

Intercourse, carnal knowledge, lovemaking, knocking boots, coitus, SEX! is everything 16 year old me imagined plus a little whipped cream on top. (Whipped cream, see what I did there?) And once Riley and I got married there was lots and lots and lots of it. Then we had a baby and I really was just so tired my bones hurt. And for a while I did feel fat. Even after I lost the pregnancy weight everything just looked different. Like a cut flower that has been left out in the sun, still lovely just a little...wilted. I became a little distant. We started to fall asleep without talking or kissing.

Then one day while washing dishes, I realized that we had gone eight days without touching each other. Eight days was a quite some time for us. But the thing that bothered me the most was that I hadn't missed it. And I knew that was a problem. So that night after we put the baby to bed, I gave Riley my best come hither glance. Yes, I was tired and felt about as desirable as the "feed the birds" lady in Mary Poppins. But while drying the dishes, it occurred to me that 16 year old Meg must have understood something about sex that 20-something Meg had forgotten. And maybe, just maybe it was worth remembering.

Without further ado here are five reasons you should have sex with your husband every night:

*1. Being a mother, one of the ultimate expressions of womanhood, can often leave a girl feeling stripped of her femininity.* There is something about being covered in spit up and attending to the every need of another human being that makes one feel distinctly gender neutral. Most of my days are spent playing with dolls, wiping baby food off of my clothes, changing diapers, wiping snot off of my clothes, going to the park, and wiping what-the-heavens-is-that off of my clothes. There is something restorative about kissing the boy you love. There are times in Riley's arms when I remember who I am before I even realize I have forgotten. Yes, I am a cook, cleaner, teacher, and wiper of all things disgusting. But I am also something more, something delightful and completely apart from my roles. I am a woman! And there is potential and depth and heck, I am pretty darn good kisser, too. It is a lovely thing, finding yourself through the touch of someone else.

*2. If you want your husband to act like a man, you need to treat him like a man.* Hold the eye rolls. I am not pushing for a return to the 1950′s. (Although, heaven knows an era in which low rise jeans did not exist is basically alright by me.) Women need any number of criteria met to feel loved. Men are far simpler. They need to be fed, they need to be appreciated, and they need to have sex. That is it. Really. So make or order dinner once in a while. Say thank you for the long hours spent at work with a hug and smile when he walks through the door each night. (Better yet? Smile as you hand him the kids and walk out the door for a long, much needed break.) And my goodness, let the poor man see you naked. It is astounding what a good man will do for a good woman that has made him feel loved. After a few weeks of meals and make outs, you will sit back and wonder why you didn't insist on having sex every night sooner. Talk about a small investment and big returns.

*3. You need to have a moment in each day that is just about the two of you.* Remember that boy? The one that made your heart thump and hands sweat? The one that called when you hoped he would, that made you run hot and high up to the stars until you thought you would never come down? He is still there. Under the years and bills and worries, that smiling boy is still in love with and needs his smiling girl. Every night after the kids go to bed is a chance to find him again. A moment to remind yourself that you are living a picket fenced adventure and my goodness, there is nothing the two of you can't do.

*4. Sex relieves stress.* I don't know that this one needs much explanation. As a mother I eat stress for breakfast. So it seems to me I have a choice. I can let off steam by A) driving around at night and bashing in strangers mailboxes or B) I can get down and dirty with that one guy I married that one time. I choose option B. (So far the mailboxes in my neighborhood have escaped unscathed, so Option B must be working.)

*5. It is so much blasted fun.* Seriously. Why are we so quick to refuse the good things in life? We will slog through our children's Algebra homework, do Zumba in public and pluck the hair from our body ONE PIECE AT A TIME. But tell a girl to have sex every night and she looks at you like you are crazy, An orgasm? Every night? What do I look like? A Nymphomaniacal Super Woman?

Where is the logic in that?

Are we really too busy doing dishes to participate in an activity that is so good it has inspired genius (that saucy Shakespeare) and changed history (Okay, Helen of Troy, we get it. You were super hot)? My goodness, what a crazy way to live. Ladies, did it ever occur to you (to us!) that we should have sex because WE DESERVE IT?

Yeah, you deserve it.

So, tonight put the kids to bed. Leave the dishes in the sink and the floors unswept. They will wait. Take a moment to remember that you are the girl you hoped you would be and then go find that boy and remind him that he is the man you knew he could be.

Rinse. Repeat._


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Great find, Theseus. Thanks.


----------



## D.H Mosquito (Jul 22, 2014)

A great read and piece of advice that will unfortunately go ignored or slagged off among their girlfriends, if the woman is tired how is the man? his sleep is broken by baby wanting a feed also he will like most men be sticking in a few extra hours to help with the finances, finally once home he will largely be ignored or be expected to muck straight in before he can even de stress after a hard day dealing with idiots and be happy about it while she moans how hard her day was before crawling back into bed to be ignored sexually once again, not to mention come the weekend he will be left alone with the child as she goes out with her friends for much needed adult company also she will transform herself from the baggy jogging trousers t shirt that you get her in to something totally glam as she makes the effort for others


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

While I do agree with Meg Conley's "5 Reasons You Should Have Sex with Your Husband", I think that's only 1/2 of the story. The other half is here.

5 Reasons Your Wife Won't Have Sex With You | Meg Conley

You can read the entire article to get the details but here are the key points she makes.

_*1. Women need you to listen, they need you to remember and they need you to say thank you.* We are not asking for much here.

ROMANCE. COURTSHIP. LOVE.

*2. Take her out on a date at least twice a month.* Put on spiffy clothes and take her to a restaurant, museum, movie or stroll around downtown. Open her door and put your hand on the small of her back. Be the boy she fell in love with and she will be the girl that made your heart race. Making out in the car before driving home (while optional) is strongly suggested.

*3. If you want your wife to treat you like a man, you have to act like a man. *Your wife did not marry you in order to raise you. She does not live to wash your dishes, pick up your socks or put the kids to bed by herself while you watch the game for "just five more minutes." (Although she will happily do all of those things once in a while just because she can.) You are not her project or responsibility. There is nothing sexually appealing about a person that means more work, more worry and less freedom.

*4. She needs a moment in each day that is just about her.* 

*5. It isn't any blasted fun. *Yikes. There it is. The elephant in the room. Women are more likely to want to have sex when an orgasm is involved and too often, it is not. _


----------



## JourneyOn (Aug 10, 2014)

Interesting article!


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Great article and lots of valid points in the story! Good find


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband (Jul 3, 2014)

Ok, I know it did not work in my life because of other circumstances in my marriage, but something I did, which some women will say is passive aggressive, hidden contracts, etc.
I asked my wife what it would take to put her more in the mood. She said she was tired from all the housework,etc. She was a SAHM. So, being way to analytical, I decided to do an experiment. I started slowly so she would not notice to big of a change, but I worked up to the point where I did all the dishes, kept the floors mopped, laundry done & house taken care of. I also made sure to get the kids out of the house so she had some alone time. She also said I was asking to often, So I stopped for the first three months. Then I started asking once a month, working towards the point of almost daily at the end of a year. After being turned down again at end of year, I quit doing everything. Didn't lift a finger. After about a week, she asked why I wasn't doing anything. I asked why we were not having sex? She said "What's that got to do with anything?" I reminded her that she had said she was tired from housework & I had started taking care of all the work. Her response was - "You did all that JUST for SEX?" I explained that for me, sex is the ultimate bonding experience. Now, my wife has other issues that are affecting our relationship. But I used to get so frustrated because she always had excuses to avoid sex, so I decided to start taking them away. Try to drill down to the core reasons why. I also made sure to bring flowers, make time for her, etc. My suggestion to other guys is, make a serious effort to listen to what your spouse says she wants, then change. Then hold them accountable. Just a thought. ps - 5.5 times in a year. The .5 was one night she said "Could you just hurry up", at that point I was done. I made sure to keep on a smile as best I could for the year, so there was no "Your always crabby"


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

The bottom line is that both of the two, seemingly, competing attitudes posted here are required for meeting in the middle. But eventually, ladies, when the babies are here, and you are tired from work, you need to realize that your man needs sex. Period. If you are married to someone like Frazzled ^^, then you need to put on your big girl panties and fake it until you can make it.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> Ok, I know it did not work in my life because of other circumstances in my marriage, but something I did, which some women will say is passive aggressive, hidden contracts, etc.
> I asked my wife what it would take to put her more in the mood. She said she was tired from all the housework,etc. She was a SAHM. So, being way to analytical, I decided to do an experiment. I started slowly so she would not notice to big of a change, but I worked up to the point where I did all the dishes, kept the floors mopped, laundry done & house taken care of. I also made sure to get the kids out of the house so she had some alone time. She also said I was asking to often, So I stopped for the first three months. Then I started asking once a month, working towards the point of almost daily at the end of a year. After being turned down again at end of year, I quit doing everything. Didn't lift a finger. After about a week, she asked why I wasn't doing anything. I asked why we were not having sex? She said "What's that got to do with anything?" I reminded her that she had said she was tired from housework & I had started taking care of all the work. Her response was - "You did all that JUST for SEX?" I explained that for me, sex is the ultimate bonding experience. Now, my wife has other issues that are affecting our relationship. But I used to get so frustrated because she always had excuses to avoid sex, so I decided to start taking them away. Try to drill down to the core reasons why. I also made sure to bring flowers, make time for her, etc. My suggestion to other guys is, make a serious effort to listen to what your spouse says she wants, then change. Then hold them accountable. Just a thought. ps - 5.5 times in a year. The .5 was one night she said "Could you just hurry up", at that point I was done. I made sure to keep on a smile as best I could for the year, so there was no "Your always crabby"


I think it pretty much boils down to either she wants you sexually or she doesn't. The whole "do more housework", "women think men who vacuum are sexy" in a lot of cases is nothing more than an attempt to set the bar to a point they think there is no way you can meet it, thus keeping the excuse alive and well.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Great article Theseus!

And excellent companion piece Lila!

The bottom line it seems none of us are well prepared for the commitment of marriage and the changes that takes place after becoming a family.

So given the two lists above, and give the multitude of exceptions that essentially say "hey I did all that and I still didn't get laid." Or "hey I did all that and it still feels like my husband is another of my mommy chores."

*What 5 things does a husband need in order to prevent his marriage from drifting as a result of lack of sex?*

1. He needs to own and communicate his FEELINGS. How many women have learned FROM TAM and not their own husbands, how men feel so utterly rejected when their wives close up shop. I learned from TAM that men emotionally connect through sex, that being horny is only a part of it. That they feel loved THROUGH sex. Why do women learn this from words written in a forum or an article and NOT from their own husbands?

2, 3, 4, and 5 can come from you all...


What 5 things does a wife need in order to keep her marriage full of love and not resentment.

1. Don't ever mother your husband. Don't ever treat him like a little boy. Just because a lot of men really have no idea how to express their feelings does not mean they don't have any. There is a reason why hero type stories are so popular particularly with men, they want to be the hero, your hero. Let him be your hero!

2. Learn to orgasm and teach him how to give you one or ten! Remember the hero thing? Making a woman scream in delight is the job for superman. Having fun in bed can be complicated at times so you have to tell him what you need from him, and that means you need to know what you need.

3, 4, and 5 can come from you all...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I think if you married someone who just isn't that sexual and you are more sexual than they are, you likely won't get your needs met in this area. I think there are just as many wives with less sexual husbands as vice versa, so the original article doesn't apply to those men and women. If you had lots of great sex in the beginning of your relationship, that is good and you can maybe bring some of it back. But if you honestly look at your relationship and even in the beginning sex was lacking a bit in quality, quantity or desire...that was likely a big red flag you overlooked.

I think the original article was written by a woman who does have a sex drive, and she's trying to write a shaming article for women who don't have a sex drive. Those women are never going to just magically "get it", nor will they feel shame for just being who they are.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Listening and accountability works only when said spouse is actually telling the truth. 

Otherwise you might as well try to hold the Tooth Fairy accountable for your kids' orthodontic bills.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I think if you married someone who just isn't that sexual and you are more sexual than they are, you likely won't get your needs met in this area. I think there are just as many wives with less sexual husbands as vice versa, so the original article doesn't apply to those men and women. If you had lots of great sex in the beginning of your relationship, that is good and you can maybe bring some of it back. But if you honestly look at your relationship and even in the beginning sex was lacking a bit in quality, quantity or desire...that was likely a big red flag you overlooked.
> 
> I think the original article was written by a woman who does have a sex drive, and she's trying to write a shaming article for women who don't have a sex drive. Those women are never going to just magically "get it", nor will they feel shame for just being who they are.


I think that is simplistic, if you want to know the truth. Drive is one biological element. I remember after our first born, I could have easily chosen at that point in time to never have sex again. I was TIRED. And the housework WAS overwhelming. Looking through the 20/20 vision of hindsight, I could have been in the same situation as the wives of these frustrated husbands, and been frustrated myself. 

Sex is a leading indicator. It often isn't the thing, for many of us women. But it is a serious thing for our men. And we need to understand that. The goal is to bring back the super freak, not just give in x times per y period. If we were loving it in our 20s, our 40s can be a wild ride (ask me how I know!). And for both of our sakes, it should be.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> Why do women learn this from words written in a forum or an article and NOT from their own husbands?


Because on TAM there are some very intelligent, articulate and kind _women_ who will explain this in words that aren't tainted by any hint of self interest?


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I think if you married someone who just isn't that sexual and you are more sexual than they are, you likely won't get your needs met in this area. I think there are just as many wives with less sexual husbands as vice versa, so the original article doesn't apply to those men and women. If you had lots of great sex in the beginning of your relationship, that is good and you can maybe bring some of it back. *But if you honestly look at your relationship and even in the beginning sex was lacking a bit in quality, quantity or desire...that was likely a big red flag you overlooked.
> 
> I think the original article was written by a woman who does have a sex drive, and she's trying to write a shaming article for women who don't have a sex drive. Those women are never going to just magically "get it", nor will they feel shame for just being who they are.*




As an LD, everytime I see an article like this I think, "she doesn't get it. She is speaking as a woman who always desired sex but just got slightly distracted by the everyday hassles of raising kids and other aspects of family life. She had a healthy libido before marriage. What about those who don't have it?"

Articles like that piss me off because it makes me feel deficient, like I'm abnormal. And I am not, I just have a lower libido than my husband, who married me knowing this but wanted to change me after I became his wife. Because, maybe in his mind, the title "wife" negated the fact that I was LD before he married me and that I was supposed to magically turn into this bedroom vixen after the wedding.

I don't believe in withholding sex, but being misunderstood does increase the chances that he gets the dreaded duty sex instead of the enthusiasm he wants.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> "You did all that JUST for SEX?" I explained that for me, sex is the ultimate bonding experience...


I am not sure what you said after. But (for you and anybody else reading this), the right answer is "I was working to improve our relationship by addressing your concerns. But, your willingness to watch me scramble to meet your needs while allowing mine to go unmet, over an extended period of time, has removed my ability to press on".

If you do this you communicate three important things:

1) You are willing to invest heavily in your marriage, and have shown it.

2) Your needs are as important as hers.

3) She is not going to get what she wants for free. She needs to invest back in you or accept a lower standard of service.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

techmom said:


> [/B]
> 
> As an LD, everytime I see an article like this I think, "she doesn't get it. She is speaking as a woman who always desired sex but just got slightly distracted by the everyday hassles of raising kids and other aspects of family life. She had a healthy libido before marriage. What about those who don't have it?"
> 
> ...


Well that is uniquely awful. I will never understand marrying someone in order to change them.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Techmom, there is a very fine line between desiring sex once a month and rejecting three out of four weeks,

There are many things I am LD. Lawnmower Deficient. Landscaping Deficient. Laundry Room painting Deficient. Yet I came back from an epic bicycle ride today and spent another hour mowing the yard and another hour trimming the landscaping and will spend another two hours repainting the laundry room. I would rather spend it on the floor with my Thinkpad (rear end on fire). 

So there's many things we are LD for but do them. Some like painting I eventually ended up liking and I'm very good at. 

As Devo said... "Duty now for the future"...


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband (Jul 3, 2014)

Originally Posted by Anon Pink View Post
Why do women learn this from words written in a forum or an article and NOT from their own husbands?



ocotillo said:


> Because on TAM there are some very intelligent, articulate and kind _women_ who will explain this in words that aren't tainted by any hint of self interest?


:iagree:

*OMG Hit the nail on the head!*

I expressed my feelings to my wife about how she was treating me like I was her abuser. It wasn't until I found a article on forgivenwife.com that she admitted to it. It was written by a woman that realized she was viewing her husband thru the tainted experiences of her past men, and she was working to stop doing that.

When I asked why it took the article written by someone else her response was, "Well your just in it for the sex"


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Mr Useless said:


> A great read and piece of advice that will unfortunately go ignored or slagged off among their girlfriends, if the woman is tired how is the man? his sleep is broken by baby wanting a feed also he will like most men be sticking in a few extra hours to help with the finances, finally once home he will largely be ignored or be expected to muck straight in before he can even de stress after a hard day dealing with idiots and be happy about it while she moans how hard her day was before crawling back into bed to be ignored sexually once again, not to mention come the weekend he will be left alone with the child as she goes out with her friends for much needed adult company also she will transform herself from the baggy jogging trousers t shirt that you get her in to something totally glam as she makes the effort for others


Agree.

IMO, this goes back to the second point of the O.P. article. Sometimes wives treat pregnancy not as something enriching to to both spouses but as something done for the husband and/or something for which the wife got the sh!t end of the stick. Then an entitlement attitude sets in where the wife thinks she is owed something back / deserves to have her perspective count for more going forward, and you get to where maybe she does not forget to treat her husband as a man, but possibly knows she is overlooking him intentionally because she thinks she deserves it.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

john117 said:


> Techmom, there is a very fine line between desiring sex once a month and rejecting three out of four weeks,
> 
> There are many things I am LD. Lawnmower Deficient. Landscaping Deficient. Laundry Room painting Deficient. Yet I came back from an epic bicycle ride today and spent another hour mowing the yard and another hour trimming the landscaping and will spend another two hours repainting the laundry room. I would rather spend it on the floor with my Thinkpad (rear end on fire).
> 
> ...


John117,

I totally agree. My perspective is ther are his needs and her needs, and each should count equally.

I am just waiting to see how long before someone argues "sex is different" - not subject to the same standards of sacrifice and give-and-take.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband (Jul 3, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> I think it pretty much boils down to either she wants you sexually or she doesn't. The whole "do more housework", "women think men who vacuum are sexy" in a lot of cases is nothing more than an attempt to set the bar to a point they think there is no way you can meet it, thus keeping the excuse alive and well.


Sadly, I have to agree with your statement.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

DTO said:


> Agree.
> 
> IMO, this goes back to the second point of the O.P. article. Sometimes wives treat pregnancy not as something enriching to to both spouses but as something done for the husband and/or something for which the wife got the sh!t end of the stick. Then *an entitlement attitude sets in* where the wife thinks she is owed something back / deserves to have her perspective count for more going forward, and you get to where maybe she does not forget to treat her husband as a man, but possibly knows she is overlooking him intentionally because she thinks she deserves it.


Push presents anyone?


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

techmom said:


> [/B]
> 
> As an LD, everytime I see an article like this I think, "she doesn't get it. She is speaking as a woman who always desired sex but just got slightly distracted by the everyday hassles of raising kids and other aspects of family life. She had a healthy libido before marriage. What about those who don't have it?"
> 
> ...


I get where you're coming from, but the point is that both people should be doing things for the other one, and you might as well make it enjoyable in the process, no?

Nobody likes doing housework, or changing a diaper, but I will (and do) happily do it regularly. Why? Because it makes my wife happy, therefore it makes me happy to do it. Simple as that.

Sex should be no different, imo. Even for those with LD, it IS fun. (or can be fun... that's a whole other discussion on why your husband doesn't do it for you in the bedroom).

Shaming article? Maybe. But the points are very valid. You do love your husband. It does bring you closer to him. The benefits to HIM are quantifiable. It can definitely be fun for both of you.

If none of those hit home to you, then there are other issues at play that keep you from desiring your husband. They don't all have to revolve around being horny or wanting sex and orgasms. Those aren't the main benefits of having sex with him, or anybody else.

Just like when my wife comes home to dinner on the table and a clean house, the benefits aren't just food and the housework done. The benefits are being thoughtful, loving, caring, etc. It brings us closer.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

NobodySpecial said:


> Well that is uniquely awful. I will never understand marrying someone in order to change them.


This whole "I am who I am and I won't change for anybody" thing is kind of sad 

I didn't do much housework or ANY child raising before I got married. Can I use that as an excuse to do ****-all around the house and with the kids?

"Sorry, I've just never been very interested in vacuuming, so deal with it"

lol


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Because on TAM there are some very intelligent, articulate and kind _women_ who will explain this in words that aren't tainted by any hint of self interest?


Took me a while but I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree. That's a sad truth I hate to admit. Those horrible stereotypes that mislead us really have got to go!

In this case I can't speak for anyone but myself. No, my husband never said anything about my rejections except "why don't you want to have sex? Sex is fun how can you not like it!" 

At the time, sex was fun for him but not for me. He never asked and I at first I didn't even know I was supposed to be having orgasms, then I didn't know if I should tell him I'm not, then it didn't know how I could possibly tell him after all that time, I knew it would devastate him. And when I finally came out with it, it did devastate him.

No matter what our children up doing for a living, they will most likely HAVE to know how to do marriage and that includes a healthy view of sex and sexuality.

So what do we need to teach our daughters in order for them to avoid our mistakes? What do we need to teach our sons?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Mr Useless said:


> A great read and piece of advice that will unfortunately go ignored or slagged off among their girlfriends, if the woman is tired how is the man? his sleep is broken by baby wanting a feed also he will like most men be sticking in a few extra hours to help with the finances, finally once home he will largely be ignored or be expected to muck straight in before he can even de stress after a hard day dealing with idiots and be happy about it while she moans how hard her day was before crawling back into bed to be ignored sexually once again, not to mention come the weekend he will be left alone with the child as she goes out with her friends for much needed adult company also she will transform herself from the baggy jogging trousers t shirt that you get her in to something totally glam as she makes the effort for others


It literally could take 7-12 minutes to make a man or a HD woman to feel appreciated. It doesn't take time and it reduces stress.

There are just some people who get into a mode that they don't want to give anything, and the more you let them stonewall you the better they feel.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

I know I'm jaded, but as I have said here before, I think girls want a wedding and not necessarily a husband.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

And to be fair, I think boys want a life time sex companion.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

samyeagar said:


> Push presents anyone?


That is a wonderful example of what I mean. It is the whole "she is the mother of your children" viewpoint. And the unmistakable meaning is "she has done so much, how can you think of making further demands on her?"


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

DTO said:


> That is a wonderful example of what I mean. It is the whole "she is the mother of your children" viewpoint. And the unmistakable meaning is "she has done so much, how can you think of making further demands on her?"


Motherhood is akin to Sainthood in today's society.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Thound said:


> I know I'm jaded, but as I have said here before, I think girls want a wedding and not necessarily a husband.


I don't necessarily think they don't want a husband, but they do tend to not think of marriage as a two-way, equal partnership where each contributes as much as is received.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

techmom said:


> As an LD, everytime I see an article like this I think, "she doesn't get it. *She is speaking as a woman who always desired sex but just got slightly distracted by the everyday hassles of raising kids and other aspects of family life. She had a healthy libido before marriage. * What about those who don't have it?"


What you describe here is how I would describe myself in the past...so when I read articles like this.. I just want to kick myself for being STUPID, and mindless....and I so WISH the women in my life talked more about How very important it is to have lots of sex with our husbands (my poor daughter -she is going to have to put up with me sharing this sort of thing [email protected]#)...

I always had a healthy libido..... I never had a headache either....I remember thinking during making love..."My God how is anything this heavenly, wish it could last forever...damn it " -but it couldn't be contained... YET .. and I don't even understand this....I just allowed myself to be distracted after I'd have these mind blowing releases....I had other things on my brain.. the sad sorry fact in our situation was this..

I was Never Tired... It didn't matter how many kids we had, I was the Energizer bunny (he still calls me this)..... I even used to get mad at him for falling asleep ON ME at night...even when I worked.. 

He has referred to me as a "workaholic" of sorts back then, Taking on side jobs, scrambling to save more $$, always home projects in the works/ those "honey to do" lists... at least I'd always help him.... then I had my Books.. trying to conceive, then too many babies in a short period of time...I was on cloud 9 ..... 

I very much regret taking my husband for granted in this most important area .... *I wasn't "getting it" because I WAS ALWAYS sexually FULFILLED*... I didn't NEED it as often as he did, and if I wanted it, he was at my beck & call...so it wasn't on my radar.. and he didn't really complain to me ...he just pushed it down, he has told me he didn't want me to think it was "just about SEX" if he pushed the issue, he felt I might think that (I'm gonna say communicating about this was not easy for him for some reason)..... and the way all the men at work complained about their wives... he figured he had it pretty good, at least I always initiated .. 

Taken from my latest thread.. this was #2 in the 20 ways to speak Love to our husbands...



> *2*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

Mr Useless said:


> ...alone with the child as she goes out with her friends for much needed adult company...


As I sit here alone with our kids, again on this fine weekend day, reading this all, LOL!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

DTO said:


> I don't necessarily think they don't want a husband, but they do tend to not think of marriage as a two-way, equal partnership where each contributes as much as is received.


Really? All women are this way? Really?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Really? All women are this way? Really?


I know they all aren't. A subset are exactly like this. It's quite a bit more than 1%.

There are many women in the world who are willing to give as much as they get.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

> A man’s ability to perform sexually, to arouse & please his wife, is central to his confidence as a man. The impact ripples into practically every other area of his life.


Pardon me if I roll on the floor. There's a JD Powers award sitting in my lab right now and THAT is a confidence booster. There's two brilliant and awesome college age daughters in the next room and THAT is a confidence booster. There's three college degrees hanging in my library at home, and THAT is a confidence booster. There's this guy from the backwater of Europe who arrived in America 33 years ago with two suitcases and $500 and in a decade made a name for himself and THAT is a confidence booster. Starting cycling two months ago and doing my first 25 mile ride today, THAT is THE confidence booster. Getting out of bed tomorrow... You get the idea.

Going puppy eyes when the wicked witch of the west decides to put out... Pardon me when I :lol: out loud.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

treyvion said:


> I know they all aren't. A subset are exactly like this. It's quite a bit more than 1%.
> 
> There are many women in the world who are willing to give as much as they get.


Yep that's right.

There are both men and women who do not make good spouse. But there are a lot who do.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

treyvion said:


> It literally could take 7-12 minutes to make a man or a HD woman to feel appreciated. It doesn't take time and it reduces stress.


This is just sad. How is duty sex any better than just jerking it? Trust me when I tell you that sex that I don't want does not reduce stress. It increases it a thousand fold. (On the macro level, not any individual instance.) Almost every single woman in the world has had their body objectified and used for a man's or men's un-reciprocated pleasure or release. Some of us have grown the stones to say, yah not so much. Unfortunately far fewer of us have grown to a place of real sexual freedom and enjoyment. There is usually a great, patient, wonderful man there who deserves the fruits of that effort.

Give it up, like doing laundry? For 12 minutes so you can spew in me? No. Never.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

john117 said:


> Pardon me if I roll on the floor. There's a JD Powers award sitting in my lab right now and THAT is a confidence booster. There's two brilliant and awesome college age daughters in the next room and THAT is a confidence booster. There's three college degrees hanging in my library at home, and THAT is a confidence booster. There's this guy from the backwater of Europe who arrived in America 33 years ago with two suitcases and $500 and in a decade made a name for himself and THAT is a confidence booster. Starting cycling two months ago and doing my first 25 mile ride today, THAT is THE confidence booster. Getting out of bed tomorrow... You get the idea.
> 
> Going puppy eyes when the wicked witch of the west decides to put out... Pardon me when I :lol: out loud.


Are you talking about all women being "the wicked witch"? Or are you only taking about a subset of women who are like that.

People perform in different areas in life. What one does at a job and career wise is only part of what makes a person.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

john117 said:


> Pardon me if I roll on the floor. There's a JD Powers award sitting in my lab right now and THAT is a confidence booster. There's two brilliant and awesome college age daughters in the next room and THAT is a confidence booster. There's three college degrees hanging in my library at home, and THAT is a confidence booster. There's this guy from the backwater of Europe who arrived in America 33 years ago with two suitcases and $500 and in a decade made a name for himself and THAT is a confidence booster. Starting cycling two months ago and doing my first 25 mile ride today, THAT is THE confidence booster. Getting out of bed tomorrow... You get the idea.
> 
> Going puppy eyes when the wicked witch of the west decides to put out... Pardon me when I :lol: out loud.


You really find that quote laughable....I don't know what a JD powers award is... Obviously all men are different...and how one looks at that quote could separate them...

For the type of man I married...it does mean THAT much...this doesn't mean his life turns to sh** without so much sex.. he would still be a fine man, do a good job at work...remain a loving father figure...I do remember him being more "short" with the kids back then... crazily he never took it out on ME...

But IT IS a confidence booster...my Husband has no degrees...he has no awards hanging on his wall... Oh he is proud of how our children are turning out, they give us no trouble at all.. very responsible ... but FOR HIM, and I know he would say this... nothing fulfills him more so.. 

