# Is Sex The "Bottom Line"?



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.

And for others, they couldn't care less.

We see it in magazines. Online articles. Scholarly essays and news reports. Women's orgasms aren't "necessary" for procreation. Men's orgasm's aren't "necessary" OUTSIDE of procreation.

We hunt it down. We seek it. And if we don't get it (from someone else), we're "grumpy" and/or "irritable". 

We marry because we have this belief that we'll have wedded conjugal bliss (on OUR terms, of course) well into our 90's. And if we don't "get it" 4-6 times a week, or 3 times a day, we'll become "unhappy", especially with our "selfish" partner. 

We marry to get it. We divorce because of the lack or TOO MUCH of it. We even DEMAND it, because we EXPECT it. We're entitled to it because of it's "biological" nature or simply because of our gender. 

Some of us want it because we believe that it's the ULTIMATE expression of our "love" for our partner. Yet, that same person may have NO PROBLEM having sex with people BEFORE his/her partner with NO "feelings" attached. 

Some of us see it as "bonding". You know...becoming "one" and all that...Others will see it as merely a physical way of 'releasing' built up sexual _tension_. 

It's the "E-ticket" ride in an amusement park. A 'ride' that we want to jump on over and over again. Or, it's the 'hell' that some people feel. And from the ultra-feminist point of view, it's a symbol of man's domination over women. 

Regardless of our attitudes toward it, it seems to be that sex is "It". Forget about the rest of the "relationship." Forget about "until death do us part"...forget about "love", too!

The reason why I'm saying all of this, is because I've been sex-less for the past 8 months or so. And, I'm HAPPY! I don't "need" sex in order to be HAPPY. Yet, it seems that so many others put so much weight on sex for their happiness.

Now, don't get me wrong. I've been VERY HD in some of my relationships. But the point is, that I'm not UN happy if I'm not in a relationship getting laid however many times a day. I've also been in relationship where the frequency of sex was very low...

But...

...that didn't make me UN happy! 

So tell me...is it REALLY the end all to BE all? And if so,

WHY??????


'


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

I'm reading a book called the "Passionate Marriage" and there is a transitional point on sexual maturity that comes with our later years in life. While not stated in the book, it gets at this:

At a young age, sex is 99% hormones and friction.

In our 30s sex is 50% emotions and 50% friction.

In our 50s sex is 80% emotions and 20% friction.

In our 60s we reach our full sexual potential and can have extraordinarily awesome sex for the purpose of emotional bonding. Many do not reach this potential because the lack personal development emotionally and have fears, shame, or do not want to be vulnerable. 

I think two problems occur for men. 1) when physical stimulation starts to wane, men struggle to accept their maturity and try to do what ever it takes to prove they are still young. 2) There are inherent problems in the relationship and sex is seen as the primary solution to fix those problems (ignoring emotions and trying to focus on physical rewards). In BOTH these situations, if things stay that way for too many years, sex will turn ugly and toxic unless personal growth occurs. 

As for women @Vega what would you see as the primary obstacles that prevents women from maturing and wanting to form a close emotional/pleasurable bond with a spouse fro the long term (aside from the results of the above of a husband being immature for too many years)?

Badsanta


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

I am married to a LD person. I'm moderate to high needs in that regard. But, no, sex isn't the most important aspect of our marriage. It does help me to build a bond with my wife and maintain it, but it isn't extremely high on our list of bonding needs.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

It is one of two components for me to have a complete relationship. Emotional intimacy is the other.

Without either, the relationship (to me) is incomplete.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Sex is like sugar. You can live without it, but life is simply more enjoyable WITH sugar.

It's Tuesday and I want some SUGAR !


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

You know what amazes me, is that most couples will talk about sex, about why they are not interested, why they do not have time, etc....then it actually takes the time to do.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

sex is way exaggerated in our culture i think.

i know there are lots of people who need lots of sex, or at least think they do. however i can't speak for them.

i was a single bachelor for MANY years and did without sex, and like you, i was pretty darn happy. matter of fact, i was in spite of my current wonderful
marriage, about as happy as i am now, but in a different way.

however, i draw the line at marriage. i am christian, but even if you are not, or irreligious, i think the same principle applies, that sex
is necessary and mandated between husband and wife. if the husband and wife do not have regular sex, the marriage is greatly diminished.
of course there are valid exceptions to this when there are age, or medical reasons, but the marriage will still be diminished.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

I think the "need" aspect is different for every individual. There are biological, social, personal reasons for why a person is the way they are. There is no better, or worse way about it...just different.

Yes, a sexless relationship can be a marriage, and a sexual relationship does not have to be a marriage. That said...the marital relationship is at it's core, a sexual relationship. Sex is what sets a marriage apart from every other relationship such as friends, room mates, parent/child, etc...


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

Being in a sexless marriage, I firmly believe that sex creates bonding that can't be replicated otherwise in a marriage. In our case, I feel that at least some of the issues that I have with my wife could be solved with regular sex - however, she has no interest as sex requires effort, and she's generally lazy (she'd rather sit on her duff than play with the kids or exercise, let alone sex).


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Frequency is one metric, but I'm not sure I would choose 5 quickies a week vs a nicely planned 2-3 hour Saturday night (good old days)... what matters is not merely the physical act but the meaning - my partner still wants / likes / craves me 😂

If you're married for a couple decades the idea of emotional bonding is strange. If you didn't bond with your wife after a colicky baby or some new adventure or when the kids flee the nest and you walk back to the car from the college dorm, empty nesters now, a BJ is the least of your concerns.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> We marry because we have this belief that we'll have wedded conjugal bliss (on OUR terms, of course) well into our 90's. *And if we don't "get it" 4-6 times a week, or 3 times a day, we'll become "unhappy", especially with our "selfish" partner. *


Yikes, talk about an exaggeration as if this is precisely the expectation of everyone who marries (only one of the two people of course). Then again, fits well with the typical Anti HD / pro LD theme to try and make a point ...

In many cases, marriages don't fail just b/c of sex (or lack of). Sex is usually just a symptom of bigger problems in the marriage (it is easier for some people to just focus on the sex aspects instead of dealing with the larger issues).

Part of the problem, two people get into a relationship and sex is part of that relationship. Now let's say a few years go by and one person decides that sex isn't really that important anymore. How can that not be considered an issue, when one person just completely discounts something that was part of the relationship? Its funny, some of the people who would say "what's the big deal, sex is not that critical" would be the same people crying foul if their SO decided to de-prioritize some other area of the relationship that had been present from the start.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

When we got married we half jokingly asked ourselves, "It's not *just* about the sex, right?" We still ask that.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Of course for someone who doesn't care about sex, they won't consider it important.

As for me, it is not all there is to marriage. Actually, in my first marriage we had sex a lot more than some of the people here (although less than I would have preferred).

That wasn't the reason I left. Emotional abuse was.


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Vega, if you're happy within and don't need sex, I'm really delighted for you. 
Do you have a negative or positive view on sex? 
When you look back on your relationships, what benefits did you get from sex? 
Or did you see it as a chore, a mandatory thing in order to keep the marriage on a equilibrium? 


Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Yes, sex is the end all and be all for me. It does not require a why. I don't have to justify why I desire sex. It is enough that I do.

You are happy without sex. Fine. Works for you. No problem there. You are in a sexless marriage. If you are both fine with that, great. No reason for you to have sex you don't want. No reason a marriage MUST include sex if both spouses are happy without it.

The only problem is when a person who is perfectly happy not having sex (or who actually prefers not having sex) marries a person for whom sex is the be all and end all of marriage. And even that isn't a problem if the they realize it soon enough and end the marriage soon enough so they can both go find more compatible partners. The problem comes when they have been together a long time and the LD gradually consents to less and less sex. Like slowly turning up the heat on the frog in the pot. Then the HD can face some very nasty consequences from exercising their right to exit the marriage and go looking for a more compatible partner. THAT is what leads to most of the angst.


----------



## GuyInColorado (Dec 26, 2015)

I was in a 100% sexless marriage for about 5 years before I divorced. I kept telling myself it's just sex, I don't need it. I finally got fed up and wanted sex. But what I really wanted was someone who desired me enough to want to have sex with me. Now that I'm in a relationship where we both can't wait to take each other's clothes off and do whatever to please the other person, I couldn't imagine going back to a sexless relationship.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

It is a variable equation.

In a marriage, it remains variable until it becomes a vanishing integer. Once it reaches that Nadir, the marriage does a Super Nova. 

Gone in a Flash.....

Oh, the exit-big-bang matter and remnants remain, but the spark is gone and so are its participants, sooner or later.

Answer: "some" better be "some" or "some" will get it elsewhere. 

Two extremely LD partners are not the usual mix. One will rise to the occasion while the other slinks under the guise of excuse.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

I'd say generosity and lack thereof is a much bigger issue in relationships than any particular individual need. 

It never ceases to amaze me when I see people n committed relationships putting in great effort to justify NOT meeting their partner's needs. My wife has numerous needs that are not really on my radar. I do my best to meet these. They are generally not excruciatingly painful for me, I am happy to be generous in my actions. Even though she suffers depression, she makes an effort to meet my needs when she is well enough to do so. I'll never understand why people enter long-term relationships and then become stingy with their affection/kindness/attention/whatever. If you want to be selfish, why not stay by yourself?

If one has an aversion to sex, so be it. Don't get involved with someone who wants sex. How hard is that? You are not required to do anything to increase your sex drive if you don't want to. By the same token, you must accept that if you do not see low sex drive as something you want to increase, you are limiting the suitable partners you can find. You are not bad, shallow, selfish, etc if you are happy without sex. Someone else is none of those things if he/she is happy only with sex. The point at which someone has done someone wrong is when they pretend to be someone they are not in order to advance a fundamentally flawed relationship. If you don't like sex, don't screw someone night and day only to close up shop once the commitment is made. This applies not only to sex, but just about any need your partner may have. 

Why exactly does this come up around sex so specifically? Why do some people have so much difficulty engaging in sex with the person they claim to love, simply because they don't "desire" it? This presumes that LD does not equal physical pain or mental trauma that makes sex a horrific experience. I read LD to simply mean ambivalence toward sex. Why is it so objectionable to have sex with someone you love? I have had sex with my wife plenty of times when I was tired, stressed out and would rather have gone to bed. It wasn't exactly fireworks for me, but it wasn't water boarding either. If she is in the mood and I am simply dog tired, I'll give her oral sex. She goes to bed with a smile on her face and I'm happy for it. Sometimes the roles are reversed. Neither of us finds it particularly oppressive or unjust. 

Why does a partner's need for sex (which in most cases was well known early in the relationship) seem to trigger such anxiety, resentment and even righteous indignation for some people?


----------



## MEM1963 (Jun 16, 2016)

The common theme in all these conversations isn't some 'gap' in lust.

Lust itself is a very variable thing for almost anyone. 

The common theme is a lack of lust combined with a lack of generosity. 

This is why - I wouldn't ever get/stay involved with someone who won't do oral. 

And of course generosity is fully applicable to the HD partner. There's a generous way to deal with a raw desire gap. And a not so generous way. 








Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.
> 
> And for others, they couldn't care less.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM1963 (Jun 16, 2016)

QFT

And FWIW we cross posted. I wrote mine before seeing yours. 

That said - the other common theme in sexually compromised relationships is the lack of honesty. 

There's a lot of lying and a lot of ego protecting avoidance of the truth. 





zookeeper said:


> I'd say generosity and lack thereof is a much bigger issue in relationships than any particular individual need.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me when I see people n committed relationships putting in great effort to justify NOT meeting their partner's needs. My wife has numerous needs that are not really on my radar. I do my best to meet these. They are generally not excruciatingly painful for me, I am happy to be generous in my actions. Even though she suffers depression, she makes an effort to meet my needs when she is well enough to do so. I'll never understand why people enter long-term relationships and then become stingy with their affection/kindness/attention/whatever. If you want to be selfish, why not stay by yourself?
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I'm reading a book called the "Passionate Marriage" and there is a transitional point on sexual maturity that comes with our later years in life. While not stated in the book, it gets at this:
> 
> At a young age, sex is 99% hormones and friction.
> 
> ...


I like your post Badsanta, except for this part:



> As for women @Vega what would you see as the primary obstacles that prevents women from maturing and wanting to form a close emotional/pleasurable bond with a spouse fro the long term (aside from the results of the above of a husband being immature for too many years)?


I don't think sex has anything to do with "maturing" or forming a close emotional/"pleasurable" bond with someone. In fact, it seems more like _*THE* obstacle _that needs to be overcome in order to be mature!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

UMP said:


> Sex is like sugar. You can live without it, but *life is simply more enjoyable WITH sugar.
> 
> *It's Tuesday and I want some SUGAR !


I'm not so sure about that. I haven't had any 'sugar' since October, and I'm enjoying the heck out of my life! 

And I KNOW I'm not the _only_ one who feels that way!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> *if the husband and wife do not have regular sex, the marriage is greatly diminished*.
> of course there are valid exceptions to this when there are age, or medical reasons, but the marriage will still be diminished.


WHY is the marriage greatly 'diminished'? Why can't the couple be fulfilled with variable sex?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Vega said:


> WHY is the marriage greatly 'diminished'? *Why can't the couple be fulfilled with variable sex?*


They can be, but it becomes increasingly difficult the further apart their drives and desires become. It really is no different than any other shared experience, or intimacy builder such as holding hands, kissing, listening, supporting, acts of service, all those things...the further apart the partners become, the more difficult it is to maintain the marriage.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> Sex is what sets a marriage apart from every other relationship such as friends, room mates, parent/child, etc...


You're right. We don't have sex as 'friends', room mates, parent/child, etc. 

But we DO have a TON of sex outside of marriage via casual sex, friends with benefits, one night stands, living together, affairs, etc. 

I could see your point IF we never had sex at any other time BESIDES marriage. But because the majority of adults DO have sex OUTSIDE of marriage, well...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

badsanta said:


> In our 30s sex is 50% emotions and 50% friction.


60s are the new 30s.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> But the point is, that I'm not UN happy if I'm not in a relationship getting laid however many times a day. I've also been in relationship where the frequency of sex was very low...
> 
> But...
> 
> ...that didn't make me UN happy!


If I'm not in or seeking a relationship, I can also be happy even if I'm not getting laid. 

However, if I'm in a supposedly loving and romantically based relationship, I am very unhappy if the frequency and quality of sex isn't sufficient. I would be better off dating and seeking a good relationship with good sex - at least then there is the hope and prospect of sex.

I was in a long-term marriage with little to no sex. I was happy in all respects - _except_ with the relationship. So, I ended it, and was immediately happier. Then I started dating again and having sex, and was even happier. Sex for me is a wonderful part of life, and especially so as part of a great relationship. For us, sex is the binding and bonding agent - without it, we may as well be friends and live apart. It's importance may be lesser or greater for other people, but that's how it is for us.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

It really seems that possibly the biggest difference between some people is what their fundamental view of sex is...is it part and parcel with other relationshippy things such as talking, spending time together, shared activities, non sexual touch, sharing joys and pains, or is set apart in it's own little exclusive box.

For me, sex is part of the entire relationship package with all those other things I listed above. If any one of them are missing, I am not as happy or satisfied with the relationship.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Vega said:


> I'm not so sure about that. I haven't had any 'sugar' since October, and I'm enjoying the heck out of my life!
> 
> And I KNOW I'm not the _only_ one who feels that way!


how does your spouse feel?

or does that matter?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Vega said:


> You're right. We don't have sex as 'friends', room mates, parent/child, etc.
> 
> But we DO have a TON of sex outside of marriage via casual sex, friends with benefits, one night stands, living together, affairs, etc.
> 
> I could see your point IF we never had sex at any other time BESIDES marriage. But because the majority of adults DO have sex OUTSIDE of marriage, well...


no once they're married they don't.

are you cool with your spouse having a FWB if you're not interested in sex?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> how does your spouse feel?
> 
> or does that matter?


Doesn't matter. He passed away 2.5 years ago.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

badsanta said:


> I'm reading a book called the "Passionate Marriage" and there is a transitional point on sexual maturity that comes with our later years in life. While not stated in the book, it gets at this:
> 
> At a young age, sex is 99% hormones and friction.
> 
> ...


Great book, I'm reading it ATM too.

OP sex is very important to me but I have a very different life experience to you and I do not believe men are just neanderthals out to get laid.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> no once they're married they don't.
> 
> are you cool with your spouse having a FWB if you're not interested in sex?


That is an excellent question.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Vega said:


> You're right. We don't have sex as 'friends', room mates, parent/child, etc.
> 
> But we DO have a TON of sex outside of marriage via casual sex, friends with benefits, one night stands, living together, affairs, etc.
> 
> I could see your point IF we never had sex at any other time BESIDES marriage. But because the majority of adults DO have sex OUTSIDE of marriage, well...


that does not negate the point about marriage. sex is not unique to marriage. but without sex, there is no real marriage.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> If I'm not in or seeking a relationship, I can also be happy even if I'm not getting laid.
> 
> However, if I'm in a supposedly loving and romantically based relationship, I am very unhappy if the frequency and quality of sex isn't sufficient. I would be better off dating and seeking a good relationship with good sex - at least then there is the hope and prospect of sex.
> 
> I was in a long-term marriage with little to no sex. I was happy in all respects - _except_ with the relationship. So, I ended it, and was immediately happier. Then I started dating again and having sex, and was even happier. Sex for me is a wonderful part of life, and especially so as part of a great relationship. For us, sex is the binding and bonding agent - without it, we may as well be friends and live apart. It's importance may be lesser or greater for other people, but that's how it is for us.


So, there are only 2 options for you: Either no relationship and no sex OR, a relationship with LOTS of sex. No in-between, right?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

MrsHolland said:


> I do not believe men are just neanderthals out to get laid.


Agreed!
@Vega let us assume that the whole purpose and meaning of life is to just have sex. Then what is the purpose of sex, other than to insure the survival of our species? ...it is a gift! 

*What is the purpose of a gift?* Answer that question and I think you might be a little closer to finding the "bottom line" that you seek!

Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> but without sex, there is no real marriage.


Seems to be more like without lots and LOTS of sex there is no 'real' marriage.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,

The post below is one of the reasons you are single.

You have a need to 'win' that consistently trumps your desire to understand. 

And I am fairly sure that you spent a big chunk of your life confident that you understood 'men'. 

So I'll try and explain this in the starkest possible terms. 

When you are a really attractive woman in your mid twenties - dating guys your age - you can employ a sexual reality distortion field to get away with a lot of bad behavior. 

Biology is so powerful in our mating window. And then gradually it isn't. In your 50's its not just that the underlying procreation driver is totally gone, but the men themselves have WAY less T. 

You've got this adversarial vibe towards men - which is super visible in most of your threads.

This thread has a subtext which is: Why can't other people (mainly men) be cool like me and be happy without sex? 

It's a good thing you are happy being alone, because your mindset is not really suited to a LTR. 







Vega said:


> You're right. We don't have sex as 'friends', room mates, parent/child, etc.
> 
> But we DO have a TON of sex outside of marriage via casual sex, friends with benefits, one night stands, living together, affairs, etc.
> 
> I could see your point IF we never had sex at any other time BESIDES marriage. But because the majority of adults DO have sex OUTSIDE of marriage, well...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> Agreed!
> 
> @Vega let us assume that the whole purpose and meaning of life is to just have sex. Then what is the purpose of sex, other than to insure the survival of our species? ...it is a gift!
> 
> ...


A "gift" that's expected from me seems more like an obligation than anything else.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> You've got this adversarial vibe towards men - which is super visible in most of your threads.
> 
> This thread has a subtext which is: Why can't other people (mainly men) be cool like me and be happy without sex?


QFT.

The whole OP seems as a dig at people who believe that a relationship should have a healthy sex aspect to it.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Welcome back @MEM11363! Just when I learned your new numbers, now I still won't remember your real ones. 

On topic, my wife admitted menopause zapped her drive. We still had sex, maybe I wanted a bit more but close enough. And it was still good. But the relationship suffered. We both knew it was important to us, but it was work to have sex. Took some time to figure out but not only did it lower her drive, more importantly in changed it and I needed to change my approach. (She needed to learn that when I said sex didn't need to be PiV I meant it, "naked time" works.)


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Charlie,
That's how two emotionally mature - generous people - deal with a desire mismatch. 

They aren't judgemental, or condescending. They are instead compassionate and generous. 

Sometimes M2 does this interrogation thing. It's actually simultaneously comical and unnerving. She wants to know why I'm so unperturbed by our desire gap. What she's really doing is searching for signs of an affair. 

I just say what's true which is this. For most of our marriage, you took care of me - in here (bedroom). Now it's my turn to take care of you. Why is that so hard to accept. 





CharlieParker said:


> Welcome back @MEM11363! Just when I learned your new numbers, now I still won't remember your real ones.
> 
> On topic, my wife admitted menopause zapped her drive. We still had sex, maybe I wanted a bit more but close enough. And it was still good. But the relationship suffered. We both knew it was important to us, but it was work to have sex. Took some time to figure out but not only did it lower her drive, more importantly in changed it and I needed to change my approach. (She needed to learn that when I said sex didn't need to be PiV I meant it, "naked time" works.)


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> A "gift" that's expected from me seems more like an obligation than anything else.


It was a gift from god @Vega ...one of many. 

Sex is not exactly something lame you "regift" to others to make them happy. Perhaps many do.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Vega said:


> A "gift" that's expected from me seems more like an obligation than anything else.


I think you misunderstand the dynamic

in a healthy relationship, sex is not a widget

you don't get it, or take it, or give it, or buy it or sell it

you SHARE it

the fact that people desire to SHARE this experience with another person whom they love and have committed to for life does not make them strange

if this has not been your experience of sex, that is a shame, but your experience is not what other people are talking about


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I think you misunderstand the dynamic
> 
> in a healthy relationship, sex is not a widget
> 
> ...


It was my belief in college that the primary motivation for women to have sex was "to please their partner." I remember overhearing this woman say this to her female friends at a gathering of fellow church members, "men will never understand our desire to simply please them!" And she said that as if us men will never understand the plight of being a woman. While overhearing this, my heart sank. I thought to myself these women do not understand men's desire to "share" our joy, and that perhaps they only see our happiness as an obligation. 

When I met my wife, we _shared_ our intimacy. I've never looked elsewhere!

Badsanta


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> You're right. We don't have sex as 'friends', room mates, parent/child, etc.
> 
> But we DO have a TON of sex outside of marriage via casual sex, friends with benefits, one night stands, living together, affairs, etc.
> 
> I could see your point IF we never had sex at any other time BESIDES marriage. But because the majority of adults DO have sex OUTSIDE of marriage, well...


The difference is that once in a monogamous marriage, your spouse is supposed to be your sole sex partner. If my wife and I stop having sex, I can't just go to a new friend and have sex with them without getting divorced or having an affair.
If you're in a FWB or one night stand, you just move on to the next person that is willing to have sex with you.
So then you either have a sexless marriage or you have a marriage with sex.

So I would argue that you enter into a marriage agreeing to be that partner's sole sex partner and it's your responsibility to hold that up.

The problem is when there is a sex in a marriage and it stops. There can be many reasons, but I argue that if it stops completely it's because of a larger problem in the marriage which is the cause of the divorce. The lack of sex is a symptom of that problem.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

zookeeper said:


> I'd say generosity and lack thereof is a much bigger issue in relationships than any particular individual need. Why exactly does this come up around sex so specifically? Why do some people have so much difficulty engaging in sex with the person they claim to love, simply because they don't "desire" it? This presumes that LD does not equal physical pain or mental trauma that makes sex a horrific experience. I read LD to simply mean ambivalence toward sex. Why is it so objectionable to have sex with someone you love? I have had sex with my wife plenty of times when I was tired, stressed out and would rather have gone to bed. It wasn't exactly fireworks for me, but it wasn't water boarding either. If she is in the mood and I am simply dog tired, I'll give her oral sex. She goes to bed with a smile on her face and I'm happy for it. Sometimes the roles are reversed. Neither of us finds it particularly oppressive or unjust.
> 
> Why does a partner's need for sex (which in most cases was well known early in the relationship) seem to trigger such anxiety, resentment and even righteous indignation for some people?


I agree. I have never been able to wrap my mind around what could be so torturous about having sex with a person you love and find attractive outside of a medical issue or some life situation that would make the answer obvious. I could never understand just reaching a point that sex is no longer interesting with someone you love.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

badsanta said:


> It was my belief in college that the primary motivation for women to have sex was "to please their partner." I remember overhearing this woman say this to her female friends at a gathering of fellow church members, "men will never understand our desire to simply please them!" And she said that as if us men will never understand the plight of being a woman. While overhearing this, my heart sank. I thought to myself these women do not understand men's desire to "share" our joy, and that perhaps they only see our happiness as an obligation.
> 
> When I met my wife, we _shared_ our intimacy. I've never looked elsewhere!
> 
> Badsanta


I think that's a strong over generalization. That implies that their having sex out of duty just to please the man as opposed to genuinely meeting their sexual needs. Women may have sex to please the man but they're also doing it because they want to have sex. It's often the man's desire that instigates it, though because it's both a gender role and because men tend to have a constant strong sex drive at that age.

I've met plenty of women that just wanted sex, used guys for sex, or had multiple partners. Maybe the motivation wasn't purely sex and it was to satisfy some psychological need to be wanted but same can be said for men. It doesn't matter. Many women of college age just have sex, period. Younger women just like to have sex more and it's quite probably a combination of a biological hormonal driver as well as just sewing their oats. There is this misconception that women are not sexually driven because our society considers them sl*ts if they admit it and they feel shame if they admit it to themselves. I can say in some of my relationships, the woman's motivation for sex was as much because they just wanted to have sex with pleasing me be the secondary priority. I've had girls/women cheat on me just to have sex with other guys and I think it had nothing to do with pleasing the guy.

My problem with this whole thread is the implication that sex isn't as important to women as it is for men.

The problem is that women's sex drive changes whereas men tend to remain constant unless they become unhealthy. A woman's body desires sex for procreation and as they get older that need is reduced. Without the hormones telling them it's time to have sex they simply forget that sex is important.


Give Vega a little testosterone and watch her go crazy if she can't have sex. Then maybe her perception of the importance of sex will change.

Like eating, drinking, breathing, and going to the bathroom, sex is something we just do. When we get married and agree to a monogamous relationship. When one of those two people doesn't do it (or rarely does it) then the other is left without, or forced to leave. That's why it's the end all be all deal breaker.
Also, as I previously said, the reduction of sex in the marriage is often an indicator of something else going wrong which is the actual reason the divorce happens.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

JamesTKirk said:


> The difference is that once in a monogamous marriage, your spouse is supposed to be your sole sex partner. If my wife and I stop having sex, I can't just go to a new friend and have sex with them without getting divorced or having an affair.
> If you're in a FWB or one night stand, you just move on to the next person that is willing to have sex with you.
> So then you either have a sexless marriage or you have a marriage with sex.
> 
> ...


I am not disputing that SOME sex _in of itself_ belongs in marriage. 

But how much or how little before sparks start to fly?


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> I am not disputing that SOME sex _in of itself_ belongs in marriage.
> 
> But how much or how little before sparks start to fly?


I guess when you have to ask your spouse why they're so seldom interested in you, you've got a problem. Men generally have a peak buildup of testosterone/dopamine urges within 10-14 days (not to mention fluid buildup down there that feels good to release. Sorry to go TMI.) and women at least once a month I think roughly 1-4 times a month is a good biological level of necessity.
When people are single they go without because they have to and that's why they turn to porn and/or masturbation.

It has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with biology and wanting sex and once you're in a marriage, you're that persons sole sex partner.

Take away the sex and just have the love, friendship, shared financial responsibility, and cohabitation, and you have at least one unhappy sexually frustrated person.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Charlie,

I want to add a bit to your post below. I remember when M2 told me the same. Menopause - sex drive gone missing. 

She just said it real matter of fact. Sort of like you might say: I have high blood pressure. 

I remember looking at her thinking - wow - I have this super cool wife who just says what's what without blinking, or flinching or sugar coating it. 

It's also true - I wasn't anxious - I knew we'd both make a good faith effort to work around it. And we have. 

I thanked her for telling me. Meant it. 





CharlieParker said:


> Welcome back @MEM11363! Just when I learned your new numbers, now I still won't remember your real ones.
> 
> On topic, my wife admitted menopause zapped her drive. We still had sex, maybe I wanted a bit more but close enough. And it was still good. But the relationship suffered. We both knew it was important to us, but it was work to have sex. Took some time to figure out but not only did it lower her drive, more importantly in changed it and I needed to change my approach. (She needed to learn that when I said sex didn't need to be PiV I meant it, "naked time" works.)


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

JamesTKirk said:


> So I would argue that you enter into a marriage agreeing to be that partner's sole sex partner and *it's your responsibility to hold that up*.
> 
> The problem is when there is a sex in a marriage and it stops. There can be many reasons, but I argue that if it stops completely it's because of a larger problem in the marriage which is the cause of the divorce. The lack of sex is a symptom of that problem.


Hmmm.

I wonder how many couples actually talk about how much sex and how often they expect it BEFORE they marry. 

And yes, I definitely agree that the _cessation_ of sex is a symptom of a larger problem. 

But why do we automatically assume that the LD is pulling a 'bait-n-switch'? It recently occurred to me that at least SOME LD's may actually have NO IDEA how much sex they're content with because they may have never had an LTR before. If asked, they may toss out "3-5 times a week" because they've "heard" that's how much they're "supposed" to do it. 

Becoming an LD may be as much of a shock to the LD than to the HD.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

JamesTKirk said:


> Men generally have a peak buildup of testosterone/dopamine urges within 10-14 days (not to mention fluid buildup down there that feels good to release. Sorry to go TMI.) and women at least once a month I think roughly 1-4 times a month is a good biological level of necessity.
> When people are single they go without because they have to and that's why they turn to porn and/or masturbation.
> 
> .


I'm glad you brought this up, JTK. I understand that fluid can build up for men 'down there'. But here's the rub: Sex _with a partner_ isn't necessary to release that fluid! Like you said, men can masturbate OR, they can do nothing and simply allow the semen to naturally 'emit' (nocturnal emissions). 

I noticed in my own biology that the less I masturbate, the less I feel the 'urge' to do so. I've heard it's the same for the majority of both men and women. 

It makes me wonder...If we removed all of this 'stimulation', would an HD _TRULY _be an HD?


----------



## Nomorebeans (Mar 31, 2015)

Vega said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> I wonder how many couples actually talk about how much sex and how often they expect it BEFORE they marry.
> 
> ...


My ex and I sure didn't. And we should have. He wasn't (seemingly) HD when we were dating, and then living together. We both seemed to be sort of MD, if that's a thing. About once a week was the norm for us, and we both were (seemed) perfectly content with that. He was gone half the time. He'd be tired when he got back from a trip. We'd end up having sex maybe once - occasionally twice - during the time he was home each week. Once our son arrived, that frequency slowed way down. Once every couple of weeks. I was fine with that, and thought he was, too. Even asked him if he was, and he said he was and not to worry.

When he told me he wanted a divorce 25 years later, suddenly he adamantly claimed he wanted it much more often than that, and that he told me that "at least 100 times." Nope. Not even once.

Talk about bait and switch (and then being a masochist for 25 years). I was fine being LD/MD. It's pretty much how I've always been wired. I loved my ex, found him attractive, got along well with him in every other aspect, laughed with him all the time, enjoyed his company. It wasn't a laziness thing - it was a thing where sex with him wasn't fulfilling for me in the emotional sense. I was always fully functional - never once faked it with him in all our years together - never once had to. But he liked role-playing and leather and props and toys - he couldn't just make me feel like a natural woman. It was always this major production. If he'd ever just taken me in his arms and started passionately kissing me, I promise you I'd have never turned him down. I tried that with him a couple of times and got turned down. So I stopped trying.

It wasn't the be all and end all for me, but I would have liked to have bonded with him on a more intimate level. He is just not the bonding type.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Yes absolutely, sex is the bottom line! Without it, I am depressed and irritable. I'll do almost anything for it. 

But sadly, it's like money: it doesn't grow on trees.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Nomorebeans said:


> My ex and I sure didn't. And we should have. He wasn't (seemingly) HD when we were dating, and then living together. We both seemed to be sort of MD, if that's a thing. About once a week was the norm for us, and we both were (seemed) perfectly content with that. He was gone half the time. He'd be tired when he got back from a trip. We'd end up having sex maybe once - occasionally twice - during the time he was home each week. Once our son arrived, that frequency slowed way down. Once every couple of weeks. I was fine with that, and thought he was, too. Even asked him if he was, and he said he was and not to worry.
> 
> When he told me he wanted a divorce 25 years later, suddenly he adamantly claimed he wanted it much more often than that, and that he told me that "at least 100 times." Nope. Not even once.
> 
> ...


This is so sad, Nomorebeans. Unfortunately, it happens quite often. I heard something similar, but it after my exh and I divorced. During our marriage we didn't have sex for something like 8 months. At the time, I was working a full time job, a part time job AND going to school full time. We also had young children. He told me he was "fine" with the situation because he knew it was 'temporary'. Unfortunately we divorced before everything calmed down.

We remained friends and talked on the phone at least once a week. At once point he confessed that he WAS upset about it. I asked him why he told me otherwise. And there was the LONGEST moment of silence in history before he said, "I don't know". Well, that doesn't help, lol! But I can't have sympathy for him because he DID have plenty of opportunities to say something so we could work together to figure out what to do. 

Oh well...

I've experienced that kind of dishonesty so often in my relationships. Really scares me into being unsure if I'll ever trust again. I USED to be pretty trusting (almost naive). Now, because of the last few relationships where there was MORE dishonesty, I'm really shaken up.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

wild jade said:


> Without it, I am depressed and irritable.


Why?


----------



## Nomorebeans (Mar 31, 2015)

Vega said:


> This is so sad, Nomorebeans. Unfortunately, it happens quite often. I heard something similar, but it after my exh and I divorced. During our marriage we didn't have sex for something like 8 months. At the time, I was working a full time job, a part time job AND going to school full time. We also had young children. He told me he was "fine" with the situation because he knew it was 'temporary'. Unfortunately we divorced before everything calmed down.
> 
> We remained friends and talked on the phone at least once a week. At once point he confessed that he WAS upset about it. I asked him why he told me otherwise. And there was the LONGEST moment of silence in history before he said, "I don't know". Well, that doesn't help, lol! But I can't have sympathy for him because he DID have plenty of opportunities to say something so we could work together to figure out what to do.
> 
> ...


I asked my ex in the early days after finding out about the OW he left me for why he told me otherwise during our marriage, too. And he YELLED (swear to God), "Because I'm non-confrontational!!!"

I wish I could say I was making that up.

I wonder if I'll ever be able to trust another man again, as well.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Nomorebeans said:


> I asked my ex in the early days after finding out about the OW he left me for why he told me otherwise during our marriage, too. And he YELLED (swear to God), "Because I'm non-confrontational!!!"
> 
> I wish I could say I was making that up.
> 
> I wonder if I'll ever be able to trust another man again, as well.


I had a funny feeling there was an OW. Your ex re-wrote history, and I hope you understand that now. Chances are that he told the OW the same thing; that you two "never" had sex and that he "had to beg" for it, and that he "tried talking to you NUMEROUS times", but that you were completely "unreasonable" and/or "uninterested".

It's in the Cheater Handbook, page 172.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Nomorebeans said:


> I asked my ex in the early days after finding out about the OW he left me for why he told me otherwise during our marriage, too. And he YELLED (swear to God), *"Because I'm non-confrontational!!!"*
> 
> I wish I could say I was making that up.
> 
> I wonder if I'll ever be able to trust another man again, as well.


There's another word for that.

It's often paired w/ "willow".

:lol: :rofl:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

James,
While I believe your analysis is dead on, your final conclusion while true, misses the point. 

Yes you can inject testosterone in a low T person and make them Hyper sexual. But the real issue here isn't a lack of testosterone - it's the lack of compassion and generosity. 






JamesTKirk said:


> I think that's a strong over generalization. That implies that their having sex out of duty just to please the man as opposed to genuinely meeting their sexual needs. Women may have sex to please the man but they're also doing it because they want to have sex. It's often the man's desire that instigates it, though because it's both a gender role and because men tend to have a constant strong sex drive at that age.
> 
> I've met plenty of women that just wanted sex, used guys for sex, or had multiple partners. Maybe the motivation wasn't purely sex and it was to satisfy some psychological need to be wanted but same can be said for men. It doesn't matter. Many women of college age just have sex, period. Younger women just like to have sex more and it's quite probably a combination of a biological hormonal driver as well as just sewing their oats. There is this misconception that women are not sexually driven because our society considers them sl*ts if they admit it and they feel shame if they admit it to themselves. I can say in some of my relationships, the woman's motivation for sex was as much because they just wanted to have sex with pleasing me be the secondary priority. I've had girls/women cheat on me just to have sex with other guys and I think it had nothing to do with pleasing the guy.
> 
> ...


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> James,
> While I believe your analysis is dead on, your final conclusion while true, misses the point.
> 
> Yes you can inject testosterone in a low T person and make them Hyper sexual. But the real issue here isn't a lack of testosterone - it's the lack of compassion and generosity.


I assume you mean lack of compassion and generosity from the LD person. I would agree with that.

My point that someone Vega, a self proclaimed LD person, has no or very infrequent desire for sex. Therefore, she doesn't value sex in a marriage a deal breaker. It's literally an optional thing to her.
It's because she doesn't understand that normal-D or HD person values it highly. If you gave her that desire, I think she'd change her point of view.

Women undergoing hormone therapy to become a man to became a man (transsexual) find that they suddenly have a strong sex drive unlike anything they imagined it completely changes their perspective on sex. Here's just one of them. https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/arti...e-how-sex-changes-for-trans-women-on-hormones

My point is that she, or other LD people, may just not get it.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Think that our culture has turned the idea of sex, into something one should be seeking to validate themselves. Like, if a guy is banging every hot chick until he's 80 years old, somehow ...this elevates his 'status' in our culture. But, that's the culture. And the culture also tells people to chase money, success, fame, education, sex, etc...none of which will make a person happy. Sex, if in a healthy relationship, is a positive thing. A bonding thing. But, if a person is looking for sex to validate themselves, or find their worth, then that is when it becomes their end all/be all.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

*Deidre* said:


> Think that our culture has turned the idea of sex, into something one should be seeking to validate themselves. Like, if a guy is banging every hot chick until he's 80 years old, somehow ...this elevates his 'status' in our culture. But, that's the culture. And the culture also tells people to chase money, success, fame, education, sex, etc...none of which will make a person happy. Sex, if in a healthy relationship, is a positive thing. A bonding thing. But, if a person is looking for sex to validate themselves, or find their worth, then that is when it becomes their end all/be all.


To put it simply, people want to have sex. If no one wants to have sex with you, especially not your spouse, then you feel unwanted. When your spouse doesn't want you, you want to find someone that does.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

JamesTKirk said:


> To put it simply, people want to have sex. If no one wants to have sex with you, especially not your spouse, then you feel unwanted.


That is true. Sex is great, and I've read threads on here where the sex is lacking in marriages. There can be a lot of reasons for that, though...and it probably requires a lot of communication to work through it. I've never been married, but usually people who aren't having much sex, have issues outside of the bedroom...and those issues follow them into the bedroom.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> Why?


Because I feel unloved and undesired. Because I want very badly to be touched by someone other than me. Because I was starved for physical affection as a child, and sex makes up for lost time. Lots of reasons.,

Come to think more, it isn't really the bottom line. It just feels like it sometimes.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

If you're not having sex with your man, you should know that he's not ok with it. Unless you have some kind of cognitive deficiency or something. And if you ask him and he says he doesn't have a problem with it, he's lying. He's telling you what he thinks you want to hear because if he tells you the truth he'll get it even less. This is pretty basic Male101 stuff. So don't act all surprised when he dumps you and finally admits that he wasn't ok with it. It just makes you look disingenuous.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> I wonder how many couples actually talk about how much sex and how often they expect it BEFORE they marry.


My wife did, not numbers per se but she did sit me down, told me her expectations, there is going to be sex no matter what, and proceeded to equate sex to "oxygen". Has served us well.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

WorkingOnMe said:


> If you're not having sex with your man, you should know that he's not ok with it. Unless you have some kind of cognitive deficiency or something. And if you ask him and he says he doesn't have a problem with it, he's lying. He's telling you what he thinks you want to hear because if he tells you the truth he'll get it even less. This is pretty basic Male101 stuff. So don't act all surprised when he dumps you and finally admits that he wasn't ok with it. It just makes you look disingenuous.


What if he is the reason there is no sex?

It's sad that basic Male101 stuff says you can't be honest with your wife


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JTK,
If I deprive M2 of any number of things that provide her comfort, that deprivation causes her distress. 

I don't share many of those needs - but I recognize the concept of need - ESPECIALLY as it relates to physiology - but also where it is solely abstract. 

When smart folks claim not to understand basic stuff, I typically just laugh and shrug. The phrase 'willful incomprehension' comes to mind. 






JamesTKirk said:


> I assume you mean lack of compassion and generosity from the LD person. I would agree with that.
> 
> My point that someone Vega, a self proclaimed LD person, has no or very infrequent desire for sex. Therefore, she doesn't value sex in a marriage a deal breaker. It's literally an optional thing to her.
> It's because she doesn't understand that normal-D or HD person values it highly. If you gave her that desire, I think she'd change her point of view.
> ...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

CharlieParker said:


> My wife did, not numbers per se but she did sit me down, told me her expectations, there is going to be sex no matter what, and proceeded to equate sex to "oxygen". Has served us well.


I do wonder though how much a talk really matters. First, assuming you are together for years before getting married and having sex, shouldn't that alone be a gauge for what you should hopefully expect (and not even just sex, but many aspects of the relationship)? Do you really think you are going to talk with your SO before marriage and they are going to say "We are having sex X # times a week now, but after we get married I want to drop that to Y."


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

wild jade said:


> What if he is the reason there is no sex?


You need to make sure it's really his choice. Find out why and how to fix it.
I'd be suspicious of any spouse that is OK with no sex. I'd assume an affair is coming if it's not already.

I had to confront my wife and it tured out to be medical. So there are legitimate reasons. Even the she wasn't OK with it but still couldn't have sex for a while.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Charlie,

BEST thing about M2 - absolutely no difference in behavior pre and post marriage. 

The patterned stories here about the stability staircase* - I never would have tolerated that type situation to develop. 



* Stability is often the mortal enemy of passion. And one person's hyper stability - is another's emotionally smothered nightmare. 




CharlieParker said:


> My wife did, not numbers per se but she did sit me down, told me her expectations, there is going to be sex no matter what, and proceeded to equate sex to "oxygen". Has served us well.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> I do wonder though how much a talk really matters. First, assuming you are together for years before getting married and having sex, shouldn't that alone be a gauge for what you should hopefully expect (and not even just sex, but many aspects of the relationship)? Do you really think you are going to talk with your SO before marriage and they are going to say "We are having sex X # times a week now, but after we get married I want to drop that to Y."


X and Y would be silly. I was simply told sex is a priority to her and not to be used as a bargaining chip. She is older than I am and was way more experience (and I guess she burned at least once). We had only been "romantic" for 6 months when we got engaged. Her talk resonated.


----------



## jarhed (Nov 11, 2012)

Sex is the "canary in the coal mine". Sex indicates whether a marriage is healthy and happy... or not.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Charlie,
> 
> BEST thing about M2 - absolutely no difference in behavior pre and post marriage.
> 
> ...


I'm not familiar with the term, do tell. 

We can both destabilize when needed, it gets real (passionate), in a good way.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

southbound said:


> I agree. I have never been able to wrap my mind around what could be so torturous about having sex with a person you love and find attractive outside of a medical issue or some life situation that would make the answer obvious. I could never understand just reaching a point that sex is no longer interesting with someone you love.


There are lots of reasons. Love does not solve all problems, it's a starting point. It's hard for some people to imagine any reason not to have sex.

It may be difficult for the LD spouse to understand why their HD spouse wants to be loving sexually but not so loving in other areas of the relationship. 

Sex is the bottom line and it isn't. If it were the most important thing in the relationship, then the level of peace, harmony and happiness could be measured by the quantity and quality of sex. 

If it was unimportant then it's absence wouldn't be a big deal in the marital happiness and satisfaction. 

Often for one half of the partnership, sex makes problems fade away but for the other half, sex distracts from resolution of problems. Neither of them are true.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

I wouldn't say sex is the end all, be all. I would say that it is highly important and I wouldn't remain married without regular, good+, sex unless there was a medical reason that DH or I couldn't have sex. And, we've talked about it. If that does happen, we plan to use fingers and/or tongues as well as toys.

We didn't talk about it before we married, but we'd been a couple from January '99 and didn't marry until December '02. By the time we did marry, we knew exactly what we were getting into as far as sex drive....bum-dum-duuuuuummmm...or so we thought! 

I saw an increase in my already high drive at about 32-34. And another at about 40.

My DH responded by basically telling me that, as long as we weren't arguing or anything, I could have sex with him on demand. His actual sex drive is basically unknown since he has hit the 40's. He says he doesn't even know how often he wants sex because I initiate so often that he never goes without. He's equated it to a man being fed so regularly that he never feels hunger, but who still enjoys his meals.

I'm trying really hard not to be a selfish prig and only have sex once a day. I didn't pester the 4 days he was giving up a smoking habit and going through withdrawl. Thankfully, I thought to point out that I didn't expect sex because I knew he was feeling cruddy and that it was ok, he's worth waiting for. *chuckle* Later that night, we had amazing sex and I learned (perfected, really) a new trick.

For us, the sex is very important. Other than the physical release and the happy chemical flood, we also use sex for mental and emotional closeness and sharing. We like exploring and experimenting together. It creates an amazing bond.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

> *Is Sex The "Bottom Line"?*


In a sexual relationship it is!

In a sexual relationship sex is essential, in a platonic relationship sex is superfluous.

I've turned down sex when single and not getting any at the time, because I wasn't interested in having sex with whomever wanted to have sex with me. Likewise I have been fine not having sex for weeks through several months while away because of Army service.

Yet when it comes to being in a sexual relationship the sexual part is what makes it a sexual relationship and separates it from being a platonic one.

So whether I am dating, in my experience sex on the 1st or 2nd date was the norm. Being picked up/picking up, meet at a pub/club where you have sex there and or take it home and have at it (there's or yours). In an exclusive relationship, you know just having lots of sex with them. Or Engaged and or married when wanting a more formalised sexual relationship. I have an expectation that sex will be plentiful and mutually desired.

Fortunately thus far, I've mutually enjoyed a smorgasbord of plentiful delight.



Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.
> 
> And for others, they couldn't care less.


Talking about sex is a lot more fun that talking about the right shutter speed to capture full prop blur air-to-air for a Beechcraft King Air K-350 or a Supermarine Spitfire (VIII, IX and XVI) in flight. Which incidentally is 1/100 and 1/80 respectively, full prop blur for the Spitfire ground-to-ground running I recommend 1/40 or less, then 1/15 for start up.



Vega said:


> We see it in magazines. Online articles. Scholarly essays and news reports. Women's orgasms aren't "necessary" for procreation. Men's orgasm's aren't "necessary" OUTSIDE of procreation.


When is "necessary" required in order to have fun?



Vega said:


> We hunt it down. We seek it. And if we don't get it (from someone else), we're "grumpy" and/or "irritable".


Hardly a surprise that people feel frustrated when they don't get what they desire.



Vega said:


> We marry because we have this belief that we'll have wedded conjugal bliss (on OUR terms, of course) well into our 90's. And if we don't "get it" 4-6 times a week, or 3 times a day, we'll become "unhappy", especially with our "selfish" partner.


Since I've never lacked for sex whenever I have wanted it, I have never married to get sex and never would marry to get sex.

As to being selfish, if one's partner no longer desires them sexually, it makes a lot of sense for all parties to end a sexual relationship if it has become a platonic one.



Vega said:


> We marry to get it. We divorce because of the lack or TOO MUCH of it. We even DEMAND it, because we EXPECT it. We're entitled to it because of it's "biological" nature or simply because of our gender.


I've been married twice, in the first instance it was because she got pregnant and I thought it was a good idea to raise our child while married. In the second instance my wife was sick of hiding the fact that we were living together, lest she upset her very Catholic Sicilian mother.

That said since marriages are supposed to be sexual relationships, I wouldn't marry anyone or remain married to anyone sans having sex.

As to entitlement I don't think anyone is entitled to anything, you get what you get! Life isn't fair so one ought to enjoy what they can, and get over what they can't.



Vega said:


> Some of us want it because we believe that it's the ULTIMATE expression of our "love" for our partner. Yet, that same person may have NO PROBLEM having sex with people BEFORE his/her partner with NO "feelings" attached.


If people are hypocrites or lack comprehension good luck to them. Absent cheating on a sexually exclusive partner I'm happy to share sex with anyone who I am sexually attracted to who wants to mutually share and enjoy the same. As to no feelings, I don't know about you but I tend to have pleasant feelings when I share something I enjoy with someone.



Vega said:


> Some of us see it as "bonding". You know...becoming "one" and all that...Others will see it as merely a physical way of 'releasing' built up sexual _tension_.


It's simply a tremendous amount of fun that is often mutually viscerally desired.



Vega said:


> It's the "E-ticket" ride in an amusement park. A 'ride' that we want to jump on over and over again. Or, it's the 'hell' that some people feel. And from the ultra-feminist point of view, it's a symbol of man's domination over women.


I'm married to a woman who in our first decade could fairly be considered a radical Feminist (she used to be a leading member of an active Feminist collective and organised plenty of protests and marches. Today albeit less radical she (Ms Not Personal) still identifies as a Feminist and unsurprisingly desires and enjoys lots of sex.

If one is going to jump they may as well be all in!



Vega said:


> Regardless of our attitudes toward it, it seems to be that sex is "It". Forget about the rest of the "relationship." Forget about "until death do us part"...forget about "love", too!


Humans are quite capable of having sex with people they are in love with or aren't in love with. Just as humans are also perfectly capable of loving people they don't have sex with. If you love someone and are not having sex with them you have a platonic relationship. If you don't love someone and are having sex with them you have a sexual relationship.

If a spouse never wants to or seldom wants to have sex with their partner, they should have no expectation or requirement for their spouse to remain sexually exclusive.

I have a great relationship with my wife on many levels, I don't understand why you think sex comes at the expense of all of the rest. Settling for the wrong people is where all of the rest collapses. Great (long term/marital) sexual relationships are a sum of the whole with sex being an essential and critical part (otherwise it wouldn't be a sexual relationship).

Having read your tales of woe, I wouldn't have picked any of the partners you describe. You would do well to not ascribe your experiences to everyone else. My and my wife's experiences aren't like yours. Whenever we have found someone to be poorly we've always let them go and moved on, why settle when you don't have to?



Vega said:


> The reason why I'm saying all of this, is because I've been sex-less for the past 8 months or so. And, I'm HAPPY! I don't "need" sex in order to be HAPPY. Yet, it seems that so many others put so much weight on sex for their happiness.


I've gone months at a time sans sex and have been perfectly happy as well, it's not news that sex isn't the font of all happiness. I have sex because it's fun not because I think it has some lofty meaning.



Vega said:


> Now, don't get me wrong. I've been VERY HD in some of my relationships. But the point is, that I'm not UN happy if I'm not in a relationship getting laid however many times a day. I've also been in relationship where the frequency of sex was very low...
> 
> But...
> 
> ...that didn't make me UN happy!


Okay.



Vega said:


> So tell me...is it REALLY the end all to BE all? And if so,
> 
> WHY??????


Since sex is the part that makes a relationship a sexual one, of course sex is the end all to be all in any sexual relationship.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Personal said:


> Since sex is the part that makes a relationship a sexual one, of course sex is the end all to be all in any sexual relationship.


I really enjoyed your entire post, Personal. But when I read it, I noticed that whenever you mentioned the word "sex", I always thought to myself, "Sex...but how MUCH?" 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not _against_ sex in marriage or a relationship. But the "experts" seemed to have informed us that if we have sex less than 10 times a year, we're in a "sexless" relationship. 

I can't wrap my head around that. If you're having sex 10 times a year, you're still having sex; so to me, it can't be "sexless". And of course, the LD person is deemed to be "dysfunctional". 

Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to be a limit at the opposite end of the spectrum. We can have too little, but not too much? I mean, at what point does it become "too much"? Does it EVER become "too much"?

And I think that may be part of the problem with an LD. No matter how much sex you give the HD, they always seem to want MORE. 

Is there a point where the HD says, "Enough!"?


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband (Jul 3, 2014)

MJJEAN said:


> I wouldn't say sex is the end all, be all. I would say that it is highly important and I wouldn't remain married without regular, good+, sex unless there was a medical reason that DH or I couldn't have sex. And, we've talked about it. If that does happen, we plan to use fingers and/or tongues as well as toys.
> 
> We didn't talk about it before we married, but we'd been a couple from January '99 and didn't marry until December '02. By the time we did marry, we knew exactly what we were getting into as far as sex drive....bum-dum-duuuuuummmm...or so we thought!
> 
> ...


All I have running thru my mind while reading the bolded part is Rod Stewart's song "Some guys have all the luck, some guys have all the pain"


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

JamesTKirk said:


> My point that someone Vega, a self proclaimed LD person, has no or very infrequent desire for sex. Therefore, she doesn't value sex in a marriage a deal breaker. It's literally an optional thing to her.
> It's because she doesn't understand that normal-D or HD person values it highly. If you gave her that desire, I think she'd change her point of view.
> 
> My point is that she, or other LD people, may just not get it.


LOL! Right now, I'm a _*NO*_ Drive person. When in a relationship, I've been both HD and LD. I've gone without sex in a marriage for 5 years. And in one LTR, we had sex *17* times in a 24 hour period (I was 28 at the time). 

It's not that I consider sex to be "optional"; I just don't think it's EVERYTHING, which is WHY it isn't a deal-breaker for me. 

I DO enjoy sex, but I enjoy _quality_ sex. If I had a choice, I'd rather have good quality sex for 2-3 hours once every two weeks than have mediocre sex lasting less than 15 minutes 5 times a week.



> According to a 2008 survey of sex therapists, sex is “too short” when it lasts one to two minutes. “Adequate” is three to seven minutes, and “desirable” is seven to 13. The range for “too long” went up to 30 minutes. Anything longer, like “more than 40,” will henceforth be known as “too Kanye.”Sep 20, 2015


The "desirable" range is 7-13 minutes. If I was with a partner who was at the high end of this (13 minutes) and we did it every day, I'd be lucky to have ONE orgasm.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> You've got this adversarial vibe towards men - which is super visible in most of your threads.
> 
> This thread has a subtext which is: Why can't other people (mainly men) be cool like me and be happy without sex?
> 
> It's a good thing you are happy being alone, because your mindset is not really suited to a LTR.


Must... resist... urge... to make... analogy... with my wife... 😂😂

I don't know MEM, it's hard to say. Maybe her experience with sex was lousy so she liberated herself from the realities of sex.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

john117 said:


> Maybe her experience with sex was lousy so she liberated herself from the realities of sex.


Maybe it was maybe it wasn't? I can't imagine wanting to keep sharing sex with my wife if I found the experience somewhat wanting.

As it stands in the past I had no qualms about ending two sexual relationships that I didn't enjoy sexually.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Charlie,

Many many many posts describe the following sequence.

Sex was good to great until:

- Engagement - at which point it decreased 
- Marriage - it decreased further 
- First child - it decreased even further
- Last child - it dropped to almost nothing

Inverse relationship between stability and sex.









CharlieParker said:


> I'm not familiar with the term, do tell.
> 
> We can both destabilize when needed, it gets real (passionate), in a good way.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Vega said:


> I really enjoyed your entire post, Personal. But when I read it, I noticed that whenever you mentioned the word "sex", I always thought to myself, "Sex...but how MUCH?"


Thanks, as to how much I figure it's probably as variable as the people involved and how they feel on any given moment?

My wife and I for the past few years have largely been sharing sex at a frequency of around 4-6x a week and sometimes more. 4-6x a week isn't too much, too little or a right or wrong answer.

Where we usually have sex once on Friday, twice on Saturday, twice on Sunday with anymore usually happening through the week. We also sometimes do it three times a day on a weekend which is plenty for me. That said in the past I/We have gone more often than that. But hey we're middle aged now, so I don't think either of us expect to be having sex more than 3x a day most or all days of the week.

I think one of the nice things is we don't do marathon sessions that frequently, 15-20 minutes start to finish is pleasant for both of us. Sometimes we want longer and can happily go 30-50 minutes generally speaking though that often becomes somewhat boring. So if we do want more we instead usually spread the sex through 2 or 3 encounters throughout a day

Sometimes my wife wants it more often sometimes I do, sometimes she wants it less sometimes I want it less. How much is what all participants are happy with 



Vega said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'm not _against_ sex in marriage or a relationship. But the "experts" seemed to have informed us that if we have sex less than 10 times a year, we're in a "sexless" relationship.


Well if it's any consolation I don't think you are against sharing sex that you enjoy at all, I presume having sex that you desire and enjoy is the only kind you would understandably want.

As to the experts I don't know, I'm just some random guy who lives in Australia that enjoys sex and participating in an online marriage forum. That said for me a sexless relationship would be one where I don't get any sex.

Personally with respect to not getting any, I have no problem with not getting any when I or my wife is ill, my wife and or I are geographically separated overnight or for longer, one or both of us is hospitalised or otherwise physically incapacitated.

That said absent the above mentioned caveats and or other unmentioned reasonable causes. I would consider myself to be in an actual sexless relationship, if sex fell to nothing for a few weeks through several months. Which given such a circumstance I would most certainly either end that sexual relationship or renegotiate that sexual relationship in order to get sex elsewhere sans cheating on someone.



Vega said:


> I can't wrap my head around that. If you're having sex 10 times a year, you're still having sex; so to me, it can't be "sexless". And of course, the LD person is deemed to be "dysfunctional".


10x a year that's less than once a month, (sans the caveats) that would be a sufficient cause for me sans significant resolution to choose to get sex elsewhere.



Vega said:


> Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to be a limit at the opposite end of the spectrum. We can have too little, but not too much? I mean, at what point does it become "too much"? Does it EVER become "too much"?


Of course we can feel like we're having too much or too little.

Too little or too much is all rather subjective and often variably changes through a sexual relationship. Currently for me too much is where I can't earn a living, can't perform sexually anymore, can't do anything else I am interested in and is* more than I variably and subjectively feel like*.



Vega said:


> And I think that may be part of the problem with an LD. No matter how much sex you give the HD, they always seem to want MORE.


This idea of giving is an interesting thing if I am giving up too much to have sex (having sex with someone I am not attracted to only because I am still in a nominal sexual relationship with them) or not getting anything much out of having sex (not getting off and not enjoying the experience), I don't want to have sex with them it's that simple.

Until I stumbled upon TAM looking up some non-vanilla sexual discussions, I had never even heard of the idea that people are specifically LD/HD low desire/drive or high desire/drive. My sexual experience with various women and through two marriages, never saw me experience any significant drop in sexual frequency when together and capable even after 20 years of sharing it with one partner.

Maybe people don't read each other well! At least on here whenever people make "wedding cake" remarks etc, I am invariably not surprised to learn that they have been or are in "sexless" relationships, despite the fact they claim the sex was great at the beginning. Yet when they share more detail almost all of what they describe as being great would have me letting them go regardless of their gender long before marriage.

That said I did rose coloured glasses with my first marriage which was a massive train wreck of mutual; foolish romanticism, youth, immaturity, naivety, financial stress, raising an at the time partly unwanted child, work required separation/absence on my behalf combined with being a jerk, plus some mental illness and actual physical marital infidelity on her behalf. We were married at 19 and 18 respectively, separated post her infidelity before 21 and 20 and divorced at 22 & 21, when we chose to smash our relationship we jumped in with both feet and went hard

Funnily enough despite making half of that mess I am a far better sexual relationship partner now for having had that experience.



Vega said:


> Is there a point where the HD says, "Enough!"?


Probably, I guess it all depends upon who they are, where they are, when they are and whomever they are with.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

JamesTKirk said:


> ...................h because they just wanted to have sex with pleasing me be the secondary priority. I've had girls/women cheat on me just to have sex with other guys and I think it had nothing to do with pleasing the guy.
> 
> My problem with this whole thread is the implication that sex isn't as important to women as it is for men.
> 
> ...


I agree with lots of what you say but the bolded is fiction, not fact. Post menopausal here and free, free, free as a bird with no concerns for pregnancy. Having more sex now than pre menopause.

Often people say here that it is the brain that is the biggest decider when it comes to sex and I agree.

OP's has a negative attitude to sex, she is younger than me.
I have a positive attitude to sex which is brain based not hormonal.

No absolutes.

As for men, Mr H has tested as the lower end of the T levels for his age (55) and his desire is very strong. We have sex daily at a minimum and he, even at 55 with lower T can easily go twice in an evening with little refractory time. 
When he tested low he (we) researched and he modified his diet and exercise regime. His Dr told him that T is not the be all and end all of sex drive, the mind is.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holland,

As a fit, healthy man close to his age I can tell you what I believe is true in this situation.

He is intensely into you. It really is that simple.




MrsHolland said:


> I agree with lots of what you say but the bolded is fiction, not fact. Post menopausal here and free, free, free as a bird with no concerns for pregnancy. Having more sex now than pre menopause.
> 
> Often people say here that it is the brain that is the biggest decider when it comes to sex and I agree.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

MEM11363 said:


> Holland,
> 
> As a fit, healthy man close to his age I can tell you what I believe is true in this situation.
> 
> He is intensely into you. It really is that simple.


Aye Aye Captain and what a blessing that is.

Yes I know he is and I feel the same about him. I could bring this round full circle to a past thread and state that Mr H expresses his love for me through intimate connection. I am very much open to that concept even though sex is not an expression of love or emotion for me.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> So, there are only 2 options for you: Either no relationship and no sex OR, a relationship with LOTS of sex. No in-between, right?


Pretty much. "Sufficient sex" as I put it, may mean a range that will do nicely. But yes, LOTS works very well for us - BOTH of us, quite honestly. 

We were both in sexless, affectionless marriages previously, and we were both unhappy in those. Never again will either of us accept a significant mismatch that isn't just temporary!


----------



## RubyRing (Jun 13, 2016)

Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.
> 
> And for others, they couldn't care less.
> 
> ...


I think it comes down to biology. In my younger days, my drive was strong, almost frantic. Of course, I wanted feelings to go along with it, but I was unhappy when I wasn't in a relationship, not just for lack of sex, but for lack of affection as well. And when I WAS in a relationship, the sex was often and very passionate.

Now that I am engaged and we are both in our 60's, sex is on our "nice to have" list. Yes, we enjoy intimacy on a regular basis, but it is not the focus of our relationship. And we are both extremely happy. The focus of our relationship is affection and companionship. Although we don't have sex every time we get together, there is always plenty of hugging, kissing, hand holding, cuddling, sweet talk and pet names. 

Since sex is a function of pro-creation, I am not at all surprised that at my age, our relationship is less sexual. I am well past my child bearing years. When we are intimate, it is more about comfort and affection than raging hormones screaming to be released.

So while I do think it is normal for raging sex drives to mellow out over the years, I think the need for non-sexual affectionate touch last for a lifetime. Even intensifies as we get older. I remember when I would visit my late mother in her elder care facilities, all the other residents seemed to want nothing more than a hand to hold.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

CharlieParker said:


> X and Y would be silly. I was simply told sex is a priority to her and not to be used as a bargaining chip. She is older than I am and was way more experience (and I guess she burned at least once). We had only been "romantic" for 6 months when we got engaged. Her talk resonated.


Yeah, agreeing to a number would be silly. I am just saying I don't think someone is going to say "Sex won't be a priority later in our marriage" because that will open up a whole slew of issues.


----------



## RubyRing (Jun 13, 2016)

Vega said:


> A "gift" that's expected from me seems more like an obligation than anything else.


Vega, is sex something that you can live with or without, or do have an actual aversion to it ?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> I really enjoyed your entire post, Personal. But when I read it, I noticed that whenever you mentioned the word "sex", I always thought to myself, "Sex...but how MUCH?"
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not _against_ sex in marriage or a relationship. But the "experts" seemed to have informed us that if we have sex less than 10 times a year, we're in a "sexless" relationship.
> 
> ...


Odds are, yes the HD would overindulge beyond his/her ability to enjoy it for at least a certain period of time. During this time the HD would likely appear insatiable. Then it would eventually slow down and resemble something normal: 

Very HD = once a day 
HD = once every three days
Mild HD = once a week
Mild LD = Less than once a week
LD = Once a month
Very LD = Less than once a month

If you are not in a relationship and are making some serious life decisions about beginning all over again, but you know you would rather be alone than subjected to a somewhat abusive HD's insatiable drive, you are not wrong to feel that way.

In my opinion @Vega I DO think you should pursue a new relationship, but be VERY UPFRONT about the following before getting too involved:

• you will NOT tolerate a partner that gets upset when you need to refuse sex because your previous partner would be abusive regarding this topic.
• state what frequency is optimal for you to enjoy sex the most (say once a week)
• discuss that other ways to enjoy each other's desire other than mandatory sex is something you would enjoy learning how to experience.

ANY MAN (even HD) unwilling to work with you on those terms to proceed into a long term loving relationship would NOT be worth it, and you probably are better off without them. 

Sincerely,
Badsanta


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

samyeagar said:


> ...the marital relationship is at it's core, a sexual relationship. Sex is what sets a marriage apart from every other relationship such as friends, room mates, parent/child, etc...


Yeah, this.

I've had, and have, many friends in my life, both male and female, in which every "need" has been met, apart from sex. There's nothing I can't get from (or give to) a friend or family member, that I can't get or give to my wife.

These individual needs may be broken up amongst more than one person, but they're there.

That's not to diminish one's marriage, but it's the truth. What genuinely sets apart a romantic relationship from a platonic one is sex, and that extra level of emotional and physical closeness.

Without that, a marriage is at the same level as your closest friends - which is absolutely fine, if that is what both partners agree upon, or want. But as others have said, it's more often only one partner that feels that way.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

Vega said:


> A "gift" that's expected from me seems more like an obligation than anything else.


Something is only an obligation if you make it one.

Often, something becomes an obligation because there is a negative thought, or thoughts, associated with it. Therefore, it's on you, and only you.

My wife will not give standalone BJ's for this reason. She's not obligated to in the slightest by me, though she knows my desire for them. Yet she happily, and lustfully, gives them as foreplay, or to finish. She's not adverse to the act itself AT ALL - only the context in which the act is performed.

She's formed a negative connotation of this act when done on it's own, and only then, likely due to previous experiences that have nothing to do with me.

She's entitled, and although I don't like it, it's not a deal breaker for me. It most definitely would be if this was sex we were talking about, though, and not simply a sex act.

If someone thinks sex, in general, is some sort of obligation OR if someone MAKES sex an obligation, there's a major issue there, and one that needs to be dealt with and fixed.

@Vega , I think I'm somewhat familiar with your late ex husbands treatment of you, and I can understand why you have this negative view of sex, especially as far as it being an obligation. However, somebody here on TAM used this line in a thread a few weeks ago, and it stuck with me:

"Don't make somebody pay someone else's bill."

I used that quote with my wife not that long ago, and she understood and agreed. I didn't use it in any particular context or for a specific reason, just as a generality. But it rings true in almost all situations and scenarios.

I truly hope that if and when you meet somebody you want to be with, you don't make them pay off your late ex husbands debts, and that you can start fresh with them. Learning from our past mistakes does not mean putting up walls and barricades at every turn, making our new partners navigate an un-ending maze of twists and turns, all to keep them from arriving at the ultimate destination.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega, you'll be fine! Lots of guys have the same views of sex you do. Some probably want it even less than you, and you'll find yourself wanting to convince him that sex is actually pretty cool.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Vega said:


> I really enjoyed your entire post, Personal. But when I read it, I noticed that whenever you mentioned the word "sex", I always thought to myself, "Sex...but how MUCH?"
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not _against_ sex in marriage or a relationship. But the "experts" seemed to have informed us that if we have sex less than 10 times a year, we're in a "sexless" relationship.
> 
> ...


But you see, when the LD has sex with the HD more than the HD desires, then the HD becomes the LD, and the LD becomes the HD...it's all relative. There are no absolutes. It is actually quite normal, and dare I say most couple who have been together for any length of time will experience this, but it is normal for the HD/LD attribute to switch between partners where one is the HD for a while, then it switches for a while, and so on and so forth, because again...it's all relative.

The clinical definition of sexless is simply that...an arbitrary definition used as a baseline for a discussion, often with a therapist to start from. It has no absolute meaning to the people involved, especially if the couple is fine with it.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

​


wild jade said:


> Vega, you'll be fine! Lots of guys have the same views of sex you do. Some probably want it even less than you, and you'll find yourself wanting to convince him that sex is actually pretty cool.


You seem happy, Vega. I am sure you will be just fine, too.

My sister got divorced 3 years ago after 37 years of marriage. She is loving it! 

She moved to a warm place, something her husband would never agree to. She loves her job, her new church, and having her grandchildren come visit. The only thing left is for her daughter and her husband and those grandchildren to move in next door! And she is working on that! 

The divorce came as a surprise (her husband reconnected with a high school girlfriend on Facebook), but it has been a true gift to her. She would not have had the confidence to get there on her own.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: AIs Sex The "Bottom Line"?*

Alexm, you have to put up some walls and barricades, or you just wind up in the same place over and over again. 

People will treat you like **** if you let them. People who will treat you like **** are always looking for some new sucker to push around, so you need something to keep them out.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: AIs Sex The "Bottom Line"?*



wild jade said:


> Alexm, you have to put up some walls and barricades, or you just wind up in the same place over and over again.
> 
> People will treat you like **** if you let them. People who will treat you like **** are always looking for some new sucker to push around, so you need something to keep them out.


I agree!

Just being yourself is best. That will draw the people you are naturally compatible with, and protect you against others. It is nature's timesaver.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> I really enjoyed your entire post, Personal. But when I read it, I noticed that whenever you mentioned the word "sex", I always thought to myself, "Sex...but how MUCH?"
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Of course there is "enough," unless there is an actual disorder involved! There are physical limits, for a start.

I think you believe HDs always want MORE, because your limits are much lower than theirs - but they do have limits.

Sure, I can - and have - had sex 8 times in one day, or 11 times in 36 hours, or even 4 times in 4 hours (aren't weekends and vacations great?!), but it's certainly _not sustainable_, and it _wouldn't be enjoyable _to keep trying to do that. As a very occasional thing to push limits, yeah, it can be fun as long as your partner is passionately onboard. (Mine is!)

In our 40s with a new relationship, 2 or 3 times a day was normal, and continued at that level for almost 5 years. The next 5 years was more like twice a day. And the last 6 years in our 50s/early 60s have been more like 10 times a week, give or take a few depending on what else is going on. This is what we BOTH enjoy, and we are always happy (with occasional exceptions when we do say No) to go along if the other initiates, since we both can't be or aren't always "on" all the time or at the same time.

As for what's enough? It has varied with time, but for us, it's normally once or twice a day, and if necessary we could be content with 3 to 5 times a week given our current health and life's demands. In that case, we'd probably keep looking for ways to increase to what feels "right" for us, though.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> I'm not so sure about that. I haven't had any 'sugar' since October, and I'm enjoying the heck out of my life!
> 
> And I KNOW I'm not the _only_ one who feels that way!


Sure, but if you had some good sugar for a few days, you'd be hooked again! :grin2:

If you stop eating sugar for long enough, you don't crave it anymore. I guess that's a good thing.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ellis,

You bet they won't because.....

Sex is the one thing that you are promising to only do with them.....

So admitting sex won't be a priority - is awfully close to acknowledging YOU won't be a priority. 






EllisRedding said:


> Yeah, agreeing to a number would be silly. I am just saying I don't think someone is going to say "Sex won't be a priority later in our marriage" because that will open up a whole slew of issues.


----------



## WonkyNinja (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyInColorado;15965137[B said:


> ]I was in a 100% sexless marriage for about 5 years before I divorced. I kept telling myself it's just sex, I don't need it. I finally got fed up and wanted sex. But what I really wanted was someone who desired me enough to want to have sex with me.[/B] Now that I'm in a relationship where we both can't wait to take each other's clothes off and do whatever to please the other person, I couldn't imagine going back to a sexless relationship.


:iagree: - Especially the bolded part.

I wanted someone who wanted me, not who was just happy to have me as company around the house.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

southbound said:


> I agree. I have never been able to wrap my mind around what could be so torturous about having sex with a person you love and find attractive outside of a medical issue or some life situation that would make the answer obvious. I could never understand just reaching a point that sex is no longer interesting with someone you love.


That same logic could ask what's so torturous about getting duty sex, yet people here complain about it all the time. 

The sex drive is complicated, way beyond the fact that you love and find one attractive. So if the answer is for an undesiring spouse to have sex anyway the receiving spouse has to accept without complaints. 

But it often doesn't work this way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> That same logic could ask what's so torturous about getting duty sex, yet people here complain about it all the time.
> 
> The sex drive is complicated, way beyond the fact that you love and find one attractive. So if the answer is for an undesiring spouse to have sex anyway the receiving spouse has to accept without complaints.
> 
> ...


Indeed. I think the problem with duty sex is that it's usually not going to be _quality_ sex. The difference between duty sex and sex with someone who is into you, is probably - or eventually - going to be painfully obvious. Not being desired is little different than not being loved.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Vega said:


> I noticed in my own biology that the less I masturbate, the less I feel the 'urge' to do so. I've heard it's the same for the majority of both men and women.
> 
> It makes me wonder...If we removed all of this 'stimulation', would an HD _TRULY _be an HD?


I've tried to go that route but it never worked. Every time I'd see a pretty young woman, I'd be reminded of my true drive.

I have never had my testosterone checked, but I'd strongly suspect it is at the very high end.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Indeed. I think the problem with duty sex is that it's usually not going to be _quality_ sex. The difference between duty sex and sex with someone who is into you, is probably - or eventually - going to be painfully obvious. Not being desired is little different than not being loved.


Right? I can't think of a bigger libido killer then someone who doesn't want you and is putting out so you'll stfu.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Life,
The darkly comic aspect of all this is how incredibly difficult it is for so many folks to honestly communicate about sex. 

When we married - I svcked at it. On a ten scale - I was a one. 

Pure cowardice. 

Luckily M2 is fearless about just saying what's what. Over a long period of time I learned to model her behavior. 





lifeistooshort said:


> That same logic could ask what's so torturous about getting duty sex, yet people here complain about it all the time.
> 
> The sex drive is complicated, way beyond the fact that you love and find one attractive. So if the answer is for an undesiring spouse to have sex anyway the receiving spouse has to accept without complaints.
> 
> ...


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> I agree with lots of what you say but the bolded is fiction, not fact. Post menopausal here and free, free, free as a bird with no concerns for pregnancy. Having more sex now than pre menopause.
> 
> Often people say here that it is the brain that is the biggest decider when it comes to sex and I agree.
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking about post-menopause and menopause in and of itself can change desire, often higher based on my anecdotal observation. You have more sex now which seems to reinforce that statement, but that may have more to do with lack birth control than anything else. Also, if you had kids they're probably gone now and not around, and kids are a major downer when it comes to romantic time.
I concede that it's impossible to generalize as there are many factors. I just see a lot more women complain about sudden loss or massive increase of desire than men do, especially after childbirth. I see women practically begging for a solution. Perhaps I'm just never seeing the men's stories.
Take Vega as an example of how many phases she'd gone through and is now No-D.

So agreed. False.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Life,

I do think - there are times when you keep having maintenance sex. Yes yes I fully realize how messed up that sounds. But this isn't driven by a desire to get your partner to stfu. 

It's driven by commitment. Sounds very unsexy.

Three times in a row - I took one for the team - during the space of a couple weeks. I was a bit depressed - and each time M2 initiated - I felt this desire to NOT have sex. And each time - smiled - let my body take over - had a decent to good experience. 

And then the black mist dissipated - and I was back to normal. 

And FWIW - each of those three times - what was going through my head was the same question. How often is it like THIS for M2?







lifeistooshort said:


> Right? I can't think of a bigger libido killer then someone who doesn't want you and is putting out so you'll stfu.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> JTK,
> If I deprive M2 of any number of things that provide her comfort, that deprivation causes her distress.
> 
> I don't share many of those needs - but I recognize the concept of need - ESPECIALLY as it relates to physiology - but also where it is solely abstract.
> ...


I wasn't uncomprehending what you're say.
I failed to acknowledge that I agree with you 10x10.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> LOL! Right now, I'm a _*NO*_ Drive person. When in a relationship, I've been both HD and LD. I've gone without sex in a marriage for 5 years. And in one LTR, we had sex *17* times in a 24 hour period (I was 28 at the time).
> 
> It's not that I consider sex to be "optional"; I just don't think it's EVERYTHING, which is WHY it isn't a deal-breaker for me.


I'm having a hard time understanding what seems to be contradictions. If you were HD and you knew how important sex was to you at the time, then why do you have such a hard time understanding the problem when one spouse is deprived?
You know how you would have felt if you wanted it and your husband constantly denied it. Did it never happen?

When we're married, we try to provide what is necessary to keep our spouse happy emotionally, physically, and sexually. The problem isn't how often you have sex or if you're having sex, the issue is why.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> Right? I can't think of a bigger libido killer then someone who doesn't want you and is putting out so you'll stfu.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega, I'm interested in your take on a question that has been acknowledged in this thread. 

If you were in a relationship, and your significant other felt they needed sex but you didn't, would it be a good thing or a bad thing if they just met that need elsewhere? What is your answer to that question, and what are your reasons for your answer, whatever it might be?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

James,
No - that comment wasn't directed at you at all. I find this to be an interesting and useful exchange.

I was referring to folks who claim not to understand other people's needs, simply because those needs are different than their own. 





JamesTKirk said:


> Are you saying I'm willfully uncomprehending what you're saying? If so, fine and be smug about it. I'm not uncomprehending what you're saying. I was looking for clarification to your statement which could have been taken one of two ways.
> Also, if it wasn't clear, I do agree with you 10x10. No argument there.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Life,
> 
> I do think - there are times when you keep having maintenance sex. Yes yes I fully realize how messed up that sounds. But this isn't driven by a desire to get your partner to stfu.
> 
> ...



And I think that's fine if it's in the spirit of a loving marriage. I haven't necessarily been up for it every time we've had sex, but there's never a time I DON'T want to be there, only times I'm more or less into it. 

My original point was only that if one takes the position that it's not a big deal for an unenthusiastic spouse to have sex then it's only fair that the receiver not complain about duty sex. 

If that's all you ever get you've got bigger problems.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

You know, as soon as the word "duty" is added to "sex" my vagina dries up. I can't stand the idea of sex being a duty. That kills my whole concept of what sex is supposed to be - fun and enjoyable for both, an expression of passion for each other, and something we share. Treating it like having to wipe your ass every day or brush your teeth - gotta do it! - makes me want to vomit and never have sex again. Treating it like it's my job and I owe someone sex takes all the fun and passion out of it. No. It would destroy any relationship I have if sex is treated like a duty.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Life,
> 
> I do think - there are times when you keep having maintenance sex. Yes yes I fully realize how messed up that sounds. But this isn't driven by a desire to get your partner to stfu.
> 
> ...


That sounds totally unsexy to me. Totally. 

What if your wife didn't really want to have sex, but saw that you were depressed and initiated in an attempt to cheer you up a bit? Maybe you should have told her you weren't into it those three times and it would have been fine for both of you not to have sex, and you wouldn't have felt like you had to do it for her sake, while she was trying to do it for your sake.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

norajane said:


> You know, as soon as the word "duty" is added to "sex" my vagina dries up. I can't stand the idea of sex being a duty. That kills my whole concept of what sex is supposed to be - fun and enjoyable for both, an expression of passion for each other, and something we share. Treating it like having to wipe your ass every day or brush your teeth - gotta do it! - makes me want to vomit and never have sex again. Treating it like it's my job and I owe someone sex takes all the fun and passion out of it. No. It would destroy any relationship I have if sex is treated like a duty.


That's selfish thinking. You're thinking of yourself and not your spouse.

I've been on both sides of the duty sex (given and received) and I disagree. Even if I'm not interested, I'm happy to provide pleasure to my wife. I always find a way to get there enough to at least enjoy it and anyone can. I'm just there for her for whatever her needs are.

I don't particularly enjoy receiving duty sex when it's obvious and it was because she was simply too exhausted. I'm sure there are many times she wasn't up for it but did it anyway and in the process got turned on and enjoyed it very much.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

norajane said:


> You know, as soon as the word "duty" is added to "sex" my vagina dries up. I can't stand the idea of sex being a duty. That kills my whole concept of what sex is supposed to be - fun and enjoyable for both, an expression of passion for each other, and something we share. Treating it like having to wipe your ass every day or brush your teeth - gotta do it! - makes me want to vomit and never have sex again. Treating it like it's my job and I owe someone sex takes all the fun and passion out of it. No. It would destroy any relationship I have if sex is treated like a duty.


and right here this is why attempting to "communicate" (aka, negotiate) regarding these mismatches is a total dead end

edit:

to be clear I don't think Nora's perspective is wrong. I think it's totally honest and right


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Right there with you.

So in the spirit of being unsexy - here's how this works in MemLand

1. Offers that are clearly driven by guilt get the soft deferral: You are an angel, how about tomorrow?
2. Offers that seem genuinely generous - get a brief but comprehensive look - followed by - yes
3. Statements that are absolutely firm - such as: We ARE connecting NOW - get an enthusiastic response.

(2) Is the important one. Sometimes in that 1 second full body scan I pick up a troublesome vibe. When that happens - we have this low key back and forth takes maybe 10 seconds. Sometimes ends with me deferring and M2 seeming relieved. And that's ok. 

Just because someone's willing to give you something, doesn't mean you should take it. There is a big interesting and oft disorienting gray mist separating 'willing' from 'wanting'. 


So much for the prologue. The epilogue has its own feedback loop. If M2 didn't rapture - she gets the soft toned: I hope that was ok for you.

And if there is a pattern of this - every once in a while she hears this: I don't want this to be bad for you.

That last bit - is intended to ensure she knows the door is open to raw feedback - whatever it is. 





lifeistooshort said:


> And I think that's fine if it's in the spirit of a loving marriage. I haven't necessarily been up for it every time we've had sex, but there's never a time I DON'T want to be there, only times I'm more or less into it.
> 
> My original point was only that if one takes the position that it's not a big deal for an unenthusiastic spouse to have sex then it's only fair that the receiver not complain about duty sex.
> 
> ...


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

JamesTKirk said:


> *That's selfish thinking. You're thinking of yourself and not your spouse.*
> 
> I've been on both sides of the duty sex (given and received) and I disagree. Even if I'm not interested, I'm happy to provide pleasure to my wife. I always find a way to get there enough to at least enjoy it and anyone can. I'm just there for her for whatever her needs are.
> 
> I don't particularly enjoy receiving duty sex when it's obvious and it was because she was simply too exhausted. I'm sure there are many times she wasn't up for it but did it anyway and in the process got turned on and enjoyed it very much.


No, I'm thinking about the overall health of our relationship. If I were duty sexing regularly, that means there's a *problem *in our relationship, it means I'm not having *fun *having sex, and that will eventually kill my sex drive altogether if he was expecting me to do it because I "owed" it to him. 

He wouldn't like it either without the passion and fun, because _*that takes the entire point out of sex.*_ Hell no. I would be helping our relationship by trying to address the problem creating the duty sex, and by not forcing myself to have sex when I don't want to because it would lead to me not wanting to ever have sex.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Norajane,

If you don't mind sharing, how long have you been in your current LTR/marriage?





norajane said:


> That sounds totally unsexy to me. Totally.
> 
> What if your wife didn't really want to have sex, but saw that you were depressed and initiated in an attempt to cheer you up a bit? Maybe you should have told her you weren't into it those three times and it would have been fine for both of you not to have sex, and you wouldn't have felt like you had to do it for her sake, while she was trying to do it for your sake.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Norajane,
> 
> If you don't mind sharing, how long have you been in your current LTR/marriage?


Total, about 25 years together, known each other for 30. We had some breaks in there...life happened, I moved away, etc. It's been 5 years this time, and engaged to be married.


----------



## AngelHeart888 (Jun 21, 2016)

Interesting question.
I think sex is definitely an important part of marriage/relationship. Otherwise, you're just friends/roommates.

And people have different libidos, so I suppose the trick is to find someone you're compatible with, both emotionally and sexually.

No easy task. I know.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

norajane said:


> No, I'm thinking about the overall health of our relationship. If I were duty sexing regularly, that means there's a *problem *in our relationship, it means I'm not having *fun *having sex, and that will eventually kill my sex drive altogether if he was expecting me to do it because I "owed" it to him.
> 
> He wouldn't like it either without the passion and fun, because _*that takes the entire point out of sex.*_ Hell no. I would be helping our relationship by trying to address the problem creating the duty sex, and by not forcing myself to have sex when I don't want to because it would lead to me not wanting to ever have sex.


If all it is (or primarily is) duty sex, then I agree. I was assuming it was an otherwise healthy, non-sexually dysfunctional relationship where there are otherwise no problems. And a problem-free marriage doesn't mean sexual harmony either, which is where so called duty sex sometimes comes in and that's what I was talking about.

When I'm talking about duty sex, I'm referring to when one is up for it, the other is not because they are tired or just not feeling horny, but they sack up and get with the program. In some cases it may because of an ongoing mismatch in frequency desire. That's not what I'm referring to either but I don't think that's disgusting. I want to make my spouse happy and I don't think the act is at least a little bit enjoyable.
If you're having duty sex because there are problems, then that's a whole different issue.

Example: "I'm not up for it. I'm tired. But OK let's do it and get it over with." That means he/she wasn't really wanting sex, but I'll do it now because I know you want it. Not because there is a problem and you aren't getting along. 95% of the time you're having sex because you BOTH want it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Norajane,

Congrats on your engagement.

Humor me for a bit and I'll take you through how this looks from my vantage point. 

Stability and passion have a very fraught relationship. 

If we slice the world into two dimensions: mechanics and emotions - it gets a bit clearer. 

Mechanical stability is generally a good thing. Financial and temporal reliability are good for families with or without children. 

Emotional stability is way more complicated. M2 finds my low affect, calm reactions to situations very reassuring. 

And I find her mostly happy, playful and somewhat volatile nature, very 
appealing. 

Emotionally I'm the floor of the house, and she's the ceiling. 

That said - while my stability is reassuring it's not a real turn on. 

If I allowed M2 to feel more anxious - if I wasn't quite so helpful on that front - she would feel more desire. Thing is, that approach feels selfish to me. So I don't do that. 




norajane said:


> Total, about 25 years together, known each other for 30. We had some breaks in there...life happened, I moved away, etc. It's been 5 years this time, and engaged to be married.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

AngelHeart888 said:


> Interesting question.
> I think sex is definitely an important part of marriage/relationship. Otherwise, you're just friends/roommates.
> 
> And people have different libidos, so* I suppose the trick is to find someone you're compatible with, both emotionally and sexually.
> ...


An inherent problem is that over time some individuals libido will fade while other's will grow. It is also commonly understood that everyone's sexuality (particularly women's) will go through seasons often corresponding with the energy and devotion needed to help raise a family. 

If there even is a key, I think it is more about couples that have the ability to compassionately compromise with one another regarding issues relating arising of mismatched desire rather than getting upset and withdrawing. 

Otherwise most newlyweds experience a hormonal "honeymoon period" after which the context of sexuality in the relationship inevitably becomes redefined. 

Those relationships driven by primarily by hormones that never develop any emotional stimulation/drive for sex after a few years are the ones in for a tough road ahead. Just because it is a tough road does not mean it has to be a bad one. Most often the road less traveled leads to extraordinary places. Or you end up indefinitely in the jungle freaking tangled in vines and perpetually bitten by insects. 

Is there a "trick" to understanding which road less traveled leads to Shangri-La? Probably not as it will take TWO emotionally strong individuals to make this journey. 

Regards,
Badsanta


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: AIs Sex The "Bottom Line"?*



jld said:


> I agree!
> 
> Just being yourself is best. That will draw the people you are naturally compatible with, and protect you against others. It is nature's timesaver.


Exactly - be yourself.

Wall building is NOT being yourself. It's changing all, or parts, of your persona in order to keep people away.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> An inherent problem is that over time some individuals libido will fade while other's will grow. It is also commonly understood that everyone's sexuality (particularly women's) will go through seasons often corresponding with the energy and devotion needed to help raise a family.
> 
> If there even is a key, I think it is more about couples that have the ability to compassionately compromise with one another regarding issues relating arising of mismatched desire rather than getting upset and withdrawing.
> 
> ...


Very nicely put, Badsanta. I often shake my head when I hear/read about people who stopped having sex after a few years, or the sex diminished from the beginning of the relationship, and the "deprived" spouse is ready to toss in the towel. That spouse is actually encouraged to dump his or her spouse to find someone more sexually "compatible". 

If we already know that sex waxes and wans during an LTR, why are we so ready to call it quits so easily? 

I have a friend who married my exb/f's brother many years ago. She told me that he became depressed about losing his job and never quite recovered. He found his comfort in beer. Every. Single. Day. Their sex life was non-existent for more than a decade. She never pressured him. She loved him, and wanted to see him happy. 

But then one day he woke up and they had sex. She was THRILLED. She said sex is now better than ever, and they're both in their 60's! 

She never considered herself to be in a "sexless" marriage because they USED to have sex. Just because they're not having sex NOW doesn't mean that they NEVER had sex. So, in her mind, her marriage was never "sex-*less*". For a decade, the sex "button" was stuck on 'pause'. 

At one point she prepared herself for never having sex again. She wasn't about to divorce him, but she felt that if she started demanding sex, _SHE_ would have been the 'selfish' one! 

All in all, she's glad she waited, and I'm happy for them both.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> You know, as soon as the word "duty" is added to "sex" my vagina dries up. I can't stand the idea of sex being a duty. That kills my whole concept of what sex is supposed to be - fun and enjoyable for both, an expression of passion for each other, and something we share. Treating it like having to wipe your ass every day or brush your teeth - gotta do it! - makes me want to vomit and never have sex again. Treating it like it's my job and I owe someone sex takes all the fun and passion out of it. No. It would destroy any relationship I have if sex is treated like a duty.





TheTruthHurts said:


> @JamesTKirk I'm with you on this.
> 
> We've got exceptionally busy lives with 5 kids, 2 jobs and elderly relatives that we spend a lot of time with.
> 
> ...


I think this is a place where, if we defined our terms carefully, most of the disagreement would go away.

I would hope that everyone could agree that if sex only occurred when both partners spontaneously decided that they were in the mood, there was plenty of time, no work stress, no body image problems, no kids around, there wouldn't be much sex.

Almost everyone (usually a women) who has a problem with the concept of "duty sex" admits that there have been times when they weren't really in the mood, they went along anyway, had a positive experience and have no problems with doing so from time to time. This is usually done because they love their partner and care about their needs, desires and happiness. They also often recognize that a healthy sex life improves the entire relationship. Let's call that "giving responsive desire a chance to show itself".

Almost nobody thinks that people should be compelled to have sex on a regular basis with someone to whom they are not attracted to whom they are not emotionally connected because they "owe" it to their partner. Let's call that "duty sex".

And for those people (mostly men) who insist that their partner show every bit of spontaneous raw desire for them as they do every time; well, I think they're bound to be disappointed.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

JamesTKirk said:


> If all it is (or primarily is) duty sex, then I agree. I was assuming it was an otherwise healthy, non-sexually dysfunctional relationship where there are otherwise no problems. And a problem-free marriage doesn't mean sexual harmony either, which is where so called duty sex sometimes comes in and that's what I was talking about.
> 
> When I'm talking about duty sex, I'm referring to when one is up for it, the other is not because they are tired or just not feeling horny, but they sack up and get with the program. In some cases it may because of an ongoing mismatch in frequency desire. That's not what I'm referring to either but I don't think that's disgusting. I want to make my spouse happy and I don't think the act is at least a little bit enjoyable.
> If you're having duty sex because there are problems, then that's a whole different issue.
> ...


The way I see it, if we're having sex 95% of the time because we both want it, that other 5% when one of us doesn't want it is only 5% and the "wanter" can - and _should _- wait until both want it. No passion, no desire, no point. Otherwise, that 5% will turn into 10%, 15%, and eventually, one of us would walk away because we wouldn't want that kind of crappy, one-sided sex.

Sex is not my job, nor his. It is not my duty, nor his. It is not something I do for him. Sex is something we have because we _want_ to. It's for "us."


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

JamesTKirk said:


> I wasn't talking about post-menopause and menopause in and of itself can change desire, often higher based on my anecdotal observation. You have more sex now which seems to reinforce that statement, but that may have more to do with lack birth control than anything else. Also, if you had kids they're probably gone now and not around, and kids are a major downer when it comes to romantic time.
> I concede that it's impossible to generalize as there are many factors. I just see a lot more women complain about sudden loss or massive increase of desire than men do, especially after childbirth. I see women practically begging for a solution. Perhaps I'm just never seeing the men's stories.
> Take Vega as an example of how many phases she'd gone through and is now No-D.
> 
> So agreed. False.





> Without the hormones telling them it's time to have sex they simply forget that sex is important.


Not disagreeing in general with your comments. I was merely pointing out that it is not helpful to make the type of sweeping statements you did and word it as fact when it isn't. One of the biggest issues I see here the perpetuation of misinformation. The people sit back and say "yeah my spouse was like that, must be standard fe/male behaviour", no one learns or grows when this happens.

I will again state that for me one of the drivers is my mind when it comes to being HD. So that makes it easier for the other issues you have mentioned to not greatly impact our sex life here. We have 5 part time teenagers at home and will soon be having a 6th move in. Life is insanely busy and amazing.

You may well not be seeing the men's stories but they are out there. TAM itself is littered with sadness from women who's husbands are not meeting their sexual needs. I belong to two private forums that are about this very issue and trust me it is not so rare for men to be the lower drive. I learned this the hard way but understand that my ex is not representative of all men.

Again I am not looking to have a go but I do think it is incredibly important that we stop with the misinformation and making this an issue based on gender.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I think this is a place where, if we defined our terms carefully, most of the disagreement would go away.


I don't think so. Some people feel it is OK to occasionally "take one for the team". Maybe it ends up being good for both. Maybe it is more one-sided. But as long as it is only occasional many are willing to be generous and "be there" for their spouse out of love.

Other people feel it is never appropriate to ask or be asked to "take one for the team". They feel that the "in the mood" spouse should always wait for the not in the mood spouse to get in the mood. Many in this camp feel that taking one for the team almost always results in terrible sex and so the couple should wait for both to be in the mood so the sex can be great. Others seem to find unwanted sex so incredibly painful, violative and insulting that they can't imagine why the "in the mood" spouse could even ask for such a thing.

I don't think anything close to "all people" agree that it is a good idea to "take one for the team" even occasionally. Even if it is phrased as "being generous toward one's partner".

I think part of this is based on each person's experience of being asked to engage in sex when they are not in the mood. Some find it no big deal. Some have primarily responsive desire and find they often enjoy sex even when they weren't in the mood to have it. And some find it so intensely objectionable that they can't tolerate remaining in a relationship with someone who would dare to ask for such a thing.

I don't think the entire problem is about definitions and communications. I think in many cases the problem is that the low desire spouse finds engaging in undesired sex so awful that they simply do not have it within themselves to consent in those circumstances even if they love their partner and find them very attractive. And sometimes people don't discover this about themselves until they are years into a relationship with someone they love and find attractive.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Some people need a good sex life to be happy, some do not. I do not know if this is innate or learned, but it is not easy to change.

Some people enjoy sex in general. To them doing something sexual for their partner, even if they are not in the mood themselves, is perfectly OK and even fun. Others find sex unpleasant or degrading if they are not themselves in the mood. 

Some people are very generous lovers, they enjoy their partner's pleasure. Others only enjoy sex for their own pleasure, and do things for their partners just to be "fair" 

Some of these personality traits are compatible for couples, some are not. 

People can not change who they are, but they can change who they are with.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

RubyRing said:


> I think it comes down to biology. In my younger days, my drive was strong, almost frantic. Of course, I wanted feelings to go along with it, but *I was unhappy when I wasn't in a relationship,* not just for lack of sex, but for lack of affection as well. And when I WAS in a relationship, the sex was often and very passionate.


My drive was pretty strong when I was younger, too. But I new that I could satisfy the 'urge' _myself_ and I wasn't unhappy if I wasn't in a relationship. 



> Now that I am engaged and we are both in our 60's, sex is on our "nice to have" list. Yes, we enjoy intimacy on a regular basis, but it is not the focus of our relationship. And we are both extremely happy. The focus of our relationship is affection and companionship. Although we don't have sex every time we get together, there is always plenty of hugging, kissing, hand holding, cuddling, sweet talk and pet names.


LOL! Sounds like I was in my 60's before I was in my 30's! 



> Since sex is a function of pro-creation, I am not at all surprised that at my age, our relationship is less sexual. I am well past my child bearing years. When we are intimate, it is more about comfort and affection than raging hormones screaming to be released.


Exactly. But after reading a lot of dating profiles, I see that MOST of the single men in their 50's, 60's and beyond are looking for "just sex" and NOT the rest of the relationship. 