But he is a more sensitive type man...not exactly beating one's chest Alpha...but that's OK with me.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> This is just sad. How is duty sex any better than just jerking it? Trust me when I tell you that sex that I don't want does not reduce stress. It increases it a thousand fold. (On the macro level, not any individual instance.) Almost every single woman in the world has had their body objectified and used for a man's or men's un-reciprocated pleasure or release. Some of us have grown the stones to say, yah not so much. Unfortunately far fewer of us have grown to a place of real sexual freedom and enjoyment. There is usually a great, patient, wonderful man there who deserves the fruits of that effort.
> 
> Give it up, like doing laundry? For 12 minutes so you can spew in me? No. Never.


Love it when the same guys who complain of starfish sex in ine thread will insist that women put out like doing laundry in another thread.

And sex is supposed to be such a bonding activity. Laundry, not so much


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm more beta than the cute fish at PetCo 

But even if I made an honest living painting houses (which I could, given how good I am at it) I would still not depend on anyone else to feel accomplished. 

We condition ourselves to depend on others. Feedback from the boss. Status symbols. Cars. Words of affirmation. 

The FIRST thing you learn as an immigrant is to NOT depend on others. 

My relationship with my wife changed dramatically - for the worst - once I made this simple discovery in my marriage. Before, the idea of preserving the mirage of a marriage made me hold back much of the resentment and play nice. Then I had this epiphany of sorts and realized that even if there was plenty of sex I would still be married to Dr. Witch. 

So... I let my real self come thru. Dr. Witch did not like it one bit. Perhaps she felt like Lady Whatshername when her husband was in rebellion mode. 

I don't think she likes what she sees right now. I make sure she does not. Hopefully she will put two and two together at some point.

I only wish I had done what a friend and former coworker from my country did. He was married to a career lady from our country also who was not the lovey dovey type. They had two kids but anyone could tell they were not getting along. I thought they were still married, turned out they divorced when their kids were in preschool. 

I mentioned it to my wife in passing... She was quite stricken. He had said some prophetic words to me back when we worked together... "John, you did well by marrying outside our culture. In our culture you go to school forever, marry a woman that has a bunch of flats (apartments) in her name from her father, she makes more in rent income than you do teaching in a university, and she bought you for life".

The above was his life. Lucky for him he's a professor in a prestigious university and his kids get near free tuition... So he bailed. My kids get free product demo units (supposed to be scrapped )...


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

techmom said:


> Love it when the same guys who complain of starfish sex in ine thread will insist that women put out like doing laundry in another thread.
> 
> And sex is supposed to be such a bonding activity. Laundry, not so much


Yah this gets me. I "need that CONNECTION", we hear. How the hell do you connect to someone when they are gone. Yes I left that with a period, and not a question mark on purpose. 

There are a great many people (notice that I did not say men, all you guys who think this is an awful conspiracy to deny you you properly purchased sex) that cannot get with the new world order. Women who have been broken by the demands on their bodies as if that is their only worth. Men who pine for the old days where all they had to do is say I do and bring home money.

It is time to think. And there are a lot of people who are just ill prepared for that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

NobodySpecial said:


> Almost every single woman in the world has had their body objectified and used for a man's or men's un-reciprocated pleasure or release.


 I have never felt this...or experienced it. 

My H was always more of a giver over ME, it didn't matter what it was..... This tends to cloud my perception ...as it carries back to me.. feeling I , as a woman needs to DO all I possibly can to fulfill my good man....because of my own lack, you see...

There was another poster here a couple yrs back.. *RDJ*.... he used to push his young wife for sex A LOT .. he was basically unbearable (admittedly)...not everyone caught his full story ...but I did...which helped explain his views ..he was speaking out of his REGRET..... as his prior behavior caused much damage to his relationship with that push/ pull and ongoing fights... so he revamped his behavior to then cater to her... found healing in his marriage.. (as she slowly warmed back up to him... forgiving and receptive to the better man before her).....then he started posting on forums ..to speak of how this saved his marriage... 

SO his views were so catered to seeing the woman's side.. Loving her , helping her around the house, going that extra mile, being affectionate without expecting making love... putting yourself down... I would read HIS threads/ posts....and I respected him highly.. I was thinking.. "BOY..that is a lot of catering to the women!!"...

It was a different message over mine many times.. as similar to him, but I was thinking how we needed to cater to the man...as I was feeling I was more of the barracuda in our relationship ...speaking out of my own sins & blunders...being the more difficult and temperamental partner !!

RDJ actually took a lot of FLACK from men for that, feeling he was being too soft...yet I understood where he came from...

But getting back to this post... how true... just imagining .. If I felt the man just wanted to get off , no emotion required..... then he'd get up & go about his business ignoring me (for instance).....I would feel deeply hurt by this .... *USED*... it would affect all aspects of how I felt about him .. Yes.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have never felt this...or experienced it.
> 
> My H was always more of a giver over ME, it didn't matter what it was.....


Did you have a life before you got married???


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

NobodySpecial said:


> Did you have a life before you got married???


I was with him since I was 15... married in my early 20's. I know.. I know.. who marries their 1st love.. it's a rare thing.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

So a thread that started with hey have sex as a married couple has devolved to every man is a rapist. 

<SIGH>


----------



## ifweonly (Feb 27, 2014)

SimplyAmorous said:


> What you describe here is how I would describe myself in the past...so when I read articles like this.. I just want to kick myself for being STUPID, and mindless....and I so WISH the women in my life talked more about How very important it is to have lots of sex with our husbands (my poor daughter -she is going to have to put up with me sharing this sort of thing [email protected]#)...
> 
> I always had a healthy libido..... I never had a headache either....I remember thinking during making love..."My God how is anything this heavenly, wish it could last forever...damn it " -but it couldn't be contained... YET .. and I don't even understand this....I just allowed myself to be distracted after I'd have these mind blowing releases....I had other things on my brain.. the sad sorry fact in our situation was this..
> 
> ...


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mr. Nail said:


> So a thread that started with hey have sex as a married couple has devolved to every man is a rapist.
> 
> <SIGH>


No one has said that. 

What was is that most women have had some sexual things done to him that they did not want. This means that some men... not all men... did things that the women did not want.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

NobodySpecial said:


> Did you have a life before you got married???


On another note to this...it's true... I can't fully relate to a lot of stories here...I know this...... but I do so try to imagine what it would be like to be in another's shoes.... and weigh the best course of action to bring a couple together.. 

I would never condone bad treatment to anyone, heck I would not put up with a neglectful mean spirited man... and I sure as Hell don't think all men are good. ..Please know this. My own mother (after the divorce) was beat up and raped for sex..by different men...she allowed some really BAD men into her life and paid dearly for it...(on an emotional level the most)..... I was even taken off of her by my Father...also after these experiences, she said sex meant nothing to her & she never believed in love again.. (her story is rather extreme - few could relate to)... 



> *ifweonly said* : *Reading the foregoing reminded me of my wife's and my life. She always tried to take care of me and I for her.* Then about 4 years ago, I had three orthopedic operations and became infected with two pathogens in all three surgery locations. The infections resulted in the removal of two prosthesis for about four months.
> 
> *The recovery took almost two years but my wonderful wife worked very hard to create a sexually satisfying experience for me while I could do very little for her. The pathogens are gone (at least for now) and I have all of my parts back. I try to ensure that she is well taken care of now and she is lacking nothing in her sexual requirements; this is the least that I can do to repay her! *You never know what will happen in the future.


 Sounds like you have a very loving /giving marriage on both ends.. so when the difficult times visited your door....your wife did what she always did.. she loved you through your darkest hours...everything she could DO to keep you happy.. and satisfied...because she knew you would do the same for her... that's what it's all about. I don't think it would be easy , to be honest.. 2 yrs is a long time... God Bless your wife!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good morning all
this thread is a remarkable example of people talking past each other. I think that with the few people who have them selves been both the HD and LD partner in a relationship, most people simply cannot imagine being the other.

If you are HD, the LD person seem incredibly selfish - why wouldn't they take a few minutes to do this think that is so extremely important to the person they claim to love.

If you are LD, the HD person seems like an old goat / **** - all they want is sex, its all they care about, you feel treated as just a sex object. 

I think it is the lack of understanding that lets HD/LD couples get married in the first place. The HD person just assumes the LD person will come around if they are treated well. The LD person just assumes that the HD person isn't always going to want sex.


From my point of view, many things are expected in marriage - loyalty, shared responsibility, affection, etc, but one of the important ones is sex. I believe sex is intimately connected to romance and love. If you doubt it, take your favorite romantic story, and swap one of the genders to someone in whom the other has no sexual interest and see how it plays out.....


----------



## hartvalve (Mar 15, 2014)

Personally. 

Sex every night is way too much of a good thing for me to fully enjoy that frequent.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Really? All women are this way? Really?


Of course not all of them. I am talking about the context of this thread. This thread is about an article that exhorts women not having frequent sex with their husbands to start doing so. The implication is that there are a significant number of women not having sex with their husbands frequently (or at least not as frequently as the husbands would like / the author suggests).

Even among marriages where this dynamic exists, I would not say it is all women feeling this way. Probably not even a majority. But I will suggest it is a sizable minority.

There are still lots of ladies who think that having too much sex or the "wrong" sex acts make them unladylike or worse. Or, that guys are just out to use women. Or, that sex should be an outcome of her needs being met previously rather than an input into such a relationship. Or, that a woman's sexuality / virtue are the most important elements of a relationship and she simply will not have sex unless she is into it.

That is not the norm on TAM or other sex-positive forums. But, it is very common in other arenas.


----------



## hartvalve (Mar 15, 2014)

I do agree with the comment about there being a group of women fearing the loss of their goddess-ness if they dare enjoy sex too much, even if they only engaged in sex once a month/year. There has been some type pedestal formed and women mounted upon, who kept their (married) sex lives, quote-un-quote clean and something to be admired or attained.. Really? Some kind of way I wonder if the woman behaving in the above manner believes her reaction to sex is being the good and faithful wife? Faithfulness in marriage cannot be confused with an aim for sterile type love making being its crown and glory.. 

I say, throw caution to the wind and have at it. Become a wild woman (man too) in the bedroom and be the lady or gentlemen everywhere else.. And maybe turn up the frequency while having at it..


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Just hijacking a previously hijacked thread. 
There is no point in defending the obvious.
Some day I'll write out the sad tale of my own experience that led to my outburst. But not here on this thread.
MN


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

NobodySpecial said:


> This is just sad. How is duty sex any better than just jerking it? Trust me when I tell you that sex that I don't want does not reduce stress. It increases it a thousand fold. (On the macro level, not any individual instance.) Almost every single woman in the world has had their body objectified and used for a man's or men's un-reciprocated pleasure or release. Some of us have grown the stones to say, yah not so much. Unfortunately far fewer of us have grown to a place of real sexual freedom and enjoyment. There is usually a great, patient, wonderful man there who deserves the fruits of that effort.
> 
> Give it up, like doing laundry? For 12 minutes so you can spew in me? No. Never.


I may have missed it, but I didn't see the term "duty sex" being used in this original reply (the one about 7-12 minutes of time in the day set aside for sex)

It's perfectly common, reasonable and possible to have GOOD and intimate sex within a short time frame as that. That's what I read when I read that reply - duty sex did not enter my mind.

What he was saying, to me, is there's little excuse to set aside such a short amount of time to take part in something important. Sex with your spouse doesn't have to be an all night affair or last any longer than several minutes. It also doesn't have to be duty sex simply because it doesn't take an hour.

Duty sex is duty sex when one partner not only has no desire to do it, but also does not get anything out of it - which is usually pre-determined by the person acquiescing to the so-called demands of the other. The length of time it takes is irrelevant. If you decide beforehand that you are doing this for him/her and you just want it over with, then it's duty sex. If you decide beforehand that you only have 10 minutes but you are going to enjoy those 10 minutes and derive something from it yourself, then it's no longer duty sex.

The difference is in the attitude, not the time frame given.

If two people who are hot for each other sneak away at a party and bang one out in the bathroom for 5 minutes, is that duty sex? Or is that passionate? I'm pretty sure all of us here have had good sex in a short time frame before, whether it's a new girlfriend/boyfriend, on your honeymoon, at a party with somebody you barely know, or your spouse of 30 years, whatever. The time spent has nothing to do with the level of passion.

"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"


----------



## MisterGadget (Feb 13, 2014)

Oh that's getting PRINTED OUT. LOL:smthumbup:


----------



## Cesar (Aug 11, 2014)

Very ironic. My spouse posted this link on her facebook page. Ironic because she has refused to be intimate and its been over 9 months. Posting that was almost like rubbing salt in wounds.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Cesar said:


> Very ironic. My spouse posted this link on her facebook page. Ironic because she has refused to be intimate and its been over 9 months. Posting that was almost like rubbing salt in wounds.


Maybe you should "Like" her post, and add a comment saying Yeah let's try this since it's been 9 months since the last time.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

alexm said:


> I may have missed it, but I didn't see the term "duty sex" being used in this original reply (the one about 7-12 minutes of time in the day set aside for sex)
> 
> It's perfectly common, reasonable and possible to have GOOD and intimate sex within a short time frame as that. That's what I read when I read that reply - duty sex did not enter my mind.
> 
> What he was saying, to me, is there's little excuse to set aside such a short amount of time to take part in something important. Sex with your spouse doesn't have to be an all night affair or last any longer than several minutes. It also doesn't have to be duty sex simply because it doesn't take an hour.


It's just that 7-12 minutes sounds an awful lot like duty sex. It may be enough for him to get off, but for many women, it simply is not. Many women (not all, of course) simply forego orgasm in the hot bathroom sex scenario because they find the overall experience exciting --if not exactly sexually fulfilling.

So to many women, telling her to set aside 7 minutes for the love of her h is roughly the equivalent of telling her to spread her legs and pretend like she's having a good time -because *he* needs his O.

That is, pretty one-sided


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Cesar said:


> Very ironic. My spouse posted this link on her facebook page. Ironic because she has refused to be intimate and its been over 9 months. Posting that was almost like rubbing salt in wounds.


This is why I think Facebook is near a Joke half the time... I have a friend who refuses her H many many times.. Her excuse "I just didn't feel like it".... she even told me once he cried in front of her ...he is a good guy & would never hurt her.. this really UPSET me and I took his side.... 

And I see her posting these beautiful Lovey Dovey things how her husband is the love or her life & Bla bla bla.. I just shake my head - as I know the back story... or she separates what a great guy he is .. but dismisses his sexuality.. .

Although your wife probably deserves a comment in reply, the sad fact is... if you dared do it... you'd be in the dog house for life.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> No one has said that.
> 
> What was is that most women have had some sexual things done to him that they did not want. This means that some men... not all men... did things that the women did not want.


And simply that many women have been in the position where sex is all about him, his needs, his pleasure, and not at all about hers.

The author in the OP article, for example, assumes sex is in fact pleasurable for the woman, when fact is, all too often it is not. Even in these modern times, many are woefully ignorant about female orgasm and pleasure, and many still think it unimportant in sexual relations.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> So what do we need to teach our daughters in order for them to avoid our mistakes? What do we need to teach our sons?


Words are important, but I think the single biggest thing that parents can do is simply set a good example of what a healthy relationship is and is not.

My parents couldn't keep their hands off each other the whole time I was growing up and it wasn't just my father initiating physical affection between them either. In my childish naïveté, I thought that was what a normal marriage was like. 

One thing I should have paid more attention to and did not, was the level of disfunction between my wife's parents, who were polite to each other in public, but slept in separate bedrooms.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

hartvalve said:


> Personally.
> 
> Sex every night is way too much of a good thing for me to fully enjoy that frequent.


This was one of my fears when my sex drive sky rocketed-that my H may have felt this way...I kept telling myself "he is going to get sick of me!"- I couldn't leave him alone... though I had to keep reminding myself... this is kinda hard for men to pull off (faking it)...if it rises, he's into it...

I can't express how much it means to me...that it never gets old and it's never too much.. it's a "new every morning" -type thing..



> *richardsharpe said:* I think that with the few people who have them selves been both the HD and LD partner in a relationship, most people simply cannot imagine being the other.


 Having been the lower drive partner for many years.. I could have easily done so much more.. when I was the higher drive, it was tormenting -even imaging if he didn't want me....had he pushed me away.. it would have destroyed our marriage.. as alexm's insightful post expresses.."*attitude is everything*"...



> *always_alone said*: Even in these modern times, many are woefully ignorant about female orgasm and pleasure, and many still think it unimportant in sexual relations.


 My thoughts on this are.. the sensitive caring men make better lovers, it means a great deal to them to please their partner.."Her pleasure is MY pleasure" is his motto.. 

I was on health.com yrs ago...in the sex section.....where this young man was beside himself... he was willing to DO or try ANYTHING to get his GF there...it just meant so much to him...and you know what happened.. a # of women started posting telling him it was all about his EGO, to leave her alone, she was OK without orgasming.. telling him to get over himself... 

I was very touched by *how much* the guy cared, I totally felt for him... but apparently ...this was wrong too....

It all comes down to communicating how each feels in this.. as every situation/ couple is so different..many men get really hung up on wanting to please their women, so much that it then becomes "*pressuring*" to the woman who doesn't orgasm easily..then it becomes a *bad thing*... it almost seems in those cases, a man who is not as sensitive might be a better match.. then he is not "feeling bad" or less fulfilled by her just "pleasing him"...

Then there are men who are just plain selfish.. they never cared to begin with..Why would any women stay with this (dump him!).... that is just so demeaning.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

TAM is so funny.

Instead of reading the fun cosmo-like "5 things" article, and maybe, just maybe, seeing the positive message behind it, it becomes a tug-of-war thread.

Basically this thread represents every marriage struggling sexually. Something so simple, made so hard because of ego, stubbornness, and ignorance.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Coldie said:


> Something so simple, made so hard because of ego, stubbornness, and ignorance.


I think that describes most marital problems.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> This was one of my fears when my sex drive sky rocketed-that my H may have felt this way...I kept telling myself "he is going to get sick of me!"- I couldn't leave him alone... though I had to keep reminding myself... this is kinda hard for men to pull off (faking it)...if it rises, he's into it...
> 
> I can't express how much it means to me...that it never gets old and it's never too much.. it's a "new every morning" -type thing..
> 
> ...


An unfortunate side affect of the conventional wisdom that men are only after one thing...I think some of the happiest and most satisfied women are the ones who are able to move past those male stereotypes...


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Good article.

Sex every night (or as much as possible) is something that I live by and recommend.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Cesar said:


> Very ironic. My spouse posted this link on her facebook page. Ironic because she has refused to be intimate and its been over 9 months. Posting that was almost like rubbing salt in wounds.


Big question is, why are you still married to her!

Or where is she getting it.....


----------



## TheCuriousWife (Jan 28, 2013)

This post just makes me sad for some reason. 

Are there any articles that are similar to why you should have sex with your wife every day?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

TheCuriousWife said:


> This post just makes me sad for some reason.
> 
> Are there any articles that are similar to why you should have sex with your wife every day?


No need...married women don't like sex, and men are only after one thing... 

I understand how you feel...the internet is full to bursting about how men need to treat their women, and how women deserve all this and that, and real men this and real men that, with very little about how women should treat men, and what men deserve...


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

> One thing I should have paid more attention to and did not, was the level of disfunction between my wife's parents, who were polite to each other in public, but slept in separate bedrooms.


This might be a good thing to add as a red flag when picking a spouse. Do the parents sleep in the same bed or separate bedrooms? Do the parents show affection to each other?


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Is it offensive to suggest every night? Does this rub some people the wrong way because they are totally okay with 3 or 4 times a week? 

Which by the way, 3 to 4 times a week is amazing. I suggest daily, but those couples half way there should still be commended. 

Is suggesting sex / intimacy each day threatening to some people?


----------



## Max.HeadRoom (Jun 28, 2014)

always_alone said:


> And simply that many women have been in the position where sex is all about him, his needs, his pleasure, and not at all about hers.
> 
> The author in the OP article, for example, assumes sex is in fact pleasurable for the woman, when fact is, all too often it is not. Even in these modern times, many are woefully ignorant about female orgasm and pleasure, and many still think it unimportant in sexual relations.


this has been repeated sever times and this thread and i am totally flummoxed by it. WTF really? I have been wasted my time getting the ladies in my life off. all that time watching them writhing with pleasure could have been spent channel surfing. I do need to get my prioritizes straight. at least Mrs HeadRoom get undressed quicker then I do, there is some time saved. tonight I'll tlk to her about giving up her Os.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Lila said:


> It's interesting you mentioned the typical male stereotype. Meg Conley is also propagating the stereotype in her article. _*"Men are far simpler. They need to be fed, they need to be appreciated, and they need to have sex. That is it."*_ If that were true, diners, dogs, and wh0res would meet these requirements.
> 
> After a second look, I take back my earlier comment. I agree with everything in her article, EXCEPT the bolded/italicized statement.


I don't know. If we remove the false value of sex applied to men the statement might indeed be true. 

Does sex mean dipping his wick till it shoots? Or does it mean a physical coming together of sexual intimacy which produces a bonding that speaks of love and commitment?

Yes, I think men are rather simple.

They need to be fed, the need to be appreciated and they need a regular physical coming together of sexual intimacy that promotes bonding and speaks of love and commitment.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know. If we remove the false value of sex applied to men the statement might indeed be true.
> 
> Does sex mean dipping his wick till it shoots? Or does it mean a physical coming together of sexual intimacy which produces a bonding that speaks of love and commitment?
> 
> ...


We get more complicated as we age.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Max.HeadRoom said:


> this has been repeated sever times and this thread and i am totally flummoxed by it. WTF really? I have been wasted my time getting the ladies in my life off. all that time watching them writhing with pleasure could have been spent channel surfing. I do need to get my prioritizes straight. at least Mrs HeadRoom get undressed quicker then I do, there is some time saved. tonight I'll tlk to her about giving up her Os.


I think you might have missed Always' point.

Some men, pre internet maybe a lot of men, don't trouble themselves with ensuring her pleasure. That's what Always was referring to.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> This is just sad. How is duty sex any better than just jerking it? Trust me when I tell you that sex that I don't want does not reduce stress. It increases it a thousand fold. (On the macro level, not any individual instance.) Almost every single woman in the world has had their body objectified and used for a man's or men's un-reciprocated pleasure or release. Some of us have grown the stones to say, yah not so much. Unfortunately far fewer of us have grown to a place of real sexual freedom and enjoyment. There is usually a great, patient, wonderful man there who deserves the fruits of that effort.
> 
> Give it up, like doing laundry? For 12 minutes so you can spew in me? No. Never.


For some busy people or some HD people stuck with an LD a 12 minute sex session would be a great time versus none.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon Always_alone
It completely depends on the people. I can get my wife to orgasm in less than 5 minutes if we are in a rush - though in general we prefer to spend much longer. 

I also think people should not view orgasm as the only important part of sex. If that were the goal, almost everyone can get an orgasm themselves faster than with a partner - but that is far from the only point of lovemaking.

Always having "quickies" would not be much fun for most people, but I don't see any problem with sometimes doing that. 



always_alone said:


> It's just that 7-12 minutes sounds an awful lot like duty sex. It may be enough for him to get off, but for many women, it simply is not. Many women (not all, of course) simply forego orgasm in the hot bathroom sex scenario because they find the overall experience exciting --if not exactly sexually fulfilling.
> 
> So to many women, telling her to set aside 7 minutes for the love of her h is roughly the equivalent of telling her to spread her legs and pretend like she's having a good time -because *he* needs his O.
> 
> That is, pretty one-sided


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon always_alone
I think you are right, but I view that as a different problem that ALSO needs to be solved (first). I completely understand women not wanting to have sex with a man who doesn't care about the woman's pleasure. 

In many HD / LD cases though the HD partner has gone to huge effort to figure out how to please the LD partner, and is still turned down. Back when my wife was LD, I would do anything for her in bed, and she almost always had an orgasm, while there was almost nothing she was willing to do for me.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> I understand how you feel...the internet is full to bursting about how men need to treat their women, and how women deserve all this and that, and real men this and real men that, with very little about how women should treat men, and what men deserve...


Errr, you're not looking very hard then, or at the right sources. The internet, and media generally, is chock full of what women must do to please their man.

Of course, it's about 90% wear lingerie & be sexy and 10% respect and admiration


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

treyvion said:


> For some busy people or some HD people stuck with an LD a 12 minute sex session would be a great time versus none.



Nope. Not in an LD HD scenario.

If you're too busy to have no more than 12 minutes for sex then I'm too busy to have no more than 12 minutes for chores or conversation.

If you have a healthy emotional life it's another story altogether.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> I think you might have missed Always' point.
> 
> Some men, pre internet maybe a lot of men, don't trouble themselves with ensuring her pleasure. That's what Always was referring to.


Yes, exactly! I wasn't offering advice, just pointing out the way things are.

And sadly in this post-internet world, altogether too many people think women should orgasm and be writhing in ecstasy from the mere sight of an erect penis and any or all forms of degradation.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> There has to be more to it that just regular sex, hot meals, and a few "thank yous" here and there.
> 
> *Maybe I'm making men more complicated than they really are*, but I would think companionship, moral support, empathy, and affection (not necessarily sexual) would also be necessary to make them happy. :scratchhead:
> 
> To paraphrase a quote in the movie Shrek. "Men are like onions, they have layers".


Nope...you're spot on, and not just taking the easy way out


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Lila said:


> There has to be more to it that just regular sex, hot meals, and a few "thank yous" here and there.
> 
> .


Not in my marriage. He is quite happy and is perplex and vexed that his wife is not.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I was on health.com yrs ago...in the sex section.....where this young man was beside himself... he was willing to DO or try ANYTHING to get his GF there...it just meant so much to him...and you know what happened.. a # of women started posting telling him it was all about his EGO, to leave her alone, she was OK without orgasming.. telling him to get over himself...
> 
> I was very touched by *how much* the guy cared, I totally felt for him... but apparently ...this was wrong too....


To me, this only says that it is not just men who can be woefully ignorant of women's sexuality -- it is women too.

Granted, pressuring her is not the best tactic --but to then suggest her orgasm isn't ever important? Shame!

Of course, when you are taught to be a "good girl" who doesn't do "dirty" things, and that you just need to "lie back and think of England" when your husband needs to get off --there are some serious obstacles to surmount.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> No one has said that.
> 
> What was is that most women have had some sexual things done to him that they did not want. This means that some men... not all men... did things that the women did not want.


I am not even talking only about rape or abuse. I am talking about learning that some men don't see women as people. Boyfriends who lie to get into your pants. A guy at a bar who gropes you as you walk by...

Most of us are not born thinking people are like this. Or can be like this. I know I never got any education or warning around it (or any kind of sex ed at all)! Gotta love catholics. 

My sexuality is mine.I don't "give" it to anyone. I share it lovingly with my husband. But to starfish for 12 minutes so he can cum in me? Nope. And that attitude itself is a MASSIVE turn off. But then, I don't ask my husband to do things for me that he does not like either. It is just not very nice.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
While I agree that there are some (many?) men who treat women badly, why do women stay with them and marry them? 

I've serious - I would think that it would be obvious very early in a relationship that a man didn't treat women well - why continue it?

For women who are in this situation, did he change after you were married? Were you hoping that he would change? Did you think all men are like that? Was it just being blinded by love?

(maybe this needs a different thread)


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> No need...married women don't like sex, and men are only after one thing...
> 
> I understand how you feel...the internet is full to bursting about how men need to treat their women, and how women deserve all this and that, and real men this and real men that, with very little about how women should treat men, and what men deserve...


I think that people who want sex should get it! I just think demanding it as a rule or requirement is a really unhealthy way to go about it vs engendering love and passion so that your spouse wants it too. IMO it is very rarely about this much touted drive when sex is present then goes away.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

john117 said:


> Nope. Not in an LD HD scenario.
> 
> If you're too busy to have no more than 12 minutes for sex then I'm too busy to have no more than 12 minutes for chores or conversation.
> 
> If you have a healthy emotional life it's another story altogether.


Your marriage has other problems if you think that the chores are automatically hers and you don't LIKE conversation with her. Same as with sex.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's simply tit for tat. I have no problem spending 12 minutes a week or 12 hours a week with her in any shape of form. When she unilaterally decides that 12 minutes every whenever is appropriate for activities crucial to the emotional stability of the marriage, then it is my right as well to assert that 12 minutes of my time is equally enough for similar importance activities.

I also carry my weight around chores wise - always did and always will...


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> While I agree that there are some (many?) men who treat women badly, why do women stay with them and marry them?
> 
> I've serious - I would think that it would be obvious very early in a relationship that a man didn't treat women well - why continue it?
> ...


no they settled and then decided to change it up on them once the ring goes on. they use sex a a weapon and men fall for it until 20 yrs into it they finally are not controled by their little head any more. and pulled their head out of their a$$ wiped the $hit out of their eyes and realise they are married to woman who never really desired them in the first place. they setteld and were pi$$ed the whole marriage because their husband didn't meet their disney world needs.


happens all the time.

Instead of being thankful for what they have right in front of them they let resenrment build and grow farther and farther apart.


there are just as many men as women who do this. I know a few women who treat their man very well only to be **** on by their controling demanding shelfish pig of a husband.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good afternoon always_alone
> I think you are right, but I view that as a different problem that ALSO needs to be solved (first). I completely understand women not wanting to have sex with a man who doesn't care about the woman's pleasure.
> 
> In many HD / LD cases though the HD partner has gone to huge effort to figure out how to please the LD partner, and is still turned down. Back when my wife was LD, I would do anything for her in bed, and she almost always had an orgasm, while there was almost nothing she was willing to do for me.


You did something to help reverse your situation?

I would like to see the thread or a description of the before during and after, because you have circumvented a common problem in marriages.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

chillymorn said:


> no they settled and then decided to change it up on them once the ring goes on. they use sex a a weapon and men fall for it until 20 yrs into it they finally are not controled by their little head any more. and pulled their head out of their a$$ wiped the $hit out of their eyes and realise they are married to woman who never really desired them in the first place. they setteld and were pi$$ed the whole marriage because their husband didn't meet their disney world needs.
> 
> 
> happens all the time.
> ...


Sometimes the controlling, demanding selfish pig of a spouse is a female. And they do a lot of crapping on folks.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Lila said:


> There has to be more to it that just regular sex, hot meals, and a few "thank yous" here and there.
> 
> Maybe I'm making men more complicated than they really are, but I would think companionship, moral support, empathy, and affection (not necessarily sexual) would also be necessary to make them happy. :scratchhead:
> 
> To paraphrase a quote in the movie Shrek. "Men are like onions, they have layers".


Of course the 12 minutes of conjugation would have been preceeded by at least an hour on working on something together, talking or being general good company.

But so many people go to sleep saying they didn't have the time or energy, when it's a bunch of bs.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Anon Pink said:


> Not in my marriage. He is quite happy and is perplex and vexed that his wife is not.


Anon, you are not happy?


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

always_alone said:


> It's just that 7-12 minutes sounds an awful lot like duty sex. It may be enough for him to get off, but for many women, it simply is not. Many women (not all, of course) simply forego orgasm in the hot bathroom sex scenario because they find the overall experience exciting --if not exactly sexually fulfilling.
> 
> So to many women, telling her to set aside 7 minutes for the love of her h is roughly the equivalent of telling her to spread her legs and pretend like she's having a good time -because *he* needs his O.
> 
> That is, pretty one-sided


I'm not saying anybody should be _telling_ their wife/girlfriend to do this. I'm saying that, for all intents and purposes, the wife/girlfriend should be doing this _on their own_, if that is all the time they can manage for their partner.

True, some women need much longer than that to get any real pleasure from sex (orgasm...) but many do not. Sometimes *I* need longer than that, too! If it takes you 20 minutes or 1/2 an hour, then set aside that time. 7-12 minutes is just for argument's sake. 1/2 an hour really isn't all that much time out of 24 hours, either. The point is, it doesn't always have to be a big production with candles and soft music and 45 minutes of foreplay. Whether you can orgasm in 7 minutes or 25, set aside the time for the person who is important to you. 

Certainly, try to ensure your needs are met, too. Sometimes they won't, but you can definitely get other things out of it, too. My ex wife was very non-orgasmic, and always had been - not just with me. She could only ever orgasm through a vibrator, and had her first O when she was in her late 20's. When our relationship was good, she was still satisfied with our sex life, even though she didn't O. There were still good feelings, physical, as well as emotional.

But the emotional benefits are there, for both sides - if one allows it.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Lila said:


> Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't be offended if DH suggested sex every night. I WOULD be upset if HE got offended when I said No.


What would your reasons be for saying no?

Curious a bit. And you seem to be in touch with the idea of intimacy and how it can be special and important. Being on TAM enough to understand sex and it's importance, why not make it your decision to have sex daily (would he like that?) and see how he handles it.

If only I could make some of you guys my science projects. Sorry.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

alexm said:


> I'm not saying anybody should be _telling_ their wife/girlfriend to do this. I'm saying that, for all intents and purposes, the wife/girlfriend should be doing this _on their own_, if that is all the time they can manage for their partner.
> 
> True, some women need much longer than that to get any real pleasure from sex (orgasm...) but many do not. Sometimes *I* need longer than that, too! If it takes you 20 minutes or 1/2 an hour, then set aside that time. 7-12 minutes is just for argument's sake. 1/2 an hour really isn't all that much time out of 24 hours, either. The point is, it doesn't always have to be a big production with candles and soft music and 45 minutes of foreplay. Whether you can orgasm in 7 minutes or 25, set aside the time for the person who is important to you.
> 
> ...


I would loop forever and die arguing the term "duty sex" here on TAM if I commented every time I saw that term used here.

The only people that should consider sex a duty is hookers. If you consider any intimacy time, or time together with your significant other, even if it is just for 7-10 minutes, a duty, you are not doing marriage right. I stand by that statement and get nauseous thinking about how some people use that guilt term, created just to make the person that needs and wants intimacy to feel guilty, and make the selfish, neglectful, and abusive spouse seem like a victim. 

Such a shame.

*edit. alex I wasn't arguing with "you" I was agreeing with you and talking in general in my reply. I quoted you because I agreed.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

9 out of 10 women will of course spend hours arguing and chatting about the validity of this point in lieu of having sex. Even if they agree with it. I doubt most women want a man. What they want is something like another woman but with less respect for them. Or an employee.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Runs like Dog said:


> 9 out of 10 women will of course spend hours arguing and chatting about the validity of this point in lieu of having sex. Even if they agree with it. I doubt most women want a man. What they want is something like another woman but with less respect for them. Or an employee.


Ha.

This comment actually made me spit up coffee on my computer screen at work.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Coldie said:


> I would loop forever and die arguing the term "duty sex" here on TAM if I commented every time I saw that term used here.


It is an interesting dichotomy though. 

The "Turn off" to duty sex is that your partner is obviously not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which would imply that you care whether they do or not.

But the root causes of duty sex are often stated to be your partner's conviction that you don't in fact care whether they are having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which is why they're not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves in the first place.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> It is an interesting dichotomy though.
> 
> The "Turn off" to duty sex is that your partner is obviously not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which would imply that you care whether they do or not.
> 
> But the root causes of duty sex are often stated to be your partner's conviction that you don't in fact care whether they are having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which is why they're not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves in the first place.


Ahhh...but you are forgetting that men who care about their partners pleasure...it's all about the mans EGO and not really her pleasure, so men are upset with duty sex because they can't properly stroke their ego.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Runs like Dog said:


> 9 out of 10 women will of course spend hours arguing and chatting about the validity of this point in lieu of having sex. Even if they agree with it. I doubt most women want a man. What they want is something like another woman but with less respect for them. Or an employee.


Such BS. Most of the women discussing this here *are* women who have sex every night or would like to. But, at the same time, have enough experience to know precisely why many women don't.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> It is an interesting dichotomy though.
> 
> The "Turn off" to duty sex is that your partner is obviously not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which would imply that you care whether they do or not.
> 
> But the root causes of duty sex are often stated to be your partner's conviction that you don't in fact care whether they are having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which is why they're not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves in the first place.


Here is an interesting dichotomy: If my SO were here to speak for himself, he would absolutely say that my pleasure is important to him, and that men generally wish their women to be pleased.

Yet he will not, no matter how much I beg and plead, no matter how many different ways I explain, no matter what I do, give me one sexual session the way *I* would like it.

Because we've met *his* criteria for success, all is well.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Here is an interesting dichotomy: If my SO were here to speak for himself, he would absolutely say that my pleasure is important to him, and that men generally wish their women to be pleased.
> 
> Yet he will not, no matter how much I beg and plead, no matter how many different ways I explain, no matter what I do, give me one sexual session the way *I* would like it.
> 
> Because we've met *his* criteria for success, all is well.


That's a shame. Sounds like you picked wrong then


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> That's a shame. Sounds like you picked wrong then


I've encountered this dichotomy before. All men talk the talk...

But then many complain that you "always want candleligt"


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Here is an interesting dichotomy: If my SO were here to speak for himself, he would absolutely say that my pleasure is important to him, and that men generally wish their women to be pleased.
> 
> Yet he will not, no matter how much I beg and plead, no matter how many different ways I explain, no matter what I do, give me one sexual session the way *I* would like it.
> 
> Because we've met *his* criteria for success, all is well.


That plucks a chord, AA. I'm sorry.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I've encountered this dichotomy before. All men talk the talk...
> 
> But then many complain that you "always want candleligt"


All men huh?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> While I agree that there are some (many?) men who treat women badly, why do women stay with them and marry them?
> 
> I've serious - I would think that it would be obvious very early in a relationship that a man didn't treat women well - why continue it?
> ...


My husband did. A lot of the charm, joie de vivre, spontaneity was replaced by a measure of complacency. I shook him up though, instead of just letting it ride.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Here is an interesting dichotomy: If my SO were here to speak for himself, he would absolutely say that my pleasure is important to him, and that men generally wish their women to be pleased.
> 
> Yet he will not, no matter how much I beg and plead, no matter how many different ways I explain, no matter what I do, give me one sexual session the way *I* would like it.
> 
> Because we've met *his* criteria for success, all is well.


I had a BF who said he wanted to please me. But he really just wanted his ego stroked. He wanted me to squirt because it showed how awesome he was. Forget what I wanted.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Their is no doubt that we have some selfish men who don't know how or could care less about pleasuring a woman. I have had more than one encounter of the same with women who could care less about pleasing a man. But to say all men are like that or all women are like that simply isn't true and limited thinking.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

samyeagar said:


> No need...married women don't like sex, and men are only after one thing...
> 
> I understand how you feel...the internet is full to bursting about how men need to treat their women, and how women deserve all this and that, and real men this and real men that,* with very little about how women should treat men, and what men deserve*...


Hey Samyeager.. I listened to you .. I finished my thread ~ I took the time...It's not like many are jumping to read this sort of thing... give me some feedback when you get a minute...would like to hear if you think I did you men justice or what could have been added, taken away, revised, etc - to suit your needs , desires from us. 








http://talkaboutmarriage.com/long-t...ion-our-husbands-shake-up-rock-his-world.html


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening Treyvion
I wish I had a magic solution, but I don't. I'm a bit uneasy about talking about personal (identifiable) issues here, but here is the gist:

Met my wife when we were young ~18. Dated on and off for about 6 years. Got along well but our sex life was infrequent. I foolishly assumed that would change because when we had sex she seemed to greatly enjoy it. 

Got married. Initially sex was good (lots of variety etc) though not frequent 1-2 X/week. Very gradually the rate decreased. one a week. Once a week when something else didn't get in the way. Twice a month etc. 

There was always a reason. She always enjoyed sex but the variety started to decline. I was told that there were some things she didn't like any more - without specifics. The decline took place over almost 10 years. We were down to once every couple of months. I became more frustrated and resentful. Intimacy went away. My attempts to discuss were brushed off. 

(Lots more unpleasantness deleted since its off topic).

Meanwhile I received lots of attention from other women. I didn't cheat, but it started to feel like the only woman who wasn't attracted to me was my wife. 

Around our 25th anniversary, after a romantic trip to one of the most romantic spots on earth - where we didn't have sex, I finally cornered here and talked. 

I think that talk might well have ended in my asking for a divorce, but rather than pushing me away (as she had every other time), she decided she had been in the wrong. We had sex - and started to have sex regularly. 

Our entire relationship is immeasurably better. We are both honestly happy. I don't feel constantly rejected. She doesn't feel constantly pressured or feel that I only want intimacy for sex. Life is really really good. 

I don't know what was going on, or what changed. All she would say is that she felt unattractive. (WTF - I absolutely adored her). Maybe she thought my frustration was lack of interest? Didn't realize why I didn't want to lie naked next to her in bed after we hadn't had sex for months? I don't know.

Things are very good now - but we lost 15 years of happiness and almost our marriage. Don't do that! If you are the LD partner in a LD/HD relationship, then please try - for both of your sakes. 






treyvion said:


> You did something to help reverse your situation?
> 
> I would like to see the thread or a description of the before during and after, because you have circumvented a common problem in marriages.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

TheCuriousWife said:


> *This post just makes me sad for some reason.
> 
> Are there any articles that are similar to why you should have sex with your wife every day?*


 I think it would be *unbearable* to be a woman and not FEEL desired by your man... MEM did a thread a while back for how to deal with a Lower drive spouse, meaning wives....and I responded by turning that around to why I don't think it's the same for women but EVEN MORE DIFFICULT..... maybe men will disagree with me, but this was my thoughts on that -taken from :

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...-ld-wife-created-sexually-happy-marriage.html 

(Some of the men struggling with this may appreciate that discussion.. he does say in the opening post " An LD person cannot want more sex than they naturally "want" and pressuring them to give more is toxic and not sustainable. The basic premise is that you the HD spouse need to suck it up. I don't know if that is true in general it has not been true for us.".. then lays out a list of 10 points to understand about her...and how to deal with this... 

My post tried to turn a few of those points on their head -looking through a woman's eyes...



> These are some great examples of how to wade through some of the difficult issues & erect some healthy sexual boundaries ...... many can benefit from your list here ....as truly the majority of women are lower drive over men... :smthumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> All men huh?


Talk the talk? I think so. Certainly I've never heard a man claim to be a terrible and selfish lover, or utterly indifferent to a woman's pleasure.

I think you may have misunderstood my post, as the more interesting question is "do all men walk the walk"? Some do, to be sure. Some do not.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening Treyvion
> I wish I had a magic solution, but I don't. I'm a bit uneasy about talking about personal (identifiable) issues here, but here is the gist:
> 
> Met my wife when we were young ~18. Dated on and off for about 6 years. Got along well but our sex life was infrequent. I foolishly assumed that would change because when we had sex she seemed to greatly enjoy it.
> ...


Awesome story.

I also liked how the signals each of you read off each other where completely mis-interpreted.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

> Although sex IS great, it's only one form of expressing intimacy. Cuddling in bed, discussing our feelings for each, and sharing our dreams and fantasies are all non-sexual ways of being intimate. Thankfully, DH feels the same way about this as I do.


Talking about your day. Sharing your concerns. Having a load lifted or lifting a load. Sharing fun times. Appreciating each other. Loving on your kids. I think everyone knows how I feel about intimacy = sex.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> That plucks a chord, AA. I'm sorry.


No need to apologize. In many ways, I'm just agreeing with your observation, albeit from a very different perspective.

It's not only possible, but probably quite common, to believe one thing, yet utterly fail to communicate it to you partner. And not just because you're not trying, but because you have totally different perspectives.

Communicating involves listening, as well as talking.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> Ahhh...but you are forgetting that men who care about their partners pleasure...it's all about the mans EGO and not really her pleasure, so men are upset with duty sex because they can't properly stroke their ego.


... or because sex isn't work or a duty and should be considered special and intimate. If it is seen as a duty, then the relationship is broken.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Lila said:


> Okay, so here's my answer as honest as I can make it.
> 
> I see sex as a fun, energetic, and creative activity. I'm not a passive lover nor do I expect DH to be either. Sometimes after a long day at work, followed by kids sporting activities, the energy reserves are at their lowest. There's no way I can call up the inner "energy bunny" and DH refuses a half a$$ed effort. Some here would say it's an ego thing, but he rarely agrees to sex when it's just for his benefit.
> 
> ...


Thank you for answering. I can agree with those points. As I've said in the past, if your spouse is okay with the intimacy he gets, there really is no issue at all. My question was hypothetical and I can respect your answer.

I also agree, intimacy is not just sex.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

always_alone said:


> To me, this only says that it is not just men who can be woefully ignorant of women's sexuality -- it is women too.
> 
> Granted, pressuring her is not the best tactic --but to then suggest her orgasm isn't ever important? Shame!
> 
> Of course, when you are taught to be a "good girl" who doesn't do "dirty" things, and that you just need to "lie back and think of England" when your husband needs to get off --there are some serious obstacles to surmount.


There is always a delicate balance in all of these things ...for the man...the pleasing is GOOD -but NOT the pressuring...for the woman.. the good is good...but not a Cold lifeless fish..she needs so much "willing dirtiness" (or giving herself fully -unabashedly) to the man who loves & adores her !

This balance is so often lost.. and we get carried away looking through our prior experiences... any of us.. it then effects our perceptions...which can sour our attitudes ...and escalate our feelings.. in these discussions...

I have an example.. (not sex related)...

I was talking to a GF on the phone nights ago... she told me she was going out to take a walk, her neighborhood's is kinda dangerous (at least me & H think so)....I told her to be careful.. I wouldn't be walking at night alone like that, she brushed that off, feeling I worry too much...then we got into thoughts on crime ridden areas...how on her job she has to visit some of the worst ... there was 2 shootings in the last couple weeks, how she was doors down from those places ...and says " Oh we could get shot in school, here, there .. why worry about It"....

.. and I started to relate a story where I was terrified sitting in my car with our newborn son many yrs ago.. waiting for my H to buy a Christmas tree in "the Projects" ..... a bunch of men surrounded the car.. peering in at me.....I was PETRIFIED....I started praying ..what the hell could I do...so worried they might hurt my baby, ME...those minutes seemed like hours.... my H got back to the car, one of them telling him to not touch his paint or he'd fvck him up -people like that always looking for a fight, to rough someone up... we were out numbered and VERY vulnerable .... but my voice was escalating on the phone to my GF now...thinking about this memory... I was saying..."no Fvcking way I would go back to those areas"... how I had a stick up my a$$ even...(well at least I can admit it -right)..... 

Some things just remain in our psyche.. I didn't need to have something happen to me that day....my point...my attitude soured in that conversation with her..I was jumping the gun.. loosing my balance.. over reacting.. 

We all do this.. depending on the issue...



NobodySpecial said:


> I am not even talking only about rape or abuse. I am talking about learning that some men don't see women as people. Boyfriends who lie to get into your pants. A guy at a bar who gropes you as you walk by...
> 
> Most of us are not born thinking people are like this. Or can be like this. I know I never got any education or warning around it (or any kind of sex ed at all)! Gotta love catholics.


 I was not raised Catholic.. but attended a christian youth group in my teens..it was always spoken to be careful about the type of people one hangs with...Bars don't exactly have the best reputation to find decent men..

There are those with good character (test the spirits...gentleness, patience, self control, kindness...you get the drift)...and those with shady character....(







are usually there)...that we must be very careful...not everyone has the right intentions... for me, this was sound wisdom.. no matter where it was heard...my Grandmother taught me the same..she wasn't overly religious by any means. 

Now that you have experienced the ugly side of men...you have much to teach your own daughter(s) ... not all men are GOOD, worthy of our time, trust....

Many, when they are young...are just plain grossly immature...they are lust machines, they just want to stick it in something, their hormones are off the charts...they will say anything to get into a girls pants...they can't help but oogle, it may even cloud their judgment in those moments, they may even THINK they have right intentions.. but it often goes sour...and this hurts all involved. 



> My sexuality is mine.I don't "give" it to anyone. I share it lovingly with my husband. But to starfish for 12 minutes so he can cum in me? Nope. And that attitude itself is a MASSIVE turn off. But then, I don't ask my husband to do things for me that he does not like either. It is just not very nice.


 When I read what you say here...I think it's like my above example...you're not thinking of your H when you say this... but some prior experience you had...this starfishing.. (that's a new term for me)... 

I do look upon it as " *a giving*' when it's with the right man...one who has proven himself worthy of our love, our reception to him... unless he changes down the road ..Is it so obnoxious to feel ...My body is his and his is mine..


----------



## Cesar (Aug 11, 2014)

Actually I did "Like" the post. I also did respond asking if it was a challenge. As usual she just totally ignored it all together. Do I think she is getting it elsewhere? No, but people have been wrong in past. In last few years she has become a gym rat. 
I was always told watch for changes as a sign.
When I met her she was boarding on 280lbs and now she is 140. 
She stopped wearing glasses and changed to contacts and changed entire wardrobe. She is never home always with her girls and I spend most weekends alone.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Such BS. Most of the women discussing this here *are* women who have sex every night or would like to. But, at the same time, have enough experience to know precisely why many women don't.


The point is that if you spent a quarter of the effort you spend talking about it doing it you'd have nothing to talk about.


----------



## just got it 55 (Mar 2, 2013)

always_alone said:


> It's just that 7-12 minutes sounds an awful lot like duty sex. It may be enough for him to get off, but for many women, it simply is not. Many women (not all, of course) simply forego orgasm in the hot bathroom sex scenario because they find the overall experience exciting --if not exactly sexually fulfilling.
> 
> So to many women, telling her to set aside 7 minutes for the love of her h is roughly the equivalent of telling her to spread her legs and pretend like she's having a good time -because *he* needs his O.
> 
> That is, pretty one-sided


AA is the point of this article lost on you ?

Or am I missing your point?

55


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

I think  this thread would be an enlightening read for any who haven't seen it for the shear, banging your head against the wall frustration a fair majority of the males who find their way to TAM have experienced. 

It's not that I don't enjoy reading how considerate the husbands of some of the happily married ladies are or what sexual virtuosos they are. I do. Lord have mercy though. It's tough to light a campfire in a driving rainstorm.


----------



## just got it 55 (Mar 2, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know. If we remove the false value of sex applied to men the statement might indeed be true.
> 
> Does sex mean dipping his wick till it shoots? Or does it mean a physical coming together of sexual intimacy which produces a bonding that speaks of love and commitment?
> 
> ...



Just Like women
only I would not call them simple 

ETA: I do all the cooking

55


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

Wolf1974 said:


> All men huh?


Perhaps you haven't ascertained her MO for being here.

All of us men are selfish dirty dogs. Some men don't care about pleasing their women, and that would be true of *some* men and they are aholes for that.

But then those of us that do, we only do so because we have an ego, or other reasons than to please them. We must have an ulterior motive other than wanting our girlfriends/wives to have pleasure
We aren't going to win or never be right in her eyes. God I'd like to pick her husband's brain.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

vellocet said:


> Perhaps you haven't ascertained her MO for being here.
> 
> All of us men are selfish dirty dogs. Some of us don't want to please our women, and that would be true for some of us.
> 
> ...


So it would seem. I just always find it humorous when people here use the all men this and all women that. It instantly discredits them


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

I didn't take the, "All men talk the talk.." metaphor negatively.

It's a fact that men take an inordinate amount of delight in witnessing female sexual pleasure. Certainly not all men, but close enough for me. 

It's also equally true that there are men who either honestly don't know how or who don't want to put forth the effort (i.e. Walk the walk) to translate that desire into reality.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening octillo
I'm not sure its as near-universal as people think. There seem to be a lot of women here who are being ignored by their partners .



ocotillo said:


> I didn't take the, "All men talk the talk.." metaphor negatively.
> 
> It's a fact that men take an inordinate amount of delight in witnessing female sexual pleasure. Certainly not all men, but close enough for me.
> 
> It's also equally true that there are men who either honestly don't know how or who don't want to put forth the effort (i.e. Walk the walk) to translate that desire into reality.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening octillo
> I'm not sure its as near-universal as people think. There seem to be a lot of women here who are being ignored by their partners.


I'd say that even among those men, we'd still have some sorting to do. Some men neglect their wives because they haven't practiced a little common sense mental hygiene with pornography and one of the principle allures of male oriented pornography is how good a time the female character seems to be having


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I didn't take the, "All men talk the talk.." metaphor negatively.


Normally I wouldn't either. But when every post has a hint of "all men this", "all men that" or just nothing but *****ing about men, there is no other way to take it.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

vellocet said:


> Normally I wouldn't either. But when every post has a hint of "all men this", "all men that" or just nothing but *****ing about men, there is no other way to take it.


I gotta say, have you considered that you might be projecting? No one said anything at all about all men. And this is a topic you bring up a LOT.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> I gotta say, have you considered that you might be projecting? *No one said anything at all about all men*. And this is a topic you bring up a LOT.





always_alone said:


> I've encountered this dichotomy before. All men talk the talk...


She has a pattern of generalizing and complaining about men. That's her sole MO for posting on this site. To b!tch about men.


And I bring it up when I hear the generalizations from the usual suspects. But if you want to defend that kind of behavior, be my guest. Imagine what would happen if I defended blatant and obvious woman haters. Would be a different ball game wouldn't it?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> I gotta say, have you considered that you might be projecting? No one said anything at all about all men. And this is a topic you bring up a LOT.


Well you know here on TAM even partial statements can trigger the assumptions of a male or female. Both sexes feel bashed and will defend their perceived injustices.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

treyvion said:


> Well you know here on TAM even partial statements can trigger the assumptions of a male or female. Both sexes feel bashed and will defend their perceived injustices.


Like I said, that statement usually wouldn't raise an eyebrow with me. But I'm considering the source and posting pattern of the poster


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> It is an interesting dichotomy though.
> 
> The "Turn off" to duty sex is that your partner is obviously not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which would imply that you care whether they do or not.
> 
> But the root causes of duty sex are often stated to be your partner's conviction that you don't in fact care whether they are having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves, which is why they're not having a good time and enjoying the experience themselves in the first place.


Duty hold hands. Duty smile. Duty attention. Duty kiss. Duty cuddle. 

I'd say the same thing to anyone that said the above^ 

Your relationship is broken. The term duty sex is nothing more than a guilt term created by the person who wants to make their lover feel bad for wanting them "too much." The person who feels sex is a duty is broken, or the relationship is.


----------



## just got it 55 (Mar 2, 2013)

This thread started out as fun

It's gone down hill from the OP

55


----------



## Bobby5000 (Oct 19, 2011)

As a man, I think the article is ridiculous. No wife is going to have or at least want to have sex every night- getting up at 6 a.m to make breakfast for John, , then getting the older boy to the bus at 7:00, get dressed, to work just in at 8:30, out at 2:30, pick up the older boy, check on after school, make dinner, one kids doesn't like it, 7:30, start getting kids to sleep, 9:00 P.M. watch a show, and to sleep at 10:00. And no, she isn't looking for something new then. 

A reasonable goal for the average married couple is twice a week. Hopefully a wife can get 10 minutes together with her husband one day during the week and one day on the weekend if she's in the mood. And if the week isn't good, then hopefully 1-2 days next week. That's realistic. Maybe instead of sex, a background, a glass of wine together. 

Being unrealistic and looking for 7 days a week is as ridiculous as the wife who decided once every six months is fine and her husband will be happy. People need to see each other's perspective.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

vellocet said:


> Like I said, that statement usually wouldn't raise an eyebrow with me. But I'm considering the source and posting pattern of the poster


Oh right! LOL.

Like old "LadyOfTheLake", her style. I felt like her husband must've felt like he was married to an unfeeling demon.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

vellocet said:


> She has a pattern of generalizing and complaining about men. That's her sole MO for posting on this site. To b!tch about men.


Oh brother. You, my friend, are clearly looking to interpret everything I say in the worst possible light. No matter what I say, this is what you will see.

As ocotillo observed, my "all" statement was not at all meant in a negative light. It was merely to observe that men say that they wish their women would experience sexual pleasure. It could've been construed as a compliment.

But you have already made up your mind who I am and what I'm saying, and so there is no point in arguing.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

vellocet said:


> She has a pattern of generalizing and complaining about men. That's her sole MO for posting on this site. To b!tch about men.
> 
> 
> And I bring it up when I hear the generalizations from the usual suspects. But if you want to defend that kind of behavior, be my guest. Imagine what would happen if I defended blatant and obvious woman haters. Would be a different ball game wouldn't it?


What is interesting is that these generalizations are very common experiences for some of us. I wonder why those experiences are so threatening that you cannot even read what she actually writes. You've stuffed her into such a category that you are seeing things that she is not writing.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

It can take the average woman thirty minutes and longer to achieve orgasm during sex. (Depending upon who you're with and/or what you read.) --More if you count the buildup earlier in the day and throughout the evening. 

I understand the spirit behind bantering around figures in the seven to twelve minute range, (It's simply to show that sex once a week does not involve a herculean effort.) but stop and consider the mixed audience.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Oh brother. You, my friend, are clearly looking to interpret everything I say in the worst possible light. No matter what I say, this is what you will see.


No interpretation needed. All you do at this site is complain about men. That isn't even up for debate.




> As ocotillo observed, my "all" statement was not at all meant in a negative light.


And as I replied to O, normally I wouldn't perceive it in a negative light. But O doesn't know your MO at this site.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

vellocet said:


> No interpretation needed. All you do at this site is complain about men. That isn't even up for debate.


I debate it. I certainly don't agree with everything she says. But you don't even read it. You've already decided what it says.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> Great article Theseus!
> 
> And excellent companion piece Lila!
> 
> ...


GOOOOO ANON!!!!&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56908;&#55357;&#56908;&#55357;&#56908;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> I understand the spirit behind bantering around figures in the seven to twelve minute range, (It's simply to show that sex once a week does not involve a herculean effort.) but stop and consider the mixed audience.


And this is exactly it! The OP article and thread is all about admonishing women to have more frequent sex. Of course there will be women responding with very good reasons why this "analysis" is superficial and failing to reflect many women's needs and perspectives.

Maybe it would be "more fun" just to keep admonishing women. But if one truly does care about women's pleasure, wouldn't one also want to take the time to listen to what they need and desire in order to feel that pleasure?


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

*1 reason I should not have sex with my husband every night*

He doesn't want to


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> And this is exactly it! The OP article and thread is all about admonishing women to have more frequent sex. Of course there will be women responding with very good reasons why this "analysis" is superficial and failing to reflect many women's needs and perspectives.
> 
> Maybe it would be "more fun" just to keep admonishing women. But if one truly does care about women's pleasure, wouldn't one also want to take the time to listen to what they need and desire in order to feel that pleasure?


7-12 minutes could be the amount of time you orally pleasure your extremely busy wife. Around bedtime so she can fall straight to sleep with no fuss.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I think this fortune cookie nailed it. We went out for Chinese food today and as it happened my wife was sitting next to me. I got the following fortune:

View attachment 28113


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> I think this fortune cookie nailed it. We went out for Chinese food today and as it happened my wife was sitting next to me. I got the following fortune:
> 
> View attachment 28113


That's true especially if your wife takes good care of you and you aren't a member of one of the least desired groups "The sexless"!