> So while I do think it is normal for raging sex drives to mellow out over the years, I think the need for non-sexual affectionate touch last for a lifetime. Even intensifies as we get older. I remember when I would visit my late mother in her elder care facilities, all the other residents seemed to want nothing more than a hand to hold


When I was with my exb/f (the one who cheated on me, bringing me to TAM), I once told him that he was VERY affectionate inside of the bedroom. But outside of the bedroom, there was very little affection. I mean, I pretty much had to ask for permission to get a hug from him. Holding hands or cuddling on the sofa was non-existent. The only time I would get a kiss from him was if he was leaving the house to be gone for the day, which happened maybe a few times per month. It's like whatever 'connection' we had inside of the bedroom vanished as soon as his foot crossed the threshold. We had a lot of intellectual conversations and 'fun' together and we rarely fought. 

I realized that if I had to choose, I'd rather have LOTS of affection and a little sex rather than LOTS of sex and little to non-existent affection. Of course, I'd REALLY rather have a good balance of BOTH. 

I wonder if THAT exists...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Nora,
I hope your body is more cooperative than M2's. It will make life easier for both of you. 

And I hope - whatever happens - you two stay overall synchronized. Sex is obviously only part of that. 

At some point it's likely you will make a painful discovery which is quite simply this. The relationship can overall be good, and the sexual part of it can be difficult. 

Another unsexy word. Difficult. 

I do know that a couple we are good friends with - is dealing with this. The H just decided unilaterally that he was done with that part of the marriage. It's been very hard on his wife - she is attractive and fit - and has no idea WTF happened. 







norajane said:


> The way I see it, if we're having sex 95% of the time because we both want it, that other 5% when one of us doesn't want it is only 5% and the "wanter" can - and _should _- wait until both want it. No passion, no desire, no point. Otherwise, that 5% will turn into 10%, 15%, and eventually, one of us would walk away because we wouldn't want that kind of crappy, one-sided sex.
> 
> Sex is not my job, nor his. It is not my duty, nor his. It is not something I do for him. Sex is something we have because we _want_ to. It's for "us."


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> I think this is a place where, if we defined our terms carefully, most of the disagreement would go away.
> 
> I would hope that everyone could agree that if sex only occurred when both partners spontaneously decided that they were in the mood, there was plenty of time, no work stress, no body image problems, no kids around, there wouldn't be much sex.
> 
> ...


I agree on definition
I'm thinking of duty sex in terms of doing it with someone you want to have sex with but at a time you don't desire it, not reluctantly having sex with someone because you don't want to.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The three sexually strained marriages I know of - it is the man in all 3 who is the low drive or no drive. 

And all three have very attractive wives. Well one is now an attractive ex wife. 




MrsHolland said:


> Not disagreeing in general with your comments. I was merely pointing out that it is not helpful to make the type of sweeping statements you did and word it as fact when it isn't. One of the biggest issues I see here the perpetuation of misinformation. The people sit back and say "yeah my spouse was like that, must be standard fe/male behaviour", no one learns or grows when this happens.
> 
> I will again state that for me one of the drivers is my mind when it comes to being HD. So that makes it easier for the other issues you have mentioned to not greatly impact our sex life here. We have 5 part time teenagers at home and will soon be having a 6th move in. Life is insanely busy and amazing.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

A missing dynamic in this discussion is the issue of spontaneous versus responsive desire.

Left alone I doubt my wife would ever think of having sex and will never initiate. Thanks to TAM and a sex therapist I no longer see those facts as rejection - it's just her nature.

So there really isn't any possibility of duty sex as some of you are taking it. There is no 50% this or that - there is no "if i have sex 50% of the time when I don't want it...".

It's a hard thing to wrap your head around if you don't only have responsive desire.

In fact the opposite is true - GOOD sex only happens if I initiate when she doesn't want to - which is always.

Now she'd be offended by this stark description - life is nuance after all - and she would say she loves having sex. It just doesn't start the same way for her.

Very interesting viewpoints though. But the dry vagina comment is kind of stuck in my mind so may not so much of that


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

norajane said:


> The way I see it, if we're having sex 95% of the time because we both want it, that other 5% when one of us doesn't want it is only 5% and the "wanter" can - and _should _- wait until both want it. No passion, no desire, no point. Otherwise, that 5% will turn into 10%, 15%, and eventually, one of us would walk away because we wouldn't want that kind of crappy, one-sided sex.
> 
> Sex is not my job, nor his. It is not my duty, nor his. It is not something I do for him. Sex is something we have because we _want_ to. It's for "us."


I think this is the most honest view

but to be really consistent, you need to admit that this extends to EVERYTHING in the relationship

basically, you both only do stuff you want to do when you each want to.

if you don't want to do it, you don't

if the other person doesn't want to, you don't blame them for that, because you're doing the same thing

to the extent your wants overlap enough, that's where your relationship is 

another way of looking at this is there really is no relationship, just two people each living a life where there happens to be overlap

if you extend this out logically and grow uncomfortable with these types of implications, then that may reveal that you are not being internally consistent


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@anon1111 to be internally consistent wouldn't your name have to be anon0000?
Or NullBlank or NullZLS or AnonNobody or Someone1111111


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

I would like to add this to the discussion..........

IMHO too much emphasis is put on hormones being the big driver in desire, the mind is a more important contributor to drive.

Yes I would be considered very HD based on the previous definition given in this thread but it is not and never been solely based on hormones. I never had an urge to procreate, I sailed through menopause and have lived in a past sexless marriage where I remained faithful. I enjoy good sex, sex simply for the sake of it without any huge hormonal push and I know many women like this.

We have had various men here state that for them, sex later in life is more about connection and emotional fulfillment. We had a thread about why men desire sex with their wives, for emotional connection and to show love, Vega for one argued this but I fully believe that men can and do have sex for emotional connection. Which bring me to the most important factor, the lesson learnt the hard way, men with a high EQ are the prize catches.

Men can and do have sex even with lower T. Women can and do have sex post menopause. They are like this because the driver in desire is their brain.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Nora,
> I hope your body is more cooperative than M2's. It will make life easier for both of you.
> 
> And I hope - whatever happens - you two stay overall synchronized. Sex is obviously only part of that.
> ...


After 30 years and having gone through hell and back together, no surprises between us, trust me. We know exactly what we're getting into, lol. My 48 year old body is not a surprise to me, either. Barring any illnesses or just plain getting old, we know what our sex life is about and what it means to us.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Wazza,

This is the 'hot iron' question. People either shy away from it or play the unconditional vow card. Meaning that the vow to forsake is unconditional. 

I have yet to see anyone try to seriously address this contradiction which looks like this: 
- My desire is low - so I'm gonna pretend sex isn't that important
While loudly asserting
- If you do that unimportant thing with anyone else, I'm divorcing you and telling everyone what a bad person you are









Wazza said:


> Vega, I'm interested in your take on a question that has been acknowledged in this thread.
> 
> If you were in a relationship, and your significant other felt they needed sex but you didn't, would it be a good thing or a bad thing if they just met that need elsewhere? What is your answer to that question, and what are your reasons for your answer, whatever it might be?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

TheTruthHurts said:


> A missing dynamic in this discussion is the issue of spontaneous versus responsive desire.
> 
> Left alone I doubt my wife would ever think of having sex and will never initiate. Thanks to TAM and a sex therapist I no longer see those facts as rejection - it's just her nature.
> 
> ...


Some people get around responsive desire by not limiting "sexy" to the bedroom when it's "time" to have sex. Flirting, affection, teasing, being playful, dating your spouse - that keeps the home fires burning so you aren't starting from zero each time.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

norajane said:


> The way I see it, if we're having sex 95% of the time because we both want it, that other 5% when one of us doesn't want it is only 5% and the "wanter" can - and _should _- wait until both want it. No passion, no desire, no point. Otherwise, that 5% will turn into 10%, 15%, and eventually, one of us would walk away because we wouldn't want that kind of crappy, one-sided sex.


Agreed. With the following caveat. If the 95% of the time that both want it generally produces sufficient frequency that both are satisfied, fine for the wanter to wait. If waiting for both to be in the mood results in a persistent and substantial gap between the desired and the achieved frequency, then the wanter is well advised not to wait, but to get out.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Wazza,
> 
> This is the 'hot iron' question. People either shy away from it or play the unconditional vow card. Meaning that the vow to forsake is unconditional.
> 
> ...


I think this disconnect reveals that for some people it is more about a power/control dynamic than sex per se


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I think this is the most honest view
> 
> but to be really consistent, you need to admit that this extends to EVERYTHING in the relationship
> 
> ...


Nope - we do things we have to do in order to live the lives we want. We do dishes, we pay bills, we trim the hedges, we grocery shop, we we do lots of sh*t we don't want to do on a daily basis. 

Putting sex in that same category of "sh*t we have to do" kills the joy of sex. I do not have sex because I HAVE to.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I think it's helpful to take it out of the marriage context

if you're just two people, neither of you has to do anything

50,000 yrs ago, there was no such thing as marriage-- did anyone talk (or grunt) about this stuff then?

has the idea of marriage really altered the day to day aspects of desire or interaction between men and women? I'm pretty skeptical that it has


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@norajane believe me I've been working on this for several years. W and I are affectionate all the time, kisses and I love you's - but she is not sexual at all unless it's night time in bed.

Her nature. I've gotten her to wear leggings finally and clothes that slightly reveal a shake of some sort (she's quite fit) but it's me pushing, pushing and I just don't want to do that too much.

I am sexual by nature and don't really have any hang ups or privacy issues. She's the opposite.

So that's fine but I'm in the drivers seat 100% of the time and she defers to be on sex at night.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

norajane said:


> Nope - we do things we have to do in order to live the lives we want. We do dishes, we pay bills, we trim the hedges, we grocery shop, we we do lots of sh*t we don't want to do on a daily basis.
> 
> Putting sex in that same category of "sh*t we have to do" kills the joy of sex. I do not have sex because I HAVE to.


you don't actually have to do any of that stuff either though

how do you decide between stuff you "have to do to live the lives you want" and the other stuff?

how do you decide that sex on any particular day is not within the category of things you need to have the life you want?

what happens if the other person has a different view?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Agreed. With the following caveat. If the 95% of the time that both want it generally produces sufficient frequency that both are satisfied, fine for the wanter to wait. If waiting for both to be in the mood results in a persistent and substantial gap between the desired and the achieved frequency, then the wanter is well advised not to wait, but to get out.


Yep - there is a PROBLEM when there is a persistent and substantial gap, absolutely. Often it's buried under other marital issues and layers of resentment, or there is a general mismatch in drives. Depending on the actual couple in question, they may or may not need to get out, but they for sure need to address the problem leading to the lack of sex rather than expecting one of them to "just do it."


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> you don't actually have to do any of that stuff either though
> 
> how do you decide between stuff you "have to do to live the lives you want" and the other stuff?
> 
> ...


Honestly, I don't get the question. It seems obvious that we sure do have to do those things or we will be hungry, not have clean dishes, the car won't run for lack of oil, the electric company will turn off our power, and the credit card companies will be happy we are racking up enormous interest charges, etc. Sex is not a chore, and trying to equate it to chores you have to do or else takes the fun out of it.

I'm not with someone who wants or expects me to have sex if I'm not into it, so I don't have this issue. We have a great sex life, and we do not limit our sexuality to the bedroom when it's "time." We took our sweet time committing to marriage, so again, no surprises here. I feel bad that others are not in sexual sync with their partners. I often feel most people marry FAR too quickly, long, long before they know either themselves or their partner well enough to commit to a lifetime of anything, much less sex.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Vega said:


> Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to be a limit at the opposite end of the spectrum. We can have too little, but not too much? I mean, at what point does it become "too much"? Does it EVER become "too much"?


Sex addiction is too much. When you are compulsive and hurt yourself and others it is too much.



Vega said:


> And I think that may be part of the problem with an LD. No matter how much sex you give the HD, they always seem to want MORE.
> 
> Is there a point where the HD says, "Enough!"?


At my age more than twice a day is too much. Pre-kid my wife and I sustained 4x per day. I don't think it caused problems.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Responsive desire is a myth. It's purpose is to soothe the feelings of the undesired and to soothe the guilt of the undesiring. 

Sexual compatibility is a myth that attempts to explain good timing. If there is compatibility, it's in generosity and commitment. Done right, it seems like sexual compatibility and it might even be for a defined piece of time, but overall and forever? Unlikely.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

norajane said:


> We have a great sex life, and we do not limit our sexuality to the bedroom when it's "time."




The "time" part mostly concerns people with kids, I think. Or at least young kids.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

jld said:


> The "time" part mostly concerns people with kids, I think. Or at least young kids.


Could be. I have no doubt it's more challenging when there are kids underfoot. All I know is I remember the parents parking me in front of the tv some afternoons and locking their bedroom door. It took me a long time to figure out they weren't just "taking a nap." :surprise:


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> another way of looking at this is there really is no relationship, just two people each living a life where there happens to be overlap


This!


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

norajane said:


> Honestly, I don't get the question. It seems obvious that we sure do have to do those things or we will be hungry, not have clean dishes, the car won't run for lack of oil, the electric company will turn off our power, and the credit card companies will be happy we are racking up enormous interest charges, etc. Sex is not a chore, and trying to equate it to chores you have to do or else takes the fun out of it.
> 
> I'm not with someone who wants or expects me to have sex if I'm not into it, so I don't have this issue. We have a great sex life, and we do not limit our sexuality to the bedroom when it's "time." We took our sweet time committing to marriage, so again, no surprises here. I feel bad that others are not in sexual sync with their partners. I often feel most people marry FAR too quickly, long, long before they know either themselves or their partner well enough to commit to a lifetime of anything, much less sex.


OK, my point is that you say you need to have a properly functioning house, car, etc

there are people in the world who live without this stuff and are fine with it. it is possible, even if it does not seem possible to you

there are people in the world who cannot conceive of living life without frequent good sex. 

for these people, this is more important than having a house or a car. there are people who would rather live in a cardboard box and have a good sex life than live in a mansion and be celibate. 

you say it's not really a need, but all this means is it's not YOUR need. other people will disagree

the only thing anyone can say with certainty is what their individual needs are. that is my point


----------



## philreag (Apr 2, 2015)

YES, sex and affection.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

wild jade said:


> Yes absolutely, sex is the bottom line! Without it, I am depressed and irritable. I'll do almost anything for it.





Vega said:


> Why?


Why do some people become irrational and angry when hungry. There is no logic in it, and for many it gets in the way of eating. My son has sat in his bedroom rather than eating dinner with us because he acts like a little turd and causes trouble. He repeats this over and over again, self defeating getting the food he needs.

Sex can be similar. I feel ill at ease after a few days without. Getting a release at the two day mark feels soooo good. My mind alters greatly in a 10 second span.

If you don't experience somerhing like it, i'm sure it is hard to understand.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> Honestly, I don't get the question. It seems obvious that we sure do have to do those things or we will be hungry, not have clean dishes, the car won't run for lack of oil, the electric company will turn off our power, and the credit card companies will be happy we are racking up enormous interest charges, etc. Sex is not a chore, and trying to equate it to chores you have to do or else takes the fun out of it.
> 
> I'm not with someone who wants or expects me to have sex if I'm not into it, so I don't have this issue. We have a great sex life, and we do not limit our sexuality to the bedroom when it's "time." We took our sweet time committing to marriage, so again, no surprises here. I feel bad that others are not in sexual sync with their partners. I often feel most people marry FAR too quickly, long, long before they know either themselves or their partner well enough to commit to a lifetime of anything, much less sex.


What happens if you want to see movie A and your SO wants to see movie B?

It seems that your answer might be; "He goes to see A while I go to another theater to see B".

You prefer restaurant A, he'd prefer restaurant B.

You'd like to spend a wonderful day outside, he'd rather watch a major sporting event on TV.

Would you only see each other on days when your preferences exactly coincide? 

Or, it could be that you just see sex as being completely different than anything else; in which case we can dispense with the analogies.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Working,

I don't know why you believe that. M2 is classic responsive desire. And she has been for all but the first year. 

That includes a 15 year time period during which we had a steady frequency of 3-4 a week. 





WorkingOnMe said:


> Responsive desire is a myth. It's purpose is to soothe the feelings of the undesired and to soothe the guilt of the undesiring.
> 
> Sexual compatibility is a myth that attempts to explain good timing. If there is compatibility, it's in generosity and commitment. Done right, it seems like sexual compatibility and it might even be for a defined piece of time, but overall and forever? Unlikely.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Wazza,
> 
> This is the 'hot iron' question. People either shy away from it or play the unconditional vow card. Meaning that the vow to forsake is unconditional.
> 
> ...


It is, but I didn't ask it to make a point. I was genuinely interested in how Vega would answer it as a way to understand her perspective more. 

I don't think there is a perfect answer to the original question she posed. If there is, I certainly don't have it. Beyond the obvious, that there is more to marriage than sex, and you can't always expect your partner to be 100% aligned to what you want, but if you can't find a workable compromise in the long term it's likely not to be pretty.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> OK, my point is that you say you need to have a properly functioning house, car, etc
> 
> there are people in the world who live without this stuff and are fine with it. it is possible, even if it does not seem possible to you
> 
> ...


Well, that is my point as well. Those people who live happily in cardboard boxes should find other people who like to live in cardboard boxes rather than expecting someone to live in a cardboard box when they don't want to becasue they "owe" them some duty cardboard box living. I'm not with a guy like that.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> What happens if you want to see movie A and your SO wants to see movie B?
> 
> It seems that your answer might be; "He goes to see A while I go to another theater to see B".
> 
> ...


Sex is absolutely, 1000000% different from anything else. If it weren't, all those people who are not having the sex lives they want would be happy to subsitute something else. And they are not. NOTHING but sex will do because nothing is like sex.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> Sex is absolutely, 1000000% different from anything else. If it weren't, all those people who are not having the sex lives they want would be happy to subsitute something else. And they are not. NOTHING but sex will do because nothing is like sex.


That's what I thought.

It would be a whole lot easier if people who think that would just say so right at the start.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> That's what I thought.
> 
> It would be a whole lot easier if people who think that would just say so right at the start.


You mean there are people who think sex is like something else? What do they think it is like?

In this thread, there are people who can take it or leave it, can't live without it, must have it but along with other elements, only have it when they want to, take one for the team, and many more replies. None of them have mentioned that they think sex is just like ___ so they would forgo sex as long as they have ___ instead. 

Or do you mean some people think having sex is like doing other things that you do for your spouse? Yes, there are a lot of people who see it that way. I do not. That can be a huge disconnect for couples, absolutely.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> Responsive desire is a myth. It's purpose is to soothe the feelings of the undesired and to soothe the guilt of the undesiring.
> 
> Sexual compatibility is a myth that attempts to explain good timing. If there is compatibility, it's in generosity and commitment. Done right, it seems like sexual compatibility and it might even be for a defined piece of time, but overall and forever? Unlikely.


The dark side of my mind finds this an attractive line of thought, and it's a thought that flits through from time to time. If I allowed myself to believe it, I think it would be the most depressing thing in the world.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

Vega said:


> So tell me...is it REALLY the end all to BE all?


Why must this boil down to one size fits all?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> I realized that if I had to choose, I'd rather have LOTS of affection and a little sex rather than LOTS of sex and little to non-existent affection. Of course, I'd REALLY rather have a good balance of BOTH.
> 
> I wonder if THAT exists...


Yes, it does! Make it so.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Everything is different from everything else. People make analogies in an unsuccessful attempt to get past the problem that sex is different to different people. 

Food, air, water, shelter, security. Nothing can substitute for any of these.


Sex is unusual in some ways 

In most cases it is only socially acceptable to have sex with your partner.

For most people sex that they want is wonderful, but sex that they do not want is terrible. 

If a couple is not matched in sexual desires, it is very difficult for them to be happy: one must do without what they want, or the other must do things that they dislike. 





norajane said:


> Sex is absolutely, 1000000% different from anything else. If it weren't, all those people who are not having the sex lives they want would be happy to subsitute something else. And they are not. NOTHING but sex will do because nothing is like sex.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Working,
> 
> I don't know why you believe that. M2 is classic responsive desire. And she has been for all but the first year.
> 
> That includes a 15 year time period during which we had a steady frequency of 3-4 a week.


Agreed. There's plenty of research to indicate that it's real.

I'm not sure what the upside is of not believing it and insisting that women are exactly like men and only want to have sex with men they're "into". Especially when that isn't even true of men.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> You mean there are people who think sex is like something else? What do they think it is like?
> 
> In this thread, there are people who can take it or leave it, can't live without it, must have it but along with other elements, only have it when they want to, take one for the team, and many more replies. None of them have mentioned that they think sex is just like ___ so they would forgo sex as long as they have ___ instead.
> 
> *Or do you mean some people think having sex is like doing other things that you do for your spouse?* Yes, there are a lot of people who see it that way. I do not. That can be a huge disconnect for couples, absolutely.


The bolded. Not that sex is only done for your spouse's benefit, but that it is something you would want to work on if your spouse wasn't happy. It is something where compromises can be made if you and your partner aren't on the same page at the same time (like which movie to see).

People who think like this have a very hard time understanding how someone who professes to love them and care about their happiness can blow something like this off just because they "aren't in the mood" at the moment.

If sex isn't like that, then you're pretty much just dependent on dumb luck. Even if you were sexually synced through marriage, childbirth, etc. All of a sudden menopause or Low-T comes along and "poof" no more sex because it's not like anything else, it can't be compromised on, if you don't feel like it you can't do it (and it's not really even appropriate for your spouse to ask you to* try* and do anything about it). It seems selfish and self-centered to me, but I guess it's just the way our brains are wired.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

norajane said:


> Those people who live happily in cardboard boxes should find other people who like to live in cardboard boxes rather than expecting someone to live in a cardboard box when they don't want to


You're confusing me. Either it's all about doing whatever we want or it's not and it's just that sex is a special circumstance.

Because, if it's really just about not doing anything you don't want to do... then, as Anon1111 says below, I'm really not sure that it qualifies as a relationship.



Anon1111 said:


> basically, you both only do stuff you want to do when you each want to.
> 
> if you don't want to do it, you don't
> 
> ...


I think it may be that, by chance, you and your partner are well synced at the moment (or your SO is just doing what you want which makes it *seem* like you're in sync). 

I hope it lasts.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I hope it lasts.


Thank you for your good wishes.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> If sex isn't like that, then you're pretty much just dependent on dumb luck. Even if you were sexually synced through marriage, childbirth, etc. All of a sudden menopause or Low-T comes along and "poof" no more sex because it's not like anything else, it can't be compromised on, if you don't feel like it you can't do it (and it's not really even appropriate for your spouse to ask you to* try* and do anything about it). It seems selfish and self-centered to me, but I guess it's just the way our brains are wired.


Here it is assumed that the fact the wife does not want sex implies there is something wrong with her. 

What about inspiring her? Like talking her love language?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Duguesclin said:


> Here it is assumed that the fact the wife does not want sex implies there is something wrong with her.
> 
> What about inspiring her? Like talking her love language?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My comment was gender neutral.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> I have yet to see anyone try to seriously address this contradiction which looks like this:
> - My desire is low - so I'm gonna pretend sex isn't that important
> While loudly asserting
> - If you do that unimportant thing with anyone else, I'm divorcing you and telling everyone what a bad person you are


The answer to that is pretty simple:

"Have at it, I'm off to get some sex with Jim/Jen!"

If a marital partner won't behave like a spouse, there's no need to be polite when smashing the crockery.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Anon1111 said:


> another way of looking at this is there really is no relationship, just two people each living a life where there happens to be overlap


But that's what all relationships are isn't it? Two independent people muddling through and figuring out how to live with each other.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> My comment was gender neutral.


Yes it was unlike @Duguesclin's response



Duguesclin said:


> Here it is assumed that the fact the wife does not want sex implies there is something wrong with her.
> 
> What about inspiring her? Like talking her love language?


Does anyone else have the impression that all of this inspirational rhetoric is meaningless nonsense?


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> smashing the crockery.


I know you didn't mean it that way, but this is my new euphemism for sex.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Personal said:


> Yes it was unlike @Duguesclin's response
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have the impression that all of this inspirational rhetoric is meaningless nonsense?


Why is inspiring your wife meaningless nonsense?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> Why is inspiring your wife meaningless nonsense?


It's not meaningless, you are right, it's actually good. But it's not enough. 

I think there's enough research on changes to sexual desire over time, changes in hormone levels as we age, impact of kids, etc, to suggest that there is a real problem here to deal with. Just the accounts of some of the women on this thread is enough to make a start.

My personal experience is that, during small children motherhood, some wives develop an additional love language of "Come near me with that thing and I'll chop it off!!!!!"


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Personal said:


> Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshi*. Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, 549–563.


Now that is an example of a nonsense answer.

Try again, Personal. Why is inspiring a wife to desire sex with her husband meaningless nonsense? 

Frankly, what other way is there? Coercion?


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Wazza said:


> It's not meaningless, you are right, it's actually good. But it's not enough.
> 
> I think there's enough research on changes to sexual desire over time, changes in hormone levels as we age, impact of kids, etc, to suggest that there is a real problem here to deal with. Just the accounts of some of the women on this thread is enough to make a start.
> 
> My personal experience is that, during small children motherhood, some wives develop an additional love language of "Come near me with that thing and I'll chop it off!!!!!"


I would say it differently. I agree changes in a woman's life, like motherhood or menopause may have a negative impact on the sexual drive. However blaming it all on the woman is not right. The man needs to be there for her. I think it is essential he inspire her instead of blaming or threatening her.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

jld said:


> Now that is an example of a nonsense answer.


Which was exactly my point.



jld said:


> Try again, Personal. Why is inspiring a wife to desire sex with her husband meaningless nonsense?





Duguesclin said:


> What about inspiring her? Like talking her love language?


Speaking the same language isn't particularly inspirational. What @Duguesclin wrote as quoted above was pretty hollow.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> I would say it differently. I agree changes in a woman's life, like motherhood or menopause may have a negative impact on the sexual drive. However blaming it all on the woman is not right. The man needs to be there for her. I think it is essential he inspire her instead of blaming or threatening her.


There is a place for that. 

But when there is a severe mismatch, I think there is a high probability of infidelity, divorce or both, as a result of unmet need.

I don't especially take pleasure in rubbing my wife's feet for its own sake, but I take pleasure in the enjoyment she receives. It's a gift I can give. I think it's possible to feel the same way about sex. You can enjoy your lust being sated or you can enjoy the pleasure you give to someone you care about. 

If I can't find that mindset, and I am a spouse who never does footrubs, I suspect that is less likely to end in divorce than never sharing sexual intimacy. 

And, of course, it's not always the woman who is the LD partner.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Personal said:


> Which was exactly my point.


I don't think that was your point.



> Speaking the same language isn't particularly inspirational. What @Duguesclin wrote as quoted above was pretty hollow.


I think speaking a wife's love language is quite substantive. It is one of the most effective ways to inspire her love, devotion, and passion.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Personal said:


> Which was exactly my point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Love languages are a single useful idea, but not a universal panacea by a long way.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> There is a place for that.
> 
> But when there is a severe mismatch, I think there is a high probability of infidelity, divorce or both, as a result of unmet need.
> 
> ...


What is your point here? That the LD should just do it, to please the HD spouse?

I don't think that is going to work long term, not with a spouse who has some self-respect.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

jld said:


> I don't think that was your point.


Then you are mistaken and your judgement and or comprehension in this instance is flawed.



jld said:


> I think speaking a wife's love language is quite substantive. It is one of the most effective ways to inspire her love, devotion, and passion.


Speaking a love language is no more substantive than two people speaking to each other in English or any other shared language. The substance is found in the content not in the means.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Personal said:


> Then you are mistaken and your judgement and or comprehension in this instance is flawed.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one, Personal.



> Speaking a love language is no more substantive than two people speaking to each other in English or any other shared language. The substance is found in the content not in the means.


Speaking a spouse's love language is making a deposit in their emotional bank account. Love languages are not necessarily shared, either. 

Not sure what you are trying to say in your last sentence.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

I think the bottom line is that men complaining about a LD spouse often do not want to lift one finger. They want to sit, whine and be served.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

jld said:


> Speaking a spouse's love language is making a deposit in their emotional bank account. Love languages are not necessarily shared, either.
> 
> Not sure what you are trying to say in your last sentence.


Actually the content of what is communicated is what one deposits, the method of that content delivery is simply the means through which that content is delivered.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Personal said:


> Actually the content of what is communicated is what one deposits, the method of that content delivery is simply the means through which that content is delivered.


Well, I think you are splitting hairs here. If Dug spends an afternoon with me, I have received Quality Time from him, which happens to be one of my love languages. Whether we walk in the park or go to a museum together, it is Quality Time. And either one is going to give me warm feelings towards him.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Duguesclin said:


> I think the bottom line is that men complaining about a LD spouse often do not want to lift one finger. They want to sit, whine and be served.


Some...yes.

Some work their tail off to no avail.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> What is your point here? That the LD should just do it, to please the HD spouse?
> 
> I don't think that is going to work long term, not with a spouse who has some self-respect.


Do I lack self respect when I rub my wife's feet?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> Try again, Personal. Why is inspiring a wife to desire sex with her husband meaningless nonsense? ?


This isn't Gene Hackman in "Hoosiers" or John Wooden inspiring his UCLA team to ten in a row... 

Inspiration in general is getting people to perform a bit more, to go the extra mile. And so on. If someone is not in their right mindset to be intimate, or is averse, no amount of inspirational quotes will get her to go along. It used to, at a younger age when she did not know better, but not today.


----------



## musicftw07 (Jun 23, 2016)

I have different kinds of love for different women. My friend T is a woman I've known since high school. 18 years later, she is one of my best friends and I love her. Just not romantically. She's like a sister to me.

My girlfriend P inspires every bit of romance I have in my body. And we are extremely sexually compatible. But there is also so much more to our interactions and love than just sex. Yes, we're friends first...but we were also highly attracted to each other, and the more we got to know about each other the more our feelings grew. It was a combination of friendship, mutual interests and respect, and attraction.

Sex is a fundamental basis for romantic love. Many other aspects come into play with romantic love, but sex is the end result. If the sex stops, the romantic love becomes friendly love or familial love in nature, if there's even love left to be had at that point.

But romantic sex doesn't happen in a vacuum. (Casual sex does sometimes, but I didn't get the impression that was the context in which the OP initially made this thread.) There has to be something more between the two partners in order for romantic sex to occur.

Sex doesn't make a relationship, but it can break a relationship. That's why you see so many people in relationships talking desperately about it. It *is* a completely natural biological function, but there are many social stigmas and expectations attached to it.

OP, like you I have had many sexual dry periods since my divorce a few years ago. I've also had many periods of sexual activity. And in spite of being HD, I did just fine during the dry spells. Sex isn't the "end all/be all". But it is a natural expression of attraction at minimum, and love at best.

I highly enjoy sex for what it is, but I also don't artificially inflate its value to the point where I would ever suggest a person couldn't be happy without sex. Sure they can. The issue is if they're partnered and they unilaterally make the decision to be sexless, which impacts their partner against their will.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> I think the bottom line is that men complaining about a LD spouse often do not want to lift one finger. They want to sit, whine and be served.


Cost benefit analysis is your friend.

At some point it becomes 95% effort for 5% gain. Not worth it by any stretch of the imagination. Getting angry about it is useful as a reminder of what needs to be done.


----------



## musicftw07 (Jun 23, 2016)

john117 said:


> Cost benefit analysis is your friend.
> 
> At some point it becomes 95% effort for 5% gain. Not worth it by any stretch of the imagination. Getting angry about it is useful as a reminder of what needs to be done.


Excellent assessment.

At some point, men learn that there's no benefit to continually bang our heads against that wall. It doesn't do any good or produce any results, no matter how hard we try or what we do.

Yet, the expectation seems to be that we continue to do so.

I'm perfectly willing to put in effort and do my part, but I expect reciprocation. If there is none, it shouldn't come as a shock if the effort dries up.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Wazza,
That theme - offering - wanting to give - that's definitely the vibe M2 brings to bed. 

It would be a whole different dynamic if she stuck her foot in your lap and looked expectantly at you. 

Sort of the deal here. I don't initiate. Maybe twice in the last two years. It is often one sided - doesn't seem right to ask for a one sided encounter. 

It's true that M2 knows I expect her to make some amount of effort, but I leave the actual choice of - how much - to her. 





Wazza said:


> There is a place for that.
> 
> But when there is a severe mismatch, I think there is a high probability of infidelity, divorce or both, as a result of unmet need.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Wazza,
> That theme - offering - wanting to give - that's definitely the vibe M2 brings to bed.
> 
> It would be a whole different dynamic if she stuck her foot in your lap and looked expectantly at you.
> ...


That's generosity in action. well done.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

jld said:


> What is your point here? That the LD should just do it, to please the HD spouse?
> 
> I don't think that is going to work long term, not with a spouse who has some self-respect.



You're missing the point. It's not to please your spouse--exactly--it's that you take pleasure (for yourself) in pleasing your spouse. Both win.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> ...........................
> 
> I realized that if I had to choose, I'd rather have LOTS of affection and a little sex rather than LOTS of sex and little to non-existent affection. Of course, *I'd REALLY rather have a good balance of BOTH.
> 
> I wonder if THAT exists.*..


Of course it does.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Do I lack self respect when I rub my wife's feet?


Are you doing it out of guilt and obligation? Are you doing it to *incur* guilt and obligation in your partner? Because if you are, then I don't think that is going to work long term either. 

And wasn't one of you saying that sex is different than affection? That it is that special thing that separates the marital relationship from any other? 

And now you are equating it with rubbing feet? And trying to set up some sort of transaction?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> What is your point here? That the LD should just do it, to please the HD spouse?
> 
> I don't think that is going to work long term, not with a spouse who has some self-respect.





Duguesclin said:


> I think the bottom line is that men complaining about a LD spouse often do not want to lift one finger. They want to sit, whine and be served.





jld said:


> Are you doing it out of guilt and obligation? Are you doing it to *incur* guilt and obligation in your partner? Because if you are, then I don't think that is going to work long term either.
> 
> And wasn't one of you saying that sex is different than affection? That it is that special thing that separates the marital relationship from any other?
> 
> And now you are equating it with rubbing feet? And trying to set up some sort of transaction?


What is love language other than a transaction?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> You're missing the point. It's not to please your spouse--exactly--it's that you take pleasure (for yourself) in pleasing your spouse. Both win.


So if your wife does not really want to do it, then she should not be pressured, correct? 

I don't think you are going to get around inspiring her, Fozzy. And inspiration is not about guilt or force or control or obligation. It is about loving and serving and living a life of integrity. And leaving people to their free will.

Honestly, there is such an undercurrent of entitlement to sex in this conversation. And if I can feel it, I can only imagine how much the actual wives must feel it. No wonder sexy times in those marriages are few and far between. 

I really wonder why the women stay at all. It must be for the kids.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> What is love language other than a transaction?


It can be used that way, like a technique to close a sale. But it certainly does not *have* to be. 

I would urge any man learning his wife's love languages to do so in a spirit of truly wanting to understand and nurture her. If you are just setting up a covert contract, you may end up disappointed.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Some...yes.
> 
> *Some work their tail off to no avail.*
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Someone who fits this description and comes to mind is @richardsharpe. Perfect gentleman. I do not hear any bitterness in him, no sense of entitlement. 

All I can conclude is that there must not be a strong physical attraction between him and his wife. Maybe it was always more of a friendship, an intellectual attraction.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> It can be used that way, like a technique to close a sale. But it certainly does not *have* to be.
> 
> I would urge any man learning his wife's love languages to do so in a spirit of truly wanting to understand and nurture her. If you are just setting up a covert contract, you may end up disappointed.


I never advocated covert contracts. Dug did.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

Vega said:


> So tell me...is it REALLY the end all to BE all? And if so,
> 
> WHY??????


Sex, like air, money, time, affection, food, shelter, clean water, healthcare, and fair paying employment, is only important if you're not getting _enough_. Sadly everyone has different levels.

For some people, they need the closeness of others. Some its a fascination. So they've come to view it as personal validation.

It is exercise, it should release endorphins (including dopamine), it should release heaps of oxytocin. for many people it comes with a surge of testosterone (which gives feels of purpose and desire and control). 

for some it is social validation, and the only security and belonging property that is consistent in their lives - without it they suffer depression and rejection because that's what they have always grown up with.

So find an expression of themselves, both in Anima and Animus in each person. 
For some it gives a feeling of special importance, that this only thing in all of the social and control stuff in the world is specially for them from someone they respect.

for some it is a means to reproduction, as a duty to their ancestors and family line, and a means to reinvent themselves in a better world with themselves as adult guide, or even as a means to theoretical fantasy of unconditional love.

For some the shear fact that others what what they've got makes them feel like more important people than they are from effort or work alone - especially if they have always been plagued with self doubt.

...for some it's a hormone dose that helps them sleep... or a way of dealing with raging hormones/endorphins that are stopping them from sleeping.

For some it comes with the role they are expected to play, so they determine that they will be good at it.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> I never advocated covert contracts. Dug did.


I doubt it. If he practiced that, I would surely know, Wazza. Our sex life is based on his inspiring me.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



jld said:


> Honestly, there is such an undercurrent of entitlement to sex in this conversation. And if I can feel it, I can only imagine how much the actual wives must feel it. No wonder sexy times in those marriages are few and far between.


There is entitlement in regards to all needs when they are not met in a relationship. Sex is no different.

I could choose to stop listening to my wife when she wants to have intimate conversation (or just wants to vent). She feels she is entitled to my listening to her, and gets mad when I don't. Hell, if I don't get certain details of our conversation right during recall, she gets mad.

I know you get hurt when Dug does not spend enough quality time with you.

So are we really going to somehow make this about entitlement and needs? Pot, meet kettle.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



farsidejunky said:


> There is entitlement in regards to all needs when they are not met in a relationship. Sex is no different.
> 
> I could choose to stop listening to my wife when she wants to have intimate conversation (or just wants to vent). She feels she is entitled to my listening to her, and gets mad when I don't. Hell, if I don't get certain details of our conversation right during recall, she gets mad.
> 
> ...


*I* am not the one here complaining about not getting enough sex, far. And even the quality time issue has receded since my trip to Spain. I just do not feel as needy as before.

And yes, I do think many of the men here feel entitled to sex. And I think that entitlement is going to continue to bring them disappointment.

Basing a relationship on demanding equality is going to frustrate you. Basing it on love and inspiration, if you are able to, will be more fulfilling.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> *I* am not the one here complaining about not getting enough sex, far. And even the quality time issue has receded since my trip to Spain. I just do not feel as needy as before.
> 
> And yes, I do think many of the men here feel entitled to sex. And I think that entitlement is going to continue to bring them disappointment.
> 
> Basing a relationship on demanding equality is going to frustrate you. Basing it on love and inspiration, if you are able to, will be more fulfilling.


I am not advocating a relationship based on equality. The more I have thought about it, the more I think the entire idea of investing in the relationship only what stops one from being resentful is really key. @Anon1111 talks about this often, and it makes sense.

This actually falls in line with your thought. Since nobody is truly selfless in a relationship, and entitlement also builds resentment, to me this makes the most sense.

The more I think about this, the more I believe DeMello had it right. No more number 3's. Hell, even 2's can become 3's when expectation is placed upon them.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



farsidejunky said:


> I am not advocating a relationship based on equality. The more I have thought about it, the more I think the entire idea of investing in the relationship only what stops one from being resentful is really key. @Anon1111 talks about this often, and it makes sense.
> 
> This actually falls in line with your thought. Since nobody is truly selfless in a relationship, and entitlement also builds resentment, to me this makes the most sense.
> 
> ...


If I were you, far, I would look to Jesus as the example of what a man should be. That is what Dug does.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> If I were you, far, I would look to Jesus as the example of what a man should be. That is what Dug does.


Would you also give that advice to my wife?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*

​


farsidejunky said:


> Would you also give that advice to my wife?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Was Jesus a woman?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> ​
> Was Jesus a woman?


Let me stand up in front of my church tomorrow and tell the congregation that females no longer should follow the teachings of Jesus because he had testicles...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



farsidejunky said:


> Let me stand up in front of my church tomorrow and tell the congregation that they no longer should follow the teachings of Jesus because he had testicles...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Far. You know what Jesus would tell you. Why do you fight it?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> Far. You know what Jesus would tell you. Why do you fight it?


I would pose the exact question back to you, but you seem to have latched on to something that is indicated nowhere in the bible, at least in any version I have read.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



farsidejunky said:


> I would pose the exact question back to you, but you seem to have latched on to something that is indicated nowhere in the bible, at least in any version I have read.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Do the right thing, far. Be the example of love and inspiration that Jesus was. He was not looking out for himself.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Far, do you feel like you cannot do this without your wife's help? Is that the stumbling block?

Maybe that is the problem with all of the men complaining about sex deficits? They do not feel they can improve things without the help of their wives?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> Do the right thing, far. Be the example of love and inspiration that Jesus was. He was not looking out for himself.


The flesh is weak.

And you have avoided answering where you think He indicated selflessness is a male-only endeavor...

Does this also mean that the multitudes of female saints were not following His teachings by serving and being selfless?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



farsidejunky said:


> The flesh is weak.
> 
> And you have avoided answering where you think He indicated selflessness is a male-only endeavor...
> 
> ...


I think if Jesus were here, he would be speaking to the men, far. I think you are trying to avoid facing that.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

notmyrealname4 said:


> MrsHolland,
> 
> I find all this really interesting.
> 
> ...


Honestly I don't know but given a level playing field ie being with a man that I desire and who desires me then I don't think my drive has changed all that much over the course of my adult life.
I don't feel driven by an urge that I would consider hormonal, I simply enjoy sex. 
The having more sex post menopause is more a logistical issue and not hormonal. Mr H and I now live together, the combined gang of youths are now a lot more self sufficient so the opportunity for he and I to enjoy each other has greatly increased.

My ex loved me but I would say he was more scared of me than "not into me", it was quite the mismatch. But even through a sexless marriage I was not driven by any hormonal rush, I simply let my mind do its job and I remained faithful and hopeful right till the end. The sexlessness caused my health to suffer greatly as well as my self esteem, to me that says the blow to my being was mental, not hormonal.

I really don't want to depress anyone  Sometimes my happiness is very self centered but there is no intent to upset anyone going through a hard time. BTDT and know the pain.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> If I were you, far, I would look to Jesus as the example of what a man should be. That is what Dug does.


If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Matthew 10:35

Is that what Dug does?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Personal said:


> If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
> 
> For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Matthew 10:35
> 
> Is that what Dug does?


He certainly chooses me over his family, Personal. 

That loyalty is part of what inspires my trust in him. And that trust leads to physical union.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> He certainly chooses me over his family, Personal.
> 
> That loyalty is part of what inspires my trust in him. And that trust leads to physical union.


Then perhaps Dug is a far better man than Jesus, as described in the bible who has no problem with slavery, admonishes people for not killing their children and seeks to destroy families.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Personal said:


> Then perhaps Dug is a far better man than Jesus, as described in the bible who has no problem with slavery, admonishes people for not killing their children and seeks to destroy families.


Hmm. I don't remember those things from the gospel readings of my childhood. I do think he was working within some of the parameters of his time, though.

Dug and I think Jesus is inspiring. I think far does, too.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> Hmm. I don't remember those things from the gospel readings of my childhood. I do think he was working within some of the parameters of his time, though.
> 
> Dug and I think Jesus is inspiring. I think far does, too.


Nice to see you excuse moral bankruptcy.

The Bible in both Old and New Testaments is littered with an extraordinary kaleidoscope of repugnant behaviour as conducted, required condoned and or directed by God.

Jesus as described in the Bible was far from being some sort of peacenik hippy.

Personally I don't find wrath, genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny and all the rest that is vile as supposedly wrought by God and fulfilled by Jesus particularly inspirational.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> I think the bottom line is that men complaining about a LD spouse often do not want to lift one finger. They want to sit, whine and be served.


And what about the women complaining about a LD spouse?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Personal said:


> Nice to see you excuse moral bankruptcy.
> 
> The Bible in both Old and New Testaments is littered with an extraordinary kaleidoscope of repugnant behaviour as conducted, required condoned and or directed by God.
> 
> ...


I don't think Jesus ever advised killing children. And I think he was a feminist. 

He was incredibly brave to speak out as much as he did. And he willingly died for it.

Really do not understand your issue with him. But whatever.

Sorry if this is a t/J, @Vega.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> The dark side of my mind finds this an attractive line of thought, and it's a thought that flits through from time to time. If I allowed myself to believe it, I think it would be the most depressing thing in the world.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


it's actually not depressing once you accept it

it's just a binary yes/no question

the elimination of anxiety surrounding "maybe if I did this, 'no' would become 'yes'" is liberating

sh-t is just not that complicated


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> I don't think Jesus ever advised killing children. And I think he was a feminist.


Then you are again mistaken Jesus did more than encourage it he even promised it...

Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death;

There's more but it doesn't matter.

Sex is the bottom line in a sexual relationship, Jesus (which you introduced to this discussion) is entirely superfluous.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Cost benefit analysis is your friend.
> 
> At some point it becomes 95% effort for 5% gain. Not worth it by any stretch of the imagination. Getting angry about it is useful as a reminder of what needs to be done.


I know we've gone around and around on this one, but I think this is a bad way to look at it.

anytime you're doing something in the relationship as a means to another end, you're asking for trouble

when/if the expected payoff doesn't come, you will regret the effort

simply thinking of things in these terms is being on the wrong track

the better way is to simply not play this game. 

do what you want freely with zero expectation or attachment to the act.

if you can successfully implement this, disappointment will be minimal and any favorable act you receive from your partner will be a pure gift, not the payoff in some covert exchange


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Personal said:


> Then you are again mistaken Jesus did more than encourage it he even promised it...
> 
> Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death;


I think you are reaching there, Personal. Killing children is hardly part of the gospel teachings. And those are what Jesus is known for.



> There's more but it doesn't matter.
> 
> Sex is the bottom line in a sexual relationship, Jesus (which you introduced to this discussion) is entirely superfluous.


Not to far, whom I was addressing. I think he is greatly inspired by him. 

I do not think Jesus would encourage self pity nor coercion in marriage. I think he would tell men to inspire their wives.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,
If you cannot hear the anguish in Richard Sharpes posts, than you are absolutely and utterly deaf to male pain. 

And while done reluctantly, he has told his wife a couple times he is getting to his breaking point. 

That said - Richard is a terrific guy - who I respect. 




jld said:


> Someone who fits this description and comes to mind is @richardsharpe. Perfect gentleman. I do not hear any bitterness in him, no sense of entitlement.
> 
> All I can conclude is that there must not be a strong physical attraction between him and his wife. Maybe it was always more of a friendship, an intellectual attraction.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> If you cannot hear the anguish in Richard Sharpes posts, than you are absolutely and utterly deaf to male pain.


I have difficulty reading his posts sometimes, for this very reason.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



farsidejunky said:


> I am not advocating a relationship based on equality. The more I have thought about it, the more I think the entire idea of investing in the relationship only what stops one from being resentful is really key. @Anon1111 talks about this often, and it makes sense.
> 
> This actually falls in line with your thought. Since nobody is truly selfless in a relationship, and entitlement also builds resentment, to me this makes the most sense.
> 
> ...


my thinking is that nobody owes anybody anything

we give to each other, but that is an individual choice

we also each chose what we're willing to accept

ideally, everything you do for another should be a pure gift.

for example, when you give something to your child, you don't expect a payback. everything should be like that

the trouble comes when you deviate from that.

we're all limited, so it is inevitable that we won't be able to maintain this purity with everyone at all times

so when you sense that you can't participate in an interaction without it truly being a gift with no expectation of return, you have two choices: participate anyway (and risk disappointment and resentment if the return does not come) or don't participate.

neither one of these choices is necessarily better, because both are manifestations of the inability to interact without expectation of return

but again, people are limited, so sometimes having insight into ones limitations and the options available to manage that can be helpful


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Personal said:


> Nice to see you excuse moral bankruptcy.
> 
> The Bible in both Old and New Testaments is littered with an extraordinary kaleidoscope of repugnant behaviour as conducted, required condoned and or directed by God.
> 
> ...


keep in mind that the bible was written by ordinary people with their own agendas hundreds of years after jesus' death


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> If you cannot hear the anguish in Richard Sharpes posts, than you are absolutely and utterly deaf to male pain.
> 
> And while done reluctantly, *he has told his wife a couple times he is getting to his breaking point. *
> ...


 @richardsharpe 

Is the bolded true? 

My understanding was that although you feel sad about the infrequent sex, you value the relationship and wish to remain with her regardless. Is that incorrect?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> If I were you, far, I would look to Jesus as the example of what a man should be. That is what Dug does.


I've never had aspirations of being executed at 33.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> @richardsharpe
> 
> Is the bolded true?
> 
> ...


Valuing the relationship and remaining in it does not mean a person has not been broken. Sometimes they remain in it because they are completely broken.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Far,
I think that's right. And it's also true that F2 would WANT to sleep with you more often if your schedule was setup in a way that caused her some level of uncertainty. 

This would allow her to pursue you.

That said - this requires the ability to tolerate a 'steady state' situation where she is a bit more tense - and is pressing you to change your schedule.

Reason I'm pretty sure of this, is because when M2 had to compete with work - for my attention - it made a big difference.






farsidejunky said:


> There is entitlement in regards to all needs when they are not met in a relationship. Sex is no different.
> 
> I could choose to stop listening to my wife when she wants to have intimate conversation (or just wants to vent). She feels she is entitled to my listening to her, and gets mad when I don't. Hell, if I don't get certain details of our conversation right during recall, she gets mad.
> 
> ...


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

samyeagar said:


> And what about the women complaining about a LD spouse?


How about @TheCuriousWife
On the opposite side of the empathy for men scale we have @SimplyAmorous


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



larry.gray said:


> I've never had aspirations of being executed at 33.


As it pertains to this thread, perhaps the mythos of jesus being celibate and a virgin is exacly how some would want men to aspire to be like jesus.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

jld said:


> Far, do you feel like you cannot do this without your wife's help? Is that the stumbling block?
> 
> Maybe that is the problem with all of the men complaining about sex deficits? They do not feel they can improve things without the help of their wives?


You misunderstand.

It is not a lack of ability. It is being unwilling. Simply put, I an unwilling to invest in someone the things they desire from me without reciprocation. While I understand what Anon is saying, I am not quite there yet.

The men are not looking for help. They are looking for reciprocity. This does not only apply to men, but anyone in a sexless relationship. Most of them feel the things they contribute are not met with a sense of gratitude when their partner no longer is willing to invest what they once were. Gracious people find ways to give back for the most part. However, in the case of Richard, and so many others, the partner is willing to take all of the benefits of being partnered with someone while ignoring the needs of that partner.

All of this is incredibly frustrating, because it really feels like this is an exercise in futility to get you to understand. In fact, it feels as if there is not any want to understand at all, but rather a way to get men to somehow own it completely. And that is okay...for you. But I see it differently. 

I think I will bow out of this one. Exercises in futility take too much of my energy. Take care, y'all.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

@Vega

Thestory about the woman married to an alcoholic was such a depressing read! I'm sure some people may have seen a happy ending, but all I could see was some chump who wasted a decade of her life on a...excuse the language...limp d!ck alcoholic. A decade of her life and all the experience she could have had...wasted. It's just so sad!
@jld

Yes, there is a sense of entitlement. And there should be! Marriage is a social, legal, and spiritual contract that includes sexual exclusivity. The presumption is that the spouses will provide for each others sexual needs. If one spouse isn't providing for those neeeds, that spouse has effectively voided the contract by not fulfilling the sex requirement.

If we're talking biblical marriage and sex, please refer to 1st Corinthians 7:5

"A wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Like wise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so that you can devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so Satan won't tempt you through your lack of self-control."

The Bible passage above makes it pretty clear that marriage is a sexual relationship and that we should not deprive our spouses of sex unless we have reached a temporary mutual agreement in order to pray and devote more time to God.

My faith teaches that depriving ones spouse of sex is actually a grave sin against the spouse and the marriage. Exceptions made, of course, for those who have medical conditions or are temporarily ill. And, even with those who do have medical conditions, it is taught that they have a duty to their spouse and their marriage to try dilligently to resolve the medical issue, if possible, in order to resume relations.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



samyeagar said:


> As it pertains to this thread, perhaps the mythos of jesus being celibate and a virgin is exacly how some would want men to aspire to be like jesus.


I think it's useful to examine the celibacy thing

why is celibacy a tenet of certain belief systems?

one reason I think is because it is an admission that people (especially men) are unusually weak in regards to sexual desire, so some people conclude there needs to be very tight rules to manage this

taking this out of the religious context, I think you can expect that anytime there is potential for sex as part of an interaction, your judgment is going to be clouded by desire

you may need to exert extra effort to ensure that your motives are clear when the potential for sex is in the picture

you may even conclude that it is impossible to have clear motives in such situations, which again I think is why certain belief systems say that celibacy is the only pure path


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Anon1111 said:


> I think it's useful to examine the celibacy thing
> 
> why is celibacy a tenet of certain belief systems?
> 
> one reason I think is because it is an admission that people (especially men) are unusually weak in regards to sexual desire, so some people conclude there needs to be very tight rules to manage this


How's that working out for them? I sure seems like they only got men who sexually desire young boys.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Do you want to talk about entitlement? How about how a LD person feels entitled to make a HD person celebate? If sex didn't matter, why not open the marriage to let the HD person get their needs met?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Anon1111 said:


> I think it's useful to examine the celibacy thing
> 
> why is celibacy a tenet of certain belief systems?
> 
> ...


When you take things out of a religious context, in order for celibacy to have any real impact, testicles are usually removed!

Think of male horses on a farm, pet cats, pet dogs, and many other household creatures! We as a society cut their balls off and don't even think twice about it. 

Now think about eunuchs during the Ming Dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty#Role_of_eunuchs

Now seriously compare that to a celibate priest with fully functional testicles and a some of the recent headlines in the news regarding young boys. Celibacy is not a pure path. 

I would feel much more comfortable in the plutonic presence of someone in a sexually active and satisfying marriage so that they are naturally themselves and desire is NOT an element present during social interactions. 

So if you ask me the "purist" form of being someone is just being yourself among others without any desire what so ever as a result of being in a healthy marriage. 

I do not understand why some couples wish to explore ideas of celibacy WITHIN the context of marriage! 

Badsanta


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

farsidejunky said:


> All of this is incredibly frustrating, because it really feels like this is an exercise in futility to get you to understand. In fact, it feels as if there is not any want to understand at all, but rather a way to get men to somehow own it completely. And that is okay...for you. But I see it differently.
> 
> I think I will bow out of this one. Exercises in futility take too much of my energy. Take care, y'all.


You did use the term "men" and not HD partner because her views are 100% gender based.

JLD has an infantile view of women. She thinks they are incapable of being responsible for anything. She leaves all responsibility to the man. Anything bad happening is the man's fault by default.

She looks down on men who don't share this infantile view of women, slandering them with the term "weak" because they have an ounce of self respect and won't take responsibility for their wife's bad actions.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



larry.gray said:


> How's that working out for them? I sure seems like they only got men who sexually desire young boys.


my personal view is that celibacy is not natural and that people who voluntarily submit to it may have a higher likelihood of wanting to hide from something they feel they can't control and which is unacceptable (e.g., pedophiles)

I do however think that it is interesting that many world religions incorporate some form of celibacy into doctrine


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

larry.gray said:


> Do you want to talk about entitlement? How about how a LD person feels entitled to make a HD person celebate? If sex didn't matter, why not open the marriage to let the HD person get their needs met?


short of physical harm, no one can really make you be celibate though


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*

Anon,
This doesn't really work well in a marriage. 

And I am starting to believe the guy who wrote the 5 love languages - buried sacrifice under 'acts of service' for a reason.

The whole thing comes down to his frame of reference. So the book is about how we WANT to be loved. Each person says what makes them feel loved. 

So - it's ok to say: I feel loved when you cook me dinner. I can even ask you to make me dinner. 

But real sacrifice - isnt requested. It's offered. 

This is why that statement: If I have to ASK you to do it, (whatever IT is), it defeats the purpose.






Anon1111 said:


> my thinking is that nobody owes anybody anything
> 
> we give to each other, but that is an individual choice
> 
> ...


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



badsanta said:


> When you take things out of a religious context, in order for celibacy to have any real impact, testicles are usually removed!
> 
> Think of male horses on a farm, pet cats, pet dogs, and many other household creatures! We as a society cut their balls off and don't even think twice about it.
> 
> ...


I agree

to be clear, I don't think celibacy is a solution

I was just trying to point out that people throughout history have acknowledged what a huge stumbling block sexual desire is regarding overall decision making, and that celibacy has been fairly widely advocated as a blunt-force instrument to counteract this


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



MEM11363 said:


> Anon,
> But real sacrifice - isnt requested. It's offered.


my initial reaction was to agree with this, but on second thought I realized that there is no real sacrifice

if you willingly do something, what have you sacrificed?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*

And that my man is the spirit inside a happy marriage.

So here's a simple way to get a sense of where you are with someone.

Will you give them a virtual blank check?

When M2 says: I need you to do something for me, and it's important.

I don't ask her what she needs. I say: sure

I don't need to know what it is - before responding. And if we get interrupted right after I say: sure

I don't walk round worrying about what it might be. 

If you really love someone, taking care of them feels good. 




Anon1111 said:


> my initial reaction was to agree with this, but on second thought I realized that there is no real sacrifice
> 
> if you willingly do something, what have you sacrificed?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

These discussions often lead to conflict because people are different. 

To a person with high libido ,sex is easy. It is a simple thing to provide their partner with pleasure at any time. They cannot understand why their partner will not do it for them.

To a person with low libido, sex is only pleasant occasionally, at other times it is a huge chore, degrading and awful. They cannot understand why their partner would ask for such a thing.

Neither is right or wrong, but they cannot have a good sex life together. That matters most to the high libido person, so they must choose whether to stay or leave. Sometimes it is a terrible choice.

It is not "fair".


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



MEM11363 said:


> And that my man is the spirit inside a happy marriage.
> 
> So here's a simple way to get a sense of where you are with someone.
> 
> ...


I guess I'm a d-ck because the only people who get a blank check from me are my kids


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*

I don't think you are a d!ck. 

I do think you 'fatigue' quickly when it comes to the specific topics at the heart of your conflict. 

It's also true that - you are are married to a deeply unhappy person. 

And I say this - reluctantly - but - it feels like you want her to be 'happy' so she'll be a good wife. 

And she wants you to join her in martyrdom. 

I'd say you are both equally likely to succeed. 




Anon1111 said:


> I guess I'm a d-ck because the only people who get a blank check from me are my kids


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

larry.gray said:


> You did use the term "men" and not HD partner because her views are 100% gender based.
> 
> JLD has an infantile view of women. She thinks they are incapable of being responsible for anything. She leaves all responsibility to the man. Anything bad happening is the man's fault by default.
> 
> She looks down on men who don't share this infantile view of women, slandering them with the term "weak" because they have an ounce of self respect and won't take responsibility for their wife's bad actions.


That is a gross oversimplification. JLD can speak for herself, if she decides to respond but I for one am sick of this type of comment being thrown at her without consequence. 

I tend to have a negative view of men too. I grew up thinking boys/ men must be stupid because they didn't have the same expectations heaped on them that women did. 

But, I've also seen women be horrendously nasty entitled princesses so my negativity just kinda spread out to everyone and not just men.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



MEM11363 said:


> I don't think you are a d!ck.
> 
> I do think you 'fatigue' quickly when it comes to the specific topics at the heart of your conflict.
> 
> ...


In the real world, I think it's useful to know your limits, and the limits of what you will do for your partner. I don't think that rules out a spirit of generosity and giving.

Not even my kids get a blank check from me.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

The importance of sex in a marriage is difficult to describe because people are so different. There are a few sayings that I've liked over the years.

Dr. Phil says something like, "If both partners are satisfied with their sex life, it's only about 10% of what's right with their marriage; however, if one partner isn't satisfied with their sex life, it can be about 90% of what's wrong with their marriage."

I heard one guy say, "I hear people say that you don't get married to have sex. That may be true, but I certainly didn't get married to "not" have sex."

Some quotes I like are:

To succeed with the opposite sex, tell her you’re impotent. She can’t wait to disprove it.

Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.

In my sex fantasy, nobody ever loves me for my mind.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@southbound my favorite quotes are "more cushion for the pushin'" and "horn blows how about the driver" and "that's like putting a round peg in a triangular hole" and "I like how her legs go up and make an ass of themselves"....

Wait we're not in the bar anymore??? Never mind.


----------



## 2020hindsight (Nov 3, 2015)

larry.gray said:


> Why do some people become irrational and angry when hungry. There is no logic in it, and for many it gets in the way of eating. My son has sat in his bedroom rather than eating dinner with us because he acts like a little turd and causes trouble. He repeats this over and over again, self defeating getting the food he needs.
> 
> Sex can be similar. I feel ill at ease after a few days without. Getting a release at the two day mark feels soooo good. My mind alters greatly in a 10 second span.
> 
> *If you don't experience somerhing like it, i'm sure it is hard to understand.*


It sure is. Just for one day, or even one hour, I would like to experience what it feels like to get pleasure from sex, beyond the vicarious/kindly pleasure of satisfying one's partner. For so many people to enjoy it SO much, and to feel that their quality of life depends upon it, it must feel really good to them. Maybe the way I feel after having a good massage, but times 20 or times 100? 

Who can say? I'm not built that way. I just have to take their word for it.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



MEM11363 said:


> And I say this - reluctantly - but - it feels like you want her to be 'happy' so she'll be a good wife.


I don't really want to get into it, but I disagree with this part. I'd actually like her to be happy regardless of what it would mean for me. I actually don't really think I'd get what I'd like in a fantasy world even if that did happen, but I'd still like it to happen for her sake.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*

Yes - you don't want to get into it. 

That was what I led with, and am fine to leave it at that. 

And that exact same - conflict fatigue/avoidance - is a non trivial contributor to your ummm - less than satisfactory situation. 

True Zen - is far more about what is done, than what is said.




Anon1111 said:


> I don't really want to get into it, but I disagree with this part. I'd actually like her to be happy regardless of what it would mean for me. I actually don't really think I'd get what I'd like in a fantasy world even if that did happen, but I'd still like it to happen for her sake.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> Someone who fits this description and comes to mind is @richardsharpe. Perfect gentleman. I do not hear any bitterness in him, no sense of entitlement..


That's because he hasn't had his W.T.F moment yet.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> If I were you, far, I would look to Jesus as the example of what a man should be. That is what Dug does.


It's tempting to have a field day with this comment but I will resist the urge.

Come on, JLD. He's got to have a single flaw in your view.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Some people cannot enjoy sex. I don't know why, but it seems true. Some people cannot enjoy music, and I don't think there is any way to describe to them why others do enjoy it. 

I know people who perceive music very differently than I do. Music that they find wonderful, sounds like noise to me. But there is music that I do appreciate. Even so, I cannot imagine what they experience from their music, I just accept that they do. 

Describing sex as a physical sensation does not suffice. There are sex toys for both genders that provide a very similar feel to sex, but few people consider them substitutes for sex.






2020hindsight said:


> It sure is. Just for one day, or even one hour, I would like to experience what it feels like to get pleasure from sex, beyond the vicarious/kindly pleasure of satisfying one's partner. For so many people to enjoy it SO much, and to feel that their quality of life depends upon it, it must feel really good to them. Maybe the way I feel after having a good massage, but times 20 or times 100?
> 
> Who can say? I'm not built that way. I just have to take their word for it.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> Far, do you feel like you cannot do this without your wife's help? Is that the stumbling block?
> 
> Maybe that is the problem with all of the men complaining about sex deficits? They do not feel they can improve things without the help of their wives?


Now we're getting somewhere. Religion requires a rather unconditional following of the requisite teachings. Same as love i suppose. But religion is not set to reward one with earthly benefits; I can't pray myself a pot roast or a 2016 Mini Clubman. But an intimate relationship contains enough earthly benefits to make at least the pot roast feasible.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

uhtred said:


> These discussions often lead to conflict because people are different.
> 
> To a person with high libido ,sex is easy. It is a simple thing to provide their partner with pleasure at any time. They cannot understand why their partner will not do it for them.
> 
> ...


First, I absolutely agree. Don't take what I'm about to say as disagreement. It just got me started.

If I may elaborate, I'm not even sure it's HD vs LD. I think it's Any-D vs No-D. More importantly people just view sex differently period. Some it's for getting pleasure, some it's for giving pleasure, some it's for sharing, some for procreation. We've seen just about every definition of what sex means to people is in this one thread alone.

Also this topic isn't really about sex. It's about one partner's reluctance to have it and how that feels to the partner that isn't getting it. As we've pretty much concluded, it's more about one partner prioritizing their spouse with affection and showing desire. If your partner is routinely too tired or too busy to have sex with you, then you aren't important enough to them. It feels crappy. After a while it wears you down.

I had a lack of sex for a while and it was horrible. I contemplated an affair. I contemplated divorce. Neither seriously, but I thought about them. Why? Not lack of sex, but because it felt platonic. I want to be in a relationship where I'm wanted. I simply don't want to be where I'm not wanted. I never have. I don't stick around and try to convince people that I'm worth their time.
I got married so I would be... for life. Otherwise I'd have settled for being a long term boyfriend and bowed out when she got tired of me like I did pre-marriage.

But Marriage is a commitment. Better/worse, thick and thin, right? That's why we try to address the problem before giving up.
In my case I did. I learned a lot, and she learned a lot. Most of all, she learned how I felt. Armed with this understanding, she became the affectionate spouse she intended to be and (and probably thought she was.) Sex did increase.. a lot, and not reluctantly (on her part.) Sure she's very very low D, but she understands. I learned a lot too. I learned why we weren't having sex and it turns out it really wasn't about how she felt about me (surprise.)
I don't really care about the actual frequency of sex. Yes I insist on having it because I love it (and I know she does too, at least always used to.) Mainly i just want to know she's thinking about it or thinking about what I wan once in a while and will prioritize me.
How often do people ask their spouse "when would you like to have sex again?"

Sorry, that was a much longer spill/rant than I intended.
I just see this topic going off into the weeds and this is how I sum it up.
This is why sex is the end all be all... It's not the sex, it's that you're not making your spouse feel like they're wanted or important enough to you to meet their relationship desires.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> I know we've gone around and around on this one, but I think this is a bad way to look at it.
> 
> anytime you're doing something in the relationship as a means to another end, you're asking for trouble
> 
> ...


It may be a bad way to look at it but that's how the brain works once we get past the infatuation period in a relationship. 

The brain runs a pretty complicated MinMax model that is reward seeking (sex, stability) and risk averse (adultery, instability). 

You can play along the selfless approach until the W.T.F moment.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

musicftw07 said:


> Excellent assessment.
> 
> At some point, men learn that there's no benefit to continually bang our heads against that wall. It doesn't do any good or produce any results, no matter how hard we try or what we do.
> 
> ...


This post brought tears to my eyes. It's _exactly_ how I have been feeling about sex since the first day I had sex. But I want to show you all how I read it and how it applies to me:



> At some point, *I* learned that there's no benefit to continually bang *my* head against that wall. It doesn't do any good or produce any results, no matter how hard *I* try or what *I* do.
> 
> Yet, the expectation seems to be that *I* continue to do so.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to put in effort and do my part, *but I expect reciprocation.* If there is none, it shouldn't come as a shock if the effort dries up


I have been married 3 times and had several LTR's. Never had a ONS and the last man I was with, well...let's not go there right now. 

When I was first married, I think I had 2 PIV orgasms. I finally told him that I wasn't having orgasms and he said, "Well, _you take too long_". I can't tell you all how much that comment haunted me for close to a decade. When you hear something like that, you believe that there's something wrong with you, especially since most of your friends talk about how often _they_ had orgasms. Eventually, I stopped trying. Oh, I didn't stop having sex, but I stopped trying for that Big O. 

There were times when I got close. But it seemed that just as I was about to 'lose it', HE came instead. I remember the first time I told my late husband that I was going to cum in about a minute, it sent him over the edge. He basically looked at me, shrugged and said, "Sorry". Didn't even bother to try and get me off another way.

But here's the rub: I was able to have orgasms through PIV. I had an LTR partner who I had frequent orgasms with. Took about 15 minutes for me. When I mentioned this to my late husband, he wanted to know what the other guy did. I explained it to him, and my late husband said, "That would be _boring_". Once again, another crappy comment from a man I'm _married_ to! 

One of the reasons why I'm celibate right now is because I don't want to get into --yet another--a relationship where I'm having plenty of sex without orgasms. 

I am so done with selfish men.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

john117 said:


> I can't pray myself a pot roast or a 2016 Mini Clubman. .


Ummm....yes, you can.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

That is good. Do not give up on finding non-selfish men, they exist. Some of them are unhappily in relationships with selfish women.

Selfish people will quickly leave a relationship that makes them unhappy. Unselfish people will stay to avoid hurting their partners.

The result is a sad pairing of selfish with unselfish. 




Vega said:


> -----
> I am so done with selfish men.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> That is a gross oversimplification. JLD can speak for herself, if she decides to respond but I for one am sick of this type of comment being thrown at her without consequence.
> 
> I tend to have a negative view of men too. I grew up thinking boys/ men must be stupid because they didn't have the same expectations heaped on them that women did.
> 
> But, I've also seen women be horrendously nasty entitled princesses so my negativity just kinda spread out to everyone and not just men.


I agree. Jld does not see woman as infantile, she sees men as generally more powerful emotionally. And if they're not why is TAM always preaching that men should lead? 

Women shoulder a tremendous amount of running a household, but in terms of emotions we need our hb's support.

If a man isn't strong enough to lead then his wife has to assume that role, and said guy will be on here complaining about his non existent sex life. 

Because we know how turned on women are by weak men.

I know in my house I shoulder a lot of work. ....i make good money, cook dinner most nights, pay the majority of the bills, take care of my kids, and keep my fitness regular. 

I have two degrees and a black belt and am quite capable

But emotionally? I'm very fragile, like a lot of women I suspect, and I really need my hb's support there. 

Now he does his part in running the house, but if I didn't have him I could do it. But emotionally I'd have a much harder time without him. Just knowing I have a partner who has my back is an indescribable feeling. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> That is good. Do not give up on finding non-selfish men, they exist. Some of them are unhappily in relationships with selfish women.
> 
> Selfish people will quickly leave a relationship that makes them unhappy. Unselfish people will stay to avoid hurting their partners.
> 
> The result is a sad pairing of selfish with unselfish.


Oh, I'm not giving up; just taking a 'breather' for a while and re-assess my life, including sex and relationships in general. :smile2:

My late husband was very selfish (by his own admission). He wasn't the one to leave; *I* was. Of course, once I left, he told me that *I* was being selfish...

I suppose he expected me to continue living with him and having sex with him on his terms, even though I was getting very little out of it. 

And then some.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

jld said:


> So if your wife does not really want to do it, then she should not be pressured, correct?
> 
> I don't think you are going to get around inspiring her, Fozzy. And inspiration is not about guilt or force or control or obligation. It is about loving and serving and living a life of integrity. And leaving people to their free will.
> 
> ...


I totally agree, we LDs can feel whether an effort is truly being done because of sex and not because of genuine love.

Just like HDs complain of duty sex, we can sense covert contracts...


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.
> 
> And for others, they couldn't care less.
> 
> ...


 I feel those bolded in Blue.. very strongly... and Marriage the ultimate foundation for it's expressing ...with commitment , devotion, to share & give of ourselves to each other... if a couple is on the same page here, find joy in THIS, fulfillment.... there will be Bliss... sure we all have some valleys in our lives, but then we work on getting back to the mountain top together... but it never gets old...
Sex is hugely important to me ...







...."Physical intimacy"...it's the ultimate pleasure - nothing sweeter God has given us under the sun to share with another........ I have always felt this way.....although I did take it for granted in our earlier years, seemed he was hard 24/7....I would have noticed immediately had he rejected me -just once...he just never did.

If there was any addiction I came closest to not being able to lay down.. honesty... my Vice is SEX... but it's also wrapped up in the emotional with my husband... the romance of these things coming together ...it's my preferred brand of happiness.. despite all else that is going on in our lives.. we have THIS to share.. 

If at any given point he found me too much or felt I was "demanding" of him.. or I got the feeling I was a "burden".... it would knock over my apple cart.. I would be crushed ...and then angry...

Yep.. I would be miserable to live with.. and all those other awful things that people say about High drives.. I just wouldn't have the patience....I also would not feel loved... I guess it is like an "end all for me".. his desire means THAT MUCH... what is cool is.. I know he feels the same.. and I love that [email protected]#




> It's the "E-ticket" ride in an amusement park. A 'ride' that we want to jump on over and over again. Or, it's the 'hell' that some people feel. And from the ultra-feminist point of view, it's a symbol of man's domination over women.
> 
> Regardless of our attitudes toward it, it seems to be that sex is "It". *Forget about the rest of the "relationship." Forget about "until death do us part"...forget about "love", too!*


 I very much disagree with this.. because those things mean a Great deal too.. it's just that the intimacy shared on a regular happening basis gives you so much *appreciation* for this person beside you.. you couldn't imagine your life without them.. you WANT to grow old with them...because you feel so loved..


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

techmom said:


> I totally agree, we LDs can feel whether an effort is truly being done because of sex and not because of genuine love.
> 
> Just like HDs complain of duty sex, we can sense covert contracts...


Yes! So often, someone will come to TAM and tell the same old story. They had frequent sex. The sex all but dried up. They want to know how they can "get" their partner to have more sex with them. 

It's usually met with, "Are you cleaning the house? Doing your share of cooking? Doing your share of taking care of the kids?" In other words, all of their efforts aren't sincerely genuine. 

It's as if they see cleaning the house, childcare etc as Quid Pro Quo. I cleaned the house, therefore you should give me sex. I took care of the kids while you went shopping so you should give me sex. 

The trouble with this kind of thinking is that the "reward" they want is always the same. Housework=sex. Childcare=sex. Errands=sex. Footrubs=sex. And my goodness...in my case, he was already _getting_ plenty of sex. 

No wonder why I'm burned out.



> I am so done with selfish men.


Unfortunately, you don't KNOW if they're going to be selfish in bed until after you've slept with them. Some can _appear_ to be very 'giving'. At first. 

Kind of like some LD's. 

So how many men do you have to sleep with before you find one who's unselfish and will continue to be unselfish until death do you part?


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

To me it's like the gift of the maji (O. Henry)

Last night I drank some jack and sat up with DD14 watching Jane the Virgin on Netflix. W collapsed in bed and I drank too much (I'm not used to jack on the rocks and over poured). 

Anyway I snuck into bed but W rolled over and snuggled and she reached over... and I said it probably wasn't my night because I didn't think I could get there. But we snuggled and there was affection and I suggested we get out her vibrator and have some fun. Well that went along fine but she didn't get there and she asked if she could go down on me. Naturally I was fine because she loves that and I thought she could get there that way. So we continued a bit then I gently said I wasn't going to get there. She was really trying hard though..

We were both concerned about the other getting there or being left frustrated, so we both showed that concern and made sure the other could sleep. We held hands and drifted off to sleep.

Ironically I think we both did that for the other, knowing it wasn't happening for ourselves, but simply really wanting to give each other pleasure. Neither of us initiated for ourselves.

To me that's really all its about.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> Yes! So often, someone will come to TAM and tell the same old story. They had frequent sex. The sex all but dried up. They want to know how they can "get" their partner to have more sex with them.
> 
> It's usually met with, "Are you cleaning the house? Doing your share of cooking? Doing your share of taking care of the kids?" In other words, all of their efforts aren't sincerely genuine.
> 
> ...


How many times have I seen a woman (a wife) complain that there's no way she can be in the mood or feel affectionate for her husband when he's isn't pulling his weight around the house? I never saw this as a Quid Pro Quo situation where chores=sex. That seems like a pretty messed up situation to me.
I always thought this advice was about pulling your weight in a domestic environment so she doesn't resent you and not want sex and hopefully appreciates you as a partner and feels affectionate. Additionally, it's about removing the work load and business from her life so can feel relaxed and spend some mental effort on her love life. It's about removing the "I'm exhausted" reason from her lack of affection.

Fortunately I've never experienced this dynamic in my marriage. I do try to do those extras around so she appreciates me and so she can relax. I know if she's feeling overwhelmed, love life with me will be the least of her worries. I've never been rewarded for a job well done as far as I know. Yes, I get affection and sex with her expressing appreciation for being "such a great dad" or for "doing so much to help" but that's not a reward nor did I do it to get laid.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I think this is complicated.

The simplest part is what not to do. Covert contracts - aren't a fraction as covert as the contractor might think. Especially over time, where patterns of behavior become evident. 

But there's mirrored version of this. If you are on the receiving end of a transactional offer of sex - you will get lucky tonight IF you agree to ... whatever it is ... Think long and hard before you say yes. 

Flirting is great - if it's an honest expression of desire - conveyed in a format and quantity your partner likes. Wrong format (groping for some partners) or frequency - and it's harrasment.

Dating can be good. Correction: Dating IS good, provided you are good company. 

Shoot me for saying this but - I have never once taken M2 out on a date hoping to get lucky. Not once. Only way date night turns into sex is if M2 takes it there. It happens - but it's not the norm. 

-------
Separate from the transactional - is the - gestalt - the whole picture.

Based on an overall good marriage - honest conversations about sex are good. 

Honest being the operative word. 

Frequency sucks - might be honest but it's entirely self focused

Babe, Is sex not good for you? 

Whole different conversation. 

If it's good for you - then maybe we have a discussion of priorities. And it might be painful. But ideally it isn't threatening. Shrug. Can't say that's always been true for us. 





techmom said:


> I totally agree, we LDs can feel whether an effort is truly being done because of sex and not because of genuine love.
> 
> Just like HDs complain of duty sex, we can sense covert contracts...


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Shoot me for saying this but - I have never once taken M2 out on a date hoping to get lucky. Not once. Only way date night turns into sex is if M2 takes it there. It happens - but it's not the norm. .


This is one that gets me. Sex is the furthest thing from her mind after a date after drinking and flirting when I think she's totally on the same page as me about wanting each other. How much more can I express how luck I am to have her, how beautiful she is, and how much I love her? Nope, it's pretty much "I can't wait to get in my jammies and go to bed." To me this is the time we carved out to of our busy lives to be together. To her it's a break from everything, including sex. I don't think it was always like this but somehow at this point in our lives we cherish breaks from responsibilities including to our spouses apparently. I've learned to separate sexual activity from couples dates (finally.) I find it's a heck of a lot easier to have "sex dates" with her than it is having sex after going out on a date.
By way of comparison, an anniversary date had better end in sex otherwise she'll be very upset.

Put this in the category of from men are from Mars, women are from Venus.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> That is a gross oversimplification. JLD can speak for herself, if she decides to respond


I'm pretty sure she won't, as I think I'm on ignore. I'm open to a better explanation. The views are rather extreme and the utter lack of any empathy whatsoever is pretty harsh.

You don't see many men standing up for guys like SMG15. Why the defense of equally vile people of the other gender?



Anon Pink said:


> but I for one am sick of this type of comment being thrown at her without consequence.


I'm sick and tired of a person who consistently blames the betrayed spouse if the betrayed spouse is male without consequence.

Someone shouldn't be able to come on TAM and victim blame the assaulted in a domestic violence incident without consequence.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

notmyrealname4 said:


> This is weird.
> 
> What happens if you want to see movie A and your SO wants to see movie B?
> 
> ...


Hmmm...

I read the bolded and I shudder to think of my marriage being like that.

We see both movies, go to both restaurants and spend lots of time together. I think this is what happens when each person is genuinely interested in their partner's happiness.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

That thing about starting out unselfish - then becoming selfish in bed - that's pure gold. Like the transit to LD.

Never thought about that. 

Exceptionally valuable post.






Vega said:


> Yes! So often, someone will come to TAM and tell the same old story. They had frequent sex. The sex all but dried up. They want to know how they can "get" their partner to have more sex with them.
> 
> It's usually met with, "Are you cleaning the house? Doing your share of cooking? Doing your share of taking care of the kids?" In other words, all of their efforts aren't sincerely genuine.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



MEM11363 said:


> Anon,
> This doesn't really work well in a marriage.
> 
> And I am starting to believe the guy who wrote the 5 love languages - buried sacrifice under 'acts of service' for a reason.
> ...


Not asking for what you want because it "defeats the purpose" is a good way of not getting what you want.

It can also prevent someone who loves you from experiencing the joy of giving you something that you want and that they would freely give, if only they knew you wanted it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

James,
M2 truly is an exceptional companion. So - when we're together - I'm not thinking - when are we gonna get to the good part. 

That said - I think my off the charts drive coupled with a big sense of entitlement - made the first 15 years difficult for M2. 

Her drive was maybe 1/week and mine was once a day. She was sort of agreeable to meeting me at the 80% point - 4-5 per week. 

Which is why - in year 26/27 I'm meeting her at the 80% point in the other direction. 

Only thing I wish - I had a time machine. It was year 10 or 11 and without any prompting she took us to twice a day - for about a year. I honestly have no idea why. None. And I want to know. 

I asked her once - she just shrugged and said she doesn't remember.





JamesTKirk said:


> This is one that gets me. Sex is the furthest thing from her mind after a date after drinking and flirting when I think she's totally on the same page as me about wanting each other. How much more can I express how luck I am to have her, how beautiful she is, and how much I love her? Nope, it's pretty much "I can't wait to get in my jammies and go to bed." To me this is the time we carved out to of our busy lives to be together. To her it's a break from everything, including sex. I don't think it was always like this but somehow at this point in our lives we cherish breaks from responsibilities including to our spouses apparently. I've learned to separate sexual activity from couples dates (finally.) I find it's a heck of a lot easier to have "sex dates" with her than it is having sex after going out on a date.
> By way of comparison, an anniversary date had better end in sex otherwise she'll be very upset.
> 
> Put this in the category of from men are from Mars, women are from Venus.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*

Buddy,

Fair point. I'm trying to separate - communication from execution.

Once somebody knows - they know. 




Buddy400 said:


> Not asking for what you want because it "defeats the purpose" is a good way of not getting what you want.
> 
> It can also prevent someone who loves you from experiencing the joy of giving you something that you want and that they would freely give, if only they knew you wanted it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Anon1111 said:


> I guess I'm a d-ck because the only people who get a blank check from me are my kids


My wife has a blank check from me.

I also have one from her.

Because we trust each other to use them wisely.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



MEM11363 said:


> Yes - you don't want to get into it.


He "got into it" plenty once upon a time.
]
Fat lot of good it did him.

Now he's where he is, which is better than where he was.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> James,
> M2 truly is an exceptional companion. So - when we're together - I'm not thinking - when are we gonna get to the good part.


For me it's not "when are we going to get to the good part?" It's more like it has been two weeks since we had sex, why are we not taking this opportunity? Do you not miss having sex too? If so with the flirting, romance, and just being happy being together, how does this not present an ideal opportunity for you? How am I not being obvious that I want you tonight? If not being in the mood is the excuse for not wanting sex, how are you not in the ideal mood with this date?
To her the romantic companionship is compartmentalized from the sexual activity. Kind of like not mixing business with pleasure? IDK. Except in specific situations like anniversaries. It's like she has some kind of flowchart in her head as to exactly what scenarios end with sex. She's usually pretty obvious about when she does. But if she doesn't, it seems difficult to change that unless I've remembered to plan it with her early on.
She's an attractive woman and I just want her. It's not any kind of selfish entitlement thing and it has nothing to do with sex drive. I'm with her, we're close, she's attractive, and I just want her. I get kind of bummed when I'm with her like that and feel I can't have her.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

larry.gray said:


> I'm pretty sure she won't, as I think I'm on ignore. I'm open to a better explanation. The views are rather extreme and the utter lack of any empathy whatsoever is pretty harsh.


I do not have you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore. We need to be exposed to a variety of views on a forum. That is the point of a forum.

When a person's views are different from ours, and make us angry, that often means we could grow from hearing them. 



> I'm sick and tired of a person who consistently blames the betrayed spouse if the betrayed spouse is male without consequence.
> 
> Someone shouldn't be able to come on TAM and victim blame the assaulted in a domestic violence incident without consequence.


I do not think BSs, male or female, are necessarily victims. Esther Perel does not, either. 

I have read that men and women do not necessarily cheat for the same reasons, and that unmet emotional needs are often the main reason women cheat. If the man can start meeting those needs, the marriage can likely be put back together. 

I am not the only one to whom this makes sense, btw. Dr. Harley has said similar things, as have the Berchts, who run another affair help site.

I have never said violence is okay. I did suggest to the young woman who slapped her boyfriend a few weeks ago that she ask herself if she wants to be with someone who brings that out in her. I think a therapist would ask that, too. All angles have to be explored if we want to solve problems. 

Larry, not everyone is going to see things the way you do. Not everyone is going to see things the way I do, either. Again, that is part of being on a forum. We are going to hear a variety of views, and not all of them are going to be wise. Time tends to reveal what is a wise path, and what is simply a reactive one.

I think sex should be a free will decision, not coerced in any way. I don't think telling a wife she "owes" her husband sex is going to work long term. And I do not think it will work at all with a wife with healthy self esteem.

I feel a lot of compassion for some men. @Eagle3 posted in CWI recently about some difficult times he is going through. I think he would tell you I have been very supportive. He is pursuing a very Christlike path as he seeks healing in his marriage.

There are different ways of being supportive. When Esther Perel tells BSs that the victim of the affair is not necessarily the victim of the marriage, that is a different kind of support than a BS might be expecting. 

If people can hear what may initially be painful, and reflect on it, they can avoid the trap of victimhood. And my therapist has told me that is a great risk for BSs: getting lost in victimhood. I think there could be the same risk in sexless marriage.

Another difference I have with many people on TAM is that I do not think equality is the goal in marriage. I think meeting needs is. 

Finding someone you are naturally compatible with is the best way of mutually getting needs met. That is why it is so important to be oneself right from the beginning, and that includes transparency. 

I also think the stronger partner needs to be willing to take the lead in the relationship. Sometimes the stronger partner is the woman. I do feel nervous for her, and I think her life is going to be harder than if she were with a man she could lean on, instead of one she has to carry. 

But if she is okay with it, then my worries may be unfounded. It does look stressful, though. And energy that could go to her children or herself is going to have to be spent on him. It is only fair for her to consider this before she takes on this responsibility. Pretty tough to find out later.

Larry, you and I may never agree on anything. Again, that is the beauty and reality of a forum. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no point to having one.

One last thing to think about: you seem particularly reactive to the word "weak." You understand we are all weak in some ways, correct? No one is completely strong. 

If we are honest with ourselves about the ways we are weak, we can work on getting stronger. But we cannot get stronger without first acknowledging our weakness. And that is indeed likely to be painful.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> I agree. Jld does not see woman as infantile, she sees men as generally more powerful emotionally. And if they're not why is TAM always preaching that men should lead?
> 
> Women shoulder a tremendous amount of running a household, but in terms of emotions we need our hb's support.
> 
> ...


Great post, life. 

I do think you are much stronger emotionally than you give yourself credit for, though. And you are going to get even stronger.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*






john117 said:


> It's tempting to have a field day with this comment but I will resist the urge.
> 
> Come on, JLD. He's got to have a single flaw in your view.


Of course he has flaws. But in comparison to many men, he is very strong. I am not sure I fully appreciated that before reading TAM.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

@Vega

What are your goals relationship-wise? Do you even want another relationship?

I ask because women as they age sometimes opt out of relationships. My sister will be 60 in August and has no interest in anything but singlehood. She is very happy with her freedom.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



MEM11363 said:


> When M2 says: I need you to do something for me, and it's important.
> 
> I don't ask her what she needs. I say: sure
> 
> I don't need to know what it is - before responding.


When H2 asks, I say "sure". When I ask, H2 says "what is it?".

Tells you everything you need to know about our marriage. Thanks for giving me a succinct way of describing it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Two weeks?

I guess it depends on your age. At that frequency dates would have a schedule - left time for sex at the start or the end. 

My guess - your wife gets the same chemical validation boost from being pursued - that you get from actual sex. 




JamesTKirk said:


> For me it's not "when are we going to get to the good part?" It's more like it has been two weeks since we had sex, why are we not taking this opportunity? Do you not miss having sex too? If so with the flirting, romance, and just being happy being together, how does this not present an ideal opportunity for you? How am I not being obvious that I want you tonight? If not being in the mood is the excuse for not wanting sex, how are you not in the ideal mood with this date?
> To her the romantic companionship is compartmentalized from the sexual activity. Kind of like not mixing business with pleasure? IDK. Except in specific situations like anniversaries. It's like she has some kind of flowchart in her head as to exactly what scenarios end with sex. She's usually pretty obvious about when she does. But if she doesn't, it seems difficult to change that unless I've remembered to plan it with her early on.
> She's an attractive woman and I just want her. It's not any kind of selfish entitlement thing and it has nothing to do with sex drive. I'm with her, we're close, she's attractive, and I just want her. I get kind of bummed when I'm with her like that and feel I can't have her.


----------



## Mommywhatohnothing (May 30, 2016)

I've been following this thread with real interest and trying to apply it to my soon to be over marriage (background in my thread).

People here seem to talk a lot about the bait and switch of sex prior to marriage vs after marriage. I saw that in my relationship with my H but in the opposite manner of what mostly seems to be described here - but it had the same long term effect. When H and I were dating, we had a sex life I thought we were both happy with, with sex happening a few times per week. Now granted we weren't living together then so it probably did work out to almost every time we were together unless we couldn't afford condoms (we were REALLY broke in those days). Had we but known back then that I would turn out to be completely sterile I wonder how much more it would have happened.

After we got married, I assumed sex would continue occurring at the previous rate of a few times a week. But once we were living together, H expected more - at least once a day and often 2 to 3 times a day. He didn't care if I was sick, sore from the frequency, or had my period. He wanted it when he wanted it and if he didn't get it he would sulk. Sometimes he would simply wait until we were in bed and take without asking, which hurt my feelings although I never refused unless I was feeling physically ill. He also insisted on anal although that ended after my IBS diagnosis.

But the thing is, I saw NONE of this behavior while we were dating. I would never have married him had I known his sexual appetite was so much greater than mine and that he would be so forceful about getting his needs met. But at the same time, I can't really fault him, because he probably assumed that since we had sex every day that we were together prior to marriage, we would continue to have sex every day we were together after marriage. The fact that we were now together every day instead of only on weekends didn't factor into the equation for him.

It's no surprise to me that sex was the last thing to go in our relationship. I used it to try to win him back after he left and of course with his drive he wasn't going to turn me down. 

He's with another man now, for the second time in his life. He didn't tell me he was bi until after we were already married - nor did he tell me he had been married before me until his ex wife moved back to town (7 YEARS into our marriage) and he was worried we might run into her.

He told me he didn't think sex is better with a guy but it's a hell of a lot more frequent because there's usually a better match of high sex drive between men. I can actually see where he's coming from which is kind of sad. But I would have to say that for him sex is the be all and end all. He pretty much told me our marriage was doomed once my health issues had reached a point where I could no longer meet his sexual needs on a regular basis. Honest, I guess, but also selfish to abandon a seriously ill spouse just because she can no longer put out as often as you want her to.

I'm starting to realize I'm probably better off without him, but after reading this thread I have to wonder if I'm doomed to be alone for the rest of my life. What man is going to want a woman with so many health problems that a lot of times I'm not physically capable of having sex even if I do want to? It's one thing to become a caregiver for a current spouse that you already love. It's another thing entirely to get involved with someone knowing up front that they're a walking medical disaster.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Buddy400 said:


> My wife has a blank check from me.
> 
> I also have one from her.
> 
> Because we trust each other to use them wisely.


Same here, although technically, my wife literally has blank checks with my signature on them so ... I don't know what that means except to keep a closer eye on my checking account lol.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Mommywhatohnothing said:


> I've been following this thread with real interest and trying to apply it to my soon to be over marriage (background in my thread).
> 
> People here seem to talk a lot about the bait and switch of sex prior to marriage vs after marriage. I saw that in my relationship with my H but in the opposite manner of what mostly seems to be described here - but it had the same long term effect. When H and I were dating, we had a sex life I thought we were both happy with, with sex happening a few times per week. Now granted we weren't living together then so it probably did work out to almost every time we were together unless we couldn't afford condoms (we were REALLY broke in those days). Had we but known back then that I would turn out to be completely sterile I wonder how much more it would have happened.
> 
> ...


Wow. That had to have been a shocker, to find out your husband was gay. And had an ex-wife.

You are so much better off without him in your life.

Someone will come along. In the meantime, are you getting the physical support you need? Do you have friends for emotional support?


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@mommywhatohnothing so sorry to hear your story. But I think there are many good men - even HD men - who could be sexually content with you.

The lack of sex hurts when it feels like the spouse can't be bothered to take time for you. That's not your situation. And if you show affection and desire for your man that's more than half the issue.

If you have hands, mouth and frankly any soft body parts and an eager heart, you can have sex.

Men with ED who can no longer get an erection and have an orgasm and men can have dry orgasms after prostate removal. Women can have orgasms from touch, oral, vibrators etc. the possibilities are limited by your imagination only.

As we age, many / most will encounter issues that impact our sexuality and we just need to be flexible.

A willing, considerate, accommodating partner is all most men want.

You just had a selfish, inconsiderate man. It's not an alpha/beta thing either. It's just a character issue.

Put yourself out there and look for character.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

jld said:


> @Vega
> 
> What are your goals relationship-wise? *Do you even want another relationship?
> *
> I ask because women as they age sometimes opt out of relationships. My sister will be 60 in August and has no interest in anything but singlehood. She is very happy with her freedom.


That's what I'm trying to figure out, jld! That's what this "break" is all about. It's why I come to TAM. 

Let's just say that if the kinds of relationships I've had in the past are "normal", then I'd rather have a cat!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



jld said:


> Of course he has flaws. But in comparison to many men, he is very strong. I am not sure I fully appreciated that before reading TAM.


If TAM represented all men (or women) humanity would have turned to Westeros a long time ago.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

larry.gray said:


> I'm pretty sure she won't, as I think I'm on ignore. I'm open to a better explanation. The views are rather extreme and the utter lack of any empathy whatsoever is pretty harsh.
> 
> You don't see many men standing up for guys like SMG15. Why the defense of equally vile people of the other gender?
> 
> ...



You need to take your ire about CWI over to CWI. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that carrying an argument from one thread onto another thread is against forum rules...and yet I've seen JLD get blasted all over the place and none of those blasts with on topic.

I'm disappointed that the Mods allow it to happen.

I'm glad you're open to a better explanation because I'm pretty sure @lifeistooshort has adequately explained.


For the record, I don't have any beef with you Larry. I agree with you more often than not and you sometimes make me laugh, and that's always a bonus. I just wish you would resist your urge to have a smack down with Jld each time you encounter her. I don't expect you to be able to understand her POV. I don't understand and never agree with biblically based opinion but I resist the urge to enter into smack downs over it. If I can do it, so can you.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> That thing about starting out unselfish - then becoming selfish in bed - that's pure gold. *Like the transit to LD.
> *
> Never thought about that.


Exactly. It's as if they become "Emotionally LD" (Let's call it "ELD" for the purposes of this post)

In my marriage with my late husband, we seemed to 'connect' on an emotional level at first. But little by little, we stopped 'connecting'. He even told me, "A guy can't keep up that charade forever!" So, he basically 'fed' me for as long as it took to 'hook' me. Once he felt secure that I wouldn't leave him, he backed waaaaaay off. Yet, he still expected the same level of sex. 

Same with the man I was with after him. At first, he told me and EVERYONE ELSE that I was the "love of his life". Four years later, he told me he was having an emotional affair, and that he "always thought of *us* as FWB. The emotional connection wasn't there. I started to notice this shortly after we started having sex, but I thought he was simply 'comfortable'. 

And the last man I was with came on hot and heavy. Pursued me with a vengeance. Even told me he had "strong feelings" for me. Yet, once I started to reciprocate, he backed off. We were on-again-off-again for a few months, until I couldn't take it anymore. 

There's a saying that "Men fake relationships to get sex and women fake sex to get relationships". Obviously, that's not ALWAYS the case. But having experienced something like that the last 3 times, I started to evaluate my other LTR's. I realized that it was pretty much the same in ALL of them. 

When a man comes to TAM and complains that his wife is LD, the FIRST thing we suggest are things like helping out with childcare, cooking sometimes, taking care of the house, etc. But the first thing *I* think is, "All that stuff is great but, what are you doing to meet her _emotional_ needs?"


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Cats are great but they are the most selfish of creatures. Dogs will love you no matter what you do.

I do not think "normal" exists in relationships. Its like asking what is "normal" piece of music. There is too much variation.

I think it is possible for almost everyone to have a happy relationship but it may take a while to find the right person. Settling is almost certain to lead to an unhappy relationship.




Vega said:


> That's what I'm trying to figure out, jld! That's what this "break" is all about. It's why I come to TAM.
> 
> Let's just say that if the kinds of relationships I've had in the past are "normal", then I'd rather have a cat!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

First case: The poster is uninterested in sex with their spouse because of the actions or inaction of the spouse. The spouse may be lazy, demanding, weak, domineering, selfish in bed or other parts of life, angry, depressed, overweight etc. 

Second case: The spouse is simply low libido. Then there is nothing the poster can do. Chores, being strong, loving, caring will not change this because there is no desire in the first place. 

The posters in the first case and in the second case are en entirely different situations and cannot easily have a useful discussion. The poster in the first case tells the poster in the second case, "you must man up", or 'you must be more loving", or something similar because that is what the first poster is missing and what they need to want sex. 