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> And this is exactly it! The OP article and thread is all about admonishing women to have more frequent sex. Of course there will be women responding with very good reasons why this "analysis" is superficial and failing to reflect many women's needs and perspectives.
> 
> Maybe it would be "more fun" just to keep admonishing women. But if one truly does care about women's pleasure, wouldn't one also want to take the time to listen to what they need and desire in order to feel that pleasure?


The article is about something specific. Reasons to have sex with your husband. Why couldn't a subsequent article be about husbands listening to wives? Not everything is is gender bash. I happen to agree with a lot of it and the last three points are about great benefits for the wife as well.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Bobby5000 said:


> As a man, I think the article is ridiculous. No wife is going to have or at least want to have sex every night- getting up at 6 a.m to make breakfast for John, , then getting the older boy to the bus at 7:00, get dressed, to work just in at 8:30, out at 2:30, pick up the older boy, check on after school, make dinner, one kids doesn't like it, 7:30, start getting kids to sleep, 9:00 P.M. watch a show, and to sleep at 10:00. And no, she isn't looking for something new then.
> 
> A reasonable goal for the average married couple is twice a week. Hopefully a wife can get 10 minutes together with her husband one day during the week and one day on the weekend if she's in the mood. And if the week isn't good, then hopefully 1-2 days next week. That's realistic. Maybe instead of sex, a background, a glass of wine together.
> 
> Being unrealistic and looking for 7 days a week is as ridiculous as the wife who decided once every six months is fine and her husband will be happy. People need to see each other's perspective.


If you are happy, you are happy. I'm glad. Intimacy isn't a math problem or a counting game.

*If it was though?*

A spouse somehow manages to find 10 minutes out of 7200 minutes (minutes in a 5 day period) to spend intimate time with his or her partner. That is 0.14% of his / her time (and I had to round up). Not 1%, 0.14%. Even if you take off 50% of those minutes for sleep (12 hours a day sleeping), that is still .28%. Not even 1% of your partner's time. 

If he / she slept for 8 hours, worked for 8 hours, and spent 10 minutes in a 5 day period having sex, that would still only be 0.41% of that person's time. Again, not even 1%.

Sex is important. Intimacy is important. In fact, probably one of the most important things in a marriage. If you think less than 1% of your significant others time is a reasonable goal, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not great at math but I am smart enough to know that just doesn't add up. 
_
Again, I know sex isn't a math problem. However, since the topic is about numbers and the reply mentions 10 minutes in a 5 day period, I am replying to that logic. _


----------



## Bobby5000 (Oct 19, 2011)

I respectfully disagree with your math. Rounding numbers, if we assume in my example, the woman had a generous 1 hour day discretionary time, and 10 minutes to talk and prepare and 10 minutes of the act, we have 140 minutes of 420 minutes or a 1/3 of discretionary time on something that she may not want to do then. That's a lot of time.

She is likely to be resentful, less enthusiastic, and this will take a significant toll on the marriage. 

The twice a week benchmark makes sense as a rough guide. Interestingly, many women would complain about 100 times a year being difficult with busy schedules while some men would want more than twice a week as you suggest. Since it generates complaints from both sides it is probably roughly accurate as a basic guide though couples can work it out to see what works best.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lyris said:


> *1 reason I should not have sex with my husband every night*
> 
> He doesn't want to


What a selfish and frigid cad! Doesn't he know that you have needs too?

5 reasons your man should have sex with you every night:

1. Men are subject to so many demands that strip them of their masculinity, they need sex to remind themselves that they are virile and studly. By not having sex with you every night, your h is slowly emasculating himself. He wouldn't want that, would he?
2.If he wants to be married to a real and feminine woman, he needs to treat you like one. Hold the eyerolls, please, as this is simply the truth about women's nature. If you take the time to actually make your wife feel desired, sexy and adored, there is nothing she won't do for her man. 
3.You need more together time. And since sex is the ultimate form of togetherness, it is really the only choice. What better payoff for less than 1% of your day?
4. Sex relieves stress. No matter what his problems or issues, they will melt away with a quick roll in the hay. Plus, the neighbours will thank him for stopping bashing in mailboxes.
5. Sex is fun. Men get pleasure from sex too. Why on earth would he not want to on every possible occasion?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Bobby5000 said:


> As a man, I think the article is ridiculous. *No wife *is going to have or at least want to have sex every night- ...
> 
> A reasonable goal for the average married couple is twice a week. Hopefully a wife can get 10 minutes together with her husband one day during the week and one day on the weekend if she's in the mood. ...
> 
> Being unrealistic and looking for 7 days a week is as ridiculous as the wife who decided once every six months is fine and her husband will be happy. People need to see each other's perspective.


No wife? Maybe that should be No wife of yours. I find it offensive that you are setting "reasonable" goals for all women - and men. Now that is ridiculous!


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> What a selfish and frigid cad! Doesn't he know that you have needs too?
> 
> 5 reasons your man should have sex with you every night:
> 
> ...


LOL - I saw what you did. But for a man stuck in a sexless relationship, that would actually sound good. People will drink seawater when they get thirsty enough.


----------



## just got it 55 (Mar 2, 2013)

always_alone said:


> And this is exactly it! The OP article and thread is all about* encouraging* women to have more frequent sex. Of course there will be women responding with very good reasons why this "analysis" is superficial and failing to reflect many women's needs and perspectives.
> 
> Maybe it would be "more fun" just to keep admonishing women. But if one truly does care about women's pleasure, wouldn't one also want to take the time to listen to what they need and desire in order to feel that pleasure?


Thats what I got out of it.

55


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> No wife? Maybe that should be No wife of yours. I find it offensive that you are setting "reasonable" goals for all women - and men. Now that is ridiculous!


I was wondering about that too...my ex wife was always down for every day, and my wife now kind of likes the whole twice a day thing...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> LOL - I saw what you did. But for a man stuck in a sexless relationship, that would actually sound good. People will drink seawater when they get thirsty enough.


I understand. People who are already thirsting after more sex will have no problem with being told to want more sex. 

My rewrite, though, was specifically for the women in this thread who are trapped in sexless relationships, so that the discussion might be a bit less depressing for them. Maybe they too can have some advice to show to their husbands?


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Bobby5000 said:


> I respectfully disagree with your math. Rounding numbers, if we assume in my example, the woman had a generous 1 hour day discretionary time, and 10 minutes to talk and prepare and 10 minutes of the act, we have 140 minutes of 420 minutes or a 1/3 of discretionary time on something that she may not want to do then. That's a lot of time.
> 
> She is likely to be resentful, less enthusiastic, and this will take a significant toll on the marriage.
> 
> The twice a week benchmark makes sense as a rough guide. Interestingly, many women would complain about 100 times a year being difficult with busy schedules while some men would want more than twice a week as you suggest. Since it generates complaints from both sides it is probably roughly accurate as a basic guide though couples can work it out to see what works best.


According to the bureau of labor statistics, the average person working full time, out of the house, with children under 6, spends 3.5 hours of leisure time each day (with children over 6, 4.5 hours). 10 minutes for your spouse's time to physically connect, would take less than 5% of his or her daily leisure time. Now, in your scenario, it would be 5% one day a week, and 0% four days a week. Which moves the average again down to 1% your spouse's leisure time. On the weekend, leisure time drastically increases per household and your 10 minutes for the entire weekend would also slip under 1% of his or her free time.

Now, you are speaking in general, that "no wife." Yet your example is of a wife that only has 1 hour of leisure time a day (very unlikely). That isn't your average spouse, so speaking for all wives seems a bit off.

There is nothing more important in a marriage than intimacy. It is leisure. If intimacy is seen as something that takes away from your leisure time, then that's the problem to begin with.

If she resents you and feels intimacy time puts a "toll" on your marriage, then that would be a reason I'd consider to exit that marriage. My resentment for not having my needs met (because she resents me for having to spend more than 1% of her leisure time with me) is no less / more valuable than hers. And 5% of her time isn't asking for much.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> My rewrite, though, was specifically for the women in this thread who are trapped in sexless relationships, so that the discussion might be a bit less depressing for them. Maybe they too can have some advice to show to their husbands?


Maybe what people need to hear are five reasons why a woman would want sex every night?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Maybe what people need to hear are five reasons why a woman would want sex every night?


Okay, but this brings us right back to your point about audience. 

Which people do you suppose need to hear this? Women who don't want that much sex with their partners? That's who the author of the OP article is addressing and all she has managed to accomplish is to assume that all women should think and feel as she does, and that all decisions to not have sex are entirely the fault of women. Of course she will alienate many: she is only preaching to her choir.

Here are, eg, 5 other reasons a woman would want sex every night:
1) She is highly sexual and wishes to express that frequently
2) She is with a partner who rocks her world and who she can't get enough of
3) She is on mission to explore her sexuality and grow sexually
4) She is doing it for someone else, eg because she wishes to please that person
5) She is hysterically bonding or trying desperately to fill some other void with sex


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Which people do you suppose need to hear this?


My head is starting to hurt. 

I was just thinking that since the article linked to by the OP was written to LD women by a woman pleading for whats best for one's marriage and spouse, then a true XOR to that would would be an article written to LD men by a man similarly pleading for what's best for one's marriage and spouse. 

This thread took the usual depressing turn where both men and women walk away feeling that the right of their spouse to continue abusing them has been defended.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> LOL - I saw what you did. But for a man stuck in a sexless relationship, that would actually sound good. People will drink seawater when they get thirsty enough.


Ooh I'll just point out that I'm in no way in a sexless relationship. My husband just wouldn't be super interested every night. 4-5 times a week suits both of us fine.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Lyris said:


> Ooh I'll just point out that I'm in no way in a sexless relationship. My husband just wouldn't be super interested every night. 4-5 times a week suits both of us fine.


To be honest, I'm at a point in life where I would be happy with once a week or less.

AA has corrected my mistake. I thought she was trying to show with a little satire that every single night might not be that palatable for anyone.

The problem is that it's tough to convince a starving person that being up to their neck in food might not be a good thing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *always_alone*
> *Which people do you suppose need to hear this?*


 If any of you haven't jumped to this thread.. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/212210-pain-frustration-rejected-wife.html

Please read this woman's story ...now if anyone has a story to share as to WHY we should be having more sex with our husband's (not necessarily every night -but just saying).... it's someone *like her*...

She has learned a very hard lesson in this...the tables have turned...vehemently .... 

.... it's a little slow in the beginning.. but the husband starts to open up HERE page 4.... Post #51... if they recover from this, I really think she needs to do a blog, write a book...get her message out.. the pain he took on, and suppressed to remain faithful.. I don't know.. I wouldn't have done it - I would have left her !!!..... so ya know.. whatever, some can handle rejection all the time but there is a PRICE...and that price needs to be talked about...


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> My head is starting to hurt.
> 
> I was just thinking that since the article linked to by the OP was written to LD women by a woman pleading for whats best for one's marriage and spouse, then a true XOR to that would would be an article written to LD men by a man similarly pleading for what's best for one's marriage and spouse.
> 
> This thread took the usual depressing turn where both men and women walk away feeling that the right of their spouse to continue abusing them has been defended.


The issue is, as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, is that this article isn't actually for LD women. It's more for women who were into frequent sex, but have gotten sidetracked by the mommy role/busy and tiring lives, and sex has taken a back seat to everything else.

At least, that's the only group of women that I think would actually benefit from the "reminder" of why it's important to have regular sex. 

I think if someone is physically LD or is pretty damned resentful about relationship issues to the point she is not going to be hot for hubby, she will just throw up on the article. Because it doesn't address how to get the motor running (which may not be possible without hormones) or how to fix the marital issues which have led to the resentment boulder (and she can't fix those issues on her own as they require active participation from the guy who helped create the resentments), all the article is saying is "just do it whether you have to grit your teeth or not." Which she probably gets all the time from her hubby to begin with.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

norajane said:


> It's more for women who were into frequent sex, but have gotten sidetracked by the mommy role/busy and tiring lives, and sex has taken a back seat to everything else.


The thought of being HD and being sidetracked from that (As opposed to making a conscious decision to suppress it) is alien to me.

Gonna have to ruminate on that a bit.

Maybe it's the difference between what they call, "Active" and "Responsive" desire?


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't think that's a real person SA. I think it's a man writing a fantasy of "now she gets it and ha! Here's her comeuppance"


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> My head is starting to hurt.
> 
> I was just thinking that since the article linked to by the OP was written to LD women by a woman pleading for whats best for one's marriage and spouse, then a true XOR to that would would be an article written to LD men by a man similarly pleading for what's best for one's marriage and spouse.
> 
> This thread took the usual depressing turn where both men and women walk away feeling that the right of their spouse to continue abusing them has been defended.


Whose abusing who? LD's are abusing HD's thru denial and ignoring their needs and desires?

HD's are abusing LD's by attempting to coerce, convince and get the LD to see their view?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Lyris said:


> I don't think that's a real person SA. I think it's a man writing a fantasy of "now she gets it and ha! Here's her comeuppance"


I don't agree. This is a situation. While many men would have sex every time their wife would allow it, there are others who would rather play golf or watch TV.

I believe this describes a situation where the male was forced to compartamentalize, and he locked out sex. The wife's drive was somehow restored later in life and it's agonizing. The same agony that an HD experiences through the rejections and feeling like they are on an island all alone because no one can understand them.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening Lyris
you can never tell for sure on the internet who is real and who isn't. I always assume posts are real unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, so I will believe the poster is real. 

I do know women who are stuck in relationships where they want more sex than their partners and are frustrated and discouraged with the constant rejection. I have no idea of how common this problem is for men relative to women, but I'm convinced it happens to both. 

I also know people can change - my wife did, and really is much happier now. The change in our relationship is astonishing - it is now one of love, not duty. She has to go out of town and I really miss her (I sent flowers to her hotel by surprise).

She is still fairly LD, but we understand the situation now. Its OK that she doesn't want sex as often as I do - but she still really desires it. She understands that I can both love her AND lust after her, and that these are tightly tied together. 






Lyris said:


> I don't think that's a real person SA. I think it's a man writing a fantasy of "now she gets it and ha! Here's her comeuppance"


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Lyris said:


> I don't think that's a real person SA. I think it's a man writing a fantasy of "now she gets it and ha! Here's her comeuppance"


The short, declarative sentences and reliance upon physical and spatial metaphors had my needle quivering too. Time will tell, I guess.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> The thought of being HD and being sidetracked from that (As opposed to making a conscious decision to suppress it) is alien to me.
> 
> Gonna have to ruminate on that a bit.
> 
> Maybe it's the difference between what they call, "Active" and "Responsive" desire?


No, it's not the difference between active and responsive desire. 

It's more like how some people can just lose their appetites when they are super-stressed or depressed. Force-feeding them (just do it!!) doesn't make them any hungrier, if they can even eat at all.

Other people actually forget to eat, or don't get around to it, when they are super-busy (I know, it's hard for me to believe, but it's true). And then they realize it's 10pm and they never had a bite. They might eat something at that point because they need to in order to survive. But with sex, it can slide until wow, it's been weeks.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Lyris said:


> *I don't think that's a real person SA. I think it's a man writing a fantasy of "now she gets it and ha! Here's her comeuppance*"


Maybe you are right, I don't know.. I was thinking.. BOY is she ever a good writer and those posts are coming awfully QUICK to be written so articulately...this story was REALLY sucking me in... 

well I am REAL...and I can identify with that story on a much smaller scale of course.. I was never so much low drive, but stupid drive.. and my husband was never the High Testosterone type that caused fights over sex.. but what if he was and I was a little lower drive, I just could see that sort of thing playing out...

Mine wanted me to suffer in the beginning of that, maybe 5 or 6 times when I came for him... but he couldn't resist he told me.. That's good! As I would have been the one causing the fights!

I guess time will tell ! I hate to be duped by something like that -that I am taking seriously.. but it can happen on TAM !


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

norajane said:


> No, it's not the difference between active and responsive desire.
> 
> It's more like how some people can just lose their appetites when they are super-stressed or depressed. Force-feeding them (just do it!!) doesn't make them any hungrier, if they can even eat at all.
> 
> Other people actually forget to eat, or don't get around to it, when they are super-busy (I know, it's hard for me to believe, but it's true). And then they realize it's 10pm and they never had a bite. They might eat something at that point because they need to in order to survive. But with sex, it can slide until wow, it's been weeks.


Sometimes on TAM we have discussions about comparative sex drive between the genders. They don't go anywhere because there's not any real way to compare short of a brain transplant. 

Due to an amazing act of stupidity, (Hiking alone in the Mazatzal wilderness without telling anyone where I was going.) I went an entire week without food once. I understand how you can skip a meal due to excitement or stress or something else, but have to say that hunger comes back stronger each time until its bending you over double.

If sex drive is not comparable to that; to the point where you literally want to chew the back of your own hand sometimes, then something is very different. And I mean this sincerely.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> If sex drive is not comparable to that; to the point where you literally want to chew the back of your own hand sometimes, then something is very different. And I mean this sincerely.


No one is disputing whether there are differences in drive, only whether those differences are gender-based.

Why presume it would be the man who will want to "chew his hand off"? There are so many women starting threads about sexlessness. Clearly some men can go quite long periods without feeling that need ..and many women who want to chew off their hands.

I am not trying to convince hungry men that being up to their necks in food is a bad thing. I'm trying to illustrate how superficial and unhelpful the OP article is for addressing anyone's problem.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

always_alone said:


> No one is disputing whether there are differences in drive, only whether those differences are gender-based.
> 
> Why presume it would be the man who will want to "chew his hand off"? There are so many women starting threads about sexlessness. Clearly some men can go quite long periods without feeling that need ..and many women who want to chew off their hands.
> 
> I am not trying to convince hungry men that being up to their necks in food is a bad thing. I'm trying to illustrate how superficial and unhelpful the OP article is for addressing anyone's problem.


I do wonder if articles like this can be grating because they seem to be addressing the whole of their gender, rather than addressing what happened or worked for themselves and could help others in there situation. 
IMO the wording comes off like all others of their gender are in the same situation as them or has done the same things in a relationship that they have done.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Sometimes on TAM we have discussions about comparative sex drive between the genders. They don't go anywhere because there's not any real way to compare short of a brain transplant.
> 
> Due to an amazing act of stupidity, (Hiking alone in the Mazatzal wilderness without telling anyone where I was going.) I went an entire week without food once. I understand how you can skip a meal due to excitement or stress or something else, but have to say that hunger comes back stronger each time until its bending you over double.
> 
> If sex drive is not comparable to that; to the point where you literally want to chew the back of your own hand sometimes, then something is very different. And I mean this sincerely.


Under the best of circumstances, I wouldn't want to have sex multiple times a day every day, like I do with eating food. Nor would I feel anything like a week of hunger if I went a week or even a month without sex. 

Hunger isn't the best analogy for sexual need and want. Frankly, nothing is. Sex IS different from everything else. I know people around here don't like hearing that, and then start equating chores and sex...but that is denying the unique place sex holds in our lives, all the different things sex means to us, and all the components that go into having a satisfying sex life for life.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Why presume it would be the man who will want to "chew his hand off"?


You've never seen a man do this is sexual frustration? Not even in a movie?  

Pete sees the sirens...



always_alone said:


> Clearly some men can go quite long periods without feeling that need ..and many women who want to chew off their hands.


I've read the threads of ladies in this situation and many of their husbands seem to be selfishly projecting their sexual energy elsewhere rather than not feeling the need at all. 

I will say though that there's not much that would make me happier than having this particular stereotype proven wrong.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

norajane said:


> Under the best of circumstances, I wouldn't want to have sex multiple times a day every day, like I do with eating food. Nor would I feel anything like a week of hunger if I went a week or even a month without sex.


Norajane, do you think there is a point where the two would ever be comparable? Speaking from experience, I would take the week without food over two years without sex. 




norajane said:


> Hunger isn't the best analogy for sexual need and want. Frankly, nothing is. Sex IS different from everything else. I know people around here don't like hearing that, and then start equating chores and sex...but that is denying the unique place sex holds in our lives, all the different things sex means to us, and all the components that go into having a satisfying sex life for life.


I agree with you here. There is no perfect analogy. Maybe in some ways, human contact and conversation would be closer? Alexander Dolgun and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn both documented an interrogation technique used under Stalin where a person was simply deprived of human conversation. They would be put in a small, dimly lit grey cell with a solid door and no windows. Food would be slipped under the door. It sounds simple, but it mentally unhinged even strong people after awhile.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

ocotillo said:


> I will say though that there's not much that would make me happier than having this particular stereotype proven wrong.


I agree with the general stereotype...there will be exceptions -there is in everything! but statistically speaking, Men are Higher drive.. hands down over women.. I'm with you ocotillo... if the man isn't interested, his energy is being used elsewhere, or his Testosterone is too low... I have this book to break it all down..... *3% said this >> I wasn't interested in sex to begin with* ..

Why Men Stop Having Sex: Men, the Phenomenon of Sexless Relationships, and What You Can Do About It: Bob Berkowitz: Books


It says..." *Why do men stop having sex with their wives.*..The reason is seldom simple and may have a *physiological* , *psychological* , or *cultural* foundation, recent studies add a genetic component.. Often these elements combine. 

We looked at the statistical reasons our male survey respondents, who self -identified as choosing not to have sex with their spouses, gave us for no longer being intimate, and we studied their comments carefully. We asked men to list the reasons on a scale that went from strongly agree to strongly disagree ...the Following table lists in descending order the percentage of men who agreed with each of the causes"...



> She isn't sexually adventurous enough for me..............68%
> She doesn't seem to enjoy sex..................................61%
> I am interested in sex with others, just not my wife......48%
> I am angry at her...................................................44%
> ...


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> It can take the average woman thirty minutes and longer to achieve orgasm during sex. (Depending upon who you're with and/or what you read.) --More if you count the buildup earlier in the day and throughout the evening.
> 
> I understand the spirit behind bantering around figures in the seven to twelve minute range, (It's simply to show that sex once a week does not involve a herculean effort.) but stop and consider the mixed audience.


What exactly is your point?
So instead of 12 minutes, maybe it does take 30, or heck even 34 or 38.
Are you saying that extra 18 minutes is just an excessive duration to consider investing in the happiness of marriage?
Or are you saying that if indeed only 12 minutes can be spared for the act, then any attempt at sex is pure selfishness for him alone (since she wont have enough time to O)?
Please explain your post.

There is always time for things that are a priority.
There is never time for things that are not.
Exactly what's so darned important that makes committing 12 (or 30) minutes to a happy marriage unreasonable?


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

tommyr said:


> What exactly is your point?


All I can say, Tommy is to carefully read what the women here are saying: How sexual love is a mood that starts hours and hours before the act and builds up during the day.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Maybe what people need to hear are five reasons why a woman would want sex every night?


Found some 
Why an Orgasm keeps you Healthy!! | Medimanage.com

I think the glowing skin would get some


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

TiggyBlue said:


> Found some
> Why an Orgasm keeps you Healthy!! | Medimanage.com
> 
> I think the glowing skin would get some


Now THAT is a darn good article ! :smthumbup: We'll substitute "the apple a day keeps the doctor away" - for orgasm any day...Good exercise too.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Bobby5000 said:


> I respectfully disagree with your math. Rounding numbers, if we assume in my example, the woman had a *generous 1 hour day discretionary time*....snip


Hold the phone right there: why did you assume 1 hour per day *discretionary time*? 
This was a big part of the sexless issue in my house. Wife would regularly spend (per day) 90 minutes baking brownies (for school lunches), 3 hours planning/executing kids play dates, 30 minutes ironing clothes. All this left zero minutes for sex (not to mention she had no more energy, having played SuperMOM for the whole day).

Do you see the problem? Her time balance was just plain off.
She allocated her time in selfish ways. Yes, I did just call her selfish! It's selfish to prioritize home baked brownies over an important marital need. There are other solutions to alot of the stuff on her *non-discretionary* list: we can buy fresh deserts at the store; we can pull the clothes right from dryer and avoid ironing (or take to cleaners); we can live with only 2.5 hours of playdates. 

See what I mean?

It's the exact same argument that non-fit people make when it comes to physical exercise. _Not enough time_. This is utter bullcrap. If exercise is important to you, there is plenty of time. If it's not, then finding excuses will be easy.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I agree with the general stereotype...there will be exceptions -there is in everything! but statistically speaking, Men are Higher drive.. hands down over women.. I'm with you ocotillo... if the man isn't interested, his energy is being used elsewhere, or his Testosterone is too low... I have this book to break it all down..... *3% said this >> I wasn't interested in sex to begin with* ..


Depends a great deal on the demographic we are comparing doesn't it? 

Many men do have low T, or one of myriad other reasons for not wanting sex every night. Even though only 3% on your list said *never* interested in sex, many others were things like tired, ill, medication, time, resentment, stress, insecurities about prowess. 

Similar reasons that women cite, don't you think?


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> I will say though that there's not much that would make me happier than having this particular stereotype proven wrong.


It would be great if the findings in study's that conflicts the stereotypes would get acknowledged (especially when it comes to 'science').

IMO the problem with stereotypes is you can end up getting brainwashed by them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

always_alone said:


> Depends a great deal on the demographic we are comparing doesn't it?
> 
> Many men do have low T, or one of myriad other reasons for not wanting sex every night. Even though only 3% on your list said *never* interested in sex, many others were things like tired, ill, medication, time, resentment, stress, insecurities about prowess.
> 
> Similar reasons that women cite, don't you think?


I guess I don't really understand why it bothers you that some of us feel men GENERALLY have higher sex drives over women and suffer more in their marriages (statistically speaking)...

I also think women are more (outright) emotional over men... is this a wrong generalization too?? ...or maybe I am missing what you are trying to get across all together..... I don't know..... 

Yes.. every one of those reasons could be true for us women too.. (of course)... I'd be angry if my husband didn't show enthusiasm. I'd shut down on him......Resentment would destroy my want for intimacy... if he gained 50 lbs, I wouldn't like it either.. 

What bothers you.. on the one hand.. it seems many women feel this article is pressuring, it's unrealistic, it doesn't understand low drive women.. .then on the other hand.. it's wrong or generalizing to suggest - or for men to feel they are suffering in large numbers, presenting their personal accounts... and they see it all around them , hear it in the stories of their male friends/co workers / relatives.. 

I am with Wolf (I think he said it) ...I only seen this article as "Encouraging".. ..ya know...someone writes an article , self expression, to something she feels is a worthy pursuit...it helped her own marriage.. she figures she can't be alone...so she shares.... if it doesn't relate, just click away.. I can't see anything damaging about it.. if the H would like that much sex...and plenty husbands would..


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I guess I don't really understand why it bothers you that some of us feel men GENERALLY have higher sex drives over women and suffer more in their marriages (statistically speaking)...
> 
> I also think women are more (outright) emotional over men... is this a wrong generalization too?? ...or maybe I am missing what you are trying to get across all together..... I don't know.....


And I don't understand why it is so offensive and off-putting when someone challenges these oft-repeated stereotypes.

Maybe it's true that if you average all age, health conditions, historical periods, and so on, you will find that men's drive is on average higher than women. Maybe. But as Tiggy pointed out, all conflicting evidence is usually swept away in favour of clinging to the stereotype. 

And for what purpose? The stereotype doesn't help anyone. All it does is reassure some sexless men that they should be able to guilt their wives into more sex in the name of "fun" and "stress release", and when it turns out to be an abysmal failure, they can simply blame women for being selfish, unwilling to care enough to spend just a few minutes a day making their man happy.

My goal in talking about women who are HD is not to argue about who has the highest sex drive. It is to point out that the averages we cite are meaningless and that there is a ton of overlap, with many women gagging for it with men who couldn't care less. 

And if we can step back and realize that many women turning sex down are actually doing so for many of the same reasons men might, perhaps we can break free of the stereotypes and find more productive ways of thinking about the problem. "I like sex, so you should too" will *only* work with people who already really like sex.

And yes, I think the stereotype that men are not emotional is very damaging, and we should absolutely stop spreading that one.

My two cents.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Question:

When "encouraging" women to have sex, is it really about the bonding? And if so, doesn't that by definition include both partner's perspectives?

All this emphasis on how she should just take 7-30 minutes of her day to make him happy sure makes it sound like when push comes to shove, the only thing that matters is the sex.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Question:
> 
> When "encouraging" women to have sex, is it really about the bonding? And if so, doesn't that by definition include both partner's perspectives?
> 
> All this emphasis on how she should just take 7-30 minutes of her day to make him happy sure makes it sound like when push comes to shove, the only thing that matters is the sex.


Do you feel that often times, maybe even more often than not, the whole sex=bonding for men thing is just a ploy? Something men say because they know it has a decent chance of getting a woman to have sex with them?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

The problem with generalizations and stereotypes is that very few people actually know how to appropriately apply them. Many, if not most generalizations are entirely accurate, or nearly so. The problems run in when people get involved with them  

We all use generalizations all the time. It's how we function on a daily basis. It's the basis of our own personal risk assessment. Most of the time, it is so quick and seamless in our minds, we don't even realize we are doing it. At its core, it is a statistical analysis of past experiences of our own or others, and applying that analysis to a current situation.

In relationships, generalizations are the basis of our personal red flags, and again, our personal risk assessment. Problems start to creep in, and generalizations become less and less valid the more specifically applied they are. In other words, a generalization is more valid, and more likely to be true when applied to a group of 1,000 people than a group of 10 people. One also has to make sure to apply the generalization to a valid group to begin with. It would not be valid to apply a generalization about urban dwelling people to those who are not urban dwelling.

It's all about the percentages...if I as a man am looking to get laid, and that is my only goal, I would use the generalization that I am more likely to find a woman willing to bang me at 1:00am in a club than I am at 10am in church. That is not a gurantee that I would get laid at the club and not at church, but if my only goal is to get laid, I would have a better chance at the club.

As I refine, and add conditions to my goal, I am narrowing, making smaller the target group, and that generalization becomes less valid. There comes a point where the target group becomes small enough that it is better to focus on the individual, and not apply generalizations in the same way...but...if I am looking for a long term partner, I am likely not going to continue or even consider building a relationship with a women who has been divorced three times because she cheated...because GENERALLY SPEAKING, people who serially cheat continue to do so, and my own personal risk assessment based on that generalization tells me it is not worth the risk.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Norajane, do you think there is a point where the two would ever be comparable? Speaking from experience, I would take the week without food over two years without sex.


I'll answer it this way. I've never gone a week without food, but I have gone 2 years without sex (with a person - I can give myself orgasms). I honestly wasn't feeling super-deprived or anything during that time.



> I agree with you here. There is no perfect analogy. Maybe in some ways, human contact and conversation would be closer? Alexander Dolgun and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn both documented an interrogation technique used under Stalin where a person was simply deprived of human conversation. They would be put in a small, dimly lit grey cell with a solid door and no windows. Food would be slipped under the door. It sounds simple, but it mentally unhinged even strong people after awhile.


That's an interesting example. During my periods without sex, I missed the intimate human contact and emotional intimacy more than actual sexual intercourse.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Many, if not most generalizations are entirely accurate, or nearly so.


I think this generalization is false. Much like many others.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon samyeagar
I don't think that is any more true than women have sex in order to "snare" husbands. Both happen but I don't think either is the norm.

Sex really isn't just about physical sensations - pretty much everyone can take care of them selves more effectively than a partner can. Now they may desire sex with a real person for reasons that are not noble - dominance, conquest etc., or for positive reasons like bonding,- but I think that for almost everyone there is more to it than the physical. 



samyeagar said:


> Do you feel that often times, maybe even more often than not, the whole sex=bonding for men thing is just a ploy? Something men say because they know it has a decent chance of getting a woman to have sex with them?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Do you feel that often times, maybe even more often than not, the whole sex=bonding for men thing is just a ploy? Something men say because they know it has a decent chance of getting a woman to have sex with them?


I just find it incongruous to have a goal of bonding, but then instead of working on actually developing that bond by listening and trying to understand her perspective, simply admonishing her for being a miser with her time and body.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I think this generalization is false. Much like many others.


I disagree. The generalizations are usually correct, it's the application of the generalization that is flawed.

The problem most people run into, where they go wrong is a fundamental misunderstanding of how generalizations apply in the first place. Generalizations only apply to populations, and specifically defined populations at that, and not individuals, because at the point where one decides to focus on the individual, the subject population becomes a population of one, therefore the only valid generalization for the individual is the individual themself.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> I disagree. The generalizations are usually correct, it's the application of the generalization that is flawed.


The problem is that generalizations are statistics, which are quite malleable, depending on how you define, measure, and apply your terms. Anyone who works with a lot of statistics knows that they can easily be manipulated to defend pretty much whatever generalization you wish.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I just find it incongruous to have a goal of bonding, but then instead of working on actually developing that bond by listening and trying to understand her perspective, simply admonishing her for being a miser with her time and body.


I find that interesting because for myself, I have never really felt as if sex was somehow this great set apart from all other be all end all only thing bonding mechanism. I don't feel any more particularly bonded to my wife after sex than I do after a long car ride where we talked and held hands the whole time. I suppose a better way to put is is the negative of that...days where we don't have sex, I feel the same disconnectedness as I do if we haven't held hands, kissed, talked.

I guess I just need the whole package, and if any of the parts are missing, it has the same affect on me regardless of what part it is.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> The problem is that generalizations are statistics, which are quite malleable, depending on how you define, measure, and apply your terms. Anyone who works with a lot of statistics knows that they can easily be manipulated to defend pretty much whatever generalization you wish.


The numbers themselves, the statistics are not malleable. They are what they are...the old saying...the numbers don't lie, people do...very true.

I guess what I am getting at is that while it is unwise to hold to generalizations in the face of general evidence to the contrary, it is also unwise to dismiss a generalization simply because it is a generalization, or because an exception is found.

I will still hold and trust the generalization that women wear skirts and men don't, even if I see a drag queen or a guy wearing a kilt.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> I have never really felt as if sex was somehow this great set apart from all other be all end all only thing bonding mechanism.


I agree. Sex can be bonding, but isn't necessarily. I would find, for example, dutifully putting in 7 minutes for my SO to orgasm (with zero regard for my own desire or pleasure) an incredibly alienating experience. And, I imagine, he would too. In that way, pushing for sex, just for sex, has great potential for causing more harm than good.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon samyeagar
one problem with generalizations is that they can easily lead to confirmation bias: you interpret what you see in ways that support what you already believe. 

If you think from statistics that black people are more likely to commit crimes, you are more likely to view a group of black teenagers on a corner as a gang, than you would a similar group of white teenagers. That will reinforce your idea that all the black kids you see are involved in suspicious activity.

Statistics can also be tricky: if you look at the relative reported level of sexual interest between men and women, you need to be sure that both are equally likely to answer the survey accurately. There is a bias that men are *expected* to want sex, and so they may report a higher level of desire in order to reinforce their belief in their own "manhood". 

In human issues like sexuality, I don't think generalizations are very helpful. The individual situations are so different that they really need to be considered one at a time. 






samyeagar said:


> The numbers themselves, the statistics are not malleable. They are what they are...the old saying...the numbers don't lie, people do...very true.
> 
> I guess what I am getting at is that while it is unwise to hold to generalizations in the face of general evidence to the contrary, it is also unwise to dismiss a generalization simply because it is a generalization, or because an exception is found.
> 
> I will still hold and trust the generalization that women wear skirts and men don't, even if I see a drag queen or a guy wearing a kilt.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

It is extremely important when dealing with generalizations to understand your subject population.

If my subject population is the entire crowd of a Chicago Bears vs Seattle Seahawks football game in Chicago, it is a realsonable generalization that the crowd is in favor of the Chicago Bears, and that any random individual I asked, statistically speaking would be a Bears fan. At the point where I speak to an individual, they become a subject population of one. It would be unreasonable for me, and an incorrect application of the generalization if they declare themselves a Seahawks fan and I still insist on holding to the generalization any more.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> The numbers themselves, the statistics are not malleable. They are what they are...the old saying...the numbers don't lie, people do...very true.


It's not that the numbers lie; it's that they are dependent on definition and measurement. 

Take, for example, lifespan. Many people still cite the generalization that people on average only lived 30 years in days gone by. While this is not actually a lie, this stat is totally a product of high infant mortality rates that brought the average down. In fact, many people lived to a ripe old age, and they weren't just a few isolated exceptions. They just came to appear so because most people died before they were even 1 year old. When we control for this, the average lifespan goes up by decades.

Similarly, generalizations about libido are comparing a population that is expected and encouraged to be sexual (men) with a population that often isn't (women). These expectations most certainly affect how these two groups will respond to surveys about their sexual behaviour --and we can see this clearly in the more recent studies where cultural expectations are changing.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good afternoon samyeagar
> *one problem with generalizations is that they can easily lead to confirmation bias: you interpret what you see in ways that support what you already believe. *


That is not a problem with the generalization. That is a problem with the person applying it.



> If you think from statistics that black people are more likely to commit crimes, you are more likely to view a group of black teenagers on a corner as a gang, than you would a similar group of white teenagers. That will reinforce your idea that all the black kids you see are involved in suspicious activity.
> 
> Statistics can also be tricky: if you look at the relative reported level of sexual interest between men and women, you need to be sure that both are equally likely to answer the survey accurately. *There is a bias that men are *expected* to want sex, and so they may report a higher level of desire in order to reinforce their belief in their own "manhood".*


That is an great example of holding to a generalization even in the face of absolute evidence against it based on population size. In this case, the individual who claims higher interest than they actually have is a sample population of one, they have absolute knowledge that the generalization does not apply to that sample, yet they still hold to it. This is the root of shaming...when an individual applies a generalization to themselves even with absolute evidence to the contrary...again, not a problem with the generalization, rather a problem with the application.



> In human issues like sexuality, I don't think generalizations are very helpful. The individual situations are so different that they really need to be considered one at a time.


Again, I don't think it's so much a problem with the generalization as it is the application. Sexuality is such a personal issue, and often dealt with within the confines of a relationship where the subject population HAS to be only the ones involved in the relationship to be valid, hence getting to know your partner as an individual.

Even within the confines of a one on one relationship, we form generalizations about our partners. My wife for instance knows what my favorite sexual position is. That is a generalization because it is possible that I am not in the mood for that position, but statistically speaking, if she wants me to have the most pleasure in any specific sexual encounter, her best bet would be to go to that position.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

samyeagar said:


> The problem with generalizations and stereotypes is that very few people actually know how to appropriately apply them. Many, if not most generalizations are entirely accurate, or nearly so. The problems run in when people get involved with them
> 
> We all use generalizations all the time. It's how we function on a daily basis. It's the basis of our own personal risk assessment. Most of the time, it is so quick and seamless in our minds, we don't even realize we are doing it. At its core, it is a statistical analysis of past experiences of our own or others, and applying that analysis to a current situation.
> 
> ...


You are getting some backlash for this post.. I think you explained this very well... I think a thread should be done on this.. I was thinking about it.. but you explain it so much better than I could even begin to...

If I was looking to find a more conservative man to fit with me & who I am... I know seeking one out in a bar setting , Oh it's possible to find a decent guy there, but my prospects would be FAR LESS for the qualities I was looking for....I DO generalize that the majority that hang there aren't exactly thinking for Long term romance or would be getting up for Church on Sundays either... that it's more about FUN... to get laid...no strings attached...

BUt this isn't to say it cant happen.. I went to a party of a christian friend days ago, talking to this older couple there.. she lost her Husband , he lost his wife...where did they meet.. A BAR !... I smiled , joked about it a little and told them that was GREAT.. but to me, that's against the odds for longevity.. from what I've seen in my lifetime... 

We all form opinions out of our own personal experiences, this is evident in every post here....and what we've seen around us, lived with , grew up with, see on TV...but nothing we see Boxes any gender in ..of course not.. 

My husband thinks all sports can Go DIE, he could care freaking less..he is not the stereotypical male... I am not bothered by this ... it doesn't take our individuality away .

I like unique people who surprise me! I am open to that...



> *Always alone said:* And yes, I think the stereotype that men are not emotional is very damaging, and we should absolutely stop spreading that one.


 I don't think this even needs spoken, it's very evident.. when the day comes that men start acting like women, you'll see more lesbians.. and little boys.. because women will NOT be attracted to that.. Maybe we are missing the point on this.. when I say EMOTIONAL .. I mean displaying it .. tears in public.. being moved ....could use a hug... I feel men BEING MEN conceal this better...and this is a blessing.. men are men because they are in control.. women are more emotional over them.. and they ENJOY comforting us.. I know my husband does.. God bless him ! This doesn't mean he doesn't feel.. that's not what I mean... but it's good our men can stand tall.. and contain their emotions before us.. 

I guess on this..










I personally ENJOY meeting new people, learning about their lives, where they have been , what they want to do.. bla bla bla.. I engage them to get to know them .. I always try to NOT pre-judge as I do NOT want pre-judged myself ....

But as they talk, reveal...we form opinions as to the things they align themselves with, the picture becomes more clear.. and we separate what resonates with our world view and theirs.. 

Tis is the basis we make friends, isn't it? 



> *Always alone said:* I just find it incongruous to have a goal of bonding, but then instead of working on actually developing that bond by listening and trying to understand her perspective, simply admonishing her for being a miser with her time and body.


 I don't feel this is the answer either, but neither was my Husband's way of being so passive he didn't want to Rock the boat with me...when he wanted more sex... I was furious with him when I learned this.. as I would have NEVER NEVER wanted to hurt him ....he's been too good to me.. then I was feeling ..."damn him, he cheated me too" by being this way...too loving, too accepting of catering TO ME.... It was the closest thing I ever came to resenting him..

This is not the regular story on TAM by any means.. so when I hear women B**** & moaning about their husbands talking about this.. I feel exactly the opposite since MY husband DIDN'T do that...

Oh this is silly.. an argument over generalizations now.. Goodness.. start a thread Samyeagar ... you are good at this.. see what others have to say.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> It's not that the numbers lie; it's that they are dependent on definition and measurement.
> 
> Take, for example, lifespan. Many people still cite the generalization that people on average only lived 30 years in days gone by. While this is not actually a lie, this stat is totally a product of high infant mortality rates that brought the average down. In fact, many people lived to a ripe old age, and they weren't just a few isolated exceptions. They just came to appear so because most people died before they were even 1 year old. When we control for this, the average lifespan goes up by decades.
> 
> Similarly, generalizations about libido are comparing a population that is expected and encouraged to be sexual (men) with a population that often isn't (women). These expectations most certainly affect how these two groups will respond to surveys about their sexual behaviour --and we can see this clearly in the more recent studies where cultural expectations are changing.


And these are great examples of the problems with people in general. They tend not to bother to actually critically think about what it is that they are looking at, and so many of them need to be beaten over the head repeatedly with evidence to the contrary before they will even consider that the generalization may not apply to an individual.

It is also human nature to only challenge generalizations when they as an individual do not fit the generalization. That is part of the reason why generalizations are difficult to, and take time to change...because so many people actually fit them, that there aren't that many people who challenge them.

Then you end up with a self selecting population of people like we are here at TAM where there are a lot of us who challenge generalizations, not because we feel the generalization is absolutely false, but rather that we understand the damage incorrect application can do, that they are often times over inflated in importance, and we realize that individuals, and knowing the individual is far more important.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Do you feel that often times, maybe even more often than not, the whole sex=bonding for men thing is just a ploy? Something men say because they know it has a decent chance of getting a woman to have sex with them?


I'm conflicted on this. TAM is really the only place I hear men talking about how sex=bonding or sex=love. Maybe because TAM is full of men who have sexless marriages and they've given this a lot of thought, but I just don't hear it otherwise. 

I do also hear men saying sex is fun, sex is about physical pleasure, sex is something they want and try hard to get when not in a relationship, I see lots of how to pick up women for sex pick up artist tips, I see men having lots of sex without any consideration of love or bonding, I hear men lusting after hot women, men using porn, men having rules about how sex must happen by the third date, I hear how sex is about power, dominance, submission, you-name-it, I hear men being told to immediately jump on the first available "younger and hotter" woman after a divorce or break-up in order to make themselves feel better about themselves...I hear men talking about sex, not bonding.

I'm not entirely convinced that sex is about bonding and love and feeling loved for everyone. I believe sex is about bonding for a lot of people, but it's also not _just _about bonding and bonding may not be the most important thing about what sex means to many people.

In my relationship, I believe and _feel _that bonding and love are part of sex, but not because my SO has _said _so. What he _says _is it's about giving pleasure, and about how hot and sexy I am (which is pleasing to hear, but see how that's different from bonding and love).

So I won't say it's a ploy, but I will say it's not always easy for me to believe that the cry for sex is about bonding, especially when men aren't asking for bonding but for 7-30 minutes of sex.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> And for what purpose? The stereotype doesn't help anyone. All it does is reassure some sexless men that they should be able to guilt their wives into more sex in the name of "fun" and "stress release", and when it turns out to be an abysmal failure, they can simply blame women for being selfish, unwilling to care enough to spend just a few minutes a day making their man happy.


Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I just need a second cup of coffee this morning, but could you possibly be doing that which you object to yourself here?

Yes, a man can choose to view the conduct of an LD wife in the meanest possible terms and assign motivations to her actions that are far from complimentary. He can tell himself that she's heartless, cold, unfeeling, unloving, superficial, selfish and at the core, dishonest, not just with him but with herself as well. But not only is this unhelpful and uncharitable; things are very, very rarely that black and white.

Similarly, I think the reasons why this stereotype has the traction it does and the purpose it serves are more complicated and not as uncomplimentary as you've stated. One purpose it serves is an antidote to the sentiment I've described above. It silences the nagging little inner voice whispering all these horrible things about one's wife with the reassurance that this is something that is just a part of her nature and not deliberate and malicious.

It's also human nature to seek social confirmation of one's misery. Nobody wants to think that they are ugly, repulsive, undesirable, a failure as a lover, etc., so the idea that many, many other men are in the same boat and are just as baffled about how to get out of it has a strong appeal. Most self help books for men in this situation are an exercise in this line of thought, and from the standpoint of a counselor, making it, "Nobody's fault" (i.e. Non-punishing) does have merit.

I'm also pretty sure the advice on these threads is well meant, but I'm not so sure that everyone understands the subtle ways they might be reinforcing the stereotype without realizing it. One way is through the appearance of passivity. When I read something to the effect that, "No man who can't light up my world like a psychedelic jukebox is ever going to get sex from me", all I can do is wonder what it would it be like to be attended to like that sexually. It would be a cold day in hell and I can accept that. That's part and parcel of being the HD partner.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

norajane said:


> I'm conflicted on this. TAM is really the only place I hear men talking about how sex=bonding or sex=love. Maybe because TAM is full of men who have sexless marriages and they've given this a lot of thought, but I just don't hear it otherwise.
> 
> I do also hear men saying sex is fun, sex is about physical pleasure, sex is something they want and try hard to get when not in a relationship, I see lots of how to pick up women for sex pick up artist tips, I see men having lots of sex without any consideration of love or bonding, I hear men lusting after hot women, men using porn, men having rules about how sex must happen by the third date, I hear how sex is about power, dominance, submission, you-name-it, I hear men being told to immediately jump on the first available "younger and hotter" woman after a divorce or break-up in order to make themselves feel better about themselves...I hear men talking about sex, not bonding.
> 
> ...


During the physical conjugation a male will get most of his needs for physical closeness and intimacy. The other stuff outside the bedroom is nice to have, but it is not as powerful as the sex itself.

Sex is the ultimate affirmation for a male. Sex is also a great physical excersize, the only one I know of where you are rewarded during the excersize.

I wouldn't try to fit a females psychology on a male and force him to work from that box.

A male is supposed to lust after and be attracted to females. This is natural.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Similarly, I think the reasons why this stereotype has the traction it does and the purpose it serves are more complicated and not as uncomplimentary as you've stated. One purpose it serves is an antidote to the sentiment I've described above. It silences the nagging little inner voice whispering all these horrible things about one's wife with the reassurance that this is something that is just a part of her nature and not deliberate and malicious.
> 
> It's also human nature to seek social confirmation of one's misery. Nobody wants to think that they are ugly, repulsive, undesirable, a failure as a lover, etc., so the idea that many, many other men are in the same boat and are just as baffled about how to get out of it has a strong appeal. Most self help books for men in this situation are an exercise in this line of thought, and from the standpoint of a counselor, making it, "Nobody's fault" (i.e. Non-punishing) does have merit.


Lots of different issues going on in this thread, and tbh, I am getting a bit lost in them.

No doubt, some people in sexless relationships would do well to realize that their partners are just not that sexual, and not likely to change. Others may do well to realize their SO's are in fact gaslighting them. It all depends on the context.

The conversation to my mind isn't about who to blame; it's about motives and desires, and why superficial advice won't get you very far, especially if you try to apply it across the board.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

norajane said:


> So I won't say it's a ploy, but I will say it's not always easy for me to believe that the cry for sex is about bonding, especially when men aren't asking for bonding but for 7-30 minutes of sex.


I agree. All my life, even here on TAM too, men have assured me that sex is sex, and not about bonding at all.

When, for example, dating is described as similar to prostitution (that is, a man paying for opportunity for sex), when I see guys posting endless pics of hot girls and lusting after them, when I'm told that men are biologically programmed to spread seed and get with as many women as possible, when I hear a man saying that if he doesn't get sex from his SO, he will simply outsource to an escort or OW, when he says all he needs is 7-12 minutes of her time so he can orgasm, I find it very difficult to construe any of this as any sort of "bonding".

But you said it much better than I could have.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I agree. All my life, even here on TAM too, men have assured me that sex is sex, and not about bonding at all.
> 
> When, for example, dating is described as similar to prostitution (that is, a man paying for opportunity for sex), when I see guys posting endless pics of hot girls and lusting after them, when I'm told that men are biologically programmed to spread seed and get with as many women as possible, when I hear a man saying that if he doesn't get sex from his SO, he will simply outsource to an escort or OW, when he says all he needs is 7-12 minutes of her time so he can orgasm, I find it very difficult to construe any of this as any sort of "bonding".
> 
> But you said it much better than I could have.


Many of us "evil Mens" need a very bare minimum of 7-12 minutes of sex not just for ejaculation. Sex feels pleasurable and makes a male feel desired. Words and touch will not over power it.

7-12 minutes was only stated that it is a very small amount of time, less than .1% of someone's day that can make a big difference versus going without.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> It's also human nature to seek social confirmation of one's misery. *Nobody wants to think that they are* ugly, repulsive, undesirable, *a failure as a lover*, etc., so the idea that many, many other men are in the same boat and are just as baffled about how to get out of it has a strong appeal. Most self help books for men in this situation are an exercise in this line of thought, and from the standpoint of a counselor, making it, "Nobody's fault" (i.e. Non-punishing) does have merit.


In many cases of lack of desire (for both men and women) it actually *IS* because their partner isn't a good lover.

Women do actually get held to task for this. (Ie: advice to never just lay there like a starfish, advice on giving bj's, showing enthusiasm, what to put on your body, what not to put on your body, many other examples). But rarely are there articles explaining that sometimes men just aren't very good in bed and they need to improve their skills. The fact that "no one wants to hear this" is the reason those men don't/can't improve.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

On the stereotypes...this came to mind...

My Husband did listen to the stereotype or generalization that most women don't like sex....this is WHY he didn't open up to me.. He works with a bunch of men who was always complaining about their wives never wanting it, getting it a couple times a year, pretty much this filled the conversations, one of the men divorced over it.......so he assumed the great majority of women were like this....(and he did tell me this after we opened up the sex dialog to where we missed it)....so because I at least always initiated him, he didn't want to rock the boat with me.. he figured he had it pretty GOOD...even if he wanted more.

So there is an example of how it can hurt someone....that stereotype did put a dagger into *his thinking* -that he could arouse me into wanting him more ..... 

Also he didn't want *me* to think it was "*just about sex*".. he's also told me this. ..for him, it is more about the Bonding/ the Love we feel.. my pleasure as well as his...(He would reject one sided sex for himself).... so maybe HE assumed I had this stereotype on men.. but to be honest, I NEVER EVER felt that way about him.. so he was way over thinking that [email protected]#$

I think he had lots to work with - with me..I was always pretty reasonable, NEVER the type to push him away.. we'd talk everything out ...I enjoyed that.. 

SO yes... Always alone.. a couple popular stereotype's influenced his thinking -which kept his silence...where it never should have.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> In many cases of lack of desire (for both men and women) it actually *IS* because their partner isn't a good lover.
> 
> Women do actually get held to task for this. (Ie: advice to never just lay there like a starfish, advice on giving bj's, showing enthusiasm, what to put on your body, what not to put on your body, many other examples). *But rarely are there articles explaining that sometimes men just aren't very good in bed and they need to improve their skills.* The fact that "no one wants to hear this" is the reason those men don't/can't improve.


"She comes first" popped straight to mind, and I have seen plenty of books and articles directed towards men about how to improve. Granted, I think you're right that there are more sex improvement things directed towards women, but a lot of those aren't so much about what to do to please your man, rather how to get your man to please you.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> On the stereotypes...this came to mind...
> 
> My Husband did listen to the stereotype or generalization that most women don't like sex....this is WHY he didn't open up to me.. He works with a bunch of men who was always complaining about their wives never wanting it, getting it a couple times a year, pretty much this filled the conversations, one of the men divorced over it.......so he assumed the great majority of women were like this....(and he did tell me this after we opened up the sex dialog to where we missed it)....so because I at least always initiated him, he didn't want to rock the boat with me.. he figured he had it pretty GOOD...even if he wanted more.
> 
> ...


Even when he had proof positive right in front of his nose that the stereotype didn't fit his particular situation.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

norajane said:


> I'm conflicted on this. TAM is really the only place I hear men talking about how sex=bonding or sex=love. Maybe because TAM is full of men who have sexless marriages and they've given this a lot of thought, but I just don't hear it otherwise.
> 
> I do also hear men saying sex is fun, sex is about physical pleasure, sex is something they want and try hard to get when not in a relationship, I see lots of how to pick up women for sex pick up artist tips, I see men having lots of sex without any consideration of love or bonding, I hear men lusting after hot women, men using porn, men having rules about how sex must happen by the third date, I hear how sex is about power, dominance, submission, you-name-it, I hear men being told to immediately jump on the first available "younger and hotter" woman after a divorce or break-up in order to make themselves feel better about themselves...I hear men talking about sex, not bonding.
> 
> ...


Why is that so hard to believe though. Women can and often do bond for ours just with conversational alone. That's fine but that doesn't make me feel bonded to my partner. Sex certainly does though. Men and women have different needs to have the feeling of closeness. Even within the genders it's can vary for sure.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> But rarely are there articles explaining that sometimes men just aren't very good in bed and they need to improve their skills.


Yes, I tried to point this out earlier in tissue thread as one major reason why some women aren't too keen on everyday sex.

But no one wanted to hear it.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> In many cases of lack of desire (for both men and women) it actually *IS* because their partner isn't a good lover.
> 
> Women do actually get held to task for this. (Ie: advice to never just lay there like a starfish, advice on giving bj's, showing enthusiasm, what to put on your body, what not to put on your body, many other examples). But rarely are there articles explaining that sometimes men just aren't very good in bed and they need to improve their skills. The fact that "no one wants to hear this" is the reason those men don't/can't improve.


Plenty of articles in men's magazines to include men's health and fitness but to name 2

Here I found this laying around the sub-station and took 15 second to find


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

The question of whether any human activity whatsoever is not without an element of self interest is very, very tough to argue against.

Consequently, virtually anything a person would actually consider a, "Bonding" experience could be illuminated with the same flashlight, so to speak.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Yes, I tried to point this out earlier in tissue thread as one major reason why some women aren't too keen on everyday sex.
> 
> But no one wanted to hear it.


I absolutely accept that a lot of men simply suck in bed, and don't know how to please their partners. I also know there are lots of women who suck in bed too. I blame in large part people clinging to generalizations and not focusing on their partner.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah, a 1/8th page snippet in Mens Health is soooooo going to make some dude who sucks in bed get better at sex. Right.

Especially since clearly some of those articles feel that men don't need to go much farther than drooling over cleavage.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> I absolutely accept that a lot of men simply suck in bed, and don't know how to please their partners. I also know there are lots of women who suck in bed too. I blame in large part people clinging to generalizations and not focusing on their partner.


Many of the men and women who "suck" in bed "suck" for similar reasons. 

You see I've had quite a few GF's, and they didn't have to come to me as a "porn star" or having been coached up by going through a carousal of 100 guys.

All you simply needed was a desire to please and willing to work with me. The sex would end up being very good.

In my bad experience, it would be similar to the women who complain. One who thinks it is credit enough for being around you, and that you are being done a favor to allowed to pleasure them. Similar to a complaint a woman would have on a man who used her body to pleasure himself, and when he's done, he gets off of her.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah, a 1/8th page snippet in Mens Health is soooooo going to make some dude who sucks in bed get better at sex. Right.
> 
> Especially since clearly some of those articles feel that men don't need to go much farther than drooling over cleavage.


So now the content of the article is the problem. Not that is isn't found......right 


Lol ok never mind I thought this was an honest discussion. Please continue on


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Well the content of any similar article in Cosmo would be mostly crap, too...so don't feel bad. You just suggested that the junk food of the magazine literary world would actually help anyone's sexuality, and I disagree, whether it is Cosmo or Mens Health. Total crap.

And besides, your little snippet, I guarantee you, will NOT explain to a man WHY he may be horrible in bed. This is what would be needed to overcome it. Where are THOSE articles?


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Well the content of any similar article in Cosmo would be mostly crap, too...so don't feel bad. You just suggested that the junk food of the magazine literary world would actually help anyone's sexuality, and I disagree, whether it is Cosmo or Mens Health. Total crap.


Sorry wrong again I suggested no such thing. You suggested that they, article for men to improve sex technique , don't exist. I showed you they do. That was the only point.

I never said that you can read you way to being a better lover. NEVER. Might pick up some tips sure but since every man and woman is different you couldn't out an article together that applies to everyone. That includes the article this thread is about.

Further the best way to become a great lover, because it's so highly individualized, is to talk and communicate with them on what they want and how to perform so they get pleasure. But I'm sure the next comeback will just be men never do that lol


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Well the content of any similar article in Cosmo would be mostly crap, too...so don't feel bad. You just suggested that the junk food of the magazine literary world would actually help anyone's sexuality, and I disagree, whether it is Cosmo or Mens Health. Total crap.
> 
> And besides, your little snippet, I guarantee you, will NOT explain to a man WHY he may be horrible in bed. This is what would be needed to overcome it. Where are THOSE articles?


I've seen quite a few articles stressing the importance of listening to your partner, and listening with an open mind, communication, and that really is the key for BOTH genders, but one I see more often directed at men.

Again, I think it comes down to a fundamental weakness in people...believing others outside opinions over proof positive right in front of their eyes.

It took my wife quite a while, and several times of me having to say basically "Yes, I know other men seemed to like that, but I don't." before she started to focus on me as an individual as opposed to me as "men".