We occasionally see posts from spouses in the first case who have recognized and changed their behavior. They will join in encouraging the posters in the second case to change theirs.

We rarely if ever see posts from the spouses in the second case. Low libido people do not see sex as important and are unlikely to join discussion boards on the topic. We do not see people say "my partner is great in every way, but I just don't like sex more than once a month or so" , but those people exist.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Male here :smile2:

Commenting on the bolded part only, not the rest of it which is pretty damn crappy

The bold part resonates with me. Before marriage we basically had sex every time we got together. Silly me assumed things would only improve once we were together 7 days a week instead of 2 - 4. It was QUITE a shock :surprise: a month or two after we moved in together when it was made clear that every night or even most nights was not doable. But I adjusted, life is a compromise. 

Now, if what was made clear was where we were headed a while later after childbirth I might have pulled the plug at that time. To me, the bait and switch only becomes clear with the passage of some amount of time. 




Mommywhatohnothing said:


> I've been following this thread with real interest and trying to apply it to my soon to be over marriage (background in my thread).
> 
> *People here seem to talk a lot about the bait and switch of sex prior to marriage vs after marriage. I saw that in my relationship with my H but in the opposite manner of what mostly seems to be described here - but it had the same long term effect. When H and I were dating, we had a sex life I thought we were both happy with, with sex happening a few times per week. Now granted we weren't living together then so it probably did work out to almost every time we were together unless we couldn't afford condoms (we were REALLY broke in those days). Had we but known back then that I would turn out to be completely sterile I wonder how much more it would have happened.
> 
> ...


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> That's what I'm trying to figure out, jld! That's what this "break" is all about. It's why I come to TAM.
> 
> Let's just say that if the kinds of relationships I've had in the past are "normal", then I'd rather have a cat!


Based on what you have shared with me, I would describe your past relationships as one in which you were borderline abused (males demanding mandatory sex). It is no wonder you feel angry towards men.

How do the men you have had relationships with compare to your father? Did he have ELD as well for your mother?

Badsanta


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Two weeks?
> 
> I guess it depends on your age. At that frequency dates would have a schedule - left time for sex at the start or the end.
> 
> My guess - your wife gets the same chemical validation boost from being pursued - that you get from actual sex.


Two weeks is not a normal gap. Typical frequency is about every 2-5 days (it all depends.) Sometimes things happen where periods, training for a marathon, health, or other life events translate an unusually long gap. In that case, why would not not take the opportunity to have sex after a date as I described. We've gone out of our way to schedule time together away from those factors that prevent such activity.

It just is that "dates" to her are a different activity than "sex dates." I'm sure if I said this to her she'd disagree, but like most of us, we're often oblivious as to how our actions are perceived by our spouse.

I'm 45, she's 43. She's had our daughter (now 5 1/2) at 37. Her sex drive took a massive dive after childbirth. I understand post-childbirth pre-menopause reduction in libido is not unusual. There's a whole other conversation about how we worked that out and are both very happy with it now, but that's a whole other topic.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> It may be a bad way to look at it but that's how the brain works once we get past the infatuation period in a relationship.
> 
> The brain runs a pretty complicated MinMax model that is reward seeking (sex, stability) and risk averse (adultery, instability).
> 
> You can play along the selfless approach until the W.T.F moment.


OK, but it's not really selfless. it's as much self interested as any other way.

I look at more as just a realistic view of things you can control vs not control


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Mommywhatohnothing said:


> I'm starting to realize I'm probably better off without him, but after reading this thread I have to wonder if I'm doomed to be alone for the rest of my life. *What man is going to want a woman with so many health problems that a lot of times I'm not physically capable of having sex even if I do want to?* It's one thing to become a caregiver for a current spouse that you already love. It's another thing entirely to get involved with someone knowing up front that they're a walking medical disaster.


I think you might be surprised on this one.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> Exactly. It's as if they become "Emotionally LD" (Let's call it "ELD" for the purposes of this post)
> 
> In my marriage with my late husband, we seemed to 'connect' on an emotional level at first. But little by little, we stopped 'connecting'. He even told me, "A guy can't keep up that charade forever!" So, he basically 'fed' me for as long as it took to 'hook' me. Once he felt secure that I wouldn't leave him, he backed waaaaaay off. Yet, he still expected the same level of sex.
> 
> ...


I can't disagree that those (sex/emotion) are the intentions of some people. But you make it sound like men have no emotional needs. I think the point your missing is despite how a man feels emotionally, he still wants to have sex with someone. Not necessarily the case with the women that tie the two together more closely (in general, I know that's not all women.)

In a lot of these cases of men complaining of no sex from their wives, they also describe a wife that is affection-less and emotionally detached. They're being treated like roommates. They're trying to find a way to win back her affection and probably her love. Perhaps it's because he was emotionally negligent for so long that she became detached, but it sounds more a lot of these guys were great to their wives and the wives just got tired of them.
You talk about the intentions of people. Some women unintentionally marry a man because he's good on paper. Money, Job, family, upstanding citizen, great father material, etc., and how the feel about him is secondary. I've seen women admit to this. As all men know, it doesn't matter how great of a lover you are, a woman isn't going to stick with you unless you've got a future. So it's no wonder why some wives just lose interest in their husbands after they get what they wanted from him. It might be why some go off to have affairs looking for that emotional connection they never go from their husband.
They shouldn't have married him in the first place, but he was a catch.

So I have to ask, which one of these men that you describe was the one that you didn't have sex with for 8 months he was "OK with that"? Or am I mixing up two different people (sorry if I am.)


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> I think this is complicated.
> 
> The simplest part is what not to do. Covert contracts - aren't a fraction as covert as the contractor might think. Especially over time, where patterns of behavior become evident.
> 
> ...


the thing is-- it's actually not complicated at all

it's either there or it's not

if it's there, you don't have to try or do anything

if it's not, you can do anything/everything and it still won't be there


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Buddy400 said:


> My wife has a blank check from me.
> 
> I also have one from her.
> 
> Because we trust each other to use them wisely.


that is cool and the way it should be


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Mommywhatohnothing said:


> I'm starting to realize I'm probably better off without him, but after reading this thread I have to wonder if I'm doomed to be alone for the rest of my life. What man is going to want a woman with so many health problems that a lot of times I'm not physically capable of having sex even if I do want to? It's one thing to become a caregiver for a current spouse that you already love. It's another thing entirely to get involved with someone knowing up front that they're a walking medical disaster.


sorry to hear about your situation

attitude is extremely important

just demonstrating that you really want your partner is the main thing, in my opinion.

the actual act is deeply secondary to that


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

When talking about sex specifically, we don't have a blank check per-se.
We have an agreement of "never say no." It was actually her idea. It means that sex is never a reward or bargaining chip. Our love is unconditional and so is the sex.
That being said, it's more complicated than it sounds. Not saying "No" doesn't mean "yes," and there are lots of factors that lead to not necessarily doing it when you want to, but it it's a very clear understanding where sex lives in our relationship.
This was part of our pre-marital discussions about sex, money, kids, goals, and everything else you should talk about before getting married.

So when the question is asked, is sex the bottom line? This is why it's considered a required component of our marriage.
Do I expect we'll have a lot of sex at 60 or 70? No. I realized health and sexual interest may change with age but we try to serve each other's sexual desires because we are sexually exclusive.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

JamesTKirk said:


> we try to serve each other's sexual desires because we are sexually exclusive.


I think there is a lot of power in this sentence, particularly the notion of serving....subjugating your needs for the sake of someone you care about.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Wazza said:


> I think there is a lot of power in this sentence, particularly the notion of serving....subjugating your needs for the sake of someone you care about.


Partially agree. I don't think subjugating your own needs is necessary, but each partner should make it the priority to fulfill the other's needs, and trust that their partner will do the same.

Obviously, that's the ideal situation and doesn't always work out that way.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> I think there is a lot of power in this sentence, particularly the notion of serving....subjugating your needs for the sake of someone you care about.


How do you decide who subjugates first, or most?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

This matches my experience. It is of course not universal but simply being desired is very important to most people. 

For high libido people, it is difficult to understand and hurtful that their low libido partners will not put in a little effort a few times a week to do something that will make them happy.

For low libido people of course it is not "a little effort". While use of mouth or hands may not be physically uncomfortable, it is a huge imposition and extremely unpleasant if they are not in the mood. 

If a partner has an illness that prevents some form of sex, that is entirely different. The high libido person will likely in that case recognize that sex is not a "little effort" for their partner, but instead is dangerous or painful. 





TheTruthHurts said:


> @mommywhatohnothing so sorry to hear your story. But I think there are many good men - even HD men - who could be sexually content with you.
> 
> The lack of sex hurts when it feels like the spouse can't be bothered to take time for you. That's not your situation. And if you show affection and desire for your man that's more than half the issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Partially agree. I don't think subjugating your own needs is necessary, but each partner should make it the priority to fulfill the other's needs, and trust that their partner will do the same.
> 
> Obviously, that's the ideal situation and doesn't always work out that way.


Things are usually not ideal. And there will be a limit to what you can do. But if you can make it about more than just your needs (which is not necessarily the same as neglecting your needs) I think you have more options. That's where I like the notion of serving.



jld said:


> How do you decide who subjugates first, or most?


Its a fair question, but it perpetuates the problem.

Right now you are lucky, you have found your Dug, and the chemistry works. But I have the sense you don't really know why it works. If I take what you have said at face value, the situation appears basically hopeless for most people. If they inspire their partner their needs may be met but if they set out to inspire their partner in order to get their needs met they are perceived as creating covert contracts. 

And you've cited Perrel, so I'll assume you have read her work, and know her basic theory that, in long term relationships, attraction takes a dive.

In the beginning my marriage seemed perfect and it was all effortless. In hindsight that was naive, but it was how it looked. Then there was the middle period which was wracked by her infidelity and an explosion of other problems, and then there was the rebuilding, which is where we are in and probably will be, in one sense or another, for as long as we stay together. That's not a bad thing. In the beginning it was like taking a burned out shell and making it habitable again. Now it's more like a fresh coat of paint upstairs, or renovating the bathroom to put a spa in. But it still takes work.

So, for those couples who are struggling with mismatched desire, but who value the broader relationship and don't want to throw it away for sex, what should they do?

In part, I subjugate my sexual desire for the sake of the broader relationship. What would you do?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> Based on what you have shared with me, I would describe your past relationships as one in which you were borderline abused (males demanding mandatory sex). It is no wonder you feel angry towards men.
> 
> How do the men you have had relationships with compare to your father? Did he have ELD as well for your mother?
> 
> Badsanta


I don't feel angry toward "men" _in general_. I feel angry at ABUSIVE men and CONTROLLING men who LIE and SELFISH men and PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE men and EGOTISTICAL IMMATURE men. And, men who use women for sex/money etc. 

Now, if what I've CAPITALIZED represented 75% of the male population, then I would be angry at 75% of the male population. If it represents 1% of the male population, I wouldn't even waste my time on boards like TAM.

However, in my experiences, it seems like I've either experienced MORE than my 'fair share', _or_...there are a LOT more than a mere 1% of the men out there who are _jerks_! If I've had 10 LTR's in my life, *9* of them seem to have been with men as I described. That's _*90%*_. Does that mean that 90% of the male population are 'jerks'? 

I doubt it. But I also doubt that only 1% are, too. 

As for my father, he was absent most of my life (not his choice). When I did see him again, toward the end of his life, I found him to be warm, caring, affectionate, generous, stead-fast and had a strong work ethic. Oh, I'm sure he had his faults, lol! But even my mother admitted to those qualities he had that I just described. 

The only decent relationship I had was the FIRST relationship I was in when I was 17. It lasted for 2 years, and the only reason why I broke up with him was because I wanted to move to California. I had been talking about it since day one, so he knew it was a strong possibility at some point. But even after we broke up, we were still friends. I mean REAL friends. We're still friends to this day, even though we haven't talked in a few years. The last time we talked was about 2.5 years ago when my late husband passed away (they knew each other) 

Don't know if this helps Badsanta, but there ya go! :smile2:


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Wazza said:


> In the beginning my marriage seemed perfect and *it was all effortless*. In hindsight that was naive, but it was how it looked. Then there was the middle period which was wracked by her infidelity and an explosion of other problems, and then there was the rebuilding, which is where we are in and probably will be, in one sense or another, for as long as we stay together. That's not a bad thing. In the beginning it was like taking a burned out shell and making it habitable again. Now it's more like a fresh coat of paint upstairs, or renovating the bathroom to put a spa in. *But it still takes work.*
> 
> So, for those couples who are struggling with mismatched desire, but who value the broader relationship and don't want to throw it away for sex, what should they do?
> 
> In part, I subjugate my sexual desire for the sake of the broader relationship. What would you do?


I am afraid the expectation of many is that it should be effortless. The reality is very different. A marriage is no different than a marathon. To complete it, you need a lot of work and sometimes it is unpleasant. If you decide to take a break, you pay for it later.

It is easy to blame it on others. You will have always someone to agree with you, but it does not mean it is right. 

Treating sex as the bottom line will not get you anywhere. Understanding where your LD wife comes from will get you closer to sex than making her feeling guilty.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> What is your point here? That the LD should just do it, to please the HD spouse?
> 
> I don't think that is going to work long term, not with a spouse who has some self-respect.





Duguesclin said:


> I think the bottom line is that men complaining about a LD spouse often do not want to lift one finger. They want to sit, whine and be served.





Wazza said:


> I never advocated covert contracts. Dug did.





jld said:


> I doubt it. If he practiced that, I would surely know, Wazza. Our sex life is based on his inspiring me.


In the light of what I just wrote, I want to come back to these earlier quotes.

If Dug is not pointing to doing something with a view to creating a happier situation, where his needs then get met. What is he saying? Is he just saying that you meet your partner's needs because it's the right thing? Doing it to please his spouse? In which case how does your first quote abiut self respect apply.

The fact that you feel inspired, is great, but I don't think you would necessarily know why he does what he does. So, imagine he stops inspiring you. But then you have children to care for, and no income of your own. What are you going to do?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> I am afraid the expectation of many is that it should be effortless. The reality is very different. A marriage is no different than a marathon. To complete it, you need a lot of work and sometimes it is unpleasant. If you decide to take a break, you pay for it later.
> 
> It is easy to blame it on others. You will have always someone to agree with you, but it does not mean it is right.
> 
> Treating sex as the bottom line will not get you anywhere. Understanding where your LD wife comes from will get you closer to sex than making her feeling guilty.


Agree 100% with this. I would add in respecting her right to a different level of desire.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> "...each partner should make it the priority to fulfill the other's needs, and trust that their partner will do the same."


It's funny that you posted this today, Fozzy. It's something I was tossing about in my head this morning while at work. 

I've begun to question whether or not we're supposed to be in a relationship in order to "fulfill each other's needs" and exactly what those "needs" are. And I can see how we can turn anything we WANT into a "NEED", simply by saying that we'll be "unhappy" without it. 

Which doesn't automatically make 'it' a 'need'. 

I've always been pretty independent. It's not that I don't have ANY needs, but the needs I may have *from* someone don't seem to be that many. Yet, I couldn't seem to get them met!


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Wazza said:


> In the light of what I just wrote, I want to come back to these earlier quotes.
> 
> If Dug is not pointing to doing something with a view to creating a happier situation, where his needs then get met. What is he saying? Is he just saying that you meet your partner's needs because it's the right thing? Doing it to please his spouse? In which case how does your first quote another self respect apply.
> 
> *The fact that you feel inspired, is great, but I don't think you would necessarily know why he does what he does. So, imagine he stops inspiring you. But then you have children to care for, and no income of your own. What are you going to do?*


Unfortunately many mother at home or low income working mothers are in that case. That is very sad. 

Men have a lot of power in their relationships. They need to use it wisely, not selfishly.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Seems to mean one of two things, either 90% of those you are attracted to are jerks or 90% of those who are attracted to you are jerks. Or, some combo of the two?




Vega said:


> I don't feel angry toward "men" _in general_. I feel angry at ABUSIVE men and CONTROLLING men who LIE and SELFISH men and PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE men and EGOTISTICAL IMMATURE men. And, men who use women for sex/money etc.
> 
> Now, if what I've CAPITALIZED represented 75% of the male population, then I would be angry at 75% of the male population. If it represents 1% of the male population, I wouldn't even waste my time on boards like TAM.
> 
> ...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Its a fair question, but it perpetuates the problem.
> 
> Right now you are lucky, you have found your Dug, and the chemistry works. But I have the sense you don't really know why it works. If I take what you have said at face value, the situation appears basically hopeless for most people. If they inspire their partner their needs may be met but if they set out to inspire their partner in order to get their needs met they are perceived as creating covert contracts.


That is why it is so important to live a life of integrity for integrity's sake. It is likely that good things will come to you. But even if they don't, you have the satisfaction of a clear conscience.

You are right that I don't necessarily know why things work with Dug and me. That is one of the things I have tried to figure out here on TAM. I thought it could help people who are struggling. 

But even when I have tried to isolate elements and have shared them, people tend to get defensive. Dug says it is because they think it would require too much work.

I read things here that I find foreign: sexless marriage, men who need affirmation, women told to find their own sex drive. I am amazed that women want to stay married considering the conditions and expectations some are living under.

And what is saddest is that some of the unhealthiest advice given to women is given by . . . other women.



> And you've cited Perrel, so I'll assume you have read her work, and know her basic theory that, in long term relationships, attraction takes a dive.


I have read one TED talk by Esther Perel.

I am not less attracted to Dug than I was in the beginning. I think my attraction has held steady over the last 23 years. It certainly drops to zero or near zero when I am mad at him, though.

His attraction has never wavered.



> In the beginning my marriage seemed perfect and it was all effortless. In hindsight that was naive, but it was how it looked. Then there was the middle period which was wracked by her infidelity and an explosion of other problems, and then there was the rebuilding, which is where we are in and probably will be, in one sense or another, for as long as we stay together. That's not a bad thing. In the beginning it was like taking a burned out shell and making it habitable again. Now it's more like a fresh coat of paint upstairs, or renovating the bathroom to put a spa in. But it still takes work.


Have you ever fully explained that time in your marriage, and the rebuilding? I did several shout outs to you in grid's thread, but you never answered. Your input could have been helpful there, and in other places, too.



> So, for those couples who are struggling with mismatched desire, but who value the broader relationship and don't want to throw it away for sex, what should they do?
> 
> In part, I subjugate my sexual desire for the sake of the broader relationship. What would you do?


I think the only healthy way to have sex is if the woman feels inspired. Any coercion should be a dealbreaker.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Vega said:


> It's funny that you posted this today, Fozzy. It's something I was tossing about in my head this morning while at work.
> 
> I've begun to question whether or not we're supposed to be in a relationship in order to "fulfill each other's needs" and exactly what those "needs" are. And I can see how we can turn anything we WANT into a "NEED", simply by saying that we'll be "unhappy" without it.
> 
> ...



I get you. Some folks have more needs than others. Some seem to have no limit to their needs. Others have very few. The point I'm making with my quoted post is that in an ideal (har har) situation, each partner is able to trust the other with fulfilling those needs to the best of their ability. It's not to say that they'll meet all of your needs, it's that they'll give it their best, which is all anyone can ask.

It's when one partner or the other can totally do more but chooses not to--either through ignorance, laziness or just asshattery--that things start to break down. For it to work involves constant mindfulness, trust and a spirit of generosity from both people. Also remembering that just because someone isn't meeting all your needs doesn't mean they aren't trying.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Vega said:


> One of the reasons why I'm celibate right now is because I don't want to get into --yet another--a relationship where I'm having plenty of sex without orgasms.
> 
> I am so done with selfish men.


Judging by the rest of your post, I'd say that the problem isn't that you don't want sex, but that you weren't getting GOOD sex and that put you off sex in general. And no wonder! If you weren't getting much out of it, so to speak, why would you be eager to do it again? If the majority of sex I had left me unfulfilled, I wouldn't want much to do with it, either!

Attraction matters. Technique matters. If you aren't truly physically attracted to a man, on a chemical level, the sex is bound to be less than stellar. Add in technique that doesn't work for you and it's not a surprise you weren't getting the O's you should have been enjoying the whole time.

The kind of man you're looking for is chemically attractive to you and chemically attracted to you. He should also have the technique, the way of going about sex, that turns you on. Maybe he'll need to tweak it a bit, but he should have the basics as part of his own original programming.

I now this may sound terrible but it's honest. Back when I was single and catting around, if I slept with a man and did not orgasm at least once, I did not sleep with him a 2nd time. I considered that a sign that we were not sexually compatible.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

anonmd said:


> Seems to mean one of two things, either 90% of those you are attracted to are jerks or 90% of those who are attracted to you are jerks. Or, some combo of the two?


Probably a combination of the two. I DO take full responsibility for the ones who were OBVIOUS jerks from the get-go. I ignored the 'red flags' because I was too ignorant to know what the red flags meant. 

Not anymore. 

I was too naive and too forgiving. If I caught a man in a lie, we talked about it. He would be apologetic, and sometimes even tearful. I took that to mean he was being remorseful, and I found it in my heart to forgive him. 

Over and over and over again. 

_Now_, my motto is, "FIRST lie, Good-BYE!" I don't have _time_ for that crap anymore.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> In the light of what I just wrote, I want to come back to these earlier quotes.
> 
> If Dug is not pointing to doing something with a view to creating a happier situation, where his needs then get met. What is he saying? Is he just saying that you meet your partner's needs because it's the right thing? Doing it to please his spouse? In which case how does your first quote abiut self respect apply.


I interpret his actions as just wanting to do the right thing. If he is just trying to get sex, then that has not been on my radar, or not strongly enough for it to make an impression on me.

Dug, only you know your motivation. Do you do the things you do with an eye on having sex with me later?



> The fact that you feel inspired, is great, but I don't think you would necessarily know why he does what he does. So, imagine he stops inspiring you. But then you have children to care for, and no income of your own. What are you going to do?


I can't see Dug ever shirking his responsibilities. And we have never gone long without sex. Even when I am mad, he can talk me out of my anger. He has a lot of influence over me.

He can be very calming, very patient. Even times when I want to stay mad at him, I find myself giving in. 

And that is probably not a good thing. Gottman says a woman's anger is very important in marriage. It is a way for the man and the marriage to grow.

One more thing. I have a teaching degree, albeit from 25 years ago. I could probably find some kind of job. 

And my daughter is almost done with her degree in chemical engineering. I know she would help me. All my children would.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

jld said:


> Dug, only you know your motivation. Do you do the things you do with an eye on having sex with me later?


I like to keep things simple. I have learned that complicated strategies never work and usually backfire.

I like sex. I have it regularly, thank you :smile2:. 

Sex is like the cherry on the cake. Sex is not the cake. Life together is.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> I like to keep things simple. I have learned that complicated strategies never work and usually backfire.
> 
> I like sex. I have it regularly, thank you :smile2:.
> 
> Sex is like the cherry on the cake. Sex is not the cake. *Life together is.*




And that attitude is why you have never been sexless, Dug.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> Unfortunately many mother at home or low income working mothers are in that case. That is very sad.
> 
> Men have a lot of power in their relationships. They need to use it wisely, not selfishly.


Is there such a thing as a limit here? Does the guy subjugate his needs without limit? And if not, is he a creep to walk and leave his wife destitute?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> :.
> 
> Sex is like the cherry on the cake. Sex is not the cake. *Life together is*.


But if the cherry isn't on the cake, would you still want the cake?

ETA: This is a great attitude to have, but I think a lot of people pay _lip-service _to this attitude and they make sex to be the _entire_ cake. 

To me, if 'he' is having sex with me several times a day every day, talks about having it throughout the day when we're NOT having sex and pouts when I FINALLY turn him down for sex THE FIRST TIME, he has made sex to be the cake.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Vega said:


> _Now_, my motto is, "FIRST lie, Good-BYE!" I don't have _time_ for that crap anymore.


Now transfer that motto over to your sex life, too, and you should be all good  First bad sex, good-bye! Cuz you don't have time for that.

Especially since you orgasm from PIV. I mean, really, women who orgasm from PIV are like easy mode. We can generally orgasm from just PIV, oral, manual, toys...and something like 70% of women cannot, so it's a gift. For those who can and their partners. DH likens a woman who can orgasm vaginally to the Holy Grail. Find a good man to share that gift with. It's been unappreciated for far too long.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> Have you ever fully explained that time in your marriage, and the rebuilding? I did several shout outs to you in grid's thread, but you never answered. Your input could have been helpful there, and in other places, too.


Never saw the shouts. What were they, PM? Didnt come through.

Bits of my story are in different threads, but it was many years ago. I learned from other peoples' stories in CWI without needed to work through my own in detail. Summary in my profile.

There is a lot else I could engage with in your post, but I want to think a bit before I write any more. 

A question for you to consider at the same time. Imagine a husband's wife has mismatched desire, and he needs sex and she is not meeting that need, and she is a stay at home mum or otherwise in a position where divorce would leave her in poverty. Suppose he genuinely cares about her, and has tried everything he can do to make the relationship better, without success.

His choices are essentially celibacy, or infidelity, or divorcing her and letting the financial storm engulf her. Which should he choose?


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Duguesclin said:


> I like to keep things simple. I have learned that complicated strategies never work and usually backfire.
> 
> I like sex. I have it regularly, thank you :smile2:.
> 
> Sex is like the cherry on the cake. Sex is not the cake. Life together is.


The first bit I totally agree with. The second bit, not so much. 

See, I don't want my romantic relationship to be all complicated, either. I prefer simple, natural, and so on. But I think sex is more than just the cherry on the cake. It's baked into the cake, part of its taste and texture. Sex gives the cake richness and depth. Without it, the cake wouldn't be...complete...the same...as good...and no, I wouldn't want the cake without that deliciousness that gives it so much flavor and texture and richness.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Wazza said:


> His choices are essentially celibacy, or infidelity, or divorcing her and letting the financial storm engulf her. Which should he choose?


If he genuinely cares about her, even if he divorces her, he doesn't HAVE to leave her destitute.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

TheTruthHurts said:


> @mommywhatohnothing so sorry to hear your story. But I think there are many good men - even HD men - who could be sexually content with you.
> 
> The lack of sex hurts when it feels like the spouse can't be bothered to take time for you. That's not your situation. And if you show affection and desire for your man that's more than half the issue.
> 
> ...


Some of the exceptions that are repeatedly expressed in this thread made me think.

Can woman want the same? What would that look like? Should he gracefully accommodate her desire to have less sex out of consideration?. 

The problem is that the LD partner is expected to do something extremely difficult and the HD partner does not realize the extent of what he is asking. Giving the gift of unwanted sex takes a high expenditure of emotional energy. 

The sense of entitlement on the part of the recipient means that the gift is not acknowledged or appreciated. I've read "what's so difficult about taking 15 mins to meet my needs or use hands or mouth". But it is difficult and it's not reasonable to expect if there is so little understanding. 

If men and woman are equally responsible to nurture the relationship then any extra giving should have value. It's so easy to give when you receive appreciation and acknowledgment of a gift. If the giver needs to absorb the emotional deficit for years, what happens? Love and cultural expectations does not trump human nature.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> I now this may sound terrible but it's honest. Back when I was single and catting around, if I slept with a man and did not orgasm at least once, I did not sleep with him a 2nd time. I considered that a sign that we were not sexually compatible.


Agreed! No orgasm? No way!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> Some of the exceptions that are repeatedly expressed in this thread made me think.
> 
> Can woman want the same? What would that look like? *Should he gracefully accommodate her desire to have less sex out of consideration?.
> *


Exactly! And we see how often _that_ happens. I mean, obviously it happens. But not "gracefully", like they expect the LD to "gracefully" meet THEIR needs. 



> The problem is that the LD partner is expected to do something extremely difficult and the HD partner does not realize the extent of what he is asking. Giving the gift of unwanted sex takes a high expenditure of emotional energy


. 

Not only that, but there are a number of times where the HD not only wants more sex, but (s)he wants more ENTHUSIASTIC sex. Even if the LD had to 'fake it', it would satisfy the HD. And the LD is left wondering, "How can (he) have sex with me when (he) KNOWS this isn't something that I want?" The LD then feels used, as if his or her feelings don't matter. 



> The sense of entitlement on the part of the recipient means that the gift is not acknowledged or appreciated. I've read "what's so difficult about taking 15 mins to meet my needs or use hands or mouth". But it is difficult and it's not reasonable to expect if there is so little understanding.


Yes! When the HD wants sex and the LD doesn't, sometimes the HD will request oral or a hj. That tells the LD that the original request for sex was about the HD getting off. The LD can think, "If you want ME to use *my* hand, what's wrong with using YOUR OWN hand?" 



> If men and woman are equally responsible to nurture the relationship then any extra giving have value. It's so easy to give when you receive appreciation and acknowledgment of a gift. If the giver needs to absorb the emotional deficit for years, what happens? Love and cultural expectations does not trump human nature.


Precisely. You begin to feel taken advantage of. Which SUX.

ETA: I wanted to add something about this: 


> The sense of entitlement on the part of the recipient means that the gift is not acknowledged or appreciated


If we believe we're _entitled_ to sex, we will expect it without being grateful. We don't seem to understand that our partner isn't under any obligation to provide a certain amount of sex to us or a certain kind of sex to us within a certain time frame. 

If we recognize sex as a "gift" that our spouse voluntarily provides to us, perhaps we should be grateful for that gift instead of complaining that we don't get as many gifts as we THINK we 'should' get.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Needs and wants cover a wide range of things. The effort from a partner is also wide.

Children. Some people want / need children to be happy. For someone who does not want children, having children is a monstrous burden. For someone who also wants children it is not a burden but a positive thing.

Someone may want to go running with their partner. An athletic partner might enjoy a half hour run at 6am before work. A non-athletic partner might find it an unreasonable thing to ask.

Same for camping trips. going to nightclubs, travel. Some people are happy with a job that provides food and shelter, and consider it a huge effort to work a job that will make them wealthy.


Sex is a want for some people and a need for others. It is a thing easily granted by some, and a huge imposition to others. 


It is not that people "need" to much but that they need things their partners cannot easily give. 






Vega said:


> It's funny that you posted this today, Fozzy. It's something I was tossing about in my head this morning while at work.
> 
> I've begun to question whether or not we're supposed to be in a relationship in order to "fulfill each other's needs" and exactly what those "needs" are. And I can see how we can turn anything we WANT into a "NEED", simply by saying that we'll be "unhappy" without it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Vega your posts are poignant and at the same time, generous. Opening your heart and expressing the deep pain is very hard to do and it is sometimes not welcomed. 

Your experience is not so uncommon if a little more extreme. Your feelings about men are also natural and common but most women submerge them because that what our culture expects. Women are expected to trust men despite past experiences. 

I think woman should trust men who have proven to be trustworthy. It's unwise to trust blindly. Also understand men so you decode their behavior. Recognize the traits of selfishness or deception in the men you meet. "Providing for a man's needs should nt be a goal in your relationships. Better yet. never ever give more than you get, ever. In a new relationship, as soon as red flags fly, you should fly. 

Predatory men look for generous woman who give more than they get and expect very little. You can recognize them because they are selfish in small ways in the early stages to test their victim. If your tolerate it your in, if not he goes away. Women who are low maintenance are ideal. 

There is no reason you should subjugate your needs, emotions and desires in your relationships, you need as much as your partner. Value what you give and who you are. Don't accommodate, rather share adapt a give and take mode. 

Vega you can see what being too "willing, considerate, accommodating" of a partner does to you. It does not get you love or respect or happiness. You have to make sure that your wonderful gifts are not valued or don't give. 

The most difficult thing for you going forward is to put your new found knowledge into action. When you heal emotionally, start slow with no expectations of a LTR but with requirements for any association. Resist the urge to give just because there is a need. No need is so great that it requires your sacrifice.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

*"Not only that, but there are a number of times where the HD not only wants more sex, but (s)he wants more ENTHUSIASTIC sex. Even if the LD had to 'fake it', it would satisfy the HD. And the LD is left wondering, "How can (he) have sex with me when (he) KNOWS this isn't something that I want?" The LD then feels used, as if his or her feelings don't matter."
*
A person who sees you as a human being with feelings would not ask you to put on an act and they could not have an orgasm knowing that you are doing so. 

You met the wrong men. But it is all in your control. I have a feeling that you attract them by your tolerance of bad behavior at the very begin of a relationship. Yu may be too will to rescue them or help them. A quality man does not come to a woman for help. He has a sense of pride along with a plan and an execution strategy.

As I said, expect better and you will get it. The predators will not even approach you if you have an air of confidence and standards. If they do, they won't last long when you read the signs and cut and run.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> It's funny that you posted this today, Fozzy. It's something I was tossing about in my head this morning while at work.
> 
> I've begun to question whether or not we're supposed to be in a relationship in order to "fulfill each other's needs" and exactly what those "needs" are. And I can see how we can turn anything we WANT into a "NEED", simply by saying that we'll be "unhappy" without it.
> 
> ...



This post made me think. I'm also independent and don't need much and don't ever ask for much from others. And I told have had difficulty getting certain needs met.

Yet, some people I know who are totally needy and dependent seem to have no trouble at all finding people to go to the ends of the Earth for them. Even if they never reciprocate.

I wonder if there is a connection?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Needy people gravitate to givers. If they are selfish on top of an excessive dependency, they gravitate to sacrificial givers. 

Being indépendant shouldn't be a problem. Requiring very little is. It may attract men who are emotionally cold, and/or withholding or have little to give.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Catherine602 said:


> You met the wrong men. But it is all in our control. I have a feeling that you attract them by your tolerance of bad behavior at the very begin of a relationship. Yu may be too will to rescue them or help them. A quality man does not come to a woman for help. He has a sense of pride along with a plan and an execution strategy.
> 
> As I said, expect better and you will get it. The predators will not even approach you if you have an air of confidence and standards. If they do, they won't last long when you read the signs and cut and run.


Men can be hard time figure out tho. If they come on too strong, it's a red flag, but it they don't come on strong enough, that's also a red flag. Hard to know when you hit the sweet spot.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Catherine602 said:


> Needy people gravitate to givers. If they are selfish on top of an excessive dependency, they gravitate to sacrificial givers.
> 
> Being indépendant shouldn't be a problem. Requiring very little is. It may attract men who are emotionally cold, and/or withholding or have little to give.


Actually, I think it may attract guys who are super needy or broken and need someone to look after them, fix them, put up with them.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

@Vega I may not have been clear. I don't think that sex is a gift or should not be seen as such. I have more sex than I would have if it were not for my husband. 

It's not unwanted though, it's just that I need to get in the mood and we all good. I've read that LD women get into it after they get started but are resistant to getting started. I don't resist getting started, why should I do that an miss out on a peak experience? 

I meant women who have sex when they don't want it, or have not had the chance to get aroused or are required to act and not be themselves. They are the gift givers.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
I am sorry you've had such dishonest partners.

That's a terrible thing to have happen repeatedly. 

The irony is - I thought we saw this stuff completely different - early in your thread. But we don't. 

I want to reinforce this theme you touched on. 

Given a choice between a partner who is:
- mechanically competent (housework, money, etc)
- emotionally exceptional 

Or
- mechanically exceptional (housework, money, etc)
- emotionally competent 

It's a total no brainer. 







Vega said:


> Exactly. It's as if they become "Emotionally LD" (Let's call it "ELD" for the purposes of this post)
> 
> In my marriage with my late husband, we seemed to 'connect' on an emotional level at first. But little by little, we stopped 'connecting'. He even told me, "A guy can't keep up that charade forever!" So, he basically 'fed' me for as long as it took to 'hook' me. Once he felt secure that I wouldn't leave him, he backed waaaaaay off. Yet, he still expected the same level of sex.
> 
> ...


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Wazza said:


> His choices are essentially celibacy, or infidelity, or divorcing her and letting the financial storm engulf her. Which should he choose?


And what about working on figuring out the problem?

If you love your wife, she should be worth your attention and commitment, no matter what.

If your wife were not able to function because of some illness, would you dump her because she could no longer meet your needs?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Never saw the shouts. What were they, PM? Didnt come through.
> 
> Bits of my story are in different threads, but it was many years ago. I learned from other peoples' stories in CWI without needed to work through my own in detail. Summary in my profile.
> 
> ...


If he loves her, he would not divorce her. The only way that would make sense to me is if he thought the divorce were in her best interests, not in his own selfish ones. And leaving the devoted mother of his children destitute is disgraceful.

I do not think sex is a need, Wazza. Air and water and food are needs.

The shout outs were in the middle of grid's thread. He could have really used your help.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> I like to keep things simple. I have learned that complicated strategies never work and usually backfire.
> 
> I like sex. I have it regularly, thank you :smile2:.
> 
> Sex is like the cherry on the cake. Sex is not the cake. Life together is.


Then your husband / wife arguments have maxed out at "Coke vs Pepsi "... 

Your post, like many others in TAM, convince me that people in "good" marriages are rarely able to relate to people in "bad" marriages. It's like trying to learn to play a video game by watching YouTube. Much easier said than done.

Maybe those in good and plentiful sex marriages should do a "reverse 30 day challenge" - stop all intimacy one sided and do not tell your partner AT ALL and see how you and he or she feels after that. 

I spend a tremendous amount of time and money at work trying to objectively understand just how the users of what I help design interact with our products, because I can't simply base my analysis on how I feel about the stuff. I'm too biased, I helped design it. 

It's the same in marriage. You're in a good marriage, and for you a big issue is some infrequent emotional outbreak that we in bad marriages shake off (deal with / ignore / placate / manipulate) without even thinking about it. 

Sex isn't the cherry on top of the cake, or the icing. Sex is the light on the oven that tells you the cake is cooking. 

No light no cake.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

john117 said:


> Then your husband / wife arguments have maxed out at "Coke vs Pepsi "...
> 
> Your post, like many others in TAM, convince me that people in "good" marriages are rarely able to relate to people in "bad" marriages. It's like trying to learn to play a video game by watching YouTube. Much easier said than done.
> 
> ...


John, I get what you are saying, how can you talk about hunger when you never felt hungry? 

But do you have to have had cancer to be able to treat it?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> Then your husband / wife arguments have maxed out at "Coke vs Pepsi "...
> 
> Your post, like many others in TAM, convince me that people in "good" marriages are rarely able to relate to people in "bad" marriages. It's like trying to learn to play a video game by watching YouTube. Much easier said than done.
> 
> ...


John, you are hilarious. 

I read a similar post once from an old thread, and wish I could find it. It compared a good marriage to a summer camp where the toilets worked. It contrasted a bad camp with the good camp, and explained in detail all the challenges of the bad camp. Does anyone remember that one, and could link it? Catherine602 and AtholK were both in it. Maybe 2011/2012?

Dug and I have our arguments, too. I certainly do not hide my anger. But somehow things always come back together.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> John, I get what you are saying, how can you talk about hunger when you never felt hungry?
> 
> But do you have to have had cancer to be able to treat it?


Your last question is a great one. 

Another point I'd make is that here in TAM the default assumption seems to be that if you haven't experienced it you can't possibly give good advice.

But this fails to consider that you might be doing something differently that causes you to not experience some of the difficulties that others experience, so maybe you do in fact have something valuable to add.

Yet few want to hear it because that might require them to take some ownership of their own problems. 

But many just seem to have issue with you and jld, and for the life of me I can't understand why. You two have a successful marriage; not a perfect one, but a successful one. Yet few want to hear the efforts you make to get this. 

That would require a relinquishing of victimhood and entitlements.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> Your last question is a great one.
> 
> Another point I'd make is that here in TAM the default assumption seems to be that if you haven't experienced it you can't possibly give good advice.
> 
> ...


As usual, you put your finger right on the heart of the problem, life.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> It is not that people "need" to much but that they need things their partners cannot easily give.


Or, they claim to 'need' things from their partner that they can do for themselves.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

JamesTKirk said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding what seems to be contradictions. If you were HD and you knew how important sex was to you at the time, then why do you have such a hard time understanding the problem when one spouse is deprived?


This has been one of the most difficult issues to wrap my head around. How can someone who *has been* HD not understand how horrible it is to be HD and be denied by your spouse?

My analogy is that for at least some people who are LD or ND, it is like having one of the types of blindness. This is a type (sometimes caused by certain brain injuries, I believe) where the person is not just blind but has lost the memory of what seeing was like. 

The analogy, of course, is that the former HD can't recall what it was like to be HD. 

There are too many examples of this for me to think that they are all just terribly selfish people, although maybe that's just me.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> John, I get what you are saying, how can you talk about hunger when you never felt hungry?
> 
> But do you have to have had cancer to be able to treat it?


Physical diseases manifest themselves with a number of symptoms. You recognize the symptoms and come up with a treatment plan, order tests, the works. But at the end of the day it's the other guy or gal that has the disease, and understanding them is huge. Treating the whole patient is huge.

This is more like therapy, where there are few physical symptoms. Do you need to be depressed to treat someone depressed? No, but it helps to have deep exposure. Back in the days of FC we tried a PhD therapist from my school 😂 who followed the checklist approach. That's not how you do therapy. Even I knew that. We sought someone more experienced and indeed we found Dr. Jamie, who had gone thru a divorce with six kids and knew a thing or three about fvcked up families. It worked much better.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> Right? I can't think of a bigger libido killer then someone who doesn't want you and is putting out so you'll stfu.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How about someone with responsive desire?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> John, you are hilarious.
> 
> I read a similar post once from an old thread, and wish I could find it. It compared a good marriage to a summer camp where the toilets worked. It contrasted a bad camp with the good camp, and explained in detail all the challenges of the bad camp. Does anyone remember that one, and could link it? Catherine602 and AtholK were both in it. Maybe 2011/2012?
> 
> Dug and I have our arguments, too. I certainly do not hide my anger. But somehow things always come back together.


Because in the grand scheme of things your arguments are inconsequential and your responses even more inconsequential. I'm sure we can come up with analogies but the bottom line is this - unless you try you don't know.

At work we don't have the luxury of direct evidence so we rely on clever experiments to figure what people are thinking. Psyops on a small scale or large scale. Because we can't visualize directly how others think. It's the same here. If Dug turned into an emotional zombie overnight and you had no idea why he's doing it you'd be freaking out.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> This has been one of the most difficult issues to wrap my head around. How can someone who *has been* HD not understand how horrible it is to be HD and be denied by your spouse?
> 
> My analogy is that for at least some people who are LD or ND, it is like having one of the types of blindness. This is a type (sometimes caused by certain brain injuries, I believe) where the person is not just blind but has lost the memory of what seeing was like.
> 
> ...


Have you ever been HD before and NOT been in a relationship? 

IF so, how did you handle your "needs"?


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Vega said:


> Or, they claim to 'need' things from their partner that they can do for themselves.


How do I explain this?

Needing something from one's partner that you can do for yourself is real.

Getting to the heart of the thread...I can provide an orgasm for myself. I can actually do so more easily than my partner can for me. It's not the same.

The psychological and emotional benefits received from my partner _happily _doing this for me _FAR _outweighs the benefits I get from doing it for myself.

The benefit doesn't come from the orgasm, it comes from being loved.


----------



## Phil Anders (Jun 24, 2015)

Vega said:


> Have you ever been HD before and NOT been in a relationship?
> 
> IF so, how did you handle your "needs"?


Single HD people, unless they're chaining ONS's, masturbate for sexual release. [/spoiler]

I'll bet you think this factoid is somehow entirely germane to HD's in sexless/sex-starved marriages...


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega said:


> If he genuinely cares about her, even if he divorces her, he doesn't HAVE to leave her destitute.


Depends how rich he is.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> And what about working on figuring out the problem?
> 
> If you love your wife, she should be worth your attention and commitment, no matter what.
> 
> If your wife were not able to function because of some illness, would you dump her because she could no longer meet your needs?


What if you can't figure out the problem? What if there is no answer?

You and JLD have something that works, and in part that is a tribute to effort you have both made, but I also believe in part it is due to luck. To take one example, JLD says she has never experienced a drop in desire, yet married couples commonly report that the experience just that say when kids come along. How would you have coped I'd that had happened to you? It's not like you could totally control hormone levels and such. 

Bear in mind that I have been married significantly longer than you, in a marriage that was not always good. I am not a quitter. You and I see all that the sameway. Yet I have seen people I respect admit defeat.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> Some of the exceptions that are repeatedly expressed in this thread made me think.
> 
> Can woman want the same? What would that look like? Should he gracefully accommodate her desire to have less sex out of consideration?.
> 
> ...


The arguments you make seem to me to be applicable to both partners in a relationship that has sexual mismatch. They need to find something they can both live with, and it probably won't be exactly what either of them would choose.

I get what you say about "15 minutes of hand or mouth" being about the emotional energy, but sex, to some of us, is all about emotions from both sides.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> If he loves her, he would not divorce her. The only way that would make sense to me is if he thought the divorce were in her best interests, not in his own selfish ones. And leaving the devoted mother of his children destitute is disgraceful.
> 
> I do not think sex is a need, Wazza. Air and water and food are needs.
> 
> The shout outs were in the middle of grid's thread. He could have really used your help.


I wasn't following Grid's thread. PM me if you see something like that in future. 

I don't think I could live without sex. If that makes me defective, so be it.

If the husband should focus on the wife's needs, are you saying he should subjugate his own?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> John, I get what you are saying, how can you talk about hunger when you never felt hungry?
> 
> But do you have to have had cancer to be able to treat it?


Is every oncologist equally skilled at treatment?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Your last question is a great one.
> 
> Another point I'd make is that here in TAM the default assumption seems to be that if you haven't experienced it you can't possibly give good advice.
> 
> ...


They absolutely have a successful marriage, and I have long been one to point that out.

Beyond the huge general umbrella of being successful however, for me, the specifics of their marriage they have presented here on TAM is not a marriage that I would find appealing at all.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

[QU2OTE=samyeagar;15991673]They absolutely have a successful marriage, and I have long been one to point that out.

Beyond the huge general umbrella of being successful however, for me, the specifics of their marriage they have presented here on TAM is not a marriage that I would find appealing at all.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to. Their arrangement would absolutely not work for me, but that doesn't mean they can't give good advice regarding how to treat each other and what they feel each can do to encourage the best in their partner. 

I mean, dug attempted to give zdog advice on how to manage a marriage with a traveling job, which is something he does successfully with a wife and kids who look forward to him coming home. 

Yet most of TAM poo poo'd his advice, and even though few members manage a travelling job that didn't stop anyone from throwing out advice. 

So clearly the lack of experience doesn't stop anyone from giving advice, it's only when advice is counter to the herd that these standards apply.

It's just something about dug and jld many here find threatening. 

But it's their loss. Jld and I don't always agree but I think she has a unique, valuable perspective.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Fozzy said:


> How do I explain this?
> 
> Needing something from one's partner that you can do for yourself is real.
> 
> ...


With emphasis on happily.

Most of this thread is about making people happy about something they are not actually happy about. 

That's like banging your head against a brick wall.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> Have you ever been HD before and NOT been in a relationship?
> 
> IF so, how did you handle your "needs"?


My husband has an enlarged prostate and an enlarged heart, and I get the impression from this conversation that he should still be meeting my sexual needs. Or perhaps letting me go elsewhere since he can't manage it.

I'm tempted to show him this thread, but I have this funny feeling that he won't take it well.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Some things cannot be done for oneself, in particular sex. The problem with sex is that unlike most other things it can only be done with your partner. 



Vega said:


> Or, they claim to 'need' things from their partner that they can do for themselves.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Those would not prevent him from pleasing you with hands, toys or mouth. If he doesn't do so, I assume that for him that sort of sexual activity represents a major effort. For other people it would be a simple thing, happily done. 

If it is not a large burden to him, then he should do it. If it is a large burden, then he should not.




wild jade said:


> My husband has an enlarged prostate and an enlarged heart, and I get the impression from this conversation that he should still be meeting my sexual needs. Or perhaps letting me go elsewhere since he can't manage it.
> 
> I'm tempted to show him this thread, but I have this funny feeling that he won't take it well.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

It is possible to give good advice even if you have not experienced a situation, but it is not possible if you don't believe that situation exists. 

A doctor doesn't need to have had cancer in order to treat cancer. He does need to recognize the difference between cancer and a harmless lump.




lifeistooshort said:


> Your last question is a great one.
> 
> Another point I'd make is that here in TAM the default assumption seems to be that if you haven't experienced it you can't possibly give good advice.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

You'll have to find a man who has not been burned by infidelity to a point where he has little trust available to give. 

You'll have to find a man who is a bit naïve and has dreams of something like the Cinderella story. 

You won't like that. You aren't the Cinderella believer you once were. You need to accept that and actually be strong rather than hurt and bitter. 

Most of these burned men once believed as you wish, but they realized that love does not conquer all. They know one cannot tell how much another loves them or is dedicated to the marriage/relationship. They are closed off because the effort needed to achieve those deep feelings is mentally and emotionally more than they can handle when it falls apart. They can't pay that price again and know the odds are stacked against them.

Yes, it does happen that two will be in love so deeply that they can conquer many things. You can see that in this thread. 

No one can promise you will get what you want. No man can say what will happen in his future. Each day is new and has it's own challenges. Sometimes it will all go as you please and sometimes it won't. Nothing is guaranteed. It's up to you to believe with reservations and the knowledge you can and will be okay if it all falls apart. You will be hurt, but not destroyed. 

I think it's up to you to know how to discern one type of man from another. I think you are not yet able to do that well. There is a point where we can be so paranoid we test. From my life, I realize that anything that is scrutinized in minute detail will be found to have faults. Everyone here has done things they wish they didn't. Made mistakes they wish they could take back. Been immature in situations they wish they could have another try at. 

Everything that is scrutinized will fail. There is a point where compromise, love and forgiveness must make up for those small failings. The big ones must be accepted as inherent to an incompatible man for you and moved on from. As long as you are alive, there is a chance. When you give up, there is no chance. 

It's all up to you. You don't have to swallow the poison some of these men are giving you to drink. I wish you well. I actually feel a little sorry for you. I don't like that. I don't think anyone wants to feel patronized. I'm sorry I feel that way.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> [QU2OTE=samyeagar;15991673]They absolutely have a successful marriage, and I have long been one to point that out.
> 
> Beyond the huge general umbrella of being successful however, for me, the specifics of their marriage they have presented here on TAM is not a marriage that I would find appealing at all.


You don't have to. Their arrangement would absolutely not work for me, but that doesn't mean they can't give good advice regarding how to treat each other and what they feel each can do to encourage the best in their partner. 

I mean, dug attempted to give zdog advice on how to manage a marriage with a traveling job, which is something he does successfully with a wife and kids who look forward to him coming home. 

Yet most of TAM poo poo'd his advice, and even though few members manage a travelling job that didn't stop anyone from throwing out advice. 

So clearly the lack of experience doesn't stop anyone from giving advice, it's only when advice is counter to the herd that these standards apply.

It's just something about dug and jld many here find threatening. 

But it's their loss. Jld and I don't always agree but I think she has a unique, valuable perspective.
_Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOTE]

Amen


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Vega said:


> Not only that, but there are a number of times where the HD not only wants more sex, but (s)he wants more ENTHUSIASTIC sex.
> 
> 
> If we believe we're _entitled_ to sex, we will expect it without being grateful. We don't seem to understand that our partner isn't under any obligation to provide a certain amount of sex to us or a certain kind of sex to us within a certain time frame.


The HD partner wanting enthusiastic sex is less about sex and more about feeling wanted/desired. 

I do expect sex without feeling grateful. Not because I don't appreciate DH, but because we are married and marriage comes with certain obligations, one of which is meeting sexual needs.





Duguesclin said:


> And what about working on figuring out the problem?
> 
> If you love your wife, she should be worth your attention and commitment, no matter what.
> 
> If your wife were not able to function because of some illness, would you dump her because she could no longer meet your needs?


 Lack of sex has a way of eroding romantic love. One of the most damaging ways lack of sex erodes romantic love is by causing hurt and resentment and a general feeling of being unloved/unwanted.

With a medical condition, you don't generally have to deal with rejection, resentment, and hurt. There is a difference between can't and won't.


A lot of people have disabilities stemming from injuries, accidents, birth defects, and medical conditions, yet have active sex lives even if the sex they are having isn't PIV.

In situations where there is some physical reason PIV isn't possible, but there is some kind of sexual activity, the spouses are still benefiting from the happy bonding hormone ****tail, getting physical release, and demonstrating desire for each other. The sex doesn't have to go away, it just has to change form.

DH and I have discussed what we'd do if one of us were unable to have traditional sex. We came up with fingers, mouths, toys, whatever we need to do.




jld said:


> If he loves her, he would not divorce her. The only way that would make sense to me is if he thought the divorce were in her best interests, not in his own selfish ones. And leaving the devoted mother of his children destitute is disgraceful.
> 
> I do not think sex is a need, Wazza. Air and water and food are needs.
> 
> The shout outs were in the middle of grid's thread. He could have really used your help.


As I said above, I believe to your DH, lack of sex has a way of eroding romantic love. I think romantic love, commitment, and sex all take turns being the glue that keep a marriage together. Without any one of those, the marriage is weakened and at risk.

Air, water, food, and shelter are what we need to survive. We have other needs to thrive. For a lot of us, sex is a need. Without it, we are deeply unhappy and not thriving. 



Vega said:


> Or, they claim to 'need' things from their partner that they can do for themselves.


Masturbation can quiet the physical need for a time, but it cannot quiet the mental and emotional needs that partner sex does.



Vega said:


> Have you ever been HD before and NOT been in a relationship?
> 
> IF so, how did you handle your "needs"?


I had primarily FWB's with a few random hook-ups to supplement.
It wasn't unusual to go a few days to a week or (rarely) two without sex. 

However, I wasn't living with any of those men. That can make a HUGE difference! It is a little easier when you aren't constantly exposed to the sight, scent, feel, and sound of someone you're attracted to and cannot, for whatever reason, have sex with.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

I just can't accept the idea of my husband having sex with me because he feels obligated to meet my sexual needs. UGH 

That would make me feel even worse, even more undesirable than him just admitting he is not in the mood.

IME, there isn't much difference between can't and won't. It's just a different set of excuses that all end up in the same place.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Vega said:


> *The only decent relationship I had was the FIRST relationship I was in when I was 17. It lasted for 2 years, and the only reason why I broke up with him was because I wanted to move to California. I had been talking about it since day one, so he knew it was a strong possibility at some point. But even after we broke up, we were still friends. I mean REAL friends. * We're still friends to this day, even though we haven't talked in a few years. The last time we talked was about 2.5 years ago when my late husband passed away (they knew each other)


 Vega.. have you ever thought you might have let the Best man get away ? Is he married today?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Vega said:


> But if the cherry isn't on the cake, would you still want the cake?
> 
> ETA: This is a great attitude to have, but I think a lot of people pay _lip-service _to this attitude and they make sex to be the _entire_ cake.
> 
> To me, if 'he' is having sex with me several times a day every day, talks about having it throughout the day when we're NOT having sex and pouts when I FINALLY turn him down for sex THE FIRST TIME, he has made sex to be the cake.


I was LIKE this for 8 straight months with my husband... not sure what happened to me, but my hormones were suddenly OFF the charts (why I landed on TAM even).. I could not keep my hands off of him.. it was almost painful.. . all I wanted to do was flirt & get it on.. suddenly I wanted to look at porn... it was REALLY messing with my head.. 

I am convinced younger men FEEL like that - and will do anything / say anything to get laid in their youth.... I almost feel sorry for them.. but at the same time.. I want my daughter to know - this isn't about love.. it's to scratch an itch.. .do not be deceived young woman.. 

For me.. because we've always been so close/ total trust, attraction still kicking... the added emotional rush came with that flood of hormones.. it was like an addiction.. he was my cocaine.. had I been single at the time.. I fear I would have gotten in a lot of trouble with men! -possibly against my own moral convictions...

It was very powerful and intense. 

Our hormones & feelings on sex, what it means to us, play a strong role in our attitudes here... if you haven't experienced THAT Intensity yourself.... you won't get it.. I wasn't on any drugs or anything to bring that on... it just happened.. and played itself down about a year later, my feet back on the ground , so to speak..... My husband was a trooper through that.. he did all he could to satisfy me.. I was thanking God for some Viagra!...

This wasn't a bad time for us though.. as it ripped the blinders off my eyes to the intensity some FEEL...just how much sex brightens their outlook, brings them happiness.. 

I've been on both sides one might say... this experience has forever changed me, helped me see more through his eyes.. some things I was missing years ago.. 

A sexually mismatched couple can bring about a lot of pain though..emotionally and physically, there are so many variables on that too..


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Fozzy said:


> How do I explain this?
> 
> Needing something from one's partner that you can do for yourself is real.
> 
> ...










...I love this post.. so true.. 

Back in the day... we missed each other more than we should have.. our horny times were off... sometimes I would take matters into my own hands (in the middle of the night).. but this was NEVER as wonderful and "fulfilling" to me.. I wanted to wake him up from his sleep every single time... but felt selfish -since he needed his sleep... 

I did wake him up half the time though! 

I never thought a whole lot about this.. UNTIL my sex drive exploded...but yeah.. we can take care of it ourselves.. and it's GOOD.. but it's not "mountain top" fulfilling.... 

I don't have to be rejected to know I wouldn't handle it well. I am very sensitive here.. I KNOW ME.. heck the 1st time he didn't care to "get his".. (that wasn't even rejection).. I felt this flood of emotions rush over me...Like "OMG, my husband doesn't want it [email protected]# NO !! " I didn't like that.. I wanted HIS DESIRE TOO!!


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> That would require a relinquishing of victimhood and entitlements.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sometimes people wallow in their victimhood, and sometimes they are genuinely the victims in horrible circumstances. I think you need to differentiate. 

Telling someone to get a grip can be useful when the person is wallowing, and disastrously damaging when they are not.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



> I mean, dug attempted to give zdog advice on how to manage a marriage with a traveling job, which is something he does successfully with a wife and kids who look forward to him coming home.


If Dug had to deal with Mrs Zdog, her Greece sized loans, her unwillingness to carry her own weight, her constant nagging, her zombie like lack of affection, and her ego pumping useless volunteering...

The Foreign Legion comes to mind for his escape plan.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

john117 said:


> If Dug had to deal with Mrs Zdog, her Greece sized loans, her unwillingness to carry her own weight, her constant nagging, her zombie like lack of affection, and her ego pumping useless volunteering...
> 
> The Foreign Legion comes to mind for his escape plan.


I would not have said it was just her responsibility to get out of debt. I would have worked to make the situation more manageable. 

If you are genuinely engaged with your spouse, with whatever difficulties she is having, and if you work with her, to help her, I do not see why sex would be difficult.

She is a good mother and is carrying a lot of weight for her family. 

And there is nothing wrong with volunteering. There are not enough volunteers. It is a good thing she is doing it. 

To me a marriage is a team. A successful team works together. He is the one not bringing her onto the team.

A marriage is like the Foreign Legion. They often work in teams. To survive, they have to work together. They don't say, "The next guy is not doing his part so I will not do mine."

Zdog deserves the situation he is in. His whining all the time for sex is not inspiring. No wonder his wife is disconnecting from him.

That is a different thread, though. To go back on this one, you don't demand sex. It is a result of your actions. It is not something your wife owes you.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> I would not have said it was just her responsibility to get out of debt. I would have worked to make the situation more manageable.
> 
> If you are genuinely engaged with your spouse, with whatever difficulties she is having, and if you work with her, to help her, I do not see why sex would be difficult.
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> I would not have said it was just her responsibility to get out of debt. I would have worked to make the situation more manageable.
> 
> If you are genuinely engaged with your spouse, with whatever difficulties she is having, and if you work with her, to help her, I do not see why sex would be difficult.
> 
> ...


It is rare that I disagree with every sentence of a post, and if I have a bit of bourbon I'll disagree with the punctuation as well.

- I rack up $150k of debt before marriage and refuse meaningful work because I'm too busy volunteering for free. How can my loving spouse help me if I don't want to help myself???

- genuinely engaged? Help? You mean like I spent two months of evenings and weekends to teach a class to my loving wife only to not even receive a thank you? Helloooooo?

- good mother who gets overwhelmed with a couple kids and no paying work? Compared to whom, a serial killer?

- volunteering? When you're $150k in the hole and your marriage is about to follow? Why not learn a musical instrument? Violin maybe?

- teamwork? Those two? They hate each other...

- inspired? How? Let's have an inspirational check list of actions...

True inspiration story. It's WW2, THE Jerries have pinned my father's army unit in a hole. Heavy casualties. My father simply looks at the remaining tattered soldiers and tells them a very non inspirational word or two: " men, we stay, we die. We charge, we die. Any better suggestions" ??

They charged and managed to shoot their way thru. Is that inspiration or saying it like it is?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> *I did not post this statement. Please remove my name and credit the original author. Thank you.*


Done 😂


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

John,

I do agree with this. 

It's also true that Zdog - has some large blind spots as to his contributions. He's provided a big rationalization regarding not mentioning his serious weight/soon to be health issues until directly asked about it 80+ pages into the thread.

My guess is that there is a lot of other stuff - behavioral stuff - he's not seeing in the mirror. 





john117 said:


> If Dug had to deal with Mrs Zdog, her Greece sized loans, her unwillingness to carry her own weight, her constant nagging, her zombie like lack of affection, and her ego pumping useless volunteering...
> 
> The Foreign Legion comes to mind for his escape plan.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I am not sure why you two would ever think Dug would leave a wife, John and MEM. He is a very committed family man.

If I had brought debt to the marriage, Dug and I would have paid it off right away. 

And we would not have had children until the debt was paid.

Dug would not have been attracted to a woman like Mrs. Zdog. But if he had found himself married to her, he would have immediately set up a plan to pay her debt. This is what he thinks Z should be doing.

And if there were children unexpectedly in the picture, he would have taken a second job himself. Not asked her to do it.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> I am not sure why you two would ever think Dug would leave a wife, John and MEM. He is a very committed family man.
> 
> If I had brought debt to the marriage, Dug and I would have paid it off right away.
> 
> ...


That sounds like awfully dependent behavior on the part of the husband. Every aspect of that requires the wife to be on board and fully cooperative. Unfortunately, that is not the situation for many people face. For all of the marriages we hear about where the husbands are failing in one regard or another, with no desire to look inwards, no desire to change, there are just as many wives who refuse to as well, and their inspiration detectors are either malfunctioning or flat out broken.

I know you and Dug have a difficult time even conceiving that such a situation is possible, but just because one can't see it or imagine it, doesn't make it any less real.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> That sounds like awfully dependent behavior on the part of the husband. Every aspect of that requires the wife to be on board and fully cooperative. Unfortunately, that is not the situation for many people face. For all of the marriages we hear about where the husbands are failing in one regard or another, with no desire to look inwards, no desire to change, there are just as many wives who refuse to as well, and their inspiration detectors are either malfunctioning or flat out broken.
> 
> I know you and Dug have a difficult time even conceiving that such a situation is possible, but just because one can't see it or imagine it, doesn't make it any less real.


Zdog has told us that his wife has already accepted his financial limits as to household spending. I bet she would accept more financial leadership from him, too.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

wild jade said:


> I just can't accept the idea of my husband having sex with me because he feels obligated to meet my sexual needs. UGH
> 
> That would make me feel even worse, even more undesirable than him just admitting he is not in the mood.
> 
> IME, there isn't much difference between can't and won't. It's just a different set of excuses that all end up in the same place.


*THIS*, is the whole point of this entire topic.
When Vega initially posted the question, it was framed in the such a way as if to ask if we actually need sex because as she put it, she hadn't had it in 8 months and was fine, therefore why was requirement in marriage?

I keep coming back to this. If you don't WANT to have sex with your spouse, then you have a problem. This topic always gets twisted to mismatched desire for frequency so yes, one of you will probably be doing it more than you prefer. Tough, that's life. It happens to be where this topic gets complicated because all kinds of resentment can surface when one or the other starts feeling taken for granted.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,

Is there a context where you would want/expect Dug to either leave you or have an affair? 

If so, what is that context?




jld said:


> I am not sure why you two would ever think Dug would leave a wife, John and MEM. He is a very committed family man.
> 
> If I had brought debt to the marriage, Dug and I would have paid it off right away.
> 
> ...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

JamesTKirk said:


> *THIS*, is the whole point of this entire topic.
> When Vega initially posted the question, it was framed in the such a way as if to ask if we actually need sex because as she put it, she hadn't had it in 8 months and was fine, therefore why was requirement in marriage?
> 
> I keep coming back to this. If you don't WANT to have sex with your spouse, then you have a problem. This topic always gets twisted to mismatched desire for frequency so yes, one of you will probably be doing it more than you prefer. Tough, that's life. It happens to be where this topic gets complicated because all kinds of resentment can surface when one or the other starts feeling taken for granted.


Agreed. I do believe as well that the opening post was in part done in a trollish sense, as the way many of the examples were posted would undoubtedly elicit a more fired up response.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Nah...they'd just start singing...

https://youtu.be/MrJSKvX0AcI


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Sam,
I think that's right. The toughest situations seem to be those where folks want a highly mismatched degree of authority and responsibility. 






samyeagar said:


> That sounds like awfully dependent behavior on the part of the husband. Every aspect of that requires the wife to be on board and fully cooperative. Unfortunately, that is not the situation for many people face. For all of the marriages we hear about where the husbands are failing in one regard or another, with no desire to look inwards, no desire to change, there are just as many wives who refuse to as well, and their inspiration detectors are either malfunctioning or flat out broken.
> 
> I know you and Dug have a difficult time even conceiving that such a situation is possible, but just because one can't see it or imagine it, doesn't make it any less real.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> Have you ever been HD before and NOT been in a relationship?
> 
> IF so, how did you handle your "needs"?


That's not even the point. If you're in a sexual relationship, you're in a sexual relationship. You're either having sex or you aren't.

If you're not in a relationship, you're free to have sex with anyone you wish. If you're HD, you don't get it as often as you want, but you are still free to pursue it.
If you're in a marriage, you've committed to monogamy and CAN NOT have sex with anyone else. The marriage is a commitment to being that sole sexual partner. If you're ANY-D, you want and expect your spouse to also want sex once in a while.

You talk as if since you don't want it then you can't understand why other people require it. But you were HD so you know why people want it. Why do you pretend you don't understand?
Day in, day out, every day, you want someone to want to have sex with you and give you physical affection, but they never do. You want sex because you love doing it. Every day goes by for months and your spouse never shows any desire for you.
You feel taken for granted.
You feel unloved and unwanted.
You wonder what happened to your spouse (the one you married.)
You wonder if you're still really in the marriage.
You get divorced because, well, they're just your friend now so why stay married. Oh they're not just your friend? Well if they were your spouse they'd have some interest in your sex life, but they don't.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

You're focusing on the obvious - with little income of her own her choices are very limited, and she would accept anyone's leadership.

In fact, that's the REASON for her acting like this.... she feels trapped by the marriage.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Is there a context where you would want/expect Dug to either leave you or have an affair?
> 
> If so, what is that context?


Can't see that happening. I do not know anyone more committed than he is.

If he met someone he liked better, he would certainly be welcome to leave me, though. If you really love someone, you want them to be with the person they are most compatible with.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> You're focusing on the obvious - with little income of her own her choices are very limited, and she would accept anyone's leadership.
> 
> In fact, that's the REASON for her acting like this.... she feels trapped by the marriage.


Maybe. But I think she is just a strong P in the Myers-Briggs system.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm about as P as 3.14159 but even I have a firm dose of reality at all times. 


"Perception involves all the ways of becoming aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. Judgment involves all the ways of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived. If people differ systematically in what they perceive and in how they reach conclusions, then it is only reasonable for them to differ correspondingly in their interests, reactions, values, motivations, and skills."

In her case P is completely busted, and everything really becomes J. In other word, opinion.

Perception does not lie - not unless you've had a bourbon or three. But judging is a lot more subjective.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Judging vs. Perceiving


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> Can't see that happening. I do not know anyone more committed than he is.
> 
> If he met someone he liked better, he would certainly be welcome to leave me, though. If you really love someone, you want them to be with the person they are most compatible with.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here's the complexity.

You don't plan feelings. You can only plan what you do about them. So, for example, if Dug meets someone "better", he has a choice whether to follow his heart and go with her, or follow his mind and sense of responsibilities and stay with you. 

To follow his mind means subjugating his feelings. 

The reward is, if you guys are as deeply compatible as you seem to be, he might find that you were the better choice all along once novelty wore off. 

Even if he was torn as to who was better, if he cares about you it would hurt him to hurt you.

I think the same applies to sex. A couple that care about each other can get joy from meeting each other's needs. A different couple that don't care for each other can get resentful at demands on them. 

The first couple might cope better with mismatched desire than the second. I suspect the couple who are insisting on their right to have their needs met will probably have similar disagreements in lots of areas, not just sex.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

jld said:


> Can't see that happening. I do not know anyone more committed than he is.
> 
> If he met someone he liked better, he would certainly be welcome to leave me, though. If you really love someone, you want them to be with the person they are most compatible with.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If you consider divorce a valid option, maybe. But if you consider your vows are for life, then wanting them to be with someone more compatible is not an option. You don't just go with some you like better. That's exactly what you've agreed to not do when getting married. It's you and you only... forever. The rest you have to work out as a couple and you're committed to trying to provide that to one another.

Of course stuff happens and people split. But it's really a last case scenario.
This is what makes him committed.

I feel like in these topics people seem to forget what their commitment was to each other when getting married.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

jld said:


> Can't see that happening. I do not know anyone more committed than he is.
> 
> If he met someone he liked better, he would certainly be welcome to leave me, though. If you really love someone, you want them to be with the person they are most compatible with.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


We've had this discussion many times, and if either of us found someone we truly believed would be a better long term match, we agree we should be with them. The reason this is extremely unlikely to happen is that we have a marvelously compatible shared history, and anyone new wouldn't have this proven track record.

Our solution - should this ever even become a possibility - is to _add_ someone to _our_ relationship, rather than end something we know is wonderful. If they're open to the idea, of course. Since we're polyamorously-oriented, this isn't a big leap to consider. We've previously been in a poly relationship that worked very well while it lasted, so it has a certain appeal and we already know how to make it work. Eventually, a new person would either work out or not, without any risk to or loss of our existing relationship. In fact this almost happened a year ago with my long-term FWB.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> Judging vs. Perceiving


Perceiving

Perceivers perceive structure as being more limiting than enabling. They prefer to keep their choices open so they can cope with many problems that the know life will put in their way.

They get their*sense of control*by keeping their options open and making choices only when they are necessary.

They are generally curious and like to expand their knowledge, which they will freely acknowledge as being incomplete. They are tolerant of other people's differences and will adapt to fit into whatever the situation requires.

At work, they tend to avoid or put off decisions and like most the exploration of problems and situations.

Judgers may see them as aimless drifters.

Well, I'm not sure making no choices whatsoever and hoping the problem goes away is P. Sure, she avoids decisions but she's not exploring solutions either. Just sticking to what works.

She's not a drifter. She got what she wanted.

I could say the same for her re: J as well, proof positive that the MB test is not universally accurate😂


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I certainly do not think she is a J, John. She is flying through life by the seat of her pants.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

It's interesting to say the least to try to follow a conversation when one person is in your block list. Kind of like eavesdropping on a phone call.

I don't know what you guys mean by P and J but my motto is "fail fast" and I encourage my teams at work to adopt the motto "we suck less". The first conveys that it is often better to make a decision on imperfect information, fail, learn, decide, fail a bit less, etc. I can make 4 wring decisions in the time it takes most to make one. (See what I did there? Acknowledged you will make the wrong decision anyway because you'll - hopefully - continue to learn and improve anyway). The second motto points out that you only have to be a bit better to make it worthwhile and get the benefit by deciding. Go for it. Make a move and know you can always improve on your ideas.

Of course with this orientation you can imagine I want to pull my hair out when I read threads by BS like NewPheonix5 and CinnaBear who are locked in indecision and angst. Doh! Any move on the chessboard is better than none!

Of course because I only got 1 side of this conversation I have no idea what you guys are talking about so maybe my blather is just a random string of words to you


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> I certainly do not think she is a J, John. She is flying through life by the seat of her pants.


Agreed. 

You just discovered the fallacy of such classification schemes😂


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*

Judging

Judgers approach life in a structured way, creating plans and organizing their world to achieve their goals and desired results in a predictable way.

They get their*sense of control*by taking charge of their environment and making choices early.

They are self-disciplined and decisive, and seek closure in decisions. When they ask for things they are specific and expect others to do as they say. They enjoy being experts.

At work, they decide quickly and clearly and work to get the job done.

Perceivers may see them as rigid and opinionated.

Perceiving

Perceivers perceive structure as being more limiting than enabling. They prefer to keep their choices open so they can cope with many problems that the know life will put in their way.

They get their*sense of control*by keeping their options open and making choices only when they are necessary.

They are generally curious and like to expand their knowledge, which they will freely acknowledge as being incomplete. They are tolerant of other people's differences and will adapt to fit into whatever the situation requires.

At work, they tend to avoid or put off decisions and like most the exploration of problems and situations.

Judgers may see them as aimless drifters.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The fallacy is that people are one or the other only. Some may find her P, but I don't. I don't find her J either.

Likewise I'm most of P AND J. The test forces you to pick one or the other but not both and not neither.

Myers Briggs is good but not that good 😂


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I don't think M-B says people are purely one or the other, John. They try to show tendencies. 

I think the idea is to understand how people think/operate in order to avoid just getting upset with them for going about life differently than you do.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> I don't think M-B says people are purely one or the other, John. They try to show tendencies.
> 
> I think the idea is to understand how people think/operate in order to avoid just getting upset with them for going about life differently than you do.


Agreed - but do they have "no J no P" and "both J and P" as choices? 

I call it operating at multiple planes. I have my P plane and my J plane. Depending on circumstances I choose one or the other or both. 

I'm not entirely convinced she has a plan btw...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> Agreed - but do they have "no J no P" and "both J and P" as choices?
> 
> I call it operating at multiple planes. I have my P plane and my J plane. Depending on circumstances I choose one or the other or both.
> 
> I'm not entirely convinced she has a plan btw...


And that would fit with the description of Ps. Or they have their own definition of a "plan," which might just be to hang loose and play things by ear.

Dug went for an MBTI assessment through work a few years ago. The testing was pretty thorough. He was a strong P, but that did not mean he had no J at all. 

John, maybe you should read more about MBTI. I don't think companies would spend the kind of money they do on it if they did not find it helpful. 

Again, I think the idea behind it is for people to understand their own and other people's ways of thinking and operating, to better appreciate the strengths each type brings to an organization or relationship.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Here's the complexity.
> 
> You don't plan feelings. You can only plan what you do about them. So, for example, if Dug meets someone "better", he has a choice whether to follow his heart and go with her, or follow his mind and sense of responsibilities and stay with you.
> 
> ...


Idk, Wazza. I think pushing even a wife who cares for you into sex when she is not ready is likely to be risky. Do it too often and you may find yourself wifeless. Or at least sexless.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It doesn't take a personality test to identify what positives one brings to the relationship... she may appear to be the proverbial P if one is inclined to classify her, but her actions are more indicative of an immature kid who wants to have it her way. 

And that immaturity is the big red flag, and likely the reason she can't be classified into a more fixed type to begin with. Try a M-B on a ten year old...


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> Idk, Wazza. I think pushing even a wife who cares for you into sex when she is not ready is likely to be risky. Do it too often and you may find yourself wifeless. Or at least sexless.


Not exactly sure how that relates to the post you quoted.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Wazza said:


> Not exactly sure how that relates to the post you quoted.


It doesn't relate. Odd as well that her reply somehow turned your non gender specific post into a guy pushing sex on a female ...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> It doesn't take a personality test to identify what positives one brings to the relationship... she may appear to be the proverbial P if one is inclined to classify her, but her actions are more indicative of an immature kid who wants to have it her way.
> 
> And that immaturity is the big red flag, and likely the reason she can't be classified into a more fixed type to begin with. Try a M-B on a ten year old...


And he wants to have it his way. 

John, he will not solve his problems looking at her as an adversary who has to be whipped into shape. She is not going to accept that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> And he wants to have it his way.
> 
> John, he will not solve his problems looking at her as an adversary who has to be whipped into shape. She is not going to accept that.


Of course. It's always the man's fault for wanting a meaningful relationship and a spouse that pulls her own weight especially with a seriously large amount of money hanging over her head...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Not exactly sure how that relates to the post you quoted.


It was in reference to the getting joy from meeting each other's needs part. The subtext of many of the posts here seems to be that the LD needs to meet the HD's needs because they are the only person who can. You and I started this exchange a few pages back with the question of who should go first in meeting the other's needs.

I cannot speak to the woman being the HD. I have never had higher drive than the male I was with. I do know what it feels like to be pushed into more intense and frequent sexual activity than one wants, however, and I once ended a relationship partly over that. Felt liberating.

One of the posters here linked an article a year back about how a man's being LD usually has different characteristics from a woman's being LD. I did not read it, but it sounded interesting.

I just do not think it is wise to look at the conflict of drives through a lens of demanding and entitlement to satisfaction. I think the more demanding and entitled a HD male in particular is, the less he likely he will be to get what he wants. 

Instead of demanding . . . Invite it. Inspire it. Make life with you appealing. Nurture her. Allow time and space for those warm feelings in her to rise to the surface. Be patient and persistent in your care for her.

One more suggestion: Stop looking at porn. Lifeistooshort has said that some men who think they are HD are not really. Their drive has been artificially inflated by looking at porn. They can do themselves and their wives a favor by stopping the porn.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> Of course. It's always the man's fault for wanting a meaningful relationship and a spouse that pulls her own weight especially with a seriously large amount of money hanging over her head...


You have your definition of "meaningful" and "pulling your own weight." Mrs. Zdog likely has her own.

And default on the loans will affect more people than just Mrs. Zdog.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Going back to the original post (which as I mentioned before, I feel was done in a trollish manner so take some of the stuff with a grain of salt), the question was brought up about sex being the end all, forget about all the other stuff in a relationship. This got me thinking, if we take a step back, how many people would actually enter a monogamous relationship if sex was not part of the equation? If I had to guess, I would think not very many would, so sex is an important condition of entering into such a relationship. I love my W dearly, but I would have never entered into a relationship with her if sex wasn't part of it (I am talking about adults capable of having sex, not health issues that may arise down the road that limits/prevents this).

Some have mentioned that the SO has no right to think that they are "entitled" to sex. Now, I am not talking about sex on demand whenever the person wants it, but by entering a monogamous relation, both people are agreeing that sex will only come from within the relationship and nowhere else. To an extent, that does come along with some sort of entitlement (maybe entitlement isn't the right word but I think you get the point). You enter a relationship with sex being one of the conditions, you agree that you will not seek sex elsewhere, so when one person de-prioritizes it after the fact, you can clearly see how this causes an issue. That same person who probably feels their SO has no right to expect sex probably feels like they are entitled to other aspects of the relationship (emotional, etc...) which makes no sense.

Then you have possible drive mismatches. Some have commented that this really is the problem of the HD person, which I couldn't disagree with more. Now, the HD person will need to get things started on tackling the issue simply b/c the LD may not see this as a problem. However, this is as much a problem for the LD as it is for the HD, assuming the LD actually cares about the relationship. Is it selfish for the HD to expect the LD to meet their needs entirely, yes. Likewise, it is selfish for the LD to completely disregard the needs of the HD, especially when, by the definition of monogamy, the HD has nowhere else to turn (and IMO telling the HD to go take care of themselves is an insult). Once again, if the health of the relationship matters to both, they both should be working to fix the problem, making compromises if necessary.

Now, there is no magic formula for this. Each relationship will have slightly different dynamics which will determine how they address the issue. It is also in no way gender specific (I have read plenty of threads here on TAM from both Men and Women battling with sexless relationships). The burden should not be on the Guy to make things work, not should it be on the Gal. If they truly care about each other they will work together as a team to fix the problem, and hold each other accountable if one person does not carry their weight.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

How do you propose they "hold each other accountable," Ellis?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

jld said:


> How do you propose they "hold each other accountable," Ellis?


No different then how any two people hold each other accountable for their actions, whether it be sex, finances, etc. Not sure I follow how this is a question TBH?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> No different then how any two people hold each other accountable for their actions, whether it be sex, finances, etc. Not sure I follow how this is a question TBH?


How would you specifically "hold your wife accountable" for not meeting your sexual requirements?

Please just answer the question.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> You have your definition of "meaningful" and "pulling your own weight." Mrs. Zdog likely has her own.
> 
> And default on the loans will affect more people than just Mrs. Zdog.


Agreed. But whose definition is closer to the prevailing standard?

We can talk relativism all we want - my wife is awesome at comparing her 56 year old behind to that of a 30 year old and cheerfully concluding intimacy is past her times 😂 relatively to the hormonal 20 or 30 year olds. But at some point you gotta look at your situation vs the target population and see how you fare.

Failing to do so, as Mrs. Z and Dr. J2 so elegantly accomplish, is an incredible telltale of immaturity and / or indifference. We can sugarcoat it and mention Z's faults but at the end of the day the target population is not perfect either. And yet on the average they have fulfilling marriages. 

The most difficult people (like Mrs Z) are those who don't know what they don't know...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

jld said:


> How would you specifically "hold your wife accountable" for not meeting your sexual requirements?
> 
> *Please just answer the question*.


First off, lol at the bolded coming from you :wink2:

Assuming sex is a problem, both people sit down, talk about the issue. It is highly likely that both have a role in this problem which means there will things both people can do to fix/address the problem. 

Now, as I read your post, I can see you are already taking out of context my post. First, you make it gender specific. Second, as you say in quotes "for not meeting your sexual requirements". I am not saying that all my sexual requirements need to be met or else. I am saying that if there is a problem or issue, both people should be working together, most likely compromising to come up with a solution that works for BOTH people. After all, if they care about each other and the relationship, should that not be the goal.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

jld said:


> How do you propose they "hold each other accountable," Ellis?


Here is my suggestion to Ellis: hold yourself accountable for being the best version of Ellis you can be. Kick butt at work. Hit the gym. Listen to her and use that information to attempt to meet her needs and avoid doing things that annoy her. If after 3 to 6 months of this she is still not enticed / inspired to have sex with you, file for divorce. That is mutual accountability in marriage.

Or if you can't bring yourself to file, then after 3 to 6 months of vainly holding yourself accountable to be the best you can be, continue to be your best but slowly ratchet down meeting her needs. If she complains, explain that this is all you can offer given your sex life. That the absence of sex depletes your energy and ability to be there for her. If she has more to offer sexually, then you will be energized and able to do more for her.

If she objects and says she expects you to provide optimal performance toward her despite her inability to provide for you, explain that reality does not work that way. And her expectations for service are as likely to be met as yours are.

Of course, she may decide to divorce you when you turn the marriage transactional. That is a risk you take unless you are willing to simply accept the lack of sex and remain in a one-sided relationship.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Here is my suggestion to Ellis: hold yourself accountable for being the best version of Ellis you can be.


My marriage is fine :grin2:

My W and I actually did go through a somewhat sexless stretch. It eventually got to the point where we sat down and talked about it, and since then things have been significantly better.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ellis,
Firstly - doesn't surprise me in the slightest that your discussion with your wife produced a positive reaction. I'm guessing your wife really loves you. Just being unfiltered here - but you come across as a sincere, good person who has a good sense of humor and is slow to anger. 

After having read a lot of proposed 'scripts' for the infamously known and dreaded 'Talk' I believe that I know why 'The talk' has such a staggeringly high fail rate. 

I am going to use you - to contrast - what I'm guessing you did - with what I think typically happens. 

I bet your conversation was sort of balanced. You spoke, you listened. It was goal driven, but not anger driven. Your wife felt SAFE being honest with you. So she was. And maybe she made some suggestions that would help the situation. I bet you took her seriously. 

I'd describe the typical 'talk' I've seen scripted more as a monologue. And it's sad - because - it's not just a monologue - it's a bad monologue. The LD often just sits there waiting for it to be over.

I bet you didn't threaten her - at all. 

One fairly common theme in the standard talk is that there is a subtext of bullying to it. Or worse it's explicitly threatening. But insincerely so. 

People often don't ask tough questions - fearing the answers.

- Am I doing stuff that's turns you off - in or outside the bedroom?
- Have you lost your attraction to me?
- Did you like it - when we had a more active sex life?
- If you knew then, what you know now, would you still have married me? 












EllisRedding said:


> First off, lol at the bolded coming from you :wink2:
> 
> Assuming sex is a problem, both people sit down, talk about the issue. It is highly likely that both have a role in this problem which means there will things both people can do to fix/address the problem.
> 
> Now, as I read your post, I can see you are already taking out of context my post. First, you make it gender specific. Second, as you say in quotes "for not meeting your sexual requirements". I am not saying that all my sexual requirements need to be met or else. I am saying that if there is a problem or issue, both people should be working together, most likely compromising to come up with a solution that works for BOTH people. After all, if they care about each other and the relationship, should that not be the goal.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> My marriage is fine :grin2:
> 
> My W and I actually did go through a somewhat sexless stretch. It eventually got to the point where we sat down and talked about it, and since then things have been significantly better.


JLD, I want you to pay attention to what Ellis wrote, because it is an experience many of us have had in different parts of our relationships. Talking about problems and working on them together as two adults, with equal responsibility for the desired outcome.

More than once I have talked about the model of a couple who both try to look out for each other's needs, and you seem to drag that to talk of covert contracts. You expect the man to inspire the woman, but he's not allowed to have any expectation of anything in return, and you don't seem to require that the woman also inspire the man.

By my values, this is an insistence that the guy do all the work, and meet all the woman's needs. I think it is one sided and selfish. My wife is not like that, but if she were, then I have no doubt it would cause problems in my marriage. I want to stay married, but I am not scared to end it if a dealbreaker problem arises and my wife is not willing to do her part in finding solutions. 

I am actually reading what you say and looking for ideas to make my wife happier (though a lot of what you have written just doesn't apply to me). I think both people in a relationship need to do this. It's much easier to keep the flame burning than to reignite it once extinguished.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

@Vega

I have a new answer for this thread. *Is sex the bottom line? - NO*, but (there is always going to be some "butts" in questions about sex) the side effects of rejecting a partner sex, if not done compassionately, can END a relationship. 

Here is a fun conundrum for you! Let us say your next boyfriend wants sex primarily because it validates his sense of being. He feels if he can manage to get you to agree to sex, this makes his ego feel super huge. Perhaps you are reluctant at first, but you allow him to wear you down and you start giving it up out of guilt and frustration. Each time he wears you down, for him it is as if he is conquering the village of @Vega and his resulting orgasms are the spoils of the battle. 

...now let us change that dynamic. Let us say that you develop a strong enough sense of yourself, that you just start wanting sex because it is something YOU want, when you want it. This as a result would leave your partner unable to conquer you because you now have a sign that says, "come and get it, cause I am ready for it!" For him the thrill of the chase would now gone and replaced by the notion that he will now be validated solely on his ability to pillage the village of @Vega! Guess what happens to these men in this scenario? They stop wanting sex because they have never learned how to enjoy the spoils of war without a battle. Without the battle, they do not understand where their validation should come from, because there is no where inside themselves for which they can find it for you (yet)!

*What is actually at the bottom line? Validation! *

Hope that helps you on your quest to find your next village pillager!

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> One fairly common theme in the standard talk is that there is a subtext of bullying to it. Or worse it's explicitly threatening. But insincerely so.


This is a really helpful point you have made. 

Bullying and threats are out, but sometimes being clear that you see something as a dealbreaker you are unwilling to accept is necessary. Not often in my experience, but it's fair that the other person know what they are up against.

I try and bank a goodly store of positives as a balance to the few times I have to be negative. 



MEM11363 said:


> People often don't ask tough questions - fearing the answers.
> 
> - Am I doing stuff that's turns you off - in or outside the bedroom?
> - Have you lost your attraction to me?
> ...


My wife and I have had a couple of conversations around the last of these questions, and the answer was no. Sharing that because it is actually helpful just to get that answer on the table and work through why. It can be a moment that turns things around, it doesn't have to be the end.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Which one of you said "no" to question 4?



Wazza said:


> This is a really helpful point you have made.
> 
> Bullying and threats are out, but sometimes being clear that you see something as a dealbreaker you are unwilling to accept is necessary. Not often in my experience, but it's fair that the other person know what they are up against.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> Which one of you said "no" to question 4?


Both. For different reasons.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Wazza said:


> Both. For different reasons.


Would you mind getting into those reasons? I find the direction of the conversation to be rather compelling given what you have been through in this relationship.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> Would you mind getting into those reasons? I find the direction of the conversation to be rather compelling given what you have been through in this relationship.


I can't give a detailed answer without putting enough information to identify myself if someone who knows me reads this. So this will be a bit high level.

We both felt we married too quickly, without a full understanding of what we were doing. 

My wife's answer was not that she wishes she hadn't married, but that she regrets rushing it. 

My answer was that I stayed with the marriage because of the kids when she was unfaithful. I don't know if I actually hated her, but there was a lot of anger and hurt to process.

Once you admit things like this, you don't have to pretend any more. You can have more honest conversations.

But the important thing is that we didn't just have the conversation and wallow in our misery. We both believe in lifelong marriage, and we both made an effort to make things better. (Though we are different people, and we have to remember that we make that effort in different ways).


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes

I have absolutely no objection at all - to someone saying what is true.

I do think it's triply important to be clear about what is actually happening - before you speak. 

For example: There is an enormous difference between
1. I think we ought to get a divorce because it's becoming obvious you no longer love me and/or feel committed to this marriage. 
And
2. I no longer love you, don't see that changing and am going to end the marriage

I have never said anything remotely close to (2). I have definitely said some variations of (1) a few times. 

And every one of those times - I was absolutely resolved to proceed unless M2 made it clear she was adamantly opposed to that outcome.

Oddly enough, when the situation is reversed - my response to M2 is the opposite of: adamantly opposed

When M2 said: We need to separate

I did everything possible to make it easy for her. She was clearly very upset, very unhappy - was just trying to help her. Told her that I could move out if that was easier for her - or if she wanted to get a place - that was fine also. Offered to go apartment hunting with her, make sure the place was nice and in a safe neighborhood. 

Wasn't a game of chicken. Sincerely was trying to be helpful in what was clearly a very difficult time for her. 

We did have one very sharp exchange. I was sitting in a chair reading and M2 came in the room and straddled me. This is maybe half hour after telling me we need to separate. So I responded - and she got intensely angry and said she hated when I 'groped her'. Thing is I wasn't groping her. 

Just said: Don't come on to me and then get hostile when I respond. That is not even remotely ok. 

She apologized and said we 'could' have sex if I wanted. I just backed slowly out the room. I don't have too many 100% firm policies. But one of them is: Do NOT have sex with someone who is deep into 5150 (involuntary psychiatric commitment) territory. 







Wazza said:


> This is a really helpful point you have made.
> 
> Bullying and threats are out, but sometimes being clear that you see something as a dealbreaker you are unwilling to accept is necessary. Not often in my experience, but it's fair that the other person know what they are up against.
> 
> ...


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Wazza said:


> I can't give a detailed answer without putting enough information to identify myself if someone who knows me reads this. So this will be a bit high level.
> 
> We both felt we married too quickly, without a full understanding of what we were doing.
> 
> ...


Thanks, @Wazza.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Wazza,
In most happy marriages - there is a division of authority that highly correlates to ability. And that works well.

That said - there is also a sort of high level power dynamic. 

When that overall dynamic is close to 50-50 - that can be very troublesome because there are so many either/or situations in marriage. That said having a clear overall leader is often helpful especially if that person is more selfless than selfish. 

The near total power dynamic JLD describes is only a happy thing if the leader leads VERY gently. 





Wazza said:


> JLD, I want you to pay attention to what Ellis wrote, because it is an experience many of us have had in different parts of our relationships. Talking about problems and working on them together as two adults, with equal responsibility for the desired outcome.
> 
> More than once I have talked about the model of a couple who both try to look out for each other's needs, and you seem to drag that to talk of covert contracts. You expect the man to inspire the woman, but he's not allowed to have any expectation of anything in return, and you don't seem to require that the woman also inspire the man.
> 
> ...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Ellis,
> Firstly - doesn't surprise me in the slightest that your discussion with your wife produced a positive reaction. I'm guessing your wife really loves you. Just being unfiltered here - but you come across as a sincere, good person who has a good sense of humor and is slow to anger.
> 
> After having read a lot of proposed 'scripts' for the infamously known and dreaded 'Talk' I believe that I know why 'The talk' has such a staggeringly high fail rate.
> ...


Thanks for the kind words @MEM11363. I might need to alter my game here on TAM though as TBH, you did a very good job portraying me and how things went with my W :grin2:

My W and I have always had a very good relationship, supportive of each other, complimentary personalities (I am the funny one though, she tries every once in a while to match me but usually crashes and burns  ). On the sex side, I would say there isn't a large gap in our drives. I am higher drive then her but I would not say she is low drive (maybe moreso mid drive, but also more of a responsive desire). I am definitely not high drive like some others here are though (I don't need sex daily, don't get me wrong though, if my W insisted on this I would roll up my sleeves and get to work in the trenches!). Maybe because of this it was easier to overcome the "sexless" part which was largely driven by trying to raise 3 young children (not doing a good job balancing between being parents and husband/wife). I am sure a big part as well, my W and I actually care enough about each other to make things work.

I have a tendency to play things over and over in my head before any sort of talk or confrontation. This helps to give me a clear head, take some of the emotion out of it. That is also what I like about TAM, the opportunity to bounce things off the folks here for additional insight (although most people here think my only objective is to post memes and awesome avatars ). On the downside though, as I try to process things my W can usually tell as I may seem distant or distracted since until we talk things are unresolved. 

When we finally had the talk (maybe at the start of this year) I actually left work early to get home and talk b/c I just needed to get the air cleared. Sure, many times in my head I wanted to point fingers, blame, etc.. but I knew that would accomplish zip. I think my W actually expected the worst when we first sat down. I just simply started expressing some of the things I was feeling, gave her the opportunity to go over what was going through her head as well. The driving point of the talk though was never blame or anger, it was trying to come up with things that we both needed to do to fix things. I did as well ask some of those tough questions that you mentioned in your post. Basically, let's be honest and get it all out in the open so we can move forward.

Funny enough from our talk, and highlights how two people can look at the same situation with a completely different response. Over the past 6 months or so leading up to this, sex had been significantly better, or probably best it has been in our marriage. For my W, she didn't see the problem b/c even if we went 4-6 weeks without having sex (which unfortunately had become more the normal than the exception over the past few years), when we did it was great. I was at the other end of the spectrum, if sex has been so great why are we only having it every 4-6 weeks lol. 

Long story short (or is it too late ), we agreed that our marriage (with sex being a component of it) needed to be made a priority, and that is something we are both doing our part on to make happen.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> @Vega
> 
> 
> *What is actually at the bottom line? Validation! *


*NOW* I think we're finally getting somewhere! 

But of course, one good answer prompts another 10 questions. Not necessarily literally, but...ohhhh, you know what I mean, lol! 

So, if you please,

Validation of WHAT? What KIND of validation? Are _single_ HD's also looking for validation?

Badsanta, thank you so much for contributing to the few threads I've posted over the past few weeks. You seem like someone who carefully thinks about responding without shooting from the hip. And I can see by your own threads that you're really seeking the truth! :smile2:

In fact, I want to thank EVERYONE who has contributed. I apologize for not _responding_ to all of the posts, but I can tell you that what each of you has posted has really made an impact on how I'm going to handle myself (and potential partners) once I stick my toe back into the dating pool. 

And Badsanta, I _will_ eventually get back out there. But now isn't the time. Gotta "check" some old baggage before I do, which is WHY I come here to TAM. :smile2:


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> *NOW* I think we're finally getting somewhere!
> 
> Validation of WHAT? What KIND of validation? Are _single_ HD's also looking for validation?


 @Vega if it helps, think of a man's penis like a truck that needs a place to park. Ideally he needs a place to park where he does not have to pay, so he needs the parking to be validated. Usually validated parking requires one to visit certain stores or businesses (be a contributing part of the community that provides the parking). This is like dating, you go to a nice restaurant, and the girl puts out! If she moves on and starts dating your neighbor tomorrow and validating his parking, no big deal although that is rather awkward.

Easy enough, right? 

Now imagine a parking garage that will only allow parking for those that can self validate. This would be the equivalent of the parking space at your house that you are vested in with regards to maintenance, liability, and property taxes. Can your neighbor park his truck in your garage, oh hell no! Does sometimes your garage get so full of clutter and shît that you have to park your truck in the driveway? Rather often! Sometimes when you live in a house long enough, you will accumulate so much crap that you might almost never be able to park in there again. 

So how do you get back into a self validating garage once you can't get back into it? You have to make some changes, let go of unneeded things, and donate to charity. It is not until then that a man can get his truck back into his garage. We all know it feels great to clean out your garage and park inside again for the first time in ages! Why is that, because we started cleaning up the mess that our life has created. 

Badsanta


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> People often don't ask tough questions - fearing the answers.
> 
> - Am I doing stuff that's turns you off - in or outside the bedroom?
> - Have you lost your attraction to me?
> ...


I think just as often people ask the questions, but refuse to accept the answer. My wife told me early on in MC that she was never going to be the person I wanted her to be - sexually. I wish I had accepted her answer right when she said it rather than waiting another 15+ years.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> @Vega if it helps, think of a man's penis like a truck that needs a place to park. Ideally he needs a place to park where he does not have to pay, so he needs the parking to be validated. Usually validated parking requires one to visit certain stores or businesses (be a contributing part of the community that provides the parking). This is like dating, you go to a nice restaurant, and the girl puts out! If she moves on and starts dating your neighbor tomorrow and validating his parking, no big deal although that is rather awkward.
> 
> Easy enough, right?
> 
> ...