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> Sorry wrong again I suggested no such thing. You suggested that they, article for men to improve sex technique , don't exist. *I showed you they do*. That was the only point.
> 
> I never said that you can read you way to being a better lover. NEVER. Might pick up some tips sure but since every man and woman is different you couldn't out an article together that applies to everyone. That includes the article this thread is about.
> 
> Further the best way to become a great lover, because it's so highly individualized, is to talk and communicate with them on what they want and how to perform so they get pleasure. *But I'm sure the next comeback will just be men never do that *lol


First bolded part: IMO, a snippet is not an article.

Second bolded part: You must not know my story or how I feel about my husband or you wouldn't say this, since I'm quite aware how men become good lovers and know first hand that many of them are. Clearly you don't get my point or where I'm coming from on this thread and you just wanted to "prove" me wrong by showing me a snippet in Mens Health. Meh, if you call a snippet "proof" of quality articles that actually address the issues I suggested, I'll still just have to disagree on that.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> First bolded part: IMO, a snippet is not an article.
> 
> Second bolded part: You must not know my story or how I feel about my husband or you wouldn't say this, since I'm quite aware how men become good lovers and know first hand that many of them are. Clearly you don't get my point or where I'm coming from on this thread and you just wanted to "prove" me wrong by showing me a snippet in Mens Health. Meh, if you call a snippet "proof" of quality articles that actually address the issues I suggested, I'll still just have to disagree on that.


I wasn't trying to prove anything. You seem intent of proving ill will at every corner. I honestly thought when I read you comment well maybe she doesn't know that they do exist. So I wanted to show you that they did. But it seems that doesn't support you argument so fine. As I said I thought this was an honest discussion. But you dismiss my point by saying off guys just look at the cleavage........ Which is ridiculous. If I wanted to see boobs I could see them on the internet or at home not some magazine.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> In many cases of lack of desire (for both men and women) it actually *IS* because their partner isn't a good lover.
> 
> Women do actually get held to task for this. (Ie: advice to never just lay there like a starfish, advice on giving bj's, showing enthusiasm, what to put on your body, what not to put on your body, many other examples). But rarely are there articles explaining that sometimes men just aren't very good in bed and they need to improve their skills. The fact that "no one wants to hear this" is the reason those men don't/can't improve.


I don't disagree with this within reason, but stand by the observation that setting up performance hurdles for our spouse to surmount often does say something about how sexual we are to begin with. For example, I would call utter BS on a man who blames his aging wife for his own waning sex drive.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> The question of whether any human activity whatsoever is not without an element of self interest is very, very tough to argue against.
> 
> Consequently, virtually anything a person would actually consider a, "Bonding" experience could be illuminated with the same flashlight, so to speak.


Really? There's a pretty big difference in how self-serving it is to say "get your **** wet" (to quote, eg, treyvion's favorite recommendation) vs to make an effort to know your partner's deepest desires and feelings, don't you think?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

sigh....Wolf, gee man, I'm just soooo sorry that I didn't see your snippet as a legitimate source of sexuality information for men who suck in bed. THAT is what I said I don't see around out there, the snippet you showed me still doesn't address what I said I don't see out there. But you are so invested in your snippet so....again, I'm sooo sorry that I didn't agree.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

It's cool faithful. I know you wouldn't no matter what I posted. That's clear now


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

On the contrary, I'd LOVE to see any REAL examples of GOOD articles on the topic I mentioned. If you have any, feel free to share them.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

No thanks got baited once by trying to be helpful. Wasn't good enough apparently lol


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

samyeagar said:


> Even when he had proof positive right in front of his nose that the stereotype didn't fit his particular situation.


 I don't know how to explain this, we didn't talk about sex (you've heard all of this before)... but when we had it - it was deeply FELT...always an after glow also, deeply satisfying even if on the vanilla side..

It's like he needed or looked for some cue I wanted to be with him at the onset , oh he'd push through that and get me going but not every time he wanted to... I would call him a *subtle initiator* - in comparison to me..

I am by far the more aggressive over him.. there is no question what I am after, and I will make it worth his while.... 

Him..he's not like this.. but he is turned on by what I just described thankfully -which makes us a fine match... even if we missed each other in the past more than should have been... it was a fascinating revelation...

See that's another generalization/ stereotype WE DON'T FIT....and I did my share of arguing for his being "enough" even though I was wanting more dominance in the sheets during that time....I had to work this out ...after all...I was satisfied for the 1st 19 yrs !..

So we grew....I had a ball being his seductress...ya know....even though it was against the normal grain of men being more the aggressor /pursuer for sex..


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Really? There's a pretty big difference in how self-serving it is to say "get your **** wet" (to quote, eg, treyvion's favorite recommendation) vs to make an effort to know your partner's deepest desires and feelings, don't you think?



Don't you just love the bot censor? 

If I can believe what I read, breastfeeding is considered by many to be a bonding experience between mother and child. It's claimed that a component of this is the action of the infant's mouth upon her nipples, which stimulates the release of oxytocin in her body. If true, I don't think that aspect of breastfeeding cheapens the experience at all and wouldn't dream of insulting a woman by suggesting that it does.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

A great case in point...sex toys.

Generally speaking, men love sex toys in the bedroom...one of the reasons they are widely suggested as a method of spicing things up. Numerous articles about sex toys, using them, men loving them. Well, I don't, and never have. I made it very clear to my wife that I didn't. My wife took it upon herslef to introduce them. I went along with it to please her, but she could tell I wasn't into it, then got upset with me because I didn't respond how men are supposed to respond. After a few times of this, her bringing them in, being less that satisfied with my response, me telling her I don't enjoy them, she dropped the shame bomb on me...995 out of 1000 men out there love this, and she was right, and if she was with pretty much any other man out there, there is a good chance he would have loved it. I simply said Ok, but I don't. Left her completely speechless.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

More women than men are at least adequate in bed, which makes sense. Men as a whole are simpler in their sexual response, so less skill is needed to get them to orgasm - heck a woman could be non-participative and a guy can still get off. On the other hand, women have very complex sexual response, and what works on one woman seldom works the same or as well on another. A man has to learn a variety of skills, and then has to learn the particular woman he's with, if he wants to be a good lover. Sometimes, it may seem like too much work for the less motivated men, especially if she's not very participative, and particularly if she does not give feedback and suggestions about what's working or not for her.

You can't learn much about pleasing a woman from an article. You may learn a little more from a book. You'll learn a lot more from actually having sex with different women over time, and you'll learn the most if she actually communicates her needs - and he listens. Women can learn most of what they need to know from articles and a little experience, and most of that will also work with the next man.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> More women than men are at least adequate in bed, which makes sense. Men as a whole are simpler in their sexual response, so less skill is needed to get them to orgasm - heck a woman could be non-participative and a guy can still get off. On the other hand, women have very complex sexual response, and what works on one woman seldom works the same or as well on another. A man has to learn a variety of skills, and then has to learn the particular woman he's with, if he wants to be a good lover. Sometimes, it may seem like too much work for the less motivated men, especially if she's not very participative, and particularly if she does not give feedback and suggestions about what's working or not for her.
> 
> *You can't learn much about pleasing a woman from an article. You may learn a little more from a book. You'll learn a lot more from actually having sex with different women over time, and you'll learn the most if she actually communicates her needs - and he listens. *Women can learn most of what they need to know from articles and a little experience, and most of that will also work with the next man.



:iagree:


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> More women than men are at least adequate in bed, which makes sense. Men as a whole are simpler in their sexual response, so less skill is needed to get them to orgasm - heck a woman could be non-participative and a guy can still get off. On the other hand, women have very complex sexual response, and what works on one woman seldom works the same or as well on another. A man has to learn a variety of skills, and then has to learn the particular woman he's with, if he wants to be a good lover. Sometimes, it may seem like too much work for the less motivated men, especially if she's not very participative, and particularly if she does not give feedback and suggestions about what's working or not for her.
> 
> You can't learn much about pleasing a woman from an article. You may learn a little more from a book. You'll learn a lot more from actually having sex with different women over time, and you'll learn the most if she actually communicates her needs - and he listens. *Women can learn most of what they need to know from articles and a little experience, and most of that will also work with the next man.*


Makes me wonder if it's so much that the woman is decent in bed, or that the man is not wanting to rock the boat by telling her she's not all that great...sort of the male version of faking it.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> Makes me wonder if it's so much that the woman is decent in bed, or that the man is not wanting to rock the boat by telling her she's not all that great...sort of the male version of faking it.


That's probably true if he's not in or intending to be in a relationship with her. I've certainly been there, and if she's just too incompatible there's no point in continuing a relationship and making suggestions that she may not be receptive to hearing. Besides, she may be just right for someone else.

If he's in or pursuing a relationship, it would be contrary to his own best interests to not provide feedback and suggestions so she can learn what works for him. Men may have a simpler sexual response, but they do differ, just not nearly as much as women. Of course, if she won't listen or won't try, then there's not much you can do except move on.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> If I can believe what I read, breastfeeding is considered by many to be a bonding experience between mother and child. It's claimed that a component of this is the action of the infant's mouth upon her nipples, which stimulates the release of oxytocin in her body. If true, I don't think that aspect of breastfeeding cheapens the experience at all and wouldn't dream of insulting a woman by suggesting that it does.


A component? Or the defining component? If the latter, then by analogy, people would be "bonding" every time they watch a porn flick.

Which to my mind surely does cheapen the meaning of "bond".

Brain chemicals are a part of every experience, bit it doesn't necessarily make them defining features.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> That's probably true if he's not in or intending to be in a relationship with her. I've certainly been there, and if she's just too incompatible there's no point in continuing a relationship and making suggestions that she may not be receptive to hearing. Besides, she may be just right for someone else.
> 
> If he's in or pursuing a relationship, *it would be contrary to his own best interests* to not provide feedback and suggestions so she can learn what works for him. Men may have a simpler sexual response, but they do differ, just not nearly as much as women. Of course, if she won't listen or won't try, then there's not much you can do except move on.


A lot of people stay silent and yield their own self interest. In fact, that is often encouraged, for men at least. She has sex with you three times a week dude, so what if she won't give you a bj, be happy with what you got.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> More women than men are at least adequate in bed, which makes sense. Men as a whole are simpler in their sexual response, so less skill is needed to get them to orgasm - heck a woman could be non-participative and a guy can still get off.


I think an LD male (AFAIK We don't really have any TAM) would likely disagree. He's going to be picky and fussy, first claiming that his wife is not sexy enough and then whining that she's being too aggressive and pressuring him, etc. And she's going to be bewildered and feel like she can't do anything right as a result.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Makes me wonder if it's so much that the woman is decent in bed, or that the man is not wanting to rock the boat by telling her she's not all that great...sort of the male version of faking it.


Makes me wonder if men just have seriously low expectations and criteria of what sex is or can be.

But then I do hear an awful lot of men complaining about how crappy in bed their partners are, so I really don't know.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Makes me wonder if men just have seriously low expectations and criteria of what sex is or can be.


Likely part of it for sure. Men are trained that women generally don't like sex and that sex is something men do to women, and something women bless men with as if it were a gift, and we're told not to look a gift horse in the mouth, and to take what we can get.

I rejected that from the very beginning, and have had very high quality sex my entire life.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Makes me wonder if men just have seriously low expectations and criteria of what sex is or can be.
> 
> *But then I do hear an awful lot of men complaining about how crappy in bed their partners are, so I really don't know*.


And that's because women are taught that they don't like sex, that sex is something men do to them, that their sex is a gift for them to give to men...and that men are easy to please, just suck their d1ck a bit and spread your legs and they'll think they're in heaven.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Makes me wonder if men just have seriously low expectations and criteria of what sex is or can be.


You may be right. Perhaps many don't know what's possible, have never even met a woman who's great in bed, or been challenged to up their expectations and skill by a woman who knows what it means and demands it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

ocotillo said:


> *I think an LD male (AFAIK We don't really have any TAM) would likely disagree. * He's going to be picky and fussy, first claiming that his wife is not sexy enough *and then whining that she's being too aggressive and pressuring him, etc. * And she's going to be bewildered and feel like she can't do anything right as a result.


There was one.. MR VANILLA.. you must have missed his threads... I couldn't help but feel bad for his wife..he was very annoyed with her higher drive and wanted it to just go away.. all pressuring.... his logical arguing against all of this was so against any eroticism in the man. OMG... I'd be pulling my hair out of my head with one like that..


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> A component? Or the defining component?


I wouldn't know, AA. It's something I pretty much have to take the word of other people on. 

Personally I wouldn't care how big a component it is because I don't have any reason to believe that the feeling a mother develops for her child is any less real because of it. 

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean about watching a porn film. Are you talking about something akin to a celebrity crush maybe?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> More women than men are at least adequate in bed, which makes sense. Men as a whole are simpler in their sexual response, so less skill is needed to get them to orgasm - heck a woman could be non-participative and a guy can still get off. On the other hand, women have very complex sexual response, and what works on one woman seldom works the same or as well on another. A man has to learn a variety of skills, and then has to learn the particular woman he's with, if he wants to be a good lover. Sometimes, it may seem like too much work for the less motivated men, especially if she's not very participative, and particularly if she does not give feedback and suggestions about what's working or not for her.
> 
> You can't learn much about pleasing a woman from an article. You may learn a little more from a book. You'll learn a lot more from actually having sex with different women over time, and you'll learn the most if she actually communicates her needs - and he listens. *Women can learn most of what they need to know from articles and a little experience, and most of that will also work with the next man.*


The bolded simply isn't true. If you are partnered with a man who wants a highly skilled lover, you will not learn this from articles and a little experience. For a woman to become a highly skilled lover she has to do the same thing a man does: get practice and direct feedback from their lover(s). Just because a "guy can get off" doesn't mean it was good partnered sex. Some men want much more than to simply get off. 

Men are different, they don't all want it the same way and they don't all enjoy the same things. 

I suppose if you are partnered with a man who really just wants the minimum requirements met of "getting off", you could read a few articles or just be present. If you are partnered with such a man, I pity you.

My original statement about the lack of information about being a bad sex partner was not meant to show that articles by themselves can teach us anything. What I was getting at was Ocotillo's statement which I quoted, where he said "no one wants to know" if they suck in bed.

And specifically the reason I pointed this out was because, if you DO suck in bed, then you absolutely NEED to hear about it whether you want to or not. If you ever want to have a decent sex life, that is.

I would like to see more articles by both genders talking about how they want MORE out of sex, and encouraging each other to become self-aware if they aren't that great in bed and do something about it. Of course this would only apply to people who are sexual enough to care about the quality of their sex life. Some people simply don't (both men and women).


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> The bolded simply isn't true. *If you are partnered with a man who wants a highly skilled lover, you will not learn this from articles and a little experience*. For a woman to become a highly skilled lover she has to do the same thing a man does: get practice and direct feedback from their lover(s). Just because a "guy can get off" doesn't mean it was good partnered sex. Some men want much more than to simply get off.
> 
> Men are different, they don't all want it the same way and they don't all enjoy the same things.
> 
> ...


You seem to contradict yourself. I was clearly speaking about most or average men and women, not the men who want a highly skilled lover. So what you bolded and said isn't true, I still maintain IS true. Other than that, we pretty much agree, I think - especially the latter bolding.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Perhaps what I think is "average" is much more highly skilled (and wanting the same) than you think of as "average". Those who don't care about skill (their own or their partners) I would call below average. Most men I've known wanted highly skilled lovers, they did not just want a woman who shows up. I would consider these men average.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> You seem to contradict yourself. I was clearly speaking about most or average men and women, not the men who want a highly skilled lover. So what you bolded and said isn't true, I still maintain IS true. Other than that, we pretty much agree, I think - especially the latter bolding.


I tend to agree with FW on this one. I think people, both men and women, have been conditioned to think that men are easy to please in bed...wiggle this way a bit, lick him here for a bit, moan just right, and viola, your a real sex kitten in bed. I think that a load of crap personally.

I think where the misunderstandings come in is with the fact that generally speaking, if does not require a whole lot to bring a man to orgasm compared to a woman. That, I will agree with, but a quality experience, at least in my experience has very little to do specifically with the orgasm...THAT is inevitable if the experience is quality.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> Makes me wonder if it's so much that the woman is decent in bed, or that the man is not wanting to rock the boat by telling her she's not all that great...sort of the male version of faking it.


More women than men are at least adequate in bed? I can't say that is necessarily true.

In most societies the man is charged with the responsibility of romance and that includes sex. I'm not saying women shouldn't share an equal burden.

I think you will find more stories of passive female lovers who actually do not do very much unless they are performing oral.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Makes me wonder if men just have seriously low expectations and criteria of what sex is or can be.
> 
> But then I do hear an awful lot of men complaining about how crappy in bed their partners are, so I really don't know.


I can only speak for me but only had one crappy
Sexual partner. And she was unwilling to listen to what I wanted so it remained that way. Good lovers of both genders listen and discuss. Beyond that then it's
About chemistry which is harder to manage or change
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Perhaps what I think is "average" is much more highly skilled (and wanting the same) than you think of as "average". Those who don't care about skill (their own or their partners) I would call below average. Most men I've known wanted highly skilled lovers, they did not just want a woman who shows up. I would consider these men average.


I know what I like, and I know what I expect from a partner in bed, and unless I was the one who wrote the article or book they are reading, the handy tip guides out there are probably not going to cut it for my partner. I am fortunate in that I have a wife who is open to me showing her how to be my lover.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Wolf1974 said:


> I can only speak for me but only had one crappy
> Sexual partner. And she was unwilling to listen to what I wanted so it remained that way. Good lovers of both genders listen and discuss. Beyond that then it's
> About chemistry which is harder to manage or change
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She didn't want you to control her. That's how she looked at it.

Also "take it or leave it, this is how I do it."


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

treyvion said:


> She didn't want you to control her. That's how she looked at it.
> 
> Also "*take it or leave it, this is how I do it*."


...because I read an article on how to do it


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

treyvion said:


> She didn't want you to control her. That's how she looked at it.
> 
> Also "take it or leave it, this is how I do it."


Hmm. Well I guess it's possible although that was certainly not the reason she
Gave me. But Ohh well Can only do what you can do. We were
Not a match.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> ...because I read an article on how to do it


Lol 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Wolf1974 said:


> Hmm. Well I guess it's possible although that was certainly not the reason she
> Gave me. But Ohh well Can only do what you can do. We were
> Not a match.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What was her verbal reason?

And yes, if you had to work that hard at it, then you were not a match.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

treyvion said:


> What was her verbal reason?
> 
> And yes, if you had to work that hard at it, then you were not a match.


She never minded foreplay but when it came to PIV sex it was always that she wanted to do it in one position. After awhile that started getting old so I said
Something. Then it was she could only reach orgasm In that one position. Ok fine I'm happy to do that to make her happy but then I needed more variety after she came. Well she always wanted to cum Together. So I told her I don't want to do the same thing over and over and over. 3 months in and sex was incredibly dull. After Only 3 months. She was consumed with her own pleasure and couldn't care less about Mine. Only time I've ever run into this. She was a CSA survivor so you might not be far
Off on the control thing
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
I think the generalizations are mostly going around in circles. It just doesn't make sense to talk about what "men" or "women" are like or what they want, there is huge variety.

What makes someone a good lover is being what their partner wants in bed (note: I didn't say "doing" what their partner wants).


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> I'm not sure if I understand what you mean about watching a porn film. Are you talking about something akin to a celebrity crush maybe?


No, I'm referring to the fact that oxytocin is a component in all orgasms. One of the reasons some find porn to be addicting.

Ah, neuroscience. Where addiction and pair bonding meet. Can you tell he difference?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Wolf1974 said:


> *She never minded foreplay but when it came to PIV sex it was always that she wanted to do it in one position. After awhile that started getting old so I said
> Something*. Then it was she could only reach orgasm In that one position. *Ok fine I'm happy to do that to make her happy but then I needed more variety after she came. Well she always wanted to cum Together. So I told her I don't want to do the same thing over and over and over.* 3 months in and sex was incredibly dull. After Only 3 months. She was consumed with her own pleasure and couldn't care less about Mine. Only time I've ever run into this. She was a CSA survivor so you might not be far
> Off on the control thing


I had to laugh reading this.. your womans wishes IS MY HUSBAND'S.. he always wants to GO together.. this is his utopia... and we do pretty near every time... 

This was backwards in comparison to us.. It was ME , the woman who suggested MORE positions, doggie.. I really think my H's NOT shaking things up, suggesting new things...pushing my bar..like (and I am generalizing again) MOST MEN would have back then..is another reason -I just wasn't getting it.. he didn't try to arouse my interest, get creative..

He is just a sensual romantic Lover... all "making love", he has told me he doesn't even like to use the word sex...and I DID love it, still DO....but I was capable of SOOOO much more.. 

Also like Samyeagar, no interest in toys... What can you do.. I can't say he is a Mr Vanilla. because there is passion and desire....we feel lost in each other and crave this every day (almost)... but he would have been satisfied with missionary, oral sex and cowgirl till the day he died.. he never gets bored.. but I am thankful for this...

For me, his desire and Passion for us being together means more than the creativity.. it's all in what one wants.. or emotionally craves... but trying new things, places IS exciting ... We had our phase.. and I'll still say.. "hey, let's do this today"...


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> No, I'm referring to the fact that oxytocin is a component in all orgasms. One of the reasons some find porn to be addicting.
> 
> Ah, neuroscience. Where addiction and pair bonding meet. Can you tell he difference?


Well yeah, but oxytocin is supposed to be involved in enjoyment of chocolate too. I'm not sure if I'd use the word, "Bonding" to describe a fondness for bon-bons though.

And I'm still kinda confused over the idea that because something is pleasurable, it automatically makes it suspect. That sentiment reminds me of a column I read years ago, where a young woman had angrily broken up with her fiance because he had committed the sin of confessing that he enjoyed rubbing her feet. Suddenly that cheapened the whole act beyond her ability to endure despite the fact that she had not only enjoyed it herself, but had asked him to do it in the first place.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Well yeah, but oxytocin is supposed to be involved in enjoyment of chocolate too. I'm not sure if I'd use the word, "Bonding" to describe a fondness for bon-bons though.
> 
> And I'm still kinda confused over the idea that because something is pleasurable, it automatically makes it suspect.


Who said that pleasure makes something suspect? :scratchhead:

And you've just made my point exactly. Oxytocin is supposedly the "bonding" hormone, but just because it's involved, doesn't mean we still want to call it bonding. Other components are more telling. Similarly, "getting off" need not have anything at all to do with bonding. 

Or maybe, I just have no clue what you were trying to say? Because I thought your point was that bonding too could be construed as yet another self-serving activity


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Well yeah, but oxytocin is supposed to be involved in enjoyment of chocolate too. I'm not sure if I'd use the word, "Bonding" to describe a fondness for bon-bons though.
> 
> And I'm still kinda confused over the idea that because something is pleasurable, it automatically makes it suspect. That sentiment reminds me of a column I read years ago, where a young woman had angrily broken up with her fiance because he had committed the sin of confessing that he enjoyed rubbing her feet. Suddenly that cheapened the whole act beyond her ability to endure despite the fact that she had not only enjoyed it herself, but had asked him to do it in the first place.


I guess she had preferred for him to "endure" rubbing her feet and not "enjoy" it. She wasn't trying to "help" him in that way. Crazy, people are...


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Who said that pleasure makes something suspect? :scratchhead:


That's the message I'm getting. That because people generally enjoy sex, and because some people pursue it only as enjoyment, then it can't possibly be a bonding experience in a committed relationship and that any man who says otherwise is at best, ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence and at worst a liar. 

Am I off the reservation entirely here? 



always_alone said:


> And you've just made my point exactly. Oxytocin is supposedly the "bonding" hormone, but just because it's involved, doesn't mean we still want to call it bonding. Other components are more telling. Similarly, "getting off" need not have anything at all to do with bonding.


I would agree with the "need not" qualifier, but by the same token, that doesn't necessarily exclude bonding with another human being (As opposed to a piece of candy) does it?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Way off. The point is not at all that pleasure excludes bonding. It is that said pleasure very often occurs without bonding, and so any claims that the connection is essential ring hollow.

Just because two things can occur together doesn't mean they must.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

always_alone said:


> Way off. *The point is not at all that pleasure excludes bonding. It is that said pleasure very often occurs without bonding, and so any claims that the connection is essential ring hollow.*
> 
> Just because two things can occur together doesn't mean they must.


I say it depends on the man ...

Here is what I get from your post.. and this IS the issue. Some people, probably the majority in fact (statistics again) CAN and joyfully separate* LOVE *(the emotional bonding aspect) *and SEX.*., "sex is just sex" -it's foremost about the pleasure.. so when someone has LIVED and partook of this aspect of sex for many years.... how come they suddenly change tunes now saying it's all about the EMOTIONAL/ the bonding... how it is suddenly more important...and this is what you are struggling with, your saying "ringing hollow".... asking "how /why did it change for you?"

These are primarily 2 different sexual views...with a leaning to the BONDING MORE = The Romantic view ... of course it is still over the top pleasurable!...in this the bonding is essential/ paramount in his mind - (this would describe men like my Husband, the making love man)...

Or the "Just sex" view - where bonding / love is not necessary..*...it is primarily about the Pleasure*...

Explained here ::



> *4. * *"Plain Sex" view*~ "just enjoy it for what it is".... Cultural constructs linking love & sex are outmoded: Sexual desire is an acute bodily desire for physical contact with another. Sex is an intensely pleasurable physical activity. Sex should be based on mutual consent leading to mutual sexual satisfaction, so that “noone gets hurt.”
> 
> In the 1970's, Alan Goldman , penned an article entitled “Plain Sex” -speaking of the times reliable & convenient birth control & undermined any link between sex & commitment.
> With the practice of “safe sex,” recreational sex began to seem appropriate between consenting adults. Throughout history...many seen sex "for pleasure alone" ... but before reliable contraception such people were widely viewed as irresponsible libertines and gigolos, if male, and for females, the word even worse.
> ...


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Just because two things can occur together doesn't mean they must.


I don't disagree with that, AA, but I do think it's important to qualify our comments. For example, do you think the following contextual qualifications would have a bearing on the question?

*Scenario #1:* Husband is self absorbed and egocentric. He could not tell you his wife's favorite color, food, music or author. He could not tell you who her friends are. He doesn't like her family, especially her mother and avoids them at all costs. He forgets birthdays and anniversaries. His wife accommodates him sexually, but he pushes for more, claiming that it's necessary for the emotional bond between them. She says, "I have a hard time believing that."

*Scenario #2:* Wife is self absorbed and egocentric. She couldn't tell you what her husband does for a living specifically or even the exact name of the place he works. He tries to tell her about his day and she changes the subject after the first sentence. She doesn't like his friends and avoids them at all costs. The only time he truly feels close to her is when they make love and its so powerful that he's willing to overlook everything else. However one day, that's unilaterally yanked off the table too. He says that sex is necessary for the emotional bond between them and she says, "I have a hard time believing that."


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I say it depends on the man ...
> 
> Here is what I get from your post.. and this IS the issue. *Some people, probably the majority in fact (statistics again) CAN and joyfully separate LOVE (the emotional bonding aspect) and SEX.., "sex is just sex" -it's foremost about the pleasure.. so when someone has LIVED and partook of this aspect of sex for many years.... how come they suddenly change tunes now saying it's all about the EMOTIONAL/ the bonding... how it is suddenly more important...and this is what you are struggling with, your saying "ringing hollow".... asking "how /why did it change for you?"*
> 
> ...


This right here...I've been thinking more about the whole connected vs. disconnected sex lately, and my wife and I are a couple who come at this from different directions. I have never had disconnected sex and she has had plenty of it, so when it comes to what sex means to us as a couple, and since I have no frame of reference, it really boils down to I just have to take her word for it, because I don't know the difference. That is a lot of trust to put into someone.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I say it depends on the man


Yes, it depends on the man, and probably also what stage of life he is at or who his partner is. And yes, all I am suggesting is that if you hear one thing over and over and over again, it may be a bit difficult to believe when a person flips the switch and starts to say it is something else.

Not saying it is a lie, just saying that it immediately invites questions such as really? Why me? Why now? What has changed that makes this possible?



ocotillo said:


> I don't disagree with that, AA, but I do think it's important to qualify our comments. For example, do you think the following contextual qualifications would have a bearing on the question?


Context always matters. This is what I've been trying to say with respect to the OP article. Just as a man may really mean it when he says sex is bonding for him, a woman may really mean it when she says her needs aren't being met, or her perspective not taken into account. 

TAM threads, however, don't seem to allow for this possibility and immediately assume that a woman should want more sex, or even if she doesn't, is obligated to stop being such a miser with her time and body. *He* is not really asking much, after all, *he* needs sex, *he* won't take much time.

Your examples are black and white, but real life is rarely so clear. Suppose instead that the man does know all of these things about his wife, and professes that sex with her is to him romantic bonding. Yet it she is too vanilla for him, and he pouts and sulks, and talks about what a cold fish she is and how dissatisfied he is.

Where does this scenario take us?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Bonding is too abstract of a term. Think of meaning. As in the meaning of a song or a painting or a Bugatti Veyron... 

Think what sex means to you and whether the sex you're having with your partner matches the meaning you have allocated for it.

Think of the different meanings of duty sex, paid sex, ONS sex, FWB sex, etc versus LTR sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Feeling is better than meaning sometimes, IMO john. Bonding is a feeling, it doesn't have to mean anything (though it usually does) but it almost always FEELS good.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

always_alone said:


> Yes, it depends on the man, and probably also what stage of life he is at or who his partner is. And yes, all I am suggesting is that if you hear one thing over and over and over again, it may be a bit difficult to believe when a person flips the switch and starts to say it is something else.
> 
> Not saying it is a lie, just saying that it immediately invites questions such as really? Why me? Why now? What has changed that makes this possible?