*wwwwwww000ssshhhttt*

(That was the sound of your post going right over my head!):scratchhead:


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Here's my over simplification of it as I understand it..
A majority of us I think we just want our spouse to show more interest and more enthusiasm in us, particularly when it comes to sex. I think that's where validation comes in. Without sex, everything else about your relationship starts to come into question.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> *wwwwwww000ssshhhttt*
> 
> (That was the sound of your post going right over my head!):scratchhead:


*Validation from others* = you need others to make you feel accepted.

*Self validation* = you are self confident enough that you do not need to feel accepted by others. 

Self validation starts out easy, but gets harder as time passes!


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

badsanta said:


> @Vega if it helps, think of a man's penis like a truck that needs a place to park. Ideally he needs a place to park where he does not have to pay, so he needs the parking to be validated. Usually validated parking requires one to visit certain stores or businesses (be a contributing part of the community that provides the parking). This is like dating, you go to a nice restaurant, and the girl puts out! If she moves on and starts dating your neighbor tomorrow and validating his parking, no big deal although that is rather awkward.
> 
> Easy enough, right?
> 
> ...


Something, something....my limo's too big for the garage....



Am I doing this right?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Wazza,
> In most happy marriages - there is a division of authority that highly correlates to ability. And that works well.
> 
> That said - there is also a sort of high level power dynamic.
> ...


The main reason for my post was to advocate an alternate model to JLD's. What she and Dug do is their business, not mine. We don't need to agree to learn from each other. 

The underlying assumption in JLD's approach is that Dug will make the effort she expects. There is a lot riding on him. If he ever decides he doesn't want to do it any more, she has a hell of a problem.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> *Validation from others* = you need others to make you feel accepted.
> 
> *Self validation* = you are self confident enough that you do not need to feel accepted by others.
> 
> Self validation starts out easy, but gets harder as time passes!


Oh, o.k. Now I get it. *whew*!

Do you really believe that self validation gets harder as time passes? I actually thought it became _easier_ _for me_!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

JamesTKirk said:


> Here's my over simplification of it as I understand it..
> A majority of us I think we just want our spouse to show more interest and more enthusiasm in us, particularly when it comes to sex. *I think that's where validation comes in. Without sex, everything else about your relationship starts to come into question*.


O.k. I hear what you're saying, but I don't understand it. I mean, to me, it's like putting all your eggs into one basket. 

Plus, I still don't get what exactly *you're* trying to 'validate'! 

(not YOU per se, James. Just anyone who may be looking for validation through sex)


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> Something, something....my limo's too big for the garage....
> 
> 
> 
> Am I doing this right?


I drive a Mini Cooper.... hmmmm


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

It requires a near absolute level of trust. 

And anything shakes that trust - even a little - is understandably terrifying. 





Wazza said:


> The main reason for my post was to advocate an alternate model to JLD's. What she and Dug do is their business, not mine. We don't need to agree to learn from each other.
> 
> The underlying assumption in JLD's approach is that Dug will make the effort she expects. There is a lot riding on him. If he ever decides he doesn't want to do it any more, she has a hell of a problem.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Oh, o.k. Now I get it. *whew*!
> 
> *Do you really believe that self validation gets harder as time passes?* I actually thought it became _easier_ _for me_!


Acknowledging that your body is getting older, less functional, and likely a little overweight. At that point self validation has to go well beyond what you see in the mirror.


----------



## peacem (Oct 25, 2014)

badsanta said:


> Acknowledging that your body is getting older, less functional, and likely a little overweight. At that point self validation has to go well beyond what you see in the mirror.


It really is the truth (cave women in the morning)


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

john117 said:


> I drive a Mini Cooper.... hmmmm


This explains a lot of your validation issues @john117


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

JamesTKirk said:


> Here's my over simplification of it as I understand it..
> A majority of us I think we just want our spouse to show more interest and more enthusiasm in us, particularly when it comes to sex. I think that's where validation comes in. Without sex, everything else about your relationship starts to come into question.


Not oversimplified to me - concise and to the point. I'll speak for myself in saying that if my wife was as interested in sex as she is in Candy Crush and sleeping, I'd be a lot happier. Not that things would be perfect (still have issues with her), but lack of sex, and her generally lazy attitude (saying she wants to start exercising but won't get out of bed to do so) exacerbates the issues.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> This explains a lot of your validation issues @john117


At least he didn't say that he 'drives' a SKATEBOARD.

Oh, but if it's a TURBO-CHARGED skateboard, that's o.k...

Right?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> At least he didn't say that he 'drives' a SKATEBOARD.
> 
> Oh, but if it's a TURBO-CHARGED skateboard, that's o.k...
> 
> Right?


Ironically in real life it is the men that drive small trucks that can validate themselves!

Every time I see a jacked up truck pull up to a gas station, some little tiny dweeb of a guy steps out to gas his truck. 

So in reality @john117 is a *very confident* man to drive a mini cooper!

Badsanta


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> O.k. I hear what you're saying, but I don't understand it. I mean, to me, it's like putting all your eggs into one basket.
> 
> Plus, I still don't get what exactly *you're* trying to 'validate'!
> 
> (not YOU per se, James. Just anyone who may be looking for validation through sex)


I too like this idea of validation as the bottom line.

And I think what is being validated is one's self worth. 

It would be a big mistake to place all sense of self worth onto sex. What if you don't have a partner? Or one of you is sick? Or incapacitated? Or away?

It is also a big mistake to place all sense of self worth in the hands of another. Probably most of it has to come from within if you want to be sane, at peace, and happy in life.

But we are social creatures, and if no one appreciates us, it is a terrible thing. People end up committing suicide, going crazy, have anger management problems, all sorts of terrible things if they are not accepted or part of the community.

And sex is one ticket to that sense of acceptance.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

badsanta said:


> Ironically in real life it is the men that drive small trucks that can validate themselves!
> 
> Every time I see a jacked up truck pull up to a gas station, some little tiny dweeb of a guy steps out to gas his truck.
> 
> ...


This is true. Some vehicles are penis extensions. Or attempts at them.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Vega said:


> At least he didn't say that he 'drives' a SKATEBOARD.
> 
> Oh, but if it's a TURBO-CHARGED skateboard, that's o.k...
> 
> Right?


Actually it is turbocharged 1.6 liter so I'm good 😃

Sex is not validation as much as it is an indication... a semaphore. 

If you're with the same person for 3 decades you know everything. What I remember most fondly isn't our good times - and we had a lot of that - but the after rituals, cooking omelettes at 3-4 am on a Saturday morning and laughing about our kids and about our school work and so on. 

That's why I refer to it as emotional Alzheimer's. I lost my grandfather to it and remember it all too well, being that I was his namesake and favorite grandchild out of a large herd. 

And to be honest that's what I miss the most. Not really the sex itself, but the whole meaning of it. The playful morning after, that kind of thing. But hey, life happens when you have other plans, right?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

wild jade said:


> I too like this idea of validation as the bottom line.
> 
> And I think what is being validated is one's self worth.
> 
> ...


I don't think I can totally choose where I find validation. Some of it is hard wired.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> At least he didn't say that he 'drives' a SKATEBOARD.
> 
> Oh, but if it's a TURBO-CHARGED skateboard, that's o.k...
> 
> Right?





john117 said:


> Actually it is turbocharged 1.6 liter so I'm good 😃


Think about it @Vega

The best selling vibrators are small AND turbo charged!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> Think about it @Vega
> 
> The best selling vibrators are small AND turbo charged!


LOL!! 

I've heard of some vibrators that are so powerful they could probably light up a small city. 

Vegas comes to mind...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Wazza said:


> I don't think I can totally choose where I find validation. *Some of it is hard wired*.


In what way, Wazza?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



john117 said:


> If you're with the same person for 3 decades you know everything.


I call bs on this line.


But the rest of your post made me sad for you


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Wazza said:


> I don't think I can totally choose where I find validation. Some of it is hard wired.


Maybe, maybe not. We are often taught what we think is innate.

But life being what it is, it is best to find a way to be as flexible and resilient as possible. And validation is definitely one of those areas!

I say this as someone who had sought validation in all the wrong places.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



wild jade said:


> I call bs on this line.
> 
> 
> But the rest of your post made me sad for you


If one don't know everything after 3 decades that's even more BS or one gets to win the JD Power award for Indifference...

It's a sad story but hey, that's life. More fun preparing for my exit..


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

There can be many things that are needed for happiness, without any one being the "most" important.

If your spouse refused to do any work at home or outside you might be unhappy.

If your spouse would never say "i love you", but instead responded with "I'm not sure", that might make you unhappy.

If your spouse never said anything positive about you it might make you unhappy.

If your spouse never did anything to make it clear that they cared about your well being that might make you unhappy.

If your spouse never wants to have sex with you it might make you unhappy. 

Missing any of these (and other things) is enough to cause a problem. It doesn't mean that one of them is the most important, but it is noticed because it is the one that is missing.

It just seems that sex is more often missing than the other things on the list, so it seems more important.







Vega said:


> O.k. I hear what you're saying, but I don't understand it. I mean, to me, it's like putting all your eggs into one basket.
> 
> Plus, I still don't get what exactly *you're* trying to 'validate'!
> 
> (not YOU per se, James. Just anyone who may be looking for validation through sex)


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Wazza said:


> The main reason for my post was to advocate an alternate model to JLD's. What she and Dug do is their business, not mine. We don't need to agree to learn from each other.
> 
> The underlying assumption in JLD's approach is that Dug will make the effort she expects. There is a lot riding on him. If he ever decides he doesn't want to do it any more, she has a hell of a problem.


If I do not want it anymore, it is I who have a problem. Divorce is not an option to me, like failure is not an option.

There is too much encouragement to men to quit. It is impossible to build healthy relationships that way.

I hear too often on TAM from guys: "I am a straight shooter. I am clear with my expectations and do not hide anything. If it is not working, or, for this thread, I do not get the sex I deserve, it is because of my wife." 

Some here promote equal marriage. In that case, true equality means the man's views are as important as his wife's, not more. He does not decide unilaterally what is fair or not fair.

I cannot disagree more when I read: "The underlying assumption in JLD's approach is that Dug will make the effort she expects." The effort I make is not what JLD expects but what I expect of myself.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

wild jade said:


> This is true. Some vehicles are penis extensions. Or attempts at them.


or fleshlights


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



john117 said:


> If one don't know everything after 3 decades that's even more BS or one gets to win the JD Power award for Indifference...
> 
> It's a sad story but hey, that's life. More fun preparing for my exit..


People change. They grow. **** happens. If you think you know someone perfectly, then what you have is a box of expectations that you are imposing. The person my husband is now is the same and yet very different in many ways to what he was 2 decades ago when I met him. And while I can predict some things about where he will end up, I have no doubt that he can still surprise me.

Of course, you have to give people that freedom to change, or they will always show you that same face.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

People do change but it's not like we are asleep at the wheel. The person sharing my bed today is a literal stranger compared to the person I married in 1986. I had front row seats to her changing. Ironically she's even more predictable now.

I'm the same person I was in 1986, just gray hair and all that. I saw little reason to change. The money is the same, my kids love me, I'm at the top of my game...


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega said:


> In what way, Wazza?





wild jade said:


> Maybe, maybe not. We are often taught what we think is innate.
> 
> But life being what it is, it is best to find a way to be as flexible and resilient as possible. And validation is definitely one of those areas!
> 
> I say this as someone who had sought validation in all the wrong places.


Well, for example, I like to be liked. I don't like to be hated. Everyone is liked by some people and hated, or at least not liked, by others. You might put on a brave face but inside you wonder what is wrong with you. Or you produce a likeable exterior, and inside you are thinking "sure they like the facade but if you know the real me....."

I think sex is the same. Rejection sends a signal that you are unattractive. For me, sex is about the emotions far more than the physical release, which makes any sort of rejection more painful.

You can work through it and put it into perspective, but it still hurts to be rejected, however much you contain it.

I don't think I am anything unusual in these emotions. I may be unusual in that I have very limited sexual experience (due to my religious beliefs) and my wife is the only person with whom I have shared everything. So I can't really wrap my head around the notion of a one night stand. 

And I am heterosexual. In theory another male could stimulate most of the same nerve endings, but it's not the same in my head, for reasons that I don't know. There is a level of emotional validation I can only get from a female.

I wonder if, just as my need for sex is partly a validation, the lack of desire in an LD person is about not doing it because it doesn't validate them.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> If I do not want it anymore, it is I who have a problem. Divorce is not an option to me, like failure is not an option.
> 
> There is too much encouragement to men to quit. It is impossible to build healthy relationships that way.
> 
> ...


You wnd I clearly have similar views on the importance of commitment to marriage. Prior to my wife's affair, we possibly had more or less the same view.

If my wife required me to be faithful, and refused to sleep with me, I would have a problem. If I am not capable of celibacy (and I am not) and I couldn't turn things around, I would see my choices as being divorce or infidelity.

There are other scenarios I could come up with. If she has another affair, it's over. If she developed violent tendencies, or deep substance abuse problems, things could become untenable. Not without a lot of work, and I suspect I would have a lot of trouble knowing when to walk away.

If you are assuming that any person can get the sex they deserve, can inspire their spouse, then I respectfully disagree. I can think of one good friend whose first wife descended into drug abuse, prostitution, and other destructive behaviour. He was one of the most decent, caring supportive people I know. She had problems beyond what he could help with, he was given no chance to save the marriage, and in the end he had to prioritise protecting the children. Really bad things do happen to some people. 

As for unilateral decisions.....it only takes one person to break a marriage. I have seen JLD advise divorce on many threads, so I presume she does not share your viewpoint on the subject. If it becomes an option for her in your marriage, ultimately you will find you can't stop her. 



Duguesclin said:


> I cannot disagree more when I read: "The underlying assumption in JLD's approach is that Dug will make the effort she expects." The effort I make is not what JLD expects but what I expect of myself.


What you expect of yourself is your approach, not JLD's.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Dug does not feel threatened by me, Wazza. And he would not allow me to divorce him. He would stop whatever would be prompting that before it got very far.

I think very few men on TAM, if any, understand how much influence Dug has over me.

@EllisRedding

Glad to hear that "accountability" to you just means talking openly and honestly. 

To me it suggests threats and then likely punishments when the person determining said accountability is not satisfied with the results.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> Dug does not feel threatened by me, Wazza. And he would not allow me to divorce him. He would stop whatever would be prompting that before it got very far.
> 
> I think very few men on TAM, if any, understand how much influence Dug has over me.
> 
> ...


You love responding to and refuting things I never said.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> You love responding to and refuting things I never said.


You sound defensive, Wazza. Why?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> You sound defensive, Wazza. Why?


Not defensive at all.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Not defensive at all.


Hmm. Just my impression, I guess. If you don't want to explore it, you certainly don't have to.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

john117 said:


> People do change but it's not like we are asleep at the wheel. The person sharing my bed today is a literal stranger compared to the person I married in 1986. I had front row seats to her changing. Ironically she's even more predictable now.
> 
> I'm the same person I was in 1986, just gray hair and all that. I saw little reason to change. The money is the same, my kids love me, I'm at the top of my game...


Wow, top of your game for over 30 years? Impressive! I've fallen apart and pulled myself back together at least twice, tried lots of new things, switched jobs/careers at least 6 time, learned new skills, pushed old limits, all kinds of changes, in that same time frame. 

You don't have to be asleep at the wheel to realize that things change, and can keep changing, whether you like it or not. My husband has surprised me before. Even I have surprised me before. Why would I think it couldn't happen again?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Wazza said:


> Well, for example, I like to be liked. I don't like to be hated. Everyone is liked by some people and hated, or at least not liked, by others. You might put on a brave face but inside you wonder what is wrong with you. Or you produce a likeable exterior, and inside you are thinking "sure they like the facade but if you know the real me....."
> 
> I think sex is the same. Rejection sends a signal that you are unattractive. For me, sex is about the emotions far more than the physical release, which makes any sort of rejection more painful.
> 
> ...


I don't think your emotions sound unusual at all. My comment was really just about the importance of perspective. Sex is validating. I won't argue with that. All I know is that if I wasn't able to keep perspective and be resilient in times when people don't like me or I am getting rejected, I would be toast.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> Hmm. Just my impression, I guess. If you don't want to explore it, you certainly don't have to.


If you have the impression I am defensive, you are wrong.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> If you have the impression I am defensive, you are wrong.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

jld said:


> @EllisRedding
> 
> Glad to hear that "accountability" to you just means talking openly and honestly.
> 
> To me it suggests threats and then likely punishments when the person determining said accountability is not satisfied with the results.


 Accountability and talking openly/honestly are two completely distinct things. I could talk openly/honestly to someone but later on my actions don't match my words. The accountability would come into play based on my actions, not the fact that we had an honest talk.

As far as threats/punishments, I don't follow. How do you hold someone accountable for their actions if there are no sort of repercussions, that defeats the whole purpose of being accountable ...

Funny, in Lila's thread aren't you agreeing that her H needs to be held accountable, and if he can't do the things that Lila is asking then she has every right to move on without him. So in this case, the threat to her H is divorce which she will decide on if not satisfied with the results. She is looking to hold him accountable for his actions, and rightly so.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

What a truly exceptional post.

Made me realize this (validation) is partly why M2 has sex with me - even when the mechanics of the experience - are sans rapture. 





Wazza said:


> Well, for example, I like to be liked. I don't like to be hated. Everyone is liked by some people and hated, or at least not liked, by others. You might put on a brave face but inside you wonder what is wrong with you. Or you produce a likeable exterior, and inside you are thinking "sure they like the facade but if you know the real me....."
> 
> I think sex is the same. Rejection sends a signal that you are unattractive. For me, sex is about the emotions far more than the physical release, which makes any sort of rejection more painful.
> 
> ...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> First off, lol at the bolded coming from you :wink2:
> 
> Assuming sex is a problem,* both people sit down, talk about the issue.* It is highly likely that both have a role in this problem which means there will things both people can do to fix/address the problem.
> 
> Now, as I read your post, I can see you are already taking out of context my post. First, you make it gender specific. Second, as you say in quotes "for not meeting your sexual requirements". I am not saying that all my sexual requirements need to be met or else. I am saying that if there is a problem or issue, both people should be working together, most likely compromising to come up with a solution that works for BOTH people. After all, if they care about each other and the relationship, should that not be the goal.


This is where I got that, Ellis.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

jld said:


> This is where I got that, Ellis.


So why do you then completely ignore the next sentence which I have again quoted below which ties in perfectly to being accountable.



> It is highly likely that both have a role in this problem which means there will things both people can do to fix/address the problem.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> So why do you then completely ignore the next sentence which I have again quoted below which ties in perfectly to being accountable.


To me, the rest of your post was the same thing: talk it out openly and honestly.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ellis,
Marital power dynamics are complicated. There is an overall stronger person in every marriage. Might not be clear who it is - having drinks with them at a ****tail party where everyone is having fun.

But apply some real torque - a seriously sick child - a heart attack - it becomes obvious who the stronger person is. The odd thing to me about that old cliche - is just how close it is to being true. They say that: nobody ever looks UP. The truth is, folks rarely look DOWN, which is unfortunate. Because when your life - as a marital partner - gets blown up - there's a remarkably common result. If you look down - the two sets of parallel footprints you normally see - aren't both there. Instead, there's a single set of footprints, a lot deeper than usual, as one of you carries the other forward. 





EllisRedding said:


> Accountability and talking openly/honestly are two completely distinct things. I could talk openly/honestly to someone but later on my actions don't match my words. The accountability would come into play based on my actions, not the fact that we had an honest talk.
> 
> As far as threats/punishments, I don't follow. How do you hold someone accountable for their actions if there are no sort of repercussions, that defeats the whole purpose of being accountable ...
> 
> Funny, in Lila's thread aren't you agreeing that her H needs to be held accountable, and if he can't do the things that Lila is asking then she has every right to move on without him. So in this case, the threat to her H is divorce which she will decide on if not satisfied with the results. She is looking to hold him accountable for his actions, and rightly so.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

jld said:


> To me, the rest of your post was the same thing: talk it out openly and honestly.


To me talking openly and honestly is a very big component. As I have said though, at the end of the day actions speak louder than words.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

This.

Not only that, there are moments when the stronger partner may be carried as well. 

I am the one who normally carries things in our relationship, to the tune of probably 90/10 or 85/15.

Recently, my wife stepped in on something that was weighing me down. I simply did not have the juice to carry her due to how heavy these things were, and to some degree still are. There are times that she does not respond well to this, however, this was not one of those times.

I needed it, and certainly appreciated it.



MEM11363 said:


> Ellis,
> Marital power dynamics are complicated. There is an overall stronger person in every marriage. Might not be clear who it is - having drinks with them at a ****tail party where everyone is having fun.
> 
> But apply some real torque - a seriously sick child - a heart attack - it becomes obvious who the stronger person is. The odd thing to me about that old cliche - is just how close it is to being true. They say that: nobody ever looks UP. The truth is, folks rarely look DOWN, which is unfortunate. Because when your life - as a marital partner - gets blown up - there's a remarkably common result. If you look down - the two sets of parallel footprints you normally see - aren't both there. Instead, there's a single set of footprints, a lot deeper than usual, as one of you carries the other forward.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@MEM11363 I'm not sure I completely agree with your thoughts about one person in a relationship being the support or strongest. At least I don't attribute it to strength.

I think there is often one partner who responds more emotionally and one more logically. To me, that's a function of upbringing and structure and function of the corpus callosum - the connection between the left and right side of the brain. Men typically have less interconnections between hemispheres than women. Therefore, women tend to be able to process logical and emotional information simultaneously (and conversely, are less able to keep emotion out if the discussion).

I believe this accounts in large part for people's different responses to different challenges or crises. In an emotional crises, women are better able to see the impact on others and can therefore help navigate the response to minimize collateral damage to others and relationships. Men can "lead" often because they aren't hindered by these added complexities - they can target a direct response to the specific threat or event. The synthesis of these capabilities - moving forward but with nuance and consideration of the impact on others (and the marriage) - allows a couple to weather a storm better as a team than individually.

And ladies - when you wonder why "he just doesn't get it" realize that his brain might not have access to the thoughts your brain does. And men, when she "can't have a discussion without drama" or "keeps bringing up the past" keep in mind that her emotional memories are sloshing around her brain while you're talking about something much more isolated and current.

I believe spouses can help each other develop skills to merge or scale back the integration of emotional and logical thoughts. I know I'm a much more complex and better person as a result of my relationship with my W. I hope she feels the same way.

BTW it could be that JLD so admires the processing that Doug naturally performs that she completely defers to him as a result and considers his processing capabilities "strength". If so it is misguided; the "strength" could be simply the significant reduction of emotional thought, and the admiration could be driven by self esteem issues and a lack of confidence in herself. In any event, I find JLD's advice to be so one-sided and blind to reason and perspective that it's better for me to block her than respond. I'll trust the women of TAN who support her that she doesn't willfully bait men and isn't willfully ignoring women's responsibility in a relationship - by that I acknowledge the women are valuing content in her posts that I filter out or don't comprehend.

See if you can guess how effective my 
corpus callosum is by my post


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

TheTruth,
Do you think that in general, men feel emotions less intensely?

Or that we are better at masking how we feel?

Or that we simply prioritize what needs to be done over how we feel about it?





TheTruthHurts said:


> @MEM11363 I'm not sure I completely agree with your thoughts about one person in a relationship being the support or strongest. At least I don't attribute it to strength.
> 
> I think there is often one partner who responds more emotionally and one more logically. To me, that's a function of upbringing and structure and function of the corpus callosum - the connection between the left and right side of the brain. Men typically have less interconnections between hemispheres than women. Therefore, women tend to be able to process logical and emotional information simultaneously (and conversely, are less able to keep emotion out if the discussion).
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

O.k. I see that SOME of you have said that sex IS "validating". 

But what _EXACTLY_ are you validating? 

In what way are you 'validating'? 

I mean, is this something like, "I F*ck, therefore, I AM"????

I never felt that way so I'm curious as to why other people feel that way, and how it plays a role in someone being either HD or LD.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Wazza said:


> Well, for example, I like to be liked. I don't like to be hated. Everyone is liked by some people and hated, or at least not liked, by others. You might put on a brave face but inside you wonder what is wrong with you. Or you produce a likeable exterior, and inside you are thinking "sure they like the facade but if you know the real me....."
> 
> I think sex is the same. Rejection sends a signal that you are unattractive. For me, sex is about the emotions far more than the physical release, which makes any sort of rejection more painful.
> 
> ...


I think you're right. Sex stops validating them when they have too much of it, more than they want. Then, I think, it actually serves to invalidate them - they are "just a vagina" at that point since their feelings and desires are irrelevant and they are supposed to "just do it."


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Sex with your partner is a sign of acceptance, a sign that they desire you.

Think of all the effort people put into being desirable: clothes, shoes (often uncomfortable), expensive watches and cars, hair styling, makeup, exercise, plastic surgery etc. While all that has other features as well, a significant amount is directed at being desired by people of your preferred gender.

Sex is a strong expression if having succeeded at all that. 

Because sex is so personal, rejection feels very broad: "I don't want to have sex with you", from a partner feels very much like "I don't want to have sex with you.... because you are worthless". 







Vega said:


> O.k. I see that SOME of you have said that sex IS "validating".
> 
> But what _EXACTLY_ are you validating?
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> Sex with your partner is a sign of acceptance, a sign that they desire you.
> 
> 
> 
> Because sex is so personal, rejection feels very broad: "I don't want to have sex with you", from a partner feels very much like "I don't want to have sex with you.... because you are worthless".


I would think that you would have "accepted" your partner BEFORE you ventured into sexual territory with them.

And why does, "I don't want to have sex" translate into, "I don't want to have sex _WITH YOU_"? And why does, "I don't want to have sex with you" translate into "...because you're 'worthless'"?

Oh, and just one more thing....

If *you* feel "worthless", isn't it possible that the underlying reason why your partner may not want to have sex with you is because your partner feels "worthless"?


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> TheTruth,
> Do you think that in general, men feel emotions less intensely?
> 
> Or that we are better at masking how we feel?
> ...


@MEM11363 IDK. I think that's a separate issue. For me I know I rarely feel much emotion but that's me. I read a lot of emotion in other men's posts though, so I don't question the extent of their feelings.

Probably learned behavior, activity in the hemispheres of the brain, past experience, etc.

I believe testosterone has a lot to do with it too, and as men age (and after orgasm), testosterone wains and many become more in tune with their emotions.

I'm always amazed that so many people "pack in" their emotions when they store memories, and "feel" the emotions when remembering as intensely as when the memory occurred. That - to me - is crazy and amazing behavior. Not me though.

For me, emotions are a little white noise that I naturally ignore or don't hear. By understanding patterns of human behavior though, I've learned what "normal" people might say and do, and therefore I can listen harder for the "stuff" that might trigger a similar reaction in me.

That why I love Dexter. Mirrors my need to act to fit in and appear to have normal behaviors and emotions. I'm no sociopath but I am high IQ, highly analytical, and have congenital (born with) neurological issues recognizing faces (who not what emotion). Fortunately I am pretty expert at pattern matching so I emulate empathy pretty well.

So obviously I am NOT the guy to ask about the difference if intensity of emotions between men and women. But I do observe a difference, so perhaps men are typically more able to "ignore" emotional information or push it into the background due to chemicals and brain structure. But that's speculation.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@vega - by my earlier posts I hope you see sex for me as water in a desert. It's a drop of water when I am a dry well (emotionally).

It is my only real way to emotionally bond with my W. I am probably a bit extreme in my low emotional response, but I believe most men fall in a continuum here.

Without it, I go through motions that I know make W and I close. I accommodate her needs to be close to me. But I want more than close. I want love. And that's honestly the only way I get a sip of it.

Part of love is vulnerability. Opening your heart and dropping protections.

I won't tell my W this but I will share that with you.

Don't underestimate the emotional blocking power of testosterone.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Top of my game -> career wise, stick with the same company for 31 years, get them to pay for my PhD, and climb the ladder high enough that I can get away with a lot of things and work bank hours while still getting the work done.

Kids wise, raised (largely singlehandedly) two great girls, now in college.

Did I push limits? Yea, by having to learn an awful lot of stuff I never thought of. Anything from computer programming to parenting 101. 

A lot is probably due to my first gen immigrant mentality, and also to my planning and looking ahead skills. Mostly the last. I don't just follow the yellow brick road, I think ahead of the why's and how's. It pays off to think ahead and to rarely, if ever, be surprised.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Yes you have presumably accepted your partner if you want to have sex with them, but if they turn you down that seems a sign that they have not accepted you.

"I don't want to have sex" can feel like "I don't want to have sex with YOU" because for many people sex is a generally desirable thing. To many people it is difficult to imagine not wanting sex with your partner unless there was something "wrong" with that partner.

I know that there are also many people who simply do not want sex with anyone, but their partners may not recognize that. 

The partner may feel "worthless", they may be looking for some sort of validation that you are not aware that you are not providing. 

Of course if you are not treating your partner well, there is no reason to expect that they would want sex. 

Here I am talking about the situation where A honestly believes that they are doing everything that they can for B, and B still rejects them for sex. 





Vega said:


> I would think that you would have "accepted" your partner BEFORE you ventured into sexual territory with them.
> 
> And why does, "I don't want to have sex" translate into, "I don't want to have sex _WITH YOU_"? And why does, "I don't want to have sex with you" translate into "...because you're 'worthless'"?
> 
> ...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

TheTruthHurts said:


> @MEM11363 I'm not sure I completely agree with your thoughts about one person in a relationship being the support or strongest. At least I don't attribute it to strength.
> 
> I think there is often one partner who responds more emotionally and one more logically. To me, that's a function of upbringing and structure and function of the corpus callosum - the connection between the left and right side of the brain. Men typically have less interconnections between hemispheres than women. Therefore, women tend to be able to process logical and emotional information simultaneously (and conversely, are less able to keep emotion out if the discussion).
> 
> ...


TTH, do you think the reason you do not like my posts to men is because . . . _the truth hurts_?

After all, most of what I say to men is closely aligned with what Gottman, foremost marriage researcher of our time, also says.

Here is a refresher:

_Men who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives' influence. The happiest, most stable marriages were the ones in which the husband treated his wife with respect and didn't resist power sharing and decision making with her but actively searched for common ground with her. (Stonewalling and refusing to plan things out with her is a power play. The one who says the least has the most power. When a man ignores her influence, it creates instability in the relationship and the marriage will be damaged).

Women tend to allow their husbands to influence them. The research bears out that she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage. If the husband accepts her influence, the wife is less likely to be harsh when something causes stress. If she feels hopeless about being able to influence him, she will be "triggered" and her negativity will escalate.

When a husband accepts his wifes influence, his open attitude heightens the positive in his relationship by strengthening his friendship with his wife. It makes it easier for him to deepen his love map of her, bolster fondness and admiraton and turn toward his wife. This helps him learn from his wife many of the emotional skills that she learned growing up and he didn't. Studies show that from a very young age (1 1/2 years), boys will accept influence only from boys when they play and girls accept influence from boys and girls equally._

If men are going to have that influence, they have a responsibility to use it wisely. That is what I am asking of them.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Vega said:


> I would think that you would have "accepted" your partner BEFORE you ventured into sexual territory with them.
> 
> And why does, "I don't want to have sex" translate into, "I don't want to have sex _WITH YOU_"? And why does, "I don't want to have sex with you" translate into "...because you're 'worthless'"?
> 
> ...


This is the same thought process that leads partners to neglect each other in other ways as a marriage advances. 

"Well, I married you, didn't I? What more do you want from me?"

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> This is the same thought process that leads partners to neglect each other in other ways as a marriage advances.
> 
> "Well, I married you, didn't I? What more do you want from me?"
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


How about addressing her points, far?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
That thought process is why you have such a negative association with sex. You accepted a series of partners.

Most of them either started out sexually selfish or became that way over time. 

You have been admirably transparent about those experiences - and I respect that. 

It's also true that - sex is one of the most intense ways to show someone that you love them. When your partner shows total disregard for what the experience is like for you - that's a very clear message. Best case, it means they love themselves a LOT more than they love you. Worst case - they don't love you - they are merely attracted to you. 

And that pattern - seems to have given you a strong negative association with sex.





Vega said:


> I would think that you would have "accepted" your partner BEFORE you ventured into sexual territory with them.
> 
> And why does, "I don't want to have sex" translate into, "I don't want to have sex _WITH YOU_"? And why does, "I don't want to have sex with you" translate into "...because you're 'worthless'"?
> 
> ...


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> O.k. I hear what you're saying, but I don't understand it. I mean, to me, it's like putting all your eggs into one basket.
> 
> Plus, I still don't get what exactly *you're* trying to 'validate'!
> 
> (not YOU per se, James. Just anyone who may be looking for validation through sex)


Actions speak louder than words.

You say you are attracted to me, but you don't want to have sex with me.
You say you love me, but don't want to show sexual affection.
You say you think of me, but apparently not sexually.
You say I'm important to you, but you prioritize everything else over me.
I want to have sex but you don't seem to care.

Sex validates all of those things your partner says they they feel about you. More importantly, not wanting to have sex with you validates that they don't really feel that way about you. Why is anyone surprised when their spouse leaves them after a year without sex?

EDIT: Here's another one that comes to mind, validation that you're not being taken for granted.
Along those lines is a great quote from ChargingCharlie:


ChargingCharlie said:


> Not oversimplified to me - concise and to the point. I'll speak for myself in saying that if my wife was as interested in sex as she is in Candy Crush and sleeping, I'd be a lot happier. Not that things would be perfect (still have issues with her), but lack of sex, and her generally lazy attitude (saying she wants to start exercising but won't get out of bed to do so) exacerbates the issues.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

ChargingCharlie said:


> Not oversimplified to me - concise and to the point. I'll speak for myself in saying that if my wife was as interested in sex as she is in Candy Crush and sleeping, I'd be a lot happier. Not that things would be perfect (still have issues with her), but lack of sex, and her generally lazy attitude (saying she wants to start exercising but won't get out of bed to do so) exacerbates the issues.


I think you speak for many men, actually. I don't really have that problem (laziness) but I know exactly what you mean.
Personally I prioritize sex, kissing, cuddling, or hugging over sleep. Really any physical intimacy. I don't care if I'm not horny, not in the mood, or very tired. If you wake me up and I'll find a way to get going. Likewise I'll drop just about any movie, TV show, or video game to have intimacy with my wife.
The other night she unintentionally woke me up because she was crying about something. I just held her and comforted her. If she had done the same wanting sex it would have been exactly the same thing. No difference.


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

JamesTKirk said:


> I think you speak for many men, actually. I don't really have that problem (laziness) but I know exactly what you mean.
> Personally I prioritize sex, kissing, cuddling, or hugging over sleep. Really any physical intimacy. I don't care if I'm not horny, not in the mood, or very tired. If you wake me up and I'll find a way to get going. Likewise I'll drop just about any movie, TV show, or video game to have intimacy with my wife.
> The other night she unintentionally woke me up because she was crying about something. I just held her and comforted her. If she had done the same wanting sex it would have been exactly the same thing. No difference.


Same here - last summer, we went to an event and had the kids sleep over at a friends house. Got home and we were both really tired, but started making out, then clothes came off, and we had good sex (first time in a couple years) - even though we were both tired, we were into it. She stated that we should do this more often, but then I hear all about how tired she is, etc., which ruins any desire I have to initiate. We've had sex once since then, and that was because she was drunk.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

James,

One very interesting theme on TAM goes like this: 

If you aren't meeting your wife's emotional needs, she won't want to sleep with you. I generally think that is true. 

-----------
Unfortunately the instruction manual offered is heavily skewed, in some cases 100% skewed towards driving the marital dynamic towards stability and comfort. 

The thing is - in a LOT of marriages - there's already more than enough stability / reassurance. 

Adding more is actually hostile to your sex life. Adding excitement - is what's needed. But since that is a scary thing to ask for - it's very rare for a partner to ask for it. 




JamesTKirk said:


> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> You say you are attracted to me, but you don't want to have sex with me.
> You say you love me, but don't want to show sexual affection.
> ...


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

JamesTKirk said:


> *I think you speak for many men, *actually. I don't really have that problem (laziness) but I know exactly what you mean.
> Personally I prioritize sex, kissing, cuddling, or hugging over sleep. Really any physical intimacy. I don't care if I'm not horny, not in the mood, or very tired. If you wake me up and I'll find a way to get going. Likewise I'll drop just about any movie, TV show, or video game to have intimacy with my wife.
> The other night she unintentionally woke me up because she was crying about something. I just held her and comforted her. If she had done the same wanting sex it would have been exactly the same thing. No difference.


.. and women 

physical intimacy is a major priority here. We are a long time dead, plenty of sleep opportunities then.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

MEM11363 said:


> James,
> 
> One very interesting theme on TAM goes like this:
> 
> ...


It is actually even scarier as the female asking for it. Generalising here but I think many men do think that piling on more stability and comfort is the way to go and who can blame them, it is not a bad thing.
For me personally I already feel very stable and comfortable in the relationship and don't need more to feel moreso. 

Adding excitement is what I really want, actually it is what we both want it is just that I am more carefree to be able to ask for it. He has this long term, inbuilt fear of asking for what he wants as he has been put down for it in the past.

Be free people, let it all go and be free.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> I mean, is this something like, "I F*ck, therefore, I AM"????


Yes! This! LOL


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



john117 said:


> It pays off to think ahead and to rarely, if ever, be surprised.


I'm sure it does. 

It also pays off to be open to new experiences, and to not judge everything in advance.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The joyous sound of a Tigress growling.

I am a bit like Mr. H. By that - I mean - I'm too patterned. Today I'm gonna try and break pattern. Surprise M2. 

At least Mr. H has a good excuse. 

M2 is like you. 




MrsHolland said:


> It is actually even scarier as the female asking for it. Generalising here but I think many men do think that piling on more stability and comfort is the way to go and who can blame them, it is not a bad thing.
> For me personally I already feel very stable and comfortable in the relationship and don't need more to feel moreso.
> 
> Adding excitement is what I really want, actually it is what we both want it is just that I am more carefree to be able to ask for it. He has this long term, inbuilt fear of asking for what he wants as he has been put down for it in the past.
> ...


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> James,
> 
> One very interesting theme on TAM goes like this:
> 
> ...


Therefore lack of sex validates exactly what you said, that something is missing. Sexual interest validates satisfaction, happiness, or excitement in the relationship.

The question was, why is sex the bottom line when implying that if all else in your marriage is great (examples: love, friendship, emotional, trust, etc.) then why do we also require sex? This is put in the context of a person that has no sexual desire but otherwise thinks they're very happy with the marriage. Why is this an impossible combination?
If the sex is missing, then you're essentially validating that something is missing.
If the sex is there, you're validation that nothing significant is missing.

How to fix the problem of lack of sex because something is missing is a whole other very complicated topic that I'm not really trying to answer.
Why you won't have sex when saying nothing is missing is a problem one also needs to explore for themselves.

I'll also add that having sex between a married couple shouldn't be a lot of work. Ideally it should be almost effortless. So if you're not having it, it's because the is a problem. Again, validation.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

James,

Just keep something in mind. A lot of guys - act badly when their partner doesn't get as turned on as the guy wants/expects. Or doesn't get turned on quickly or doesn't come. 

This puts the female in a horrible position. She has to pretend the experience is WAY better for her than it really is. To validate his sense of being desirable. 

She feels forced to combine intimacy and anti-intimacy (deception is the opposite of intimacy). 

Excitement is important - and the ability to accept a very unfiltered response in bed is as well. 






JamesTKirk said:


> Therefore lack of sex validates exactly what you said, that something is missing. Sexual interest validates satisfaction or happiness in the relationship.
> 
> The question was, why is sex the bottom line when implying that if all else in your marriage is great (examples: love, friendship, emotional, trust, etc.) then why do we also require sex? This is put in the context of a person that has no sexual desire but otherwise thinks they're very happy with the marriage. Why is this an impossible combination?
> If the sex is missing, then you're essentially validating that something is missing.
> ...


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> James,
> 
> Just keep something in mind. A lot of guys - act badly when their partner doesn't get as turned on as the guy wants/expects. Or doesn't get turned on quickly or doesn't come.
> 
> ...


A difficult position yes. That's very unfortunate. Having to fake it to pretend your happy to avoid bad behavior or violence is obviously a big problem. At that point you're giving false validation.

But that doesn't change the point that not having sex is a clear indicator of an unhappy marriage.

I feel like you keep trying to bring it back to reasons a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband and while they they are all valid, unhappiness is always the reason.

But let's not conflate topics. What we're really talking about here is when a spouse otherwise claims they're happy and content and rejects your invitations for sex. Then they seem upset when their spouse leaves because of the lack of physical intimacy. The conclusion is that if you were truly happy you would not only not always reject sex, but actually choose to have it once in a while.
Ergo, the bottom line.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Well, for example, I like to be liked. I don't like to be hated. Everyone is liked by some people and hated, or at least not liked, by others. *You might put on a brave face but inside you wonder what is wrong with you. Or you produce a likeable exterior, and inside you are thinking "sure they like the facade but if you know the real me....."
> *


What I bolded is where I get lost. I already understand and accept that not EVERYONE is going to like me. But if they don't, I don't wonder, "_What's wrong with ME_?" nor do I put on a façade. 



> I think sex is the same. *Rejection sends a signal that you are unattractive.* For me, sex is about the emotions far more than the physical release, which makes any sort of rejection more painful.


Rejecting _sex_ does NOT mean that your partner is rejecting _*YOU*_. She could be rejecting sex for any _number_ of reasons that have _nothing to do with YOU_. And it's not up to her to 'pamper' your insecurities. 



> You can work through it and put it into perspective, but it still hurts to be rejected, however much you contain it


.

If you understood and accepted that she may be rejecting sex, and that by rejecting sex she isn't rejecting you, you wouldn't feel....well...rejected and hurt! 



> I wonder if, just as my need for sex is partly a validation, the lack of desire in an LD person is about not doing it because it doesn't validate them.


I believe that you may be onto something here, Wazza. 

I think this is correct for _some LD's_. But for others, the whole sexual experience can be *IN*validating. 
Why?

Because they may feel invalidated OUTSIDE of the bedroom. Their feelings may or may not have anything to do with their partner. 

But if they don't feel good about themselves, having sex isn't going to solve anything. 

In fact, it may make things _worse_.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> *Of course if you are not treating your partner well, there is no reason to expect that they would want sex.
> *
> Here I am talking about the situation where A honestly believes that they are doing everything that they can for B, and B still rejects them for sex.


My thinking about this is that what I bolded happens much, much more often than we think.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



wild jade said:


> I'm sure it does.
> 
> It also pays off to be open to new experiences, and to not judge everything in advance.


Thinking is not judging. I could care less about the moral or ethical implications of X Y and Z but I do care about how they impact my world.

As for new experiences, I'm all for that. That's how one improves.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

James,
Totally agree. And I'll add - there is one absolutely fool proof litmus test to separate the parter who loves HOW YOU TREAT THEM, vs actually loving you as a distinct human being. And that is this. The person who actually loves you for who you are feels good when they do things that make you happy. And they make a good faith effort to avoid doing things that cause you distress. And that includes finding a mutually agreeable sexual frequency. 

If however, your partner loves how you treat them, and how that makes them feel, but doesn't love YOU, they will find your needs to be irritating and an imposition. And the reason most folks don't pick up on this - is because there's a certain amount of stuff your partner likes doing for you/is easy for them to do - and the unloving partner will point to that stuff and say: I do a lot for you, you only care about sex

BTW: Despite having said some unfortunate things to me over the years, M2 has never said that. I would just laugh as its so obviously untrue. 






JamesTKirk said:


> A difficult position yes. That's very unfortunate. Having to fake it to pretend your happy to avoid bad behavior or violence is obviously a big problem. At that point you're giving false validation.
> 
> But that doesn't change the point that not having sex is a clear indicator of an unhappy marriage.
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> If however, your partner loves how you treat them, and how that makes them feel, but doesn't love YOU, they will find your needs to be irritating and an imposition. And the reason most folks don't pick up on this - is because there's a certain amount of stuff your partner likes doing for you/is easy for them to do - and the unloving partner will point to that stuff and say: I do a lot for you, you only care about sex


This... 

With sprinkles...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

JamesTKirk said:


> But let's not conflate topics. What we're really talking about here is when a spouse otherwise claims they're happy and content and rejects your invitations for sex. Then they seem upset when their spouse leaves because of the lack of physical intimacy. The conclusion is that if you were truly happy you would not only not always reject sex, but actually choose to have it once in a while.
> Ergo, the bottom line.


I do wonder how many people in sexless (or near sexless) marriages can honestly claim they are happy. Most people I have seen who remain in these types of marriages, it doesn't appear that happiness keeps them there, but various other reasons (finances, kids, not wanting to get a divorce, fear of being alone). They just simply accept that this is the way it is going to be.

In your example where one spouse claims they were otherwise happy but the spouse ends up leaving b/c of lack of physical intimacy, you could argue that the person did a very bad job reading the relationship (or maybe so self absorbed in their own "happiness" they failed to see (or care about) what was going on with their spouse).


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I agree it can be a problem. I think though that there is a way a person can indicate that "I'm not physically turned on right now, but I really enjoy making you happy and I know you will do the same for me some time in the future". 






MEM11363 said:


> James,
> 
> Just keep something in mind. A lot of guys - act badly when their partner doesn't get as turned on as the guy wants/expects. Or doesn't get turned on quickly or doesn't come.
> 
> ...


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



john117 said:


> Thinking is not judging. I could care less about the moral or ethical implications of X Y and Z but I do care about how they impact my world.
> 
> As for new experiences, I'm all for that. That's how one improves.


Thinking is not judging, but drawing conclusions is. If you think you're right and have the answers, you're judging. No ethics or morals need to be involved. And if you already know what is going to happen...how is it that you are open to having it turn out completely differently?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This is tricky stuff.

I absolutely believe that in many sexless marriages the HD person isn't just unwilling to leave. They are unwilling to go into 'true' roommate mode. 

I observe MANY cases of men continuing to provide the entire: Boyfriend experience 

With gifts and flowers and date nights etc.

Despite being steadily rejected. 

I would say - M2 is very lovable and also very selfish at times. 






EllisRedding said:


> I do wonder how many people in sexless (or near sexless) marriages can honestly claim they are happy. Most people I have seen who remain in these types of marriages, it doesn't appear that happiness keeps them there, but various other reasons (finances, kids, not wanting to get a divorce, fear of being alone). They just simply accept that this is the way it is going to be.
> 
> In your example where one spouse claims they were otherwise happy but the spouse ends up leaving b/c of lack of physical intimacy, you could argue that the person did a very bad job reading the relationship (or maybe so self absorbed in their own "happiness" they failed to see (or care about) what was going on with their spouse).


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> This is tricky stuff.
> 
> I absolutely believe that in many sexless marriages the HD person isn't just unwilling to leave. They are unwilling to go into 'true' roommate mode.
> 
> ...


I really have no idea how anyone could still provide the full boyfriend/girlfriend experience while being rejected, but I guess in part it is the hope that eventually the person will turn around.

When my W and I have gone through dry spells we definitely become more detached from each other. To be fair as well, this is more heavily on me and my personality as it is easy for me to withdraw. The physical intimacy goes hand in hand with everything else in the relationship, so my desire to provide any sort of "boyfriend experience" if the physical component isn't there goes out the window.

My W and I have come to understand that when we have a more active/healthy physical relationship (as we do now) our entire relationship benefits from it.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> I observe MANY cases of men continuing to provide the entire: Boyfriend experience
> 
> With gifts and flowers and date nights etc.
> 
> Despite being steadily rejected.


All of which is completely nuts!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



wild jade said:


> Thinking is not judging, but drawing conclusions is. If you think you're right and have the answers, you're judging. No ethics or morals need to be involved. And if you already know what is going to happen...how is it that you are open to having it turn out completely differently?


Jade, drawing conclusions supported by facts is not judging. Far from it.

And, I don't know what will happen. I'm not a prophet, just your friendly neighborhood decision analysis guy working his trade.

Think of life as a directed graph or tree with every branch having multiple choices. Each choice has a set of probabilities associated with it. When something unexpected happens it's either that the probability like the dice went it's way, or it was an outcome not considered, or the probability was not estimated properly. It's not rocket science. 

If it doesn't turn out the way I expected I learn why and improve the model for next time. That's how people approach life... 

It's not a question of thinking you have all the answers, it's a question of whether you have considered all the outcomes. 

That, plus the knowledge that you can't control everything in life.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ellis,

Maybe I ought do a checklist. An awful lot of cases - you ask the HD person to ask their LD partner for a back rub instead - or a mutual massage. They won't do it - already know the answer will be NO.

Why I say - sometimes LD - really means 'low desire to please' - and that's about love not sex. Or about loves absence. 




EllisRedding said:


> I really have no idea how anyone could still provide the full boyfriend/girlfriend experience while being rejected, but I guess in part it is the hope that eventually the person will turn around.
> 
> When my W and I have gone through dry spells we definitely become more detached from each other. To be fair as well, this is more heavily on me and my personality as it is easy for me to withdraw. The physical intimacy goes hand in hand with everything else in the relationship, so my desire to provide any sort of "boyfriend experience" if the physical component isn't there goes out the window.
> 
> My W and I have come to understand that when we have a more active/healthy physical relationship (as we do now) our entire relationship benefits from it.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

john117 said:


> People do change but it's not like we are asleep at the wheel. The person sharing my bed today is a literal stranger compared to the person I married in 1986. I had front row seats to her changing. Ironically she's even more predictable now.
> 
> *I'm the same person I was in 1986,* just gray hair and all that. I saw little reason to change. The money is the same, my kids love me, I'm at the top of my game...


Maybe that is the problem.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Ellis,
> 
> Maybe I ought do a checklist. An awful lot of cases - you ask the HD person to ask their LD partner for a back rub instead - or a mutual massage. They won't do it - already know the answer will be NO.
> 
> Why I say - sometimes LD - really means 'low desire to please' - and that's about love not sex. Or about loves absence.


That's because at some point the LD either fears or realizes that almost _ANY _kind of physical touch can give the HD "ideas" about sex.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Duguesclin said:


> Maybe that is the problem.


Really? How so?

I'm a respected member of the community, a successful professional, a great parent, and so on. I only put on the freshman 20 lb, hair mostly there, and so on. 

Exactly how am I expected to age? Look like an aging accountant from Central Casting with shiny suit, potbelly and bald head and act like my life is over at 50?

I oughta take the Mini for a spin 😂


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

badsanta said:


> Acknowledging that your body is getting older, less functional, and likely a little overweight. At that point self validation has to go well beyond what you see in the mirror.





Vega said:


> That's because at some point the LD either fears or realizes that almost _ANY _kind of physical touch can give the HD "ideas" about sex.


You do not 'give him or her ideas', the idea is always there.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

anonmd said:


> You do not 'give him or her ideas', the idea is always there.


But it can seem to encourage him. 

My sister told me she did not initiate any touch in any way with her first husband because he would run with it, regardless of how she felt.

It is sad he had so little respect for her feelings. And not surprising that she eventually divorced him.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

I love my W. I want to hold her, envelop her, snuggle, embrace...

If I'm exhausted and we're almost asleep, if I touch her or roll over and embrace her I am inside instantly aroused. And not just in a sexual sense. It's an emotional response. And sex is a gift.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> But it can seem to encourage him.
> 
> My sister told me she did not initiate any touch in any way with her first husband because he would run with it, regardless of how she felt.
> 
> It is sad he had so little respect for her feelings. And not surprising that she eventually divorced him.


My wife is the same, with me as well as her own children. I'm sure it will be blamed back to me somehow 😂😂


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

TheTruthHurts said:


> I love my W. I want to hold her, envelop her, snuggle, embrace...
> 
> If I'm exhausted and we're almost asleep, if I touch her or roll over and embrace her I am inside instantly aroused. And not just in a sexual sense. It's an emotional response. And sex is a gift.


I fear @vega that this is what you have been missing. And that's sad. But it is probably out there if you're lucky enough to find it and optimistic enough to keep looking.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Ellis,
> 
> Maybe I ought do a checklist. An awful lot of cases - you ask the HD person to ask their LD partner for a back rub instead - or a mutual massage. They won't do it - already know the answer will be NO.
> 
> Why I say - sometimes LD - really means 'low desire to please' - and that's about love not sex. Or about loves absence.


There is one big problem with tying the level of sex drive to the quality of generosity, all other attempts to please are undervalued and not appreciated. That gives the impression that the only currency that the HD person will accepts is sex. 

I can't believe that every spouse that is LD also has a low desire to please. They may go out of their way to please the person they love non sexually but those gestures are ignored. 

The impression is that the LD person is valued only to the extent of their desire to please the HD person sexually and to cater to their sexual needs. The LD spouse may get the impression that their partner only wants them for sex. 

I think it's adaptive for men to widen the scope of the ways they give and receive love in a LTR. It's should be part of maturing in the relationship and deepening the feelings of love and intimacy. 

Noticing and accepting nonsexual love may help to relieve the pressure on sex as the only source of love. Imagine how disheartening it is to do things to please someone who does not appreciate it or even recognize the gestures. They accept one form of love nothing else matters. 

HD men need their partner to take an interest in pleasing them sexually and LD women need their partner to take an interest in giving and receiving nonsexual forms of love. 

If each made an attempt to understand and give their partner what they needed, wouldn't that be good.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

LD contributions are important but it's kind of hard to think about the awesome pot roast when there's a DMZ in the bedroom.

Sex is gestalt - more than the sum of its parts. It's the same as the check engine light. Not important in itself, but critical in what it conveys.

Also, at which point are the LD's contributions to the marriage self serving? My wife likes to clean. A lot. And then clean again. A 6,000 sq foot house. for which she has all the time in the world. But not for me.

Should I be elated that she keeps the house spotless, or should I be upset that the house is where her energy goes? 

Same thing about her work. Should I be elated she's making a ton of money, or would I rather have her make less money and be there for her family?

I understand her need for the house. She grew up in a house like this. I grew up in a hut. I understand her need to keep it clean, or to work. But there's a middle ground. 

It's the lack of compromise that's ringing a three alarm fire, Catherine. Not the actual "I'll see your sex from Thursday and you owe me one for Sunday" horse trading part.

Love is, for the most part, being there. Not aimlessly mopping clean floors or cooking elaborate dishes. Being there. Nobody died by eating Chef Boyardee once in a while. I'm not the one to believe in 5LL but there's some truth to them.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Yes, and this is part of the whole miserable pattern. Love, sex, intimacy,fun, affection, are all linked together in the mind of a high libido person. A physical touch without sex feels empty, or like a tease or broken promise

To a low libido person sex is more something on the side. A thing a couple may do, but not intimately tied to everything else. Sexual arousal after a non-sexual touch seems like an attempt to take advantage, turning something peaceful and loving into something almost dirty.

Neither can help the way that they feel. No ones fault, but but the combination will lead to misery.




Vega said:


> That's because at some point the LD either fears or realizes that almost _ANY _kind of physical touch can give the HD "ideas" about sex.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega said:


> What I bolded is where I get lost. I already understand and accept that not EVERYONE is going to like me. But if they don't, I don't wonder, "_What's wrong with ME_?" nor do I put on a façade.


I don't wonder with everyone, but there are some people's opinions I care about. 



Vega said:


> Rejecting _sex_ does NOT mean that your partner is rejecting _*YOU*_. She could be rejecting sex for any _number_ of reasons that have _nothing to do with YOU_. And it's not up to her to 'pamper' your insecurities.
> 
> If you understood and accepted that she may be rejecting sex, and that by rejecting sex she isn't rejecting you, you wouldn't feel....well...rejected and hurt!


I get the truth of what you are saying, but it doesn't invalidate the needs or feelings of the HD. If you want a relationship you need to find common ground. The LD has no more right to have everything their own way than the HD.

I found "pampering" an interesting choice of words. I actually think it is up to me to meet my wife's needs. I want to do it because I care about her. I don't see it as pampering.



Vega said:


> I believe that you may be onto something here, Wazza.
> 
> I think this is correct for _some LD's_. But for others, the whole sexual experience can be *IN*validating.
> Why?
> ...


I totally get this, but I am not sure lack of sex is always a response to problems elsewhere. Sometimes it is just the LD person not wanting sex.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

I'm going to ask this question a second time. I'm not asking it to make a point, or trap anyone. I am genuinely intrigued. 

If you are LD, and your spouse is HD, do you care whether they meet their sexual need elsewhere? And if you do, why? I am expecting most of you would care, and I don't understand why.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Wazza said:


> I'm going to ask this question a second time. I'm not asking it to make a point, or trap anyone. I am genuinely intrigued.
> 
> If you are LD, and your spouse is HD, do you care whether they meet their sexual need elsewhere? And if you do, why? I am expecting most of you would care, and I don't understand why.


I doubt you're going to get an answer to this one, because misery loves company...


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

jld said:


> But it can seem to encourage him.
> 
> My sister told me she did not initiate any touch in any way with her first husband because he would run with it, regardless of how she felt.
> 
> It is sad he had so little respect for her feelings. And not surprising that she eventually divorced him.


See you and raise you one. It is sad she had so little respect for his needs as well. 

I'd BET, there was a time she responded to his touch every time. If not, surely they would not have lasted long enough for marriage.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Sexually speaking, HD vs LD are incompatible states that can never really come together into a sexual relationship, nor should they.

But what has been lost from this thread is the "context" of marriage involving a male and female who (presumably) dated, courted, fell in love, became engaged, and by the time of the wedding, this couple already has had sex together dozens if not hundreds of times. Not to mention alot of discussion about life goals, ambitions, and some talk about sex. Am I right? So this is crucial context that cannot be lost! This getting-to-know each other period is when we reveal ourselves to our partner, both in who we are, and in what we seek in a spouse. This is true for across all relationship categories, including sex. For sure, some couples did a better job preparing for marriage than others, but I don't believe most of TAM got married while drunk in Vegas.

In my mind, sexual issues in marriage cannot be just HD versus LD. Such incompatible pairings will naturally sort themselves out long before the misfit couple ever considers marriage. No, the real problem is that, over time in the marriage, one partner begins to significantly change his/her views towards sex. That's the problem: the unilateral change in view of sex. Usually, it isn't that one spouse's sex drive has gone way up, it is that one has gone way down. But neither way would be healthy or fair or loving towards the established marriage.

So while on it's own, pre-marriage, there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with having exceptionally low (or high) interest in sex, there is a BIG problem with taking vows of sexual exclusivity at a time of compatible interest in sex, then later on revealing that sex isn't so important after all. I do not see this as an HD versus LD scenario, because that couple would never marry.

So much of the standard HD/LD debate becomes irrelevant due to the fact a couple has already proven themselves to be sexually compatible, sufficient to exchange marital vows. This completely changes the discussion. Now instead of the fundamentally incompatible HD/LD debate, the focus should be on: which partner has significantly altered his/her views? What can be done to help him/her return to a more compatible position? If there are other relationship issues affecting the sexlife, these must be identified and addressed, until sexual normalcy (ie, before the change in views) is achieved. Both must work equally hard to get there, as if the marriage were on the line. Because it is.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

anonmd said:


> See you and raise you one. It is sad she had so little respect for his needs as well.
> 
> I'd BET, there was a time she responded to his touch every time. If not, surely they would not have lasted long enough for marriage.


Idk. They started dating in high school. I think he was always all over her. Not sure she ever responded in kind.

You may want to insist this should have been an equal exchange, but I don't think that was ever going to work. My sister responds to inspiration, not entitlement.

That sister remarried a year after her divorce and has been married 15 years since. The second marriage is peaceful and joyful. The second husband inspires her trust. Trust cannot be demanded. It is not an entitlement.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

tommyr said:


> Sexually speaking, HD vs LD are incompatible states that can never really come together into a sexual relationship, nor should they.
> 
> But what has been lost from this thread is the "context" of marriage involving a male and female who (presumably) dated, courted, fell in love, became engaged, and by the time of the wedding, this couple already has had sex together dozens if not hundreds of times. Not to mention alot of discussion about life goals, ambitions, and some talk about sex. Am I right? So this is crucial context that cannot be lost! This getting-to-know each other period is when we reveal ourselves to our partner, both in who we are, and in what we seek in a spouse. This is true for across all relationship categories, including sex. For sure, some couples did a better job preparing for marriage than others, but I don't believe most of TAM got married while drunk in Vegas.
> 
> ...


Why should either "return"? They have probably grown and changed in the course of the marriage. Adaptation will be required.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

jld said:


> Why should either "return"? They have probably grown and changed in the course of the marriage. Adaptation will be required.


Would it be fair of me to stop meeting one of my partner's needs on the basis that I've grown, I've changed, and I expect you to adapt to the new normal? Maybe. Except for all other needs, one adaptation would be for my partner to meet that need with other relationships. But that is not what you are suggesting for sex, and this is why the other should "return". A married/faithful spouse has no other options.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

tommyr said:


> Would it be fair of me to stop meeting one of my partner's needs on the basis that I've grown, I've changed, and I expect you to adapt to the new normal? Maybe. Except for all other needs, one adaptation would be for my partner to meet that need with other relationships. But that is not what you are suggesting for sex, and this is why the other should "return". A married/faithful spouse has no other options.


It may not be "fair," but it may be reality. 

I just don't think people go back in life, not really. Even if they retake some habits, it is with new awareness, an expanded experience base.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

jld said:


> Idk. *They started dating in high school. I think he was always all over her. Not sure she ever responded in kind*.
> 
> You may want to insist this should have been an equal exchange, but I don't think that was ever going to work. My sister responds to inspiration, not entitlement.
> 
> That sister remarried a year after her divorce and has been married 15 years since. The second marriage is peaceful and joyful. The second husband inspires her trust. Trust cannot be demanded. It is not an entitlement.


Probably right on the first part. Second part, either she did respond or she went along. Let's be charitable and say if the latter not actually ready for a relationship or hadn't figured out what she wanted or need in a relationship. In the end, she chose wrong. 

I absolutely insist that when one decides what has been going on is not sustainable they BOTH need to compromise. Or call it quits, which she did. That does not make it all his fault, she played a role as well...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

anonmd said:


> Probably right on the first part. Second part, either she did respond or she went along. Let's be charitable and say if the latter not actually ready for a relationship or hadn't figured out what she wanted or need in a relationship. In the end, she chose wrong.
> 
> I absolutely insist that when one decides what has been going on is not sustainable they BOTH need to compromise. Or call it quits, which she did. That does not make it all his fault, she played a role as well...


She is not a perfect person. No one is. But her two marriages are night and day. And yes, beginning a relationship at 15 is different from beginning one at 40.

And her first husband still loves her. He did not want to let her go, and fought against her second marriage. Too bad he was such an ass when he was with her.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



john117 said:


> Jade, drawing conclusions supported by facts is not judging. Far from it.
> 
> And, I don't know what will happen. I'm not a prophet, just your friendly neighborhood decision analysis guy working his trade.
> 
> ...


LOL! Tell that to the justice system. 

I take it you're more of a planner, and not really one to listen to your gut or see where the wind blows you.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Wazza said:


> I'm going to ask this question a second time. I'm not asking it to make a point, or trap anyone. I am genuinely intrigued.
> 
> If you are LD, and your spouse is HD, do you care whether they meet their sexual need elsewhere? And if you do, why? I am expecting most of you would care, and I don't understand why.


I am HD so maybe not qualified to answer your question.

But sexual exclusivity isn't about the importance of sex. It's about trust. About knowing your partner is coming home at night. That he isn't about to up and leave you for this other person.

If my husband stepped out, it wouldn't be his impinging on the frequency of sex that I would be furious about. It would be his betrayal of my trust.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

jld said:


> She is not a perfect person. No one is. But her two marriages are night and day. And yes, beginning a relationship at 15 is different from beginning one at 40.
> 
> And her first husband still loves her. He did not want to let her go, and fought against her second marriage. Too bad he was such an ass when he was with her.


See, that wasn't so hard. She was not perfect, he was an asshat, a balanced perspective.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> I do wonder how many people in sexless (or near sexless) marriages can honestly claim they are happy. Most people I have seen who remain in these types of marriages, it doesn't appear that happiness keeps them there, but various other reasons (finances, kids, not wanting to get a divorce, fear of being alone). They just simply accept that this is the way it is going to be.


I am sure my wife knows I am not happy, despite my pretending to be content. I am confident that is why she keeps asking me if I am happy and if I intend to stay married to her. I tell her the truth: I intend to stay married to her as long as I live. I can't see myself being happier with anyone else.



> In your example where one spouse claims they were otherwise happy but the spouse ends up leaving b/c of lack of physical intimacy, you could argue that the person did a very bad job reading the relationship (or maybe so self absorbed in their own "happiness" they failed to see (or care about) what was going on with their spouse).


We have so many couples in our neighborhood whose kids are grown divorcing. Wife is going crazy. These women all claim to be blindsided by their H's decision to leave "out of the blue". I am wondering how many of them believed their H was happy. I wonder what their sex lives were like. I wonder how many of them did MC, did not resolve the problems, but they decided to stay married "for the kids". And then the spouse who refused to satisfy their partner's request for change is surprised when a divorce petition is delivered "out of the blue" once the kids are out of the house? People's capacity for self-delusion is impressive.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> I am sure my wife knows I am not happy, despite my pretending to be content. I am confident that is why she keeps asking me if I am happy and if I intend to stay married to her. I tell her the truth: I intend to stay married to her as long as I live. I can't see myself being happier with anyone else.


Why do you pretend to be content?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Done fighting. Not willing to do the work to either inspire her lust or end it and seek satisfaction elsewhere. Not willing to do the work to overcome my entrenched depression. Too tired and lazy. I don't want her to leave so I do what is required so she is motivated to stay. She is a decent caring person so it is not difficult to be pleasant to her. That is much easier than blowing everything up and starting over. I like my house. I like gardening in our yard. I like going on hikes and going to dinner with her on Saturday night. It is very comfortable and I value comfort over happiness. Never been happy and don't expect ever to be happy. So it is God's honest truth that I don't expect to be happier with anyone else. I will find a way to be miserable no matter who I am with (or if I am alone). So I might as well be comfortably miserable with the mother of my children. So maybe, in the end, I am not pretending to be content. Maybe I truly am content.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Ellis,
> 
> Maybe I ought do a checklist. An awful lot of cases - you ask the HD person to ask their LD partner for a back rub instead - or a mutual massage. They won't do it - already know the answer will be NO.
> 
> Why I say - sometimes LD - really means 'low desire to please' - and that's about love not sex. Or about loves absence.


In terms of low desire to please, that is an interesting thought. I know for me, a good part of my drive is the idea of pleasing my wife, not just that I am looking to bust a nut lol. I think sometimes it is assumed that people with high drives are solely looking to satisfy their needs, but that isn't always the case.

In terms of touching your SO, which some others here commented they would avoid for fear of sending the wrong message, it is an interesting dynamic. I know for me, I for the most part touch my W the same way whether or not my intentions are eventually sex. On the other end though, there is definitely a more noticeable difference in my W's touch when she is looking to start something. The problem with this IMO (and this is something I brought up with her), it comes across that when she isn't touching me a certain way it gets read as "I am not interested". This isn't as big a deal when our sex life is healthy, but you can imagine when you go through a dry spell how this can mess with your head.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



wild jade said:


> I take it you're more of a planner, and not really one to listen to your gut or see where the wind blows you.


To the contrary, I'm a very "free spirit" type of person who listens to his gut and follows the wind on occasion, assuming that I understand what my options are.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm a creative professional and need the "free spirit" approach to thrive professionally and personally. At the same time I can keep an eye out for bad weather, so to speak.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> I am sure my wife knows I am not happy, despite my pretending to be content. I am confident that is why she keeps asking me if I am happy and if I intend to stay married to her. I tell her the truth: I intend to stay married to her as long as I live. I can't see myself being happier with anyone else.


So do you think telling her the truth in part could lead her to make it less of a priority focusing on your happiness (i.e. I know he isn't quite happy but he isn't going to leave so being "content" is good enough)?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

uhtred said:


> *Yes, and this is part of the whole miserable pattern. Love, sex, intimacy,fun, affection, are all linked together in the mind of a high libido person. A physical touch without sex feels empty, or like a tease or broken promise*


 this is so true.. myself & husband are both HIGH in "*Physical touch*".. we are that couple that always has our hands on each other.. this brightens my world..

Before I met him.. I had very little physical touch in my family (children have love languages too -I have the book on that)... not even a parent brushing my hair.. we didn't really hug.. it's like a part of me was missing.. but he brought it *to life*, my self esteem grew with the physical affection, his always touching me.. made me feel* loved*/ *wanted* in a significant way... 

When we watch a movie, his hands will be through my hair for hours .. I can't express how much I love this.. I practically purr... it calms, it soothes.. 

If I ever lost my husband.. I'd have to screen men to find out where they are on the physical touch bar.. if that is not important to them.. we'd never work!.. I would not be able to stand someone who felt that was burdensome - in any way. 



> To a low libido person sex is more something on the side. A thing a couple may do, but not intimately tied to everything else. Sexual arousal after a non-sexual touch seems like an attempt to take advantage, turning something peaceful and loving into something almost dirty.
> 
> *Neither can help the way that they feel. No ones fault, but but the combination will lead to misery.*


 You are so right.. how I feel in this is instinctively tied to who I am.. what sets me on the mountain top, what brings me happiness.. how I/ we feel *loved*..... 

For instance, I could care less if my husband takes out the garbage or helps me around the house.. that means literally nothing to me.. ("acts of service" is at the bottom of my list.)...I can do those things myself.... but touching myself is hollow.. boring.. lonely even.. I want to share that with someone.. 

I want some skin!!

If both come to each other as givers, wanting to please as much as receive, a thankfulness for this gift shared, with the emotional bonding ... it leaves a couple feeling like this.. that freedom with each other.. I don't know.. myself & husband feel like this anyway...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Wazza said:


> I'm going to ask this question a second time. I'm not asking it to make a point, or trap anyone. I am genuinely intrigued.
> 
> If you are LD, and your spouse is HD, do you care whether they meet their sexual need elsewhere? And if you do, why? I am expecting most of you would care, and I don't understand why.


As another wise poster* pointed out (*sorry, but I don't remember WHO pointed this out!) but MOST LD's are LD because they simply don't like/want sex. Their LD-ness has to do with issues with their partner or issues inside themselves. 

When I went through my LD stages, it usually had to do with my partner. Even though I tried, tried and TRIED again to address the issues, *they* seemed to believe that the issues were about sex. It took several therapists to help them to see the light, but by that time, it was too late. I was already "checked out". By the time I got into the next relationship, I wasn't LD anymore...

Also, if the LD sees their partner's "sexual needs" as having an orgasm, the LD believes that it's something their partner can do themselves. If the HD can do it *him/herself*, there's no need for the HD to seek 'it' elsewhere. 

I made a commitment to monogamy. However, I did NOT make a commitment to having sex at my partner's whim, which was often what I did. It got old really fast.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

It does seem strange, but I think I understand. To the LD it is not that sex is not important, it is just something that they don't frequently want. They cannot understand the HD wanting sex often any more than the HD can understand someone not wanting it. 

Sex outside of marriage would seem even worse - looks like the HD just wants to get off, and doesn't have the least care for their partner.


At the same time, to the HD it seems horribly unfair that their partner can simply remove sex from their lives. That they can't have sex with their partner or with anyone else. It seems an outrageous injustice to be denied such a normal and important part of life. 




Wazza said:


> I'm going to ask this question a second time. I'm not asking it to make a point, or trap anyone. I am genuinely intrigued.
> 
> If you are LD, and your spouse is HD, do you care whether they meet their sexual need elsewhere? And if you do, why? I am expecting most of you would care, and I don't understand why.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tommyr said:


> . No, the real problem is that, *over time in the marriage, one partner begins to significantly change his/her views towards sex*. That's the problem: the unilateral change in view of sex. Usually, it isn't that one spouse's sex drive has gone way up, it is that one has gone way down. But neither way would be healthy or fair or loving towards the established marriage.


When I became LD, I did NOT change my view toward sex: I DID however, change my view about _my partner_. 

In another LTR, I was working full time, going to school full time and I had a part time job. My husband had a low paying job. I had next to NO TIME for sex. I was either working, studying, taking care of the kids or sleeping. 



> So while on it's own, pre-marriage, there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with having exceptionally low (or high) interest in sex, there is a BIG problem with taking vows of sexual exclusivity at a time of compatible interest in sex, then later on revealing that sex isn't so important after all. I do not see this as an HD versus LD scenario, because that couple would never marry.


A lot of people marry too quickly and never really try to get to know each other. I mean, quite often the LD has NO IDEA that he or she will eventually become LD. 



> So much of the standard HD/LD debate becomes irrelevant due to the fact a couple has already proven themselves to be sexually compatible, sufficient to exchange marital vows. This completely changes the discussion. Now instead of the fundamentally incompatible HD/LD debate, the focus should be on: which partner has significantly altered his/her views? What can be done to help him/her return to a more compatible position? If there are other relationship issues affecting the sexlife, these must be identified and addressed, until sexual normalcy (ie, before the change in views) is achieved. Both must work equally hard to get there, as if the marriage were on the line. Because it is


Tried this. Several times. Didn't work. 

Of all the research that's been done on marriages and why they fall apart, the NUMBER ONE reason has NOTHING to do with sex. One of the partner's has developed a sense of CONTEMPT for the other, which will cause the other to lose interest in sex and eventually....

...the marriage.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think the problem is that the mismatch in sexual desire overshadows everything.

To the HD who has been denied sex for too long, every bit of affection, fun, love, reminds them of what they are missing. If you are hungry, it is not fun to walk into a chocolate shop just to look and smell but not buy anything.

To the LD, the HD seems focused only on sex, everything that they do seems to be directed at getting sex because it is obvious that they are always thinking about it. 






Catherine602 said:


> There is one big problem with tying the level of sex drive to the quality of generosity, all other attempts to please are undervalued and not appreciated. That gives the impression that the only currency that the HD person will accepts is sex.
> 
> I can't believe that every spouse that is LD also has a low desire to please. They may go out of their way to please the person they love non sexually but those gestures are ignored.
> 
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

This is part of the pattern of the LD knowing that the HD is unhappy and trying to do everything that they can to make them happy. 

They are just unable to do the one thing that the HD needs to be happy, and cannot understand that nothing else substitutes. That if you are hungry, nothing but food will fix that.

The LD really is not able to provide what the HD wants. They do not have the same desires, they cannot provide what is needed. So they clean the house and cook fancy meals and hope that it makes things better - but of course it doesn't.

Meanwhile the HD simply cannot understand why the LD will not do this simple thing for them. 




john117 said:


> LD contributions are important but it's kind of hard to think about the awesome pot roast when there's a DMZ in the bedroom.
> 
> Sex is gestalt - more than the sum of its parts. It's the same as the check engine light. Not important in itself, but critical in what it conveys.
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

To an LD, sex is like a dining experience at a fine restaurant, not everyday food. They will participate and enjoy it but they won't be eating more often regardless of how good it is.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

In many cases couples do not have a lot of sex before marriage. Also the expectations may have been very different:

HD: I'm in love and its wonderful. Sex is pretty rare and repetitive but l and I'm sure that sex will be much more frequent and better once we are settled down and married. 


LD: I'm in love and its wonderful. We are having wild sex all the time, but I'm sure that will settle down to something normal once we are married. 





tommyr said:


> Sexually speaking, HD vs LD are incompatible states that can never really come together into a sexual relationship, nor should they.
> 
> But what has been lost from this thread is the "context" of marriage involving a male and female who (presumably) dated, courted, fell in love, became engaged, and by the time of the wedding, this couple already has had sex together dozens if not hundreds of times. Not to mention alot of discussion about life goals, ambitions, and some talk about sex. Am I right? So this is crucial context that cannot be lost! This getting-to-know each other period is when we reveal ourselves to our partner, both in who we are, and in what we seek in a spouse. This is true for across all relationship categories, including sex. For sure, some couples did a better job preparing for marriage than others, but I don't believe most of TAM got married while drunk in Vegas.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> _I think the problem is that the mismatch in sexual desire overshadows everything.
> _
> *To the HD who has been denied sex for too long, every bit of affection, fun, love, reminds them of what they are missing*. If you are hungry, it is not fun to walk into a chocolate shop just to look and smell but not buy anything.
> 
> To the LD, the HD seems focused only on sex, everything that they do seems to be directed at getting sex because it is obvious that they are always thinking about it.


The HD's desire for sex overshadows everything EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FIRST GETTING A STEADY SUPPLY OF SEX. 

The HD doesn't just "seem" focused only on sex. When the HD either wants sex, is having sex or is TALKING about sex/having sex, even when getting plenty of sex, it becomes clear to the LD (before the LD becomes LD) that sex is major focus of the marriage to the HD. It's a turn-off to the LD.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Vega said:


> The HD's desire for sex overshadows everything EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FIRST GETTING A STEADY SUPPLY OF SEX.
> 
> The HD doesn't just "seem" focused only on sex. When the HD either wants sex, is having sex or is TALKING about sex/having sex, even when getting plenty of sex, it becomes clear to the LD (before the LD becomes LD) that sex is major focus of the marriage to the HD. It's a turn-off to the LD.


This is quite likely true in a lot of situations, and there really isn't anything wrong with it being that way. It simply reinforces the importance of having similar drives.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> They are just unable to do the one thing that the HD needs to be happy, and cannot understand that nothing else substitutes. That if you are hungry, nothing but food will fix that.


In most of the LD/HD cases, the LD starts out as 'matching' the sexual desires of the HD. The LD eventually _becomes_ LD. 

The HD acts as if they're 'starving' eve when they were getting plenty of sex. The LD may believe that the HD is insatiable; and that HD's ONLY interest is sex. 



> Meanwhile the HD simply cannot understand why the LD will not do this simple thing for them


Because it isn't that "simple"! The HD doesn't just want sex; they want ENTHUSIASTIC sex MULTIPLE TIMES, and it seems that they are INSTAIABLE. The LD can't compete with the HD "appetite", no matter how MUCH they've been feeding them....it was never ENOUGH. 

I used to have sex with my late husband MULTIPLE times a day. He also used to masturbate frequently. He was NEVER satisfied. No matter how much sex or how many orgasms he had, he always wanted MORE. 

Guess you could say that I eventually saw him as "sexually GREEDY".


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> HD: I'm in love and its wonderful. Sex is pretty rare and repetitive but l and I'm sure that sex will be much more frequent and better once we are settled down and married.
> .


If you read TAM enough, this doesn't seem to be the usual case. Usually, sex starts out 'wonderfully', then they get married THEN sex becomes infrequent/non-existant. 

I seriously doubt that many HD's KNOWINGLY marry an LD.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> This is quite likely true in a lot of situations, and there really isn't anything wrong with it being that way. It simply reinforces the importance of having similar drives.


But the LD's 'drive' is often influenced by the HD's drive/attitudes. You can start out with similar drives and something happens to change all of that. 

As someone once pointed out, an LD may _become_ LD with *YOU*, and after you're divorce, (s)he becomes HD with someone new. It doesn't mean he/she will remain HD with the new person, but it also doesn't mean that (s)he won't.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

wild jade said:


> I am HD so maybe not qualified to answer your question.
> 
> But sexual exclusivity isn't about the importance of sex. It's about trust. About knowing your partner is coming home at night. That he isn't about to up and leave you for this other person.
> 
> If my husband stepped out, it wouldn't be his impinging on the frequency of sex that I would be furious about. It would be his betrayal of my trust.


Again, remember I am trying to understand how an LD person would see this. 

I can see promising exclusivity and then not delivering as a betrayal of trust. But if sex is so unimportant, why does exclusivity matter? Why is the promise needed?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> I am sure my wife knows I am not happy, despite my pretending to be content. I am confident that is why she keeps asking me if I am happy and if I intend to stay married to her. I tell her the truth: I intend to stay married to her as long as I live. I can't see myself being happier with anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> We have so many couples in our neighborhood whose kids are grown divorcing. Wife is going crazy. These women all claim to be blindsided by their H's decision to leave "out of the blue". *I am wondering how many of them believed their H was happy.* I wonder what their sex lives were like. I wonder how many of them did MC, did not resolve the problems, but they decided to stay married "for the kids". And then the spouse who refused to satisfy their partner's request for change is surprised when a divorce petition is delivered "out of the blue" once the kids are out of the house? People's capacity for self-delusion is impressive.


I am wondering how many of the husbands were pretending to be content.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega said:


> As another wise poster* pointed out (*sorry, but I don't remember WHO pointed this out!) but MOST LD's are LD because they simply don't like/want sex. Their LD-ness has to do with issues with their partner or issues inside themselves.
> 
> When I went through my LD stages, it usually had to do with my partner. Even though I tried, tried and TRIED again to address the issues, *they* seemed to believe that the issues were about sex. It took several therapists to help them to see the light, but by that time, it was too late. I was already "checked out". By the time I got into the next relationship, I wasn't LD anymore...
> 
> ...


I understand and agree with the stuff about issues, and I don't think there's a need to do it whenever the partner wants. But did you consider something like, for example, recognising the depth of need and therefore looking for a middle ground? Or was that just repugnant given the problems outside the bedroom?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



john117 said:


> To the contrary, I'm a very "free spirit" type of person who listens to his gut and follows the wind on occasion, assuming that I understand what my options are.
> 
> The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm a creative professional and need the "free spirit" approach to thrive professionally and personally. At the same time I can keep an eye out for bad weather, so to speak.


Huh. I never would have thought of someone who used a decision analysis tree to make a decision as a free spirit.

But you learn something new every day.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Wazza said:


> Again, remember I am trying to understand how an LD person would see this.
> 
> I can see promising exclusivity and then not delivering as a betrayal of trust. But if sex is so unimportant, why does exclusivity matter? Why is the promise needed?


Well, again, I may be the wrong person to answer this. But it strikes me that you are assuming that low desire for frequency = lack of importance. And high desire for frequency = important. I don't think this is true.

I don't view sex as terribly meaningful or important. I just like to have it. A lot. And with good quality. But even though I think that way, I would still lose my **** if my husband stepped out on me. Even if it meant nothing to him.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



wild jade said:


> Huh. I never would have thought of someone who used a decision analysis tree to make a decision as a free spirit.
> 
> But you learn something new every day.


Four years worth of decision analysis education helps 😂

Let's just say that the mind always evaluates alternatives and options based on basic mental models (goal seeking for example). Any decision, no matter how small, goes thru the process. Spontaneity arises from one or more parameters of the model overpowering the rest, regardless of reality.

In reality there's no such thing as free spirit. We all have our basic genetic programming and it's really up to the individual to fill in the weights or priorities of specific branches in the tree.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



john117 said:


> Four years worth of decision analysis education helps 😂
> 
> Let's just say that the mind always evaluates alternatives and options based on basic mental models (goal seeking for example). Any decision, no matter how small, goes thru the process. Spontaneity arises from one or more parameters of the model overpowering the rest, regardless of reality.
> 
> In reality there's no such thing as free spirit. We all have our basic genetic programming and it's really up to the individual to fill in the weights or priorities of specific branches in the tree.


So, say someone calls you up and says drop everything, let's go to Mexico, and you do, you're still not a free spirit? Because in reality you actually have a decision tree where fun and spontaneity are rated at 90% and consequences at 10%? 

That seems wonky to me. I've done stuff simply because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time, or just because it was there. Was I aware of possible outcomes? Sure. But I wasn't making any judgments about probabilities, just flying by the seat of my pants. Yes, maybe this will kill me. But if it doesn't, it could be a whole lot of fun. Let's see what happens.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

LD is a myth

she is either attracted to you or she's not

if she is, you can be a slob, be a jerk, do whatever you want and she'll still be up for it.

if she's not into you, you could be the nicest guy in the world, foot massages, flowers, "active listening," etc and it makes no difference

just be yourself and stop worrying about it

no one decides who they're attracted to. it just happens

if it doesn't happen, it just means 1 person out of billions isn't into you... kind of comical to pin your self worth on something like this when you think of it...

on an accidental planet hurtling through space through an eternity of time...


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

If they said Afghanistan would you have gone?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

wild jade said:


> I am wondering how many of the husbands were pretending to be content.


Steve Martin, in the film "Parenthood" utters the line "women have choices, men have responsibilities". That describes the middle years of my marriage exactly. 

Sometimes you do what you need to do, and your partner gets a free ride because of your duty to the kids. And then the kids are gone, and you have to find out if you have anything else to make it worth staying together. I have friends of both genders for whom the answer was no. 

That's why it's worth worrying about your partner's needs now, including looking for a mutually agreeable compromise on frequency in the bedroom. it's about future proofing.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Well, again, I may be the wrong person to answer this. But it strikes me that you are assuming that low desire for frequency = lack of importance. And high desire for frequency = important. I don't think this is true.
> 
> I don't view sex as terribly meaningful or important. I just like to have it. A lot. And with good quality. But even though I think that way, I would still lose my **** if my husband stepped out on me. Even if it meant nothing to him.


I agree that frequency and importance aren't the same thing. I just think that if you recognise the importance it must follow that you'd see it as a need that must be met.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Your first paragraph is accurate. No wonkiness involved at all. 

Keep in mind it could be 99.95% and 0.05%. consider teenager sex for example. Or the infamous immortal teenager case. It's not that they don't know the downside. They do. They just think it will never happen to them.

If I get a call to go to Mexico for a weekend, as a 56 year old I will consider my reality. If my options align with reality I will go for it. When I was in college in my county of birth in Europe we would often decide on a last minute trip by train to great places. Now things are a bit different but not in terms of free spiritedness but in terms of obligations. 

Part of growing up involves refining the decision models we use. Tomorrow everyone is gone at work. So my team and the interns will cut work at two and go watch a movie or play laser tag. Will I cut work the day of an important customer visit?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> LD is a myth
> 
> she is either attracted to you or she's not
> 
> ...


I think LD is real, so on that I disagree.

But, let's assume you are right, and that it only means she's not attracted to you. In that case, it's even worse, because she lacks the integrity to say so and leave. Staying, deceiving, and using the HD's love, attraction, and attachment to further their own selfish goals at his expense is morally reprehensible.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Wazza said:


> Again, remember I am trying to understand how an LD person would see this.
> 
> I can see promising exclusivity and then not delivering as a betrayal of trust. But if sex is so unimportant, why does exclusivity matter? Why is the promise needed?


Just because there's no/little sex "lately" doesn't mean there won't be in the future.

Even if that "future" is _years_ from now...


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Vega said:


> The HD's desire for sex overshadows everything EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FIRST GETTING A STEADY SUPPLY OF SEX.
> 
> The HD doesn't just "seem" focused only on sex. When the HD either wants sex, is having sex or is TALKING about sex/having sex, even when getting plenty of sex, it becomes clear to the LD (before the LD becomes LD) that sex is major focus of the marriage to the HD. It's a turn-off to the LD.





Vega said:


> The HD acts as if they're 'starving' even when they were getting plenty of sex. The LD may believe that the HD is insatiable; and that HD's ONLY interest is sex.
> 
> ...The HD doesn't just want sex; they want ENTHUSIASTIC sex MULTIPLE TIMES, and it seems that they are INSTAIABLE. The LD can't compete with the HD "appetite", no matter how MUCH they've been feeding them....it was never ENOUGH.
> 
> ...


I think you and I might have been married to very similar men. I do not consider myself to be LD in general. I'm more mid-drive, I would say. However, being in a relationship with someone who is exceptionally sexually motivated became exhausting. Especially since we _were _having a _lot_ of sex. My ex-husband was an exceptionally self-centered person - in all ways, not just sexually. He also had a very addictive personality and a low threshold for boredom. Basically, too much was never enough. Of anything. Ever. 

Sex was just yet another area of our marriage where I was continually being told that my best wasn't good enough. That was a turn-off for me. As he pressed for more and more and more - and always newer, better, different, kinkier, wilder - I wanted him less and less. Because it was pretty clear after a while that our sex life was about him. I could have been anyone. It wasn't about me, us, or our emotional bond. It was about his seemingly endless quest for _more_. 

I think some people are just wired that way. They lack the gene for contentment. Even if things are very good, they're continually on the prowl for better. Luckily, I have not found the other men I have dated since my divorce to be wired for quite this same level of extreme-ness. Partly because I've learned to recognize the hallmarks of that personality type and avoid it like the plague.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Wazza said:


> I understand and agree with the stuff about issues, and I don't think there's a need to do it whenever the partner wants. _But did you consider something like, for example, recognising the depth of need and therefore looking for a middle ground? Or was that just repugnant given the problems outside the bedroom_?


If the HD doesn't care about what's going on OUTSIDE of the bedroom (since whether we're HD or LD, THAT'S where we spend MOST of our time, no matter how HD you are...) why would the LD care about the HD's "needs"?


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

EllisRedding said:


> I do wonder how many people in sexless (or near sexless) marriages can honestly claim they are happy. Most people I have seen who remain in these types of marriages, it doesn't appear that happiness keeps them there, but various other reasons (finances, kids, not wanting to get a divorce, fear of being alone). They just simply accept that this is the way it is going to be.
> 
> In your example where one spouse claims they were otherwise happy but the spouse ends up leaving b/c of lack of physical intimacy, you could argue that the person did a very bad job reading the relationship (or maybe so self absorbed in their own "happiness" they failed to see (or care about) what was going on with their spouse).


I agree.

I believe that people may say they're happily married and maybe even convince themselves they are "happily married" because thing are otherwise not particularly unhappy. Not having sex mean you probably have very little physical intimacy, and if you don't have that to show each other how you feel about them, that they are desired and important, then everything else in the relationship starts to sour. A little annoyance you may have overlooked becomes really annoying, you don't feel prioritized, you don't actually feel desired and the list goes on. You can be content and secure with a sexless marriage, but you're probably not actually happy. When pushed, that person would probably say something is missing.

Going to something I quoted before, a recent Time Magazine article Staying Married: Marriage Has Changed, But it Might Be Better Than Ever
I realize this is totally out of context of the rest of the article that talks about all aspects of marriage, but this particular part is about sex and seems on point to this topic:

_"If all that discipline sounds a bit dreary, take heart, because the regimen includes bedroom calisthenics. *A 2015 study found that sex once a week was the optimum amount for maximizing marital happiness.* The Canadian researchers who analyzed data from three different studies found that sex played an even bigger role than money in happiness. The difference in life satisfaction between couples who had sex once a week and those who had it less than once a month was bigger than the difference between those who had an annual income of $50,000 to $75,000 and those who had an annual income between $15,000 and $25,000."​_
I like data. This data indicates the happiest couples have regular sex. Does that mean that not having sex or rare sex means you're actually unhappy? No. But it's hard to deny that the happiness level doesn't correlate to sexual frequency.
So when asking if sex is required, the question back becomes "What is your goal for that marriage?" If your goal is the the most happiness, then it seems pretty clear that regular physical intimacy and sex is necessary. If your goal is just to be content and secure, then maybe not so much.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I think LD is real, so on that I disagree.
> 
> But, let's assume you are right, and that it only means she's not attracted to you. In that case, it's even worse, because she lacks the integrity to say so and leave. Staying, deceiving, and using the HD's love, attraction, and attachment to further their own selfish goals at his expense is morally reprehensible.


And yet, the LD is the one who feels "deceived". They feel that THEY are being used for sex at the expense of their integrity. 

That because sex is so much of a part of the HD's life, the LD feels that the ONLY reason they're 'there' is to satisfy their "selfish" desires. 

Selfishness works both ways.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Now let me ask the HD's a question or two: 

If your orgasm wasn't involved, would you STILL want sex? 

Would you want sex AS OFTEN?

I mean as a steady diet; not as a "once in a while" thing.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> And yet, the LD is the one who feels "deceived". They feel that THEY are being used for sex at the expense of their integrity.
> 
> That because sex is so much of a part of the HD's life, the LD feels that the ONLY reason they're 'there' is to satisfy their "selfish" desires.
> 
> Selfishness works both ways.


In that case, the LD can and should leave. Why don't they? They must be getting something out of the relationship that they value more than their integrity.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> In that case, the LD can and should leave. Why don't they? They must be getting something out of the relationship that they value more than their integrity.


Well, we know that the HD doesn't leave "immediately". Besides, maybe the LD CAN'T leave from a practical standpoint. Maybe (s)he doesn't want his/her children to grow up without the benefit of both parents....etc, etc.

So, if the HD feels "deceived", why doesn't (s)he leave? Many times, he/she doesn't.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

anonmd said:


> If they said Afghanistan would you have gone?


LOL. Maybe not. But then again, I did once buy a one-way ticket to a country that just had a military coup. 

More than one person told me I was crazy.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> Now let me ask the HD's a question or two:
> 
> If your orgasm wasn't involved, would you STILL want sex?
> 
> ...


Well, speaking as a guy there isn't a whole lot enjoyable about blue balls lol. Don't know if there is a female equivalent?

A portion of my drive comes from the idea of pleasing my wife, it is not all about me. As well, much of my enjoyment comes from foreplay and everything leading up to an orgasm, not necessarily the orgasm itself.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Well, speaking as a guy there isn't a whole lot enjoyable about blue balls lol. Don't know if there is a female equivalent?
> 
> A portion of my drive comes from the idea of pleasing my wife, it is not all about me. As well, much of my enjoyment comes from foreplay and everything leading up to an orgasm, not necessarily the orgasm itself.


Yes there's a female equivalent. But here's the thing: Just because I may feel the physical 'urge', doesn't mean that SOMEONE ELSE MUST satisfy that urge. I can do that MYSELF. 

You still didn't answer the question...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> Yes there's a female equivalent. But here's the thing: Just because I may feel the physical 'urge', doesn't mean that SOMEONE ELSE MUST satisfy that urge. * I can do that MYSELF.*
> 
> You still didn't answer the question...


My W and I can do a lot of things ourselves, doesn't mean we need to. Also, no one is saying anyone HAS TO satisfy someone else's urge, but when you are with the right person, the one you love, this isn't a MUST, it is just something you WANT TO DO. I am sorry if you haven't experienced this with the people you have been intimate with.

I thought from my post you could get the answer, but yes, I would still have sex often because as I mentioned, a large portion of it IS NOT solely about the O (I know it is easier for you to look at that b/c it makes HD people seem simple)


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> In that case, the LD can and should leave. Why don't they? They must be getting something out of the relationship that they value more than their integrity.


I think the amount of sex they have should reflect their happiness with their spouse and in most cases does. If they're having sex a lot with no regard to their happiness outside the bedroom, they probably just shouldn't have the sex.

That goes two ways, though. If you believe you're happy with how your spouse treats you but you, then you should be having sex.

It's really a catch-22 and a trap a lot of couples fall into. They have rare sex because they aren't happy, but things can also become sour because you aren't having the sex.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> Well, we know that the HD doesn't leave "immediately". Besides, maybe the LD CAN'T leave from a practical standpoint. Maybe (s)he doesn't want his/her children to grow up without the benefit of both parents....etc, etc.
> 
> So, if the HD feels "deceived", why doesn't (s)he leave? Many times, he/she doesn't.


That's true, and a good point. LDs and HDs probably both suffer through because of additional factors that make leaving difficult. Eventually, perhaps just resignation keeps them together, perhaps with a healthy dose of fear of the unknown if one chooses to leave. Either way, it's sad to have a serious mismatch that isn't amenable to some middle ground sort of compromise.

And yes, I stayed far longer in my prior relationship - for the kinds of reasons you mentioned - than was healthy for me, but eventually I did leave and make a happier life for myself.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

john117 said:


> Your first paragraph is accurate. No wonkiness involved at all.
> 
> Keep in mind it could be 99.95% and 0.05%. consider teenager sex for example. Or the infamous immortal teenager case. It's not that they don't know the downside. They do. They just think it will never happen to them.
> 
> ...


There is a huge difference between thinking that something will never happen to you, and knowing that it absolutely can, but doing it anyway.

Trusting your gut, going with the flow, riding the wave, these things are not just for the young and stupid IMO. And I don't think they are the opposite of reality and obligation either. It's just a different way of looking at things. 

Maybe you can decision tree that out. But I'd rather go for a Margarita. Cheers!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> . "Also, no one is saying anyone HAS TO satisfy someone else's urge..."
> 
> But they ARE saying that, Ellis. They're saying that the LD is "selfish" if he/she DOESN'T do that.
> 
> ...


Ellis, I'm getting really tired of your condescending attitude toward me. You don't seem to get that I was on BOTH SIDES of the HD/LD spectrum. So I don't look at HD people as being "simple". 

But neither are LD people.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

So much discussion about how often to have sex! 

And it seems to all boil down to each side really wanting the other to validate their feelings about it. HD insisting that sex ought not be denied, and LD insisting that sex should be a pleasure rather than a duty. 

I wonder if y'all really disagree, or you just need someone to say, you know what? I hear you, and you make a valid point.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> Ellis, I'm getting really tired of your condescending attitude toward me. You don't seem to get that I was on BOTH SIDES of the HD/LD spectrum. So I don't look at HD people as being "simple".
> 
> But neither are LD people.


Honestly any tone in my responses are simply feeding off the negative/condescending tone many of your posts have. I have no interest to direct anything at you, but your posts come off a certain way (nor do I have a desire to pick a fight with you)...

As far as the HD calling the LD selfish, maybe some are saying that but where I disagree with you, I think some of the HDs here are saying it is selfish for the LD to just say "This is the way I am, tough crap" and make no effort to work together, meet in the middle. In a relationship where two people are supposed to look out for and care for each other, that type of attitude is selfish (no different than if the HD expected the LD to do everything the HD wanted).


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

wild jade said:


> So much discussion about how often to have sex!
> 
> And it seems to all boil down to each side really wanting the other to validate their feelings about it. HD insisting that sex ought not be denied, and LD insisting that sex should be a pleasure rather than a duty.
> 
> I wonder if y'all really disagree, or you just need someone to say, you know what? I hear you, and you make a valid point.


I totally agree.

This topic has jumped the shark several times and it just goes round and around about HD/LD mismatch which isn't even the topic.
We know the answer is YES and we know why. All there reasons people do or don't and how often are all pretty clear and subjects of endless discussion.
But it doesn't change that it's the bottom line for obvious reasons.

I'm done participating in this discussion. I'm sure no one will miss my rhetorical insights anyway.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega said:


> Now let me ask the HD's a question or two:
> 
> If your orgasm wasn't involved, would you STILL want sex?
> 
> ...


There's a lot more to sex than just orgasm.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

JamesTKirk said:


> I think the amount of sex they have should reflect their happiness with their spouse and in most cases does. *If they're having sex a lot with no regard to their happiness outside the bedroom, they probably just shouldn't have the sex.
> *


Try telling that to my late husband. He was under the impression that what happens OUTSIDE of the bedroom should have no bearing on what goes on INSIDE of the bedroom. Even if I was stark raving angry at him and actually reconsider MARRYING him, he didn't understand WHY I wasn't interested in having sex with him. 





> That goes two ways, though. If you believe you're happy with how your spouse treats you but you, then you should be having sex.


Once again, HOW _MUCH_ SEX?

I don't know if the following is a good analogy or not but here goes...

I have a friend who was living with her (now) husband for 7 years before they were married. During that time, he told her he loved her. 

Once. 

She used to tell me how she LONGED to hear it. But HIS idea was that he already told her; how many times does he HAVE to tell her? If he TOLD her, WHY doesn't she already know? 

He DID tell her that he loved her again.

On their wedding day. 

How often does she have to hear it from him before she's "satisfied"? How often does she have to hear it from him until she KNOWS how he feels about her? 

She decided to take action.

He liked sex. A lot. After they were married, she told him that she was putting him "on notice". Since he "needed" sex, she also "needed" to hear that he loved her. She would ONLY have sex with him IF he told her he loved her _first_. 

Didn't take long for him to figure 'it' out. According to her, they have a VERY active sex life. 

They've been married for over 35 years.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The sidebar topics are actually relevant in the grand scheme of things. For many people of the LD variety for example, they prefer to avoid intimacy altogether thus risking divorce or infidelity instead of meeting their partners needs. 

In other cases intimacy may be scheduled and this may or may not work for everyone as it takes the spontaneity aspect away.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Wazza said:


> There's a lot more to sex than just orgasm.


Then why not have sex and STOP before getting to the orgasm?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> Once again, HOW _MUCH_ SEX?


MORE than you want, LESS than he wants. Compromise. 

So, what was the moral of that story? She gave meaningless sex and he gave meaningless word? >


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Wazza said:


> There's a lot more to sex than just orgasm.


Although to be sure, there's nothing wrong with them.

My wife and I agree that orgasms are pretty decent evidence that there is indeed a God, and that He/She loves us.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I'm sure this happens in some relationships, but LD/HD takes many forms. In some cases when the HD is getting the sex that they want, they are able to enjoy the rest of life. Of course the amount of sex the HD wants may seem unreasonable to the LD partner. 




Vega said:


> The HD's desire for sex overshadows everything EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FIRST GETTING A STEADY SUPPLY OF SEX.
> 
> The HD doesn't just "seem" focused only on sex. When the HD either wants sex, is having sex or is TALKING about sex/having sex, even when getting plenty of sex, it becomes clear to the LD (before the LD becomes LD) that sex is major focus of the marriage to the HD. It's a turn-off to the LD.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Vega said:


> Try telling that to my late husband. He was under the impression that what happens OUTSIDE of the bedroom should have no bearing on what goes on INSIDE of the bedroom. Even if I was stark raving angry at him and actually reconsider MARRYING him, he didn't understand WHY I wasn't interested in having sex with him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And see for me, if my wife told me she needed to hear something from me, she'd hear it absolutely as often as she needed, no questions asked about why, even if it wasn't something I ever needed to hear myself. In fact, there are a couple of things where this has actually been the case for me reinforcing things to her. She, unfortunately cannot return the favor in the one area that I need to hear things from her.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I'll answer if you will...

If I didn't get an orgasm, I would still want sex regularly, I'd just take care of my self later. OTOH, if I didn't get an orgasm because my partner didn't care or was selfish, I would not want sex.

If your partner did whatever it took to give you an orgasm every time would you want sex frequently?



Vega said:


> Now let me ask the HD's a question or two:
> 
> If your orgasm wasn't involved, would you STILL want sex?
> 
> ...


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> Try telling that to my late husband. He was under the impression that what happens OUTSIDE of the bedroom should have no bearing on what goes on INSIDE of the bedroom. Even if I was stark raving angry at him and actually reconsider MARRYING him, he didn't understand WHY I wasn't interested in having sex with him.


You weren't having sex with him because you were unhappy and he didn't get it. So he was an ass, what can I say? At least you weren't pretending to be totally happy and still not having sex. Then I could see the problem.

It's unfortunate that you didn't figure this out before getting married, if married in spite of this problem, or if he changed after marriage.
But the lack of sex in that marriage was clearly related to happiness with your spouse.


> Once again, HOW _MUCH_ SEX?
> 
> I don't know if the following is a good analogy or not but here goes...
> 
> ...


Yes, that story is exactly what I'm talking about. I feel like you're having heated agreement with me.
She didn't want to have sex with him because she wasn't happy with how she was being treated. Why should she be expected to want to have sex if she's not happy?
At least she told him why she was holding out and gave him a chance to fix it. It's infuriating if your spouse holds out but won't tell you why and says "you figure it out." That's just mean and vindictive and instigating more fights.

I don't think couples should use sex as a weapon or bargaining chip per-se. You either want it or you don't. It's not a reward. This wasn't a bargain. It was really just not wanting sex because she wasn't happy and she told him why. And he got it, and he course corrected. We all do that in our marriages. I've done it in mine and often the catalyst is a reduction in sex and asking "What's wrong?"

I don't understand the question "Once again how much sex?" How much sex is determined by how you feel about each other. What does that question have anything to do with the bottom line (which is no sex or almost no sex?)
EDIT: The answer to frequency is highly dependent on a lot of factors. But you should both want to do it sometimes regardless of sex drive or I think you're just not attracted to them enough.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

It is a major issue and a huge source of unhappiness for many couples. Much of the disagreement is that HDs are not talking to THEIR LD partners but to other LDs and they are not discussing the same situation.

A number of the "LD" posters are not really LD, but would enjoy active sex lives with a partner who cared for them in and out of bed. They have just had the misfortune to be with selfish partners. 

A number of the "HD" posters do care for their partners in and out of bed. They just have the misfortune to have been paired with people with no natural desire for sex.


So you get:

HD: LD, why won't you have sex with me.

LD: HD, you are a terrible lover, you do not do your part around the house, all you care about is sex, you don't love me, you just want to use me.

HD: LD, that isn't true. I am a wonderful spouse, I do everything a reasonable person could ask. You are just selfish, only wanting sex when you want it, with no care for how I feel.

LD: HD, you may think you are wonderful but you are not........


Both are expressing what is honestly true in their situations.


The true LDs are not posting here. I haven't seen anyone say "Even with a perfect partner I really only want sex every couple of months, and that won't change. Isn't everyone like that? I love my partner, but sex is just sort of gross, even though I do O every time. Why does he / she have to be such an old-goat / slvt and want it all the time". But those people exist and some of them are married to the HDs posting here. 








wild jade said:


> So much discussion about how often to have sex!
> 
> And it seems to all boil down to each side really wanting the other to validate their feelings about it. HD insisting that sex ought not be denied, and LD insisting that sex should be a pleasure rather than a duty.
> 
> I wonder if y'all really disagree, or you just need someone to say, you know what? I hear you, and you make a valid point.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,

I think that's true. Not really sure why this was so easy - but - by the time I turned 28 - at the end of our first year of marriage - I made that transition. 

The transition to an agenda free touch. This works pretty simple - we have a LOT of contact. I'm available if M2 wants me. The only rules of engagement she has are simple. Don't start something - unless you want something. She's very good about that. 





Vega said:


> That's because at some point the LD either fears or realizes that almost _ANY _kind of physical touch can give the HD "ideas" about sex.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega said:


> Then why not have sex and STOP before getting to the orgasm?


Sadly, as I get older......:grin2:

Seriously.... Orgasm itself is very different as a shared thing than a solo thing. And the experience of touch and intimacy can take a long time. I don't always need to take it to orgasm to enjoy physical intimacy, but if you stimulate me down there it happens. It's how I am made.

I'm not sure where physical intimacy becomes sex. So maybe I do sometimes have sex without orgasm.

Is it that you feel you are being used by guys who just want an orgasm? I'm trying to get why this is a big thing for you.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

I think she's trying to point out that a lot of female LD's who "just do it" for their partners are not aroused when they're "just doing it" and don't end up having orgasms. If that happens often enough, and with "just do it," lack of orgasm for the "just doer" is frequent, their willingness to "just do it" declines.

I suspect many of the HD men who orgasm virtually every time would be a lot less interested in sex if they only had orgasms, say 50% of the time or less.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> Now let me ask the HD's a question or two:
> 
> If your orgasm wasn't involved, would you STILL want sex?
> 
> ...


I have turned down PIV sex that was intended to be one sided for my benefit. I have never turned down an opportunity to manually or orally stimulate my wife. I would much prefer that my sex life consisted of lots of sessions where I stimulate my wife to orgasm and then masturbate as compared to lots of sessions where she lies there silent and unmoving. But I will admit that it took me a while to catch on that she was mentally lying there silent and unmoving even if her body seemed to be participating. I wanted to believe she enjoyed it, and she said during MC she enjoyed it, so I permitted myself to live in denial.

Remember, for many HDs the big appeal of sex is NOT the orgasm, it is the ego validation. My wife allowing me to bring her to orgasm is HUGELY ego validating completely independent from whether she does anything to me or I orgasm. So yes, if she gave me frequent opportunities to ego validate via sex, I would want it just as often or even more often than if she gave me lots of opportunities to use her body as a masturbatory aid.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> In that case, the LD can and should leave. Why don't they? They must be getting something out of the relationship that they value more than their integrity.


To me, the "crime" is not that they stay. It is that they pretend the problem is temporary. Or they pretend as to the true cause. It is not the denial of sex itself, but the denial of being honest about WHY the sex is lacking and how likely it is that the HD's efforts have any chance of enticing the LD to desire more sex.

Because the LD can't really hide that they are LD. Their behavior speaks for itself. What they can hide is WHY they are LD at that time with that particular partner. They say "you don't meet my emotional need for conversation" when they really mean "you are short and fat and ugly and my stomach turns every time your hand touches any part of my body".

As with so many problems, it is not the crime - it is the cover-up.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

That is so sad that he wasn't happy to tell his wife that he loved her every chance he got. I say that to my wife every day before I leave for work so that in case I'm hit by a bus it will be the last thing I've said to her).

I can't imagine someone not saying that all the time to their spouse.




Vega said:


> Try telling that to my late husband. He was under the impression that what happens OUTSIDE of the bedroom should have no bearing on what goes on INSIDE of the bedroom. Even if I was stark raving angry at him and actually reconsider MARRYING him, he didn't understand WHY I wasn't interested in having sex with him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
Do you agree with the corollary of this argument which is: If you can't be bothered to show your partner love INSIDE the bedroom, it's unrealistic to expect them to show you love outside the bedroom.






Vega said:


> Try telling that to my late husband. He was under the impression that what happens OUTSIDE of the bedroom should have no bearing on what goes on INSIDE of the bedroom. Even if I was stark raving angry at him and actually reconsider MARRYING him, he didn't understand WHY I wasn't interested in having sex with him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Vega,
> Do you agree with the corollary of this argument which is: If you can't be bothered to show your partner love INSIDE the bedroom, it's unrealistic to expect them to show you love outside the bedroom.


This gets back to my question to Wazza: Who should go first?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> Well, we know that the HD doesn't leave "immediately". Besides, maybe the LD CAN'T leave from a practical standpoint. Maybe (s)he doesn't want his/her children to grow up without the benefit of both parents....etc, etc.
> 
> So, if the HD feels "deceived", why doesn't (s)he leave? Many times, he/she doesn't.


I responded to this earlier, but it also occurs to me that this reasoning for LDs "cheating" their spouse out of sex is also why some people cheat in an affair: they CAN'T leave from a practical standpoint, or don't want their children to lose a full-time parent. It may SEEM like the lesser evil at the time.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Vega,
> Do you agree with the corollary of this argument which is: If you can't be bothered to show your partner love INSIDE the bedroom, it's unrealistic to expect them to show you love outside the bedroom.


No. 

Most problems involving sex have little to do with sex.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Wazza said:


> I'm going to ask this question a second time. I'm not asking it to make a point, or trap anyone. I am genuinely intrigued.
> 
> If you are LD, and your spouse is HD, do you care whether they meet their sexual need elsewhere? And if you do, why? I am expecting most of you would care, and I don't understand why.


I wouldn't care if he had sex with random women after the D. 

I'm confused. Men say that they seek sex with their wives out of love and a desire to feel loved by her. Men painstakingly pour their hearts out about the emotion sustenance they get from a their wife's willingness to please them. 

However, if that loving sex is not forthcoming, sex with a random women they don't love relieves the emotional void created by sexual dissatisfaction with wife who they do love. The fact that affairs are destructive and destabilize the lives of their children is no impediment to pleasure seeking. 

I would think that seeking a D and searching for love and sex with a comparable woman would be more consistent with the love sex stuff. Cheating is a selfish act which is consistent with a sense of entitlement for sexual pleasure no matter the cost to wife and children. 

Women cannot be blamed for not believing that emotional sex stuff. Men broadcast what they really feel by their behavior, words and attitudes. 

The message I read is that, far from sex feeding an emotional intimacy need, it fills a self-centered need for validation, pleasure and satisfaction of a sense of entitlement.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
Your negative experiences with sex - seem to make impossible for you to understand how others perceive it. 

The board is full of people saying: I ask my partner if they are happy with the overall marriage and they say YES

Now I'm going to freeze the frame right there. Because what I'm about to describe is EXACTLY what you experienced. I realize this is an awkward term - but it's dead on. If I take a lot more from you than I give back - AND I KNOW THIS IS DISTRESSING YOU - that is relationship parasitism. 

The partners you had - who routinely had sex without making an effort to make it good for you. That's what that is.

A couple meet both think they are falling in love - one of them sort of realizes they aren't really in love with the other person. They are in love with what that person DOES FOR THEM. The way that person treats them.

Might be - great (for them) sex.

Might be - financial support and a lot of ego boosting outside the bedroom. 

The non loving HD person - pulls the crap you had to deal with. 

And their LD counterpart pretends that they don't understand that sex is important. 

And doesn't feel like making an effort to please their partner. The non loving HD person engages in selfish sex.

The non loving LD person - doesn't have sex at all. 

So this is a gentle observation. When you 'get' this, you ought to start dating again. Until you get this - I think you are blocked by baggage. 






Vega said:


> No, and I'll tell you why.
> 
> It's kind of like a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario. Sex didn't come FIRST in the relationship. Most of the time, we don't see someone across a crowded room, our eyes meet and INSTANTLY fall into bed with them, all in the course of 1 minute. And while I'm sure this has happened before, it's a rarity.
> 
> ...


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

norajane said:


> I think she's trying to point out that a lot of female LD's who "just do it" for their partners are not aroused when they're "just doing it" and don't end up having orgasms. If that happens often enough, and with "just do it," lack of orgasm for the "just doer" is frequent, their willingness to "just do it" declines.
> 
> I suspect many of the HD men who orgasm virtually every time would be a lot less interested in sex if they only had orgasms, say 50% of the time or less.


I'd give up on sex pretty quick if no orgasms were involved ...and if you took out the pleasure? Fuhgeddaboutit.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Anon1111 said:


> LD is a myth
> 
> *she is either attracted to you or she's not
> 
> ...


Not this little chicken and I am reasonably HD. A slob, a jerk, being stupid, misogynistic, lazy, unwashed, racist etc and sex would not be happening.

No amount of attraction makes up for lazy, slob, jerk man.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

uhtred said:


> Yes, and this is part of the whole miserable pattern. Love, sex, intimacy,fun, affection, are all linked together in the mind of a high libido person.* A physical touch without sex feels empty, or like a tease or broken promise*
> 
> To a low libido person sex is more something on the side. A thing a couple may do, but not intimately tied to everything else. Sexual arousal after a non-sexual touch seems like an attempt to take advantage, turning something peaceful and loving into something almost dirty.
> 
> Neither can help the way that they feel. No ones fault, but but the combination will lead to misery.


In this house we are both very HD people and I would have to say the bolded is not how either of us feel. Even some physical touch that starts to lead to sex but then stops for whatever reason is not a problem, it does not feel empty at all. In fact it is more like the promise of what is to come later when the opportunity is better.

I wonder if this is the sort of thinking Vega's ex had, that all touch is empty unless it leads to sex.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

jld said:


> This gets back to my question to Wazza: Who should go first?


The bravest.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Catherine602 said:


> I wouldn't care if he had sex with random women after the D.
> 
> I'm confused. Men say that they seek sex with their wife out of love her and wanting to feel loved by her. Men painstakingly pour their hearts out about the emotion sustenance they get from a their wife's willingness to please them.
> 
> ...


The problem is the assumption above is full of generalizations. It reads as if a guy who does not get loving sex from his wife automatically goes the route of cheating and affairs, which is far from the truth. There are countless stories on TAM of both Men AND Women who remain in sexless marriages. 

I honestly have no idea how @Wazza question translated into Men having affairs that are destructive to their wives and children 

In terms of believing the emotional intimacy need for men, once again countless men here have commented about this (including myself) with matching actions/behaviors/words. I believe for some, they don't want to believe that guys group in sex with emotional intimacy because if true, that takes some of the control away from the female (i.e. it is easier to just believe he is a horndog looking to get laid and dismiss him as just viewing you as a hole in the wall, instead of something deeper like a connection).


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> I wouldn't care if he had sex with random women after the D.
> 
> I'm confused. Men say that they seek sex with their wife out of love her and wanting to feel loved by her. Men painstakingly pour their hearts out about the emotion sustenance they get from a their wife's willingness to please them.
> 
> ...


If I was advocating infidelity that would be fair comment. 

I was asking the question in order to better understand the thought processes behind it.

For what it's worth, I actually don't think that solution would work, for me at least, precisely because of the emotional context of sex. And I don't assume the guy is always the wandering one. I've seen women do the nasty as well.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

jld said:


> This gets back to my question to Wazza: Who should go first?


By my values that's an unhelpful question. I'll prioritise taking actions to improve and save the relationship over arguing about whose turn it is. So what if I go first when my wife should have.

Ultimately both have to do their part for it to work.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> When I became LD, I did NOT change my view toward sex: I DID however, change my view about _my partner_.


And if I had been your partner, I would definitely want to know that your views of me had changed, affecting our sexlife. I'd want to know what you needed from me, and I'd want you to know when I wasn't getting what I needed from you, so that we could resolve this and return to a mutually happy marriage. This is exactly the kind of marital troubleshooting I posted about.



Vega said:


> In another LTR, I was working full time, going to school full time and I had a part time job. My husband had a low paying job. I had next to NO TIME for sex. I was either working, studying, taking care of the kids or sleeping.


This (busy with no time for sex) arose in my marriage too. I insisted that BOTH of our schedules needed to be scaled back in order to ensure sufficient time and energy for a normal sexlife.



Vega said:


> A lot of people marry too quickly and never really try to get to know each other. I mean, quite often the LD has NO IDEA that he or she will eventually become LD.


 Agreed that many people marry too quickly. And if, down the line, one person's desire changes, that is exactly the time to focus on whatever problems are causing this change, to get quickly back on track.



Vega said:


> Tried this. Several times. Didn't work.
> 
> Of all the research that's been done on marriages and why they fall apart, the NUMBER ONE reason has NOTHING to do with sex. One of the partner's has developed a sense of CONTEMPT for the other, which will cause the other to lose interest in sex and eventually....
> 
> ...the marriage.


Good for you to try and fix the issues. And if my partner had a sense of contempt, I would definitely want to know that and work on it, and if we could not solve it, end the marriage. I think you are just saying that sex is a barometer of the marital condition. I would agree with that. So when the gauge dips, this indicates a problem that threatens the marriage and must be fixed, requiring committed action from both sides, to quickly get back into the normal range. But in no case should an extended low sex situation persist, as that would mean a broken marriage in serious trouble.

But this feels like the opposite position from the original post, which suggested people could/should be happy within a low or no-sex marriage. And that "the rest of the relationship" could somehow make up for the absence of sex. I could not disagree more with that idea!!


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wazza said:


> By my values that's an unhelpful question. I'll prioritise taking actions to improve and save the relationship over arguing about whose turn it is. So what if I go first when my wife should have.
> 
> Ultimately both have to do their part for it to work.


So your answer is that you go first?

I think that is a good one.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> I wouldn't care if he had sex with random women after the D.
> 
> I'm confused. Men say that they seek sex with their wife out of love her and wanting to feel loved by her. Men painstakingly pour their hearts out about the emotion sustenance they get from a their wife's willingness to please them.
> 
> ...


I'd say it's all of that, AND for most it would also fill an emotional need for closeness, acceptance, desire, etc. And is there something wrong with having a selfish need? NO! Unless there is no loving and caring for their partner, of course. 

If you don't accept that men and women have some differences in how they experience love, you'll never understand this. Even so, there is a lot of emotional overlap, as is evident from threads where women lament that they have LD husbands, and express their pain and lack of loving feelings associated with the lack of sex. 

I think some women are dismissive of men's emotional needs simply because men aren't like women! I'd go so far as to say that such women have this blindness as an additional risk factor for successful relationships.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

spotthedeaddog said:


> The bravest.


In reality, the one who wants it more.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> I wouldn't care if he had sex with random women after the D.
> 
> I'm confused. Men say that they seek sex with their wife out of love her and wanting to feel loved by her. Men painstakingly pour their hearts out about the emotion sustenance they get from a their wife's willingness to please them.
> 
> ...


Fabulous post, Catherine.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

uhtred said:


> In many cases couples do not have a lot of sex before marriage. Also the expectations may have been very different:
> 
> HD: I'm in love and its wonderful. Sex is pretty rare and repetitive but l and I'm sure that sex will be much more frequent and better once we are settled down and married.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I don't know many people who would have expected that a relationship with rare/repetitive sex would be *fixed *by getting married. So I cannot agree with your assertion.

By far, I think the most common expectation is that if we're having good/frequent/satisfying sex before marriage, that will continue long after we are married and settled down. This is actually the point of the whole thread, right?

As to your assertion for LD (sex will settle down, ie much less) well I sincerely hope you are wrong about that, because it sounds like willful deception.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Hardly fabulous. If you're in the middle of the desert are you going to pass on Pepsi and only insist on Sprite?

If cheating was more socially acceptable as it is in Europe women and men would have a bit more to think about before ditching their vows because they're too busy or too disinterested.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> If the HD doesn't care about what's going on OUTSIDE of the bedroom (since whether we're HD or LD, THAT'S where we spend MOST of our time, no matter how HD you are...) why would the LD care about the HD's "needs"?


In most of the sexless marriage threads on here, I get the strong sense the HD is well aware how OUTSIDE of the bedroom issues can affect an LD, and is exceptionally willing and motivated to work on those issues.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> Hardly fabulous. If you're in the middle of the desert are you going to pass on Pepsi and only insist on Sprite?
> 
> If cheating was more socially acceptable as it is in Europe women and men would have a bit more to think about before ditching their vows because they're too busy or too disinterested.


I think the people who can get away with cheating here do it, too, John.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

You can push anyone past their limit I would think. 

Some won't tolerate it for long, some will go for years and then switch off. Chances are there would have been at least a handful of fairly serious discussions along the way which resulted in no change in the long term. I posit it is a mistake to equate what they wanted from you with what they will settle for elsewhere after much internal mental conflict.

It would be nice, and logical, for him to choose D first. People aren't always nice and logical under stress. Male equivalent of the WAW, sometimes the wives walk away first and sometimes they cheat then walk away. You can probably understand that more easily.





Catherine602 said:


> I wouldn't care if he had sex with random women after the D.
> 
> I'm confused. Men say that they seek sex with their wife out of love her and wanting to feel loved by her. Men painstakingly pour their hearts out about the emotion sustenance they get from a their wife's willingness to please them.
> 
> ...


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

@;


Vega said:


> Now let me ask the HD's a question or two:
> 
> If your orgasm wasn't involved, would you STILL want sex?
> 
> ...


There is a "kink" involving long term orgasm denial.
Male chastity devices are unbelievably popular.
The male participants in this kink are unequivocally HD.

Personally, I don't understand why this question would even be posed. Why aren't both partners having regular orgasms? They must be doing something wrong. They should work out the performance problem and get back on track.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> The problem is the assumption above is full of generalizations. It reads as if a guy who does not get loving sex from his wife automatically goes the route of cheating and affairs, which is far from the truth. There are countless stories on TAM of both Men AND Women who remain in sexless marriages.
> 
> I honestly have no idea how @Wazza question translated into Men having affairs that are destructive to their wives and children
> 
> In terms of believing the emotional intimacy need for men, once again countless men here have commented about this (including myself) with matching actions/behaviors/words. I believe for some, they don't want to believe that guys group in sex with emotional intimacy because if true, that takes some of the control away from the female (i.e. it is easier to just believe he is a horndog looking to get laid and dismiss him as just viewing you as a hole in the wall, instead of something deeper like a connection).


I have a close connection with my wife, yet I don't think that connection is largely driven by sex. Especially since we both happily shared lots of sex before we were in love, and have both had no problem having sex with others we are not in love with.

Getting back to another point I really don't feel like I get any particular validation from having sex at all, that said I've never felt like I've had to jump through any hoops to get sex (and maintain getting it) so that might be why I feel that way?

Wanting to have sex for the purpose of self validation seems to me a strange reason to have sex. I want sex simply because it feels good, if it didn't feel good I doubt I would want it often or at all. Consequently I expect women to feel the same way about sex.

As it stands if my wife decided she seldom ever or no longer wanted to have sex with me, I would without hesitation (if desirous of it) seek sex elsewhere. Likewise I'm pretty sure my wife would do the same if I stopped having sex with her.

I have to say I don't understand why anyone would choose to remain sexless when they find themselves in a nominally sexual relationship sans sex. I can understand people maintaining a marriage sans sex and getting it elsewhere, I just don't understand why anyone would feel compelled to honour or likewise expect monogamous marital fidelity, when sex has been largely or entirely withdrawn by any of the participating marital partners.

I also think that this idea that women have special control over sex is a bit of a red herring, in my experience women want good sex just as much. So men can control sex in the same way as any women can.

Sex shouldn't be so difficult...

Awful sex kills the desire for sex!

Great sex often feeds the desire for more great sex!

If the sex sux, tell them it sux and why it sux in the hopes it can be made better. If the sex doesn't improve despite such revelations you should stop having sex with them (and if still desirous of it seek it elsewhere), while remaining cognisant of the fact it is perfectly reasonable for someone so denied to seek sex elsewhere.

If someone tells you the sex you share sux, do appreciate their candour and seek to address it. If you can't address it appreciate the fact that it is not unreasonable for them to deny you sex because sex can be awful when it is poor. If so denied and still desirous of sex do feel free to seek it elsewhere.

If the sex sux and you don't want to tell them it sux you should stop having sex with them (and if still desirous of it seek it elsewhere), while remaining cognisant of the fact it is perfectly reasonable for someone so denied to seek sex elsewhere.

If a nominally sexual partner won't have sex with you at all or very infrequently and won't tell you why they won't have sex with you, it is not unreasonable to seek sex elsewhere.

Celibacy is incongruent with sexual relationships.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

@Personal - won't quote your post since it is long, but I do agree with much of what you say and can see where you are coming from.

As far as the connection, in my case at least, my W and I get very little alone time. So when we do get alone time, naturally part of that we try to use for sex. That could in part be why sex and the emotional connection go hand in hand with us, it is our time to bond and focus solely on each other, not worry about work, kids, the clown that hides in the sewer outside my home, etc... It is clear as well, when sex is few and far apart, our connection outside the bedroom is not as strong. I am not saying that sex is required to have that connection, just that it is a component, and for some/many an important one, within the context of the entire relationship.

As far as the sexless part, I can understand why someone would stay in a relationship depending on the factors. Factor in kids, finances, etc... and sometimes you feel like the "right" thing to do is make the sacrifice. It may be detrimental to the relationship and the persons involved, but I can follow where some people come from. 

For myself, I honestly don't know what I would do if I remained in a sexless marriage. The finances aren't as much a concern to me, but we have three children and the idea of them growing up in a split household would not sit well with me. On the other side though, a sexless marriage will ultimately lead to a deterioration of my marriage which will have an impact of the environment the kids grow up in. My parents got divorced, and it was something I actually wanted because being home with them became toxic. I said to myself I would never let my kids go through something like that, so if my marriage ever got to that point (which I genuinely have no reason to believe it would), then that would push me in the direction of making a difficult decision. It is just not something IMO that many people can just say "OK, things are sexless, let me just pick up my things and leave."


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> I think the people who can get away with cheating here do it, too, John.


They do, but the social stigma being far less in Europe makes it a far more acceptable solution.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

john117 said:


> They do, but the social stigma being far less in Europe makes it a far more acceptable solution.


Do you think it is far less?

Dug does not. He says it may be fine among upper class people, but not among his middle class family, friends, and co-workers.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Varies by country I suppose but not as much. The fear alone may be deterrent enough😂

I mean, the French invented the garconiere did they not?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Are you in a HD/LD situation at home where one person say less than 10% of the sex that they would like?

I think in a healthy relationship, there is no problem with non-sexual touch. Its only in one where one person is feeling constantly rejected and frustrated that this becomes an issue. This of course just makes the situation worse. 




MrsHolland said:


> In this house we are both very HD people and I would have to say the bolded is not how either of us feel. Even some physical touch that starts to lead to sex but then stops for whatever reason is not a problem, it does not feel empty at all. In fact it is more like the promise of what is to come later when the opportunity is better.
> 
> I wonder if this is the sort of thinking Vega's ex had, that all touch is empty unless it leads to sex.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

There are a lot of men - billions in fact. If you try to combine their responses as if you were talking to one man, it will look like nonsense. 

There are presumably men with inconsistent views, sex is after all an irrational thing, but I think mostly it is different men wanting different things.

There is also a lot of anger and frustration. A childish, but difficult to avoid "He / she has no right to take away my sex life, so I'm going to find it somewhere else".

The question of why people don't divorce often comes up, but life is complicated. There can be children, financial issues, houses etc. There can be relationships that are good in general even if the sex is terrible or nonexistent. Its easy to imagine thinking "my life is good except for sex, so why not get the sex somewhere else". It usually doesn't work but it sounds like it should. 

Again, this is different for different people, I think you can only address specific poster's inconsistencies, not look in general. 





Catherine602 said:


> I wouldn't care if he had sex with random women after the D.
> 
> I'm confused. Men say that they seek sex with their wife out of love her and wanting to feel loved by her. Men painstakingly pour their hearts out about the emotion sustenance they get from a their wife's willingness to please them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> In this house we are both very HD people and I would have to say the bolded is not how either of us feel. Even some physical touch that starts to lead to sex but then stops for whatever reason is not a problem, it does not feel empty at all. In fact it is more like the promise of what is to come later when the opportunity is better.
> 
> I wonder if this is the sort of thinking Vega's ex had, that *all touch is empty unless it leads to sex.*


Yup!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't think its willful deception. Its a form of the classic joke about a couple going to a therapist. Him: I'm unhappy, we never have sex, maybe once a week. Her: I'm unhappy he wants sex all the time, we have it every week.

At least for older couples, sex was often not discussed a lot with family or peers. Ideas of what is "expected" are all over the map.

I think its not at all uncommon for people to assume that sex will be less common after the "honeymoon" phase is over. The LD may spend years having more sex than they want waiting for this phase to end and marriage to settle into what they think is normal. 

There is also (at least in my generation, and also frequently mentioned here) that sex will be good if the rest of the relationship is good. This can lead to years of the HD trying to make the relationship good, before realizing that isn't the issue. 








tommyr said:


> Hmm, I don't know many people who would have expected that a relationship with rare/repetitive sex would be *fixed *by getting married. So I cannot agree with your assertion.
> 
> By far, I think the most common expectation is that if we're having good/frequent/satisfying sex before marriage, that will continue long after we are married and settled down. This is actually the point of the whole thread, right?
> 
> As to your assertion for LD (sex will settle down, ie much less) well I sincerely hope you are wrong about that, because it sounds like willful deception.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

uhtred said:


> *Are you in a HD/LD situation at home where one person say less than 10% of the sex that they would like?*
> 
> I think in a healthy relationship, there is no problem with non-sexual touch. Its only in one where one person is feeling constantly rejected and frustrated that this becomes an issue. This of course just makes the situation worse.
> 
> ...


The answer to your bolded, magenta coloured question is within the bolded, green coloured text that you have quoted.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Surely you don't expect me to read posts before replying >

Seriously though my point was that there are a lot of different situations and its clear that people tend to map then onto their own experience. 

I think people in healthy well-matched relationships have difficulty imagining a poorly matched relationship where neither party is doing anything wrong, they are just incompatible. 






Personal said:


> The answer to your bolded, magenta coloured question is within the bolded, green coloured text that you have quoted.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

uhtred said:


> I don't think its willful deception. Its a form of the classic joke about a couple going to a therapist. Him: I'm unhappy, we never have sex, maybe once a week. Her: I'm unhappy he wants sex all the time, we have it every week.
> 
> At least for older couples, sex was often not discussed a lot with family or peers. Ideas of what is "expected" are all over the map.
> 
> ...


My "willful deception" statement was in relation to this previous post:*LD: I'm in love and its wonderful. We are having wild sex all the time, but I'm sure that will settle down to something normal once we are married.*

In other words, if somebody is having more sex than they really ever wanted before marriage, but then proceed into marriage expecting to "cut back to what they consider normal" and without informing his/her partner, I call intentional foul.

As to your classic joke, there is a simple way of knowing "who" is right, Him or Her?
The answer would be: what sexual frequency was established earlier in the relationship? Approximately... not exactly... there is obviously some wiggle room, and ebs/flows over a long term relationship. But there should NOT be significant changes up or down that results in significant unhappiness for either partner.

And I am not saying the first 30 days of hot sex, or even necessarily the first 6 months, creates some permanent baseline. But in general, once the relationship was established (BEFORE the wedding) if they were getting on once per week, then HE is right. If they were more like every 2 weeks, then SHE is right.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Wazza said:


> If I was advocating infidelity that would be fair comment.
> 
> I was asking the question in order to better understand the thought processes behind it.
> 
> For what it's worth, I actually don't think that solution would work, for me at least, precisely because of the emotional context of sex. And I don't assume the guy is always the wandering one. I've seen women do the nasty as well.


Catherine raises a good point though. If sex is all about emotional connection, then what is the thought process behind asking to outsource with randoms? You seem to be digging at a perceived hypocrisy in the LD viewpoint, but wouldn't this be just as hypocritical? Maybe even moreso, given that LD seems to be just a frequency issue?

My husbands libido has taken a complete nosedive lately, and I have to say, that even though I don't find sex to be any kind of deep and meaningful experience, it has never occurred to me that just outsourcing would be a reasonable solution. It would make him sooooo unhappy if I were to do that. And all it would do for me is scratch an itch that I can scratch myself.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Personal said:


> Wanting to have sex for the purpose of self validation seems to me a strange reason to have sex. I want sex simply because it feels good, if it didn't feel good I doubt I would want it often or at all. Consequently I expect women to feel the same way about sex.


When I was young and foolish, I thought sex would validate me. But boy did that backfire. Ended up with the exact opposite result and a self-defeating spiral. Reading some of the posts here, I get the impression that this is true for other people as well.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tommyr said:


> *And if I had been your partner, I would definitely want to know that your views of me had changed, affecting our sexlife. I'd want to know what you needed from me, and I'd want you to know when I wasn't getting what I needed from you, *so that we could resolve this and return to a mutually happy marriage. This is exactly the kind of marital troubleshooting I posted about.


With the help of a therapist, I DID tell him why my view of him had changed. Number 1, he didn't see that his selfishness, entitlement, controlling, insulting behavior (which he acknowledged!) was "enough" to change, nor did he see any of this as a reason to interfere with sex. 



> This (busy with no time for sex) arose in my marriage too. I insisted that BOTH of our schedules needed to be scaled back in order to ensure sufficient time and energy for a normal sexlife.


I explained to my ex husband that if I took on these extra responsibilities temporarily, that some things would need to be adjusted. We mutually decided that *I* would do this (because he wasn't interested). It was only after we separated did the truth come out. 



> Good for you to try and fix the issues. And if my partner had a sense of contempt, I would definitely want to know that and work on it, and if we could not solve it, end the marriage.


As it turned out, there wasn't enough room for me, my late husband and his HUGE ego in our marriage. 

I ended the marriage, much to his disagreement. 



> I think you are just saying that sex is a barometer of the marital condition. I would agree with that. So when the gauge dips, this indicates a problem that threatens the marriage and must be fixed, requiring committed action from both sides, to quickly get back into the normal range. But in no case should an extended low sex situation persist, as that would mean a broken marriage in serious trouble.


I don't completely agree with you. I think that sex can wax and wane in a _healthy_ marriage, even for extended periods without there being anything "wrong" with the marriage. 

It seems that on a scale of 1-10, the HD always sees sex as a "10". Everything else is "5" or below. In other words, sex is The Best.

As a previous LD, the LD may also see sex as a "10" _sometimes_. But they also see _other things _as a "10". Sometimes, reading a good book is a "10" and sex might be a "3" that day. 

To the HD, it seems that sex is a "constant", whereas, to the LD, sex is a _variable_. 

And if the HD continuously 'hounds' the LD for sex, sex becomes an even _lower_ priority because of how they're starting to see their spouse (as "needy"). 



> But this feels like the opposite position from the original post, which suggested people could/should be happy within a low or no-sex marriage. !


Some LD's could be _very_ happy within a low/no sex marriage! But let me ask you something while I'm thinking about it. At what point do *you* determine that you're in a low/no sex marriage? In other words, how much time passes by in the low/no "zone" before *you* define your marriage as low/no sex?



> And that "the rest of the relationship" could somehow make up for the absence of sex. I could not disagree more with that idea


If you saw other things as equal to or even BETTER THAN sex from time to time you probably wouldn't be thinking this way!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> I don't completely agree with you. I think that sex can wax and wane in a _healthy_ marriage, even for extended periods without there being anything "wrong" with the marriage.


Oh boy .... I am going to .... AGREE WITH YOU >

It may come down to each couple/person defining what an extended period is. I know at times where my wife and I may have an extended period of no sex (let's say 2-3ish weeks) it could be for a variety of reasons not related to the health of our marriage (work, running around with kids, illness, all of which may then lead into my Ws period which tacks on another week). Not all extended periods or dry spells are treated equal. This is why I generally try to not view things on a set # (i.e. if we didn't have sex 3x this week something must be wrong).


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tommyr said:


> My "willful deception" statement was in relation to this previous post:*LD: I'm in love and its wonderful. We are having wild sex all the time, but I'm sure that will settle down to something normal once we are married.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> *Oh boy .... I am going to .... AGREE WITH YOU >
> *


*


> Does back-flips, front-flips, side-flips and quickly streaks around the block while singing "Haaaaa lay lue YEAH!!! Comes pack and high-five's Ellis*





> It may come down to each couple/person defining what an extended period is. I know at times where my wife and I may have an extended period of no sex (let's say 2-3ish weeks) it could be for a variety of reasons not related to the health of our marriage (work, running around with kids, illness, all of which may then lead into my Ws period which tacks on another week). Not all extended periods or dry spells are treated equal. This is why I generally try to not view things on a set # (i.e. if we didn't have sex 3x this week something must be wrong


Umm...I have no idea why I put this in quotes. I'm still feeling the after affects from us FINALLY seeing eye-to-eye on something! :grin2:


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> Some LD's could be _very_ happy within a low/no sex marriage! But let me ask you something while I'm thinking about it. At what point do *you* determine that you're in a low/no sex marriage? In other words, how much time passes by in the low/no "zone" before *you* define your marriage as low/no sex?


Took a number of years, 2 to 4, hard to pin it down. 

Once a month or less (or "Once a Month if you are lucky"!) is the level I call it but it took a few years to realize I had absolutely no influence over if or when. 

I'm an optimist, I assume good intentions. 

There was the year of breast feeding, just have to write that one off assuming that is the issue and it'll pass.

Then it came back slightly but not great. Then it just takes quite a while to realize what she is doing. If it is week 2 one month, week 1 the next and week 4 the following the pattern is obscured. But at some point you realize that you are at once a month or less and the answer is always no on a weekday or a weeknight before a work day or the week of her period or the 3 days before and the 4 days after and basically, this just SUCKS


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> Oh boy .... I am going to .... AGREE WITH YOU >
> 
> It may come down to each couple/person defining what an extended period is. I know at times where my wife and I may have an extended period of no sex (let's say 2-3ish weeks) it could be for a variety of reasons not related to the health of our marriage (work, running around with kids, illness, all of which may then lead into my Ws period which tacks on another week). Not all extended periods or dry spells are treated equal. *This is why I generally try to not view things on a set # (i.e. if we didn't have sex 3x this week something must be wrong)*.


Here we have an agreement that if we did not have sex x times per week and there was no good reason (illness, child/work related commitments, other stuff) then we would sit down and talk about it as it would be an indicator that there may be something wrong with our relationship.

There is no magic number of encounters that we have to live up to but if things changed for no genuine reason then it would be a barometer of the health of our relationship. 

I feel safe in this situation as it means we have a platform to openly talk about any issues before they become too big to handle.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Sounds like your Ex was not just HD, but also a selfish a-hole Those don't (always) go together. Sorry you had that bad experience.



Vega said:


> I don't completely agree with you. I think that sex can wax and wane in a _healthy_ marriage, even for extended periods without there being anything "wrong" with the marriage.


What is the reason for the extended wane period? If both partners agree, then you are right: nothing wrong here. But if *one* partner is unhappy, feels unloved, thinks the sexlife needs higher priority, and wants to work on and correct the root cause of the wane? I don't think it is healthy at all to let this go. This is a big problem; it needs both spouses to work on restoring a "normal" frequency of sex.



Vega said:


> It seems that on a scale of 1-10, the HD always sees sex as a "10". Everything else is "5" or below. In other words, sex is The Best.
> 
> As a previous LD, the LD may also see sex as a "10" _sometimes_. But they also see _other things _as a "10". Sometimes, reading a good book is a "10" and sex might be a "3" that day.
> 
> To the HD, it seems that sex is a "constant", whereas, to the LD, sex is a _variable_.


 The answer lies in the established sexual norms for the relationship that led up to a happy wedding. And yes, for me, sex is a constant need. Why is that surprising? Should I be surprised to learn my wife has a constant need for me to "ask about her day"? Every.Single.Day? Doesn't that get old?



Vega said:


> And if the HD continuously 'hounds' the LD for sex, sex becomes an even _lower_ priority because of how they're starting to see their spouse (as "needy").


Your choice of verb is pretty aggressive. I would only agree with that verb in extreme circumstances. If my wife and I normally have sex twice per week, and I'm chasing her down 3 times a day with my d^ck hanging out, then she is justified in rejecting my advance and calling me a sex hound. But if I'm initiating sex at around our normal frequency, would you now label me a 'hound'?




Vega said:


> Some LD's could be _very_ happy within a low/no sex marriage! But let me ask you something while I'm thinking about it. At what point do *you* determine that you're in a low/no sex marriage? In other words, how much time passes by in the low/no "zone" before *you* define your marriage as low/no sex?


It all goes back to the period of relationship building. This is when we reveal ourselves, our needs, learn about our partner's needs and demonstrate our ability/willingness to meet our partner's needs. This is how we choose our mate for life. This is why we pick this girl over that girl to get married. 




Vega said:


> If you saw other things as equal to or even BETTER THAN sex from time to time you probably wouldn't be thinking this way!


Maybe. But I am who I am. And I've been honest, open, and authentic throughout my relationship. So I would have a big problem with my wife telling me that some important need of mine .... that she's known about, accepted, appreciated, (mostly) shared, and has been generally happy to meet, from the day we met.... suddenly NOW she wants to try to change this about me?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> Not this little chicken and I am reasonably HD. A slob, a jerk, being stupid, misogynistic, lazy, unwashed, racist etc and sex would not be happening.
> 
> No amount of attraction makes up for lazy, slob, jerk man.


it's a tautology

you're not attracted to him for whatever reason, so these things resonate

if you were attracted to him, you'd overlook it

it does not make sense in the abstract because you're not talking about a real person

put a real life guy who you are very, very attracted to, and all of a sudden there will be excuses as to why he's not really a jerk, slob, etc

I'm using "you" figuratively, of course, not directed at you particularly


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Vega said:


> When I first moved into my late husband's house, I was unemployed. Needless to say, we were having LOTS of sex during that time.
> 
> After about 2 months, I found a job as a waitress. I was supposed to work the night shift. He was HAPPY for me.
> 
> But the first Friday night I had to work late (I worked until 1 a.m., but didn't get home until 2 am because of all the sidework I had to do). I also had to work Saturday night and the same thing happened. When I came home on Sunday morning, I found him sitting in the living room I the dark. He was sniffling. I asked him what was wrong and he tearfully said, "We haven't had sex in 2 days!" I reminded him that I CHEERFULLY gave him oral sex in the morning and he angrily said "I meant intercourse!" Apparently, decreasing sex from 14, 15, 16+ times a week to 12, 13 etc. times a week was a "significant decrease".


Your late husband was a d1c*, that said I can't imagine why you married him.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I think LD is real, so on that I disagree.
> 
> But, let's assume you are right, and that it only means she's not attracted to you. In that case, it's even worse, because she lacks the integrity to say so and leave. Staying, deceiving, and using the HD's love, attraction, and attachment to further their own selfish goals at his expense is morally reprehensible.


I don't think it's an issue of integrity

I think it's an issue of internal confusion regarding cause and effect.

she will actually believe she's not attracted to you because of something you're doing wrong

but in fact the lack of attraction precedes this and this analysis only occurs because she already lacks attraction

so there is no actual deception occurring, because that would require self awareness of this and intent

I realize it may seem preposterous to some women that they would lack this self awareness.

I actually think women are victims here to some degree because there is a cultural expectation that they _should _be attracted to a man who meets certain criteria. 

so when they are not attracted to a man, the working assumption is it must be because he fails to meet the standard criteria.

at root is the assumption that we are logical creatures and we can choose to be attracted to someone based on objective factors.

this is totally false


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> So, at what point is that "permanent baseline" established?


In the period leading up to the wedding date, and is then re-validated in the very early years of marriage (when getting out doesn't involve kids/401K/mortgage/etc). And not just sex, I would say the same thing for any other important need in the marriage: a "baseline" of need and compatibility gets established, whereby significant change in this area can be destructive to the marriage.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> To me, the "crime" is not that they stay. It is that they pretend the problem is temporary. Or they pretend as to the true cause. It is not the denial of sex itself, but the denial of being honest about WHY the sex is lacking and how likely it is that the HD's efforts have any chance of enticing the LD to desire more sex.
> 
> Because the LD can't really hide that they are LD. Their behavior speaks for itself. What they can hide is WHY they are LD at that time with that particular partner. They say "you don't meet my emotional need for conversation" when they really mean "you are short and fat and ugly and my stomach turns every time your hand touches any part of my body".
> 
> As with so many problems, it is not the crime - it is the cover-up.


again, this is misguided because it assumes there is a "real reason" behind the lack of attraction

there is no reason and to the extent the LD believes there is, she is equally as deceived as her HD partner


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> So, at what point is that "permanent baseline" established?


There is NO permanent baseline in my opinion.

If you isolate yourself in the relationship and monitor how often you masturbate over the course of an extended period of time, you will likely discover your personal baseline, but you will notice more than anything how undefined it is. 
@Vega I'm not going to ask how often you masturbate now that you are single, but if I may ask, is it an amount that is constant, or does it fluctuate?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Vega said:


> No.
> 
> Most problems involving sex have little to do with sex.


most problems involving not-sex have little to do with not-sex


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> ..................................
> 
> I don't completely agree with you. I think that sex can wax and wane in a _healthy_ marriage, even for extended periods without there being anything "wrong" with the marriage.
> 
> ...


It is dangerous to your future emotional health to have such a negative and single minded POV of HD people. We are not all insatiable beasts that have little to no regard for anything or anyone else. Have said it before here but HD and being a good person are not mutually exclusive.

I say this as a HD woman in a relationship with a HD man. We both hold many things as 10's on the importance scale. Our children, our morals and beliefs, respect, love, wine and most importantly, laughter. 

Can you do yourself a favour and consider that the experience you had with your ex does not automatically mean all people that are HD are low quality.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> it's a tautology
> 
> you're not attracted to him for whatever reason, so these things resonate
> 
> ...


I think you're talking about 2 different types of women. 

One will INSTANTLY be turned off to a man who is lazy, slobbish, lacking in hygiene, etc. no matte how "attracted" to him she initially was. I have met men myself who I've been physically attracted to initially, but as soon as they've opened their mouths (or shortly thereafter), they reveal who they are. 

My "lady boner" would have been instantly killed. 

The other woman probably suffers from low self-esteem. 

Eventually, she may learn that she's no longer attracted to him and say _adios_!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> I don't think it's an issue of integrity
> 
> I think it's an issue of internal confusion regarding cause and effect.
> 
> ...


I agree that many are not consciously deceiving their spouse.

But let's assume you are right, that they simply know they've lost attraction and project that it's because the husband is doing something wrong.

What are they doing to correct the situation? Often, it seems, _nothing_! They are not discussing the perceived problem they think exists, and often refuse to discuss the issue when their husbands raise it. They deflect via a variety of excuses. If they love their husband and want to fix the problem that is killing their sexual attraction, you'd think they'd actively pursue a solution. THEY DO NOT.

So, again it comes down to valuing something more than their integrity - it would seem they value their comfortable circumstances and ability to avoid dealing with issues that MIGHT lead to the sex they actually don't want because they are LD.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Catherine raises a good point though. If sex is all about emotional connection, then what is the thought process behind asking to outsource with randoms? You seem to be digging at a perceived hypocrisy in the LD viewpoint, but wouldn't this be just as hypocritical? Maybe even moreso, given that LD seems to be just a frequency issue?
> 
> My husbands libido has taken a complete nosedive lately, and I have to say, that even though I don't find sex to be any kind of deep and meaningful experience, it has never occurred to me that just outsourcing would be a reasonable solution. It would make him sooooo unhappy if I were to do that. And all it would do for me is scratch an itch that I can scratch myself.


I was trying to understand what I see as an inconsistency in the LD viewpoint, because it helps understand the thinking behind it. I don't see it as hypocrisy at all. I think on the surface it's logically inconsistent, but that it starts to make sense when you get below the surface. I found people's replies informative, and I am grateful to those who replied.

The question was totally hypothetical. I've seen people try it in reality and it usually ends in tears. 

And I can't imagine sex with randoms. Never done it, don't think I ever could. Wasn't in the question I posed, and as you say, was logically inconsistent with the idea that sex is about more than the physical act. If someone were to really do this, it could be affairs or prostitutes, but it could also be an outside relationship with one person, with the LD spouse's permission. Which only makes the emotional context of sex more dangerous of course.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> There is NO permanent baseline in my opinion.
> 
> If you isolate yourself in the relationship and monitor how often you masturbate over the course of an extended period of time, you will likely discover your personal baseline, but you will notice more than anything how undefined it is.
> 
> @Vega I'm not going to ask how often you masturbate now that you are single, but if I may ask, is it an amount that is constant, or does it fluctuate?


Well, I'll tell you but you have to PROMISE me that you won't tell the other members here on TAM so *_shhhhhhhhh_*

*_Whispers to badsanta_- 

I stopped having sex with the last man I was with in October 2015. I probably masturbated at least once a day for the first month or so after that. It became less and less frequent as time went on. The last time was close to 2 weeks ago (I think) and I actually had the 'urge' to do so this morning. But this morning turned out to be a fiasco and there was a bad traffic accident in my neck of the woods, plus we had a number of storms that rolled through making driving dangerous. The 'urge' quickly faded. 

I think since October the longest 'quiet stretch' has been close to 3 weeks. But I remember pretty quickly after that, I did it 3 times in less than an hour (wish I could remember WHAT or WHO I was thinking about THAT day, lol!)

Hope that answers your question. And remember, mums the word! _Shhhhhhhh_...*

Geez badsanta, What a question! I hope you don't expect me to answer that in 'public'!:surprise::wink2:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> We both hold many things as 10's on the importance scale. _Our children, our morals and beliefs, respect, love, wine and most importantly, laughter.
> _


But what physical activities do you hold as a "10"? Bowling? Going to the movies? Shopping at the mall? Playing pool? Working out? Visiting museums? 

Things like that...



> Can you do yourself a favour and consider that the experience you had with your ex does not automatically mean all people that are HD are low quality


Never said that I believed that. In fact, somewhere on my threads, I've said that ALL men (and HD's) are NOT the same. Not all men are abusive scumbags. But there sure are a LOT more of them out there than we think! 

The reason I keep bringing up my late husband was because he was the absolute _WORST_ of the others.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Well, I'll tell you but you have to PROMISE me that you won't tell the other members here on TAM so *_shhhhhhhhh_*
> 
> *_Whispers to badsanta_-
> 
> ...


I PROMISE not to tell anyone! *fingers crossed*

OK, your baseline goes from:

• 0x in three weeks
• 3x in one hour

What you do not realize is that when you are in a relationship THIS is still who you actually are sexually. Your partner will provide you with additional stimulation that is both positive and negative that can cause slight changes with your internal desire for frequency. 

Now here is where is get VERY interesting! If you take how much your libido varies as two points on a graph and average them out, you get ONCE A WEEK! Believe it or not this has been described as the ideal frequency in a marriage for LTR to last and be happy in much of today's research. 

So there you go! Once a week @Vega is your baseline. But it is important to know that it can fluctuate as well!

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I PROMISE not to tell anyone! *fingers crossed*
> 
> OK, your baseline goes from:
> 
> ...


Hmm...

I'm not sure if I completely agree with this. 

Let's see...

I left my late husband back in the summer of 2007. I don't remember much between that summer and when I met my next b/f in November. We were together for over 4 years. 

After him, I wasn't with anyone for 2.5 years. During that time, I was masturbating MUCH much more. In fact, I probably masturbated MORE in those 2.5 years than I had sex with my exb/f in the 4 years we were together! 

Would that have changed my baseline?


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> But what physical activities do you hold as a "10"? Bowling? Going to the movies? Shopping at the mall? Playing pool? Working out? Visiting museums?
> 
> Things like that...
> 
> ...


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

wild jade said:


> When I was young and foolish, I thought sex would validate me. But boy did that backfire. Ended up with the exact opposite result and a self-defeating spiral. Reading some of the posts here, I get the impression that this is true for other people as well.


My mother did the same thing after the divorce, she opened herself up to men just wanting to get off & use her... she ended up with a nervous breakdown, not to mention a couple rapes...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

@Vega, I mostly I agree with what you wrote. 

I do want to comment on your comment: "When I came home on Sunday morning, I found him sitting in the living room I the dark. He was sniffling. I asked him what was wrong and he tearfully said, "We haven't had sex in 2 days!" I reminded him that I CHEERFULLY gave him oral sex in the morning and he angrily said "I meant intercourse!" 

I understand that you had a very self centered, selfish, sexually driven partner, and I understand how that could make things miserable. In many cases though it is not like that. In some cases the HD is upset because they haven't had any sort of sexual interaction in 3 months, and their partner decides that they would rather play computer games, facebook or go out running than have sex. There are many people who have never received oral from their partners because those partners think it is "degrading", despite always providing it themselves whenever asked.

I'm not questioning your situation, and I fully understand your negative outlook on HDs because of it, but there are many other situations as well.









Vega said:


> tommyr said:
> 
> 
> > My "willful deception" statement was in relation to this previous post:*LD: I'm in love and its wonderful. We are having wild sex all the time, but I'm sure that will settle down to something normal once we are married.*
> ...


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Hmm...
> 
> I'm not sure if I completely agree with this.
> 
> ...


In a LTR the frequency (or shall we say quality) of sex correlates to the the combined rate of personal development in the relationship. As we get older, it becomes more and more challenging for personal development to continue progressing as we all have a tendency to become relaxed and comfortable so that life will just be easier.

So when you broke up with your exb/f, doing so likely forced you to go through a very high level of personal development, thus you were a very "happy" person! If recently you are slowing your rate of personal development (career wise, and health wise) things will slow down. 

The rate at which couples can sustain development in a LTR for over 10 or 20+ years comes down to sex about once a week. It also slows down as we age UNLESS there is a breakthrough and a sudden moment of personal growth occurs. 

This brings us right back to VALIDATION! What is it we want to validate? #1 finding out who we are for ourselves! #2 being confident to share that with others! So the better you start knowing yourself, YES, the more you will likely want to masturbate! The better you are able to communicate to your partner exactly who you are, the better sex will be.

VALIDATION = Knowing who you are!

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

wild jade said:


> My husbands libido has taken a complete nosedive lately, and I have to say, that even though I don't find sex to be any kind of deep and meaningful experience, it has never occurred to me that just outsourcing would be a reasonable solution. It would make him sooooo unhappy if I were to do that. And all it would do for me is scratch an itch that I can scratch myself.


not sure how long this has been going on for you, but see where you are if this persists for a few years


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

anonmd said:


> Took a number of years, 2 to 4, hard to pin it down.
> 
> Once a month or less (or "Once a Month if you are lucky"!) is the level I call it but it took a few years to realize I had absolutely no influence over if or when.
> 
> ...


exactly

it takes a while for the pattern to emerge

especially because in many of these cases there are many, many excuses and accusations offered as to why it is not happening

it takes time to attempt to address all of the excuses

once you've done that and you see it is still the same pattern, only then does the pattern become clear, as well its independence from anything you do or don't do


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I agree that many are not consciously deceiving their spouse.
> 
> But let's assume you are right, that they simply know they've lost attraction and project that it's because the husband is doing something wrong.
> 
> ...


here's how I think it usually plays out

wife loses attraction for husband

wife intellectually knows she should be attracted to husband and wants to fulfill that expectation

but she's unable to fulfill that expectation because she's simply not attracted

because she wants to be attracted but isn't, in her mind it cannot be her fault. she actually wants it to happen, after all.

if it's not her fault, it must be her husband's fault. so she searches for reasons why it's his fault

when he addresses the reason cited and she is still not attracted, then she must search for another reason why it is still not happening


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Wazza said:


> I was trying to understand what I see as an inconsistency in the LD viewpoint, because it helps understand the thinking behind it. I don't see it as hypocrisy at all. I think on the surface it's logically inconsistent, but that it starts to make sense when you get below the surface. I found people's replies informative, and I am grateful to those who replied.
> 
> The question was totally hypothetical. I've seen people try it in reality and it usually ends in tears.
> 
> And I can't imagine sex with randoms. Never done it, don't think I ever could. Wasn't in the question I posed, and as you say, was logically inconsistent with the idea that sex is about more than the physical act. If someone were to really do this, it could be affairs or prostitutes, but it could also be an outside relationship with one person, with the LD spouse's permission. Which only makes the emotional context of sex more dangerous of course.


LD doesn't want her husband to cheat because she actually prefers a situation where she is attracted to husband and assumes it will happen if only he would "get it"

allowing him license to cheat lets him off the hook from "getting it" and would force the LD to confront the real issue


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> exactly
> 
> it takes a while for the pattern to emerge
> 
> ...


This seems to be contrary to the TAM 'reasoning'. 

I saw a newbie come on the board who was protesting his wife's lack of interest in sex. He said that he had been "sexless" for 4--get this--months. 

And the people on TAM were telling him _already_ to divorce his wife! 

Also, @Ellis mentioned that there are times when he and his wife go 'without' for several _weeks_ sometimes, and he listed a few reasons why that could happen. All. VALID. Reasons. Yet, in some HD's book, NO reason (sans illness) is a good enough reason to go without sex for several _weeks_!

It doesn't seem like people are patient enough to wait for a pattern to emerge. They seem to want to avoid that pattern from emerging in the first place.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Vega said:


> This seems to be contrary to the TAM 'reasoning'.
> 
> I saw a newbie come on the board who was protesting his wife's lack of interest in sex. He said that he had been "sexless" for 4--get this--months.
> 
> ...


well maybe this will blow your mind, but I think people are right to advise walking away at the first sign of incompatibility

it rarely gets better once this emerges

what one person perceives as "patience" in waiting for a pattern to emerge, another person could perceive as blindness at recognizing the scope of the problem

you should not need to convince your partner to want you or to wait for the stars to align for her to be in the mood

those of us who have gone the patient route have done so based on the assumption that we were actually getting reliable feedback from our partners

that seems to be questionable at best, though again, not necessarily due to a will to deceive on the part of the LD person


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> well maybe this will blow your mind, but I think people are right to advise walking away at the first sign of incompatibility


And, at what point does one decide that they're "incompatible" with their partner? 

How much time has to pass between the last sexual encounter and that decision?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Vega said:


> And, at what point does one decide that they're "incompatible" with their partner?
> 
> How much time has to pass between the last sexual encounter and that decision?


I think it's case by case, but once you perceive that it has become a struggle to be synced up in this area, you are at that point already unmoored and heading for rough waters

so once the struggle aspect is evident, best approach would be to tone down the relationship to the level where you are not investing so much so that you are disappointed by the lack of reciprocal interest

at that point, the "LD" person will either re-engage to draw you back or will stay the same, which would be a signal that there is no future

unfortunately, life circumstances entangle people, and it is not always cost free to simply distance oneself.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> here's how I think it usually plays out
> 
> wife loses attraction for husband
> 
> ...


_So, no revelation or resolution is every reached!_ And this is why I have come to believe - and will usually recommend - that if such situations can't be resolved within 6 to 12 months, it's time to end the relationship (if there aren't very serious factors to countermand that route, at least for a while longer). 

The relationship rarely gets better later, and IMO life is too short to stay in an(other) unhappy situation. I've already lost many good years to such a scenario, and wish someone had seen and understood the dynamic in my first marriage and suggested I leave long before I finally reached my breaking point and did. At the time, I'd have been delighted to have found a satisfactory resolution - now, I know that relationship could never have come close the quality relationship I have now.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> This seems to be contrary to the TAM 'reasoning'.
> 
> I saw a newbie come on the board who was protesting his wife's lack of interest in sex. He said that he had been "sexless" for 4--get this--months.
> 
> ...


Several weeks? I can think of a scenario or 2 that might occur once over a decade+ together.
But short of physical separation, I most definitely cannot fathom any acceptable reason for 4 months of rejection.
Help me out: what's a good reason to go 4 months sexless when one partner isn't cool with this?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

tommyr said:


> Several weeks? I can think of a scenario or 2 that might occur once over a decade+ together.
> But short of physical separation, I most definitely cannot fathom any acceptable reason for 4 months of rejection.
> Help me out: what's a good reason to go 4 months sexless when one partner isn't cool with this?


answer is going to be some version of "it's his fault"


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Anon1111 said:


> not sure how long this has been going on for you, but see where you are if this persists for a few years


Have to say, I'm not looking forward to a future as a sexless nursemaid, watching my husband fall apart.

But there is this pesky for better or for worse vow that I think I'm supposed to honor. Woulnt it be terribly selfish of me to ditch him just as times got tough? If our situations were reversed, I'd be quite upset that he cared for me so little.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> In a LTR the frequency (or shall we say quality) of sex correlates to the the combined rate of personal development in the relationship. As we get older, it becomes more and more challenging for personal development to continue progressing as we all have a tendency to become relaxed and comfortable so that life will just be easier.
> 
> So when you broke up with your exb/f, doing so likely forced you to go through a very high level of personal development, thus you were a very "happy" person! If recently you are slowing your rate of personal development (career wise, and health wise) things will slow down.


Actually, you're right. I DID go through a period of self development for those few years. 

And after that, I became attracted to someone and decided to test the waters...

*sigh*

At least THAT "mistake" didn't take 9 years to figure out! But it was still "too long" for me. Since October, I knew I had some more work to do on myself. Hence, the decision to remain celibate for a while until I figure a few things out. 



> The rate at which couples can sustain development in a LTR for over 10 or 20+ years comes down to sex about once a week


I would actually be fine with sex once a week, which you already told me was my 'baseline'. I could also be fine with sex 3-4 times a week. Much more than that, well...

The reason is because my life is pretty 'full' right now. I know that 3-4 times a week sounds pretty reasonable to probably many people.

Except an HD. 



> So the better you start knowing yourself, YES, the more you will likely want to masturbate!


LOL! I'm not too sure about THIS, badsanta! I mean, I could get to know myself SO WELL, that I realize that I HATE sex and everything about it! (not. likely. to. happen.)



> The better you are able to communicate to your partner exactly who you are, the better sex will be


.

Now THAT I do agree with! :smile2: Nothing like being able to communicate to your partner who you are and what you want sexually only for your partner to tell you, "That would be boring". 

Geez...the more I write about this crap the more I know how much that I NEVER want to go through that crap again...



> VALIDATION = Knowing who you are!


I think that validation is accepting who you are and/or being _accepted _for who you are.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> This seems to be contrary to the TAM 'reasoning'.
> 
> I saw a newbie come on the board who was protesting his wife's lack of interest in sex. He said that he had been "sexless" for 4--get this--months.
> 
> ...


We can see where it is heading. If the sh1t show seems inevitable, better to bail before you get locked in by marriage, children etc. It is hind sight.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

BTW, if 3-4 times per week is not tolerable as a compromise (remember the more than you want ,less than he wants) that is edging a lot closer to sex addiction rather than HD IMHO.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

SimplyAmorous said:


> My mother did the same thing after the divorce, she opened herself up to men just wanting to get off & use her... she ended up with a nervous breakdown, not to mention a couple rapes...


That is so sad! 

I foolishly believed that if a guy liked sex with me, he would like me. And that guys wanting me meant I was pretty and popular and desirable. What a dumbass I was!


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

wild jade said:


> Have to say, I'm not looking forward to a future as a sexless nursemaid, watching my husband fall apart.
> 
> But there is this pesky for better or for worse vow that I think I'm supposed to honor. Woulnt it be terribly selfish of me to ditch him just as times got tough? If our situations were reversed, I'd be quite upset that he cared for me so little.


I have no idea what your circumstances are

plenty of people trudge on in sexless situations because there is a more important goal for them at stake

however, it's not up to anyone else to tell you that you should be OK with being sexless

you can not be OK with it and still deal with it for whatever reason you think is more important

that's up to you though


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

wild jade said:


> That is so sad!
> 
> I foolishly believed that if a guy liked sex with me, he would like me. And that guys wanting me meant I was pretty and popular and desirable. What a dumbass I was!


Been in a similar boat, WJ. I also believed that if a guy had sex with you, he LIKED you. I only_ recently _found out that a guy can have sex with out even if he DOESN'T like YOU. 

Don't be too hard on yourself. I was a *dumbass*, too. But you know what? I took responsibility for my part. 

And now, I'm _over_ it!


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Vega said:


> Been in a similar boat, WJ. I also believed that if a guy had sex with you, he LIKED you. I only_ recently _found out that a guy can have sex with out even if he DOESN'T like YOU.
> 
> Don't be too hard on yourself. I was a *dumbass*, too. But you know what? I took responsibility for my part.
> 
> And now, I'm _over_ it!


people of both sexes use each other for lots of reasons, not just sex


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

anonmd said:


> BTW, if 3-4 times per week is not tolerable as a compromise (remember the more than you want ,less than he wants) that is edging a lot closer to sex addiction rather than HD IMHO.


I'm not sure if I believe that sex "addiction" exists. I've known people who would swear that they're "addicted", and others who have said that at one time they believed they were addicted, only to later learn that it wasn't the sex they were "addicted" to; it was the 'high' they got from their ego being validated _thru_ sex. They were addicted to that 'high', and sex was their 'needle in the vein'. 

Kind of like, "If she has sex with me, I MUST be o.k.!", only deep down inside, he really didn't believe he was o.k. Hence, he "needed" the constant reinforcement.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Vega said:


> Been in a similar boat, WJ. I also believed that if a guy had sex with you, he LIKED you. I only_ recently _found out that a guy can have sex with out even if he DOESN'T like YOU.
> 
> Don't be too hard on yourself. I was a *dumbass*, too. But you know what? I took responsibility for my part.
> 
> And now, I'm _over_ it!


My wife used to believe the same as well, that a guy having sex with her meant they liked her. At the same time though, she also learned that she enjoyed sex for the sake of sex. While I can't relate personally, the ability to separate the physical from the emotional, and being able to enjoy the physical as a stand alone act can help make sexual issues a lot less complicated.

I think Holland is similar to my wife in this regard...that the physical act does little for her on the emotional side.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> I think that validation is accepting who you are and/or being _accepted _for who you are.


Correct! 

But as we _mature _ validation becomes much more about accepting who you are regardless of needing other around you to accept you or not! 

This is why old people can be a pain to be around sometimes! By the time you are in your 80s, you are the emotional equivalent of a honey badger! 

Here watch an episode of _Betty White's Off Their Rockers_ and you will see what I mean!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soAi00K5LR4


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

badsanta said:


> Correct!
> 
> *But as we mature  validation becomes much more about accepting who you are regardless of needing other around you to accept you or not! *
> 
> ...


At the same time, as we grow older, our inner circle of friends and family does not typically change a whole lot, so over time, the validation is still there, and along with acceptance it has just been practiced enough to become second nature.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> The problem is the assumption above is full of generalizations. It reads as if a guy who does not get loving sex from his wife automatically goes the route of cheating and affairs, which is far from the truth. There are countless stories on TAM of both Men AND Women who remain in sexless marriages.
> 
> I honestly have no idea how @Wazza question translated into Men having affairs that are destructive to their wives and children
> 
> In terms of believing the emotional intimacy need for men, once again countless men here have commented about this (including myself) with matching actions/behaviors/words. I believe for some, they don't want to believe that guys group in sex with emotional intimacy because if true, that takes some of the control away from the female (i.e. it is easier to just believe he is a horndog looking to get laid and dismiss him as just viewing you as a hole in the wall, instead of something deeper like a connection).


What gets me is how a guy can say 100 words about how emotionally important sex is to a men in a relationship and a group of women will immediately seek out 2 or 3 words which could possibly be twisted into something negative and focus all their attention on that.

They want to believe that sex doesn't mean anything to men and that we just want to use women as "holes" so that we can "get off".

I don't understand why believing this is so important for them,


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> Been in a similar boat, WJ. I also believed that if a guy had sex with you, he LIKED you. I only_ recently _found out that a guy can have sex with out even if he DOESN'T like YOU.
> 
> Don't be too hard on yourself. I was a *dumbass*, too. But you know what? I took responsibility for my part.
> 
> And now, I'm _over_ it!


I once dated a guy for _months_, only to find out (after we split) that he never liked me, and always looked down on me. I was just where he got some sex while he looked for a real woman.

Surely that wins me some sort of dumbass prize?

But yes, I'm over it. That was long ago and I've learned a lot since then.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

samyeagar said:


> My wife used to believe the same as well, that a guy having sex with her meant they liked her. At the same time though, she also learned that she enjoyed sex for the sake of sex. While I can't relate personally, the ability to separate the physical from the emotional, and being able to enjoy the physical as a stand alone act can help make sexual issues a lot less complicated.
> 
> I think Holland is similar to my wife in this regard...that the physical act does little for her on the emotional side.


I find that the emotional feeling comes after we have had sex. Is Mrs Sam like that?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Vega said:


> And, at what point does one decide that they're "incompatible" with their partner?
> 
> How much time has to pass between the last sexual encounter and that decision?


A lot of people take forever, if ever. But keep in mind it rarely happens to stop cold turkey. It dwindles to the universal LD constant of once a month for a year or two then down again.

If it went off cold turkey people would be running for the exits.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

wild jade said:


> Have to say, I'm not looking forward to a future as a sexless nursemaid, watching my husband fall apart.
> 
> But there is this pesky for better or for worse vow that I think I'm supposed to honor. Woulnt it be terribly selfish of me to ditch him just as times got tough? If our situations were reversed, I'd be quite upset that he cared for me so little.


If he's not willing to help or be helped. Bailing out would be prudent... that's the heart of the issue.

For better or worse assumes that when in worse there's the resolve to make it better again.

Krap I sound like Trump already😭


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

john117 said:


> If he's not willing to help or be helped. Bailing out would be prudent... that's the heart of the issue.
> 
> For better or worse assumes that when in worse there's the resolve to make it better again.
> 
> Krap I sound like Trump already😭


Better again? I'm afraid there is only one end to the game, and that is true for all of us. I too will need my nursemaid at some point. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

wild jade said:


> When I was young and foolish, I thought sex would validate me. But boy did that backfire. Ended up with the exact opposite result and a self-defeating spiral. Reading some of the posts here, I get the impression that this is true for other people as well.


Most women can get plenty of sex if they aren't picky. So having sex with lots of men is not validating. Having lots of sex just reflects how choosy they are.

My wife also thought having sex would validate her when she was younger. She had the same result you did. 

Most men can not get sex easily, so having sex validates their desirability (Personnal isn't validated by sex because he's on one of those rare guys who always easily got all the sex he wanted)


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Vega said:


> I only_ recently _found out that a guy can have sex with out even if he DOESN'T like YOU.


Some guys....


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Have to say, I'm not looking forward to a future as a sexless nursemaid, watching my husband fall apart.
> 
> But there is this pesky for better or for worse vow that I think I'm supposed to honor. Woulnt it be terribly selfish of me to ditch him just as times got tough? If our situations were reversed, I'd be quite upset that he cared for me so little.


For a site that is supposed to be all about marriage, TAM can be incredibly pro-divorce.

You're doing exactly the right thing, by my values anyway.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Wazza said:


> For a site that is supposed to be all about marriage, TAM can be incredibly pro-divorce.
> 
> You're doing exactly the right thing, by my values anyway.


For me it is the only choice. How can I abandon him in a time of need? To face the medical system alone? Never!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega;16033361
Also said:


> weeks[/I] sometimes, and he listed a few reasons why that could happen. All. VALID. Reasons. Yet, in some HD's book, NO reason (sans illness) is a good enough reason to go without sex for several _weeks_!


But what you miss is that the marriage is best for both Ellis *and his wife* when they have a more active sex life.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

EllisRedding said:


> The problem is the assumption above is full of generalizations. It reads as if a guy who does not get loving sex from his wife automatically goes the route of cheating and affairs, which is far from the truth. There are countless stories on TAM of both Men AND Women who remain in sexless marriages.
> 
> I honestly have no idea how @Wazza question translated into Men having affairs that are destructive to their wives and children
> 
> In terms of believing the emotional intimacy need for men, once again countless men here have commented about this (including myself) with matching actions/behaviors/words. I believe for some, they don't want to believe that guys group in sex with emotional intimacy because if true, that takes some of the control away from the female (i.e. it is easier to just believe he is a horndog looking to get laid and dismiss him as just viewing you as a hole in the wall, instead of something deeper like a connection).



My impression is that men are encouraged in this culture to shut down compassion and empathy for women to decrease interference with the goals of getting sex. After marriage, the emotions get switched on and spliced into sexual desires. 

I am pointing out a glaring inconsistency in the sex love message. The love stuff seems easy to turn on and off. It's on when trying to convince the wife to have sex but toggles off if there is an opportunity to get sex with random woman outside of the marriage. Either way, the focus seems to be getting pleasure not love. 

It might help for everyone top speak the same language when single and dating, and in love and married. The language would be familiar and easy to understand.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Anon1111 said:


> I think it's case by case, but once you perceive that it has become a struggle to be synced up in this area, you are at that point already unmoored and heading for rough waters
> 
> so once the struggle aspect is evident, best approach would be to tone down the relationship to the level where you are not investing so much so that you are disappointed by the lack of reciprocal interest
> 
> ...


Ate you still paying that cost, brother?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> My impression is that men are encouraged in this culture to shut down compassion and empathy for women to decrease interference with the goals of getting sex. After marriage, the emotions get switched on and spliced into sexual desires.
> 
> I am pointing out a glaring inconsistency in the sex love message. The love stuff seems easy to turn on and off. It's on when trying to convince the wife to have sex but toggles off if there is an opportunity to get sex with random woman outside of the marriage. Either way, the focus seems to be getting pleasure not love.
> 
> It might help for everyone top speak the same language when single and dating, and in love and married. The language would be familiar and easy to understand.


With respect, that's a bit offensive. I never said it, you read it into my words. Inserted all sorts of ideas that never came from me. You weren't pointing out a glaring inconsistency in my original point at all.

Sex and love are complex, and pleasure and love are both involved. But people of both sexes sometimes strive to do the right thing. 

But don't let what I ACTUALLY said get in the way of the stuff you are making up. :x


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,

That's true as a generalization. It just is. 

It is equally true that I have seen numerous situations where women use their sexual power - either the promise of sex or sex itself - to achieve a desired outcome. 

I'm sort of gender neutral - when I see predatory behavior. Don't. Uh like it. 




Catherine602 said:


> My impression is that men are encouraged in this culture to shut down compassion and empathy for women to decrease interference with the goals of getting sex. After marriage, the emotions get switched on and spliced into sexual desires.
> 
> I am pointing out a glaring inconsistency in the sex love message. The love stuff seems easy to turn on and off. It's on when trying to convince the wife to have sex but toggles off if there is an opportunity to get sex with random woman outside of the marriage. Either way, the focus seems to be getting pleasure not love.
> 
> It might help for everyone top speak the same language when single and dating, and in love and married. The language would be familiar and easy to understand.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

wild jade said:


> Better again? I'm afraid there is only one end to the game, and that is true for all of us. I too will need my nursemaid at some point. It's only a matter of time.


And to think I'm about to spend a large sum of money to send my daughter to medical school 😂 I should tell her to not bother as we all meet the end game.

Not everything is unfixable, Jade...


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

john117 said:


> And to think I'm about to spend a large sum of money to send my daughter to medical school �� I should tell her to not bother as we all meet the end game.
> 
> Not everything is unfixable, Jade...


Huh?? My husband has health problems and is on medications that he will be taking for the rest of his life, however long that is. How do you propose that I fix that?

No doubt your daughter is young, healthy, and has her whole life ahead of her. That is simply not true for some of us.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

A lot of things can be mitigated, pretty well I might say. @UMP comes to mind. I'm 56, take a couple meds (Propecia😂) and I'm healthy enough to cycle 35 miles or walk 10. 

Human disease has a wide spectrum of symptoms and impacts, some fixable, some not. But it's the willingness to seek help that separates the "in sickness and in health" from "in sickness and filing next week". 

Humans adapt. That's the other thing. And humans build up a lot of goodwill (or don't). My father in law pretty much left his wife to the elements, after decades of crazy behavior. She succumbed to heart disease much to his relief. I'm pretty sure the lesson was not lost on my wife  meanwhile my mom did play Florence Nightingale to my father and vice versa, the hallmark of true love.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> I am pointing out a glaring inconsistency in the sex love message. The love stuff seems easy to turn on and off. It's on when trying to convince the wife to have sex *but toggles off if there is an opportunity to get sex with random woman outside of the marriage*.


Where does this come from?

What man here has said that they'd have sex with a random woman while they were married? Really. Who?

And, as those who like to go on about men and women being exactly the same note, women are just as likely to cheat as men these days.


----------



## hartvalv (Jul 2, 2016)

Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.
> 
> And for others, they couldn't care less.
> 
> ...


I've been sexless for a long while now, and being so certainly hasn't been an end all of anything else for me.. 

I do think about the void of sex in my life, don't get me wrong, but never to the point of becoming unhappy about it. There are ways to find personal relief if need be, but on the other hand- I am extremely capable of being super happy about a whole lot of other joys in life!


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

@Buddy400. Why do you need to personalize everything and why get defensive? What does that do for you? I am telling what I see and how it may be interpreted. Yu can jump all over the place to get me to stop saying what I see but it won't work. 

I have as much right express my self as anyone. I'm trying to tell something. What you say and do in and out of committed relationships has an impact on your SO. Identify some inconsistencies, if they exist and talk with your wife about them as frequently as you talk about sex. 

I am not questioning a man's need for intimacy to fulfill an emotional need and indeed to feel his successful as a man. 

I know that the language of love is different for men and women. Sex can be a bonding experience but that is not the major theme that men as a group express. 

The language men speak with respect to sex and women is often so vague and full of double meaning that an enigma decoder is needed to decipher meaning. You can skirt the issue and pretend it's not there but don't expect solutions to what seems like intractable problems. 

Why not learn to speak one language that is clear and honest about sex no matter what the circumstances. Expressing contempt for women and advocating using them for sex in the present of your wife is not good. The wife should understand that her husband switches to a desire to connect emotionally when he wants sex because he says it, along with the other things. 

It would be easy for women to understand that sex becomes more than pleasure seeking for a man in love if the language that men in general use is consistent and sensitive. Contempt, disrespect or references to body parts to describe women should expunged from the male lexicon. It's unnecessary, destructive and cruel. 

Sex is a mans way to say "I love you". Sex is not always have an emotional component and being honest is important in maintaining the trust of women n general. Men pursue sex for pleasure only at times and at others for an emotional connection. Love includes sex but sex does not always include love.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I read a lot of things men say on this forum that does not speak to emotionally connected sex. It is often insulting, crass and misguided. There was a recent post from a man advising a man dealing with a cheating wife to "go out and get some vj" as a cure for his problems. 

The fact that human beings with feelings and free will are connected to the vj did not seem to be a concern. No one said anything and I did not bother. I gave up a long time ago. My faith was restored when the OP said that he did not want to hurt anyone and he was not ready for a relationship.

Two languages were spoken in that thread, one advocating using women's body parts to assuage male pain and the other expressing a desire to connect with a whole woman when he was ready.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@catherine602 don't feel bad that you don't understand men. Most men don't understand women either.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

anonmd said:


> BTW, if 3-4 times per week is not tolerable as a compromise (remember the more than you want ,less than he wants) that is edging a lot closer to sex addiction rather than HD IMHO.


Sex addiction is when someone can't restrain from doing harmful things (cheating, prostitutes, etc..)

If they remain loyal to a spouse and like sex a whole lot, then they are just very high drive. I jokingly call myself and my wife insane drive.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

norajane said:


> I suspect many of the HD men who orgasm virtually every time would be a lot less interested in sex if they only had orgasms, say 50% of the time or less.


That would lead me to want sex twice as much as I have it now >

When I go a few days without an orgasm, I'm on edge. If that meant I had to have sex twice to relieve it, I guess I'd be doing a whole lot of having sex twice in a row.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Catherine602 said:


> My impression is that men are encouraged in this culture to shut down compassion and empathy for women to decrease interference with the goals of getting sex. After marriage, the emotions get switched on and spliced into sexual desires.
> *
> I am pointing out a glaring inconsistency in the sex love message. The love stuff seems easy to turn on and off. It's on when trying to convince the wife to have sex but toggles off if there is an opportunity to get sex with random woman outside of the marriage. Either way, the focus seems to be getting pleasure not love.*
> 
> It might help for everyone top speak the same language when single and dating, and in love and married. The language would be familiar and easy to understand.


Part of why I am at a loss with your comments is because they seem to have come out of left field, they really have nothing to do with the post you originally responded to (@Wazza). It comes more as a rant that once again Guys are just looking to get laid, and if the wife won't give it up they will just go outside the marriage, who cares if it screws up their wife/kids.

On the bolded, once again, it just comes across as a huge generalization targeted solely at guys. Guy wants sex with his wife, he plays the love card. If she doesn't give in, he throws the card out the window, hits up the local nudey bar with a big sign that says "Guy looking for sex with random chick"  Are there some guys who will cheat b/c of lack of sex in their marriage, yes. Are there some women who will cheat b/c of lack of sex in their marriage, yes. The common denominator is a variety of factors which include being selfish. The common denominator is not gender.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

john117 said:


> And to think I'm about to spend a large sum of money to send my daughter to medical school 😂 I should tell her to not bother as we all meet the end game.
> 
> Not everything is unfixable, Jade...


the end game is unfixable, even for medical school people.
what you spend your cash on is up to you - but be aware that most medical school graduates end up with absolutely no idea about monetary limitations/budgets.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> What gets me is how a guy can say 100 words about how emotionally important sex is to a men in a relationship and a group of women will immediately seek out 2 or 3 words which could possibly be twisted into something negative and focus all their attention on that.
> 
> They want to believe that sex doesn't mean anything to men and that we just want to use women as "holes" so that we can "get off".
> 
> I don't understand why believing this is so important for them,


My thought on this is that it is as much a control issue as anything else. If you truly believe that men only want to get laid, well then, if you are not in the mood it is easy to just tell them to go buggar off, go buff the banana b/c in reality they only care about the O. You have complete control over the situation. 

Now let's look at the other side. A guy wants sex not just to get laid. He instead wants it b/c he truly loves the person he is with, wants to please her, wants to feel his skin against hers, wants to feel that emotional bond when they are intimate together. With this, if she is not in the mood, just dismissing him and telling him to go play pocket pinball shifts the selfishness to her (knowing that sex is much deeper to him than sailing captain happy). This puts her in a position where she may have less control over the situation, and will probably need to exhibit some sort of vulnerability. Of course though, I am not advocating that every time the person wants sex they should get it

I think this is in part where @Vega is coming from. Many of our viewpoints are based on personal experiences, and based on what she has written about her relationships I can understand where she is coming from. At this point now, she is looking to take back control over sex. With this it is easier to just believe all guys are in it for one thing, the "emotional connection via sex" slogan is as real as the tooth fairy. I think she even said she doesn't feel quite ready to get back out there, so I guess still trying to process it all, and in part the basis for some of the threads she has started here. The risk would be if/when she goes back out there, meets a guy who views her as much more than a hole in the wall, and he gets scared off b/c his feelings on sex get dismissed as rubbish.

Then again, I made 3 ridiculous references to masturbating in this post, so I could very well just be full of crappola >


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

If he truly wanted to please her, and she did not want sex, then pleasing her would mean not pestering her about sex.

He does not want to please her. He wants to please *himself.*


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Something occurred to me about frequency in my own life. When I was married to my first wife, I knew very little about technique. I was in my early twenties. She was a few years younger. 

I found that I had a tough time with initiating an orgasm in her. Yes, I had one every time, if I remember correctly. This was thirty years ago, after all. I wanted, desperately to be the initiator of her orgasms. I wanted her to find deep satisfying pleasure with me. At the same time, I really enjoyed having sex with her. I was the HD in that marriage.

A lack of perceivable orgasms in her only caused me with my HD and longing to be the initiator of them in her seemed to cause me to be even higher drive. It almost became an obsession for me to give her an orgasm.

What I am wondering due to all of that is this. Did my drive go up because I wasn't getting the full amount of chemical satisfaction from sex? Yes, I got some comfort from my own release, but I know, when she got her's, and, I got mine, it was so much more satisfying. I wonder if that wasn't the drive behind @Vega's ex? Maybe he was HD to start with, because she was so attractive to him on a physical and chemical level, plus he subconsciously wanted her to get her's, so to speak? If she was getting her's, wouldn't that drive his need even higher? 

I mean, it feels so good when both are satisfied and participating, chemically and physically, maybe those were the driving factors and not all of this men are pigs stuff? We are, or can be. It's that darn testosterone. I've tried to shut it down, but it isn't easy. I know it's also in women to varying degrees and those with higher test and lower naturally occurring female hormones, as in peri-menopause, many women will find their desire off the charts. 

Just some thoughts. The easy answer is men are pigs.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

spotthedeaddog said:


> the end game is unfixable, even for medical school people.
> what you spend your cash on is up to you - but be aware that most medical school graduates end up with absolutely no idea about monetary limitations/budgets.


You're right. Maybe.....


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jld said:


> If he truly wanted to please her, and she did not want sex, then pleasing her would mean not pestering her about sex.
> 
> He does not want to please her. He wants to please *himself.*


Because this approach works so much better


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

john117 said:


> You're right. Maybe.....


Yes! A fix of The Far Side!

Oh, daylight.

Back to the shadows for me...



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

larry.gray said:


> Sex addiction is when someone can't restrain from doing harmful things (cheating, prostitutes, etc..)
> 
> If they remain loyal to a spouse and like sex a whole lot, then they are just very high drive. I jokingly call myself and my wife insane drive.


Yes, AND, if you understand the partner you have chosen is doing their best to meet you halfway and that 4 times a week is their limit - strongly demanding every day and even multiple times a day is doing a harmful thing.

I'm taking Vega at her word here, she does seem to be affected by the whole experience no? Course, it is equally possible the dude was just a gigantic ****.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

MrsHolland said:


> I find that the emotional feeling comes after we have had sex. Is Mrs Sam like that?


Very much so. She is fairly subtle but direct when she initiates, but it's the physical act that she is after at that point. There is a very noticeable transition from the physical to the emotional as she starts coming down from her orgasms.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

jld said:


> If he truly wanted to please her, and she did not want sex, then pleasing her would mean not *pestering her about sex*.
> 
> He does not want to please her. He wants to please *himself.





Vega said:


> And if the *HD continuously 'hounds' the LD for sex*, sex becomes an even _lower_ priority because of how they're starting to see their spouse (as "needy").


The above quotes certainly use pejorative verbs to describe (unwanted) attempts to initiate sex. But is this accurate? Perhaps this same married couple's interaction is better worded as:

_the LD keeps *prudishly rejecting sex*_

Same scenario, totally opposite perspective. And which is correct? This is the essential question that keeps falling through the cracks of this thread.

I say: every marriage establishes a baseline "normal" frequency. This is true of all marital needs, and not just sex. This is the key to knowing if the HD is initiating too often, or the LD is rejecting too often. So I ask those who have ever felt pestered or hounded for sex: was your partner actually initiating sex more often than your baseline frequency?


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> Whoa...
> 
> First of all if the LD says to his/herself that the amount of sex will "settle down to 'normal'" once married, that does NOT necessarily mean that they're _planning_ this. It may mean that they recognize that the amount of sex they're having NOW is the "honeymoon" stage of a relationship. Perhaps they assume that their partner knows and assumes this as well. In no way does it mean that during the honeymoon stage that they were having more sex than they wanted. They're having as much as they want _during that stage_.


How is what you just said NOT willful deception?

And what do you say about all the other important marital needs? My wife, for example has always needed intimate daily conversation, she craves our time together to talk about her/my day. This is one of her most important needs in a relationship. No doubt this was a significant factor in her falling in love with me, agreeing to marry me. Should she be cool with me telling her "that was just a phase for me, now that we are married, I have settled down and only intend to have those intimate talks with you every 12 days, do not hound or pester me for anything more than that". Did I not just willfully deceive her? Why is sex different?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's not quite the same if she doesn't care about intimacy chances are talking is not happening either...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tommy,

I don't think that's deceptive, it's realistic. 

Now I'm gonna make a BIG generalization here - because I've read enough posts on TAM to feel confident in it.

If BOTH you and your partner love each other - not just what you do for each other - you will work TOGETHER to make it work when their spontaneous desire gradually turns into responsive desire. 






tommyr said:


> How is what you just said NOT willful deception?
> 
> And what do you say about all the other important marital needs? My wife, for example has always needed intimate daily conversation, she craves our time together to talk about her/my day. This is one of her most important needs in a relationship. No doubt this was a significant factor in her falling in love with me, agreeing to marry me. Should she be cool with me telling her "that was just a phase for me, now that we are married, I have settled down and only intend to have those intimate talks with you every 12 days, do not hound or pester me for anything more than that". Did I not just willfully deceive her? Why is sex different?


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

tommyr said:


> The above quotes certainly use pejorative verbs to describe (unwanted) attempts to initiate sex. But is this accurate? Perhaps this same married couple's interaction is better worded as:
> 
> _the LD keeps *prudishly rejecting sex*_
> 
> ...


If you are initiating or pestering for sex, you will get it more often than if you did nothing for a while.

But please, do not say it is because you want to make your wife happier. You do it because YOU want sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Illustrates why sacrifice isn't just a love langauge - it might be the ultimate love langauge.

If you really love someone - love who they are - more than what they do for you - than you want to take care of them. Love - the genuine article - isn't about be willing to put someone first - it's about wanting to put them first. 

The presence or absence of this desire - to sacrifice - is the primary determinant in how desire gaps of all types are addressed in a marriage. 






Duguesclin said:


> If you are initiating or pestering for sex, you will get it more often than if you did nothing for a while.
> 
> But please, do not say it is because you want to make your wife happier. You do it because YOU want sex.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Catherine,
> 
> That's true as a generalization. It just is.
> 
> ...


That's true, there are predatory women. But we were not at that point talking about theses woman. 

This whole discussion, I think, is a classic example of male-female miscommunication. In an attempt to throw light onto the problem that differences in male and female sexuality cause, I pointed out how statements may be interpreted negatively by the women within hearing. 

Stereotypical reactions by women to their partner in LTR may be related to what women hear out side of the bedroom. Instead of a discussion of the possible impact of common statements on relationships, the negative statements were picked out of my post and ascribed to me as judgements of men. 

The flood of chastising posts that followed redirected the discussion to women causing problems and men defending themselves.

This is a pattern that happens with my husband and I. He wants me to be happy and he thinks he has to fix everything so that I am happy. He works very hard to make us all happy. 

But sometimes there are problems that occur that in no way means he is not an excellent husband, father and man. 

I have to be careful when and how I express unhappiness about anything. It can be exhausting for both of us. Each time I can see the wheels turning in my husbands eyes, "how can I fix this". We begin down the well trodden path of miscommunication. 

We handle it my tabling the discussion for a day. He needs time to process that I am not asking him to fix anything, or blaming him or pointing out his failures. Many times I just need to talk to untangle things in my head. 

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion and thank you all for putting up with me. I wish I could share without causing stress and upset. That is not my intension or what I want. The men who are getting upset are like my husband, they want to fix things. 

Some things don't have an easy fix and just listening and considering different points of view is enough to find a solution.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,

That post is priceless. We have some of that in reverse here.

A few months ago - I shared an observation with M2. The basic flavor of it was this: I know that XYZ is happening - I'm not happy about it - but I accept it.

What followed - M2 gets agitated - I do the wife whispering thing - tell her - I'm not asking you to DO anything. I'm not happy about what's happening - nor am I angry. I do however accept it. 

And your H needs to allow you to be unhappy. Doesn't need to like it but he needs to accept it.





Catherine602 said:


> That's true, there are predatory women. But we were not at that point talking about theses woman.
> 
> This whole discussion, I think, is a classic example of male-female miscommunication. In an attempt to throw light onto the problem that differences in male and female sexuality cause, I pointed out how statements may be interpreted negatively by women within hearing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Catherine,
> 
> That post is priceless. We have some of that in reverse here.
> 
> ...


Wow that's it!! Maybe if I find a way to tell him that, we will communicate better. 

I feel guilty, I have so much and I should be thankful and not be so bothered about things. 

** end of jack ***

Thanks MEM.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,

It's very obvious - how completely - C2 loves you. Part of that - is taking care of you. And part of that is fixing things that make you unhappy. 

I believe he is a very responsible person. He is simply confusing two things: his responsibility for being a good partner (which he is). And his belief that he is responsible for making you happy. 





Catherine602 said:


> Wow that's it!! Maybe if I find a way to tell him that, we will communicate better.
> 
> I feel guilty, I have so much and I should be thankful and not be so bothered about things.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> Wow that's it!! Maybe if I find a way to tell him that, we will communicate better.
> 
> I feel guilty, I have so much and I should be thankful and not be so bothered about things.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's a jack. I think it's right on topic. And very well put by both of you.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tommyr said:


> How is what you just said NOT willful deception?


I can ask you the same question. How do you figure it's _willful_ "deception", Tommy? 



> And what do you say about all the other important marital needs? My wife, for example has always needed intimate daily conversation, she craves our time together to talk about her/my day. This is one of her most important needs in a relationship. No doubt this was a significant factor in her falling in love with me, agreeing to marry me. Should she be cool with me telling her "that was just a phase for me, now that we are married, I have settled down and only intend to have those intimate talks with you every 12 days, do not hound or pester me for anything more than that". Did I not just willfully deceive her? Why is sex different


First of all, MOST of the time the LD doesn't TELL the HD anything. They simply act. 

Second of all, what you described HAS happened to me, in every LTR I've had. 

Too. Many. Times. 

A man may start a relationship by being attentive, caring, loving, concerned, generous, etc. He may show these qualities in a number of different ways. But over time, he STOPS or grossly reduces these behaviors. By that time, the couple is already having sex. The woman may approach the man only to be met with ridicule, resistance and excuses. Meanwhile, sex hasn't dwindled.

Yet.

Basically, HE stops (or grossly reduces) meeting her needs OUTSIDE of the bedroom. But he still expects her to meet HIS needs, INSIDE of the bedroom. 