 Entering hormone talk again, it's a fact as the man ages, his Testosterone decreases.. and this surely has it's effects on him ..as this decreases, his estrogen increases..so the Bonding may mean more to him as he ages even..

Here is a profile on Testosterone ...taken from this book.. Amazon.com: The Alchemy of Love and Lust; Books



> *As to Sexual roles -Testosterone *:
> 
> *Increases sexual thoughts & fantasies
> *Responds to Novelty , inspires one night stands & affairs
> ...





> *Always alone said*:
> Context always matters. This is what I've been trying to say with respect to the OP article. Just as a man may really mean it when he says sex is bonding for him, a woman may really mean it when she says her needs aren't being met, or her perspective not taken into account.
> 
> TAM threads, however, don't seem to allow for this possibility and immediately assume that a woman should want more sex, or even if she doesn't, is obligated to stop being such a miser with her time and body. *He* is not really asking much, after all, *he* needs sex, *he* won't take much time.


 I agree with you on these things...if we don't feel loved and cared for , listened to, held, his wanting to spend time with us...our emotional needs met too....why would we want to take care of him for those 5-10 minutes, I'd feel the same [email protected]# No doubt.. we need to feel our partner is giving back to us.. for us to want to give to him.. ya know..that is built in all of us (unless we are a narcissist) 



> Your examples are black and white, but real life is rarely so clear. Suppose instead that the man does know all of these things about his wife, and professes that sex with her is to him romantic bonding. Yet it she is too vanilla for him, and he pouts and sulks, and talks about what a cold fish she is and how dissatisfied he is.


 I bet this one happens a lot.. no doubt.. he craves more excitement ... more of her enthusiasm ...I guess in these cases.... I just feel if he is giving all she needs emotionally, on her end, she really needs to care about what is important TO HIM...and step it up...try to please him/ arouse the interest in any way she can. 

I think couples should be more forthcoming in asking/ probing what they can DO and how to please each other... what will make our world..and seek to do it. this would make for much happier marriages.. I think this is a good book for opening these conversations up...

Intellectual Foreplay: A Book of Questions for Lovers and Lovers-to-Be


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Feeling is better than meaning sometimes, IMO john. Bonding is a feeling, it doesn't have to mean anything (though it usually does) but it almost always FEELS good.



Correct 100%. But....

Think how you feel about a song. It sounds good. It perks you up. It feels good. Then you realize it's Donna Summers (eGads ) 

But after you're done with the sheets your brain will try to put two and two together and save the experience. Not every part but a summary if you will. The abstract. The meaning.

Feeling is what you experience during sex. The meaning is the contemplation of what was in it for you. In other words your brain playing back the experience and it's implications. 

If everything was only about the instantaneous feeling, everybody would be FWB'ing and ONS'ing their way onto the sheets, and many people do just that. But for LTR people there's usually something deeper...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Feeling is better than meaning sometimes, IMO john. Bonding is a feeling, it doesn't have to mean anything (though it usually does) but it almost always FEELS good.


Need more than that, though. Great sex can feel very good, with no bonding at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Bonding feels good all the time and only "means something" sometimes. You can bond with a FWB. As long as neither of you is leading the other on, there can be a really great bond (same as a friendship bond).

Or you can have NO bond with a FWB.

You could also have NO bond with a spouse.

The meaning assigned to how the bonding felt will be difference for different circumstances (like john said).

I think what Always keeps trying to get at is that some people who claim to want bonding actually assign no meaning to it and get no pleasure out of it...they actually just want the physical pleasure ("getting your d*ck wet") but they say the words "want to bond" because they know they won't get anywhere with "want to get my d*ck wet".

This is a complicated topic, because Always is right in what she is seeing...there is no "meaning" (beyond pleasure) for a lot of people and no "bonding". The old stereo types that men are easy to please sexually uphold this attitude sadly, and it works against both men and women.

A sad but simple example is the husband who desperately wants to have sex with his wife, yet she feels no connection to him what-so-ever. To her, she feels like "guess I'm just a warm body to him" since he clearly still wants sex with a woman who isn't feeling emotionally close or bonded to him. She wonders why he would even want sex in this situation, since she can't feel the hornies without that connection, yet he does feel the hornies regardless of not feeling bonded (before, after or during sex).

(Note: I have known couples where the above scenario is true but the genders are reversed, by the way).


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Your examples are black and white, but real life is rarely so clear. Suppose instead that the man does know all of these things about his wife, and professes that sex with her is to him romantic bonding. Yet it she is too vanilla for him, and he pouts and sulks, and talks about what a cold fish she is and how dissatisfied he is.
> 
> Where does this scenario take us?


I would say that this would lead you down the path of legitimate doubt over the claim of romantic bonding and that it would be justified. This sounds like a childish person upset because they can't have exactly what they want exactly when they want it. 

With respect, though, I did not see much context attached to the doubt expressed on this thread. I believe that NoraJane said her husband has never said anything like this at all and that TAM is pretty much the only place she's ever heard it. 

Again with respect to both you and NoraJane, TAM is a narrow audience where there are plenty of men who have experienced some form of the second scenario I gave.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Bonding feels good all the time and only "means something" sometimes. You can bond with a FWB. As long as neither of you is leading the other on, there can be a really great bond (same as a friendship bond).
> 
> Or you can have NO bond with a FWB.
> 
> ...


I've used the "get your d1ck wet" quote before. It's simply to motivate men to get back out there who may have gotten slammed in a relationship. We can sit in a vacuum and take a million years to heal, when it happens more quickly if you release the situation and move on. For some reason the sexual activity restores a lot of lost self esteem and also bridges us past the bad relationship or situation.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

treyvion said:


> I've used the "get your d1ck wet" quote before. It's simply to motivate men to get back out there who may have gotten slammed in a relationship. We can sit in a vacuum and take a million years to heal, when it happens more quickly if you release the situation and move on. For some reason the sexual activity restores a lot of lost self esteem and also bridges us past the bad relationship or situation.


And when all those bonding hormones are released towards a new partner, it helps break the old bond a bit faster...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> With respect, though, I did not see much context attached to the doubt expressed on this thread. I believe that NoraJane said her husband has never said anything like this at all and that TAM is pretty much the only place she's ever heard it.


Seems to me, there has been plenty of context provided. NoraJane was very eloquent about her experience, and other women have piped in to point out that quite often they have found that sex is all about male gratification, while their interests and desires are ignored. Does this not speak loud and clear about why women may doubt that men are trying to bond with them when trying to get into their pants?

And as I've already said, my experience very much accords with norajane's: TAM is the first time I've heard a man explicitly say that sex for him is about bonding. 

Otherwise, I've always been told that men see sex and love as very different things, that men can have and enjoy lots of sex without any feeling of bonding, and by and large are naturally inclined to prefer sex without all of the hassle of bonding. The only reason they bother with LTR is to ensure a constant supply of sex; indeed for some sex seems to be the only reason they even see or talk to women at all.

And for the few here on TAM who do say that the bonding is important, there are just as many who criticize or laugh at women for wanting some sort of connection with their sex partner, so the messages sent are far from consistent.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> And when all those bonding hormones are released towards a new partner, it helps break the old bond a bit faster...


And this is a kind of double-speak to my mind. These are the same hormones you release every time you whack to a porn flick.

So if this is what men mean by "bonding", then we'll, I'll continue to see my doubts as very well-founded.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> And this is a kind of double-speak to my mind. These are the same hormones you release every time you whack to a porn flick.



And that's where meaning comes into play....


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

treyvion said:


> I've used the "get your d1ck wet" quote before. It's simply to motivate men to get back out there who may have gotten slammed in a relationship.


IOW, it has everything to do with what *he* wants, *he* needs, and will help *him*. Her desires and needs mean squat.

So nothing to do with bonding at all.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> And this is a kind of double-speak to my mind. These are the same hormones you release every time you whack to a porn flick.
> 
> So if this is what men mean by "bonding", then we'll, I'll continue to see my doubts as very well-founded.


You dump water onto concrete, and it just evaporates, but you dump it in the flower bed, and you get flowers...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> You dump water onto concrete, and it just evaporates, but you dump it in the flower bed, and you get flowers...


Call me crazy, but I think if you're going to have any real bonding you have to involve the desires of two people.

It's not just "dumping" your load.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Call me crazy, but I think if you're going to have any real bonding you have to involve the desires of two people.
> 
> It's not just "dumping" your load.


Oh boy did you ever miss the point...

The water was analogous to the hormones, the concrete to porn, and the flower bed to a partner.

Yes, the hormones are released either way, but it is empty and wasted on porn as a bonding agent, though one could argue that a porn addiction could be in part because of the hormones. When released with a flesh and blood living human being, the possibility of bonding with them is there, though all too often, one may bond and the other not...and it's not unheard of for it to be the woman who doesn't.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> though one could argue that a porn addiction could be in part because of the hormones.


No, I did not miss the point: Lots of guys become very attached to their porn and porn stars. And lots of guys have lots of sex with flesh and blood women they have and form no attachment with at all.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> No, I did not miss the point: Lots of guys become very attached to their porn and porn stars. And lots of guys have lots of sex with flesh and blood women they have and form no attachment with at all.


Don't disagree with that, but it shouldn't be any kind of indictment against men as a whole, and more than the lots of women who are the same way should be any indictment against women as a whole.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> And when all those bonding hormones are released towards a new partner, it helps break the old bond a bit faster...


It releases the old bond almost instantaneously.

I had a bad relationship and kept getting sucked into it. I was hanging in there for my kids and thought one day she would realize she is wasting time and being stupid when she has a willing partner who is already the dad.

So the relation was over and was filled with various types of abuse, I had already gone a bit over a year being shut out of sex, any positive feedback or intimacy...

So I got a girlfriend.

Over night, I was able to discern the old relationship and all the life surrounding it, and the new.

I could go back "in there" with my ex if I wanted pain misery and anger.

But I could simply stay where normal is with people who actually liked me, a new girlfriend who was simply sharing positive time and her body with me.

It was hard not to see the light.

Had I gone on sexless I would've stayed in that vision where the ex was the gatekeeper of sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

But her point is, how do we know the difference, sam? We hear so many men say things that sound like dumping their load is the important part of sex to them, even though they may not mean it that way, that is how it sounds.

I agree that men are not that simple nor that "cold" and men are not all the same. But Always is saying how can we tell the difference when so many men are still willing to be seen in the old "men are simple, they just want to get their rocks off" way by saying these things.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

^^^^^Yes, exactly. Thanks, FW!

I never said anything about indicating anyone; it was a simple observation. One that provides some context as to why I, and some other women might have doubts when men say they are seeking bonding more than sex.

Sometimes, I swear I need a translator on this site.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Seems to me, there has been plenty of context provided. NoraJane was very eloquent about her experience, and other women have piped in to point out that quite often they have found that sex is all about male gratification, while their interests and desires are ignored. Does this not speak loud and clear about why women may doubt that men are trying to bond with them when trying to get into their pants?


No. That is actually an ode to inductive fallacy.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> But her point is, how do we know the difference, sam? We hear so many men say things that sound like dumping their load is the important part of sex to them, even though they may not mean it that way, that is how it sounds.


Its not THE important part, but it is important, just as I'm sure, and what I'm hearing from the ladies, that having an O is important too, just not THE most important thing.



> I agree that men are not that simple nor that "cold" and men are not all the same. But Always is saying how can we tell the difference when so many men are still willing to be seen in the old "men are simple, they just want to get their rocks off" way by saying these things.


Well isn't that the thing about sex? Would you get a massage if it didn't feel good? Would you eat a steak if it tasted like a turd?

People engage in sex because it feels good AND for that bond. Getting rocks off is an important part, but again, not THE most important part. 

If "blowing my wad" was the most important part, I wouldn't want sex to last long. I want it to last as long as I possibly can.

But if sex didn't feel good, who would do it? Nobody. Men or women.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't care what "men" say about sex. I care what my husband says. And he says it's the most important part of feeling close to me, along with talking and non-sexual touch. 

It also feels good. I don't really get why this is so hard to understand. Are you a black-and-white person Always? Because you seem to have a lot of difficulty seeing that things can mean more than one thing.

I don't mean that to sound snarky, so I'm sorry if it does.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

always_alone said:


> *Seems to me, there has been plenty of context provided. NoraJane was very eloquent about her experience, and other women have piped in to point out that quite often they have found that sex is all about male gratification, while their interests and desires are ignored. Does this not speak loud and clear about why women may doubt that men are trying to bond with them when trying to get into their pants?
> 
> And as I've already said, my experience very much accords with norajane's: TAM is the first time I've heard a man explicitly say that sex for him is about bonding.
> 
> Otherwise, I've always been told that men see sex and love as very different things, that men can have and enjoy lots of sex without any feeling of bonding, and by and large are naturally inclined to prefer sex without all of the hassle of bonding. The only reason they bother with LTR is to ensure a constant supply of sex; indeed for some sex seems to be the only reason they even see or talk to women at all.*


 I've always looked at hormonal Boys & most men in this light, unless by their actions and treatment - they prove otherwise....and I want my daughter to take heed as well... what you say IS TRUE.. .I'd even say it's MORE THAN HALF to 75% of the male population .

IF given the chance, if the woman is willing, he's going to jump on it.. and he isn't thinking about tomorrow either..."We got tonight, who needs tomorrow, let's make it last, let's find a way...turn out the lights, come take my hand, we got tonight , why don't you stay " Bonding for a roll in the hay. 

And yet It's not a slam against men from me..

This is where I see our responsibility in this.. to be weary of this fact...IF we want more than this....give it time before sleeping with them..let them show us how much they truly care about us...in actions, in time, in treatment...otherwise... you take it for what it IS.. 

It's just like a guy who quickly spends wads of $$ on a woman cause he is infatuated with her.. but he isn't sure how she REALLY feels (it's too early)...so he's trying to BUY her affection..to buy himself TIME... this will often backfire.. she will just use him since he was so willing.. 

This article sums it up for me.. I think every woman needs to understand this in her youth.. about men, about relationships, about bonding/ intimacy... For the BEST SEX EVER Emotional Intimacy is key..here's why!



> *If you seek a LOVING relationship...Build a connection FIRST!*
> 
> A lacking of emotional intimacy in relationships is very common, and as a result its absence causes strain, lack of communication, *lack of care towards the other person* - if you feel how can this be, just take a look at men and women who have one night stands, even IF they are not aware it's a one night stand at the time, where the other person vanishes, or acts afterwards as though you were a commodity. No closeness, cuddling, long eye to eye contact, soft kisses, holding hands, but an awkward silence..and a " I'll give you a call" as they disappear out the door.
> 
> ...


 Though I don't feel there is anything wrong with a man who wants a constant supply of sex .. so long as he also cares AS MUCH about the bonding that goes along with it, and you feel it towards you daily... his actions and care aligns with his words.... 



> *Always alone said*: *And for the few here on TAM who do say that the bonding is important, there are just as many who criticize or laugh at women for wanting some sort of connection with their sex partner, so the messages sent are far from consistent.*


I must miss these posts or they go over my head.. Men criticizing or laughing when the woman wants a connection .....does this happen here? ..in casual sex I've seen men talk like this -but that makes perfect sense to me.. 

But not in marriage, not seeing posts like this, but more sympathetic to what is lacking... most agree in marriage, we all have emotional needs -there is an exclusive commitment to care and meet each others needs..if anyone is dismissing this, they are way off.. and it's no wonder their wives don't want them.. they are not feeling loved ...and grew resentful.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> No. That is actually an ode to inductive fallacy.


Oh, please. How many white swans do you have to see before you conclude there are an awful lot of white swans?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Are you a black-and-white person Always? Because you seem to have a lot of difficulty seeing that things can mean more than one thing.
> 
> I don't mean that to sound snarky, so I'm sorry if it does.


Okay, I give up. Obviously, there is no point to my being here or saying anything at all.

I mean, obviously things can mean more than one thing. I've never said otherwise. But in my experience, it just isn't "bonding" that any man has ever wanted from me. 

Nor does it seem like "bonding" what many are talking about here.

But whatever. I'm done.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Ok I'm obviously misunderstanding or missing parts of what you wrote. 

No need to stop posting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

While reading this thread, seeing entries like these:


samyeagar said:


> I disagree. The generalizations are usually correct, it's the application of the generalization that is flawed.





SimplyAmorous said:


> I went to a party of a christian friend days ago, talking to this older couple there.. she lost her Husband , he lost his wife...where did they meet.. A BAR !... I smiled , joked about it a little and told them that was GREAT.. but to me, that's against the odds for longevity.





ocotillo said:


> TAM is a narrow audience...





always_alone said:


> Oh, please. How many white swans do you have to see before you conclude there are an awful lot of white swans?


I keep thinking of the story of the mythical customs office. One of the inspectors finds a guy smuggling diamonds and he's wearing black shoes. Another soon similarly apprehends a black shoe wearing diamond smuggler. The boss sends out a memo saying to give extra scrutiny to people wearing black shoes. Fewer and fewer people with brown shoes are carefully searched, and so more and more black shoe wearing diamond smugglers are caught, and with each such apprehension, the stereotype is further strengthened. Now it might be the case that there are as many, or even more, smugglers wearing brown shoes, but they're just getting waved through without examination.

One reason I mention this because I remember reading a thread where lots and lots of people in long term marriages (like me) reported having had sex with their spouses-to-be extremely soon. Such things, not confirming "what's expected," can be too easily ignored.

I'm not saying stereotypes are unfounded -- just that they're sometimes not confronted with the skepticism they deserve.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

The two articles and this thread has been fascinating to read. Lot's of interesting points of views from both sides. What I got out of all of it is: _You get what you give_. Not score keeping or tit for tat but a genuine attempt and desire to meet your partners needs is typically going to be appreciated and reciprocated. I find that to be pretty true.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Ok I'm obviously misunderstanding or missing parts of what you wrote.
> 
> No need to stop posting.


Lyris, I'm just frustrated. Here I am thinking I'm having a productive conversation, and then I get a series of responses basically saying that I'm hating on men, making idiotic generalizations, and can't even see that people are complex and might be different from each other.

If that's what people are getting out of what I'm saying, then there really just is no point, as clearly, I'm incapable of communicating.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Lyris, I'm just frustrated. Here I am thinking I'm having a productive conversation, and then I get a series of responses basically saying that I'm hating on men, making idiotic generalizations, and can't even see that people are complex and might be different from each other.
> 
> If that's what people are getting out of what I'm saying, then there really just is no point, as clearly, I'm incapable of communicating.


Tell me if I'm way off here (I have a feeling I'm off at least a little)

Are you saying that if a woman here's generalizations all her life (men are dogs, sex is physical for them ect, men and women are different), 
gets with someone who uses these generalization when it serves them (if there is a problem with porn/ogling at other women ect, or not meeting) but then when sex isn't where he wants it to be only then says anything about sex being a bonding experience for him then why would she believe him? 
Especially if he's not listening or seeming to care about what makes her bond with him and everything that she's heard about sex is how it's important for him to have a release and his need for sex and all information she's been told is about a man's sexuality and not much about her own it's not really going to make more sex with her husband sound really appealing to her.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> Tell me if I'm way off here (I have a feeling I'm off at least a little)


Close enough!

I just came across this article, and it made me think of this thread. Although the demographic is much younger and unmarried, and so not entirely applicable, it does indicate that the idea that sex acts are largely for male gratification, without concern for female desire, is not just my hasty generalization revealing my man-hating inability to handle complex concepts: Anal heterosex among young people and implications for health promotion: a qualitative study in the UK -- Marston and Lewis 4 (8) -- BMJ Open


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Lot's of interesting points of views from both sides.


That's for sure!And I'm also unsure whether I understand everyone's points fully.

I think if there was no such thing as masturbation, and partner sex was the only way to experience orgasm, then I'd be more aligned with "Always." Fortunately however !!!, this not being the case, the big debate about "bonding" seems largely a quibble as to the meaning of the word bonding. Bonding through sex; bonding through music; bonding through art; bonding through discussions of philosophy. Whatever. It's not as though one can't do all kinds of things that give life joy and meaning, alone. It's just that they're often so much better to do with a loved one. But maybe I'm missing something (because I, too, filter out things that don't fit into my preconceived notions).


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Close enough!
> 
> I just came across this article, and it made me think of this thread. Although the demographic is much younger and unmarried, and so not entirely applicable, it does indicate that the idea that sex acts are largely for male gratification, without concern for female desire, is not just my hasty generalization revealing my man-hating inability to handle complex concepts: Anal heterosex among young people and implications for health promotion: a qualitative study in the UK -- Marston and Lewis 4 (8) -- BMJ Open


Now this makes me think of the (super-overgeneralized) axiom that, *"All problems of sex and money in a relationship are just misdiagnosed problems of power." *


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

always_alone said:


> I just came across this article, and it made me think of this thread. Although the demographic is much younger and unmarried, and so not entirely applicable, it does indicate that the idea that sex acts are largely for male gratification, without concern for female desire, is not just my hasty generalization revealing my man-hating inability to handle complex concepts: Anal heterosex among young people and implications for health promotion: a qualitative study in the UK -- Marston and Lewis 4 (8) -- BMJ Open


Was reading some of that..



> Initial anal sexual experiences were rarely narrated in terms of mutual exploration of sexual pleasure.* Women reported painful anal sex:*
> 
> As soon as the whole incident happened where he didn't warn me it just hurt. It was just pain [laugh]. It was just like: no. No one could possibly enjoy that. It was just horrible […] I guess he could have used lube, maybe that would have helped, but I don't know. Apparently if you're tense it hurts more, I guess, which makes sense really, but I don't see how you couldn't be tense [laugh] in that kind of situation. (Emma)
> 
> ...


How sad is that.. now what can we learn from this... #1 many people are just not nice people... they are selfish... #2 ...women should be very careful to what type of men they get involved with.....#3....Don't do things to please men.. .. say NO.. let the chips fall where they may.. you deserve better...it's not like these men were gentleman and suddenly wanted to stick his **** up her a**......I envision these types hanging out in the boys locker room bragging about all their conquests.. ... it's so not about THEM, the bonding experience/ but yeah.. his gratification...

That's just ugly ..or he'd stop at the 1st sign of pain.. and apologize & never try to go there again...

Again... why we warn our daughters - but even that gets beat up on this forum it seems... I say BS...I would share an article like this with my daughter.. so she knows what is happening, to not be shocked by the ways of some ......though we're from the US.. ....

Get rid of these types of men.... look for someone who treats you right..

It's just that important... Geez, where will these women BE and how will they feel after they move on from these experiences in their earlier life.. already SEX has been tainted for them... as a painful experience, lacking love, caring...

What happens when these women meet up with a good man who deeply cares about her pleasure... loves her for HER...but maybe she holds back....afraid to open up again and trust...she is suspicious, she may even have to learn how to enjoy sex again... so in effect the Good Guy is paying for the sins of the bad guy she was with before... 

I'm all for pleasing men but only if its good for ourselves in that process...and what brings us happiness and fulfillment too..


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Lyris, I'm just frustrated. Here I am thinking I'm having a productive conversation, and then I get a series of responses basically saying that I'm hating on men, making idiotic generalizations, and can't even see that people are complex and might be different from each other.
> 
> If that's what people are getting out of what I'm saying, then there really just is no point, as clearly, I'm incapable of communicating.


You aren't the only person who gets that message here on TAM. I may not always agree with you but I respect your right to have your opinion. Don't let others try and bully you from speaking your mind.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

I do not want sex every night but it I do find it great that my wife and I would be available to each other every night if we had the time and energy.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Only if I can screech and turn her down 99.8% of the time for 30 years. Then we can call it a draw.


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Really? All women are this way? Really?


Brilliant, Elegirl. Brilliant! I keep thinking of your posting. I'm sure I'm going to borrow that, perhaps substituting "men" for "women," or even a race or ethnicity, depending on the situation.

See here I was sensing there was maybe bias in people's thinking, and yet not wanting to take sides or pile on. So I go to write inane vignettes to highlight that while it's really really true that "#1 many people are just not nice people...", the contexts in which these not nice people are experienced can jaundice one's thinking, without understanding how. But that kind of analytical, conversational approach usually fails for me anyway, so if I may,



always_alone said:


> ...it does indicate that the idea that sex acts are largely for male gratification, without concern for female desire, is not just my hasty generalization...


Really? Sex acts are largely for male gratification, without concern for female desire? Really?


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

This is why I don't dare share my sex life on TAM......


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

Personal said:


> I trust though, that you and your husband enjoy that sex life? My wife and I certainly enjoy ours.


yes....I have shared small things like oral and such.....but the big things...LOL...I won't share..


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

bestyet2be said:


> Really? Sex acts are largely for male gratification, without concern for female desire? Really?


I said "largely". 

And while I do think women have come far in recent years, I stand by it.

Look at 99% of porn. Which is, of course, 99% of sex education. What are we teaching men and women about our securities?

Look at how many LD wives who have sex because it makes their man happy.

Compare rates of orgasm, and tell me who is virtually guaranteed to have one at every encounter, and who stands at just 30%.

Compare rates of "faking" it, and tell me who is most likely to pretend to make their partner happy

Compare rates os sexual coercion, manipulation and harassment. Consider that virtually every woman has at least one experience of being intimidated or threatened because of her sexuality.

Look at who is said to "need" sex, and who is told that the equivalent of sex for them is money (I see this on TAM all the time, and will likely puke next time I see it).

Tell me, whose sexuality is commoditified and packaged for the pleasure of the other? 

I'm not saying that individual encounters are necessarily about male gratification, but that our overall culture prioritizes male gratification, and often at the expense of female desire and pleasure. 

Even in this supposedly sexually enlightened age, women are still supposed to remain pure, chaste, "good", until their one and only husband tells them to unleash their inner slvt --in exactly the way that he wants and likes, of course. Any other way, and she is just a slvt.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

You're welcome to stop having sex any time if it just sucks that bad for you.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

vellocet said:


> You're welcome to stop having sex any time if it just sucks that bad for you.


Yes, of course. Thank you for making exactly my point: Many women *have* decided that sex is not important to them, or a priority for them *because* of those very reasons, and it's just not that fun for them.

And look how happy their sexless husbands are about that state of affairs.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Yes, of course. Thank you for making exactly my point: Many women *have* decided that sex is not important to them, or a priority for them *because* of those very reasons, and it's just not that fun for them.
> 
> And look how happy their sexless husbands are about that state of affairs.


Your also welcome to not have a man in your life at all......again, if it sucks that bad for you.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening always_alone
Generalizations are tricky, I don't have statistics.

I don't agree that 99% of porn shows only men enjoying. From what I've seen, most porn shows women having orgasms. They are usually faked (except in amateur stuff), but women ARE shown as enjoying sex. Its more difficult for women to orgasm in the environment of a porn set, and easy to fake, so they do so (it is being done for money after all).

Orgasm rates vary. My wife orgasms more often than I do. In general you are probably right here. 

Women do fake more, but its not easy for men to fake. Men do usually orgasm more easily, but less frequently. Many women have multiple orgasms in a typical lovemaking session.

Men are more likely to coerce, though most men have never done so. I don't disagree with you here.

Some women need sex as well. There are many posts here and on other forums from women who are not satisfied with the amount of sex they are getting. The numbers seem pretty similar. 

I think women are serialized more - but there is a lot of selling of male sexuality as well. There is less nudity for men, but look at the popularity of say the "twilight" series. Still, I don't disagree with you here that on average women are objectified more often. 

In my social group I have never heard someone suggest that women should remain chaste, or that those who did not were "****s". I'm sure it may happen in other groups. The only person I know who used the term slvt was a woman who used it to describe herself when discussing her "conquests". (of which I was one  - yes this was long before I was married)





always_alone said:


> I said "largely".
> 
> And while I do think women have come far in recent years, I stand by it.
> 
> ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> Generalizations are tricky, I don't have statistics.
> 
> I don't agree that 99% of porn shows only men enjoying. From what I've seen, most porn shows women having orgasms. They are usually faked (except in amateur stuff), but women ARE shown as enjoying sex.


Women's pleasure from the male perspective, that is. I've seen what my SO and other's perceive to be women's pleasure, and I have to say, it's not just faked; it's a downright lie. I say, can you not see she is in pain, or numbed?

No, of course they can't. But it doesn't matter because she is pretending to be enthused. 

This is a major reason why many women get very upset about porn.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

always_alone said:


> I said "largely".
> 
> And while I do think women have come far in recent years, I stand by it.
> 
> ...


I agree with many of your points but I think you are missing the larger picture here. The OP was talking about sex within a married relationship, not what frat boys do to one up each other. Most married couples do not have the attitudes you highlighted at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Dozens upon dozens of posts in this subforum alone about husbands who feel like when their wives just lay there it is akin to rape. They don't want that at all. They want an active partner who wants to have sex. They do everything possible to bring her to orgasm or try new things they think she will like. Wives post similar things about wanting variety in the bedroom, BDSM, etc. and their husbands refuse for whatever reasons. 

Yes, there are a few men here on TAM who thinks sex is a commodity and have terrible attitudes towards women in general. Their disgust is obvious and yet self defeating. They travel in packs with their hive mind so they are easy to spot and thus ignore them. They are far from the norm though. Most men here want a mutual sexual relationship with their wives and that is very healthy.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I said "largely".
> 
> And while I do think women have come far in recent years, I stand by it.


I will take you up on that....



always_alone said:


> Look at 99% of porn. Which is, of course, 99% of sex education. What are we teaching men and women about our securities?