Maybe you used to call her several times a day, and now she's lucky if she gets a phone call from you (to talk about something other each other) at lunch. Maybe you used to leave her little love notes...maybe you used to wake her up with kisses...maybe you used to sit with her on the sofa and hold her hand while watching t.v. Maybe you used to text her every evening (because you worked nights) and at the end of your shift, you would text her, "Have a wonderful night!" 

And now, you don't do those things anymore. 

But you still expect that high level of sex, even though it's clear that your emotional investment is nearly bankrupt. 

Before we got together, my late husband told me that he "loved" sitting on the sofa together, cuddling while watching a movie. NEVER HAPPENED. Not. Even. Once. He used to sit in a recliner facing away from me. I finally asked him about it and he said, "This is my 'special' seat". I reminded him of what he told me and simply said, "I can't see the tv. from there. Of course, he demanded a high level of sex regardless of that. There were other things he told me he would do that never happened. My needs weren't getting met and when I addressed them, he balked. I finally stopped having sex with him. He balked even more. We finally sought counseling, but by that time I had already "checked out" of the marriage. 

If you're calling me 5 times a day BEFORE we have sex, then shouldn't you continue to call me 5 times a day AFTER we start having sex? If you're buying me flowers "just because" a few times a year, shouldn't I expect that AFTER we start having sex and continue to expect it until "death do us part"?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

OTOH, if he was calling you every day (5 times a day? really?  ) before you were living together and saw each other a couple or three times a week, do you really need him to do that when you are living together and in the same house at least 10 or 12 hours a day?

Turn your head and open your mouth if you want to talk.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

anonmd said:


> OTOH, if he was calling you every day (5 times a day? really?  ) before you were living together and saw each other a couple or three times a week, do you really need him to do that when you are living together and in the same house at least 10 or 12 hours a day?
> 
> Turn your head and open your mouth if you want to talk.


By the same token, he could use his right hand and some lube if he is horny.

If a couple is not living together in the beginning of the relationship and only have sex on date nights when they see each other, which could be 3 to 4 times a week, the HD could reason that they would have sex every nigh they see each other. The HD could then think, " When we live together we would be having sex every day because we would be together every day". Not always the case. Through every day interaction the LDs real libido will show, and it would probably be 3 to 4 times a week the LD would desire sex. The HD wants more, and the LD would wonder why are they pushing for more.

Vega's post was on point, it shows how an HD could be negligent in other aspects of the relationship but they still want their sexual needs taken care of.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tech,
This is why - love of your partner - independent of what they do for you - is so critical. This type of love - makes it so much easier to sacrifice for your partner. And that expresses itself by (HD) being unphazed by a lesser sex life and (LD) making a sincere effort to work with your responsive desire. 





techmom said:


> By the same token, he could use his right hand and some lube if he is horny.
> 
> If a couple is not living together in the beginning of the relationship and only have sex on date nights when they see each other, which could be 3 to 4 times a week, the HD could reason that they would have sex every nigh they see each other. The HD could then think, " When we live together we would be having sex every day because we would be together every day". Not always the case. Through every day interaction the LDs real libido will show, and it would probably be 3 to 4 times a week the LD would desire sex. The HD wants more, and the LD would wonder why are they pushing for more.
> 
> Vega's post was on point, it shows how an HD could be negligent in other aspects of the relationship but they still want their sexual needs taken care of.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

techmom said:


> By the same token, he could use his right hand and some lube if he is horny.
> 
> If a couple is not living together in the beginning of the relationship and only have sex on date nights when they see each other, which could be 3 to 4 times a week, the HD could reason that they would have sex every nigh they see each other. The HD could then think, " When we live together we would be having sex every day because we would be together every day". Not always the case. Through every day interaction the LDs real libido will show, and it would probably be 3 to 4 times a week the LD would desire sex. The HD wants more, and the LD would wonder why are they pushing for more.
> 
> *Vega's post was on point, it shows how an HD could be negligent in other aspects of the relationship but they still want their sexual needs taken care of*.


Yes it was, on point. As is mine, and yours! The point being, there are two sides. Many things are different between dating and co-habitating, frought with opportunities to misunderstand each other.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

anonmd said:


> Yes it was, on point. As is mine, and yours! The point being, there are two sides. Many things are different between dating and co-habitating, frought with opportunities to misunderstand each other.


This is true, which is why some experts state that we should wait at least 3 years before you marry. This will ensure that the honeymoon period wears off so we can see who we are really marrying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Tech,
> This is why - love of your partner - independent of what they do for you - is so critical. This type of love - makes it so much easier to sacrifice for your partner. And that expresses itself by (HD) being unphazed by a lesser sex life and (LD) making a sincere effort to work with your responsive desire.


I like this post, this is how relationships should work. however, most of us enter relationships looking for someone to complete us, to validate us, and we bring baggage. This usually complicates matters.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Is there some sort of universal definition of what an HD and LD person is? I feel like in this thread (and others on the HD/LD topic) it seems like the HD and LD gets typically portrayed at the extremes (the HD wants sex multiple times per day without recourse, just as a selfish means to please themselves at the expense of their SO | The LD has little interest in sex, will only have on their terms, and will selfishly reject their SO without hesitation). Obviously if you are viewing an HD or LD at the extremes, it is going to yield a different point of view vs having a more moderate stance on what defines HD/LD.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> Basically, HE stops (or grossly reduces) meeting her needs OUTSIDE of the bedroom. But he still expects her to meet HIS needs, INSIDE of the bedroom.
> 
> Maybe you used to call her several times a day, and now she's lucky if she gets a phone call from you (to talk about something other each other) at lunch. Maybe you used to leave her little love notes...maybe you used to wake her up with kisses...maybe you used to sit with her on the sofa and hold her hand while watching t.v. Maybe you used to text her every evening (because you worked nights) and at the end of your shift, you would text her, "Have a wonderful night!"
> 
> ...


Yes. This behavior by a man is every bit as bad as a woman having lot of sex and then rarely having sex once the "honeymoon" phase is over. And every bit as willful.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

techmom said:


> This is true, which is why some experts state that we should wait at least 3 years before you marry. This will ensure that the honeymoon period wears off so we can see who we are really marrying.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The problem with this is that there isn't enough time.

Say you're ready to marry at 26 and begin looking for a suitable partner. You find him at 27. After two years, you realize he's not the one. Now you're 29 and it takes a year to locate the next candidate. Three years later, you realize he's not the one. Now you're 33 ....................


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> The problem with this is that there isn't enough time.
> 
> Say you're ready to marry at 26 and begin looking for a suitable partner. You find him at 27. After two years, you realize he's not the one. Now you're 29 and it takes a year to locate the next candidate. Three years later, you realize he's not the one. Now you're 33 ....................


Better to do that than hastily marry the wrong person. Wish I had of waited 3 yrs before marrying the first one.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> I can ask you the same question. How do you figure it's _willful_ "deception", Tommy?


I read your post as saying the LD was having *way* more sex at some early phase, knowing this was unsustainable and would "settle down to normal" after marriage. Note that my first post about "willful deception" explicitly acknowledges an initial hot/heavy period of new relationship sex, looking past that to the period where a couple has been dating for long enough to start talking about getting married, revealing his/her true self, plus a reasonable engagement period. That is when any "settling down to normal" should happen. Who wants to be putting on some big act, portraying a less-than-authentic version of yourself going into a marriage? That is textbook willful deception.




Vega said:


> First of all, MOST of the time the LD doesn't TELL the HD anything. They simply act.


Right, and this is why I used the term willful deception, because nothing was said beforehand.



Vega said:


> Second of all, what you described HAS happened to me, in every LTR I've had.
> 
> Too. Many. Times.
> 
> ...


I totally agree that if your man stopped doing (or drastically cut back on) things that were very important to you, and that you approached him with a few sincere and loving conversations about how you really missed that, clearly stating your need, asking him to please meet this need once again, *that he should lovingly do what you have asked*. What kind of spouse would say NO to such a totally reasonable request from the person they love most on planet earth? If my action (or inaction) were making my spouse unhappy, and it's stuff that is really important to her, stuff that I could actually do, *especially stuff that I had cheerfully done earlier in our relationship*, then you can be certain I would snap right back into doing that stuff! And I would be most apologetic for having dropped the ball, telling her I'm grateful for her communicating this to me in clear terms, instead of just letting resentment build and destroy the marriage.

I am glad you provided very specific examples (wake her up with kisses; sit next to her on sofa; texts/calls during the day) because this is the kind of actionable request that even an idiot like me could understand and would happily do. Conversely, if you had told me something abstract/generic like "I just need to feel connected" then my reptile brain would have absolutely no idea what you needed.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

techmom said:


> By the same token, he could use his right hand and some lube if he is horny.
> 
> If a couple is not living together in the beginning of the relationship and only have sex on date nights when they see each other, which could be 3 to 4 times a week, the HD could reason that they would have sex every nigh they see each other. The HD could then think, " When we live together we would be having sex every day because we would be together every day". Not always the case. Through every day interaction the LDs real libido will show, and it would probably be 3 to 4 times a week the LD would desire sex. The HD wants more, and the LD would wonder why are they pushing for more.
> 
> Vega's post was on point, it shows how an HD could be negligent in other aspects of the relationship but they still want their sexual needs taken care of.


Are you really seeing alot of threads where HD is complaining about sex only 3 to 4 times per week? Or where the HD is unwilling to work on the relationship outside the bedroom?

So while I agree with your statements, I feel you've cited some extraordinarily rare examples, and I wonder why you have chosen these to share?

Besides, I thought this thread wasn't about damaged marriages involving mutual neglection. I thought this was about supposedly happy marriages, where the LD has unilaterally "decided" that the HD should remain happy - despite infrequent sex - because all the non-sex parts of a marriage are just so overwhelmingly good?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Could you have done some investigation to find out, tommy? Why does it have to be spoon fed to you?

You are also sabotaging yourself with your attitude as illustrated by your use of the term, "willful deception." That is victim language. 

But you are not a victim! You have tools you can use to emotionally connect with your spouse and inspire her passion. But getting defensive and accusative is not one of them! 

You are not entitled to sex. No court in the land is going to force your wife to have sex with you. If you want it, you simply have to inspire it.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

jld said:


> Could you have done some investigation to find out, tommy? Why does it have to be spoon fed to you?
> 
> You are also sabotaging yourself with your attitude as illustrated by your use of the term, "willful deception." That is victim language.
> 
> ...



Yes, I most certainly did lots of "investigating" to ensure my spouse and I would be compatible for marriage. Especially in areas where I knew I have high priority (for me) needs. And my then-girlfriend-now-wife communicated pretty clearly, through her actions over a year of dating and another 18 months engagement, that a normal sexlife was important to both of us.

Not sure what you mean by "spoon feed me".

Correct, I'm not a victim. Sorry if my choice of terms offended you. Just mentally replace this with some other language that conveys the idea that a person who acts one way before marriage, knowing this will change later, is not an honest partner.

I am not entitled to sex. Not sure where/how you got this idea. On the other hand, I would not stay married (or faithful... her choice) to a spouse if she withdrew our intimacy, and was unwilling to work on the problem, compromise towards a solution.

Did you know I've "recovered" from a sexless marriage? I'm on the other side of this experience, it's been 8 years ago.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

tommyr said:


> Are you really seeing alot of threads where HD is complaining about sex only 3 to 4 times per week? Or where the HD is unwilling to work on the relationship outside the bedroom?
> 
> So while I agree with your statements, I feel you've cited some extraordinarily rare examples, and I wonder why you have chosen these to share?
> 
> Besides, I thought this thread wasn't about damaged marriages involving mutual neglection. I thought this was about supposedly happy marriages, where the LD has unilaterally "decided" that the HD should remain happy - despite infrequent sex - because all the non-sex parts of a marriage are just so overwhelmingly good?


I thought this thread was about asking whether sex was the bottom line, the be all and end all. Not sure why it's now all about marriages with mismatched frequency drives. :scratchhead:

But it sure sounds like the answer is a resounding yes at least for some people. If you can't tolerate any sort of change or disappointment or difference without accusing the one you supposedly love of lying and tricking you, or holding you hostage, it would seem sex really is the bottom line. 

If sex really is the be all and end all in your worldview, I would think it wise to communicate that to your partner clearly before getting married. Otherwise wouldn't it also be willful deception?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

wild jade said:


> I thought this thread was about asking whether sex was the bottom line, the be all and end all. Not sure why it's now all about marriages with mismatched frequency drives. :scratchhead:
> 
> But it sure sounds like the answer is a resounding yes at least for some people. If you can't tolerate any sort of change or disappointment or difference without accusing the one you supposedly love of lying and tricking you, or holding you hostage, it would seem sex really is the bottom line.
> 
> If sex really is the be all and end all in your worldview, I would think it wise to communicate that to your partner clearly before getting married. Otherwise wouldn't it also be willful deception?


IMO, in a romantic/sexual relationship, sex IS the bottom line. Many other things are important, but if sex is a problem, those other things lose much of their importance.

As for the HD communicating their expectations prior to marriage, it probably isn't necessary, nor would it be willful deception as their decision to marry includes their ongoing experience of sex with their partner. There is no expectation that it will change, nor would it change on their part, unless their partner changes it.

My wife and I both came from prior sexless marriages, where we were expecting our respective (HD) sex lives to continue in the same manner as before marriage. We were both subject to bait-and-switch. So, it was critical to us that we would both do everything possible to maintain our healthy and happy sex life. We discussed it, what we needed to sustain it (emotionally and physically) and figured out what we'd do if it changed for various reasons. We would either open the marriage even more, or we'd split up. Sex is our indicator of the health of our relationship - it's our canary in the coal mine. Yeah, it's the bottom line.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

tommyr said:


> Yes, I most certainly did lots of "investigating" to ensure my spouse and I would be compatible for marriage. Especially in areas where I knew I have high priority (for me) needs. And my then-girlfriend-now-wife communicated pretty clearly, through her actions over a year of dating and another 18 months engagement, that a normal sexlife was important to both of us.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "spoon feed me".


I was referencing what you had just said to Vega about wanting the woman to be direct in her requests. Yes, that makes things easier. But even if she is not, the man does not have to sit there passive. He can take initiative to find out her needs. 



> Correct, I'm not a victim. Sorry if my choice of terms offended you. Just mentally replace this with some other language that conveys the idea that a person who acts one way before marriage, knowing this will change later, is not an honest partner.


It is not about offending anyone. On a message board there are going to be all different opinions and it is wise not to take anything personally.

Our language reveals our feelings as well as our logical thoughts. Exploring those feelings can help us see how we could choose to see things differently, and thus feel better. 

In the case of "willful deception," there is, at least imo, implied resentment. The person feels betrayed. What he thought was true turned out not to be, or not forever. 

But seeing himself as betrayed, and nursing those feelings, is likely to push him deeper into resentment instead of resolution.



> *I am not entitled to sex.* Not sure where/how you got this idea. On the other hand, I would not stay married (or faithful... her choice) to a spouse if she withdrew our intimacy, and was unwilling to work on the problem, compromise towards a solution.
> 
> Did you know I've "recovered" from a sexless marriage? I'm on the other side of this experience, it's been 8 years ago.


You (and other men on this thread) may say this, but I am not sure I believe it. We may have to agree to disagree on this.

Could you give a short summary of your recovery? If you have already done so, could you please repost it?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

MbH, it sounds like you communicated with your wife very clearly both before and since marriage, and so always knew you were on the same page. I never expected my husband to decline so early or rapidly, so honestly did not think about or plan for this eventuality.

I think sex must not really be the bottom line for me, as I will stick with him through this. 

What I don't understand is why you want to give HDs a free pass on communicating their needs clearly. Everyone knows the honeymoon phase is starstruck and blind don't they? And what happens if HD marries another HD, and then declines themselves? People talk like HD is some kind of perma state that should be the bar against which all relationships are measured. But as I have discovered, this is absolutely not the case. Many HD decline with age, or for other reasons.

I'm also curious about what HD actually is. @Vega keeps asking how much, and still no one will define what it is --multiple times per day like you? Once a day? Multiple times a week? Where is the line?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

wild jade said:


> MbH, it sounds like you communicated with your wife very clearly both before and since marriage, and so always knew you were on the same page. I never expected my husband to decline so early or rapidly, so honestly did not think about or plan for this eventuality.
> 
> I think sex must not really be the bottom line for me, as I will stick with him through this.
> 
> ...


Most people have been in prior sexual relationships, and so will often - not always - know their sexual baseline. Most also know about higher drive in new relationships, and how that changes. Most HDs change a lot less - if at all - over time, unless it's decades, or from new medical problems. They know they won't change after marriage. Does the relatively LD person know they will change? Do they know they are with an HD person?

No, I don't give HDs a pass about communicating, but I do think it is usually obvious when someone is truly HD, and unless their partner is inexperienced, they can recognize this too and will know what to expect.

As for definitions, I think there are two approaches. One is relative drive - if you are significantly lower drive than your partner, you are LD. For example, someone who is twice a week with someone who is once a month - the latter is LD. Same with daily versus once a week, etc.

I tend to think in more defined terms. I'd say HD is someone who would like - and can do - sex daily or more often. ND (normal drive) is two to four times a week; people in this range can usually compromise with each other easily. LD is once a week or less.

We are both HD. When in good health, etc., twice a day is ideal, but as we've gotten older, seven to ten times a week works well. Occasionally, we'll do a bunch more (like yesterday!), but that's not sustainable or desirable all the time. We can even be content with every other day without problem, but less feels unpleasant unless there's a very good - and temporary - reason. We could contentedly pair with someone ND at the higher end of ND, for example. With anyone else, it would be a constant struggle to be happy, and not worth it.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tommyr said:


> Just mentally replace this with some other language that conveys the idea that a person who acts one way before marriage, *knowing this will change later*, is not an honest partner.


Tommy, this is not about one partner "knowing" that sex will probably "calm down" after the honeymoon phase. It's about the belief that BOTH of you will change/adjust to married life and that sex will probably 'adjust' along with it. 

My late husband and I used to go out to eat every week before we were married. It continued for about a year into the marriage. 

But life got in the way _as I expected_. I didn't expect the ritual to continue for the rest of our lives. Our lives changed. Kids, jobs, promotions, unemployment, moving, car accidents, etc. all had an impact on our dining habits. In our 3rd year of marriage, we still managed to go out to eat every so often (seemed to be the only time we actually got along!), but wasn't once a week. May have been once a month to once every 6 weeks. Both of us had 2 jobs at that point, too. 

Then, my father passed away. I was the administrator of the estate and I had LOT of work to do. 

Our dining out frequency actually _increased_ during that time, and we were either eating out or ordering in. Neither one of us had the time to cook, nor did we have the interest. 

Then my late husband was diagnosed with diabetes. He was put on a fairly strict diet. Hence, our dining out habits decreased again, as I was preparing more meals for him at home. 

I _expect_ things to change, Tommy, because I know that life isn't stagnant.

Can you just imagine being in your 50's, and coming down with ED? Am I supposed to get so pissed off at you (because much of ED is _psychological_) that I DIVORCE you because you haven't been able to get it up in a few months?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Occasionally, we'll do a bunch more (like yesterday!), *but that's not sustainable or desirable all the time.*


Interesting. 

Why not?


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

tommyr said:


> Are you really seeing alot of threads where HD is complaining about sex only 3 to 4 times per week? Or where the HD is unwilling to work on the relationship outside the bedroom?
> 
> So while I agree with your statements, I feel you've cited some extraordinarily rare examples, and I wonder why you have chosen these to share?
> 
> Besides, I thought this thread wasn't about damaged marriages involving mutual neglection. I thought this was about supposedly happy marriages, where the LD has unilaterally "decided" that the HD should remain happy - despite infrequent sex - because all the non-sex parts of a marriage are just so overwhelmingly good?


If I use an example of a couple who dated once a week, had sex at that frequency, then later married and the HD wanted to increase the frequency, it would be the same idea. The HD wants more.

Frequency is not the issue, the issue is knowing that you are pushing for more. 

I take offense at the term "willful deception", I feel it paints the LD in a very negative light as if they want to punish the HD. If you felt that way, the LD can feel the resentment in every initiation and every attempt at intimacy. Because once you start feeling this way you build a wall against true intimacy because you are complaining about lack of sex. This is why Vega states, is it the bottom line?

HDs who are posting are stating that sex is an important part of marriage, yet LDs know this. Our question is, how much sex? Many LDs increase sexual frequency to be accomodating only to be pushed for more and more. More variety, more of whatever the HD wants. We want to know, what is the limit? Each case is different, however in each of these marriages the LD wants to know at what point will the HD be satiated? This is what causes the stonewalling and pushback. Then to ask the question of, would you let the HD get it from somewhere else, lets us know that it is just a fun act you would rather have more of than to share intimacy with your spouse at the frequency they can enjoy.

So I would ask the HDs the question, if your LD partner stated that they were only comfortable with sex at x amount of times per week, and that they will desire to be intimate at those times, would you still desire someone else to fulfill the deficit? Would you think about it at those times between the days you have sex?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> Can you just imagine being in your 50's, and coming down with ED? Am I supposed to get so pissed off at you (because much of ED is psychological) that I DIVORCE you because you haven't been able to get it up in a few months?


I'd take that honesty any damn day before I went through the alternative.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> (because much of ED is _psychological_)


Just because much of ED is psychological (and I'm not sure it is, PA is psychological), doesn't mean it can be fixed via conscious thought.

I think it probably belongs in the category of "medical condition". 

Now. if he doesn't do anything to try and fix the condition or do anything else sexually to meet your needs then, yes, go ahead and divorce him.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Why not?


Enough is enough. It's that simple. Having sex 4 to 8 times in a day is rare, and doing that once or twice a year is plenty. Even a pair of HDs have limits, and we have many other interests and activities besides sex.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Most ED is actually physiological.

Erectile dysfunction usually has physical cause - SFGate

_Myth: Erectile dysfunction is mostly psychological.

Fact: Although the mind can play a role in men's erectile dysfunction, it's usually a function of another health condition in the body, according to Stanford urologist Dr. Michael Eisenberg, director of Stanford's male reproductive medicine and surgery.

Eisenberg says that 85-90 percent of erectile dysfunction can be linked to common conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking or obesity. Medications, such as those to treat blood pressure or psychiatric conditions like depression, can cause erectile dysfunction. It is also a common side effect for men receiving prostate cancer treatments.

Erectile dysfunction symptoms can also be an early warning sign of other medical troubles ahead.

"It can precede cardiovascular disease by three to four years," Eisenberg said. "I think most men probably do not realize that."_


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

techmom said:


> If I use an example of a couple who dated once a week, had sex at that frequency, then later married and the HD wanted to increase the frequency, it would be the same idea. The HD wants more.


This could be confusing to the HD as he might see this as having sex every day that they are together rather than sex once a week. A conversation about desired frequency before they married would be a good idea. If the couple had been living together prior to marriage and he was happy with sex once a week, it would be wrong of him to expect that to change post-marriage. 



techmom said:


> Frequency is not the issue, the issue is knowing that you are pushing for more.


Moving the goalposts is wrong. He should state ahead of time what frequency he is willing to compromise on and not push beyond that unless his SO is willing.



techmom said:


> I take offense at the term "willful deception", I feel it paints the LD in a very negative light as if they want to punish the HD. If you felt that way, the LD can feel the resentment in every initiation and every attempt at intimacy. Because once you start feeling this way you build a wall against true intimacy because you are complaining about lack of sex. This is why Vega states, is it the bottom line?


If there was willful deception, then the LD should feel bad about it. I agree that it is usually not willful, it just happens. But when it is pointed out that they aren't having sex at the established baseline level and that the HD is unhappy about it, the LD should be wiling to work on the issue. It seems to me that if she doesn't, she is either selfish or does not love her SO (if she did, I'd expect her to be concerned about his happiness). 



techmom said:


> HDs who are posting are stating that sex is an important part of marriage, yet LDs know this. Our question is, how much sex? Many LDs increase sexual frequency to be accomodating only to be pushed for more and more. More variety, more of whatever the HD wants. We want to know, what is the limit? Each case is different, however in each of these marriages the LD wants to know at what point will the HD be satiated?


That's a fair question. It is moving the goalposts. 

The above seems like evidence that the LD is, indeed, trying to work on the issue, which is to be commended.



techmom said:


> Then to ask the question of, would you let the HD get it from somewhere else, lets us know that it is just a fun act you would rather have more of than to share intimacy with your spouse at the frequency they can enjoy.


I don't know of any thread where a guy decided to cheat due to his sexless marriage and was supported by serious male posters on this site. I see it listed as one of the options along with "living with it" and "divorce", but it's usually then dismissed as a bad option.

Occasionally people like MEM ask the question "would a woman who refuse to have sex with their SO be ok if he outsourced the sex". But this is asked in a philosophical for the purpose of showing that sex actually is important to her or how unfair her position is, not as 
an actual recommendation. This is meant to apply to technically sexless marriages, not situations where the wife has sex three times a week and her husband wants it twicw a day.



techmom said:


> So I would ask the HDs the question, if your LD partner stated that they were only comfortable with sex at x amount of times per week, and that they will desire to be intimate at those times, would you still desire someone else to fulfill the deficit? Would you think about it at those times between the days you have sex?


If the number of times my LD partner was willing to have sex was acceptable (and since it's stated as X times per week, it probably would be in my case), then I would never desire someone else to fulfill the deficit.

In fact, as long as I remained married, I wouldn't desire someone else, regardless of the frequency. I might divorce her, but I wouldn't cheat on her.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Why not?


Is that a rhetorical question?

I'll assume ignorance since you have different equipment. After you've fired all the chambers it'll take a while to reload . 

You'd be single shot for the first 24 hours or so. If you were of a mind to push it the body will respond with a higher fill rate.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

anonmd said:


> Is that a rhetorical question?
> 
> I'll assume ignorance since you have different equipment. After you've fired all the chambers it'll take a while to reload .
> 
> You'd be single shot for the first 24 hours or so. If you were of a mind to push it the body will respond with a higher fill rate.


True for some but not for all. You'd call me a liar if I told you what I'm capable of, and more so if I told you what I did 20 years ago.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

techmom said:


> If I use an example of a couple who dated once a week, had sex at that frequency, then later married and the HD wanted to increase the frequency, it would be the same idea. The HD wants more.
> 
> Frequency is not the issue, the issue is knowing that you are pushing for more.
> 
> I take offense at the term "willful deception", I feel it paints the LD in a very negative light as if they want to punish the HD. If you felt that way, the LD can feel the resentment in every initiation and every attempt at intimacy. Because once you start feeling this way you build a wall against true intimacy because you are complaining about lack of sex. This is why Vega states, is it the bottom line?


Personal experience, we dated for a good amount of time, evidently not long enough. We would see each other 3 or 4 times a week, sex was involved essentially every time with a rare exception. 

I was that dope that thought marriage would only make things better:surprise:. Imagine my surprise when shortly post marriage, like a handful of weeks after moving in together, she started rejecting me several times a week and eventually said she could not handle every night. Oh well, I adjusted to that. But it was not long before not every night became 3 or 4 times a week being a distant memory. 

Now, on a non-sexual note. There was an activity we used to do together quite frequently as well, say a couple times a month. I was on a trip recently, without my wife. We were at a group dinner, 15 or so of us with 2 wives in attendance. I had one to my side and my close friends wife (known the friend >15 years, the wife is new so only a couple of years and say 5-10 interactions since we live hundreds of miles apart) sitting across from me. 

The subject of this activity came up and was discussed, in general the immediately surrounding group of hubby's and wives were not real positive, they do other things. So, after 5 or ten minutes of discussion I said to the friends wife sitting across from me, my wife and I used to do that all the time before we got married. 

Since we got married, she has never done it again. WIDE eyes from her, 'did you ask her?' " several times in the first year" 

"That is just WRONG!" said she. May have even used the term bait and switch. 

So the question I'd offer is why is that so easy to identify as an issue in a 5 or 10 minute conversation by a person of the opposite sex? The actual issue only holds slight importance for me, I can do that activity with others, and I can do it more competitively with other males, but it was important enough for me never to forget. I would have strongly preferred to continue doing it with her. 

I can't do sex with anyone else while married, yet it seems impossible for a female to believe a nearly simultaneous change in that behaviour just can't possibly be intentional?

I believe when a women of the age where the biological clock is ticking loudly is involved, beware. There is a more than slight chance that she will do things and say things, perhaps without perceiving it herself, to close the sale so to speak. :x


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

techmom said:


> So I would ask the HDs the question, if your LD partner stated that they were only comfortable with sex at x amount of times per week, and that they will desire to be intimate at those times, would you still desire someone else to fulfill the deficit? Would you think about it at those times between the days you have sex?


This is Major John to Ground Control...

If you're on the same time units you're probably ok. I mean, squabbling about 3 vs 4 times a WEEK is not too alarming.

The LD vs HD debacle begins when the time units change and one wants in times per week and the other in times per month or quarter or what not.

Also one rarely goes cold turkey, there's often a wind down period that could be lengthy all the way to the universal 1x a month constant.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

> I can't do sex with anyone else while married, yet it seems impossible for a female to believe a nearly simultaneous change in that behaviour just can't possibly be intentional?


Why is it impossible to believe that desire can wane after marriage unintentionally? Why would we do this intentionally?

This is what confuses me, why would a person refuse sex intentionally to cause conflict in a marriage? Can the HDs answer this, because there are a few posters who cling to this idea.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

techmom said:


> Why is it impossible to believe that desire can wane after marriage unintentionally? Why would we do this intentionally?
> 
> This is what confuses me, why would a person refuse sex intentionally to cause conflict in a marriage? Can the HDs answer this, because there are a few posters who cling to this idea.


I believe both. 

Of course it can and probably will wane somewhat over time measured in years and decades.

I answered the last part. The biological urge to lock in a life partner before your ovaries begin to shrivel, add in perhaps a previous failed engagement when the tick was not so loud = more sex pre-marriage than you can sustain after. 

Perhaps it helps to think of the bait as intentional and the switch less intentional


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Enough is enough. It's that simple. Having sex 4 to 8 times in a day is rare, and doing that once or twice a year is plenty. Even a pair of HDs have limits, and we have many other interests and activities besides sex.


Read the above quote again, only this time, let's read it as an LD or even an ND:



> Enough is enough. It's that simple. Having sex 4 (as an LD) to 8 (as an ND) times in a *WEEK* is rare, and doing that once or twice a year is plenty...* *I* have many other interests and activities besides sex*


Could you accept that a LD spouse ALSO has other interests and activities besides sex?


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

anonmd said:


> I believe both.
> 
> Of course it can and probably will wane somewhat over time measured in years and decades.
> 
> ...


Men do this as well, promises of emotional intimacy and romance to snag the lady, then it all drops after she commits. How many women hear, now that we are married why do we have to date each other? And, why can't you love me as I am?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Like, oh, facebook? 

I'm goading you, that is not nice. 4 times a week is not LD, lower than a sex fiend but not LD let alone ND.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Yes, that happens techmom. I have no problem at all believing that, can you believe what I am suggesting does happen with some, not all? Or, do you just like to argue...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> Could you accept that a LD spouse ALSO has other interests and activities besides sex?


Of course I can. But, if they are LD, they won't be my spouse. If they're too busy to enjoy sex, they're too busy to have me as a spouse.

HDs and LDs don't work to make happy couples, and shouldn't even bother trying, IMO. They're both going to be unhappy. My advice to anyone in this situation is to move on ASAP.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Why refuse? Not to cause conflict, to initiate change. Though it's not the best way to permanently change, it's easy and...



> You are not entitled to sex. No court in the land is going to force your wife to have sex with you. If you want it, you simply have to inspire it.


Good luck inspiring it when there are changes to be made. And...there are always ways a 'marriage'(husband) can improve. It's so tough to understand how anyone can talk about men being initiators and taking charge in and out of the bedroom. Or when a woman says her husband makes her feel safe. Though, I figure it has little to do with real safety and more to do with him thinking ahead and doing things for her that she might not think about, but will make her life easier or keep her from making any real big mistakes. Yes, I'd say those are acts of service. They make me feel like doing something for the person who does those things, too. I don't think they inspire love, though, just obligation and compromise. 

Could I be onto something about those feelings of obligation? I doubt it. 

Oh, and sorry to the member whom I quoted. I could have picked some other post, but your's was less work. Yeah, I was lazy. No ill intentions were meant for you.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

techmom said:


> Why is it impossible to believe that desire can wane after marriage unintentionally? Why would we do this intentionally?
> 
> This is what confuses me, why would a person refuse sex intentionally to cause conflict in a marriage? Can the HDs answer this, because there are a few posters who cling to this idea.


Of course desire can wane unintentionally. But, can you be honest about it if it does, and not make endless excuses instead of maybe working on it with your spouse? If there is an aversion to your spouse or sex with your spouse, honesty is best. Yes, they may decide to leave, but if you know you're no longer attracted, why lie and string them along to keep them around?

IMO, not being honest about your lack of desire is on the same level as people who cheat rather than leave.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

anonmd said:


> I believe both.
> 
> Of course it can and probably will wane somewhat over time measured in years and decades.
> 
> ...


This doesn't make sense to me anonmd. If the LD doesn't have children, yet wants children and marries because of some "biological urge" to have children, then why would the LD STOP having sex _after_ marriage and before having children? In that case, it would actually make more sense for the LD to have MORE sex after marriage since 'time is of the essence'. 

Also, what if the LD already has children from a previous marriage, yet the LD and the HD don't want any more children? Sex can still fall by the wayside in that scenario, too.

There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Of course desire can wane unintentionally. But, can you be honest about it if it does, and not make endless excuses instead of maybe working on it with your spouse? If there is an aversion to your spouse or sex with your spouse, honesty is best. Yes, they may decide to leave, but if you know you're no longer attracted, why lie and string them along to keep them around?
> 
> IMO, not being honest about your lack of desire is on the same level as people who cheat rather than leave.


The underlying reason for cheating is entitlement and selfishness. 

But the underlying reason for _not_ wanting sex every day may be FAR from entitlement and selfishness. 

And, perhaps the reason the LD doesn't want sex as often as the HD is because the LD believes that the HD is acting entitled and selfish...


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

techmom said:


> Why is it impossible to believe that desire can wane after marriage unintentionally? Why would we do this intentionally?
> 
> This is what confuses me, why would a person refuse sex intentionally to cause conflict in a marriage? Can the HDs answer this, because there are a few posters who cling to this idea.


:iagree:

I'm very well aware of that sentiment. It is why you won't find my old posts about me on this forum. When I posted about what was going on, my wife was attacked. I hated it, and would delete the thread after a little while. 

In hindsight I should have put a disclaimer on the first post and reported anyone who ignored it.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Vega said:


> This doesn't make sense to me anonmd. If the LD doesn't have children, yet wants children and marries because of some "biological urge" to have children, then why would the LD STOP having sex _after_ marriage and before having children? In that case, it would actually make more sense for the LD to have MORE sex after marriage since 'time is of the essence'.


People can be self defeating in this regard.

We had a poster here a couple years back who was in a LD/LD relationship. They were trying to have a kid but were unsuccessful. The latest research points to sex more than once a day is ideal for conception unless the man has very low sperm count. He sure didn't want to hear that.



Vega said:


> There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.


:iagree:

A-frekin-men! That's the problem with generalizations on both sides. We have multiple examples of people talking past each other on this thread.

I'm HD, but I get where you are coming from.


----------



## Mommywhatohnothing (May 30, 2016)

So which partner is more at fault when one becomes significantly overweight and stops caring about hygiene, and the other loses attraction and doesn't want sex because of the loss of attraction? But then the overweight partner gets tired of the lack of sex and leaves the relationship, and proceeds to get in the best shape of their life to find a new partner? Even though they ignored the previous partner's requests to lose the weight for them?

I mean, I get all this about sex as validation, but how can someone honestly expect to receive it when they let themselves go physically to the point where NO ONE (not just their spouse) would find them attractive or sexually desirable?

I don't think it matters how much you love someone - when they let themselves get up to 300+ pounds and shower once a week and don't bother with proper hygiene and always reek of beer and cigarettes - you don't even want to share a bed with them even to just sleep in, much less have sex.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

techmom said:


> Men do this as well, promises of emotional intimacy and romance to snag the lady, then *it all drops after she commits.* How many women hear, now that we are married why do we have to date each other? And, why can't you love me as I am?


Quite often, it drops RIGHT AFTER the first sexual encounter...

...which is one reason WHY women are being told to WAIT to have sex.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

techmom said:


> Why is it impossible to believe that desire can wane after marriage unintentionally? Why would we do this intentionally?
> 
> This is what confuses me, why would a person refuse sex intentionally to cause conflict in a marriage? Can the HDs answer this, because there are a few posters who cling to this idea.


I think you will need to get a LD to answer that question. Because most HDs are confused by it as well.

Especially when it is obvious that she enjoyed the sex.
Especially when she knows that the relationship is better when having sex every few days.
Especially when there are years of evidence showing that we don't get along great when we haven't been intimate for an extended amount of time.

Just makes no sense to cause this conflict. When sex is enjoyable and we have plenty of time for it. Why? Why? Why?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> This doesn't make sense to me anonmd. If the LD doesn't have children, yet wants children and marries because of some "biological urge" to have children, then why would the LD STOP having sex _after_ marriage and before having children? In that case, it would actually make more sense for the LD to have MORE sex after marriage since 'time is of the essence'.
> 
> Also, what if the LD already has children from a previous marriage, yet the LD and the HD don't want any more children? Sex can still fall by the wayside in that scenario, too.
> 
> There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.


She put the brakes on lightly for a year, not zero just less then before, and more than the eventually reached (years later) universal SLA of once a month. 

When she figured I'd stick around (surmising here) and decided it was time for a child she was amazingly amorous 4 nights in a row before I left on a short trip. That did the trick, resume the slow decline. Lot's of ups and downs, the year of breastfeeding was a sexual sh1tshow, but then longterm trend is always lower hifhs and lower lows.

No, not one size fits all.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Vega said:


> Quite often, it drops RIGHT AFTER the first sexual encounter...
> 
> ...which is one reason WHY women are being told to WAIT to have sex.


This makes no sense. If you believe your boyfriend will drop all emotional intimacy once you have sex, what would be the point of waiting for sex?

I would think that you would want to have sex right away to see if he quits being a good partner. Why wait to find out later?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

SadSamIAm said:


> I think you will need to get a LD to answer that question. Because most HDs are confused by it as well.
> 
> Especially when it is obvious that she enjoyed the sex.
> Especially when she knows that the relationship is better when having sex every few days.
> ...


Just because *she* has time available doesn't always mean that she wants to use that time for sex. As another poster wrote, there are other interests besides sex,( that are just as enjoyable if not MORE enjoyable than sex at the moment).


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

SadSamIAm said:


> This makes no sense. *If you believe your boyfriend will drop all emotional intimacy once you have sex, what would be the point of waiting for sex?
> *


Because she doesn't *KNOW* will drop the emotional intimacy. I mean, she's not a mind-reader! 



> I would think that you would want to have sex right away to see if he quits being a good partner. Why wait to find out later


?

Soooo, why have sex right away only to find out sooner that he's a jack*ss? In that case, you've give sex to a jack*ss and no woman I know wants to do that.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Vega said:


> Quite often, it drops RIGHT AFTER the first sexual encounter...
> 
> ...which is one reason WHY women are being told to WAIT to have sex.





Vega said:


> Just because *she* has time available doesn't always mean that she wants to use that time for sex. As another poster wrote, there are other interests besides sex, that are just as enjoyable if not MORE enjoyable than sex at the moment.


I didn't mention always. 

If you like sex and you know it is important to your spouse and you have time, you should make it a priority sometimes. For me, a couple of times a week would be fan fing tastic!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

SadSamIAm said:


> I didn't mention always.
> 
> If you like sex and you know it is important to your spouse and you have time, you should make it a priority *sometimes*. For me, a couple of times a week would be fan fing tastic!


And "sometimes" to _her_ isn't _enough_ for _you_...

Just because on a scale of 1-10 you make sex a "1" doesn't mean she does. It still may be a priority, but not a _consistent_ priority. 

You see sex as putting gas in your car.

She sees it as changing the oil.


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

wild jade said:


> What I don't understand is why you want to give HDs a free pass on communicating their needs clearly. Everyone knows the honeymoon phase is starstruck and blind don't they?


I think that during a year+ of dating, and several months engagement, our needs are being communicated quite clearly, by virtue of the fact we keep having regular, mutually enjoyable sex.

I assume your "honeymoon phase" refers to the early period of a new/exciting relationship, *before marriage*, not literally the period after marriage? Yes, everybody knows this early period is totally unrealistic. That's exactly why we don't get engaged until we've gotten well past this idealistic phase! It would be foolish to make a lifelong commitment while we are still blinded/starstruck, having never actually seen the "real" person we are to marry. 



wild jade said:


> I'm also curious about what HD actually is. @Vega keeps asking how much, and still no one will define what it is --multiple times per day like you? Once a day? Multiple times a week? Where is the line?


I've already answered this. "how much" is established in the post-starstruck, pre-marriage period, by virtue of a sexual baseline. The same is true for all important relationship needs. Obviously, this varies for each couple. So you can answer your own question: how much sex were you having right before he proposed?


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> And "sometimes" to _her_ isn't _enough_ for _you_...
> 
> Just because on a scale of 1-10 you make sex a "1" doesn't mean she does. It still may be a priority, but not a _consistent_ priority.
> 
> ...


See, this is exactly the issue. Before marriage, she was able/willing to make this a much higher priority. A drop in priority like this demonstrates a very unloving partner. Why then should I prioritize any of *her* needs? What makes sex different from say "talking about her day"?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> The underlying reason for cheating is entitlement and selfishness.
> 
> But the underlying reason for _not_ wanting sex every day may be FAR from entitlement and selfishness.
> 
> And, perhaps the reason the LD doesn't want sex as often as the HD is because the LD believes that the HD is acting entitled and selfish...


If the LD thinks the HD is acting entitled and selfish, then address the issue or leave. Passive aggressive behavior won't help, and will only worsen the situation.

Again, be honest. If you're not being honest, you're lying and selfish. The HDs may be selfish if their needs aren't being met, but they sure aren't lying about what they want and need.

The underlying reason an LD may not be forthright about their issues and work on them is also entitlement and selfishness. A little selfishness is healthy in order to get your needs met - as long as you also care about your partner's needs.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tommyr said:


> See, this is exactly the issue. Before marriage, she was able/willing to make this a much higher priority. A drop in priority like this demonstrates a very unloving partner. Why then should I prioritize any of *her* needs? What makes sex different from say "talking about her day"?


See, you're looking at her as being "unloving". Meanwhile, there could be a valid reason for the drop. But you're not willing to see or accept this. 

In your mind, there IS no valid reason, except for maybe a medical issue. 

How much has HER life changed after marriage? How much has YOUR life changed after marriage? I'm willing to bet that if we asked your wife how her life has changed, she could probably give us reasons that you wouldn't have even noticed. 

Take cooking, for example. Before I got married, my mom cooked for the family. I cooked once in a while, but not all the time. 

The day I got married, I started cooking for myself and my husband. Overnight, my life changed.

But before my ex husband married me, his mother cooked for the family. And the day he married me, HE STILL HAD SOMEONE TO COOK FOR HIM. So, in that regard, HIS life did NOT change. 

I also did the dishes after dinner when I got married. Once again, my life changed. 

But again, when he married me, he did NOT do the dishes. So his life did NOT change. 

So, instead of spending time having sex like we did before we married, now I'm spending time cooking and doing the dishes. 

Add working on top of that. Add childcare on top of that, if you have children. And car maintenance. And paying bills. And taking the kids to the doctor or spending time entertaining them. 

There isn't a whole lot of time left for sex. Oh, I'm sure people will say something like, "But surely she can find time to give her husband a HJ or a BJ". Sure, she can find the time for that. But she would rather have ONE day a week of 2 hours of quality sex than 4 days a week of a "quickie" here and there, a 'fast' bj and PIV sex that lasts all of 8 minutes. 

Another possibility...

I LOVE sushi. I went through a sushi "phase" that lasted several years. I ate it as often as I could. But then one day, I just didn't want to eat sushi. I didn't stop liking it, but I ate so much of it that I got tired of it. I still eat it and love it to death. But not as a steady diet. There are other delicious foods to eat besides sushi.

Perhaps it's the same thing with your wife. Perhaps she LOVED sex initially, but you guys were having so much of it that she eventually got tired of it. There are other interests besides sex.



> What makes sex different from say "talking about her day"


She doesn't have to take her clothes off to talk about her day. She doesn't have to put her clothes back on after talking about her day. She doesn't need a penis inside of her to talk about her day!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

If you fall out of love with sushi, give it up. If you fall out of love in your marriage, give it up. Simple.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> If you fall out of love with sushi, give it up. If you fall out of love in your marriage, give it up. Simple.


But I didn't fall out of love with sushi. I just know that there are other things to eat besides sushi!

I think the comparison is more like, if I fall out of love with sushi, that doesn't mean that I should give up FOOD or give up EATING.

Just because you're not having sex as often with your spouse doesn't mean you've fallen out of love with your _spouse_. 

After I had my children, I couldn't have sex for 2 months. That doesn't mean I didn't love my husband!


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

Vega said:


> See, you're looking at her as being "unloving". Meanwhile, there could be a valid reason for the drop. But you're not willing to see or accept this.
> 
> In your mind, there IS no valid reason, except for maybe a medical issue.


Right. Help me out though, what is a valid reason?



Vega said:


> How much has HER life changed after marriage? How much has YOUR life changed after marriage? I'm willing to bet that if we asked your wife how her life has changed, she could probably give us reasons that you wouldn't have even noticed.
> 
> Take cooking, for example. Before I got married, my mom cooked for the family. I cooked once in a while, but not all the time.
> 
> ...


So your valid reason to deprioritize sex is that you are now busy doing other stuff. I have a couple things to say about that:
1) For every new thing that you are doing for your spouse, is he not also picking up some stuff that you no longer have to do yourself? If not, why not?
3) I suspect the HD would also have alot of creative ideas for freeing up enough time to have a regular sex life. Like redistributing some of the work; or just not doing certain things; or outsourcing chores/errands/cooking/cleaning/etc.



Vega said:


> Another possibility...
> I LOVE sushi. I went through a sushi "phase" that lasted several years. I ate it as often as I could. But then one day, I just didn't want to eat sushi. I didn't stop liking it, but I ate so much of it that I got tired of it. I still eat it and love it to death. But not as a steady diet. There are other delicious foods to eat besides sushi.
> 
> Perhaps it's the same thing with your wife. Perhaps she LOVED sex initially, but you guys were having so much of it that she eventually got tired of it. There are other interests besides sex.
> ...


All of the valid reasons you just gave up above (too tired; busy with other things; eventually got tired of it; other interest) can be equally applied to your #1 marital need also, whatever that might be. Right? Sorry dear, stop pestering me for more talk about your day. I'm too tired. Too busy. Not interested.

Do you honestly not these as equal?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

techmom said:


> Men do this as well, promises of emotional intimacy and romance to snag the lady, then it all drops after she commits. How many women hear, now that we are married why do we have to date each other? And, why can't you love me as I am?


Yes, I'm sure some men do this. It as wrong for them as it is for women who suddenly cut sexual frequency once the guy is "locked in".

So, is it okay for both men and women to do this? The women can just have sex once a month and the guy can drink beer and watch sports in his underwear instead of "dating" his wife?

Or are both wrong?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> And "sometimes" to _her_ isn't _enough_ for _you_...
> 
> Just because on a scale of 1-10 you make sex a "1" doesn't mean she does. It still may be a priority, but not a _consistent_ priority.
> 
> ...


But if she had sex with her husband twice a week, her marriage would be happy.

If she has sex with him once a month, the marriage would be unhappy.

What other activities are so important to her that they are more important than having a happy marriage?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I know of one case where the LD switched to ONLY having sex to get pregnant. At carefully defined times once a month, and only sexual activity that would lead to pregnancy.

Not saying its at all common, but there are all sorts of extrememes out there.



Vega said:


> This doesn't make sense to me anonmd. If the LD doesn't have children, yet wants children and marries because of some "biological urge" to have children, then why would the LD STOP having sex _after_ marriage and before having children? In that case, it would actually make more sense for the LD to have MORE sex after marriage since 'time is of the essence'.
> 
> Also, what if the LD already has children from a previous marriage, yet the LD and the HD don't want any more children? Sex can still fall by the wayside in that scenario, too.
> 
> There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

tommyr said:


> Right. Help me out though, what is a valid reason?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it possible that you've _been_ neglecting her number one marital need and don't even know it?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

These discussions are so frustrating because everyone is talking about different situations. If only we could have a HD and LD in the SAME RELATIONSHIP talk.

Both the LDs and HDs here have had unreasonable partners, but those partners are not here.

Does anyone think mutual passionate sex 2-3X / week if you have a loving caring partner, and both of you are healthy is unreasonable? This assumes that your partner hasn't changed significantly other than normal ageing since you fell in love with them and married them?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> Yes, I'm sure some men do this. It as wrong for them as it is for women who suddenly cut sexual frequency once the guy is "locked in".
> 
> So, is it okay for both men and women to do this? The women can just have sex once a month and the guy can drink beer and watch sports in his underwear instead of "dating" his wife?
> 
> Or are both wrong?


They're both wrong, but I'll tell ya....you say that SOME men do this, and my experiences with men have been that ALL of them did this with me to SOME degree.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Vega - some, but not all. You have been very unlucky with your partners.

There are men who still try to romance their wives after decades of marriage. There are women who are still passionately attracted to their husbands after decades.

I think that there is a feedback at work. If both work to keep romance alive it works. If one starts to get lazy about love, then it is difficult for the other to keep going



Vega said:


> They're both wrong, but I'll tell ya....you say that SOME men do this, and my experiences with men have been that ALL of them did this with me to SOME degree.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> But if she had sex with her husband twice a week, her marriage would be happy.
> 
> If she has sex with him once a month, the marriage would be unhappy.
> 
> What other activities are so important to her that they are more important than having a happy marriage?


How do you figure that the *marriage*would be happy if she had sex with her husband twice a week IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE SEX TWICE A WEEK? The marriage would be UNhappy then as well. 



> What other activities are so important to her that they are more important than having a happy marriage


See, now you're making it sound like sex is the ONLY important activity in a happy marriage. In order for a marriage to be happy, both _individuals_ have to be happy. 

And, we're right back to square ONE...:frown2:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> Vega - some, but not all. You have been very unlucky with your partners.


That's just it. I don't think I've been so "unlucky". I think that there are so many men (and women) out there who are like my ex's and late husband that they're hard to avoid! 

I've browsed a few dating sites just to see what women are talking about when they talk about some of the profiles of some of the men on the site. One night I did a little experiment. I looked at the profiles of 100 men...

...and NONE of them even came close to impressing me. In fact, some were downright disgusting. About half of them were so obviously FULL OF THEMSELVES, that it turned my stomach. You could actually *feel* some of their bitterness from having been "burned" by ONE woman back in the mid '90's. Most were terribly immature. Some said that they were looking for a 'serious relationship', but as you read their profile, it became obvious that they wanted nothing more than sex...



> There are men who still try to romance their wives after decades of marriage. There are women who are still passionately attracted to their husbands after decades.
> 
> I think that there is a feedback at work. If both work to keep romance alive it works. If one starts to get lazy about love, then it is difficult for the other to keep going.


I understand this and I would love nothing more than for us to be passionately attracted to each other after a long time. 

But even if we were, I still don't want sex to be the main focus of my relationship.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I wonder if there is a selection effect on dating sites. Maybe the nicer people tend to find partners in the real world?

I don't know, I'm from before "sites" of any sort.



Vega said:


> That's just it. I don't think I've been so "unlucky". I think that there are so many men (and women) out there who are like my ex's and late husband that they're hard to avoid!
> 
> I've browsed a few dating sites just to see what women are talking about when they talk about some of the profiles of some of the men on the site. One night I did a little experiment. I looked at the profiles of 100 men...
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> I wonder if there is a selection effect on dating sites. Maybe the nicer people tend to find partners in the real world?
> 
> I don't know, I'm from before "sites" of any sort.


Ha! I didn't go through any dating sites to meet any of my partners. They were all met in the 'real world'. I'm telling ya, it's NUTZ out there! 

And yes, for most of them, it seems that their bottom line *IS* to get laid. 

But that's o.k. Either I'm going to remain single (and happy!) until I die or I'll eventually meet someone who thinks a lot like me. In either case, I refuse to 'settle', ever again.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> Does anyone think mutual passionate sex 2-3X / week if you have a loving caring partner, and both of you are healthy is unreasonable?


I don't want to be pidgeonholed into a certain amount of sex per week or per month or per ANYTHING. 

But I wouldn't mind the overall frequency to *average* 2-3 times a week. 

Week 1- sex 2 times
Week 2- sex 0 times
Week 3- sex 4 times
Week 4- sex 1 time 
Week 5- sex 1 time
Week 6- sex 5 times (2 times in one day) 
Week 7- sex 2 times
Week 8- sex 0 times
Week 9- sex 3 times 
Week 10-sex 5 times

That 'schedule' may be erratic. But the _average_ is a little over 2 times a week. 

Maybe the reason is because of the kids or because she's in night school and has to study for exams or he has to work late because of a special project going on at work. 

The point is, that if they don't have sex at all, they don't FREAK OUT if it's been a few days or even a week. Even 2 or 3 weeks! 

And he doesn't nag her or hint or constantly talk about it or pout or sulk or badger her.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Yes, I'm talking about an average over a couple of months. There are always going to be situations where it makes sense to have sex more or less often for a little while. The week of a deadline at work could easily result in no sex, while a week on a romantic get-away would likely result in more than average.

I am very curious if anyone thinks this sort of range, assuming everything else is fine, is reasonable / desirable.

Sometimes I think the LDs and HDs here don't realize that they mostly agree...




Vega said:


> I don't want to be pidgeonholed into a certain amount of sex per week or per month or per ANYTHING.
> 
> But I wouldn't mind the overall frequency to *average* 2-3 times a week.
> 
> ...


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

techmom said:


> Men do this as well, promises of emotional intimacy and romance to snag the lady, then it all drops after she commits. How many women hear, now that we are married why do we have to date each other? And, why can't you love me as I am?


Just the dumbass men do that. Nobody should take their spouse for granted. They may end up paying dearly for doing so.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> I tend to think in more defined terms. I'd say HD is someone who would like - and can do - sex daily or more often. ND (normal drive) is two to four times a week; people in this range can usually compromise with each other easily. LD is once a week or less.


ND as an acronym can be confusing. ND can also be used for No Drive.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Vega said:


> T
> Can you just imagine being in your 50's, and coming down with ED? Am I supposed to get so pissed off at you (because much of ED is _psychological_) that I DIVORCE you because you haven't been able to get it up in a few months?


It depends on what the spouse is doing in relation to the ED.

On one extreme you could have a guy who won't visit his doctor (which is a bad idea because ED is usually a symptom of other bad things). He won't try anything to help. Further, because he can't perform intercourse in the usual fashion he ends all sexual intimacy.

On the other extreme is a guy who wants to address it. He visits a doctor, and makes the lifestyle changes needed. Further, he makes sure his wife is satisfied regardless of the ED. Particularly since most women are completely satisfied without PIV.

A woman dumping the first guy gets my sympathy. One dumping the second is contemptible. Of course real life is full of shades of gray so reality is somewhere in between.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> I am very curious if anyone thinks this sort of range, assuming everything else is fine, is reasonable / desirable.


Reasonable, yes. Desirable? Doesn't matter. Compromise is more important. No one gets everything they want exactly as they want it.



Just curious about the statements @Vega posted about all men. Do you think this is normal, if not desirable, to borrow a phrase? 

Also, I keep seeing that you want something different and are not satisfied with any men you've dated. Why are you dating them? Are you tricked so easily or are you just lonely and willing to accept less than...?

Vega, the common denominator in these experiences is you. Is there something going on with you that doesn't allow you to see any good in any man? Would you rather date women or do you think they'd end up sitting on the couch having a beer? See, I do. 

I think it has been something you are doing, but I'm not sure what that is yet. I hope you find out because I have a suspicion some man will find a really great partner in you, and vice versa.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> But if she had sex with her husband twice a week, her marriage would be happy.
> 
> If she has sex with him once a month, the marriage would be unhappy.
> 
> What other activities are so important to her that they are more important than having a happy marriage?


I don't understand why so many people are assuming that every he is HD wanting it multiple times a day and every she is LD and doesn't want any at all. :scratchhead: There are lots and lots of he's who aren't all that sexual and lots and lots of she's who are. So do your best to pick someone compatible, and you don't have to have to argue about who owes who what.

And if you make a mistake or life throws you a curve ball, you either work on it or GTFO.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> Ha! I didn't go through any dating sites to meet any of my partners. They were all met in the 'real world'. I'm telling ya, it's NUTZ out there!
> 
> And yes, for most of them, it seems that their bottom line *IS* to get laid.
> 
> *But that's o.k. Either I'm going to remain single (and happy!) until I die or I'll eventually meet someone who thinks a lot like me. In either case, I refuse to 'settle', ever again.*


The bolded is key. Marriage isn't the bottom line either. Or the be all to end all. More important to just live a good life, making the most of what you've got.

I always enjoyed being single. You get to do whatever you want without having to worry about anyone else's feelings or plans. 

Married is nice too, but only if you can find someone who is also a good companion. I wouldn't think sex alone would be enough for the longer term. Even spectacularly good sex isn't worth putting up with someone who is a **** in other ways. Maybe just visit every now and again. LOL.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

wild jade said:


> The bolded is key. Marriage isn't the bottom line either. Or the be all to end all. More important to just live a good life, making the most of what you've got.
> 
> I always enjoyed being single. * You get to do whatever you want without having to worry about anyone else's feelings or plans.
> 
> Married is nice too, but only if you can find someone who is also a good companion.* I wouldn't think sex alone would be enough for the longer term. Even spectacularly good sex isn't worth putting up with someone who is a **** in other ways. Maybe just visit every now and again. LOL.


Q, and Bolded, FT.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> I don't want to be pidgeonholed into a certain amount of sex per week or per month or per ANYTHING.
> 
> But I wouldn't mind the overall frequency to *average* 2-3 times a week.
> 
> ...


Your suggested schedule should be tolerable to a male 30's - 40's with a normal drive (I mistook ND for NO drive in one of my previous responses to you LOL!). Notice I said Tolerable not, good or everything is great. 

The problem is that there is an actual biological urge that happens far more than once a week and varies from guy to guy. The zero's are a problem but should be understood from time to time. 2 or 3 zero's in a row is a genuine issue, it just is. Sorry! It is also very easy to drop from tolerable to not tolerable, you drop the 3's, 4's, and 5's for a couple months and you are in to a simmering problem. If it comes back after a few months all fine and dandy but that's not how it normally works. 

@ 50+ I'd be quite pleased if my menopausal wife ever strung together more than once a week in something describable as recent memory


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> I don't want to be pidgeonholed into a certain amount of sex per week or per month or per ANYTHING.
> 
> But I wouldn't mind the overall frequency to *average* 2-3 times a week.
> 
> ...


Honestly this schedule is more in line with how we are (My W and I, not Vega and I lol). Figure we will have a 0 one week every month when my W has her period. Aside from that, right now between work and young kids at home, $hit comes up frequently that craps out our schedule (combined with the fact I am up before 4am every morning and don't get home from work until 7pm). Our focus now is simply to a) always take advantage when the schedule allows us (in the past this wasn't always the case, we would say maybe tomorrow, stuff would come up, and then all of a sudden 2 weeks have gone by) and b) stop dry spells in their tracks, even if it means staying up later at night, waking my W up in the morning before I leave for work, etc...

I personally don't like the idea of saying we have to have sex a set # of days per week minimum b/c to me it now makes sex feel more like a chore. If things are going well, it should just happen naturally with minimal effort (only having to put more effort to when our schedule fights back!).


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

The bottom line is that some couples simply aren't compatible sexually, and never will be. Psychology, upbringing, past trauma, prior experience aside, there is apparently a strong genetic component to libido, and gene variants determine whether you are more LD or HD. I don't know if the study has been replicated or enlarged, as I have limited search ability at this location, but it does support my longstanding belief that genetics are an important factor in libido.

Study: Sexual Desire is in Your Genes


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
Your post - isn't about sex - not really. 

It's entirely about control. And absolute control at that. 

And there is no 'us' flavor to it. It's solely a 'me' thing. Not surprising given your negative partner history. But this mindset - brought into a future relationship - will be you acting the same selfish way - that you disliked so much with your previous partners. 





Vega said:


> I don't want to be pidgeonholed into a certain amount of sex per week or per month or per ANYTHING.
> 
> But I wouldn't mind the overall frequency to *average* 2-3 times a week.
> 
> ...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Vega,
> Your post - isn't about sex - not really.
> 
> It's entirely about control. And absolute control at that.
> ...


She is protecting herself, MEM. Entirely appropriate.

The right man for her will see through her hurt and nurture her spirit.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Vega said:


> I don't want to be pidgeonholed into a certain amount of sex per week or per month or per ANYTHING.
> 
> But I wouldn't mind the overall frequency to *average* 2-3 times a week.
> 
> ...


This is what YOU want. 

Now if you are willing to add in a couple of times because of what your spouse wants, then you would be a pretty good wife.

The problem I have with your 'nag her or hint or constantly talk about it or pout or sulk or badger her' comment is that this kills romance. When I used to rub my wife's shoulders while watching TV, it often lead to sex but was viewed as being kind and romantic. Now is is viewed as hinting at sex or badgering.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

SadSamIAm said:


> This is what YOU want.
> 
> Now if you are willing to add in a couple of times because of what your spouse wants, then you would be a pretty good wife.
> 
> The problem I have with your 'nag her or hint or constantly talk about it or pout or sulk or badger her' comment is that this kills romance. When I used to rub my wife's shoulders while watching TV, it often lead to sex but was viewed as being kind and romantic. Now is is viewed as hinting at sex or badgering.


Well, is it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Maybe I misinterpreted @Vega post based on some of the responses, but I took it more to mean that you could still have a fairly active sex life without having to draw the line in the sand about having to have # of sex every week without fail.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

jld said:


> Well, is it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It is both. Always has been. Love rubbing my wife's shoulders. I like it when she tells me how I am hitting the right spots. 

It also feels great to be close to her. Often makes me want to have sex with her.

I view it as being loving and romantic


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



jld said:


> Well, is it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


By whose definition?

This weekend J2 worked hard doing housework and was sore all over. She would not stoop low enough to ask me for a massage, not that I care about it at this point. 

A night of suffering or two is preferable to a nice massage (I'm pretty good at it) but hey, that's her choice. No badgering of any kind.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

jld said:


> Well, is it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If you choose (or just are) to be the one who is responsive rather than the initiator then be responsive a reasonable amount of the time. Don't get resentful when he tests the waters if you don't provide any information otherwise.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> How do you figure that the *marriage*would be happy if she had sex with her husband twice a week IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE SEX TWICE A WEEK? The marriage would be UNhappy then as well.


If SHE only has a spontaneous need to have sex once a month but has responsive desire which allows her to have sex twice a week and enjoy it, then I don't see why having sex twice a week so that she has a happy marriage wouldn't be a good choice *for her happiness*.

If, on the other hand, she is repulsed by sex more than once a month, something is terribly wrong with the marriage and they should consider divorce. 



Vega said:


> See, now you're making it sound like sex is the ONLY important activity in a happy marriage. In order for a marriage to be happy, both _individuals_ have to be happy.
> 
> And, we're right back to square ONE...:frown2:


If having sex at one frequency means a happy marriage and having sex at another frequency means an unhappy marriage, then for *this marriage*, sex is the most important activity when it comes to having a happy marriage.

The same situation could pertain in a marriage where both are happy with the sexual frequency but the wife is unhappy because her spouse is rarely willing to "talk about her day". In this case, "talking about her day" would be the the most important activity in a happy marriage. If her husband really doesn't enjoy talking about her day, should he try to do it anyway for the sake of the marriage? Or should he just ignore her needs, drink beer and watch sports in his underwear because that's what makes *him* happy?


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> If SHE only has a spontaneous need to have sex once a month but has responsive desire which allows her to have sex twice a week and enjoy it, then I don't see why having sex twice a week so that she has a happy marriage wouldn't be a good choice *for her happiness*.
> 
> If, on the other hand, she is repulsed by sex more than once a month, something is terribly wrong with the marriage and they should consider divorce.
> 
> ...


The problem is that some women don't see the needs as being equal. To her, talking to each other is a given. She shouldn't need to ask you to talk to her. You should just do it.

But you wanting sex is just you being selfish.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Maybe I misinterpreted @Vega post based on some of the responses, but I took it more to mean that you could still have a fairly active sex life without having to draw the line in the sand about having to have # of sex every week without fail.


O.M.G. 

The SECOND time in less than a week that we see eye-to-eye!

I'm....I'm....speechless! :surprise:

Thanks. I think you're finally starting to 'get me'...


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

notmyrealname4 said:


> What does chemical attraction mean?
> 
> Is it different than physical attraction?
> 
> I'm being serious. Please be explicit, if you don't mind.


I'll probably muck this up, but here goes.

A lot of people would define physical attraction as finding the other party visually appealing. Which is good, but it's not the same as being chemically, physically, attracted to that person.

When one is chemically, physically, attracted to a person, there is a solely physical response to the presence, sight of, touch, and sometimes even thought of that person. This physical, chemical, reaction happens regardless of how visually or even socially appealing you find the other party. I have been very physically, chemically, attracted to men who were not my visual type or my personality type, but the purely physical reaction was undeniable.

The physical reaction is instinctive, primal, it's not tied to emotion or to anything other than the body.

When I first met DH, for example, I instinctively WANTED him. His physical presence, despite the fact that I had just seen him for the first time in my life and knew nothing about him, caused my nipples to tighten, my girly bits to tingle and moisten, my skin to want to be touched, by him, right then. I felt drawn to him, the desire to be physical with him was nearly overwhelming. His scent, his texture, his breath...all made me want to do naughty things right then and there.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> O.M.G.
> 
> The SECOND time in less than a week that we see eye-to-eye!
> 
> ...


Not gonna lie, my hands were shaking uncontrollably as I was posting that :grin2:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

SadSamIAm said:


> The problem is that some women don't see the needs as being equal. To her, talking to each other is a given. She shouldn't need to ask you to talk to her. You should just do it.
> 
> *But you wanting sex is just you being selfish*.


If that's the way you think SadSam, then you REALLY missed the mark. 

For some, sex is an out-of-body, completely spiritual experience that involves a third party: God. 

And when *they* have sex, they are seeing God as the overseer of their "oneness". They don't just become "one flesh", they REALLY become "one flesh". 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are those who just f*ck. After all, f*cking is "biological"...right?

Then you have those who are in-between. 

Where are *you* on that spectrum?

You'd be surprised how FEW men know that talking is essential to most women. Most women I know do NOT want to see a physically attractive man, and just drop down on the floor--no matter who is watching---and "do it". They want to get to know you at least on SOME level _before_ "doing it". 

But when sex starts to wane, these same men think the "problem" is SEX, when the problem may be something completely different. 

But most men don't even want to SEE that the problem MAY be them....


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Vega said:


> If that's the way you think SadSam, then you REALLY missed the mark.
> 
> For some, sex is an out-of-body, completely spiritual experience that involves a third party: God.
> 
> ...


You do understand that this also works in reverse? 

When men aren't communicating it is sometimes because they feel distant and not loved due to being rejected.

But most women don't even want to SEE that the problem MAY be them...


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

SadSamIAm said:


> You do understand that this also works in reverse?
> 
> When men aren't communicating it is sometimes because they feel distant and not loved due to being rejected.
> 
> But most women don't even want to SEE that the problem MAY be them...


This is very true. 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

anonmd said:


> Yes, that happens techmom. I have no problem at all believing that, can you believe what I am suggesting does happen with some, not all? Or, do you just like to argue...


What the heck would I know about that, I married as a 20 year old virgin, no deceiving on my part. As a matter of fact, most of my peers did the same thing or similar. No one I knew or know of tried to trap a husband by using sex. It may be rare.

I don't like to argue, I like to make my point0

Just like posters make their posts about the evil, conniving, selfish LDs.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

techmom said:


> What the heck would I know about that, I married as a 20 year old virgin, no deceiving on my part. As a matter of fact, most of my peers did the same thing or similar. No one I knew or know of tried to trap a husband by using sex. It may be rare.
> 
> I don't like to argue, I like to make my point0
> 
> Just like posters make their posts about the evil, conniving, selfish LDs.


None of your peers sounds fairly self selecting to me... sex-as-trap is not as uncommon as you think.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

uhtred said:


> Yes, I'm talking about an average over a couple of months. There are always going to be situations where it makes sense to have sex more or less often for a little while. The week of a deadline at work could easily result in no sex, while a week on a romantic get-away would likely result in more than average.
> 
> I am very curious if anyone thinks this sort of range, assuming everything else is fine, is reasonable / desirable.
> 
> Sometimes I think the LDs and HDs here don't realize that they mostly agree...


For me, as an HD, that schedule wouldn't make me happy, but I could cope with it if A) the sex was _amazing_...not good, not great.. amazing... when we did have it and B) it were either that or divorce DH, who I am very much in love with.

I'm ok going 4-7 days if one of us is ill or away, but longer than that and I start to not only get grumpy, but I start to shut down and feel distant. Cuddling and multiple time a day interactions including kissing and touching helps stave off the distance for a bit, but not forever.

When DH was working over the road, we'd not see each other for anywhere from 3 days up to 14 days at a time and he would only be home for 1-3 days before heading back out. It was rough. Really rough. I had to get through by reminding myself that the dry spell would end when he got home. I don't think I could have done it if there was no clear end in sight. I knew I'd only have to go X more days before he'd be home and I knew he was only working the job until he could find something local, so the dry spells wouldn't be a permanent thing.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@MJJEAN travel brings in an interesting dynamic. For several years I traveled for work and was away M-F for about 6-7 years. W and I were working like dogs so we were busy, stressed, but in a way we loved the intensity and were both doing very well in our careers.

We talked several times a day and the distance made us more like kids dating again. When I'd arrive home we'd jump into bed.

So, though I watched a LOT of videos and visited strip clubs (always told W everything and it was never an issue of me straying - just HD needs followed by "alone time" at the hotel), it wasn't really too much of a problem. We were completely close emotionally, and both working for our family income, and completely in lock step that the sacrifices were equal and appropriate for us as a couple (she worked like a dog too).

So the whole sex thing isn't a static need IMO and if a couple can work on it together I think there can be a lot of flexibility and still a lot of marital satisfaction.

W has responsive desire BTW and hasn't really ever initiated though I think she thinks she has a few times. So we're not sexually matched - really at all - but are very accommodating of each other's needs.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> You'd be surprised how FEW men know that talking is essential to most women.


You'd be surprised how FEW women know that sex is essential to most men.



Vega said:


> But when sex starts to wane, these same men think the "problem" is SEX, when the problem may be something completely different.


So, tell them what the problem really is.



Vega said:


> But most men don't even want to SEE that the problem MAY be them....


It may be them. If it is, tell them what they're doing wrong.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> You'd be surprised how FEW women know that sex is essential to most men.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With some HD men, when you tell them what is wrong they are either not receptive to it or they see it as another hurdle to jump in order to get more sex. It isn't about addressing the issues. Then you have some who will address the issue, then when they don't get sex right away they will go back to doing the same thing which caused the issue in the first place, while minimizing the issues by calling them "excuses for not having sex".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

techmom said:


> With some HD men, when you tell them what is wrong they are either not receptive to it or they see it as another hurdle to jump in order to get more sex. It isn't about addressing the issues. Then you have some who will address the issue, then when they don't get sex right away they will go back to doing the same thing which caused the issue in the first place, while minimizing the issues by calling them "excuses for not having sex".


Guys like this should then continue to not get the sex they want and the woman can rest assured that at least she tried.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

TheTruthHurts said:


> @MJJEAN travel brings in an interesting dynamic. For several years I traveled for work and was away M-F for about 6-7 years. W and I were working like dogs so we were busy, stressed, but in a way we loved the intensity and were both doing very well in our careers.
> 
> We talked several times a day and the distance made us more like kids dating again. When I'd arrive home we'd jump into bed.
> 
> ...


Thankfully, DH wasn't on the road before cell phones. We talked for hours a day. He was working like a dog on the road and I was doing everything at home. And I mean everything. I did all of the cooking, cleaning, bill payments, errands, shopping, paperwork, household and auto repairs, tech crap, pet caring/training, and kid wrangling.

Even with the busyness and the near constant contact via cell, there were times that I literally cried out of need for physical touch, including sex.

I remember when I hurt my back trying to get the stupid lawn mower started before the rain hit. It felt like getting hit by lightning and I could barely move. I crawled to the medicine cabinet, downed some prescription pain pills I had left over from dental work, took a hammer to the freaking POS mower, went and got a new one, mowed the grass, and spent the rest of the night in bed,crying, dying to be held and maybe massaged through the pain. 

Why? Because being in pain alone sucks. And if he were home to take away the pain, we could have sex. :grin2:

DH would view porn (video or pics) and masturbate when he felt the need. When he came home, I'd ask him to show me his favorites from time to time.

Masturbation offered little relief for me. I really only get something cool out of masturbation when I am doing it with or for DH as part of foreplay or edging. If I'm hungry, masturbation can be a nice appetizer, but it's not a meal and doesn't satisfy the hunger like a meal.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I think there is, at least in some cases, an additional mechanism at play here. I do not think that all human characteristics are entirely independent. That is, I do not think that a male's personality, emotional openness and willingness to chat to females for long periods of time are independent of confidence, physical attractiveness, take charge attitude, etc.

So while I think there are some physically attractive men who find it very difficult to tolerate talking to women for long periods of time at one sitting who can be trained to take part in longer chatting sessions, I think some men have their aversion tied into some of the characteristics that women tend to find attractive, and it isn't all that easy to add in "willingness to talk" without eroding some of the positive characteristics. Similarly, I think there are plenty of guys who have no trouble talking to women for hours on end. Unfortunately, many of us with that "talent" are hideous trolls lacking in self-confidence who immediately get "friend zoned". If the question is "can't all those hot guys I want to have sex with be trained to chat with me for hours on end?" then I think the answer is "no, many of them can't be trained without their losing some of the aspects you found hot".


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@holdingontoit ha ha you paint a very vivid picture, I'm afraid.

The nice guy girls love to laugh with and talk to as opposed to the quiet or mysterious or standoffish guy they can't wait to know more about (and might drop a few boundaries and bits of clothing for if he played the right fantasy role and kept his mouth shut ).

Alas this then starts to sound like its the guys responsibility to be all the right things in the right proportions. Kind of like its the girls responsibility to do the nurture and caring but be the vixen / porn queen in bed.

I suppose many / most have a few ideals in mind that few actual humans could live up to. It's only a problem when you can no longer differentiate between fantasy/ideal and real life.

But who said anyone is realistic when their needs aren't being met? instead, as things spiral down, I think people resort to their fantasy standard and start to smack their spouse with that yardstick.

And I hear a lot of that in these posts from very hurt and upset people. I guess that's human nature.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't know about all that. My fiance is one of those quiet, "mysterious" guys, but he can't _stop _talking to me to the point we (laughingly) fight to get a word in edgewise sometimes. The sexual chemistry is what got us together at first, but the conversation is what keeps us together. Neither of us would want to stay together if we only had sexual chemistry or only had conversation - we need both.

I don't think you can make blanket statements like the guys women feel chemistry for have trouble talking and holding interesting conversations, and the guys women like to talk with aren't guys they are hot for or aren't hot. I feel like that sells a LOT of guys short! Men are great conversationalists!

Maybe that's been your experience, but I have never once dated a guy I didn't enjoy having lots of conversation with or I wouldn't have dated them much past a few dates no matter how attracted I might have been otherwise.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

norajane said:


> I don't know about all that. My fiance is one of those quiet, "mysterious" guys, but he can't _stop _talking to me to the point we (laughingly) fight to get a word in edgewise sometimes. The sexual chemistry is what got us together at first, but the conversation is what keeps us together. Neither of us would want to stay together if we only had sexual chemistry or only had conversation - we need both.
> 
> I don't think you can make blanket statements like the guys women feel chemistry for have trouble talking and holding interesting conversations, and the guys women like to talk with aren't guys they are hot for or aren't hot. I feel like that sells a LOT of guys short! Men are great conversationalists!
> 
> Maybe that's been your experience, but I have never once dated a guy I didn't enjoy having lots of conversation with or I wouldn't have dated them much past a few dates no matter how attracted I might have been otherwise.


^^^^^^:iagree:

Don't know any guys who aren't interested in conversation and normal relating. And don't know any women that would choose some standoffish **** that she can't relate to for sex.

My husband is waaaay more talkative than I am.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Well I've never experienced that.
> 
> I think the nearest I've come is that I know, technically that Brad Pitt is good looking, but I don't find him in the least bit attractive. Is that what you're getting at? I mean, I've never been in Mr. Pitt's presence, but just watching him in a movie, or seeing a picture of him, does zero for me. There's only been a handful of celebrity men that have made me think that it would be exciting to have sex with them.
> 
> ...


It is something like not being attracted to Brad Pitt, but it's more, too. It really is just physical. A purely physical response.

I've had sex with men that I wasn't chemically attracted to because I was attracted to them in other ways. The sex was satisfactory. I've had sex with men I was physically, chemically, attracted to. The sex varied from good to very good. And then there's DH. He's the strongest chemical attraction I have ever felt. The sex is frequently amazing, sometimes very good, and sometimes mind altering.

I am so attracted to DH on every level that it scared me for a long time. It's intense. Thankfully, it's mutual.

I first experienced chemical, physical, attraction when I was a teen. I thought of it as another type of compatibility. So, that chemical compatibility was added to my list of requirements for a permanent relationship.

I think it's one of the reasons we are still having a goodly amount of sex. Even if one of us isn't very interested, atm, the chemical attraction activates and creates interest. I'd be willing to bet that DH has a lower natural sex drive than I do, but because we share that chemical attraction, all I have to do is initiate to get a reaction.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

It seems that attraction is involuntary for most people. I like the looks of many attractive men but I don't feel a chemical draw to the majority of them. There is a subset that cause an almost visceral reaction and they all share similar physical characteristics and something else that I can't identify. The feelings are all different in strength and type. 

I've read that sexual attraction is strongest when genes are comparable for making the best offspring. The information is transmitted by smell. That doesn't explain my reaction to Channing Tatum, I never caught a whiff of him but he is physical perfection for me. It was fleeting, lasted a month.

The type and strength of the attraction I feel for my husband has never been matched. My heart still races when I see him walk into a room.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Well I've never experienced that.
> 
> I think the nearest I've come is that I know, technically that Brad Pitt is good looking, but I don't find him in the least bit attractive. Is that what you're getting at? I mean, I've never been in Mr. Pitt's presence, but just watching him in a movie, or seeing a picture of him, does zero for me. There's only been a handful of celebrity men that have made me think that it would be exciting to have sex with them.
> 
> ...


For me it has nothing to do with mainstream good looks like Brad Pitt. He has nice features and all, but he also has this look in his eye and general vibe that is just.....off. I actually don't find him attractive because of it.

But I have experienced being drawn to some people. It is hard to explain, but is just a pull and a sense of certainly. 

I don't rely on this feeling though. I think this sort of attraction only takes you so far.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Don't mean to beat this dialogue to death, but are you saying that you feel this draw; while knowing that you aren't physically attracted to them?
> 
> Do you mean a sense of certainty that sex would be satisfying?


I can't separate physical and what MJJEAN calls chemical attraction. 

A guy can be very good looking according to mainstream opinion, but this doesn't mean I find him attractive. Although I do have some physical preferences, I can be attracted to a pretty wide range of types.

And what I mean is that some guys just pull me, kind of like a magnet. It's not that I know we will be good in bed together (not always true) or that we are meant to be or anything. More that we share something, that we click. Not sure how to express it. One guy I met, I just knew I would see him again, that we weren't done, even though he was flying away to live elsewhere and I had no idea when this might happen. It wasnt something I dreamed about, or worried about, or planned for, it was just something I knew. And it did come true -

But when I feel that click with someone, I am also physically attracted to them. Even if they don't fit with media standards or typical ideals.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

They're different. I was very attracted to a particular woman mentally but unfortunately not physically / chemically😂. And while I'm attracted to my wife physically - she's darned good looking - mentally... meh.

There's "chemistry" involved in every type of attraction.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

notmyrealname4 said:


> I'm glad it's mutual. You'd be in a very vulnerable position if it wasn't. Your H would have way too much power over you.
> 
> That's great though. It's nice to hear of success stories on TAM; even though I personally don't know what you're talking about, I appreciate you sharing your experience of it


And that's why it scared me! Still does, but for different reasons now. Now, I can't imagine life without him and I can't imagine finding this perfect combination of the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual again. So, I am getting really big on health and safety!



Catherine602 said:


> It seems that attraction is involuntary for most people. I like the looks of many attractive men but I don't feel a chemical draw to the majority of them. There is a subset that cause an almost visceral reaction and they all share similar physical characteristics and something else that I can't identify. The feelings are all different in strength and type.
> 
> I've read that sexual attraction is strongest when genes are comparable for making the best offspring. The information is transmitted by smell. That doesn't explain my reaction to Channing Tatum, I never caught a whiff of him but he is physical perfection for me. It was fleeting, lasted a month.
> 
> The type and strength of the attraction I feel for my husband has never been matched. My heart still races when I see him walk into a room.


YES! It is surprisingly hard to explain to someone who hasn't felt it. Visceral, primal, instinctive..all help describe it, yet there is still that certain something that defies description.

I can appreciate a handsome, well formed, man. That doesn't mean I will find him sexually attractive on a chemical level. And those less than chemical attractions have tended to be fleeting for me, as well.

I read the same thing about attraction being related to genetic compatibility. I would guess that your fleeting attraction to Channing was loosely related. A physically fit male in his prime is seen as a good breeding partner by our reptile brains. We know that someone who is attractive and healthy will likely produce attractive and healthy offspring. But just because someone would produce sound offspring doesn't mean we will be attracted to them on that chemical level.

After 16 years, my heart still speeds up when he walks into the room, too. He smiles and I catch my breath. He touches me and nothing else exists. All those infatuation/limerence feelings that so many people say fade with familiarity, real life concerns, etc. have never faded.

I've often wondered if so many people are in sexless marriages because one or both are not actually chemically attracted to the other. 




wild jade said:


> But I have experienced being drawn to some people. It is hard to explain, but is just a pull and a sense of certainly.
> 
> I don't rely on this feeling though. I think this sort of attraction only takes you so far.


Absolutely! That sort of attraction doesn't care about anything but the physical. A decent relationship or marriage requires more. I wouldn't want to be married to a man I didn't feel that chemical pull toward. I also wouldn't want to be married to a man I didn't connect with mentally and emotionally or who wasn't compatible with me lifestyle and personality wise.



notmyrealname4 said:


> Don't mean to beat this dialogue to death, but are you saying that you feel this draw; while knowing that you aren't physically attracted to them?
> 
> Do you mean a sense of certainty that sex would be satisfying?


The draw _is_ the physical attraction. This draw or pull might be felt with someone you find visually appealing or with someone who isn't visually appealing on their physical attributes alone, but who is somehow just sexy as hell anyways.

And, yes, the physical attraction does lend itself to a certainty the sex will be more than satisfying. I mean, I enjoy skilled foreplay and I can have a nice, satisfying, orgasm with a guy I am not chemically attracted to. But what happens when I'm with a guy I am chemically attracted to is on a whole 'nother level.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

wild jade said:


> I can't separate physical and what MJJEAN calls chemical attraction.


Because they really aren't a separate thing. It's just that a surprising number of people have never experienced chemical attraction. So, when someone comes here with some sex related marital problem and you ask "Are you physically attracted to your SO?", most will say that they are simply because they find their SO visually appealing. Which, as you know, is not the same as being physically/chemically attracted.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> Well I've never experienced that.



I have with 4 women I have met, and I'll be 54 in September. It was right from the start and had nothing to do with their physical beauty. On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most physically attractive women you've ever seen with a beautiful face included, these women were probably from 6 - 8. I've seen or met prettier, but I felt nothing or very little. 

Also, this was before really knowing any of them. It had to be something chemical. I could not see their flaws unless I very intently looked and listened. So, I don't know, but it's very rare for it to happen to me.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

2ntnuf said:


> I have with 4 women I have met, and I'll be 54 in September. It was right from the start and had nothing to do with their physical beauty. On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most physically attractive women you've ever seen with a beautiful face included, these women were probably from 6 - 8. I've seen or met prettier, but I felt nothing or very little.
> 
> Also, this was before really knowing any of them. It had to be something chemical. I could not see their flaws unless I very intently looked and listened. So, I don't know, but it's very rare for it to happen to me.


I'm 41. I have experienced that raw attraction a total of 5 times in my life. First at 16 and last at age 24, when I met DH. 

I really do think that those who marry when they don't feel that chemical attraction are shortchanging themselves and their partners. Without that base chemical attraction, I don't see how a couple can have sex literally hundreds or even thousands of times without it being a bit of a chore. 

I really do wonder how many of these LD married folks are simply LD because they aren't married to a partner they actually desire on a purely physical level.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

techmom said:


> Why is it impossible to believe that desire can wane after marriage unintentionally? Why would we do this intentionally?
> 
> This is what confuses me, why would a person refuse sex intentionally to cause conflict in a marriage? Can the HDs answer this, because there are a few posters who cling to this idea.


this

it's all emotional, none of it intentional

HD can't control that he wants it

LD can't control that she doesn't

both have emotional reactions to the mismatch

it should not be personal, but it _feels _personal


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> I'm 41. I have experienced that raw attraction a total of 5 times in my life. First at 16 and last at age 24, when I met DH.
> 
> I really do think that those who marry when they don't feel that chemical attraction are shortchanging themselves and their partners. Without that base chemical attraction, I don't see how a couple can have sex literally hundreds or even thousands of times without it being a bit of a chore.
> 
> I really do wonder how many of these LD married folks are simply LD because they aren't married to a partner they actually desire on a purely physical level.



Well, I can't speak for others. I do know from my own experience that I chose not to have that kind of raw attraction that consumes me with a second wife, if I ever found someone who wanted me. 

I found her, and she had all of the qualities I was searching for in a woman. We actually got along very well, but that very strong raw attraction was not there for me. However, I thought she was beautiful, intelligent, wise, unselfish, humble, strong when called upon, sweet, shy in the most alluring ways, loving, kind, and responsible.

I agreed with her opinions on almost everything we talked about. Those places where we did not agree were not that important and I could easily compromise or defer. 

My first wife, I had that animal attraction, and as of the last time I saw her, which was seven years ago, I still had it. I just didn't show it, I don't think, and I didn't make any moves or anything. However, my first wife and I never could see eye to eye on almost anything. We constantly found ourselves at odds in opinion. That attraction was all we had. 

That's why I decided to go with someone I did not have that rare raw animal attraction to, and because it impaired my judgement with the first wife. I also believed it was extremely unlikely to find someone with whom I had both of those rare qualities. 

I just figured it was silly to even think I could find someone like that within my limited abilities and radius of living. Increase those and the odds of finding someone like that increase, but very modestly.

So, take it for what it's worth. 

I did find that the love I had for my second wife was something much deeper than I ever felt for my first wife. I felt as though we were really one in spirit. I guess she didn't? 

I think there is a balance of some sort, but I'm not sure. I'm just not smart enough to figure it out or lucky enough, I guess. I don't know.

ETA: I did find my second wife attractive and I had a little of that raw attraction, but it wasn't enough to get me through the times when the marriage and my life, as well as my health were tough on me. In other words, when I didn't feel good in body or mind, I didn't really think about the sex as much. I never knew that would or could happen to me.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

@2ntnuf

Considering the number of men I have met and the number of men I have felt chemically attracted to, I can totally understand choosing to marry someone without that intense raw attraction if there was compatibility in all other key areas. I just couldn't do that, myself. For me, that raw physical desire is very important. It definitely effects the mental, emotional, and spiritual bonding for me by making it much deeper and more intense. 

Could I be happy in a marriage where I do not feel that physical pull, but everything else is in place? No. I could be content, but not happy. Something would always be missing and I don't think I could just ignore that.

It's natural to not think about sex as much when your body and/or mind is not in good shape. That said, I swear DH could turn me on on my deathbed. I have had pneumonia and gotten aroused by the sight of him. I have had the actual Flu and been frustrated because I got turned on by him holding/cuddling me and I was too weak and miserable to do anything about it.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It's difficult to find, but you can have both: deep compatibility AND raw physical desire/animal attraction. I found both with my second wife, and it has persisted for over 16 years. What's even better is that she feels that same about me!


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Married but Happy said:


> It's difficult to find, but you can have both: deep compatibility AND raw physical desire/animal attraction. I found both with my second wife, and it has persisted for over 16 years. What's even better is that she feels that same about me!


Agreed. Add in there deep love, true like and aligned morals/values then life is great


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> It's difficult to find, but you can have both: deep compatibility AND raw physical desire/animal attraction. I found both with my second wife, and it has persisted for over 16 years. What's even better is that she feels that same about me!


Spot on, describes my W and I as well. I don't think I could be with someone if I didn't have both, but at least for me I find the deep compatibility helps to amplify the raw desire, and vice versa


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Spot on, describes my W and I as well. I don't think I could be with someone if I didn't have both, but at least for me* I find the deep compatibility helps to amplify the raw desire, and vice versa*


I think that's a good observation, and agree completely.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> this
> 
> it's all emotional, none of it intentional
> 
> ...


Not this.

Low Desire to the levels we see here is as much about getting even, resentment, and control as it is about "I dont feel desire"...


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

I don't really understand this. You mean you feel raw, passionate attraction all the time around your spouse? After 20 or 30 years? While talking to the kids about school, homework, taking out the garbage?

I'd find that level of attraction tiresome and invasive TBH. 

W has been my one and only since I was a teen and I'm in my 50s. Same for her. It was purely physical the moment we met - completely physical, including her big brown eyes.

I admire her. She's a completely amazing person. I can't lay next to her without getting aroused - even when we're exhausted and just intending to sleep... our hands drift and we...

During periods of low sex over the years, due to life, we were physically separated. A few years ago I started to physically get more aggressive - by that I mean I closed the space between us in bed. That was all that was needed.

But chemical? No. Love, respect, admiration, like, beauty, attraction... Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

john117 said:


> Not this.
> 
> Low Desire to the levels we see here is as much about getting even, resentment, and control as it is about "I dont feel desire"...


yeah, but WHY is there resentment?

It's because actual reality does not line up with emotional expectations

eliminate the expectation and reality is no longer a problem (for either the HD or the LD)


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Not necessarily emotional expectations, general expectations. 

And expectations are hard to change or eliminate for some people because reality is a harsh mistress...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Anon,

The healthiest marital mindset has two components: 
- I don't want you to do anything with me that you DONT WANT to do
AND
- I don't want you to be deprived of that which you WANT to do, solely because I don't want to do it with you

How a couple copes with these two desires when they conflict, says a LOT about how they feel about sacrificing for one another. 

There are a lot of folks who complain that if they treated their partners desire for conversation the same way their partners treat their desire for sex - all hell would break loose. 

I was in the shower last week - just before connecting - when M2 initiated a conversation that - at core was about a lack of trust. 

I just said: Babe, that's in chapter two of that book titled: How to totally kill the mood. (used a light tone - but it was a totally sincere comment)

She stops talking - I finish up dry off and sit in my reading chair. 

After ten minutes - she says some stuff about me not being nice. I just shrug and say: I trust you, you say stuff shows you don't trust me. 

I go get some drinks for us. Come back - and get the unconditional 100% apology. 

So here's the thing. I have zero interest in connecting with someone - who acts like they don't trust me. 





Anon1111 said:


> yeah, but WHY is there resentment?
> 
> It's because actual reality does not line up with emotional expectations
> 
> eliminate the expectation and reality is no longer a problem (for either the HD or the LD)


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Ah, the NormalPeople (tm) perspective. Refreshing as always 😃

Yesterday J2 and I rented a He-Man pickup to move some furniture we bought. She must have b!tched about every little thing that somehow I missed on the road and hearing her you would think i nearly caused Mumbai style traffic pileups which I did not... I just smiled and nodded, not giving in to the temptation of a few choice expletives.

At home we had to move the load to the garage so I took my cellphone and put it in the shoe rack (safe place). Five min later J2 takes her shoes and dumps them on my phone. I - politely - asked her if she saw anything where she put the shoes. She did not. She rarely uses the shoe rack and always complains we don't use it (we do).

Did I seek an apology? No. No point. I did not make a fuss about it (she would if it was her phone) and chalked it up to the usual causes. 

Notnormalpeople (tm) operate at a different level, my friends. That's what makes walking away necessary.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Anon,
> 
> The healthiest marital mindset has two components:
> - I don't want you to do anything with me that you DONT WANT to do
> ...


totally agree

the other component of this is: 

you can't make someone want something that they don't want 

and 

you can't make someone not want something that they do want


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> you can't make someone not want something that they do want


Interesting. I agree with this. I would have thought you do not. Or perhaps the pronouns are crucial. Do you also believe that I cannot stop wanting something I want? Or is the comment about controlling others and not about the possibility of destroying desire?

See, this is where I think your views on eliminating expectations fall short of providing a complete solution. Because I may be able to eliminate my expectations that I am able to obtain the things I want (at least within the context of my current relationship). But if I cannot eliminate the desire for them, then I am still frustrated and unfulfilled.

I have read several of your recent posts to mean that you think eliminating expectations would lead to an absence of frustration and greater acceptance of one's current relationship. But if desire is eternal, then I would think letting go of expectations would lead to resignation that one must exit the current relationship in order to pursue one's desires. Your thoughts?


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Interesting. I agree with this. I would have thought you do not. Or perhaps the pronouns are crucial. . . . . Your thoughts?


yes, the pronouns are crucial

you cannot make another person not want something he wants

he can maybe learn to stop wanting that thing though

or more accurately, learn that the thing is empty and there is no content to the want such that it does not really exist


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> See, this is where I think your views on eliminating expectations fall short of providing a complete solution. Because I may be able to eliminate my expectations that I am able to obtain the things I want (at least within the context of my current relationship). But if I cannot eliminate the desire for them, then I am still frustrated and unfulfilled.


you don't eliminate the desire per se

you see through the desire and realize there is no real content to it

it is difficult to do this consistently at first, because the desire manifests quite profoundly at times

but if you stay aware, you will notice that there are times it is not there at all

what is the difference between those times and others? is there any real difference, or is it just in your head?

once you can notice this ebb and flow, you begin to see there is no solid "thing" there that you can pinpoint

this thing which feels immense is actually quite conditional and fleeting. so why is it so important?

after a while of engaging in this type of thing, when you feel a desire "flare up," you can start to see it more for what it really is-- a temporary blip like a cloud passing-- not something to get caught up in or a permanent condition


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Okay, so I think what is being discussed is pheromones.
> 
> That doesn't explain my attraction to a famous musician, or Catherine602's attraction to Channing Tatum. Those are very intense physical attractions. The famous person embodies your ideal type.
> 
> ...


I think I mentioned in a previous post how the Channing Tatum thing works. He is, visually, a fine specimen of adult human manhood. His appearance tells our reptile brains that he would be a good genetic contributor. Which doesn't mean he would be chemically attractive in person. 

Part of the beauty of having a visual attraction to someone you don't know is that you get to fill in the blanks mentally by taking the raw visual material and then combining it with your own personal idea of what traits beyond the physical are attractive.

I'm sure it's possible for people to have a decent marriage with someone they aren't chemically attracted to, physically attracted to, or truly compatible with as long as 1 or 2 of the 3 is in place. I am just not one of those people. Without all 3, I cannot be content for long. I lose interest, feel as if something is missing, become restless, and basically check out. 



TheTruthHurts said:


> I don't really understand this. You mean you feel raw, passionate attraction all the time around your spouse? After 20 or 30 years? While talking to the kids about school, homework, taking out the garbage?
> 
> I'd find that level of attraction tiresome and invasive TBH.


We haven't been together 20-30 years, so I can't speak to that. We have been together for 16 years and that passionate attraction hasn't waned. 

I don't think it's invasive. Though the passionate attraction is always there, it does have to take a back seat to life responsibilities. Kids, house, pets, car and yard care, etc. When things need to get done, it becomes a steady hum, a background noise. Unless we're doing those things together. Then it becomes a matter of self control. With a lot of casual physical touching.

The reason this whole physical/chemical thing has been on my mind a lot when reading this thread and many threads about sexlessness or HD/LD marriages is because I don't think it would be a problem if the couple were chemically attracted to each other.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> I think I mentioned in a previous post how the Channing Tatum thing works. He is, visually, a fine specimen of adult human manhood. His appearance tells our reptile brains that he would be a good genetic contributor. Which doesn't mean he would be chemically attractive in person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's one option. Another might be just plain respect and admiration for their partner. And finding their partner as their best friend. Like actually liking them.

I guess I'm assuming they like you too. Maybe that's the problem 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

TheTruthHurts said:


> That's one option. Another might be just plain respect and admiration for their partner. And finding their partner as their best friend. Like actually liking them.
> 
> I guess I'm assuming they like you too. Maybe that's the problem
> 
> ...


I've had relationships with men that I thought of as very close friends,who I liked and respected, and had some attraction to. It wasn't enough for me. After a time, sex with someone I have feelings for, but am not chemically attracted to, becomes something I want to do less and less. It's just not very satisfying long term to have ho-hum sex with a ho-hum orgasm. 

In the two relationships mentioned above, I never lost the desire for sex, I just lost the desire for sex in that particular relationship. Once I began losing interest, I knew it was time to exit the relationship. I didn't want to have a friend filling the space in my life a lover should occupy.

There is a very distinct difference between being _willing_ to have sex with a specific partner and _wanting_ to have sex with that partner. One may be _willing_ to have sex with their partner because of emotional bonds, liking, respect, and so forth, but that doesn't mean they _want_ to outside of the desire to please their partner. 

*want defined as a physical desire for sex


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> The reason this whole physical/chemical thing has been on my mind a lot when reading this thread and many threads about sexlessness or HD/LD marriages is because I don't think it would be a problem if the couple were chemically attracted to each other.


I agree. The "trick" is to convince the person who does not have chemical attraction to admit this. Which means convincing them that they really will NOT enjoy the relationship once the chemically attracted partner catches on that the LD has been faking desire. Seems obvious from outside but IRL seems many who don't feel the chemicals are convinced that if they can just rope the HD into marriage, life will be peachy keen.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> I agree. The "trick" is to convince the person who does not have chemical attraction to admit this. Which means convincing them that they really will NOT enjoy the relationship once the chemically attracted partner catches on that the LD has been faking desire. Seems obvious from outside but IRL seems many who don't feel the chemicals are convinced that if they can just rope the HD into marriage, life will be peachy keen.



Hope springs eternal.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MJJean: Yes, exactly. That is why it often takes so long for the HD to catch on that the LD does not feel any chemical attraction. And that is what makes it so bitter for the HD when they realize they were baited and switched. "But you said you felt them. But you pretended you felt them. HOW COULD YOU LIE TO ME LIKE THAT?!?!"


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

MJJEAN said:


> I think I mentioned in a previous post how the Channing Tatum thing works. He is, visually, a fine specimen of adult human manhood. His appearance tells our reptile brains that he would be a good genetic contributor. Which doesn't mean he would be chemically attractive in person.
> 
> Part of the beauty of having a visual attraction to someone you don't know is that you get to fill in the blanks mentally by taking the raw visual material and then combining it with your own personal idea of what traits beyond the physical are attractive.


I don't know about his DNA but he has a killer azz, serious guns, powerful legs, a massive chest, flat abs, green eyes and a deep voice. Put that together with the way he moves his body and it's a perfect hormonal storm. 

I have not had a crush on a celebrity since i was a teen. Some switch tripped when I saw him dancing. I have absolutely no idea why but it all came together on a purely physical level. I don't think I could make myself not find him very attractive. I understand a little bit better why men like looking at naked women. 

When I think about it, I have not seen scores of good looking, naked young men with banging bodies. Not in images, videos or IRL. We are all bombarded with the female version of this. 

Women get anemic, weird looking Jonnie Depp type dudes who they hope keep their clothes on so as not to be disillusioned about what might or might not be underneath.

I guess the assumption is that women are not visual or nice girls don't look. I think I am visual and not even as nice as I thought. Had I been exposed to the right material earlier on, I might have enjoyed the amazing beauty of the male form in all of its variations before now.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> MJJean: Yes, exactly. That is why it often takes so long for the HD to catch on that the LD does not feel any chemical attraction. And that is what makes it so bitter for the HD when they realize they were baited and switched. "But you said you felt them. But you pretended you felt them. HOW COULD YOU LIE TO ME LIKE THAT?!?!"


I don't think one should presume that nefarious intent is the default position. 

If one has only had one sexual partner they may have never experienced having sex with someone that drives that all pervasive ohhhh I want to consume you feeling.

That said someone can have multiple partners and again even then, sometimes have not experienced sex with someone that drives that all pervasive ohhhh I want to consume you feeling.

Anyway absent actually experiencing the difference, how can a person always know that they're not marrying a person they don't desire in that special all consuming manner?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Men who have had very exciting, visceral, off-the-charts sex with women that they don't respect enough to marry; or who won't marry them. They then marry a "good girl" (often temporarily joining churches to find one---I swear to you that's true). The "good girl" will never be able to live up to his very high standards of feminine beauty and sexual attractiveness. She gets to play second fiddle to porn at least, or affairs at worst. She will be reminded often of her lack of physical appeal and pestered and hounded to improve her sexual "skills".
> 
> Women who have electric sex with bad boys in their youth, then go looking for the financially successful "nerd" when they want to get married. Despite conventional TAM wisdom: the "bad boy" may want to marry her; but he's sexy, not rich. This actually happens, I have personally known people who have done it. We hear a lot about it on TAM. "Alpha fvcks, beta bucks" I abhor the saying myself, but that's how pervasive it is; it's inspired little homilies. These women will put on a freak-show of faked orgasms to hook a guy and reel him in; then it all grinds to a halt shortly after marriage or child birth."Wedding cake prevents bj's" or words to that affect.


Such behaviour would occur far less frequently if it immediately saw the serving of a Divorce Petition, quickly followed by an unyielding drive to the Decree Absolute.

As an aside here is some D.H. Lawrence.

"And a woman had to yield. A man was like a child with his appetites. A woman had to yield him what he wanted, or like a child he would probably turn nasty and flounce away and spoil what was a very pleasant connection."


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> MJJean: Yes, exactly. That is why it often takes so long for the HD to catch on that the LD does not feel any chemical attraction. And that is what makes it so bitter for the HD when they realize they were baited and switched. "But you said you felt them. But you pretended you felt them. HOW COULD YOU LIE TO ME LIKE THAT?!?!"


I wouldn't necessarily say all or even most HD/LD marriages were bait and switch or that one spouse was lying to the other.

I remember a rather epic debate between myself and DH about the definition of want. An easy and commonly used word, but we had two different definitions and this caused some miscommunication. 

Spouse A says "I love you!" and mean "I have deep emotional feelings for you and I physically desire you."

Spouse B says "I love you!" and it means "I have deep emotional feelings for you." 

Spouse A hears Spouse B saying "I love you!" and assumes their definition of the word is the same. But, to Spouse A who believes the word love also includes sexual desire, the actions of Spouse B (no/rare sex) don't jive with the word Spouse A has been saying. Spouse A feels deceived. But the reality is, there was no deception. Just poor communication.




Catherine602 said:


> When I think about it, I have not seen scores of good looking, naked young men with banging bodies. Not in images, videos or IRL. We are all bombarded with the female version of this.
> 
> I guess the assumption is that women are not visual or nice girls don't look. I think I am visual and not even as nice as I thought. Had I been exposed to the right material earlier on, I might have enjoyed the amazing beauty of the male form in all of its variations before now.


I grew up surrounded by construction workers. My dad was a foreman and hosted many parties, most weekends, really, for his crews. In my teens, on a Friday or Saturday, I couldn't walk from the living room to the back yard without tripping over tan, beefy, muscular, sexy, sometimes sweaty, men. And they tended to wear tanks or go shirtless A LOT.

I did...ummm.."date" a couple of the guys in my late teens, early 20's. Surprisingly, I found that the visual did not trump the physical. Meaning, I got all hot and bothered about the idea of a man based on him looking a hell of a lot like Channing Tatum types. Then I'd be alone with the object of my visual and mental desire, we'd kiss...annnnnd...nothing. No physical spark. Just the feeling of lips and muscles. Physical stimulation with no OOMPH. Which is nice, and resulted in decent sex, but still rather meh.



notmyrealname4 said:


> You advocate not being emotionally invested; as a strategy to cope with a lower desire spouse. I admire that. I recently tossed a bunch of lacy frilly underthings, and many of your posts influenced my decision. Why the h.e.ll am I torturing myself with the hope of sex that isn't really going to happen anymore. Detach and accept reality.
> 
> I think @MJJEAN (and those like her) are able to attract partners that they are compatible with on all levels because there is something more sexual and instinctual about them than other people. IOW, it's a type of gift.
> 
> ...


I just got really sad for you. I have a deep affection for lingerie and shoes. Hearing about a woman tossing her lingerie because it's a painful reminder of the sex she isn't going to have with her H is just...tragic.

I'd be tempted to Pshaw! @ the idea that I was given a gift. I'd like to think everyone can do the same thing if only they'd listen to their instinct and have faith, but I have had a few people make similar remarks, including DH, so maybe it really is a gift. 

I suck at math, couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, I'm short, not athletically gifted, and if being able to attract physically compatible partners is what God gave me to work with, I'll take it with gratitude. 

Some women are visual just like some men aren't.

If I wasn't getting regular sex, I'd be intensely lusting after visually appealing men, too! Perfectly normal and understandable.



notmyrealname4 said:


> If they've never had that type of magical intense experience; then, you're right, they don't know. So they get married to someone whom they like and have a fair amount of physical attraction to.
> 
> They think that that is what love is, and all the hype is just to sell books and movies and love songs. They have reality.
> 
> ...


I've seen a LOT of people choose mates they weren't physically attracted to because the person had other desirable qualities. I've never seen it turn out well. At best, those couples seem to be friends and are just trudging along without benefit of a romantic partner. At worse, there's drama, infidelity etc.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> ...
> 
> I've seen a LOT of people choose mates they weren't physically attracted to because the person had other desirable qualities. I've never seen it turn out well. At best, those couples seem to be friends and are just trudging along without benefit of a romantic partner. At worse, there's drama, infidelity etc.


I agree - it seldom turns out well. People have to compromise, trying to get the best and most of their wishes and needs fulfilled by their choice of mate. Since no one is perfect, and everyone has to compromise to a greater or lesser degree, most "settle" for the best they have been able to find when they don't want to keep looking. That may sometimes be sufficient, as they won't do better - and sometimes, they compromised too much, too soon, and could have done better eventually.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

@MJJEAN I think you may just be a horney toad 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

@MJJEAN: no way to know percentages. I am sure some cases involve unintentional miscommunication. But some don't. I did not fool myself into thinking my wife and I would have a satisfying sex life because she said "I love you." I was fooled into thinking we were compatible because she said "smart is sexy and you have a big brain that turns me on". That was a lie. Maybe to me. Maybe to herself. Least culpable possibility is that she desperately wanted it to be true and she honestly thought she could eventually convince herself it was true. But she must have known it wasn't literally and honestly true at the time she said it.



> I've seen a LOT of people choose mates they weren't physically attracted to because the person had other desirable qualities. I've never seen it turn out well. At best, those couples seem to be friends and are just trudging along without benefit of a romantic partner. At worse, there's drama, infidelity etc.


I agree with @Personal that we wouldn't have so many tragic mismatches if HDs were quick to cut the cord at the first sign of mismatch. But I am not sure I want to live in a society where people treat marriage as so disposable. So while it would be good if we educated HDs to be wary of being too patient, I continue to believe the best "answer" is to educate LDs that while it might seem a good "deal" to marry someone you aren't hot for, as you say, it almost never turns out well. At least not if the person you are not hot for expresses that they have a substantial interest in sex and they are hot for you.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

TheTruthHurts said:


> @MJJEAN I think you may just be a horney toad
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, yeah! HD and all that. 



Holdingontoit said:


> @MJJEAN: no way to know percentages. I am sure some cases involve unintentional miscommunication. But some don't. I did not fool myself into thinking my wife and I would have a satisfying sex life because she said "I love you." I was fooled into thinking we were compatible because she said "smart is sexy and you have a big brain that turns me on". That was a lie. Maybe to me. Maybe to herself. Least culpable possibility is that she desperately wanted it to be true and she honestly thought she could eventually convince herself it was true. But she must have known it wasn't literally and honestly true at the time she said it.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with @Personal that we wouldn't have so many tragic mismatches if HDs were quick to cut the cord at the first sign of mismatch. But I am not sure I want to live in a society where people treat marriage as so disposable. So while it would be good if we educated HDs to be wary of being too patient, I continue to believe the best "answer" is to educate LDs that while it might seem a good "deal" to marry someone you aren't hot for, as you say, it almost never turns out well. At least not if the person you are not hot for expresses that they have a substantial interest in sex and they are hot for you.


Sex and attraction are complicated. It's a combination of the physical and mental at very least. Your wife might have been being completely honest. She may very well find smart men to be sexy mentally, but have little to no physical reaction. She may have honestly believed that it was enough long term

And, of course, some people are remarkably prone to self deception.

I believe marriage is a sexual relationship. So, I don't think it devalues marriage to say that if there isn't a sexual relationship between the spouses, they shouldn't be married. People can be friends without the legal and social obligations and restrictions of marriage. 

I totally agree that HD's should be educated about being too patient and LD's should be educated about how important sex is to the HD's out there and encouraged to select mates who are comaptible with their level of drive and desire.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> I agree. The "trick" is to convince the person who does not have chemical attraction to admit this. Which means convincing them that they really will NOT enjoy the relationship once the chemically attracted partner catches on that the LD has been faking desire. Seems obvious from outside but IRL seems many who don't feel the chemicals are convinced that if they can just rope the HD into marriage, life will be peachy keen.


there's no better admission than their actions

it is easy to see when someone is going through the motions


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> I don't know about his DNA but he has a killer azz, serious guns, powerful legs, a massive chest, flat abs, green eyes and a deep voice. Put that together with the way he moves his body and it's a perfect hormonal storm.
> 
> I have not had a crush on a celebrity since i was a teen. Some switch tripped when I saw him dancing. I have absolutely no idea why but it all came together on a purely physical level. I don't think I could make myself not find him very attractive. I understand a little bit better why men like looking at naked women.
> 
> ...


I think this is totally standard actually

why would women not be attracted to physicality?

over millions of years of history when humans were mostly animalistic, isn't it obvious that physicality would be the overwhelming factor in mating?

it is only the veil of civilization that prevents this from being totally obvious

I'm sure many women truly believe they're not really "visual," but put those women in a room with a dude like Channing and the belief would be forgotten


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> there's no better admission than their actions
> 
> it is easy to see when someone is going through the motions


Only if you have already been with someone who was NOT going through the motions. Easy now to see that every woman I have ever been with was only going through the motions. Probably was easy to see back then, too, but I was in denial. Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

notmyrealname4 said:


> @Anon1111
> You advocate not being emotionally invested; as a strategy to cope with a lower desire spouse. I admire that. I recently tossed a bunch of lacy frilly underthings, and many of your posts influenced my decision. Why the h.e.ll am I torturing myself with the hope of sex that isn't really going to happen anymore. Detach and accept reality.


I would characterize it slightly differently. It's more about distinguishing who you really are from what your emotions are.

There is a "you" that is underneath the emotions you experience.

"You" are not identical with them.

You will never stop having emotions, but you can learn to stop "dwelling" in the emotions.

When you get better at this, the emotions stop ruling your life.

Sometimes it is necessary to build artificial barriers (such as throwing away your lingerie) in order to contain the emotions.

But with practice, you can see that the barriers are totally unnecessary.



notmyrealname4 said:


> @But I can't get rid of the desire. I think [MENTION=35737]Holdingontoit has a point. I have relieved some unhappiness by getting rid of the pretty lingerie that was mocking me every time I saw it in my closet. But the desire is still there. I know that desires for anything: sex, food, relieving your bladder, sleep, interaction with other humans----are not omnipresent. But that doesn't make them unreal. It makes them intermittent.


you will never get rid of the desire. but that is OK. the desire is not you.

when you can gain clarity and focus on who you really are underneath this, the visibility of your true self can be like a lighthouse guiding you through the fog of emotion whenever it rolls in.

sometimes the fog will be very thick and it will be hard to see the lighthouse.

it is not always easy, but it does not have to be so hard either.



notmyrealname4 said:


> Are your philosophies Buddhist in origin, or influenced by Buddhism? What I know about Buddhism would fill a teaspoon, but it does advocate the abolition of desire as a means to peace, right?
> 
> btw, I really enjoy your posts. They have helped me move forward and grow. Which is what I came to TAM for.
> .


I'm glad you've enjoyed my posts. nothing I'm writing is original.

I am very interested in zen Buddhism. I highly recommend looking into it-- especially daily meditation practice.

I'm sure others get similar benefits from daily prayer or other activities, but this works for me. 

here is a quote from the _Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening_ by Master Hui Hai (c. 800 A.D.) which is basically the ideas I am talking about:

"Should your mind wander away, do not follow it . . . Should your mind desire to linger somewhere, do not follow it and do not dwell there . . .If you are fully aware in yourself of a non-dwelling mind, you will discover that there is just the fact of dwelling, with nothing to dwell upon or not dwell upon."


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Only if you have already been with someone who was NOT going through the motions. Easy now to see that every woman I have ever been with was only going through the motions. Probably was easy to see back then, too, but I was in denial. Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.


If I hadn't met a few men when I was in my teens that I found chemically attractive, I probably wouldn't have known the difference. I probably would have married a man I thought would make a good mate. And I'd probably have been very unsatisfied without really understanding why.

Knowing what I know, I can avoid that problem. And so can you now that you know.

And knowing is half the battle! (GI Joe cartoon reference for the younglings)


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> And knowing is half the battle! (GI Joe cartoon reference for the younglings)


I prefer ...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> Knowing what I know, I can avoid that problem. And so can you now that you know.


No, wrong, on several levels.

First, I don't know what it is like to have sex with someone with whom I have a chemical connection, because I never have and never will. What I know is that my wife does not have a chemical connection with me. That makes it extremely difficult for me to have sex with her. So I wish I still did not know.

Second, I can NOT avoid the problem because I am not willing to divorce my wife over this. So knowing what I know now, I can only languish in the regret that I did not know when it mattered. Again, I would honestly prefer not to know.

Third, even if I were willing to leave, avoiding the problem means only having a relationship with someone for whom I have a chemical attraction. And who has one for me. This assumes that the overlap between the women I find attractive and the women who have a chemical attraction for me is something other than the null set. Given my level of self-loathing, I find that extremely unlikely. Definitely something I wish I did not know.

I know, Anon will say I do not have to languish in regret. I could make the best of it. True. That is what my wife has done. She now realizes that it was a mistake to marry someone with whom she had no chemical connection. That she foolishly shortchanged both of us. She has made peace with the fact that I will never make the kind of money she thought I would and that she will never find me sexually attractive (and that this latter point actually matters in marriage). I will never make peace with reality. I will rail to my dying breath against it. I know, futile and a waste of time. But it is my life and I get to choose how to waste it.

Some silly few of you might argue that I am being pessimistic in my appraisal of the odds of finding someone who retains a chemical attraction for me after our first sexual interaction. Well, apart from being irrelevant because it will never be tested, I can promise you that you are wrong.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> I know, Anon will say I do not have to languish in regret. I could make the best of it. True. That is what my wife has done. She now realizes that it was a mistake to marry someone with whom she had no chemical connection. That she foolishly shortchanged both of us. She has made peace with the fact that I will never make the kind of money she thought I would and that she will never find me sexually attractive (and that this latter point actually matters in marriage). I will never make peace with reality. I will rail to my dying breath against it. I know, futile and a waste of time. But it is my life and I get to choose how to waste it.


If you have actually accepted that you won't change your situation and that you will remain with your wife and that this is all the result of your free choice, then there is nothing left to do.

there is no need to "make the best of it." you've already done that by foregoing the other options. it is already "the best of it."

the solution is to realize there is nothing to achieve.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

@Holdingontoit, knowing the chemical attraction isn't there means you know you aren't physically compatible. Knowing that, you could leave and search out a mate that is physically compatible with you. You have elected not to do that. If you're going to stay and try to have a decent life, might want to check out that Buddhist thing. Maybe you'd find peace and happiness by basically jettisoning the desire.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

There may be some correlation between physical attraction and chemistry. The person I absolutely like to be with unfortunately scores very low on the ten scale - some due to health issues but much due to overenthusiastic eating 😂

Maybe it's a triangle with physical attraction, mental and emotional attraction, and chemistry, that hard to explain doohickey.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

john117 said:


> There may be some correlation between physical attraction and chemistry. The person I absolutely like to be with unfortunately scores very low on the ten scale - some due to health issues but much due to overenthusiastic eating 😂
> 
> Maybe it's a triangle with physical attraction, mental and emotional attraction, and chemistry, that hard to explain doohickey.


Overenthusiastic eating meaning "Gained some weight!"? If so, I hear being overweight can screw up your hormones as much as hormones can screw up your weight. So, yeah, it makes sense that a physical attraction might lessen or disappear with serious weight gain.

Of course, some people also find added weight visually unappealing. Others find extra padding to be unpleasant to feel/touch.

All around attraction is a complicated, hard to explain, doohickey for sure.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Yea, unfortunately she's north of 250 lb. I saw her tonight (group setting, alas) briefly and she lost some but she's a good cook and better eater. She cooked an awesome dinner tho. 

I have known her for 3 years and she's always been that size. Even if she dropped 100 lb she would still not be attractive to me, and she's 10 years younger than me. 

I don't expect everyone to be a perfect size 4 like my wife with a trim athletic figure and great looks (at 57) but I'm not attracted to her either, those days at least, for different reasons. She's easily the second best looking woman of that vintage I know, the first being a few years older - early 60's - but with a son who's a renowned plastic surgeon😂. This lady's husband looks like Yoda, don't get me started about attraction he he.

I have theorized that there's a minimum base threshold for attraction that has to be there before chemistry takes over. This threshold or standard is probably a 5-6 on the ten scale.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

john117 said:


> Yea, unfortunately she's north of 250 lb. I saw her tonight (group setting, alas) briefly and she lost some but she's a good cook and better eater. She cooked an awesome dinner tho.
> 
> I have known her for 3 years and she's always been that size. Even if she dropped 100 lb she would still not be attractive to me, and she's 10 years younger than me.
> 
> ...


I agree with the bold. The rating in the next sentence is subjective.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

john117 said:


> Yea, unfortunately she's north of 250 lb. I saw her tonight (group setting, alas) briefly and she lost some but she's a good cook and better eater. She cooked an awesome dinner tho.
> 
> I have known her for 3 years and she's always been that size. Even if she dropped 100 lb she would still not be attractive to me, and she's 10 years younger than me.
> 
> ...


I laughed at "Looks like Yoda". I've seen a few smokin hot women all over men who look like Yoda or Ron Jeremy. No explaining attraction.

When I first saw DH shirtless, he had back hair and some acne. I know I should have found those things turn-offs, and I would if it was someone else, but it had zero effect on my level of lust for the man. :scratchhead:


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

@john117 Seeing as how you're a certain age and seem to have a great sense of humor, you might understand this. DH has a 1 ft tall Yoda figure touched and kissed by Weird Al at a concert many years ago. It has a place of honor on his dresser.

Did I mention the wooden set of Giant Chess? Or Axis and Allies? Maybe some pen and paper D&D?

And I STILL think he's hot.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> @john117 Seeing as how you're a certain age and seem to have a great sense of humor, you might understand this. DH has a 1 ft tall Yoda figure touched and kissed by Weird Al at a concert many years ago. It has a place of honor on his dresser.
> 
> Did I mention the wooden set of Giant Chess? Or Axis and Allies? Maybe some pen and paper D&D?
> 
> And I STILL think he's hot.




Ha ha my DS18 was driving and walking around town at midnight looking for pokimon. He said there were tons of people out ages 13 to 27. I said that is modern D&d - is your GF into that. He said no. She's crazy about him. But he's 6', smart, good looking, varsity team captain, and complete geek. Must be chemical attraction 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

TheTruthHurts said:


> Ha ha my DS18 was driving and walking around town at midnight looking for pokimon. He said there were tons of people out ages 13 to 27. I said that is modern D&d - is your GF into that. He said no. She's crazy about him. But he's 6', smart, good looking, varsity team captain, and complete geek. Must be chemical attraction
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


DS rode 5+miles on his bike chasing Pokemon yesterday.

DH is also 6', highly intelligent, and good looking. Also a complete geek. Half of our dates in the beginning involved some other geeks and Magic cards.

Chemical Attraction: How nerds reproduce. :grin2:


----------



## RubyRing (Jun 13, 2016)

Vega said:


> My drive was pretty strong when I was younger, too. But I new that I could satisfy the 'urge' _myself_ and I wasn't unhappy if I wasn't in a relationship.
> _____________________________________________________
> My unhappiness stemmed from lack of non-sexual touch, but I will admit, that I tried to satisfy "the urge" for cuddling, nuzzling etc. by cuddling my pillows. Nah, that didn't work. After my first divorce, when I got custody of the cats, my cats became my primary source of non-sexual affection, and even though they were cats, they were very affectionate. I guess that's why some women become "crazy cat ladies"
> 
> ...


Yes, I like the balance.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

TheTruthHurts said:


> Ha ha my DS18 was driving and walking around town at midnight looking for pokimon. He said there were tons of people out ages 13 to 27. I said that is modern D&d - is your GF into that. He said no. She's crazy about him. But he's 6', smart, good looking, varsity team captain, and complete geek. Must be chemical attraction
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hey, just wanted to let you know, there are thieves who are asking folks to come to secluded places and robbing them through that game. Please be careful. 

End of thread jack.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

RubyRing said:


> Yes, I like the balance.


How strong would you say the chemical attraction is between you and your spouse/Sig.Other?

I've been wondering if those who do not have some illness or tragedy in their past and aren't very affectionate outside the bedroom, don't have much natural chemical attraction. They are just physically attracted and found their SO to have qualities and social status they hoped to find.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Oops, double post.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

> Exactly. But after reading a lot of dating profiles, I see that MOST of the single men in their 50's, 60's and beyond are looking for "just sex" and NOT the rest of the relationship.
> __________________________________________________ ___
> Yes, I found that too, and it really bummed me out. I remember thinking, "don't men EVER grow up and want a REAL relationship and not JUST sex ???!!!!!"


Aim for widowers. I am guessing most of the "mature" men who want a real relationship and not just sex are already married by age 50. And their wives are not going to let go of them easily, because the wives know what is out there. And the "brisket brigade" descends amazingly quickly on any widower worth marrying, so you aren't going to find them on dating sites. They have a line of women around the block offering to cook dinner for them. At least that is what my Mom reports happens in her community in Florida any time a wife pre-deceases her husband.

So think about which men are single in their 50s and 60s and listing themselves on dating sites. First of all, they are men for whom the wives of their married friends are NOT constantly setting them up on dates with whatever single women are available locally. That leaves never been marrieds. Men who are known to have left their wife to seek more sex. Men whose wife left them for another guy but whom the local women do not view as good dating material. Men whose wife left them and took half their assets and a big chunk of their income and are known to be bitter and resentful. Yet these men list themselves on dating sites, despite in many cases holding negative views on women and/or marriage. So why are these men listing themselves if they have negative views of women and/or marriage? Why, to get some sex of course! Seems to me a woman looking on dating sites for quality men in their 50s and 60s are going to have to sort through quite a bit of chaff to find any wheat.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Aim for widowers. I am guessing most of the "mature" men who want a real relationship and not just sex are already married by age 50. And their wives are not going to let go of them easily, because the wives know what is out there.
> 
> Think about which men are single in their 50s and 60s and listing themselves on dating sites. Never been marrieds. Men who left their wife to seek more sex. Men whose wife left them for another guy. Men whose wife left them and took half their assets and a big chunk of their income. Yet these men list themselves on dating sites, despite in many cases negative views on women and/or marriage. So why are these men listing themselves if they have negative views of women and/or marriage? Why, to get some sex of course! Seems to me a woman looking on dating sites for quality men in their 50s and 60s are going to have to sort through quite a bit of chaff to find any wheat.


I've only talked with a few between 50 and 72. Most don't want anything to do with marriage. It's too late in life for them. As men are set in their ways, so are women. There is too much life behind both to interfere with life ahead. There are children, grandchildren, exes, ex-inlaws who are grandparents, habits and family traditions that will never be combined, on both sides. 

This doesn't mean there aren't good men and women. It means life happens and there is less ahead. Few will want to deal with the issues that will arise. The best years of both spouses are behind them. The zest for life is not as strong. Neither is in very great physical health, in many instances. There are doctors to see and meds to take to keep healthy. There are lots more issues that grew in both that cause stubbornness and hold back the ability to be open and honest. 

When two are younger, they are much more physically attracted to each other. Life is ahead. Children can still be had. Grandchildren are yet to come. There is much ahead to look forward to. When older, there is preparation for death, decisions concerning end of life treatment, more health issues that will get in the way of traveling together after retirement. 

I understand why so many seem like they are not marriage material, and so many don't want the hassle. 

And sex? Well, what else would there be to do if each has their own family to take care of them or help them? I guess going to a play or a movie with someone? I guess going to family functions with someone? Well, the former is okay whether married or not. The latter could prove to be uncomfortable for someone before marriage, and someone else after. 

Not sure it's worth it. 

I don't date. I haven't dated since x2 left. I'm not sure it's worth the risks and/or costs. Dating someone today is like having a spouse who cheats. There is no exclusivity, unless specifically talked about and stated. Even then, you never know. After all, there is no contract. Why bother? I had that when I was married.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,
That is spot on. That's a big reason - M2s physical issues haven't caused us tension. There's no way to do a 'deep read' in a stealthy manner. I have honored M2's request to not read her mind - in all situations but this one. 

It is not a small thing - for an LD person to give that which - they aren't really feeling. At least - at first. 

That said - there seem to be a lot of low empathy marriages. 

If someone loves and desires you - a sexual desire mismatch often feels really bad to them. 

There is a happy middle ground for folks who actually love each other fully. 



Catherine602 said:


> Some of the exceptions that are repeatedly expressed in this thread made me think.
> 
> Can woman want the same? What would that look like? Should he gracefully accommodate her desire to have less sex out of consideration?.
> 
> ...


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

MEM 
When I posted that upthread, we were discussing what a LD spouse should do for the HD spouse. Some posters thought along doctrinaire lines about obligations etc. 

I agree that the LD spouse should up their game a bit but not because they are required to do so. It's what people do when they are in a close relationship with lots of shared history and a future. It's a soft accommodation not a hard line. 

The whole relationship should have that flavor, not just sex. 

I'll give an example. After we married, and moved together, imagine my shock when my new husband got on with his life which was sports and motorcycles.  Lots of conflict and misunderstanding about the time he did not spend with me. 

He thought that he should not have to give up his passions just because he married. WE lived in the same place had plenty of time together. Plus I went with him to games and on rides with him, all fun too. 

He was right, he didn't have to give anything up but I needed him to spend more time with me in shared activities. I was having a hard time adjusting and needed more of him. 

It took 2 yrs but we worked it out. He had to give up some time that he devoted to hobbies that he really liked. Thankfully, when he understood what I needed, he was not resentful and adjusted quickly. 

Seems totally unrelated to sex, Some people are reluctant to accommodate their spouses outside of the bedroom and that sets the tone for the whole relationship. 

Disclosure: my husband would tell you about all the mistakes I made in the beginning if he were here.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> I've only talked with a few between 50 and 72. Most don't want anything to do with marriage. It's too late in life for them. As men are set in their ways, so are women. There is too much life behind both to interfere with life ahead. There are children, grandchildren, exes, ex-inlaws who are grandparents, habits and family traditions that will never be combined, on both sides.
> 
> This doesn't mean there aren't good men and women. It means life happens and there is less ahead. Few will want to deal with the issues that will arise. The best years of both spouses are behind them. The zest for life is not as strong. Neither is in very great physical health, in many instances. There are doctors to see and meds to take to keep healthy. There are lots more issues that grew in both that cause stubbornness and hold back the ability to be open and honest.
> 
> ...


:frown2:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,

Finding a mutually agreeable level of synchronization is a challenge for 
many married people. It was for us. 

Once you get there - it's really nice.




Catherine602 said:


> MEM
> When I posted that upthread, we were discussing what a LD spouse should do for the HD spouse. Some posters thought along doctrinaire lines about obligations etc.
> 
> I agree that the LD spouse should up their game a bit but not because they are required to do so. It's what people do when they are in a close relationship with lots of shared history and a future. It's a soft accommodation not a hard line.
> ...


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Arriving (and jumping in) late to the thread... there's a sensuality and connection felt in simply being present. To share and experience a heightened state through sex and sexuality with my husband, well, it's part of our being together; of being open. It's an expression. And it's replenishing. Being both selfish and giving, simultaneously. 

Is it the be all and all? No. There's various ways to experience beauty, to feel replenished and connected. 

Sex does happen to be a fun way to share in that though. He burnt the dinner he was making when distracted (or perhaps completely focused, depending on perspective) giving me pleasure... there was a thread where someone mentioned cooking was fun. I'd wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Finding a mutually agreeable level of synchronization is a challenge for
> many married people. It was for us.
> Once you get there - it's really nice.


Edited for accuracy: IF you get there, it's really nice.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holding,
Part of this is recognizing and accepting partner phobias. M2 has a mild but pervasive fear of abandonment. 

A lot of her - less than ideal behavior is driven by a need for reassurance. This fear of abandonment is both wholly incurable, and easily treated. 

Last night - when it was clearly too late to connect without depriving her of a good nights sleep - she asked if I wanted to connect. 

Is this sadism? Manipulation? No and nope. It is merely a request for reassurance. So we had a little banter about me trading her in for a younger woman with a higher sex drive. I asked if her replacement would have an excellent sense of humor, exceptional language skills, the organization of a CPA and the manual dexterity of a world class masseuse. She told me - I was demanding and high maintenance. I laughed while nodding and she went to sleep - reassured. 






Holdingontoit said:


> Edited for accuracy: IF you get there, it's really nice.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Mem: I am "there" from her perspective, and it isn't "nice". At least not for me. H2 has a sexual aversion from being raped. She needs reassurance that I will not force sex on her. I thought I provided that reassurance the 6935 times I initiated, she rejected me, and I did not force myself on her. But apparently my asking was itself too much pressure (I guess that is not surprising given how often I "asked"). Now I have given her the ultimate reassurance on that score; we don't have any sex and I don't initiate sex or discuss sex at all. Now she is comfortable she will never be forced to have sex, and she is thrilled to be married to me. We had a very nice 30 - 60 second hug this morning while she was lying in bed in her jammies. Back during ST, she couldn't bring herself to do a 10 second hug standing up in the hallway with her clothes on. Clearly she feels I have addressed her phobia.

But it still isn't "nice" for me. The circles don't overlap. If we are inside her circle of comfort, we are outside mine. For us, there is no "there". So I stand by my "if". It is not "when" for all couples. Even if you hang in there forever.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holding,

That is sad. If you had a time machine what would you do differently?





Holdingontoit said:


> Mem: I am "there" from her perspective, and it isn't "nice". At least not for me. H2 has a sexual aversion from being raped. She needs reassurance that I will not force sex on her. I thought I provided that reassurance the 6935 times I initiated, she rejected me, and I did not force myself on her. But apparently my asking was itself too much pressure (I guess that is not surprising given how often I "asked"). Now I have given her the ultimate reassurance on that score; we don't have any sex and I don't initiate sex or discuss sex at all. Now she is comfortable she will never be forced to have sex, and she is thrilled to be married to me. We had a very nice 30 - 60 second hug this morning while she was lying in bed in her jammies. Back during ST, she couldn't bring herself to do a 10 second hug standing up in the hallway with her clothes on. Clearly she feels I have addressed her phobia.
> 
> But it still isn't "nice" for me. The circles don't overlap. If we are inside her circle of comfort, we are outside mine. For us, there is no "there". So I stand by my "if". It is not "when" for all couples. Even if you hang in there forever.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Mem: I am "there" from her perspective, and it isn't "nice". At least not for me. H2 has a sexual aversion from being raped. She needs reassurance that I will not force sex on her. I thought I provided that reassurance the 6935 times I initiated, she rejected me, and I did not force myself on her. But apparently my asking was itself too much pressure (I guess that is not surprising given how often I "asked"). Now I have given her the ultimate reassurance on that score; we don't have any sex and I don't initiate sex or discuss sex at all. Now she is comfortable she will never be forced to have sex, and she is thrilled to be married to me. We had a very nice 30 - 60 second hug this morning while she was lying in bed in her jammies. Back during ST, she couldn't bring herself to do a 10 second hug standing up in the hallway with her clothes on. Clearly she feels I have addressed her phobia.
> 
> But it still isn't "nice" for me. The circles don't overlap. If we are inside her circle of comfort, we are outside mine. For us, there is no "there". So I stand by my "if". It is not "when" for all couples. Even if you hang in there forever.


Real sorry to hear this 

So does she have no interest in sex at all, or she just wants to have it on her terms? Also, maybe you mentioned before, have you decided to remain in this marriage assuming there is no end to the sexless part?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> I don't date. I haven't dated since x2 left. I'm not sure it's worth the risks and/or costs. *Dating someone today is like having a spouse who cheats.* There is no exclusivity, unless specifically talked about and stated. Even then, you never know. After all, there is no contract. Why bother? I had that when I was married.


Except you don't get taken to the cleaners when they cheat and leave.

And according to the data I've seen, people "partnered but not married" have more sex than any other category, e.g., married or single. Although that is probably self-selection to a large extent, since if they don't have any sex and aren't married, why would they stay together?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

> That is sad. If you had a time machine what would you do differently?


Classic question. Part of me says I got 2 wonderful children from this path, and they are doing well, and love me dearly, so I wouldn't change anything. Part of me wishes I had paid more attention to the red flags while we were engaged and called off the wedding.

I have zero regret that there is anything I could have done differently to create a "there" with my wife. The only way to have gotten "there" would have been to walk the path with someone else. So if the way forward was to leave before it ended, then I would leave before it began.



EllisRedding said:


> So does she have no interest in sex at all, or she just wants to have it on her terms? Also, maybe you mentioned before, have you decided to remain in this marriage assuming there is no end to the sexless part?


No idea whether it is no sex at all, no sex with me, or sex with me but only on her terms. Done exploring. Not worth the effort to find out.

Yes, I intend to stay married to her for as long as I live. And yes, I intend to never have sex with her again. Remember, at this point the sexlessness is at my request / insistence. She offered once or twice and I turned her down. She has given signs recently that she might be open to it. I have chosen not to pursue the "openings". For me to be interested in having sex again, both of us would have to do things that neither of us is prepared to do. I am not going to exercise and get in better shape and take Viagra, because that would create desire and expectations on my part that I am not willing to trigger or endure. I am giving in to my fear and shame. My choice. My fault. My burden.

But that is the point. I am no longer living subject to her whims. Now, she has no say over my sex life, because I do not share it with her in any way. I like it this way. At this point I desire control over myself more than I desire sex with her. I cannot imagine she will ever do or say anything that would cause sex to appear to be the more attractive alternative. She is more than welcome to try.

But I am done trying. I spent 23 years vainly chasing her. She will chase me or we won't ever have sex. That is her choice. She might wish for me to offer other choices. Well, I spent 23 years wishing she she would offer me different choices. I made my choice. Now she can make hers. She may choose to leave. Not my preference but there are limits on what I will do to prevent it. Going back to being under her thumb is not on that list. If I put sex back on the table, then I give her the power to influence me by threatening to withhold sex. I cannot imagine her offering to create circumstances where I would want to give her that power ever again. But I am sure there are things in this world beyond my feeble imagination.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Did you tell her that you were opting out?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, I intend to stay married to her for as long as I live. And yes, I intend to never have sex with her again. Remember, at this point the sexlessness is at my request / insistence. She offered once or twice and I turned her down. She has given signs recently that she might be open to it. I have chosen not to pursue the "openings". For me to be interested in having sex again, both of us would have to do things that neither of us is prepared to do. I am not going to exercise and get in better shape and take Viagra, because that would create desire and expectations on my part that I am not willing to trigger or endure. I am giving in to my fear and shame. My choice. My fault. My burden.


Interesting. When I was going through a sexless or close to sexless period, I had gotten to the point where I would have rather not had any sex at all. I never rejected my W but at times I would try to put myself in a position where sex was off the table (not literally, b/c if literal that would have meant sex which would have solved the problem lol). My rationale, the hardest thing to deal with was the hope for sex (and subsequent letdown), so removing sex from the equation helped to alleviate the problem. 

I did however get to the point where I said I would no longer put up with our marriage being like this. Now, let's say nothing changed, I talked to my W and she was completely unresponsive, would I have filed for divorce? After all, isn't that part of the question in this thread, is sex the bottom line? Well, no, I wouldn't have filed for divorce, at least not anytime soon. However, if our marriage had continued down that path, it would have done irreparable damage that could very well lead to things ending in the future.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Did you tell her that you were opting out?


I told her I do not expect to ever have sex with her again. I turned her down when she offered. What else is there to tell?

We are still married. We still do everything else together. Dinner. Movies. Hikes. Vacations. Talk about the kids. I have not withdrawn from any other aspect of the marriage. As I have said, in other ways we get along better than when I was trying and failing to have sex with her. More holding hands. More hugs. Saturday night events are less tense because she isn't worried that I am going to pounce on her when we get home. Marriage is much easier for me than when sex was theoretically possible but not practically available. That was torture. This is smooth sailing. Unsatisfying. But comfortable.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

tech-novelist said:


> Except you don't get taken to the cleaners when they cheat and leave.
> 
> And according to the data I've seen, people "partnered but not married" have more sex than any other category, e.g., married or single. Although that is probably self-selection to a large extent, since if they don't have any sex and aren't married, why would they stay together?


They can't take what you don't have.

I'm wondering how the question was worded? Here's another thing. If you are like me, when you are paired with someone, it always seems like women are more comfortable with you. They seem to want to talk and laugh and so on. 

When you are not partnered, you are a pariah. 

So, it makes sense then, that you would be having more sex when partnered. You have your partner and some others who show interest.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> They can't take what you don't have.


I'm not following you. Do you mean not having any possessions?



2ntnuf said:


> I'm wondering how the question was worded? Here's another thing. If you are like me, when you are paired with someone, it always seems like women are more comfortable with you. They seem to want to talk and laugh and so on.
> 
> When you are not partnered, you are a pariah.


Yes, this is a well-known effect called "pre-selection". Women's attraction triggers include things that are not visible, so it's more efficient to let other women figure out who is attractive. Not that this is conscious; it's the hindbrain at work.



2ntnuf said:


> So, it makes sense then, that you would be having more sex when partnered. You have your partner and some others who show interest.


Hmm, I understood it to mean that they had more sex with each other. You could be right though.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

tech-novelist said:


> I'm not following you. Do you mean not having any possessions?
> 
> Yeah. If you don't have much, there isn't much to split. You don't lose much.
> 
> ...


That's the traditional meaning and I did know that's what you were thinking. I've got a different, more modern take on it, and that's what I posted for your consideration. 

We know no one is going to be honest about cheating. If they are not married, is it cheating? I'd say to an even smaller population, it is considered cheating. 

So, I would think questions would have to be very specific, while the participants would have to be vetted through written tests prior and a polygraph after, while reading their written answers. I doubt that has been done. Even then, no one can be certain of honesty.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

tech-novelist said:


> And according to the data I've seen, people "partnered but not married" have more sex than any other category, e.g., married or single. Although that is probably self-selection to a large extent, since if they don't have any sex and aren't married, why would they stay together?


For me the following also applies, if they don't have any sex and are married, why would they stay together?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Mem: I am "there" from her perspective, and it isn't "nice". At least not for me. H2 has a sexual aversion from being raped. She needs reassurance that I will not force sex on her. I thought I provided that reassurance the 6935 times I initiated, she rejected me, and I did not force myself on her. But apparently my asking was itself too much pressure (I guess that is not surprising given how often I "asked"). Now I have given her the ultimate reassurance on that score; we don't have any sex and I don't initiate sex or discuss sex at all. Now she is comfortable she will never be forced to have sex, and she is thrilled to be married to me. We had a very nice 30 - 60 second hug this morning while she was lying in bed in her jammies. Back during ST, she couldn't bring herself to do a 10 second hug standing up in the hallway with her clothes on. Clearly she feels I have addressed her phobia.
> 
> But it still isn't "nice" for me. The circles don't overlap. If we are inside her circle of comfort, we are outside mine. For us, there is no "there". So I stand by my "if". It is not "when" for all couples. Even if you hang in there forever.


If one finds them self married to a rape victim and that victim is unwilling and or unable to have sex with you often or at all, it is still not unreasonable in such a circumstance to get sex elsewhere.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> If one finds them self married to a rape victim and that victim is unwilling and or unable to have sex with you often or at all, it is still not unreasonable in such a circumstance to get sex elsewhere.


Subject to local divorce laws...


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> I'm wondering how the question was worded? Here's another thing. If you are like me, when you are paired with someone, it always seems like women are more comfortable with you. They seem to want to talk and laugh and so on.
> 
> When you are not partnered, you are a pariah.
> 
> So, it makes sense then, that you would be having more sex when partnered. You have your partner and some others who show interest.


Women are friendlier when you are partnered because they assume that since you're already taken you're not interested in them. This gives them freedom to talk and laugh because there's nothing at stake, they don't have to worry that they're giving you the wrong idea or leading you along. They're free to be friendly without worrying about starting something. Trust me, it's not because they all want to be your next sex partner.

When you're single, you're much more likely to want something from them, and so they will only talk and laugh if they want to flirt with you.

Partnered people have more sex because they have a ready and willing partner right there, not because they are relying on multiple people. Single people have less sex because they have to keep finding new people all the time --which can be pretty hard.


----------



## RubyRing (Jun 13, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> How strong would you say the chemical attraction is between you and your spouse/Sig.Other?
> 
> I've been wondering if those who do not have some illness or tragedy in their past and aren't very affectionate outside the bedroom, don't have much natural chemical attraction. They are just physically attracted and found their SO to have qualities and social status they hoped to find.


Very strong in and out of the bedroom.


----------



## RubyRing (Jun 13, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> Aim for widowers. I am guessing most of the "mature" men who want a real relationship and not just sex are already married by age 50. And their wives are not going to let go of them easily, because the wives know what is out there. And the "brisket brigade" descends amazingly quickly on any widower worth marrying, so you aren't going to find them on dating sites. They have a line of women around the block offering to cook dinner for them. At least that is what my Mom reports happens in her community in Florida any time a wife pre-deceases her husband.
> 
> So think about which men are single in their 50s and 60s and listing themselves on dating sites. First of all, they are men for whom the wives of their married friends are NOT constantly setting them up on dates with whatever single women are available locally. That leaves never been marrieds. Men who are known to have left their wife to seek more sex. Men whose wife left them for another guy but whom the local women do not view as good dating material. Men whose wife left them and took half their assets and a big chunk of their income and are known to be bitter and resentful. Yet these men list themselves on dating sites, despite in many cases holding negative views on women and/or marriage. So why are these men listing themselves if they have negative views of women and/or marriage? Why, to get some sex of course! Seems to me a woman looking on dating sites for quality men in their 50s and 60s are going to have to sort through quite a bit of chaff to find any wheat.


Actually after going through many fakers, flakers, losers, users, and good men whom I did not feel attracted to, I met a WONDERFUL man on match.com. We are both in our 60's. We just recently became engaged and are getting married next year.

I feel like I won the lottery. Finding someone to love in the so called golden years is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. 

We both are so happy and feel so lucky.

I had to kiss ALOT of frogs to find my prince.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Women are friendlier when you are partnered because they assume that since you're already taken you're not interested in them. This gives them freedom to talk and laugh because there's nothing at stake, they don't have to worry that they're giving you the wrong idea or leading you along. They're free to be friendly without worrying about starting something. Trust me, it's not because they all want to be your next sex partner.
> 
> When you're single, you're much more likely to want something from them, and so they will only talk and laugh if they want to flirt with you.
> 
> Partnered people have more sex because they have a ready and willing partner right there, not because they are relying on multiple people. Single people have less sex because they have to keep finding new people all the time --which can be pretty hard.


Makes sense. I used to believe that. I even used to believe those who were already partnered were not likely to be looking for a hook up and were reasonably safe to trust around a partner. After all, the partner seemed happy. 

What we find is that sex and love are two different things. We may love a partner and have sex with them while having sex with others for fun or some other reason while believing we are securely monogamous. 

I know. This doesn't happen to everyone.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> Makes sense. I used to believe that. I even used to believe those who were already partnered were not likely to be looking for a hook up and were reasonably safe to trust around a partner. After all, the partner seemed happy.
> 
> What we find is that sex and love are two different things. We may love a partner and have sex with them while having sex with others for fun or some other reason while believing we are securely monogamous.
> 
> I know. This doesn't happen to everyone.


Yes, people can be pretty awful to each other :t

But fortunately, that isn't the bottom line either. They can also be pretty amazing.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Today H2 climbed into bed next to me and put her head on my chest. Then she pranced around the room topless while she tried on various outfits. This is why I engineered the current situation. None of that used to happen when we were occasionally or very rarely having sex.

I think part of this is my complete absence of reaction to her physical presence or nakedness. My heartbeat and respiration do not increase. I don't flush. No arousal at all. This seems to allow her to feel safe around me. No idea if it is conscious or subconscious on her part. She always wanted the strong and silent type. I am now a piece of stone, just like she likes.

And this is precisely why I need to be both completely uninterested and at least partially incapable of having sex with her. The unable keeps me from being interested. The uninterested (actually and truly, and not pretending) keeps my body from having any subconscious autonomic reaction to her presence. Even when she is unclothed, in bed, etc. I have no poker face. I need the fear and shame of poor performance to prevent my body from responding to her. And only when my body refuses to respond does she feel free to interact with me without high walls, moats, defensive gun emplacement, etc. I like it that her walls are down. And she doesn't seem to mind that my walls are up and the moat is filled with water and stocked with leeches, alligators and pirhana.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Today H2 climbed into bed next to me and put her head on my chest. Then she pranced around the room topless while she tried on various outfits. This is why I engineered the current situation. None of that used to happen when we were occasionally or very rarely having sex.
> 
> I think part of this is my complete absence of reaction to her physical presence or nakedness. My heartbeat and respiration do not increase. I don't flush. No arousal at all. This seems to allow her to feel safe around me. No idea if it is conscious or subconscious on her part. She always wanted the strong and silent type. I am now a piece of stone, just like she likes.
> 
> And this is precisely why I need to be both completely uninterested and at least partially incapable of having sex with her. The unable keeps me from being interested. The uninterested (actually and truly, and not pretending) keeps my body from having any subconscious autonomic reaction to her presence. Even when she is unclothed, in bed, etc. I have no poker face. I need the fear and shame of poor performance to prevent my body from responding to her. And only when my body refuses to respond does she feel free to interact with me without high walls, moats, defensive gun emplacement, etc. I like it that her walls are down. And she doesn't seem to mind that my walls are up and the moat is filled with water and stocked with leeches, alligators and pirhana.


I can (sort) of see why this is good for *her*.

What I can't see is why *you *put up with it.

I know I wouldn't.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Yes, people can be pretty awful to each other :t
> 
> But fortunately, that isn't the bottom line either. They can also be pretty amazing.


I don't know that I'd go as far as saying they are amazing, unless you mean surprising. I don't want any more surprises.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

tech-novelist said:


> What I can't see is why *you *put up with it.
> 
> I know I wouldn't.


And that is why you are healthier and saner than I am.

I have explained this many times. I want to stay married more than I want sex. I want to keep 100% of my income and assets more than I want sex. I want to keep my children's FOO intact more than I want sex.

Now that sex is off the table, I enjoy interacting with my wife. I see no reason to upset the applecart in the hopes of adding sex to the mix.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> And that is why you are healthier and saner than I am.
> 
> I have explained this many times. I want to stay married more than I want sex. I want to keep 100% of my income and assets more than I want sex. I want to keep my children's FOO intact more than I want sex.
> 
> Now that sex is off the table, I enjoy interacting with my wife. I see no reason to upset the applecart in the hopes of adding sex to the mix.


Of course your life is up to you, but you have raised at least as many questions as you have answered here.

1. You want to stay married. Ok, but *why *do you want to stay married?

2. You want to keep 100% of your income and assets. Ok, but that must mean that your wife doesn't cost you anything. But if that is the case, then she shouldn't get that much from you in a divorce because she is self-supporting. So what is the danger in divorcing?

3. You want to keep your children's FOO intact. Ok, but what are they learning from the way she treats you and the way you take it? I don't think that is a very good role model for them.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

tech-novelist said:


> 1. You want to stay married. Ok, but *why *do you want to stay married?


Look, my reasons do not need to make sense to you. They only need to make sense to me. I am comfortable here. I have built a pleasant cage of lies and rationalizations that make this tolerable. I am not interested in you disproving my beliefs. If you succeeded, that would require me to make major changes in my life. Do lots more work. Exert effort on my own behalf. I am lazy. I would rather stay here. You wouldn't. That is OK. Luckily, you don't have to.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Look, my reasons do not need to make sense to you. They only need to make sense to me. I am comfortable here. I have built a pleasant cage of lies and rationalizations that make this tolerable. I am not interested in you disproving my beliefs. If you succeeded, that would require me to make major changes in my life. Do lots more work. Exert effort on my own behalf. I am lazy. I would rather stay here. You wouldn't. That is OK. Luckily, you don't have to.


Sure, I understand that you are the one who has to live your own life. How could I argue with that?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> I don't know that I'd go as far as saying they are amazing, unless you mean surprising. I don't want any more surprises.


. Not all surprises are bad, but you'll need to open your heart.

If it's any consolation --or motivation -- you can do this while still protecting yourself. Just open it a little, and observe the absolutely amazingly generous things that people will do for each other, unbidden and without reward.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Working on it with a phd psych and by reading and posting here. Sometimes, I say more here than there. I can post thoughts I wouldn't do, but am thinking and trying to get perspective on. 

Thanks for the encouragement. I really am trying. It's tough to love someone more than you ever have another and lose them. No one seems good enough when that person who was in your mind, the best match possible, throws you to the curb and then dumps her chamber pot on you.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Working on it with a phd psych and by reading and posting here. Sometimes, I say more here than there. I can post thoughts I wouldn't do, but am thinking and trying to get perspective on.
> 
> Thanks for the encouragement. I really am trying. It's tough to love someone more than you ever have another and lose them. No one seems good enough when that person who was in your mind, the best match possible, throws you to the curb and then dumps her chamber pot on you.


I would think that it would be easy to find someone better than that. But I've never had that particular experience, so what do I know?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

tech-novelist said:


> I would think that it would be easy to find someone better than that. But I've never had that particular experience, so what do I know?


Not a real chamber pot, silly. 

It's a semaphore...or is that metaphor? :grin2:


----------



## BobSimmons (Mar 2, 2013)

Vega said:


> We marry to get it.
> '


Surely if that was the be all and end all, we would stay unmarried simply because if sex is your god then being single means you can have as much variety as you desire?

Besides..if you're marrying simply to get it, then you're doomed.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

BobSimmons said:


> Surely if that was the be all and end all, we would stay unmarried simply because if sex is your god then being single means you can have as much variety as you desire?
> 
> Besides..if you're marrying simply to get it, then you're doomed.


Not necessarily. Single people may get variety, but they may not be getting the quantity. 

Besides, once you reach a certain age, picking up random strangers for sex gets a little more difficult, the scene is more competitive, you're taking STD risks, and the pool of available partners gets smaller. 

The presumption for people to whom sex is a priority is that when they marry, their spouse will provide them with (hopefully) quality sex until their bodies stop functioning.

But, yeah, anyone marrying a particular partner solely for the sex is just asking for future problems.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> Working on it with a phd psych and by reading and posting here. Sometimes, I say more here than there. I can post thoughts I wouldn't do, but am thinking and trying to get perspective on.
> 
> Thanks for the encouragement. I really am trying. It's tough to love someone more than you ever have another and lose them. No one seems good enough when that person who was in your mind, the best match possible, throws you to the curb and then dumps her chamber pot on you.


I'm a big believer in that the next should always be better than the last. While the end of a relationship is very painful the possibility of the next and greater one is a powerful motivator (for me). 

But that can only happen if you are growing as an individual, the better you are as a person, the chance of finding a better partner increases. Be your best and you will find the best, water finds it's own level.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MrsHolland said:


> I'm a big believer in that the next should always be better than the last. While the end of a relationship is very painful the possibility of the next and greater one is a powerful motivator (for me).
> 
> But that can only happen if you are growing as an individual, the better you are as a person, the chance of finding a better partner increases. Be your best and you will find the best, water finds it's own level.


Every woman I dated since my first wife, who was first in all things with me, has been a better match. 

I took a few steps back when my second wife and I broke up. I was deeply hurt and recovery is taking longer than I ever expected, due to some unforeseen issues that arose. 

I am working on it. I am working from a standpoint that I am worth nothing and have to relearn all of life's lessons, because I was so stupid at picking a decent woman. 

Yeah, it hurt me that much that I don't even trust myself. So, it will take time before I even think very seriously about dating. I may never date again. I just don't know at this point in my life. 

Right now, I only want to learn how to go out and have fun again. I'm afraid to even do that, so I stay home unless I am at work or getting groceries, gasoline, or at the doctor's office.

I do not see or talk to siblings, children, grandchildren. Both my mother and dad are gone. I talk to folks at work a little and here. 

My life was completely shattered from top to bottom.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't remember your story @2ntnuf but I'd like to say a few things that are universally true. 

Everyones picker is faulty at detecting certain types of defective and deceptive people. Faulty but not impossible if you learn to recognize red flags. People with personality disorders such as NPD and BPD are especially difficult to detect. Their red flags are at full staff only after they think you can't get away.

These people are masters of deception and reveal their pathology slowly and skillfully. Their tricks work best on normal people because they (normals) cannot not image the twisted ways those afflicted with these diseases think. 

A relationship with them can tear a normal person apart. If that is the case for you, you need time to heal and you need to have faith and step out there and date again. This time immediately eliminate anyone who fly's red flags. 

The conventional advice is that you need to date several people before you can decide what you want. Your plan to go out and meet women for light fun dates is a good one. 

When you are ready to find a loving relationship, remember that dating is a getting-to-know-you period. Signs of serious red flags or solvable problems at any point during this period should trigger a protective response, flight.


----------



## DrSher (Jul 17, 2016)

Without sex, there is no point being married... If my wife had ever dropped here, I would be gone before next morning.

Fortunately I have wife that likes, sex, girls and sports..

Lucky me.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Well Dr. You are spreading the cheer tonight. 

You seem to be very satisfied with yourself and the sex you manage to get from women. Are you sharing your idyll to brighten the lives of the less fortunate and/or to encourage them to be like you? Or something else...


----------



## DrSher (Jul 17, 2016)

I think we all can share each others experiences and failures. I have many of both. Otherwise, sex is a big part of my life. I only wanted to make that point. Yes, there may be other reasons to marry than sex as that is the first thing that goes south unless you know who someone is. I dated my wife for a year before we married and we are so close and in tune that this has always stayed active, even gotten better. 

Otherwise, sex is a healthy thing in itself. The best "natural" treatment for a range of things; highly adaptable and always new experiences; some association with less prostate cancer; highly valued for thousands of years in art&science and always incentive to stay in shape.

There are few questions I think we can express in absolutes, but sex=marriage is one of them.


----------



## VizCaya (Oct 19, 2015)

there is no real problem when both are LD .
there is no real problem when one is LD but willing to sacrifice 20 mn of his/her time to please a life partner .

when i become impotent , and my partner desire intimacy ; I would do my best to suck orgasms from her shacking body ;but selfish people won't .
they are tired , have a headache or doesn't like to touch even their body ...

the worst in marriage is not to just have incompatible desire levels it is when accompanied with selfishness .
mix them both , you get the most toxic blend in marriage.


----------



## Sunflower9119 (Feb 5, 2017)

I am the hd female in my marriage. My husband, I believe, is perfectly content to sex once a week- or every two weeks. On his own terms and time. Im starting to realize I should have waited to get married. There were a lot of "signs" while we were engaged that I could end up unhappy. I wish I was more mature and listened to the signs before getting married, having a kid and then getting stuck in this relationship.
My husband thinks I need to dress up as a pin up model since he is ld in order for him to get aroused. I have resorted to thinking this is always what he will expect in the bedroom. There have been countless arguments and fights. He thinks I'm not understanding of "his needs" by dressing up in various outfits to get him happy. What about my needs? I need someone to be aroused by me and my plain naked body. Why does he see me as the selfish one?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.
> 
> And for others, they couldn't care less.
> 
> ...


For me sex isnt a casual thing or a selfish release or brief moment of physical pleasure. Its an important part of my marriage to a man who I love and who loves me. Its the expression of that love by giving and receiving sexual pleasure. 
There are so many important things in the marriage, sex is one of them. If my husband was unable to have sex again for whatever reason, the marriage would still be good and strong because its about so much more than that, commitment, companionship, closeness, friendship, love, working together, supporting each other, communicating,laughing and so on.

The thought of having sex with a man I barely know is awful. Casual sex holds no appeal at all. When I was a single mum for 6 years I didn't date at all, and had no sex, far far too busy and tired keeping the family together. It was way down my list of priorities. 

If you must have sex to make you happy, then I would say something is out of sinc. To me while its important in a commited relationship and helps to keep you emotionally close, its not the be all and end all.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Sunflower9119 said:


> I am the hd female in my marriage. My husband, I believe, is perfectly content to sex once a week- or every two weeks. On his own terms and time. Im starting to realize I should have waited to get married. There were a lot of "signs" while we were engaged that I could end up unhappy. I wish I was more mature and listened to the signs before getting married, having a kid and then getting stuck in this relationship.
> My husband thinks I need to dress up as a pin up model since he is ld in order for him to get aroused. I have resorted to thinking this is always what he will expect in the bedroom. There have been countless arguments and fights. He thinks I'm not understanding of "his needs" by dressing up in various outfits to get him happy. What about my needs? I need someone to be aroused by me and my plain naked body. Why does he see me as the selfish one?


Does he look at porn?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> There are so many important things in the marriage, sex is one of them. If my husband was unable to have sex again for whatever reason, the marriage would still be good and strong because its about so much more than that, commitment, companionship, closeness, friendship, love, working together, supporting each other, communicating,laughing and so on.
> 
> If you must have sex to make you happy, then I would say something is out of sinc. To me while its important in a commited relationship and helps to keep you emotionally close, its not the be all and end all.


Yup! I feel the same way, but it seems that sooooo many other people don't.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Diana7 said:


> If you must have sex to make you happy, then I would say something is out of sinc. To me while its important in a commited relationship and helps to keep you emotionally close, its not the be all and end all.


See, for many I don't think its about necessarily needing sex to make you happy in a LTR. For many people, sex problems could be a symptom of other issues in a LTR. As well, you can understand why someone would feel bothered when sex might have been an important part of their LTR for several/many years, and then suddenly it drops off (could be bait & switch, etc...). It becomes a bigger issue I believe when the one person completely deprioritizes it, makes no effort to work on or address. How would it be any different if someone decided they would deprioritize another aspect of the LTR? It is easier to go after sex b/c some people can simply hold onto the whole "well, he/she is just using me for sex and nothing more" viewpoint instead of maybe looking at themselves to see what role they play in the issue.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> If you must have sex to make you happy, then I would say something is out of sinc. To me while its important in a commited relationship and helps to keep you emotionally close, its not the be all and end all.


All well and good that you do not need sex to be happy in a committed relationship. Some people do. Nothing wrong with those who do. Or those who don't. But often there is something very wrong when someone who does is paired with someone who doesn't.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> All well and good that you do not need sex to be happy in a committed relationship. Some people do. Nothing wrong with those who do. Or those who don't. But often there is something very wrong when someone who does is paired with someone who doesn't.


 I think that sex in marriage is very important, but if it stopped for whatever reason I am not going to divorce my husband over it.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I was going to say that a good sex life is about compromise, but that really isn't it - a good sex life is about each enjoying pleasing the other.

There is nothing wrong with you *sometimes* wearing outfits that he thinks are sexy, but then he should be happy with the times that you don't want to dress up, and he should be happy doing things that please you in bed.

If either has no desire to please, I don't think a couple's sex life can every be good




Sunflower9119 said:


> I am the hd female in my marriage. My husband, I believe, is perfectly content to sex once a week- or every two weeks. On his own terms and time. Im starting to realize I should have waited to get married. There were a lot of "signs" while we were engaged that I could end up unhappy. I wish I was more mature and listened to the signs before getting married, having a kid and then getting stuck in this relationship.
> My husband thinks I need to dress up as a pin up model since he is ld in order for him to get aroused. I have resorted to thinking this is always what he will expect in the bedroom. There have been countless arguments and fights. He thinks I'm not understanding of "his needs" by dressing up in various outfits to get him happy. What about my needs? I need someone to be aroused by me and my plain naked body. Why does he see me as the selfish one?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> All well and good that you do not need sex to be happy in a committed relationship. Some people do. Nothing wrong with those who do. Or those who don't. But often there is something very wrong when someone who does is paired with someone who doesn't.


It's not always immediately apparent that the person we're with is going to eventually have a lack of interest in sex. The LD in the relationship may not even realize that they're LD or that they'll become LD. 

And likewise, it's not always immediately apparent that the person we're with is going to eventually have a lack of interest in *US*. 

Some people can have sex with _anyone_ as long as the sex is 'good' and/or 'available'. They don't even have to _like_ you let alone LOVE you in order to have sex with you. Even if they realize that you're not "The One", in a few days, weeks, months or even _years_, they'll continue to have sex with you. They can separate how they feel about *you* from how they feel about *sex*. 

A person can love their partner, yet not want to have sex or have a LOT of sex with them. Still, a person can almost DESPISE their partner or have no feelings for their partner, yet still want to have sex with them. 

We don't all need to have sex in order to feel love, and we don't all need to feel love in order to have sex. 

Maybe we should just call the whole 'thing' off...:surprise:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> I think that sex in marriage is very important, but if it stopped for whatever reason I am not going to divorce my husband over it.


Would your husband divorce YOU over it?

ETA: The reason I ask is 2-fold. 

1. It seems like there are more men who would divorce their wive's for lack of sex than wives' who would divorce their husbands for the same reason and...

2. Yesterday I was reading another forum about this very thing. Most of the men on the forum were complaining about how they were being "deprived" or their wives were "withholding" (one believed that his wife should have sex with him even though she was very ill!) sex from them. One man started chastising the other men, basically telling them all to "grow up" and to stop using their wives as some sexual 'vessel'. 

Another post was from a woman whose husband told her the day before they married that he wouldn't care if they NEVER HAD SEX AGAIN, and that he still wanted to be with her. She said she felt a sense of 'relief' that washed over her when he said that. She felt like she could have sex with her husband because she WANTED to; not because she HAD to. When she had her children, sex was off the table for a while. Her husband was MORE than patient, and never even hinted at wanting sex. She approached him after about 6 months and asked him if it was something he missed. She said that he cupped her face in his hands and softly told her, "Remember what I said the day before we got married? I meant every word..." Brought her to tears. His attitude inspired her to want to have sex with him. If he is playful with her regarding sex and she's not in the mood, he'll offer to do something for her that's non-sexual, such as rub her feet, draw her a nice bubble bath or take her for ice cream. 

Would love to speak to her husband to find out what inspired him to treat his wife so lovingly.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> I think that sex in marriage is very important, but if it stopped for whatever reason I am not going to divorce my husband over it.


Perfectly OK. You get to decide what are deal breakers for you and where you will draw your line in the sand. Some people choose to divorce over this. Some don't. Some don't and wish they did. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> We don't all need to have sex in order to feel love, and we don't all need to feel love in order to have sex.


Absolutely true.

But some of us do need to have sex with our partner in order to feel love for them. The problem is not that our partner feels differently (if they do). There is a problem only if our partner is unable or unwilling to have sex with us, but expects that we will continue to love them. In that case, one or both of us is going to be disappointed.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> Perfectly OK. You get to decide what are deal breakers for you and where you will draw your line in the sand. Some people choose to divorce over this. Some don't. Some don't and wish they did. Different strokes for different folks.


A lot would depend on the reason. If a spouse had an accident or serious long term illness which meant they couldn't have sex, then to end that marriage would be incredibly wrong and inhuman in my view.
. 
If they deliberately refused sex for long periods or permanently, for no real reason IE there is no abuse or there had been no cheating, then that would need to be faced and challenged and worked on. 
Maybe they would need to be given the choice of divorce or working on the issues if this is a long term unresolved issue.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> Absolutely true.
> 
> But some of us do need to have sex with our partner in order to feel love for them. The problem is not that our partner feels differently (if they do). There is a problem only if our partner is unable or unwilling to have sex with us, but expects that we will continue to love them. In that case, one or both of us is going to be disappointed.


If my husband was unable to have sex I would definitely still love him. Why wouldn't I? I love Him regardless.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> If my husband was unable to have sex I would definitely still love him. Why wouldn't I? I love Him regardless.


Swap "unable" for "unwilling". Add in didn't care what your views were. Top with disdain for the fact you even want to.

How long do you feel the love?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Sawney Beane said:


> Swap "unable" for "unwilling". Add in didn't care what your views were. Top with disdain for the fact you even want to.
> 
> How long do you feel the love?


 Yes, well that marriage is in trouble.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> If my husband was unable to have sex I would definitely still love him. Why wouldn't I? I love Him regardless.


Fine. That is a beautiful and wonderful thing.

I guess I am a less noble person. One of the things I love about my wife is her willingness to have sex with me on a regular basis. If she stopped being willing to have sex with me on a regular basis, I would love her less. Some may view that as shallow or immature or selfish. I am not inclined to argue with those views.

For myself, I do not see anything wrong with feeling the way I feel. I don't see it as a flaw in my character that needs fixing. I view "willingness to have sex with me" as a vital qualification for the role of "my wife". I don't require that characteristic of people who don't wish to occupy the role of "my wife". I don't care if my barber or auto mechanic or newspaper delivery person is willing to have sex with me. But I care very much whether my wife is.

Come to think of it, maybe saying "I would love her less" is not quite accurate. More along the lines of "I would see her as less suitable to continue occupying the role of "my wife". So I might still love her. I might think she is a good co-parent to our kids. I might think she is a good friend and a decent human being. But I would not think of her as a good wife. Because, for me, an important aspect of successfully fulfilling the role of "my wife" is willingness to have sex with me.

You may well desire different characteristics from the person who occupies the role of "my husband". You may not even have a list of desired characteristics or a job description. You may view it as a holistic indivisible role that is based on your overall feelings of love for him. That is probably a superior attitude than mine toward marriage.

But not everyone feels that way. Some view marriage as more transactional. Not a problem to feel that way. Only a problem to feel that way and not feel the "trade" is worth it.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Diana7 said:


> If my husband was unable to have sex I would definitely still love him. Why wouldn't I? I love Him regardless.


I would have no issues sticking by my Ws side if something happened healthwise that made her unable to have sex.

However, I think that is different from what most are talking about here, where the SO is unwilling to work on the issue. I am not talking about that person having to give in and do exactly what the other wants, but instead working to find a middle ground. 

I also think it important to emphasize what @Holdingontoit stated, where the SO is unwilling to work on (hey, this is just the way I am) but then expects to receive every other facet that comes with the relationship.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> Would your husband divorce YOU over it?
> 
> ETA: The reason I ask is 2-fold.
> 
> ...


It seems that the only way a man can PROVE that he's not only interested in his wife for sex is to never ask her for sex (and be happy without it).

Should a wife who craves companionship from her husband never request that he spend quality time with her (and be happy about it if he doesn't) in order to prove that that isn't all she needs him for?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that the only way a man can PROVE that he's not only interested in his wife for sex is to never ask her for sex (and be happy without it).


Exactly. My wife spent 20+ years asking me to PROVE I cared about more than sex. By turning me down repeatedly and seeing if I would leave. Only after I went over a year and a half without any sex and without asking for any sex and turning her down when she offered sex, while being pleasant toward her and caring for her during a major illness, did she finally believe I cared about more than just sex. At that point she decided that I successfully had proven my good intentions, and expressed an interest in having sex with me. Unfortunately, by that time I was far less interested in having sex with her.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think that is the key to how many HDs here feel.

Their partners are turning them down to do other things that are more important to them. Being turned down for sex because a partner is ill or tired is one thing, being turned down to go out to a concert, or watch a TV show feels very different.





Diana7 said:


> Yes, well that marriage is in trouble.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

I'm not reading all 67 pages of this thread, but I'll give some of my thoughts on this.

Sex is not THE bottom line. In fact, sex is one of the best expressions of love between a 2 people in a committed relationship. In most cases, sexual frustration within a marriage is normally a symptom of an underlying deeper root cause. IMHO most LD people are more than likely people with normal drives, and that the LD is actually a reaction to some other issues going on in the marriage. We have seen time and again that sex drive will move along a sliding scale and is composed of both a physical nature (hormones) and an emotional nature (love, lust, conquest, affirmation, etc). No doubt that there are asexual people who have zero drive and legitimately LD people who cannot be "fixed" by hormone replacement and/or emotional stimulus. I think these 2 groups are a small minority, and that most people naturally drift higher or lower. The flip side are the small minority who need to have constant sexual relations too, and no amount of sex would ever be enough.

The biggest barriers to a healthy sex life in most cases (barring physical/hormonal situations) is a lack of respect, feeling valued, feeling like your partner cares for you, and other factors. Additional stressors outside the relationship dynamics can include financial security, time management issues, never coming out of "mommy and daddy" mode and other parts of life that the couple cannot or will not shut out of their relationship.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> Fine. That is a beautiful and wonderful thing.
> 
> I guess I am a less noble person. One of the things I love about my wife is her willingness to have sex with me on a regular basis. If she stopped being willing to have sex with me on a regular basis, I would love her less. Some may view that as shallow or immature or selfish. I am not inclined to argue with those views.
> 
> ...


What would you do if your wife was unable to have sex again due to accident or illness or whatever?

The only reasons I would end a marriage would be for serious abuse of myself and/or the children, cheating or long term porn use that he wasn't prepared to stop.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> Exactly. My wife spent 20+ years asking me to PROVE I cared about more than sex. By turning me down repeatedly and seeing if I would leave. Only after I went over a year and a half without any sex and without asking for any sex and turning her down when she offered sex, while being pleasant toward her and caring for her during a major illness, did she finally believe I cared about more than just sex. At that point she decided that I successfully had proven my good intentions, and expressed an interest in having sex with me. Unfortunately, by that time I was far less interested in having sex with her.


I can understand that totally. What she did was very immature and cruel.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> I would have no issues sticking by my Ws side if something happened healthwise that made her unable to have sex.
> 
> However, I think that is different from what most are talking about here, where the SO is unwilling to work on the issue. I am not talking about that person having to give in and do exactly what the other wants, but instead working to find a middle ground.
> 
> I also think it important to emphasize what @Holdingontoit stated, where the SO is unwilling to work on (hey, this is just the way I am) but then expects to receive every other facet that comes with the relationship.


Yes I agree. Its very selfish.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

100% agree with this. 

This is why you marry someone who is good. A good person won't constantly pressure you if they are the HD, nor badly neglect you if they are the LD. 





Vega said:


> It's not always immediately apparent that the person we're with is going to eventually have a lack of interest in sex. The LD in the relationship may not even realize that they're LD or that they'll become LD.
> 
> And likewise, it's not always immediately apparent that the person we're with is going to eventually have a lack of interest in *US*.
> 
> ...


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> I think that sex in marriage is very important, but *if it stopped for whatever reason* I am not going to divorce my husband over it.


:surprise: So you wouldn't even divorce your husband if he stopped having sex with you, because he preferred getting it elsewhere?



Diana7 said:


> A lot would depend on the reason. If a spouse had an accident or serious long term illness which meant they couldn't have sex, then to end that marriage would be incredibly wrong and inhuman in my view.
> .
> *If they deliberately refused sex for long periods or permanently, for no real reason* IE there is no abuse or there had been no cheating, then that would need to be faced and challenged and worked on.
> *Maybe they would need to be given the choice of divorce* or working on the issues if this is a long term unresolved issue.


Which is it? In one statement you say you wouldn't divorce your husband if the sex stopped whatever the reason, yet in another you claim divorce is an option if the sex stops.

Was the first or second statement dishonest or was one of the statements a mistake?


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> It *seems that the only way a man can PROVE that he's not only interested in his wife for sex is to never ask her for sex (and be happy without it).*
> 
> Should a wife who craves companionship from her husband never request that he spend quality time with her (and be happy about it if he doesn't) in order to prove that that isn't all she needs him for?


well that's a big broad statement Buddy. Absolutely not how things work in my world. 

Sure if a partner is a complete knob outside the bedroom and then wants lots of selfish sex then I can see how people might think this way. But if a partner is a true partner outside of the bedroom then it is an immature thought process to think all they want is sex. Far out it would be so much easier to go and get NSA sex than to put up with the challenges of a LTR if all that was important was sex.

A man can be a good, decent, respectful, engaged participant in a relationship, this should be enough to not have to prove it is all just about sex.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

MrsHolland said:


> if a partner is a complete knob


You're such an Aussie!


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Exactly. My wife spent 20+ years asking me to PROVE I cared about more than sex. By turning me down repeatedly and seeing if I would leave. Only after I went over a year and a half without any sex and without asking for any sex and turning her down when she offered sex, while being pleasant toward her and caring for her during a major illness, did she finally believe I cared about more than just sex. At that point she decided that I successfully had proven my good intentions, and expressed an interest in having sex with me. Unfortunately, by that time I was far less interested in having sex with her.


One of my favorite books of all time is "Soul of a new machine" by Tracy Kidder. One of the characters says: "it's like pinball. You play one game well, you get to play again (for free)". That's how I see it. 

The objective is not to get the LD spouse to have sex with you. That's not difficult. The hard part is to do it consistently, or, to have the proverbial paradigm shift. That generally ain't happening.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that the only way a man can PROVE that he's not only interested in his wife for sex is to never ask her for sex (and be happy without it).
> 
> Should a wife who craves companionship from her husband never request that he spend quality time with her (and be happy about it if he doesn't) in order to prove that that isn't all she needs him for?


I think this does tie in with the perception that all guys care about is sex, doesn't matter where or who they get it from. If he asks for sex from his SO (in a monogamous relationship), well, he just wants sex and she is the best option available. You can see this here at times, when guys have mentioned they view sex with their SO as a bonding experience, a way to strengthen the emotional connection, it is met with responses of disbelief or all these different scenarios that try to paint a picture that he is just in it to get laid. So naturally, under these circumstances, his willingness to forgo sex is the only way to "prove" that sex isn't the only thing that interests him (although I have a sneaky suspicion that his showing a lack of interest in sex will eventually have his SO questioning whether or not he even desires her anymore...).

And yes, I do understand the above is not everyone's view or take, just my POV based on posts I have seen here and personal experience.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Yes, and once someone is in that mindset, there is no way out. Everything good he does is for sex. Everything bad is sulking because of not getting sex. If he is happy after sex, its a trick to get more sex. 






EllisRedding said:


> I think this does tie in with the perception that all guys care about is sex, doesn't matter where or who they get it from. If he asks for sex from his SO (in a monogamous relationship), well, he just wants sex and she is the best option available. You can see this here at times, when guys have mentioned they view sex with their SO as a bonding experience, a way to strengthen the emotional connection, it is met with responses of disbelief or all these different scenarios that try to paint a picture that he is just in it to get laid. So naturally, under these circumstances, his willingness to forgo sex is the only way to "prove" that sex isn't the only thing that interests him (although I have a sneaky suspicion that his showing a lack of interest in sex will eventually have his SO questioning whether or not he even desires her anymore...).
> 
> And yes, I do understand the above is not everyone's view or take, just my POV based on posts I have seen here and personal experience.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> What would you do if your wife was unable to have sex again due to accident or illness or whatever?


My wife had cancer recently. Surgery. Chemo. Radiation. She was unable to have sex for over a year. Bothered me not at all.

What bothered me was the 20+ years before then when she was perfectly healthy and turned me down 99% of the time. The "what if she were paralyzed?" is a red herring. We are not talking about physical inability. We are talking about making everything else in life a higher priority and then trying to guilt the HD into feeling bad that they want more sex than they are getting. We had week long vacations on cruise ships and at fancy hotels and we had sex not at all. Are you saying that her choice to deny me any sex even when on vacation with no kids and no responsibilities should not affect my love for her or my satisfaction with our marriage? Fine. Then we can agree to disagree. It did affect how I feel about her. In a major way. And it does not bother me in the least that it did.



> The only reasons I would end a marriage would be for serious abuse of myself and/or the children, cheating or long term porn use that he wasn't prepared to stop.


Some of us view continuous rejection (sexually) as serious abuse. You are free not to see it that way. If you could feel the pain that I felt the 10th or 20th or 30th time in a row that my wife turns me down, or after a month or two (or 10 or 12 or 15) when the first thing out of her mouth every night when I get home from work is "I am tired and have a headache", then you might change your mind as to whether sexual rejection can ever rise to the level of abuse.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that the only way a man can PROVE that he's not only interested in his wife for sex is to never ask her for sex (and be happy without it).


Fair enough. But then how else does one *prove* that it's NOT all about sex?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> Fair enough. But then how else does one *prove* that it's NOT all about sex?


Doubt there is a easy answer. Honestly, both people need to talk about this openly (i.e. their needs, expectations, etc...). Talk about the things each person does that possibly adds to the perception. This could be something where the HD only acts a certain way when they want sex and not other times. This could be the behavior of the LD who uses rejection as a means to control sex in the relationship. Could be a myriad of things. All you can hope for is that each person listens to the other, respects their point of view, and hopefully feel the relationship is worth enough to compromise.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Unfortunately its impossible. If the theory is that a man will do anything for sex, then he might engage in any behavior that would make his partner have sex with him. 

I guess the exception is when he dies of old age having never had sex, she will know that it wasn't about sex, and that she should have been having sex with him.


I wonder though why it matters? If someone is good to you in a broad and consistent way, does it really matter deep down *why* they are behaving that way?






Vega said:


> Fair enough. But then how else does one *prove* that it's NOT all about sex?


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Vega said:


> Fair enough. But then how else does one *prove* that it's NOT all about sex?


Get sex from someone who actually wants it and still come home every night? 

"See, baby, it's not all about sex or I wouldn't have left that hot piece to come home to your frigid azz."

* I'm joking...mostly.*

Seriously, though, you'd think that after a few months or so and the HD spouse hasn't filed and moved on or started an affair, it would be a clue it's not just about sex.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Personal said:


> :surprise: So you wouldn't even divorce your husband if he stopped having sex with you, because he preferred getting it elsewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I personally wouldn't divorce him. I wasn't talking about the situation of a spouse cheating, but one where they were maybe ill or disabled or had bad depression or whatever. Cheating is another issue. 

If someone has been rejected sexually for years for no apparent reason, then I can understand them wanting to leave. If the other spouse has no intention of changing or working on why this is happening, then it may be the last resort. 

So one of the statements wasnt dishonest nor was one a mistake.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> So one of the statements wasnt dishonest nor was one a mistake.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

My H cheated multiple times because of the greatly diminished sex in our relationship during the years when I was pregnant, breastfeeding, and caring for young children. So now he gets no sex at all. I could give you all the back story of why and how our marriage got to this place, but the bottom line is that he was unable to see me as a whole person or take a long term view of our marriage. He could only see that I wasn't his sex kitten anymore, so that entitled him to find other playthings. For those of you that say sex is the be all and end all in your marriage, what happens when it isn't available to you as much as you'd like? How would you handle it? I really want to know.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> Fair enough. But then how else does one *prove* that it's NOT all about sex?


How does a woman prove to a man that it's not all about emotional support?

You can't. In either case.

Maybe you just look for partners who are good people and give them the benefit of the doubt?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> My H cheated multiple times because of the greatly diminished sex in our relationship during the years when I was pregnant, breastfeeding, and caring for young children. So now he gets no sex at all. I could give you all the back story of why and how our marriage got to this place, but the bottom line is that he was unable to see me as a whole person or take a long term view of our marriage. He could only see that I wasn't his sex kitten anymore, so that entitled him to find other playthings. For those of you that say sex is the be all and end all in your marriage, what happens when it isn't available to you as much as you'd like? How would you handle it? I really want to know.


Are we talking quintuplets, 3 kids in 5 years, and the like, or a couple kids spaced a couple years apart? And by mutual choice?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

blahfridge said:


> For those of you that say sex is the be all and end all in your marriage, what happens when it isn't available to you as much as you'd like? How would you handle it? I really want to know.


I don't think that sex is the "be all and end all" in my marriage.

But, I wouldn't be any more appreciative of my wife dismissing my needs than she would would of my dismissing hers.

If I knew that my wife cared, was doing what she could, was concerned and looking for solutions. I could easily deal with that.

But sticking it out with a wife who has no desire to have sex with me hanging on to the hope that she would, at some future, indeterminate time, get her libido back, while she expresses the opinion that I should just deal with it; I'd have a hard time managing that.

P.S. And I wouldn't cheat and probably wouldn't divorce her right away. I'd probably fall out of love with her, I'd stop caring as much about making her happy, our marriage would suffer and I'd wait until the kids left the house to divorce.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

john117 said:


> Are we talking quintuplets, 3 kids in 5 years, and the like, or a couple kids spaced a couple years apart? And by mutual choice?


Three kids, six pregnancies over the course of 8 years. One of the pregnancy losses was at 5 months and I was severely depressed for a while afterwards. Probably the bigger issue for me as far as desire, was the breastfeeding. Men don't realize the toll it can take on a woman's sex drive and desire for physical contact. At the same time, we had other issues, of course, that left us both angry and disappointed in each other. I handled it poorly, but I did try to make him understand where I was coming from. He could only see that I wasn't putting out. He still sees it that way. He's convinced he never would have cheated had we been having more regular sex back then. He'll never see it any differently, and you know what? He's right. If I had just forced myself to spread my legs for the man even when it hurt, then we'd probably be okay now. Makes me want to throw up just to write that. Is sex really that important to men? 
Yes, the children were a mutual choice. He adores his children and is a very loving father. I don't think I would have stayed had it been otherwise.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

blahfridge said:


> Is sex really that important to men?


Let's say that you really value an emotional connection with a man (if that's not something you value a lot, substitute something else).

If you got very little emotional connection from your husband, would that matter to you?

If so, why would "sex" and "emotional connection" be different?

It seems odd that sex is so important to men because it's not so important to you.

Everyone gets to decide for important to themselves.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm not sure either side could explain what happened to the other side. At some point priorities should be established. 

We had the best intimate life of our marriage in our mid to late 30's, two toddlers, part time work and full time PhD students. Oftentimes sleeping 4-5 hours a day for weeks on end. 

We simply didn't have time to argue . Fast forward twenty years and our marriage is in the crapper, mostly because work and TV are more important for her than even having a cup of coffee with her partner of 35 years.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

blahfridge said:


> Probably the bigger issue for me as far as desire, was the breastfeeding. Men don't realize the toll it can take on a woman's sex drive and desire for physical contact.


Breastfeeding tells a woman's body that she's not ready for another kid.

It seems obvious but, oddly enough, both men and women seem to be unprepared for it.

I was reading elsewhere about how some nursing women feel repulsed by the idea of sex with their husband.

I'm not saying that women shouldn't breastfeed, but at least they should go into it aware of the possible side effects.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

john117 said:


> Are we talking quintuplets, 3 kids in 5 years, and the like, or a couple kids spaced a couple years apart? And by mutual choice?





Buddy400 said:


> I don't think that sex is the "be all and end all" in my marriage.
> 
> But, I wouldn't be any more appreciative of my wife dismissing my needs than she would would of my dismissing hers.
> 
> ...


My H did fall out of love with me and that made me want him even less. In fact, he even admitted to hating me back then. I was one dimensional to him because, without the sex, he wasn't interested anymore in who I was or how I felt about my life. And without his love, I wasn't interested in sex with him and I fell out of love with him. To the point where I had my own affair. 

I've come to view sex quite differently now. I think people make too big a deal out of it and, by extension, out of sexual fidelity. Ironically, it wasn't his cheating that made me stop loving him. It was the way he treated me to justify his treating. I even said to him during our MC crisis days - I could have gotten past his cheating if I felt that he still loved me. But that's what allowed him to cheat, his detachment from me. The same kind of detachment you are describing would occur in your marriage if your wife didn't want sex regularly. 

He loves me now. But he doesn't care as much about sex anymore either. I don't know what I care about anymore, but I do miss regular sex. But not enough to blow up my life and not enough to sleep with my H again. Maybe it's just stubborn pride. I did tell him he was welcome to find someone else to have sex with. He can have his cake and eat it too now. But that's not what he wants anymore. Not being on the same page sexually for certain periods of time has been the tragedy of our marriage. It shouldn't be that way. Sex shouldn't be that important to a relationship.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Let's say that you really value an emotional connection with a man (if that's not something you value a lot, substitute something else).
> 
> If you got very little emotional connection from your husband, would that matter to you?
> 
> ...


Well maybe emotional connection is overrated too. 

Marriage is a partnership, especially when children are involved. To my way of thinking, for the good of the firm, shouldn't both spouses be willing to tolerate periods of time when what they value most in a relationship is put on the back burner? It seems to me to be the more adult way to look at things. 
BTW, sex is important to me and I miss it very much. It just wasn't as important to me then as it was to him. But there were lots of things that were important to me back then, that he could have cared less about. It all seems so stupid now.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> Not being on the same page sexually for certain periods of time has been the tragedy of our marriage. It shouldn't be that way. Sex shouldn't be that important to a relationship.


Perhaps not, if you're in your 60's or 70's. 

Two healthy individuals would be expected to have a fully developed relationship, be it physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and financially.

Otherwise, I might as well marry my cat. He's a far better cuddler than anyone I know, knows when I'm stressed and helps, and provides plenty of joy. What if he eats $100 worth of cat food a month or if he turned the family room into Beirut?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> To my way of thinking, for the good of the firm, shouldn't both spouses be willing to tolerate periods of time when what they value most in a relationship is put on the back burner?


No disagreement - however, expecting a near decade of celibacy and marital fidelity is a bit too optimistic, as I'm sure you know by now.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

blahfridge said:


> Is sex really that important to men?


For some (many) men, yes, it is. I assure you, some of us wish it weren't that important. But for us, it is.



> Yes, the children were a mutual choice. He adores his children and is a very loving father. I don't think I would have stayed had it been otherwise.


So look at that carefully. He adores his children. He is a loving father. Sex IS that important to him. But he stayed with you for the kids. Is he a bad person? Or a good person cursed by having a strong need for sex who is trying to make the best of a bad situation? Please try to understand, you being unable to provide him with sex does not make his need go away. Trust me, he wishes it did.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

blahfridge said:


> Marriage is a partnership, especially when children are involved. To my way of thinking, for the good of the firm, shouldn't both spouses be willing to tolerate periods of time when what they value most in a relationship is put on the back burner? It seems to me to be the more adult way to look at things.


No, no, a thousand times no. The best thing a parent can do for their child is to maintain a strong relationship with the other parent. That is more important than breast vs bottle. It is more important than intellectually stimulating play. It is more important than clean clothes or clean diapers or organic food. Plenty of kids get diaper rash and do fine. Kids of divorce tend to do worse than kids of intact marriages. Best thing you can do for your kid is stay married to their other parent. If that means you spend less time caring for the kid or cleaning the house or doing laundry or reading to the kid or taking him to Mom and Me classes, so be it. If dad walks out from a lack of sex - and he is 100% entitled to do that because marriage is in large part about sexual fidelity and the flip side which is sexual availability - then the kids are likely worse off than if you neglected all the things you thought were more important and spent more time screwing dad's brains out.

Oprah and Dr. Phil said this 20 years ago and it remains true. If you think you can spend 20 years tending to your children and neglecting your marriage, and then tend to your marriage when the kids are out of the house, you are fooling yourself. By the time the kids are out of the house, you won't have a marriage. Maybe he cheated. Maybe he didn't cheat but closed off his heart to you. But the marriage died long before the kids left home.

Marriage is a partnership. That goes both ways. You want a partner at paying the bills and raising the kids? Well he wants a partner to help deal with his sexual needs. You want him to help you with your needs but you don't want to help him with his? Fine. But don't tell me you are a great person and a great wife. Because you are not. You are just as selfish as you accuse him of being. You just don't see it.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> Fair enough. But then how else does one *prove* that it's NOT all about sex?


There is no other way. Which is why any HD partnered with a person who believes "it is all about" sex is well and truly screwed. And not sexually. And not in a good way. The only viable solution when a HD finds theself in a relationship with someone who fears "it is all about sex" is to exit the relationship and find someone who does not have that fear.

How is someone who fears "it is all about sex" supposed to protect themselves from being taken advantage of? Only have sex when you feel like it. be very selfish sexually. Make sure you get your orgasm before they get theirs. Don't trade sex for companionship. Only provide the amount /level / frequency / intensity of sex that you truly feel. If that is not enough for your partner then you are well rid of them. If you are only having sex as often and in the way you desire. And you insist on getting off before your partner does. Then you can never be taken advantage of and will never find yourself in a situation where the other person is using you for sex. Because you are using them for the sex you want.

If you don't want any, you won't be having any. And you won't be used.

If you are tempted to complain "but then I won't get any sex at all". Or "but then I won't be able to find a partner who wants to be with me". Then you are saying you feel entitled to use sex to bind someone to you. Which is bad and wrong and evil and self-defeating. It is totally OK to have little or no sex drive. Totally OK to have little or no desire for sex. But don't pretend you do and don't try to convince someone who has a high sex drive to stay with you. You are a bad match for them and they and a bad match for you. Instead, be happy you discovered the mismatch and never got stuck together. Far too many LDs think that marrying a HD and holding back sexually is good for them and bad for the HD. Vega, you have been participating here on TAM long enough to know it is bad for the LD to "trap" the HD into a mismatched relationship. The LD is the one who ends up hurt and betrayed as often or more often than the HD. Better to be alone than to trick the HD into marrying you under the false impression that sex will be plentiful in marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

blahfridge said:


> Three kids, six pregnancies over the course of 8 years. One of the pregnancy losses was at 5 months and I was severely depressed for a while afterwards. Probably the bigger issue for me as far as desire, was the breastfeeding. Men don't realize the toll it can take on a woman's sex drive and desire for physical contact. At the same time, we had other issues, of course, that left us both angry and disappointed in each other. I handled it poorly, but I did try to make him understand where I was coming from. He could only see that I wasn't putting out. He still sees it that way. He's convinced he never would have cheated had we been having more regular sex back then. He'll never see it any differently, and you know what? He's right. If I had just forced myself to spread my legs for the man even when it hurt, then we'd probably be okay now. Makes me want to throw up just to write that. Is sex really that important to men?
> Yes, the children were a mutual choice. He adores his children and is a very loving father. I don't think I would have stayed had it been otherwise.


A good man would never cheat in those circumstances. I am amazed that you were able to trust him again or ever have any respect for him again after multiple affairs. A cheater will always blame others.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

A simple analogy illustrates how ludicrous this concept is. 

Woman meets hardworking, talented ambitious man. They marry, shortly after he quits his job and makes excuse after excuse why he doesn't want to get another job. 

Woman threatens divorce - and the man says: all you care about is money, you are a class A gold digger. 

In all happy marriages, both partners make a good faith effort to please and avoid displeasing each other. 





EllisRedding said:


> Doubt there is a easy answer. Honestly, both people need to talk about this openly (i.e. their needs, expectations, etc...). Talk about the things each person does that possibly adds to the perception. This could be something where the HD only acts a certain way when they want sex and not other times. This could be the behavior of the LD who uses rejection as a means to control sex in the relationship. Could be a myriad of things. All you can hope for is that each person listens to the other, respects their point of view, and hopefully feel the relationship is worth enough to compromise.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

blahfridge said:


> My H did fall out of love with me


To be clear, I wouldn't fall out of love with my wife because she wasn't willing to have frequent sex with me. I'd fall out of love with my wife if she didn't care enough about my happiness to "If I knew that my wife cared, was doing what she could, was concerned and looking for solutions."



blahfridge said:


> . Not being on the same page sexually for certain periods of time has been the tragedy of our marriage. It shouldn't be that way. Sex shouldn't be that important to a relationship.


Perhaps couples shouldn't just count on "being on the same page sexually for certain periods of time".

Maybe each should do their best to do what's needed to work out the differences.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Just as easy to say that couples should count on the HD to fall out of love with the LD if the LD fails to provide a reasonable amount of sex. What is "reasonable" will vary from couple to couple.

The HD should expect dry spells. The LD should expect the HD to feel less love during the dry spells. Motivates both of them to minimize the dry spells and not freak out when they occur.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

blahfridge said:


> *My H did fall out of love with me* and that made me want him even less. In fact, *he even admitted to hating me back then. I was one dimensional to him because, without the sex, he wasn't interested anymore in who I was or how I felt about my life. And without his love, I wasn't interested in sex with him and I fell out of love with him. * To the point where I had my own affair.
> 
> I've come to view sex quite differently now. I think people make too big a deal out of it and, by extension, out of sexual fidelity. Ironically, it wasn't his cheating that made me stop loving him. It was the way he treated me to justify his treating. I even said to him during our MC crisis days - I could have gotten past his cheating if I felt that he still loved me. But that's what allowed him to cheat, his detachment from me. The same kind of detachment you are describing would occur in your marriage if your wife didn't want sex regularly.
> 
> He loves me now. But he doesn't care as much about sex anymore either. I don't know what I care about anymore, but I do miss regular sex. But not enough to blow up my life and not enough to sleep with my H again. Maybe it's just stubborn pride. I did tell him he was welcome to find someone else to have sex with. He can have his cake and eat it too now. But that's not what he wants anymore. Not being on the same page sexually for certain periods of time has been the tragedy of our marriage. It shouldn't be that way. Sex shouldn't be that important to a relationship.