Porn is NOT reality. And it is NOT sex education AT ALL. 

There is not much to be learned from a SCRIPTED MOVIE.

If you choose to be naive and think that, it's YOUR choice.

Any men/women that thinks that Porn is anything more than.....PORN is not a smart one.

I said "largely". 
Look at how many LD wives who have sex because it makes their man happy.[/QUOTE]

That's their mistake. Sex is to make BOTH happy, not one side......it's within their control to embrace it and enjoy it. THEY choose not to.



always_alone said:


> Compare rates of orgasm, and tell me who is virtually guaranteed to have one at every encounter, and who stands at just 30%.


Orgasm is a SMALL part of sex though. And not why we have sex. My wife is at about 30% too, but guess what, she loves having sex just fine without orgasm. 



always_alone said:


> Compare rates of "faking" it, and tell me who is most likely to pretend to make their partner happy


I don't like fake people so I'm not going to comment on this. If you don't like it, don't BS me. Simple as that.

And there is NO rates of "faking" it. 



always_alone said:


> Compare rates os sexual coercion, manipulation and harassment. Consider that virtually every woman has at least one experience of being intimidated or threatened because of her sexuality.


You can feel as threatened or as intimidated as you want to feel. Again, it's within your control to ignore idiots or allow them to effect you.





always_alone said:


> Look at who is said to "need" sex, and who is told that the equivalent of sex for them is money (I see this on TAM all the time, and will likely puke next time I see it).


Women love sex and NEED sex as much as men, they just haven't accepted it or know it yet (for those that don't).



Plenty that do realize this and accept it. 

Also not ALL men NEED sex, we want it and will take it as much as possible. But there is MILLIONS of men out there that do JUST fine without it.



always_alone said:


> Tell me, whose sexuality is commoditified and packaged for the pleasure of the other?
> 
> I'm not saying that individual encounters are necessarily about male gratification, but that our overall culture prioritizes male gratification, and often at the expense of female desire and pleasure.


You are doing it wrong and with wrong people if you feel that way.

Clearly you have never met a MAN!



always_alone said:


> Even in this supposedly sexually enlightened age, women are still supposed to remain pure, chaste, "good", until their one and only husband tells them to unleash their inner slvt --in exactly the way that he wants and likes, of course. Any other way, and she is just a slvt.


You are taking stupidity WAY too seriously and allowing it to be REALITY.

I will tell you right now, what you said above is NOT reality.

Women are suppose to do whatever the hell they want to do, not lower their standards to meet some BS "social norm".

That's herd mentality and I would recommend against all of that....and some.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening always_alone
professionally made porn usually shows women faking orgasms because it is too difficult to make real ones happen on schedule for filming. Some actresses are OK at faking, others are completely ridiculous. 

I haven't watched much porn, but in general the women don't seem to be in pain - more bored really. 

Amateur porn (real amateur, not pretend amateur) much more frequently shows real orgasms because it is people filming their own lovemaking for exhibitionist reasons.

I don't know what sort of porn you have seen. I think that many people have a much more negative reaction than is justified - maybe because they are pointed at the minority of abusive porn by anti-porn groups? 

If you want a fair view of what is popular, you can look at the yearly adult video award winners. These don't do anything for me because the acting is poor so you can tell the people aren't really interested in what they are doing - but they aren't offensive. 

Even some of the "abusive" stuff isn't really abusive. Some viewers are into domination so the actors play at being abused. The girl from Duke U did this sort of thing - and in interviews made it clear that none of the abuse was real. 




always_alone said:


> Women's pleasure from the male perspective, that is. I've seen what my SO and other's perceive to be women's pleasure, and I have to say, it's not just faked; it's a downright lie. I say, can you not see she is in pain, or numbed?
> 
> No, of course they can't. But it doesn't matter because she is pretending to be enthused.
> 
> This is a major reason why many women get very upset about porn.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agree with many of your points but I think you are missing the larger picture here. The OP was talking about sex within a married relationship, not what frat boys do to one up each other. Most married couples do not have the attitudes you highlighted at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Dozens upon dozens of posts in this subforum alone about husbands who feel like when their wives just lay there it is akin to rape. They don't want that at all. They want an active partner who wants to have sex.


Fair enough. But the fact remains that many of the things I posted about affect women in very real ways, and they often do carry this into their marriages. To pretend it's not real, or to whitewash it because "That's not me, that's some other guy" is to gloss some of the very real reasons that women have the issues they do. 

If you refuse to face that, pretending that it's not that big a deal, or all just in the past, or "she shouldn't see it that way", you will have that much harder a time finding solutions, don't you think?

And in all those posts, the same refrains are repeated: "why doesn't she trust me?", "why won't she prioritize sex?", "why won't she put 7-12 minutes into making me happy?", "why does she accuse me of only thinking about sex?"

Well, I'm telling you why. At least some of the more common reasons that I'm aware of ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

vellocet said:


> Your also welcome to not have a man in your life at all......again, if it sucks that bad for you.


Yes, of course. And is this the solution you recommend? 

No complaints allowed? Love whatever you get or be single forever?

Awesome.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DoF said:


> Porn is NOT reality. And it is NOT sex education AT ALL.
> 
> There is not much to be learned from a SCRIPTED MOVIE.
> 
> ...


You know that and I know that. But millions of young boys and girls are getting a good chunk of their sex ed from porn, and research is showing that it does in fact affect their attitudes and expectations with regard to sex.

As for the orgasm issue: I'm glad your wife is happy, but personally I find 30% absolutely a sign that women's sexuality is treated as much less important or significant than men's.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You know that and I know that. But millions of young boys and girls are getting a good chunk of their sex ed from porn, and research is showing that it does in fact affect their attitudes and expectations with regard to sex.
> 
> As for the orgasm issue: I'm glad your wife is happy, but personally *I find 30% absolutely a sign that women's sexuality is treated as much less important or significant than men's*.


Isn't that importance in the eye of the beholder?


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Yes, of course. And is this the solution you recommend?
> 
> No complaints allowed? Love whatever you get or be single forever?
> 
> Awesome.


Think he was saying more along the lines that I was saying earlier. You maybe picked a guy who isn't good at sex. And if you did sorry about that but you paint with a wide brush. Some men will be selfish in bed same as some women, but when it's open communication and both partners want to give it can be wonderful.

I love to pleasure my woman as I have with every woman I have ever been with. That's not what I ASSUME they want. It's what they have told me they want when I ask them


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

always_alone said:


> Fair enough. But the fact remains that many of the things I posted about affect women in very real ways, and they often do carry this into their marriages. To pretend it's not real, or to whitewash it because "That's not me, that's some other guy" is to gloss some of the very real reasons that women have the issues they do.
> 
> If you refuse to face that, pretending that it's not that big a deal, or all just in the past, or "she shouldn't see it that way", you will have that much harder a time finding solutions, don't you think?
> 
> ...


I fully understand what you are saying. Allow me to explain though why it is terribly unhealthy way to behave within a marriage. 

We all have a past, some happy and some sad. While our past certainly guides us in our path towards the future, allowing it to dictate our lives is only going to hurt us. That isn't "white washing" it, that is rising up and moving forward. If we assume that everybody in our current lives are the same as the people in our previous, we are frozen in time and only repeating the pain from before. 

People are all different. The men in my previous life were terribly abusive. I could either tell myself all men are abusers or I could tell myself those men were abusive. Why should a spouse pay the price for the sins of others? Is that fair? 

You have been here for a long time and I know you have read plenty. Have you ever come across a post where a person is making gross generalizations about one gender or the other and not felt disgusted? It comes from people who use their anger and bitterness from their past to bring in to their present current relationships. Do they appear happy to you? Wouldn't they be better served recognizing that what happened to them was from one person, not a gender. 

I am well aware of issues women face. I have faced several things of what you previously described. My husband wasn't the man who was responsible for it though and shouldn't be the person punished for other d!ckbags' behavior. If I can't recognize the difference between him and the beaters and cheaters, I shouldn't be married.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

always_alone said:


> As for the orgasm issue: I'm glad your wife is happy, but personally I find 30% absolutely a sign that women's sexuality is treated as much less important or significant than men's.


To be fair, plenty of women treat their own sexuality as if it is less significant or important. TAM alone has several posts from women who freely admit that they don't masturbate or care about orgasms. Living in the bible belt, I cannot tell you how harmful the attitudes many women themselves have towards sex. They seem to think they are a "vesseL" for men with little regard to their own pleasure. It adds to the gender stereotypes, misogyny and the [email protected] shaming for those women who do enjoy sex. Needless to say, it drives me insane.


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I said "largely".
> 
> And while I do think women have come far in recent years, I stand by it....


So several questions come to mind. Let's start with, "Are your unhappy observations about the state of men, women, and sexuality true?"

Within the context you're drawn, I think I'll say they are true. If I pointed out some defect, I imagine you could just re-define the context a little more sharply and make your observations more true.

I wrote the silly story about diamond smugglers, as a way of making the point that what's true within a narrow context risks being misleading. (True, the people they caught really were guilty of smuggling, and yes they were wearing black shoes, but what if there are just as many, or more, smugglers wearing brown shoes or tennis shoes?)

If there are lots of "LD wives who are having sex in order to make their man happy," maybe there are a lot of husbands who feel anguished when they watch commercials about testosterone raising drugs, thinking "When are they going to make a testosterone LOWERING drug?" Maybe it feels that bad, for men to feel rejected? Maybe men sacrifice in ways many women don't notice? Do you think it's a burden for a man who isn't some of these bad things to know he's being lumped together with those that are?

So where does this leave us? Habituation. Habituation is both a blessing and a curse. If you buy an expensive new car, it will probably seem really nice for a while. But soon enough, it will just be "your car," and probably won't feel much different than your old one. If due to some bad turn of events, you had to go back to driving an old clunker, that would smart at first, but you'd get used to that, too. Similarly, even if the problems women face with respect to sexuality are, on some absolute average, worse than the problems men face, both men and women suffer from significant problems that feel bad. I think any comparison of "how bad" is more likely to he harmful than helpful. Whatever our problems are, we habituate to them.

But let's say the women's problems here really are a heck of a lot worse. Being a woman could seem like being born with some terrible disease, and people born with a disease look around and see other people not afflicted, and spend at least some time being mad about it. "Why me?" Although it's understandable that someone with a rotten disease is angry and even pities himself, we're not likely to admire anyone like that. The people we admire are those with a positive, indomitable spirit, and I sure think people like that are themselves happier for it. And by the way, having a great attitude did not come naturally to me, but in my middle age I'm a lot more positive than when I was young. I would actually go so far as to say some nasty life challenges I've had have made me more positive, not less.

If what seems like a not very positive attitude on your part is a sort of psychological defense, it's worth remembering that such defenses often outlive their usefulness, and eventually deceive and betray their creators.


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I fully understand what you are saying. Allow me to explain though why it is terribly unhealthy way to behave within a marriage.
> 
> We all have a past, some happy and some sad. While our past certainly guides us in our path towards the future, allowing it to dictate our lives is only going to hurt us. That isn't "white washing" it, that is rising up and moving forward. If we assume that everybody in our current lives are the same as the people in our previous, we are frozen in time and only repeating the pain from before.
> 
> ...


:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Bestyet and Brighteyes, I agree with much of what you are saying, but just a couple of last thoughts:

I wish people would see that when I post about these issues, I am not blaming men or painting them with some brush of evil and women as just innocent bystanders. I fully realize that both are equal parts of our cultural attitudes and norms. All of these issues are social, a cultural climate in which women live and which affects their sense of self and sexuality.

And yes, I realize that men suffer too. And I think many of the causes are similar. When I speak about those issues (as I did earlier in this thread -- or maybe another one, I've lost track), I get similar responses: "oh, men shouldn't be emotional, then they'll never get laid" or "men are simple, all they need is sex, sex, sex, and maybe some food". 

And then, let's not forget the GNO threads full of *men* saying that "men only want one thing", "men are predators", "women are too naive and trust too much". This, until of course a *woman* says she has problems trusting. Then she is just a man-hating *****.

Now maybe Wolf is right, and it's all just because I have a hopeless man-picker, or vellocet is right, and I should just choose to be single because, god-forbid, I have been extremely hurt in ways that give me insight into these issues.

Then we can all safely wash our hands of the problem, as it is just personal, the fault of my individual stupidity or *****iness (take your pick). No need to examine anything further.

Except for one thing: I am not refusing sex. Indeed, I want it more than my h, and am the one putting too much pressure on him to have sex every day. And guess what? He finds it a turn off and an imposition. And telling him that he should enjoy it, that it relieves stress, and heck, he's a man after all, he should want it does absolutely NOTHING to change his mind or approach. Surprise, surprise.

But no doubt, the solution must be that I don't deserve to be married, and no business being with anyone because I have "issues" that I struggle with, and besides, altogether too disagreeable for words.

Hey ho.

(And yes, maybe it's true. *I* am pretty disagreeable and probably lucky to have any man want to have anything to do with me. But I would absolutely *not* want to paint all women who face these issues --and there are a lot of us--with that same brush.)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I am well aware of issues women face. I have faced several things of what you previously described. My husband wasn't the man who was responsible for it though and shouldn't be the person punished for other d!ckbags' behavior.


Just wanted to add that I think this idea that women are "punishing" men is a misnomer. Maybe some are, and I get that it could feel this way to the man who isn't getting enough, but I think it falsely assumes an intentionality and malice that isn't actually present.

They may be turned off or guarded, or defensive, even unyielding, but they are often *hurting* and trying to look after their own needs in a world where women are supposed to put everyone else's needs first.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

always_alone said:


> Bestyet and Brighteyes, I agree with much of what you are saying, but just a couple of last thoughts:
> 
> I wish people would see that when I post about these issues, I am not blaming men or painting them with some brush of evil and women as just innocent bystanders. I fully realize that both are equal parts of our cultural attitudes and norms. All of these issues are social, a cultural climate in which women live and which affects their sense of self and sexuality.
> 
> ...


I completely understand how you feel. Oftentimes I cringe at the responses you get because you outline your feelings and struggles that don't tow some line. It isn't fair to you or right. 

Now to your points: You are going to get all kinds of responses on a forum like this. Many are good responses made by people who read the post and write out a thoughtful and helpful response. You will also get the flippant and ridiculous posts by people who are driving home their agenda. 

Take it all with a grain of salt. Anybody who says men only think about sex and food or if he shows emotion will never get laid really doesn't have much in the way of helpful advice to offer, do they? Or the ones who claim that if a woman goes out for the occasional night out with her girlfriends, that means she is really banging guys and cannot be trusted. Those posters show way more about themselves than anything else. TAM is like a self help book. Lots of bullsh!t with a few helpful nuggets. Focus on those nuggets and ignore the rest. 

As to your final comment, please know that was not directed at you. I was speaking in terms of all of us who have in some way treated our spouse poorly based on the behaviors of previous partners./experiences. I was guilty of that earlier in my marriage until I realized how unfair it was and changed my behavior with among other things therapy. Re-reading my post I can see how it looked like I was saying it about you. I wasn't and my apologies for the poor wording.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

No worries, Brighteyes, I am more resilient than all of that, didn't take it as an attack.

But since many others have also suggested that I'm too disagreeable, with no business being in a relationship, and pity the man who is stuck with the likes of me, I wanted to include a response.

And it's true, I am pretty disagreeable, and maybe I don't deserve a relationship. Mostly men find me "too challenging" (if you will allow me the positive euphemism), and it has always been that way.

But, funny thing: my SO claims to be quite happy, fulfilled even, with no complaints, and all his needs and desires met.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Bestyet and Brighteyes, I agree with much of what you are saying, but just a couple of last thoughts:
> 
> I wish people would see that when I post about these issues, I am not blaming men or painting them with some brush of evil and women as just innocent bystanders. I fully realize that both are equal parts of our cultural attitudes and norms. All of these issues are social, a cultural climate in which women live and which affects their sense of self and sexuality.
> 
> ...


Sorry if that's all you got out of my post


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

always_alone said:


> No worries, Brighteyes, I am more resilient than all of that, didn't take it as an attack.
> 
> But since many others have also suggested that I'm too disagreeable, with no business being in a relationship, and pity the man who is stuck with the likes of me, I wanted to include a response.
> 
> ...


Yes, you can be disagreeable but then again we all can be. If you and your SO have a good relationship, that is all that matters.

Edit: Also, some men love a challenge.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

always_alone said:


> No worries, Brighteyes, I am more resilient than all of that, didn't take it as an attack.
> 
> But since many others have also suggested that I'm too disagreeable, with no business being in a relationship, and pity the man who is stuck with the likes of me, I wanted to include a response.
> 
> And it's true, I am pretty disagreeable, and maybe I don't deserve a relationship. Mostly men find me "too challenging" (if you will allow me the positive euphemism), and it has always been that way.


Oh brother 



> But, funny thing: my SO claims to be quite happy, fulfilled even, with no complaints, and all his needs and desires met.


So I take he is one of those very rare men that don't want to just "blow his wad"?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

vellocet said:


> Oh brother
> 
> 
> 
> S*o I take he is one of those very rare men that don't want to just "blow his wad"*?


I have gotten the impression that in some ways sexually, she feels he is like other men in that she feels her sexuality is of secondary importance compared to his, so maybe less of an extreme example, but still just like other men.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> ...personally I find 30% absolutely a sign that women's sexuality is treated as much less important or significant than men's.


Thirty percent is dismal, but given the fact that real disparities still can occur in relationships where the woman's orgasm is extremely high on the couple's list of sexual priorities, how do we arrange and assign the causes?

There are lots and lots and lots of articles on female orgasm and female orgasmic dysfunction out there. Probably, you're better read on this subject than I am, but I have yet to read one that went down the path we seem to have taken on this thread.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Thirty percent is dismal, but given the fact that real disparities still occur in relationships where the woman's orgasm is extremely high on the couple's list of sexual priorities, how to we arrange and assign the causes?
> 
> There are lots and lots and lots of articles on female orgasm and female orgasmic dysfunction out there. Probably, you're better read on this subject than I am, but I have yet to read one that went down the path we seem to have taken on this thread. Most of what I've read focuses on psychological causes.


And we are also seeming to take orgasm rate as a prime indicator of feelings of sexual importance, and for a lot of people, sex is not orgasm focused. Also, feelings of importance is very personal, and other peoples opinions do not apply to any other individual. If a woman orgasms 30% of the time, but personally feels as if her sexuality is of prime importance, who is anyone else to tell her she is wrong? With my ex wife, I orgasmed pretty much every time, but I know damn well that my sexual satisfaction was a very distant second to her.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

always_alone said:


> You know that and I know that. But millions of young boys and girls are getting a good chunk of their sex ed from porn, and research is showing that it does in fact affect their attitudes and expectations with regard to sex.
> 
> As for the orgasm issue: I'm glad your wife is happy, but personally I find 30% absolutely a sign that women's sexuality is treated as much less important or significant than men's.


I got my sex ed from porn from 13+....I turned out JUST fine.

if a man puts women into a 2nd class category for ANYTHING (not just sex)...be thankful you know that about him and LEAVE FAST.

Relationships are ALL about balance, if you have a partner that is selfish and doesn't value your feelings/desires etc, he is simply NOT the man you want to EVER be with.

Good luck


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> There are lots and lots and lots of articles on female orgasm and female orgasmic dysfunction out there. Probably, you're better read on this subject than I am, but I have yet to read one that went down the path we seem to have taken on this thread.


Seriously? Am I understanding you correctly? Because this is what a fast Google search gives up:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001953.htm

Female sexual arousal disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555706_3

HowStuffWorks "Female Orgasmic Disorder: "I'm Not Able to Climax""

How is any of this *not* related to the multiplicity of factors I have talked about throughout this thread? 

I think I need my translator now.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> How is any of this *not* related to the multiplicity of factors I have talked about throughout this thread?


I don't think that's quite the right question. Certainly there are a multiplicity of factors. I read at least one article that ranked mental and psychological causes in the ninetieth percentile. Several studies claimed that most women experience problems during at least one point in their lives even with a caring partner. 

I know I'm not the only person reading this thread and getting the impression that male gratification without concern for female desire is being held up as a primary cause.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
Much of the evil in the world comes from people blaming groups for the actions of individuals. 

Some men treat women badly - so avoid those men once you recognize them. 

Some women treat men badly, - so avoid those women once you recognize them.

It really doesn't matter how many of each group there are, as long as there are good people around.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> I know I'm not the only person reading this thread and getting the impression that male gratification without concern for female desire is being held up as a primary cause.


<banging head against wall> 

Yes, absolutely. Bad or unsatisfying sex is *one* reason why some women do not want to have sex. But my point is that sexuality in general is fraught for women in a way that it (usually) isn't for men. It *is* secondary --again not necessarily in an individual encounters, but in how it is understood, portrayed, and in the expectations around it.

It wasn't so very long ago that women were thought to *not* have orgasms at all. Then when it was "discovered", women were told that their orgasms *weren't* important. Only male ejaculation mattered.

And it is still prevalent in certain cultures and religions today to say that women *shouldn't* felt sexual pleasure and if she does, she is a slvt. They have no right to have desires of their own, and must do as their husband says, no matter what.

If you think that this is all long ago or far away, and that women don't carry this sh!t into their marriages, you are kidding yourself.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> <banging head against wall>
> 
> Yes, absolutely. Bad or unsatisfying sex is *one* reason why some women do not want to have sex. But my point is that sexuality in general is fraught for women in a way that it (usually) isn't for men. It *is* secondary --again not necessarily in an individual encounters, but in how it is understood, portrayed, and in the expectations around it.
> 
> ...


Fortunately, that is not in the here and now in the culture you are a part of.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> Fortunately, that is not in the here and now in the culture you are a part of.


Yes it is!!! Alive and well, on TAM and all over the place. Common as mud.

And like I said, if you think that women, contemporary American women (and men) aren't carrying this baggage into their marriages, then you are kidding yourself.

But with give up. This time for real. Tell you what: If a woman says she doesn't want sex every day, tell her how wrong she is, how much fun sex is, how wonderful all men are, and how much less stressed she'll be if she would just comply.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> <banging head against wall>


--TAM will do that to you and sorry if I've contributed to it. I think highly of you, AA.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening always_alone
I think I have seen a similar number of posts from men and women who are not getting enough sex in their relationships. Most respondents tell whichever partner is LD, that it would be better for their relationship if they tried to have more sex. I don't think it is a male vs. female thing.

I have noticed that the level of bias varies tremendously in different social groups - and I think that causes a lot of the debates of this source. People who are in social groups where mistreatment of women is acceptable think it is universal. Those social groups that don't tolerate mistreatment of women, quickly drive away any men who do mistreat women, so they never see this sort of behavior and think it is rare.







always_alone said:


> Yes it is!!! Alive and well, on TAM and all over the place. Common as mud.
> 
> And like I said, if you think that women, contemporary American women (and men) aren't carrying this baggage into their marriages, then you are kidding yourself.
> 
> But with give up. This time for real. Tell you what: If a woman says she doesn't want sex every day, tell her how wrong she is, how much fun sex is, how wonderful all men are, and how much less stressed she'll be if she would just comply.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> <banging head against wall>
> 
> Yes, absolutely. Bad or unsatisfying sex is *one* reason why some women do not want to have sex. But my point is that sexuality in general is fraught for women in a way that it (usually) isn't for men. It *is* secondary --again not necessarily in an individual encounters, but in how it is understood, portrayed, and in the expectations around it.
> 
> It wasn't so very long ago that women were thought to *not* have orgasms at all. Then when it was "discovered", women were told that their orgasms *weren't* important. Only male ejaculation mattered.


Fortunately in the current United States, and many places around the world, this has been exposed as false, and no longer applies.



> And it is still prevalent in certain cultures and religions today to say that women *shouldn't* felt sexual pleasure and if she does, she is a slvt. They have no right to have desires of their own, and must do as their husband says, no matter what.


Again, this is not anywhere near the prevailing mindset or cultural norm in the current United States any more.



> If you think that this is all long ago or far away, and that women don't carry this sh!t into their marriages, you are kidding yourself.





always_alone said:


> Yes it is!!! Alive and well, on TAM and all over the place. Common as mud.


The specific things you cited above are not alive and well on TAM or anywhere in the society and culture to which you belong...you even qualified it yourself that is was that way in the past, and still is in other cultures. The fact that a woman in Pakistan can be stoned to death for showing her leg has absolutely nothing to do with the inner workings of your relationship with men.



> And like I said, if you think that women, contemporary American women (and men) aren't carrying this baggage into their marriages, then you are kidding yourself.
> 
> But with give up. This time for real. Tell you what: If a woman says she doesn't want sex every day, tell her how wrong she is, how much fun sex is, how wonderful all men are, and how much less stressed she'll be if she would just comply.


Maybe I am a bit strange in this regard, but I have never let anyone else's social norms and stereotypes define me. I do agree that the conventional wisdom about women, their needs, desires, etc are often very distorted and misunderstood fr no other reason than that is how it was always thought to be. No doubt that mindset does extreme damage to women. The thing is, women do not have the market cornered on this, but ultimately no one else can define you but you.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> I think I have seen a similar number of posts from men and women who are not getting enough sex in their relationships. Most respondents tell whichever partner is LD, that it would be better for their relationship if they tried to have more sex. I don't think it is a male vs. female thing.
> 
> I have noticed that the level of bias varies tremendously in different social groups - and I think that causes a lot of the debates of this source. People who are in social groups where *mistreatment of women is acceptable think it is universal*. Those social groups that don't tolerate mistreatment of women, quickly drive away any men who do mistreat women, so they never see this sort of behavior and think it is rare.


What I don't think is largely understood is that sexualization and objectification of women is not something weird that is limited to muslims or the deep south. Almost all of us have experienced it. Why is your wife not sleeping with you (rhetorically)? Could it be that, like you, she has been wrapped in social expectation?

You see it on this board all the time by people who don't even know what they are saying. She should just meet his needs. I live up to my end of the contract. The world has changed. Women don't need the contract anymore, and we want a real partner. 

The housework issue comes up all the time. It is not about the housework, as everyone knows. It is about a man who is not so stuck in gender dynamics of the past that he cannot see that that **** needs to get done. And just step up and do it. No covert contracts. No quid pro quo. Stuff needs to get done. Do it. That is freaking hot. 

And I am here to say that women have not melded into this new culture super well either. The level of expectation from some spoiled princesses can be pretty high.

I am thinking that the failure of entitlement society is living not only in our political arena but in our families and bedrooms as well. No one was raised to think about the truly sexy things. Self sufficiency, competency, intelligence, character and integrity. We talk about anal, and boobs. That is not the sexy stuff. Not the sexy stuff of forever marriage. 

The truth is if you are whining to your wife about "meeting your needs" you are killing your marriage. MMSLP and NMMNG speak to men particularly, and I say ok see what you can take out of those. But the days of going to work to provide and expecting a compliant wife who is grateful for the bread are over.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

^^ You being the rhetorical you.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> Fortunately in the current United States, and many places around the world, this has been exposed as false, and no longer applies.


I am only 46 years old. So not that long ago I was raised by a mother. Who, to the degree she was even able to talk about these issues, gave me exactly this kind of message. We are not talking generations of change here.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

NobodySpecial said:


> vellocet said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and her comments are? Please
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening NobodySpecial
I think what you say is true in some social groups but NOT others. 

I have seen people say that "she should meet his needs", but I've also seen people say "he should meet her needs". I see as many HD women and men, and both genders are completely mystified at the behavior of LD people. (as LD people are often appalled by the statements of HD people). 

I have friends where the husband is the stay-at-home, housework-doing partner. In my case my wife and I pretty equally share housework. I'm not saying we have no gender role models, but they are pretty weak.

Strong gender models and discrimination certainly exist. I just think that people in those situations may not really believe that anywhere else is different - but it IS. 

There really are men who treat women well and as equals. There really are women who enjoy hot exotic sex. It isn't some fantasy, but something that really exists for some people. 

By the same token traditional or abusive situations also exist - I just wish that people who were unhappy would leave and find a better situation .






NobodySpecial said:


> What I don't think is largely understood is that sexualization and objectification of women is not something weird that is limited to muslims or the deep south. Almost all of us have experienced it. Why is your wife not sleeping with you (rhetorically)? Could it be that, like you, she has been wrapped in social expectation?
> 
> You see it on this board all the time by people who don't even know what they are saying. She should just meet his needs. I live up to my end of the contract. The world has changed. Women don't need the contract anymore, and we want a real partner.
> 
> ...


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

No more sniping, you don't like each other--use your ignore feature.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening NobodySpecial
> I think what you say is true in some social groups but NOT others.
> 
> I have seen people say that "she should meet his needs", but I've also seen people say "he should meet her needs". I see as many HD women and men, and both genders are completely mystified at the behavior of LD people. (as LD people are often appalled by the statements of HD people).
> ...


You have a wonderful viewpoint and state it so eloquently in your posts. Side note, I always read your "Good Evening" in my head using the voice of Vincent Price. It adds a further awesome element to your message.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Yes, of course. And is this the solution you recommend?
> 
> No complaints allowed? Love whatever you get or be single forever?
> 
> Awesome.


Complaints are fine.

Only one problem, you are ALL complaints when it comes to men.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

This is an excellent idea. My wife and I have casually talked about it a few times.

I think we need to put it back on the table. Sex everyday sounds perfect to ramp up that connected, in love feeling even more. I could see us both loving it for awhile, even though I imagine eventually it'll peter back down to 2-4 times a week.

But while "sex every night" for us would almost always involve both of us orgasming, it wouldn't be "penetration every night".


----------