Bottom line is your marriage blew up over a lack of communication and a lack of empathy. There was no reason why this marriage had to go down the sh!t chute. In another response, you chastise your husband over not having a long term view of marriage, which seems to imply that you put the majority of the failed marriage on him. IMHO, neither of you have learned a damn thing about being better spouses, and both of you are letting your moronic egos prevent the marriage from healing. You're not having sex, and this is a sex in marriage forum. However, your problems have nothing to do with sex as the root cause. Your sexlessness is a symptom of other causes. JMHO.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

MEM2020 said:


> A simple analogy illustrates how ludicrous this concept is.
> 
> Woman meets hardworking, talented ambitious man. They marry, shortly after he quits his job and makes excuse after excuse why he doesn't want to get another job.
> 
> ...


Agreed. This topic in general, here is what I don't get

Why is sex treated differently then other aspects of a relationship? I get that different people have different priorities in a relationship. Someone comes on here and says they are unhappy b/c their SO doesn't meet their "insert non sexual need", and everyone gets up in arms, what is wrong with your SO, etc... Same person comes on here and says their SO isn't meeting their sexual needs (understanding that "sexual" could mean different things to different people) and you will have a group of people who will question the person (i.e. why aren't you doing x/y/z, that is just the way they are and you should accept it, etc...). Even if you just look at this thread title and the opening post, it seems to imply questionable motives for anyone who places importance on sex in their relationship. This is in part why I started that "perception vs reality" thread.

I do think for some, they view sex as a "perk" in a relationship. If you go into it with that mindset, of course it is going to be the first thing you deprioritize for whatever reason you come up with. I also think that most people who bring up issues about sex in their relationship aren't necessarily looking for their SO to do everything they want. Instead, they see a need not being met, and really all they are asking for is their SO to take serious so they can tackle the issue together. Really, shouldn't that be the goal of every aspect in a relationship?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Why is sex treated differently then other aspects of a relationship? I get that different people have different priorities in a relationship. Someone comes on here and says they are unhappy b/c their SO doesn't meet their "insert non sexual need", and everyone gets up in arms, what is wrong with your SO, etc... Same person comes on here and says their SO isn't meeting their sexual needs (understanding that "sexual" could mean different things to different people) and you will have a group of people who will question the person (i.e. why aren't you doing x/y/z, that is just the way they are and you should accept it, etc...). Even if you just look at this thread title and the opening post, it seems to imply questionable motives for anyone who places importance on sex in their relationship.


I think sex IS different than other aspects of the relationship. But not because it is less important or valid than others, but because it is MORE worthy of attention than most others.

Sex is the only emotional need where we vow in marriage not to get that need met by anyone other than our spouse. Which means, to me, there is MORE of an obligation to meet your spouse's need for sex than to meet any other emotional need. Anything else and your spouse is free to get that need met elsewhere. Sex is the only need where we ask our spouse to vow never to get that need met elsewhere. To me, sex is the MOST appropriate need to bring to your spouse and say "feed me". Because they vowed to do that. Just as they asked you to vow to rely only on them to get that need filled.

It isn't "questionable" to ask your spouse to meet your need for sex. It is proper and appropriate. It is one of the essences of marriage. When we got married, we basically told our spouse "come to me, and only me, to get your need for sex satisfied". How can anyone complain when your spouse does exactly that? If you don't want to meet your spouse's need for sex, then you don't want to be married to them. Which is OK. Nothing says you have to want to stay married to them. But stop pretending that they are lesser and unworthy of your care simply because they brought their need for sex to you. They are supposed to. That is what they vowed to do. That is what you asked them to vow to do. Punishing them for doing it is cruel.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Sex is the only emotional need where we vow in marriage not to get that need met by anyone other than our spouse. Which means, to me, there is MORE of an obligation to meet your spouse's need for sex than to meet any other emotional need. Anything else and your spouse is free to get that need met elsewhere. Sex is the only need where we ask our spouse to vow never to get that need met elsewhere. To me, sex is the MOST appropriate need to bring to your spouse and say "feed me". Because they vowed to do that. Just as they asked you to vow to rely only on them to get that need filled.


As I always say, when both people enter into a monogamous relationship (marriage or not) aren't they agreeing that a need such as sex should only be met by the other person and not a 3rd party. That being said, I don't necessarily think that makes it more of a priority or more worthy over other aspects in a relationship. What it does mean to me, is that it should definitely not be deprioritized vs other needs.

Now, here is the counter some people will say to your post above. They will say that in fact sex is not an "emotional" need, it is purely a physical need that you could easily achieve with your hand and some lotion. 

Of course as well, there are those few people who will draw a distinction based on gender. If you are a female and unhappy with your sex life, it is your guys fault. If you are a male and unhappy with your sex life, it is your fault ...


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Sex isn't everything, it's the only thing. It is the only thing that provides enough intimacy to weld a relationship together for a decade or more. It is the only difference between lovers and friends.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Now, here is the counter some people will say to your post above. They will say that in fact sex is not an "emotional" need, it is purely a physical need that you could easily achieve with your hand and some lotion.


Most people who claim sex is not an emotional need would be among the first and loudest to complain if their spouse had sex with someone else. If having an orgasm isn't an emotional activity, then why are you so upset when your spouse has an orgasm with someone else? It is no big deal, right?

If it is just about a hand and some lotion, why does it matter whether it is my hand or my co-worker's hand or your sibling's hand?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ellis,

It is only fair to acknowledge that sex also creates the richest veins of deceitful, deceptive, prideful behavior. 

I know lots of decent, rational, considerate HD folk. 

And thru TAM I have met an awful lot of HD partners who - seem to largely be the engineers of their own misfortune.





EllisRedding said:


> Agreed. This topic in general, here is what I don't get
> 
> Why is sex treated differently then other aspects of a relationship? I get that different people have different priorities in a relationship. Someone comes on here and says they are unhappy b/c their SO doesn't meet their "insert non sexual need", and everyone gets up in arms, what is wrong with your SO, etc... Same person comes on here and says their SO isn't meeting their sexual needs (understanding that "sexual" could mean different things to different people) and you will have a group of people who will question the person (i.e. why aren't you doing x/y/z, that is just the way they are and you should accept it, etc...). Even if you just look at this thread title and the opening post, it seems to imply questionable motives for anyone who places importance on sex in their relationship. This is in part why I started that "perception vs reality" thread.
> 
> I do think for some, they view sex as a "perk" in a relationship. If you go into it with that mindset, of course it is going to be the first thing you deprioritize for whatever reason you come up with. I also think that most people who bring up issues about sex in their relationship aren't necessarily looking for their SO to do everything they want. Instead, they see a need not being met, and really all they are asking for is their SO to take serious so they can tackle the issue together. Really, shouldn't that be the goal of every aspect in a relationship?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Sex is the only emotional need where we vow in marriage not to get that need met by anyone other than our spouse. Which means, to me, there is MORE of an obligation to meet your spouse's need for sex than to meet any other emotional need. Anything else and your spouse is free to get that need met elsewhere. Sex is the only need where we ask our spouse to vow never to get that need met elsewhere. To me, sex is the MOST appropriate need to bring to your spouse and say "feed me". Because they vowed to do that. Just as they asked you to vow to rely only on them to get that need filled.


While you (plural) may have vowed to "forsake all others", your spouse NEVER vowed to have sex with you _as often as YOU (plural) want._, whenever you (plural) THINK you (plural) "need" it. Oh, and speaking of "need"...



> It isn't "questionable" to ask your spouse to meet your need for sex. It is proper and appropriate. It is one of the essences of marriage. When we got married, we basically told our spouse "come to me, and only me, to get your need for sex satisfied". How can anyone complain when your spouse does exactly that?


There is still great controversy over whether or not sex is a "need". Maybe that's part of the problem...

Some 'experts' say yes.
Others say 'no'. 

Besides the experts, some of the general public says 'yes' and others say 'no'. 

Yes, there are EXPERTS who say that SEX FOR ANY REASON _OTHER THAN *PROCREATION* _IS *NOT* A "NEED" FOR EITHER GENDER!

Unless and until the controversy is cleared up, the problem(s) will remain.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't understand why it is important whether or not it is a "need".

I think someone should feel free to leave a relationship or marriage if they are not happy with their sex life. 





Vega said:


> While you (plural) may have vowed to "forsake all others", your spouse NEVER vowed to have sex with you _as often as YOU (plural) want._, whenever you (plural) THINK you (plural) "need" it. Oh, and speaking of "need"...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

I swear, @Vega, I don't know if anyone's posts on this site trigger me quite like yours.

I force myself to read them, then reread them, for that very reason.

Some of this post is to you, while some of it is just general musings.

I would say that if sex feels like that much of a chore for you, you are simply not compatible with someone who wants frequent sex with their partner. I would say similar things (regarding compatibility) to others, such as @Holdingontoit. At some point, it becomes like forcing a square peg into a round hole, then getting angry at the corners for not allowing it to fit. 

Sex does deserve special recognition in the hierarchy of needs because of fidelity, but that does not mean that HD gets priority over the LD, and vice versa. Yet after a while, one really needs to accept that their partner is worth being bit uncomfortable in compromise (both the HD and LD) for them, or they are not. If a compromise cannot be reached, it is time to end things as amicably as possible, without vitriol or malice. 

Lastly, this thread sure feels a lot like scoring points from both sides, to include the tone of the initial post. All of us are entitled believe what we choose, however, it does not necessarily mean it is right. Also, even if what we believe is right, it does not mean it will necessarily be well accepted.

Be good to each other.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> While you (plural) may have vowed to "forsake all others", your spouse NEVER vowed to have sex with you _as often as YOU (plural) want._, whenever you (plural) THINK you (plural) "need" it. Oh, and speaking of "need"...


Of course they did. What do you think "to have and to hold" means?

In any event, it was poor phrasing of me to say "as often as the HD wants". Of course the LD is never obliged to have unconsented sex and they are not required to say yes every time the HD asks.

The idea is compatibility. If the LD cannot say "yes" often enough to suit the HD (and I do see an obligation on the HD's part to compromise and ask for only what they truly need to be emotionally satisfied and not to take advantage of the LD by asking for more than is needed simply because they are fortunate enough to have a partner who strives to be compliant), even after the HD has tones down their request to the minimally satisfying level, then the couple is not compatible and both would be better off if they divorced.

Trying to convince the HD that they are or can be or should be satisfied with less than they need, or that they actually do not "need" any amount of sex to be satisfied with the relationship, is just as bad and wrong and coercive and the HD forcing the HD to have unconsented sex.

I may not need sex to live but I sure as heck need sex to be satisfied with my romantic relationship. If we can't find a way for my wife to want to consent to sex often enough for me to be satisfied, then if we were wise we would split up and free both of us to find a more compatible partner. Why my wife wanted to be married to me after she realized I would never be happy while married to her I will never know. I guess she wanted a co-parent for her children and someone to pay the bills while she stayed home with them. She would have been better off marrying someone who cared more about money than about sex. 



> There is still great controversy over whether or not sex is a "need". Maybe that's part of the problem...
> Some 'experts' say yes.
> Others say 'no'.
> Besides the experts, some of the general public says 'yes' and others say 'no'.
> ...


Who said there has to be a single answer to the question? Sex may not be a need for some but it is a need for others. The fact that it is not a need for everyone does not imply that it is a need for no one.

And even if we could resolve the issue of "need", that solves nothing. Are you suggesting that if we gathered scientific evidence that sex is indeed a "need" for a certain percentage of the population, that all the LDs would dutifully line and up and "take one for the team" over and over again for the rest of their lives? I doubt that would occur.

If I say I need sex to be happy with my relationship, and my wife believes I am lying to her and just trying to manipulate her into having sex with me, then she has a pretty negative view of my character and once again I question why she wants to be married to me. "Other than the fact that he lies to try to get into my pants, he is a decent guy" seem very faint praise to me. If she thinks I am that selfish and dishonest, but I am the best she can get, then she has a pretty low opinion of herself too. Like I said, we would probably both be better off apart. There is probably some other guy out there who can help her think alot better of herself.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

We don't die without sex. I was a single mum for 6 years without dating until I married my now husband. 
In marriage its very important though and keeps the couple emotionally connected.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Diana7 said:


> We don't die without sex. I was a single mum for 6 years without dating until I married my now husband.
> In marriage its very important though and keeps the couple emotionally connected.


We also don't die without a companion, without an emotional connection to someone, without a Husband/Wife, etc... I think we are taking "needs" a bit too literally lol.


----------



## RosaMimosa (Feb 4, 2017)

EllisRedding said:


> We also don't die without a companion, without an emotional connection to someone, without a Husband/Wife, etc... I think we are taking "needs" a bit too literally lol.


you haven't been single for a while, haven't you? I have a lot of singles at work and they are lonely, although surrounded by friends. human is a social animal and unfortunately we have to have companions.

please have a read here Loneliness, Living Alone and Social Isolation Increase Mortality Risk | Time.com


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

For me there is no controversy at all, that is way too dramatic. People either need sex or they don't, some do, some don't.

In a healthy, strong relationship I need to have sex, simple. I need to be with someone compatible and thrive on being in a secret club of two where we share lots of fun and intimacy.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Of course they did. What do you think "to have and to hold" means?


"To have and to hold" has NOTHING to do with sex. It is a clause that has been used for centuries regarding property. If you have a deed, the clause may be in your deed. It is known as the Habendum Clause. 

Let's not forget that women used to be seen as property of their husband's. At first, only the husband spoke the words "...to have and to hold". It was a conveyance of property exchanged from the bride's father to her new husband. 

Later on, the vows were changed so that BOTH parties spoke the words. Basically, both husband and wife "belonged" to _each other_; and no one else, including their parents. 

Seems like many people have the idea that the clause has to do with sex, while nothing could be farther from the truth.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> We don't die without sex.


Depends who you ask I guess:

- I had one partner tell me she didn't have her first orgasm until her late twenties.

- I had another partner tell me she went a whole year without masturbating when she was single.

- Hell even with my ex wife, it was twisting her arm to get sex once a month.


As for me? 

I've orgasmed virtually every day of my life since I was 11 years old either solo or with a partner.

I might not die but you sure as hell wouldn't want to be around me after 48 hours. I'd lose my mind.

It's not my "bottom line" but it's certainly a deal breaker. I'd rather seek out a partner "on the same page."


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holland,
That's exactly right. This notion of 'needs' is sort of comical in the context of marriage. 

And sex is the only 'need' that gets this type of mistreatment. Any other emotional need that people raise in the context of marriage, is acknowledged as an EMOTIONAL need. 

People post:
- I need my spouse to talk to me but they won't. Or 
- I need my spouse to listen when I'm upset, but they don't even look up from their computer

And no one EVER says: Those aren't needs. You won't die if they are unmet. They aren't like food, air, water. 

The two biggest lies on TAM are:
1. The LD lie that sex isn't a need. Which is a type of willful incomprehension.
2. The HD lie that sex is like pizza. Its always at least good. Which is every bit as much a case of willful incomprehension.

Both of these are the result of a low empathy posture towards people who are different. 








MrsHolland said:


> For me there is no controversy at all, that is way too dramatic. People either need sex or they don't, some do, some don't.
> 
> In a healthy, strong relationship I need to have sex, simple. I need to be with someone compatible and thrive on being in a secret club of two where we share lots of fun and intimacy.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> 2. The HD lie that sex is like pizza. Its always at least good.


Are you sure this is a lie, MEM? I think Dug feels this way. Whether I am really into it or just lying there, he is happy.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

EllisRedding said:


> As I always say, when both people enter into a monogamous relationship (marriage or not) aren't they agreeing that a need such as sex should only be met by the other person and not a 3rd party.


I think some of the issue comes from there being an EXPLICIT expectation that you do not have sex with anyone except your partner. There is no matching expectation that your partner has sex with you. BOTH partners promise not to have sex with anyone else. NEITHER partner promises to have sex with the other, and most certainly not at any specific level of frequency or variety.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

MrsHolland said:


> For me there is no controversy at all, that is way too dramatic. People either need sex or they don't, some do, some don't.
> 
> In a healthy, strong relationship I need to have sex, simple. I need to be with someone compatible and thrive on being in a secret club of two where we share lots of fun and intimacy.


I think Vega confuses physical bodies with people's mental makeup (Ego?). My physical body has no need to have sex as a condition to live - even though there are quantifiable health benefits to having sex. However, my ego needs to have sex whenever I am in a serious relationship with someone who is fully capable of engaging in sexual activity. I believe that's the distinction people gloss over, and it obfuscates the issues in relationships where libido mismatches exist.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

john117 said:


> No disagreement - however, expecting a near decade of celibacy and marital fidelity is a bit too optimistic, as I'm sure you know by now.


John, to be clear, there was never complete celibacy, except for those 6 weeks or so when I was recovering from childbirth. There was a DIMINISHED sex life that my H got increasingly frustrated and angry about. I think Plan 9 from OS's post that our real problem was a lack of communication and empathy is spot on. 

Here's an example though of how difficult that was. My H's way of indicating that he wanted sex was usually to slide over to me and begin to stroke me over and over again, usually on my arm or stomach. I would lay there dreading the thought of sex because I had zero desire for him or sex back then, and the stroking made it worse because it actually felt very uncomfortable to me. So, I finally got up the nerve to try to discuss what I liked and didn't like and explained to him that I have sensitive skin and the stroking made my skin hurt and that's why I moved his had away or put mine on top of his to stop him. He didn't say anything, just turned away angrily. I was the talker in our relationship, still am, though he's gotten better. Anyhow, I recognized his attitude for the cold contempt it was and didn't say anything else. But I was confused and felt defeated because he obviously didn't believe me and saw it as just another excuse. Years later in MC, he brought that up as a reason he cheated, saying that I told him I couldn't stand for him to touch me. It blew my away, because that wasn't what I said at all. But it was all he choose to hear. 

He was able to hear me in MC and now understands my skin issues as I often break out in painful hives for unknown reasons and because of stress. My doctor thinks I may have an autoimmune issue. I think he married me for the sex and when it wasn't as regular as he wanted, he felt like he'd been sold a bill of goods. That point struck home for me when he told me that he still remember's thinking that "this is the way it will always be", right after we had made love. This was early in our marriage when we had sex practically every day or at least every other day. Before children and before our lifestyle differences became more pronounced. That remark clued me into how important having regular sex was for him. But it also seemed unrealistic of him to expect that three children, six pregnancies, stressful job changes, and navigating some stark differences in how we approached household responsibilities and parenting wouldn't have an affect on our sex life. 

BTW, my H is OCD and it was much more pronounced in his younger days. It's left me to wonder if there isn't some of that with a number of HD individuals. I'm not trying to be insulting, but for some people, sex seems to be an obsession. It was for my H. He has subsequently admitted to a porn addiction during that time.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,
It is perfectly fine to speak for ones self. But this is not what I was referring to. My reference was to the statement that sex is like pizza for everyone. 

And that is very clearly contradicted by the choices LD people make. Many, many LD's are willing to have a less happy marriage or maybe even a divorce - in order to avoid having sex. For whatever reason(s) sex is very much NOT like pizza for them. 

Consider the chasm that grows between an HD partner who has made it clear that they need a lot of sexual affirmation and an LD partner who feels pressured to pretend that the most intimate experience they have with their partner is always good. 






jld said:


> Are you sure this is a lie, MEM? I think Dug feels this way. Whether I am really into it or just lying there, he is happy.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,
And just for clarity - what you describe doing is exactly what M2 does. Meaning - her sexual affect is entirely transparent. When she's really into it - that's obvious. And when she's sort of in an 'all about M1' mode that is equally obvious. 

As it should be. 




jld said:


> Are you sure this is a lie, MEM? I think Dug feels this way. Whether I am really into it or just lying there, he is happy.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Sawney Beane said:


> I think some of the issue comes from there being an EXPLICIT expectation that you do not have sex with anyone except your partner. There is no matching expectation that your partner has sex with you. BOTH partners promise not to have sex with anyone else. NEITHER partner promises to have sex with the other, and most certainly not at any specific level of frequency or variety.


I guess it depends. Unless there is a bait & switch, is it not reasonable to expect sex be somewhere in the same ballpark when you first got together as it would be 20 years later. I understand it isn't exactly EXPLICIT, but it would seen to be a general understanding. How many relationships do you really think would happen if going into it a partner said "I am not promising to have sex with you, just that I won't have sex with anyone else"?


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> I guess it depends. Unless there is a bait & switch, is it not reasonable to expect sex be somewhere in the same ballpark when you first got together as it would be 20 years later. I understand it isn't exactly EXPLICIT, but it would seen to be a general understanding. How many relationships do you really think would happen if going into it a partner said "I am not promising to have sex with you, just that I won't have sex with anyone else"?


To have the expectation that the frequency will always and forever remain the same? It's completely unrealistic to expect that to be the case in an ongoing relationship that will encounter many ups and downs over the course of several decades. I guess the for better or worse doesn't include a diminished sex drive.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

blahfridge said:


> To have the expectation that the frequency will always and forever remain the same? It's completely unrealistic to expect that to be the case in an ongoing relationship that will encounter many ups and downs over the course of several decades. I guess the for better or worse doesn't include a diminished sex drive.


Never said frequency has to remain the same. I said is it not reasonable to expect that you would still have a sex life with your partner. If you go back to the post I quoted, the implication was that when you enter into a relationship, you are saying that you don't promise to have sex with your partner since it is not "Explicit". That would seem to indicate that at any point, for any reason, you can just cut off sex. That is the part I think is wrong, and like I said, if you want to go with that approach, be transparent and see how quickly that person walks out the door before the relationship even starts


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> It is perfectly fine to speak for ones self. But this is not what I was referring to. My reference was to the statement that sex is like pizza for everyone.
> 
> And that is very clearly contradicted by the choices LD people make. Many, many LD's are willing to have a less happy marriage or maybe even a divorce - in order to avoid having sex. For whatever reason(s) sex is very much NOT like pizza for them.
> ...


I certainly agree that it is not healthy for a LD person to have to pretend. My point was just that to a HD, the idea that all sex is good sex is not necessarily a lie, at least to the HD's way of thinking. But you are certainly right that it is not true for all people, even if a HD thinks it is.

I am much lower drive than my husband. But it makes me happy to make him happy. And he is very loving and affirming during sex, so that makes me happy. A positive cycle.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> And just for clarity - what you describe doing is exactly what M2 does. Meaning - her sexual affect is entirely transparent. When she's really into it - that's obvious. And when she's sort of in an 'all about M1' mode that is equally obvious.
> 
> As it should be.


Totally agree. Transparency builds trust.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ellis,
The first vow is 'to love'. In a little while, I will expound on the HD's willful incomprehension package. But for now I'm gonna drill down on the LD's willful incomprehension package. 

1. When you were single you weren't having sex and that lack didn't cause you distress 
2. Sex isn't a need, it's just a want (this is the: it isn't a need for ME, therefore it isn't a need for you)
3. I didnt understand how distressed you were about this
4. We have sex at least (fill in huge exaggeration on frequency here)

This is NOT loving behavior. 

That said, the first move by almost any HD is to create pressure for more frequency. 

When instead the first move ought to be making a good faith effort to ensure you are maximizing the quality of the experience for your LD partner. 

People tell you the coolest stuff when you make it easy for them. For example: Is there anything I'm doing that actually feels bad for you? 









EllisRedding said:


> I guess it depends. Unless there is a bait & switch, is it not reasonable to expect sex be somewhere in the same ballpark when you first got together as it would be 20 years later. I understand it isn't exactly EXPLICIT, but it would seen to be a general understanding. How many relationships do you really think would happen if going into it a partner said "I am not promising to have sex with you, just that I won't have sex with anyone else"?


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> Never said frequency has to remain the same. I said is it not reasonable to expect that you would still have a sex life with your partner. If you go back to the post I quoted, the implication was that when you enter into a relationship, you are saying that you don't promise to have sex with your partner since it is not "Explicit". That would seem to indicate that at any point, for any reason, you can just cut off sex. That is the part I think is wrong, and like I said, if you want to go with that approach, be transparent and see how quickly that person walks out the door before the relationship even starts


Okay, sorry I misunderstood. But, I seriously doubt that there are many spouses who go into a marriage with the devious intent to ensnare their H or W with constant sex and then withdraw it completely after they've signed the contract. Life happens, things change, people change. Sexual desire can take a back seat to all that at times, so shouldn't THAT be an "Explicit" part of the promise of marriage too?


----------



## bkyln309 (Feb 1, 2015)

Having not read the entire thread AND having lived in a 95% sexless marriage, yes sex is the bottom line. Regular sex and good sex. It is a dealbreaker. Its part of my makeup for connection. I enjoy it and I need to express myself that way. So the bottom line is I cannot have a marriage or serious relationship be successful without it on a regular basis. Nor do I want to.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

bkyln309 said:


> Having not read the entire thread AND having lived in a 95% sexless marriage, yes sex is the bottom line. Regular sex and good sex. It is a dealbreaker. Its part of my makeup for connection. I enjoy it and I need to express myself that way. So the bottom line is I cannot have a marriage or serious relationship be successful without it on a regular basis. Nor do I want to.


Are you divorced now? Because if it's a dealbreaker, that's the way to handle it.


----------



## bkyln309 (Feb 1, 2015)

blahfridge said:


> Are you divorced now? Because if it's a dealbreaker, that's the way to handle it.


Yes we are divorced and I am now partnered with a man who desires regular sex. I will never again compromise in this area. EVER. I wasted 16 years with mostly no sex. The reality was my ex wasnt into sex. No matter what we tried. Good luck to his next mate. I mean it GOOD LUCK.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Edit: Re-read the post I was commenting on and realized I'd misread it


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

blahfridge said:


> Okay, sorry I misunderstood. But, I seriously doubt that there are many spouses who go into a marriage with the devious intent to ensnare their H or W with constant sex and then withdraw it completely after they've signed the contract. Life happens, things change, people change. Sexual desire can take a back seat to all that at times, so shouldn't THAT be an "Explicit" part of the promise of marriage too?


Let's change it around. If you believe that sex desire can take a back seat, do you agree that this should apply to all aspects of a relationship, not just sex? I don't think many people here are saying that if all of a sudden they don't have sex for a a few months or something comes up that temporarily changes things, they are out the door. 

You said things change, people change, fair enough. So if someone changes and let's say they have little or no sexual desire for the SO, then they should be upfront, let the other person know so they can then decide if it is time to move on. That would seem fair, instead of rejecting or stringing along your SO b/c even though you don't have sexual desire for them, you want to make sure you keep the other aspects of the relationship.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

blahfridge said:


> Okay, sorry I misunderstood. But, I seriously doubt that there are many spouses who go into a marriage with the devious intent to ensnare their H or W with constant sex and then withdraw it completely after they've signed the contract. Life happens, things change, people change. Sexual desire can take a back seat to all that at times, so shouldn't THAT be an "Explicit" part of the promise of marriage too?


I also doubt that many people intend the bait & switch. I think it's mostly unintended.

Some research says that many women lose their libido in a long term committed relationship.

Which is kind of perverse for the guy. He gives her what she desires, commitment, and that causes her to lose her sexual attraction to him.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> Let's change it around. If you believe that sex desire can take a back seat, do you agree that this should apply to all aspects of a relationship, not just sex? I don't think many people here are saying that if all of a sudden they don't have sex for a a few months or something comes up that temporarily changes things, they are out the door.
> 
> You said things change, people change, fair enough. So if someone changes and let's say they have little or no sexual desire for the SO, then they should be upfront, let the other person know so they can then decide if it is time to move on. That would seem fair, instead of rejecting or stringing along your SO b/c even though you don't have sexual desire for them, you want to make sure you keep the other aspects of the relationship.


If a guy stops "pursuing" his wife after marriage; stops talking with her; sits around in his underwear drinking beer and watching sports, does he get to say "Hey, life happens, things change, people change"? 

I don't think so.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Add for clarity - it doesn't take much common sense to realize that being single/celibate is entirely different than sharing a house with someone you are very attracted to - who is healthy and not having sex with you. 

-------




MEM2020 said:


> Ellis,
> The first vow is 'to love'. In a little while, I will expound on the HD's willful incomprehension package. But for now I'm gonna drill down on the LD's willful incomprehension package.
> 
> 1. When you were single you weren't having sex and that lack didn't cause you distress
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Blah,

That example you have with your H - rubbing your arms / tummy in a way that felt bad - was a great example. 

In a healthy exchange - a few things are different. You tell him how you DO want him to initiate. 

There is a world of difference between the message - as one sounds like:
- It would be nice if
Vs
- You suck because

And it is perfectly fine to lead off with: 

It would be nice if you initiated by gently rubbing my back - like this - and then rub his back the way you want him to rub yours.

But I fully realize that - with someone being defensive - which as a younger man I certainly was at times - it isn't easy. 






blahfridge said:


> Are you divorced now? Because if it's a dealbreaker, that's the way to handle it.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that the only way a man can PROVE that he's not only interested in his wife for sex is to never ask her for sex (and be happy without it).
> 
> Should a wife who craves companionship from her husband never request that he spend quality time with her (and be happy about it if he doesn't) in order to prove that that isn't all she needs him for?


No, because patriarchy!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MEM2020 said:


> 100% agree with this.
> 
> This is why you marry someone who is good. A good person won't constantly pressure you if they are the HD, nor badly neglect you if they are the LD.


Great advice... other than that it isn't always possible to tell what someone is like with certainty before you marry them.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> I also doubt that many people intend the bait & switch. I think it's mostly unintended.
> 
> Some research says that many women lose their libido in a long term committed relationship.
> 
> Which is kind of perverse for the guy. He gives her what she desires, commitment, and that causes her to lose her sexual attraction to him.


This is one of the things that a lot of men need to know up front so they can take preventive action.

But unfortunately they don't know it.


----------



## Davidmidwest (Nov 22, 2016)

No it's not the end all be all.
Women and men need to get to the feelings side for intimacy. Women at any age want be heard at a very deep level and feel that their husband has empathy for what she needs, feels and expresses. She wan'ts to know what her husband feel and for him to share expressed e-motion and/or let her know the deep down crux of your heart goals, needs, and frailties. 

With that said, both wan't to be known, felt, understood, and to be able to feel each others goals, dreams, failings, sore spots and a experiencing as much as possible to experience for one's self the spouses deepest thoughts and feelings. That is where the desire for a soulmate comes from. Believe it or not we want to live that "Righteous Brothers" love song and feel loved. 

You must relate on the feeling and emotions side, then comes closeness, bonding, sex, then problem solving to get beyond our marital problems to move beyond the tit for tat, you wronged me issues. Sharing without criticism or firing back you did this or that will close the gap of a potential falling out that may become a divorce. Both have to want it. That Corinthins prayer of love isn't much of an instruction manual. I wonder if the writer came late for the essay part of is GMAT exam. LOL. We either didn't really gave it much thought or we are not wise enough to think to apply it's principles. Good Luck.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> I guess it depends. Unless there is a bait & switch, is it not reasonable to expect sex be somewhere in the same ballpark when you first got together as it would be 20 years later. I understand it isn't exactly EXPLICIT, but it would seen to be a general understanding.


Got a question for you...

Why _would_ someone expect sex to remain as a constant for 20 years when the rest of life can change during that time? Pregnancies, job loss, loss of siblings or parents, birth of children, illnesses, moving, promotions, lottery winnings (just thought I'd throw that in for good measure, lol!), religious ideals, physical changes, fights, changes in medications, affairs, divorce, blended families etc. The list is endless. The only thing about life that's constant is that life _constantly_ changes. It changes from moment to moment. 

So why _wouldn't_ sex change too? 



> How many relationships do you really think would happen if going into it a partner said "I am not promising to have sex with you, just that I won't have sex with anyone else


Probably as many relationships as there would be if the HD told an LD, "I expect sex 3-4 times a day. No exceptions"!

ETA: Sorry Ellis. I didn't realize that you already addressed this earlier!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> If a guy stops "pursuing" his wife after marriage; stops talking with her; sits around in his underwear drinking beer and watching sports, does he get to say "Hey, life happens, things change, people change"?
> 
> I don't think so.


Yup, you're right.

And yet, 'he' may be the same guy who complains about not getting sex!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> Got a question for you...
> 
> Why _would_ someone expect sex to remain as a constant for 20 years when the rest of life can change during that time? Pregnancies, job loss, loss of siblings or parents, birth of children, illnesses, moving, promotions, lottery winnings (just thought I'd throw that in for good measure, lol!), religious ideals, physical changes, fights, changes in medications, affairs, divorce, blended families etc. The list is endless. The only thing about life that's constant is that life _constantly_ changes. It changes from moment to moment.
> 
> ...


No problem. That is why I tried to term it as being reasonable to expect a sex life. That leaves it a bit open to take into account life circumstances, etc... instead of trying to come up with a hard number you expect each week (and I am sure we all have slightly different definitions of what "a sex life" means to us). Heck, I am still trying to decide what exactly I consider a reasonable sex life lol (I have never been one to insist sex is needed a set number per week). Really, what I was trying to get at with the other poster, if you are willing to say that it is OK for sex to take a back seat, then you have to be willing to say the same things about other aspects of the marriage. I don't think you should necessarily cherry pick what can take a back seat and what can't, at least if your SO feels differently. As with any other aspect of a relationship, when you start deprioritizing or putting in the back seat certain aspects, you do run the risk of doing more harm then good (especially if it is prolonged).

In terms of needs, I think it best to look at it from an individual standpoint. There are things that if I am single I don't "need", but if I am in a relationship I "need" as part of the relationship for the relationship to be considered worthwhile (roommate vs SO/Spouse). I am sure we all have a checklist of things we need in a relationship that we may not necessarily need if we are single, or risk death :grin2:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &amp;quot;Bottom Line&amp;quot;?*



Vega said:


> Why _would_ someone expect sex to remain as a constant for 20 years when the rest of life can change during that time? Pregnancies, job loss, loss of siblings or parents, birth of children, illnesses, moving, promotions, lottery winnings (just thought I'd throw that in for good measure, lol!), religious ideals, physical changes, fights, changes in medications, affairs, divorce, blended families etc. The list is endless!


The above is peanuts compared to what my parents went thru during and after WW2. Yet they had a very good relationship on all fronts. Given how many miscarriages my mom had, I think it's a good assessment of their life together.

Where am I going with this? 

Sex - intimacy really - is great exactly because it's a constant. It's there for all people, rich or poor, Albania to Zimbabwe. It's a safe harbor.

But don't take my word for it. The desire to be loved and cherished is uniquely human and often causes interesting mishaps. Mishaps that can be interpreted to show intimacy is evil.

Here's three examples all from Dr. J2's immediate family.

Her father is in his 80s yet he's "dating" his 60s housekeeper. After he literally let his wicked witch of the east wife bite the dust...

Her sister died during a PA in an accident while OM survived...

Her grandfather had two wives in different cities - legal in her country back then. 

All three examples interestingly enough are part of her usual argument rotation on why sex is not needed, leaves people in peril... Much like what you describe.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Vega said:


> Got a question for you...
> 
> Why _would_ someone expect sex to remain as a constant for 20 years when the rest of life can change during that time? Pregnancies, job loss, loss of siblings or parents, birth of children, illnesses, moving, promotions, lottery winnings (just thought I'd throw that in for good measure, lol!), religious ideals, physical changes, fights, changes in medications, affairs, divorce, blended families etc. The list is endless. The only thing about life that's constant is that life _constantly_ changes. It changes from moment to moment.
> 
> So why _wouldn't_ sex change too?


Let's see.

20 Years? Yep, close to 21 thus far.

Pregnancies? Yep, 3 of them.

Job loss? Yep, both of us on one occasion each. In the first instance I was the primary breadwinner who lost his job. While in the second instance my wife was the primary breadwinner when she lost her job.

Loss of siblings or parents? Nope, not while we've been together. That said my wife lost her father 3 months before we started our sexual relationship together.

Birth of children? Yep, 2 of them.

Illnesses? Yep, I had a burst appendix that went wrong, so I spent around 6 months in and out of hospital because of it. Plus when our oldest was 1 through 4 we sometimes had to bring him to emergency for significant breathing problems (asthma).

Moving? Yep, Through 20 years, we have moved together on 8 different occasions while having shared 9 different addresses. From inner city living, through to living in a remote, rural community with great tax breaks and allowances.

Promotions? Yep, I had 2 workplace ones. While my wife has had 2 workplace promotions, and three other promotions via accepting succeeding higher management positions with different employers.

Lottery winnings? Nope, but we would have to actually enter some lotteries in order to have a chance at winning any.

Religious ideals? Yep, in so far as it is sometimes an issue with my wife's family, aside from that we've always been on the same page.

Physical changes? Yep, Plenty of those. My wife has two massive scars on one of her ankles, plus that ankle is now wider than the other. Plus her face isn't the same (inclusive of a scar) courtesy of the car that hit her. Likewise we're both older, greyer, not as flexible, now use glasses and are also heavier (her just a small amount, me plenty more). While I also have a massive scar on my stomach.

Fights? Yep, in car GPS has done wonders to subsequently prevent almost all of them.

Changes in medications? Nope, never been an issue for us.

Affairs? Nope, not so far in this marriage.

Divorce, Nope, we're still married. Her first and my second.

Blended families? Nope, my wife didn't have any kids before she was with me.

Etc? Yep, lots of etc inclusive of being trapped by massive floods.

Yet with all of that just as we have always done, we're both still happily sharing lots of sex with each other.

As far as my wife and I are concerned, our relationship in the first instance is a sexual one. So sex for the both of us is a defining, essential and desirable component of our relationship. Absent having that sexual relationship, it is highly likely my wife and I would both be having frequent sex with other people.

As to the question of why wouldn't sex change? It's pretty simple. It doesn't significantly change when all who are sharing that sex, choose not to change it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Personal said:


> As far as my wife and I are concerned, our relationship in the first instance is a sexual one. So sex for the both of us is a defining, essential and desirable component of our relationship. Absent having that sexual relationship, it is highly likely my wife and I would both be having frequent sex with other people.
> 
> As to the question of why wouldn't sex change? It's pretty simple. It doesn't significantly change when all who are sharing that sex, choose not to change it.


This is how it is for two healthy HD people who are strongly attracted to each other. They will simply make time for sex and will not stop wanting to have sex with each other. When you hear of couples who have this type of long term passion, this is the case, every time. They usually are madly in love with each other too, but that part isn't even essential to them still having rocking sex all the time.

It is true that either Mr. or Mrs. Personal could have had some hypothetical injury or whatever that made one or both of them incapable of sex blah blah blah....but none of those hypothetical questions have happened for the Personals and here they are, doing the same thing that most HD/HD strongly attracted couples do: having lots of sex.

I one time heard a woman on a call in radio show who was describing what a great married sex life was to her. She said a few lines and then said "you really, you just have to both be totally HOT for each other, EVERY time!!"

When she said that it was so clear in how she was saying it...though it doesn't come out as well in writing...but if you both don't feel that HEAT between you all the time....then you probably can't get to here from there. That heat has to be there.

For mismatched couples and for LD people in general, I'm not sure that heat is possible. It may be there once in awhile or it may happen in the beginning of a relationship. But for most people I've known who are life long HD people and who have had (mostly) excellent sex lives, there was never a time when they didn't feel that heat being generated *from within them*, usually focused on a partner but if single, focused on the attaining of a sex partner. It is just a drive that goes and goes and goes in some of us. When you are healthy, you can drive that train exactly where you want it to go. When you are healthy and monogamous and have a partner who is also HD, you've got TWO steam trains to keep the fun sex alive.

When they say women get sexually bored in relationships (and men do too sometimes or they just become LD for their current partner), I usually attribute it to lack of inner heat. Because a huge amount of inner heat simply won't let you stop steaming forward like a train. You have no choice. It is how you are driven (in that part of your life). I can't speak for what it feels like for LD people or bored spouses...but I have heard them describe it a lot, and it just sounds mostly like there's no FIRE inside of them. Maybe the fire got doused out by cold water from some event. However I still think a truly HD person will have a blazing fire again in no time, assuming they are healthy. In other words, an outer event has nothing to do with the pilot light and the fuel. That's all from within in highly sexual people


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Personal said:


> Let's see.
> 
> 20 Years? Yep, close to 21 thus far.
> 
> ...



Wonderful, Personal! I hope the _*second*_ 20 years is as blessed as the first 20!


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Vega said:


> Wonderful, Personal! I hope the _*second*_ 20 years is as blessed as the first 20!


Thanks I hope so too.

I also want to add that whatever you do, I hope you find contentment as well.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Sawney Beane said:


> I think some of the issue comes from there being an EXPLICIT expectation that you do not have sex with anyone except your partner. There is no matching expectation that your partner has sex with you. BOTH partners promise not to have sex with anyone else. NEITHER partner promises to have sex with the other, and most certainly not at any specific level of frequency or variety.


Actually in my second marriage we do have a promise to have sex with each other and the frequency we both want, if it falls below a certain level that would be a major trigger to discuss why. Variety is not such an issue as we made sure we were a match with our styles of sex before committing to a LTR.

MrH has a much higher drive than me, he could easily sneak in an extra few times per week (on top of the daily plus that we already have) but it is not an issue at all. I engage more than my natural level of desire which is not more than daily and he is happy for me to shoo him away when I feel the need to. It works for us because we are both safe within our relationship. 

After a sexless first marriage I can see nothing wrong with talking about this with a partner and being open and honest with what you want.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

Vega said:


> Originally Posted by Buddy400
> If a guy stops "pursuing" his wife after marriage; stops talking with her; sits around in his underwear drinking beer and watching sports, does he get to say "Hey, life happens, things change, people change"?
> 
> I don't think so.
> ...


Chicken, meet egg.

But yes, this is invariably how it goes. One is in response to the other. But who started it? 

Many years ago, my wife told me that this was essentially how her previous LTR wound up, complete with sitting around in his underwear drinking beer and watching sports. Then *****ing about the lack of sex. Then when they did have sex, it was always the same, and over within a few minutes. She very much felt it was all about him - and it was.

I felt for her, and laughed (inside) about this guys cluelessness.

But how did he get there?, I thought. Over the ensuing years of my relationship, there was a sharp decrease in our sex life - and I wasn't sitting around in my underwear, drinking beer, watching sports, and bugging her for sex. Quite the opposite. I was doing everything I was 'supposed' to, yet here we were.

Was she bored of me? Maybe. Was she bored of our sex life? Perhaps.

What's more likely is that this was the longest she'd ever been in one place, with one person. She's never had drama in her life, but up until this point, things were constantly changing, as they usually do. Marriage tends to invite constant, which turns into complacency, which turns into boredom.

Because she'd had a few LTRs in her life, all lasting almost exactly 3 years apiece, it was at that point where our relationship started to dwindle. I don't think it was coincidence. It's almost as though she was used to that time frame and expected all relationships to follow the same path. When I brought that up to her, she agreed.

So I pointed out that I was not sitting around in my underwear (etc.), not bugging her for sex, was not a 2-pump chump, that I still listened to her, still did all the things I was 'supposed' to do (and meant them) - she snapped out of it. 

Even though it was right there for her to see, she didn't see it. She had become so used to relationships following the same story arc that she was blind to the fact that ours wasn't.

So in these cases, somebody starts this, and all too often, the other follows, often out of spite. "Well, he/she's given up, so I might as well, too". It would have been easy for me a few years ago to have decided that she wasn't making an effort, therefore nor will I, we'll see how SHE likes it.

The issue is that neither person believes THEY were the one to start it all. They blame each other. Chicken and egg. Perhaps her ex DID become lazy and complacent on his own. Perhaps he did it in response to her. I know how _she_ feels about it, but he may have a differing viewpoint. Same with my ex wife. I'm sure I wasn't perfect with her, but her perception was probably very different than mine and led her to the path she eventually took. To this day, I'd still say I did nothing wrong. She probably has a VERY different take on things. *shrug*

These things usually start small, and snowball into something much bigger. All it takes is for one perceived slight, and before you know it...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Change is fine, but having something important in marriage disappear isn't. I still take my wife on dates, buy her flowers, tell her I love her, hold down a good job, work around the house. As time has gone on, exactly what I do for each of these has changed, but I haven't stopped doing any of them and I think she would have a valid complaint if I did.

To be clear, health issues are completely different, I don't anyone here is suggesting that someone is expected to have sex if there are health problems that prevent it. 




Vega said:


> Got a question for you...
> 
> Why _would_ someone expect sex to remain as a constant for 20 years when the rest of life can change during that time? Pregnancies, job loss, loss of siblings or parents, birth of children, illnesses, moving, promotions, lottery winnings (just thought I'd throw that in for good measure, lol!), religious ideals, physical changes, fights, changes in medications, affairs, divorce, blended families etc. The list is endless. The only thing about life that's constant is that life _constantly_ changes. It changes from moment to moment.
> 
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't know the percentages.

There are many cases where sex just sort of fades away, sometimes due to changes in the partner's behavior. 

There are cases here though where sex, or some sexual activities just stop after marriage, and that is a real bait / switch. Not at all clear how common.



Buddy400 said:


> I also doubt that many people intend the bait & switch. I think it's mostly unintended.
> 
> Some research says that many women lose their libido in a long term committed relationship.
> 
> Which is kind of perverse for the guy. He gives her what she desires, commitment, and that causes her to lose her sexual attraction to him.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

uhtred said:


> I don't know the percentages.
> 
> There are many cases where sex just sort of fades away, sometimes due to changes in the partner's behavior.
> 
> There are cases here though where sex, or some sexual activities just stop after marriage, and that is a real bait / switch. Not at all clear how common.


On the topic of bait/switch, I've long thought that those who allegedly do just that are not necessarily doing it on purpose, with a goal in mind, or otherwise to land a partner. It's easy to point to those reasons as to why somebody does it, however I don't really think that's the case.

I think for people that are lower desire, they may actually get a spark of interest early in a relationship - not for the sex itself, but for the person. Once that so-called honeymoon period wears off, the interest in sex dwindles back to a 'normal' state.

For those who are high desire, they may actually get bored of their partner, sexually. There's no denying the allure of sex with new partners.

In other words, a new relationship is much like a drug. We all tend to forsake virtually everything/everyone else when a new relationship starts budding. At the very least, to the point of constantly thinking of them. That goes away over time, and it's normal.

When you can't get enough of someone, you simply want to be with them at all times, and often what you do with them doesn't matter, hence going outside of your 'norm'. Eventually you settle into some sort of routine, and the butterflies go away, even if you truly love them. You still want to be with them (perhaps all the time) but what you DO with them will start to reflect YOUR interests and 'normal'.

So if you're not THAT into sex, that part will go back to your normal, leaving your partner trying to figure out what's 'wrong'.

The first year or so I was dating my wife, I brought her to all kinds of concerts - music I liked. She always said yes, always seemed to have a good time (hey, a concerts a concert, IMO!). Eventually she started to say no, bring somebody else. I wouldn't say she was bait and switching me - I knew the shows I brought her to weren't exactly up her alley, but hey, we were doing something together, and she was okay with that. Bait and switch? Nah. Doing things she didn't really want to for my sake? Yeah. And the same was true in reverse. It's how it goes.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Personal said:


> As far as my wife and I are concerned, our relationship in the first instance is a sexual one. So sex for the both of us is a defining, essential and desirable component of our relationship. Absent having that sexual relationship, it is highly likely my wife and I would both be having frequent sex with other people.
> 
> As to the question of why wouldn't sex change? It's pretty simple. It doesn't significantly change when all who are sharing that sex, choose not to change it.


This is a key thing, perhaps. I think a lot of couples pay lip service to the idea that marriage is a sexual relationship, if they think about it all. Not having sex with anyone else is a defining, essential and desirable component of the marriage. Sex with your partner is not considered an essential part of the relationship, at all.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> Sex with your partner is not considered an essential part of the relationship, at all.


Fine if both agree with that. Tragic when only one does.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> And that is very clearly contradicted by the choices LD people make. Many, many LD's are willing to have a less happy marriage or maybe even a divorce - in order to avoid having sex. For whatever reason(s) sex is very much NOT like pizza for them.


Some of these LD's are just tired of Dominos everyday....

You hand them a Papa John's and all of a sudden they are starving.

Don't kid yourselves folks. There are unequivocally two kinds of LDs.

LDs who don't want sex and LDs who just don't want sex WITH YOU.

My ex-wife was the latter and those types need to be divorced expeditiously.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Sawney Beane said:


> This is a key thing, perhaps. I think a lot of couples pay lip service to the idea that marriage is a sexual relationship, if they think about it all. Not having sex with anyone else is a defining, essential and desirable component of the marriage. Sex with your partner is not considered an essential part of the relationship, at all.


Who says sex is not an essential part of a relationship? You make it seem like people enter a marriage b/c of the promise the other won't have sex with anyone else, yet having sex with your partner is not essential?? When you are entering a monogamous you are giving up having sex with anyone else, and as well potentially giving up sex with your SO. Basically, if you want to give up sex, enter a monogamous relationship :scratchhead:

Maybe a better way to ask, what would you consider the essential parts of the relationship?


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

EllisRedding said:


> Who says sex is not an essential part of a relationship? You make it seem like people enter a marriage b/c of the promise the other won't have sex with anyone else, yet having sex with your partner is not essential?? When you are entering a monogamous you are giving up having sex with anyone else, and as well potentially giving up sex with your SO. Basically, if you want to give up sex, enter a monogamous relationship :scratchhead:
> 
> Maybe a better way to ask, what would you consider the essential parts of the relationship?


Personally my late wife and I were pretty clear that sex WAS essential. A lot of other people don't. I've seen so, so many people who were horrified and offended by the suggestion that marriage is a sexual relationship!



> people enter a marriage b/c of the promise the other won't have sex with anyone else, yet having sex with your partner is not essential


That's about the size of it. There are two expectations, which are at work.

There is an absolute expectation that marriage partners do not have sex with anyone else. So far, so good. There is also an absolute expectation that nobody should have any kind of sex unless they absolutely want to and what anyone else wants is totally irrelevant. Which is exactly as it should be.

So, you have an expectation of monogamy, AND an expectation of absolute personal sexual autonomy. That is to say the absolute opposite of an expectation that your partner should have sex with you.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Sawney Beane said:


> Personally my late wife and I were pretty clear that sex WAS essential. A lot of other people don't. I've seen so, so many people who were horrified and offended by the suggestion that marriage is a sexual relationship!
> 
> 
> That's about the size of it. There are two expectations, which are at work.
> ...


I completely agree with the concept of marital sexual exclusivity, if that's what is agreed and promised. I also agree completely with the concept of personal sexual autonomy. However, if my spouse is using those expectations together to avoid having sex with me, she can expect divorce. I had to resort to divorce with my ex - but I don't think she expected it.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Sawney Beane said:


> Personally my late wife and I were pretty clear that sex WAS essential. A lot of other people don't. I've seen so, so many people who were horrified and offended by the suggestion that marriage is a sexual relationship!


Interesting, I have seen the opposite. Most people I know consider marriage as a sexual relationship (or better part, sexual relationship being a part of the entire relationship)



Sawney Beane said:


> That's about the size of it. There are two expectations, which are at work.
> 
> There is an absolute expectation that marriage partners do not have sex with anyone else. So far, so good. There is also an absolute expectation that nobody should have any kind of sex unless they absolutely want to and what anyone else wants is totally irrelevant. Which is exactly as it should be.
> 
> So, you have an expectation of monogamy, AND an expectation of absolute personal sexual autonomy. That is to say the absolute opposite of an expectation that your partner should have sex with you.


I don't think most people are looking for personal sexual autonomy, maybe not the way I am thinking. Many people are simply looking for someone who matches best in terms of compatibility, shares the same level of value in their relationship.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> There is an absolute expectation that marriage partners do not have sex with anyone else. So far, so good. There is also an absolute expectation that nobody should have any kind of sex unless they absolutely want to and what anyone else wants is totally irrelevant. Which is exactly as it should be.


Yes, but that second expectation is a very recent creation. Only within the last 50 years or less. Before that, there was an absolute expectation that a married person was obliged to have sex when their spouse requested sex. At common law, there was no such thing as rape between spouses. The LD spouse was absolutely expected to oblige the HD spouse whenever the HD spouse requested sex.

So I would say what we have changed is the legal landscape. And I agree with you that the current rule is exactly as it should be. But I do not think we have changed expectations quite as universally. That is, I think many of us cling to the expectation that marriage will involve frequent sex even though that is no longer the legal entitlement. So I think we need to change other expectations regarding marriage to reflect the recent changes to the expectations of sexual entitlement.

I think people should expect that marriage to be much more transient. We should not think of it as "until death do us part". Because sex is too important to leave up to the other partner with an implied obligation that the HD will simply suffer the deprivation in good spirits. I think the expectation should be that the HD will cut their losses quickly when sex dries up, to prevent both HD and LD spouses from being caught in the downward death spiral. The LD is not expected to provide sex unless they want to. But the LD should not expect the HD to stick arond to found out how long it will take for the LD to rediscover their desire. An expectation of absolute personal autonomy as regards sex combined with an expectation of lifelong union and absolute fidelity tips the power balance too far in the LD's direction.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> I think the expectation should be that the HD will cut their losses quickly when sex dries up, to prevent both HD and LD spouses from being caught in the downward death spiral.


Sadly, codependency is a major mental road block for the HD to pull the trigger. 



Holdingontoit said:


> The LD is not expected to provide sex unless they want to. But the LD should not expect the HD to stick arond to found out how long it will take for the LD to rediscover their desire.


Of course, they do expect them to tolerate it. Sex is the currency of all relationships and the one who needs it less has the power. You can not force someone to have sex but anyone has cart blanche to withhold it.



Holdingontoit said:


> An expectation of absolute personal autonomy as regards sex combined with an expectation of lifelong union and absolute fidelity tips the power balance too far in the LD's direction.


Someone gets it. Completely agree.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, but that second expectation is a very recent creation. Only within the last 50 years or less. Before that, there was an absolute expectation that a married person was obliged to have sex when their spouse requested sex. At common law, there was no such thing as rape between spouses. The LD spouse was absolutely expected to oblige the HD spouse whenever the HD spouse requested sex.


I know. Someone who served in my Battalion when I was in the Army was among those prosecuted shortly after the law changed in the UK.



> So I would say what we have changed is the legal landscape. And I agree with you that the current rule is exactly as it should be. But I do not think we have changed expectations quite as universally. That is, I think many of us cling to the expectation that marriage will involve frequent sex even though that is no longer the legal entitlement. So I think we need to change other expectations regarding marriage to reflect the recent changes to the expectations of sexual entitlement.


Absolutely, and that will take time. I'm just about old enough to remember when it was perfectly acceptable (and legal) to have signs on pub doors saying "No dogs, no blacks, no Irish". You can change the law overnight, but attitudes take time. But equally, going back isn't an option.



> I think people should expect that marriage to be much more transient. We should not think of it as "until death do us part".


 I think they've got this bit. The "till death" bit is mostly just words now.



> Because sex is too important to leave up to the other partner with an implied obligation that the HD will simply suffer the deprivation in good spirits. I think the expectation should be that the HD will cut their losses quickly when sex dries up, to prevent both HD and LD spouses from being caught in the downward death spiral. The LD is not expected to provide sex unless they want to. But the LD should not expect the HD to stick arond to found out how long it will take for the LD to rediscover their desire. *An expectation of absolute personal autonomy as regards sex combined with an expectation of lifelong union and absolute fidelity tips the power balance too far in the LD's direction.*


Exactly. _That's the whole point._ "I don't have to do anything I don't want" should be a two-way street. I think it isn't helped by the wording in marriage, which explicitly calls for fidelity, long-term support and sharing of goods and wealth, but in which the sexual element is (at best) implicit. Sex is the one thing where you have no right to anything the other has.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

EllisRedding said:


> Interesting, I have seen the opposite. Most people I know consider marriage as a sexual relationship (or better part, sexual relationship being a part of the entire relationship)
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most people are looking for personal sexual autonomy, maybe not the way I am thinking. Many people are simply looking for someone who matches best in terms of compatibility, shares the same level of value in their relationship.


I strongly suspect that almost no-one considers the question of their sexual autonomy in terms of compatability until the moment it becomes an issue.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This notion of autonomy is certainly a core aspect of any marital dynamic. 

It relates to a somewhat bizarre comment made earlier in the thread by an LD poster who implied that HD partners were asking for 'sex on demand'. 

As a concept, sex on demand explicitly removes any notion of sexual autonomy. The reason I describe the comment as bizzare, is that in my many years on TAM, I have never heard an HD in a sexually starved marriage say they expected or even wanted that. 

This type of misrepresentation seems intended to demonize HD folk. 

I do believe the notion of autonomy is worth consideration. 

What you find with most frustrated HD people isn't the desire to be able to coerce their partner. They genuinely want that partner to WANT them. And to engage willingly, nay, enthusiastically of their own free will. 











Sawney Beane said:


> I strongly suspect that almost no-one considers the question of their sexual autonomy in terms of compatability until the moment it becomes an issue.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

MEM2020 said:


> I do believe the notion of autonomy is worth consideration.
> 
> What you find with most frustrated HD people isn't the desire to be able to coerce their partner. They genuinely want that partner to WANT them. And to engage willingly, nay, enthusiastically of their own free will.


Which to some people is a perceived threat to their sexual autonomy. A feeling that their partner should not want them to any different to how they are, and that the mere wanting is innately wrong.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Sawney Beane said:


> Which to some people is a perceived threat to their sexual autonomy. A feeling that their partner should not want them to any different to how they are, and that the mere wanting is innately wrong.


If true, that's very sad, and I'd probably perceive such a person as severely dysfunctional, or even sexually damaged.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> Get sex from someone who actually wants it and still come home every night?
> 
> "See, baby, it's not all about sex or I wouldn't have left that hot piece to come home to your frigid azz."
> 
> ...


This hypothesis requires thought, caring, sharing, empathy, deep love, not being selfish, being eager to please. 

All those things are lacking, to some degree, in some LD spouses.

Even if the LD spouse has physical limitations, it can be overcome by "some" means.....is so desired by the LD specifically and the HD, secondarily.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Sex is normally not the bottom line in a relationship until it becomes a problem. But we could start any thread with the same title except insert the thing that is lacking the most in the relationship. Depending on how poorly someone feels their relationship is going and how they perceive they are being treated, we could easily see threads like: "Is Respect for your Partner the Bottom Line", "Is Financial Cooperation the Bottom Line", "Is Marital Infidelity the Bottom Line"... etc, etc. That which we lack the most of within the relationship will become the bottom line. The reason Sex is the bottom line according to this thread is because we are in the "Sex in Marriage" forum. So for issues discussed in this forum, SEX is the bottom line.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day. It's the END all, to BE all, for some.
> 
> And for others, they couldn't care less.
> 
> ...




My main love language is 'physical' and I am a HD adventurous man.

To me, having that physical sexual connection is more than just sex. It's also a major stress reliever and gives me that emotional connection to my woman.

Talking is fine but its only words. Actions speak louder than words will ever do because actions get things done were as words do nothing.

So is sex the bottom line for me? YES.

If there is little to almost no sex, we are more roommates and friends instead of a loving hubby / wife marriage. Big difference!!!

When married you are not your own anymore.

Both spouses are to take care of each others needs as their own.

LD's spouses are to take care of their HD spouses needs. No eye rolling, I'm tired, maybe later, I have a head ache, sigh, etc, etc, etc. If LD spouses do this to their other half, the HD spouse will stop initiating and the marriage goes downhill fast. That isn't taking care of your other halves needs as your own.

Marriage is 50 / 50.

But the HD spouses are still expected to take care of the LD spouses needs and they aren't doing enough for the table scraps of sex they might get.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

All,
Let's try to retain some sense of balance here. It is far easier to attack and caricature people for being 'different' from us, than it is to try to fully understand them. 

HD folks often suffer some degree of perceptual impairment. You know that phrase: blind rage, well I won't call it blind lust, but perhaps: visually impaired lust

Add to that that sexual self perception is often - impacted - by layers of ego protective armor and the result is a situation where the HD is not self assessing or partner assessing all that accurately. 

Simplest example of that is unwanted, spontaneous sexual touch : AKA : groping

So yes - some LD's are selfish, deceptive people. But many LD's are simply caught in a bad dynamic with their partner. 






SunCMars said:


> This hypothesis requires thought, caring, sharing, empathy, deep love, not being selfish, being eager to please.
> 
> All those things are lacking, to some degree, in some LD spouses.
> 
> Even if the LD spouse has physical limitations, it can be overcome by "some" means.....is so desired by the LD specifically and the HD, secondarily.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

CuddleBug,
This brings us to a topic that despite my best efforts, isn't fully clear to me. 

Where is the demarcation separating inspiration and coercion? 

Generally it seems less coercive: If I'm doing it FOR me as opposed to TO you. And if my delivery style is intentionally non threatening. 

For instance - the delivery below is intended to have a 'for me, not to you' tone. 

Everybody needs a certain amount of care and feeding to be happy. This typically comes from three sources:
Solo activities: exercise, reading, meditation, etc.
Marital interactions: talk, touch and sex
Extra-marital activities: sports, socializing etc. 

When the mix of (2) is less than desired, the healthiest thing to do is ramp up (1) and (3). Which is what I plan to do. 
--------------

Obviously this trajectory can take you to a complete disconnect over time. And that is likely the best outcome if your partner doesn't love you very much.





CuddleBug said:


> My main love language is 'physical' and I am a HD adventurous man.
> 
> To me, having that physical sexual connection is more than just sex. It's also a major stress reliever and gives me that emotional connection to my woman.
> 
> ...


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

If you are truly HD and your spouse is truly LD then frankly you shouldn't even be married.

I'm not seeing much of a difference in that versus a homosexual and heterosexual being married.

Sexual incompatibility ought to be a deal breaker imo. You will never be able to meet the others needs.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

MEM2020 said:


> CuddleBug,
> This brings us to a topic that despite my best efforts, isn't fully clear to me.
> 
> Where is the demarcation separating inspiration and coercion?
> ...




I found out the reasons why Mrs.CuddleBug is so insecure, non physical and LD. She was a bigger girl before we met, high school and college years and she was made fun of. This got her very insecure and only focused on school and work and never finding anyone for marriage.

I was very skinny with coke bottle glasses, so I made the decision to weight train and get laser eye surgery. Today, I'm about 230+ lbs at 6ft 2 with almost 20 / 20 vision. I did this for my confidence, health and for Mrs.CuddleBug. You would think this might inspire her to do the same with weight loss, getting in shape and getting a sex drive. Overall, she did nothing but always talks about it. She's a talker and not a doer. I am a doer and not a talker.

What I learned is LD can't be made HD and HD can't be made LD. There has to be a middle 50 / 50 ground or nothing works. Unfortunately, LD spouses do little to no compromising and the HD spouses suffer the most.

I've encouraged Mrs.CuddleBug to go out, meet new friends, gym, network, and just go away to a friends house for the weekend by herself. She does none of this and she has her own car.

My hobbies are on the computer and tech, landscaping our area and on going upgrades for our place.

It's not that Mrs.CuddleBug doesn't love me, she just isn't willing to make that needed lifestyle change, gym, lose the weight, and learn to get a sex drive.

I would say she is comfy and set in her ways, short of divorce.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

MEM2020 said:


> All,
> Let's try to retain some sense of balance here. It is far easier to attack and caricature people for being 'different' from us, than it is to try to fully understand them.
> 
> HD folks often suffer some degree of perceptual impairment. You know that phrase: blind rage, well I won't call it blind lust, but perhaps: visually impaired lust
> ...


Thank you. My bad.

Generalizing about anything is unfair. It under-rates the privates and a few corporals too.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

MEM2020 said:


> CuddleBug,
> This brings us to a topic that despite my best efforts, isn't fully clear to me.
> 
> Where is the demarcation separating inspiration and coercion?
> ...


Emph. mine. The way the message is received is the key - it actually doesn't matter how it sounds to you, it's how the other person hears it that defines the impact. I think that around sex, the demarcation is very, very low. With sport/reading/meditation, there is no expectation of fidelity or absolute personal autonomy. I can decide to decide to read what I want and probably no one will notice, never mind care. Equally, if I suggest to a dyed-in-the-wool reader of detective fiction that they give the Lord of the Rings a try, there's a fairly small chance they are going to feel I'm trying to make them do something they are uncomfortable with and trigger a reaction that I'm doing something fundamentally wrong or unethical.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

CuddleBug said:


> It's not that Mrs.CuddleBug doesn't love me, she just isn't willing to make that needed lifestyle change, gym, lose the weight, and learn to get a sex drive.
> 
> I would say she is comfy and set in her ways, short of divorce.


She may have decided that the discomfort of the gym and feeling hungry all the time, in return for a possible higher sex drive, isn't a good cost/benefit from her viewpoint. It's something with defined unpleasantness (the diet/exercise thing is just massively unpleasant for some people) in return for something she isn't interested in anyway (she's LD, more sex isn't a driver for her).

You're selling pork pies at a synagogue. Doesn't matter how good your pies are, the market isn't there.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> She may have decided that the discomfort of the gym and feeling hungry all the time, in return for a possible higher sex drive, isn't a good cost/benefit from her viewpoint. It's something with defined unpleasantness (the diet/exercise thing is just massively unpleasant for some people) in return for something she isn't interested in anyway (she's LD, more sex isn't a driver for her).
> 
> You're selling pork pies at a synagogue. Doesn't matter how good your pies are, the market isn't there.



I like that.:smthumbup:


In my books, if someone isn't willing to take care of their body for themselves and their spouse, they should be single. That is lazy and being unmotivated.

When married you are to take care of each others needs as your own. So by a LD staying LD, making little to no effort, they are not taking care of their other halves needs. That is selfish of them.

I can see Mrs.CuddleBug being 240+ lbs in her 40's already......:surprise:

I didn't marry her so she could get obese and stay LD.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

CuddleBug said:


> So by a LD staying LD, making little to no effort, they are not taking care of their other halves needs. That is selfish of them.


Maybe they see being expected to raise their sex drive when they couldn't be less interested as an example of a partner being selfish by pressuring them to do something they don't want?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

The thing that many people seem to over look is that how low or high your sex drive is is irrelevant. Whether you 'feel' like having sex is irrelevant.
You can make that decision to have sex because you love your spouse and because you value your marriage. If I expect my spouse to always be faithful and put me first, then I need to do my side in the physical relationship and value him and value his integrity. 
I know that he wouldn't be unfaithful, because he has very strong moral values, but to deprive him of sex over and over again for months or years is cruel and selfish. Its also damaging to the marriage and to our emotional connection. 
OK in some relationships one may want sex every day which for many may be too much, so a compromise can be reached, say once or twice a week. As long as the one who desires more sex isnt pressuring their spouse to do things they feel uncomfortable with, or are being abusive, or are a selfish lover, then sex is so beneficial to the marriage. No sex means more distance.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> Maybe they see being expected to raise their sex drive when they couldn't be less interested as an example of a partner being selfish by pressuring them to do something they don't want?



Good point.

But when married you are not your own anymore. It's what's best for your marriage and not yourself.

LD's are selfish because they aren't even meeting their HD spouses needs half way, which is a 50 / 50 compromise.

So if LD's don't change for anyone, that is selfish and in it for themselves. That's the problem.

Do you think us HD's would do more romance, going out to a romantic dinner, maybe a weekend get away, listening more, etc. if that meant our LD spouses would meet us half way? Of course we all would. But in reality, that doesn't happen so we stop on our end.

You can't expect the HD spouses to do all the compromising and learning while the LD's do basically nothing....


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> OK one may wants sex every day which for many may be too much, so a compromise can be reached, say once or twice a week. .


Playing devil's advocate...

Why does it HAVE to be once or twice a week? Why can't it be once or twice a MONTH? Or a YEAR? 

Or ten times a day?

Why does there _have _to be some "pattern"?


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Vega said:


> Playing devil's advocate...
> 
> Why does it HAVE to be once or twice a week? Why can't it be once or twice a MONTH? Or a YEAR?
> 
> ...




Very simple solution.


HD spouse wants sex almost every day. Up to 7 days week.

LD spouse wants sex a few times month. 1 to 2x.

Compromise, sex 3x every week. So 3 to 4 days of having sex, 3 to 4 days of no sex.

That's a 50% compromise of the HD spouse.

Now the LD spouse must step up and do the same.

The HD spouse is already killing off 50% of their sex drive, now the LD spouse must meet the other 50%.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

CuddleBug said:


> Very simple solution.
> 
> 
> HD spouse wants sex almost every day. Up to 7 days week.
> ...


Compromise: the situation where nobody is happy.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

CuddleBug said:


> Good point.
> 
> But when married you are not your own anymore. It's what's best for your marriage and not yourself.
> .


Not if you believe you have absolute physical and sexual autonomy. What you say above is the absolute antithesis of that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Compromise works if both frequencies are in the same time unit... Otherwise you won't get anywhere.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> As long as the one who desires more sex isnt pressuring their spouse to do things they feel uncomfortable with, or are being abusive, or are a selfish lover, then sex is so beneficial to the marriage. No sex means more distance.


I suspect to many LD's, being asked have more sex feels like a textbook definition of their partner "...pressuring their spouse to do things they feel uncomfortable with..."


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Agreed.

If LD's aren't willing to compromise, its all for nothing. The EA and PA's start, porn, etc....


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Sawney Beane said:


> Not if you believe you have absolute physical and sexual autonomy. What you say above is the absolute antithesis of that.


If a person wants complete physical and sexual autonomy, that person should either A) not marry or B) give their spouse complete physical and sexual autonomy including the ability to go have sex with a willing partner whenever the mood strikes.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

CuddleBug said:


> Very simple solution.
> 
> 
> HD spouse wants sex almost every day. Up to 7 days week.
> ...


It's the whole idea of "regularity" that's off-putting. I shave my legs "regularly". I eat "regularly". I pay my bills "regularly". I got to work "regularly". 

The LAST thing in the world I want is "regular" sex! 

I want sex to be SPONTANEOUS. SURPRISING. NOT "EXPECTED"!! That's the part of the "thrill" of sex. I want to hunger for my love, not knowing that I'm going to HAVE him, "posses" him, be with him! 

Knowing what to expect night after night gets tedious. He's coming home at 5 p.m. He'll probably give me a quick kiss, grab my boob and we'll sit down and eat dinner. He'll make a few jokes and then turn the conversation toward sex...I'll chuckle and get up to clean the dishes. He'll come up behind me and cup my breast and I'll brush him off...

Ho hum. Same old, same old.

Maybe the problem isn't that the LD wants "LESS", but that they want MORE of what they can't get...


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Vega said:


> It's the whole idea of "regularity" that's off-putting. I shave my legs "regularly". I eat "regularly". I pay my bills "regularly". I got to work "regularly".
> 
> The LAST thing in the world I want is "regular" sex!
> 
> ...



I am the same as you.

I also want spontaneous, fun and unexpected sex.

Knowing that I'm going to have sex because its basically planned for later. Turn off for me as well.

See, I've talked with Mrs.CuddleBug about what fantasies does she have? What does turn her on? Anything she's never told anyone for fear of getting in trouble?

All I get is....I don't know. She is uncomfortable and the discussion is done.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

CuddleBug said:


> See, I've talked with Mrs.CuddleBug about what fantasies does she have? What does turn her on? Anything she's never told anyone for fear of getting in trouble?
> 
> All I get is....I don't know. She is uncomfortable and the discussion is done.


Ask a life-long vegetarian what their favourite meat dish is? "I don't know and I don't want to find out";

Ask a life-long teetotaller what their favourite drink is? "I don't know and I don't want to find out";

Ask a life-long non-reader what their favourite book is? "I don't know and I don't want to find out"

Ask a life-long LD what their sexual fantasy is, why would you expect a different answer?

I think you know what the answer is: this is the hill she is prepared to die on.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Sawney Beane said:


> Ask a life-long vegetarian what their favourite meat dish is? "I don't know and I don't want to find out";
> 
> Ask a life-long teetotaller what their favourite drink is? "I don't know and I don't want to find out";
> 
> ...


Oh, puh-LEEZ. Ask a life-long teetotaler what their favorite drink is, that ALSO may tell you, "English Breakfast Tea"
Ask a life-long non-reader what their favorite book is and they may tell you "The Bible."
Ask a life-long vegetarian what their favorite meat is (or WAS, when they ate meat) and they might tell you, "Pork chops". 

You never can tell...


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> The LAST thing in the world I want is "regular" sex!
> 
> I want sex to be SPONTANEOUS. SURPRISING. NOT "EXPECTED"!!


Different strokes. The LAST thing my wife would want is spontaneity or a surprise. She wants to know in advance. We will agree to "set the alarm a little earlier" or I will say that I'm "coming home early". And Sunday afternoons are just understood.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> If a person wants complete physical and sexual autonomy, that person should either A) not marry or B) give their spouse complete physical and sexual autonomy including the ability to go have sex with a willing partner whenever the mood strikes.


Why does it HAVE to be "either" "or"....?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

CharlieParker said:


> Different strokes. The LAST thing my wife would want is spontaneity or a surprise. She wants to know in advance. We will agree to "set the alarm a little earlier" or I will say that I'm "coming home early". And *Sunday afternoons are just understood*.


Just "understood" would be "out" for me....


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Spontaneous, unexpected... Like Hailey's Comet 😁


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> Ask a life-long vegetarian what their favourite meat dish is? "I don't know and I don't want to find out";
> 
> Ask a life-long teetotaller what their favourite drink is? "I don't know and I don't want to find out";
> 
> ...



Agreed.

Right now I took my pre workout drink and am getting ready to weight train.

Mrs.CuddleBug is eating chips and dip and watching tv......


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> The thing that many people seem to over look is that how low or high your sex drive is is irrelevant. Whether you 'feel' like having sex is irrelevant.
> You can make that decision to have sex because you love your spouse and because you value your marriage. If I expect my spouse to always be faithful and put me first, then I need to do my side in the physical relationship and value him and value his integrity.
> I know that he wouldn't be unfaithful, because he has very strong moral values, but to deprive him of sex over and over again for months or years is cruel and selfish. Its also damaging to the marriage and to our emotional connection.
> OK one may wants sex every day which for many may be too much, so a compromise can be reached, say once or twice a week. As long as the one who desires more sex isnt pressuring their spouse to do things they feel uncomfortable with, or are being abusive, or are a selfish lover, then sex is so beneficial to the marriage. No sex means more distance.


That's the answer.

I heard a woman on the radio. She said that a friend said that she didn't feel like having sex. 

The woman on the radio said that she responded with "Do you feel like having a happy marriage?"


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> Playing devil's advocate...
> 
> Why does it HAVE to be once or twice a week? Why can't it be once or twice a MONTH? Or a YEAR?
> 
> ...


Well if your spouse would like to have sex every day and you compromise on once or twice a week, the marriage might be happy.

If your spouse would like to have sex every day and the best compromise you can manage is once or twice a year, then the chances of the marriage being happy is quite a bit lower.

The idea is that you're taking your partner's desires into account and doing your best to accommodate them. That means a lot.

Or, you could dismiss your partner's desire out of hand and do whatever you please. Good luck with that.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Well if your spouse would like to have sex every day and you compromise on once or twice a week, the marriage might be happy.
> 
> If your spouse would like to have sex every day and the best compromise you can manage is once or twice a year, then the chances of the marriage being happy is quite a bit lower.
> 
> ...




Yup.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Sawney Beane said:


> Not if you believe you have absolute physical and sexual autonomy. What you say above is the absolute antithesis of that.


One can have absolute physical and sexual autonomy and still compromise for the sake of gaining a happy marriage.

Just because one has absolute sexual autonomy doesn't mean that one can completely ignore their partner's desires and still expect their partner to be happy.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> The idea is that you're taking your partner's desires into account and doing your best to accommodate them. That means a lot.
> 
> Or, you could dismiss your partner's desire out of hand and do whatever you please. Good luck with that.


Cuddlebug, to what extent are you taking your partner's desires into account and doing your best to accommodate them? You seem to have decided you know what's best for your wife. What about what she desires, rather than _what you want her to desire_?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> Just "understood" would be "out" for me....


It sounds like the only thing that would be "in" for you is doing exactly as you please, whenever you feel like it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
I am guessing that this reaction has to do with control. The need to retain absolute control in this area and fear of ceding any of it. 

For quite some time I have been trying to pattern match your behavior - in order to understand it. 

I may have a match now, though without your confirmation or contradiction  I won't know for sure. 

M2 does a lot of nice stuff for us/me. Always has. And it's also true she has a hard wired opposition to me asking her to perform any acts of service for me. And any expectation in that area makes her angry. 

But she's the exact opposite where touch/sex is concerned. Meaning - her knee jerk reaction to touch/sex requests is YES. 








Vega said:


> Just "understood" would be "out" for me....


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

I think a lot of people pretend sex is the bottom line. But their actions tell the truth. Many people are just more comfortable with discontent and complaining.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Vega said:


> I want sex to be SPONTANEOUS. SURPRISING. NOT "EXPECTED"!! That's the part of the "thrill" of sex. I want to hunger for my love, not knowing that I'm going to HAVE him, "posses" him, be with him!


Hungering for your lover and knowing you're going to "HAVE" him are not mutually exclusive. After 17 years with DH, I KNOW I can have him whenever he's not at work, but that doesn't diminish my hunger for him one bit.

Maybe you just haven't found your "the one".



Vega said:


> Knowing what to expect night after night gets tedious. He's coming home at 5 p.m. He'll probably give me a quick kiss, grab my boob and we'll sit down and eat dinner. He'll make a few jokes and then turn the conversation toward sex...I'll chuckle and get up to clean the dishes. He'll come up behind me and cup my breast and I'll brush him off...
> 
> Ho hum. Same old, same old.
> 
> Maybe the problem isn't that the LD wants "LESS", but that they want MORE of what they can't get...


DH walks through the door at 5 and gives me a quick kiss and a bit of a bit of a joking grope, I'm going to grope back. He kisses and gropes me with any kind of seriousness and dinner is going to be late.

If I'm doing dishes and he comes up behind me and grabs my breast either the dishes are getting done tomorrow or I'm hopping on the counter and we're having an appetizer make out and grind session to tide us over until after the chores are done and the kid is in bed.




Vega said:


> Why does it HAVE to be "either" "or"....?


Well, because if a person believes married people retain complete physical and sexual autonomy, then that means their spouse is free to have physical, sexual, relations with whoever they please. 

If a person doesn't believe married people retain complete physical and sexual autonomy, then that person would seem to be under obligation to have sexual relations with their spouse when reasonably requested. Reasonable, of course, to be determined by the couple through negotiation and compromise, if needed.

Honestly, though, I wouldn't want obligation sex. If my partner isn't turned on by me and into the sex, I'd rather just end the relationship and seek out a more compatible partner. I understand being distracted and not into it once in a great while due to some worry or being tired, but not being into it on a semi-regular or regular basis? Nope.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

If you have made it clear to your partner what you want, and they won't do it, then I feel like he is not doing all that he should be.

Lots of variation. My wife does not want spontaneous sex - I don't think she says yes to that more than once a year on average. She wants sex between 2 and 4pm on sundays, unless there are any important chores that need doing - which there usually are. In our relationship I'm the one who would love spontaneity and variety. 






Vega said:


> It's the whole idea of "regularity" that's off-putting. I shave my legs "regularly". I eat "regularly". I pay my bills "regularly". I got to work "regularly".
> 
> The LAST thing in the world I want is "regular" sex!
> 
> ...


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Vega said:


> Playing devil's advocate...
> 
> Why does it HAVE to be once or twice a week? Why can't it be once or twice a MONTH? Or a YEAR?
> 
> ...


Because it's not all purely mental. Based on our biology, somewhere 3 to 5 encounters (where ejaculation occurs) is the ideal COMPROMISED sweet spot for the majority of people from the ages of 18 to 50. I'm guessing on the upper boundary of the range, but it's under the assumption that you are in a committed relationship where you have a number of obligations in life. You may have kids, belong to organizations outside of work, your job itself, need to have time for sleep, need to have time to prepare food, need time for hygene, etc. etc. This will limit the upper boundary where more than once a day is - most likely - too hard to maintain for most people due to their obligations and other needs that would need tending. On the flip side, we know that when you are in a committed romantic relationship, that having sex too infrequently will cause your body to not feel that biochemical bonding with your SO. Sex makes it possible for our biochemistry to attach us to someone else. Is it mostly a psychological association where whenever you see your SO you equate that person to the dopamine rush you feel? Probably that's what explains most of it. Is there additional chemistry interactions occurring by exchanging fluids? Not so sure but maybe. 

Thru scientific observation and I'm sure actual experimentation, it's no accident that we end up within the most common place where we equate a healthy sex life that BOTH partners can enjoy as being at a minimum 1 time per week and for many others it's more than that almost up to daily. Again, that's for most cases plus there are various ideal compromises that are based on your ages. All of this assumes the sex in the relationship is mutually satisfying - or at least both want to work towards the goal of mutual satisfaction.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Vega said:


> It's the whole idea of "regularity" that's off-putting. I shave my legs "regularly". I eat "regularly". I pay my bills "regularly". I got to work "regularly".
> 
> The LAST thing in the world I want is "regular" sex!
> 
> ...


You're conflating two separate concepts here. There is regularity based on a frequency pattern, and there is regularity based on a routine seduction pattern. The latter can most definitely be a drag. The former is not nearly as bad, and in fact I would say that it's not bad at all but a good thing if your frequency of encounters is based on a schedule.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> That's the answer.
> 
> I heard a woman on the radio. She said that a friend said that she didn't feel like having sex.
> 
> The woman on the radio said that she responded with "Do you feel like having a happy marriage?"


Absolutely. We have got so selfish now. Its all about what WE want and what WE feel like.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Vega said:


> It's the whole idea of "regularity" that's off-putting. I shave my legs "regularly". I eat "regularly". I pay my bills "regularly". I got to work "regularly".
> 
> *The LAST thing in the world I want is "regular" sex!
> 
> ...


Missed out on the past few days of posts and several posters covered my thoughts as well. Per the bolded, and although I agree that at face value "regular" sex sounds blah and Spontaneous sex sounds like the much better option, I think that line of thinking (depending on the person and their situation) could actually do more harm then good. Take a situation where you are married, kids, work, etc... time together is limited. Waiting for the "perfect" time, that moment of "spontaneity", well, that could be like trying to win the lotto. All that happens is nothing, b/c the "perfect" time does not line up with your schedule. Likewise, and I am sure it varies by person, but I like the idea for example of knowing that we have sex scheduled tonight. It gives me something to look forward to, builds up the anticipation, etc... Ideally, you want to find a balance between "regular" and "spontaneous" sex.

I can see where an LD person could use the whole "sex has to be spontaneous" stance as a way to simply avoid having sex as they have just pretty much narrowed down the instances of when they want to have sex (also factor in the other person has to be in the "spontaneous" mood at the same exact time in a situation that allows both people to be spontaneous, talk about a narrow window lol).


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> I like the idea for example of knowing that we have sex scheduled tonight. It gives me something to look forward to, builds up the anticipation, etc...


True. I dug up this passage from the section Myth #8 See Should Be Spontaneous in _Partners In Passion_ by Mark Michaels and Patrica Johnson, it's another way to look at it.


> For most couples, dating is effectively a form of engaging in scheduled sex. When people don’t live together, they plan their meetings, prepare for their dates, and get together at an appointed place and time, perhaps for dinner and maybe a movie. All of this is frequently just a buildup to the main purpose, a sexual encounter, and the buildup enhances the entire experience. Even if sex in this context feels spontaneous, it has actually been planned, and in a way that is as structured as many a well-crafted short story or play. Thus, scheduling sex is OK for most people, in certain contexts and provided they don’t openly acknowledge the scheduling.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> Playing devil's advocate...
> 
> Why does it HAVE to be once or twice a week? Why can't it be once or twice a MONTH? Or a YEAR?
> 
> ...


Because for some of us, the need arises continuously. The "pattern" is the minimum repetition needed to address the need. If I have sex with my wife three times in one day, that does not lengthen how long it takes for me to feel the need the next time. So if we have sex today, I will get horny 2 or 3 days from now. If we have sex three times today, I cannot go 6 or 8 or 10 days without feeling horny. I will still feel horny 2 or 3 days after the day or weekend spent having sex multiple times.

Trust me, I wish I did not feel this need. I wish it was not so strong. And I wish it did not return as quickly as it does. And remember, I am basically not having sex with my wife so I am 100% accommodating her lack of need and not requiring her to compromise at all. Still, if ask me whether I feel the need for sex every few days. Even if I masturbate every single day. Yes, I feel the need for her again and again and again. Like clockwork. Every week. And it would require sex once or twice a week for me to feel that the need had been satisfied. There is nothing she could do once or twice a month that would address the need in between. I wish it were otherwise. But for many of us, it isn't. I hate that about myself just as much or more than I hate my wife for not being able to help me address the need.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> Compromise: the situation where nobody is happy.


Which is why I frequently suggest that couples do not compromise by having sex at the average frequency between how much each wants. Then both people are unhappy all the time and no one is ever satisfied. I have always suggested that instead, they trade weeks. One week they have sex whenever the HD wants, the other week they have sex only when the LD wants (which might well be not at all). That way, each person gets exactly what they want half of the time. Of course, I have never heard of a couple adopt this idea. Almost universally because the LD is unwilling to give up control to the HD any of the time, much less half of the time.



> Not if you believe you have absolute physical and sexual autonomy. What you say above is the absolute antithesis of that.


Some of us believe that absolute physical and sexual autonomy is the antithesis of being married. To us, being married is subsuming one's personal autonomy to the good of the marriage relationship. We realize that is not the current legal standard. But to me at least, if my spouse wants total personal autonomy then they don't really want to be married to me. They just want to play tit for tat, and make sure they come out ahead. I can do that at work all day. I don't need to be married to obtain that kind of relationship.

When you get to the point that you are not willing to release personal autonomy and make yourself available to your partner "at will", then get divorced. You'll both be happier.

Please realize that giving up autonomy does not have to be drudgery or torture or endless repetition of unsatisfying sex. Give your autonomy to someone who never wants sex, or never wants sex when you aren't already in the mood. You want have to have any unwanted sex. Give your autonomy to someone you love to have sex with, every time. You'll never have unwanted sex. I can understand why you refuse to give up your autonomy to someone who wants to have sex much more frequently than you do, and where you aren't all that thrilled by the prospect of having so much sex with them. The solution to that problem is to divorce them, not to encourage them to stay with you but do without the sex they crave. It is no more loving to deny requested sex than to request unwanted sex. Neither is loving. Best outcome, when both sides feel compelled to behave in an unloving manner, is to part ways.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

It sounds so reasonable, but many LD people find the idea of sex when they don't want it to be horrible. The absolutely do not want to have sex several times in a week. 


In many of these HD/LD cases the gap is much larger. The HD wants sex 3-5X / week. The LD wants it every month or so - so alternating weeks wouldn't work, you would pretty much need to alternate years.....




Holdingontoit said:


> Which is why I frequently suggest that couples do not compromise by having sex at the average frequency between how much each wants. Then both people are unhappy all the time and no one is ever satisfied. I have always suggested that instead, they trade weeks. One week they have sex whenever the HD wants, the other week they have sex only when the Ld wants (which might well be not at all). That way, each person gets exactly what they want half of the time. Of course, I have never heard of a couple adopt this idea. Almost universally because the LD is unwilling to give up control to the Hd any of the time, much less half of the time.
> 
> 
> snip
> .


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

uhtred said:


> It sounds so reasonable, but many LD people find the idea of sex when they don't want it to be horrible. The absolutely do not want to have sex several times in a week.


Agreed. But that is my point. If you cannot imagine agreeing to my solution, then you are best off getting divorced. Or even better, not getting married in the first place.

My suggestion is not really a proposed solution to the problem. It is a compatibility test. If you cannot bring yourself to say "yes, that is fine with me" then you are not compatible with your partner. On either side. Some HDs get all the sex they want because their LDs are very generous. That HD would refuse my suggestion because they are getting things their way all the time, so they would not want to be cut down to only half the time. But in my view that HD isn't really compatible with their partner, because they are far more selfish than their partner.

I have just decided I am going to advise my children to use this test. It is a fairly easy question to ask. And a fairly easy warning to provide a potential partner. I think we should address any potential issue of sexual compatibility by trading off weeks. How do you feel about that? Gets all sorts of issues out on the table. Yes, some potential partners will be insulted and end the relationship over the way the issue was presented. I think my children are well rid of any such partner. And I think the prospective partners are well rid of my children. 

I do not begrudge LDs marriage or happiness or the sex life of their fondest desires. I just wish they would obtain that from another LD (or with a person for whom they have enough desire not to be LD). And not foist themselves on a HD who is willing to imprison themselves after a brief interlude of fulfilling sex.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Holdingontoit said:


> Because for some of us, the need arises continuously. The "pattern" is the minimum repetition needed to address the need. If I have sex with my wife three times in one day, that does not lengthen how long it takes for me to feel the need the next time. So if we have sex today, I will get horny 2 or 3 days from now. If we have sex three times today, I cannot go 6 or 8 or 10 days without feeling horny. I will still feel horny 2 or 3 days after the day or weekend spent having sex multiple times.
> 
> Trust me, I wish I did not feel this need. I wish it was not so strong. And I wish it did not return as quickly as it does. And remember, I am basically not having sex with my wife so I am 100% accommodating her lack of need and not requiring her to compromise at all. Still, if ask me whether I feel the need for sex every few days. Even if I masturbate every single day. Yes, I feel the need for her again and again and again. Like clockwork. Every week. And it would require sex once or twice a week for me to feel that the need had been satisfied. There is nothing she could do once or twice a month that would address the need in between. I wish it were otherwise. But for many of us, it isn't. I hate that about myself just as much or more than I hate my wife for not being able to help me address the need.


I wonder, not sure if this is HD/LD specific, how many people crave sex after having sex vs those who after having sex they are good to go for the foreseeable future?

I know speaking for myself, when I have sex, it gets me in the mood for sex (not that same day, I ain't no machine ), but there is definitely a carry over the next few days or so. It is also the reason why I would rather not have sex if the alternative was to have sex 1x a month.


----------



## _anonymous_ (Apr 18, 2016)

The worth of sex gets greatly discounted when we measure its quality in terms of frequency, duration, spontaneity, etc. After 10 years of [largely unhappy] marriage, I've come to realize that if sex with my wife could be optimized along any (or all) of these dimensions, it still might not satisfy me. 

There appears to be a much bigger problem in my marriage of unmet expectations. I have unmet expectations of my wife's desire for me (physically and emotionally), her acceptance of me (of my person, of my thoughts, of my leadership), and her priority for my needs before her own (with me reciprocating the same). 

Me wanting more sex is just another way of wanting my wife's approval, something that perhaps I'll never earn. And likewise, I believe a lot of men placing a high valuation on sex want far more than the pleasure it provides. More "willful" sex from our partners would fulfill needs of love, validation, and other forms of approval. 

Herein lies a problem that many have difficulties overcoming, including myself--a problem OP touched upon from the start: the source from which our needs are met. Are we looking externally to someone for validation, love, etc. because there are internal deficits of these things? Perhaps. I conjecture some self-improvement for certain men might mitigate their want of "enough sex" from their SO, be it 7 times a week or whatever.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

I've been reading this thread and not commenting since I posted my own story. It's good to see the different perspectives, but here's a question for all of you. If an LD spouse is supposed to make him/herself more available as a loving, sharing gesture and to honor their HD partner's desire for more frequency, is it than also required of the LD spouse that they fully participate in each and every sexual encounter? How does the HD spouse feel about that? Is it just that you want more sex or is does the quality have to be commiserate with the quantity? 

For myself, I can remember when my H would wake me up in the middle of the night or early in the morning for sex and it wasn't enough that I acquiesced, it had to be at his pace - and believe me, the man loved to take his sweet old time. I suspect some of you will say this is more of a communication issue and you would be right. But many HD spouses seem to feel that not only should they enjoy sex every single time, but so should their spouses. This was one of the issues surrounding sex that created resentments in my marriage.

My H and I were on opposite schedules to a large degree. I was a SAHM with three children and I needed to get to sleep early in order to be up with the kids. My H worked nights mostly and slept during the day. Sex during the day was difficult because the kids were around. But I wasn't at all interested at 3 am. All I could think about was the fact that I needed to get up in a few hours and I just wanted some more sleep.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

_anonymous_ said:


> *The worth of sex gets greatly discounted when we measure its quality in terms of frequency, duration, spontaneity, etc. After 10 years of [largely unhappy] marriage, I've come to realize that if sex with my wife could be optimized along any (or all) of these dimensions, it still might not satisfy me.
> *
> .


Absolutely! We often hear that many HD's seem to want QUANTITY (frequency) over QUALITY. But even if some HD's got the quantity, duration etc. that they want, it STILL may not be 'enough' to satisfy them. In that case, what is an LD to do? The LD would probably feel like no amount of sex can satisfy the HD. Some HD's would "tolerate" sex 3-4 times a week, but they TRY for sex every day. Again, an LD can feel like 3-4 times a week is "enough" (after all, it's ABOVE 'average'!), but the HD always seems to want MORE. 



> Me *wanting more sex is just another way of wanting my wife's approval,* something that perhaps I'll never earn. And likewise, *I believe a lot of men placing a high valuation on sex want far more than the pleasure it provides*. More "willful" sex from our partners would fulfill needs of love, validation, and other forms of approval.
> 
> Herein lies a problem that many have difficulties overcoming, including myself--a problem OP touched upon from the start: the source from which our needs are met. *Are we looking externally to someone for validation, love, etc. because there are internal deficits of these things? Perhaps. I conjecture some self-improvement for certain men might mitigate their want of "enough sex" from their SO, be it 7 times a week or whatever*


Yes! Yes!! YES!!! 

When I was with an abuse forum for several years, one of the questions that came up was, "Why does he want to have sex with me _right after a fight_?" The conclusion was that he wanted the _approval/acceptance_. If his wife had sex with him, he felt like his wife was O.k. with his treatment of her, that his treatment of her wasn't "that bad" (he reasons that no SELF-RESPECTFUL woman would have sex with him IF he treated her like crap, and since his wife is having sex with him, he didn't just treat her like crap!) and therefore he felt good about HIMSELF. He felt good about himself for having the 'power' to convince her to have sex with him, while at the same time, he felt a disdain for her for being so "easy". Abusive men have two conflicting belief systems operating simultaneously. Guess which one usually wins? The one that's going to make HIM feel good about HIM. 

Now, I'm not saying that ALL men who want approval are abusive. Not even close. But if you're having sex with your spouse because it's a way to show her 'approval' of you well...couldn't that be considered a bit...selfish? :scratchhead:

I think that a lot of people would have to HONESTLY figure out WHY they want sex. After some therapy, they might discover that they're not nearly as HD as they thought they were.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

This is another example of the huge range of issues we are discussing. There is a tendency for people to say things to the effect of "any frequency you are comfortable with is OK", but I'm starting to think that blinds people to the extreme cases.

I agree that being woken in the middle of the night for sex when you need to sleep is not OK. Being unhappy because your partner doesn't want sex multiple times / day is not OK. Of course in a similar vein, refusing sex for months in a row is also not OK.


I'd suggest that both parties should be able to compromise on good mutual sex on AVERAGE ~2-3 times / week. They may want more or less, but I'm starting to think that this range is reasonable. 

Average is important - sure there will be days, or even a week or two when someone is ill or just doesn't feel like sex. There will be times when very frequent sex is appropriate - say on vacation for your anniversary. 

I wold say though that anyone who is not happy with 2-3X/week when there are no other issues, should consider why they feel the way that they do. 









blahfridge said:


> I've been reading this thread and not commenting since I posted my own story. It's good to see the different perspectives, but here's a question for all of you. If an LD spouse is supposed to make him/herself more available as a loving, sharing gesture and to honor their HD partner's desire for more frequency, is it than also required of the LD spouse that they fully participate in each and every sexual encounter? How does the HD spouse feel about that? Is it just that you want more sex or is does the quality have to be commiserate with the quantity?
> 
> For myself, I can remember when my H would wake me up in the middle of the night or early in the morning for sex and it wasn't enough that I acquiesced, it had to be at his pace - and believe me, the man loved to take his sweet old time. I suspect some of you will say this is more of a communication issue and you would be right. But many HD spouses seem to feel that not only should they enjoy sex every single time, but so should their spouses. This was one of the issues surrounding sex that created resentments in my marriage.
> 
> My H and I were on opposite schedules to a large degree. I was a SAHM with three children and I needed to get to sleep early in order to be up with the kids. My H worked nights mostly and slept during the day. Sex during the day was difficult because the kids were around. But I wasn't at all interested at 3 am. All I could think about was the fact that I needed to get up in a few hours and I just wanted some more sleep.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*IMHO, emotional intimacy trumps all in a marital relationship! 

Sex is the simply the bonding agent for the perpetuance of that muchly needed intimacy!*


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

I've been reading this thread and not commenting since I posted my own story. It's good to see the different perspectives, but here's a question for all of you. If an LD spouse is supposed to make him/herself more available as a loving, sharing gesture and to honor their HD partner's desire for more frequency, is it also required of the LD spouse that they fully participate in each and every sexual encounter? How does the HD spouse feel about that? Is it just that you want more sex or is does the quality have to be commiserate with the quantity? 

For myself, I can remember when my H would wake me up in the middle of the night or early in the morning for sex and it wasn't enough that I acquiesced, it had to be at his pace - and believe me, the man loved to take his sweet old time. I suspect some of you will say this is more of a communication issue and you would be right. But many HD spouses seem to feel that not only should they enjoy sex every single time, so should their spouses. This was one of the issues surrounding sex that created resentments in my marriage.

My H and I were on opposite schedules to a large degree. I was a SAHM with three children and I needed to get to sleep early in order to be up with the kids. My H worked nights mostly and slept during the day. Sex during the day was difficult because the kids were around. But I wasn't at all interested at 3 am. All I could think about was the fact that I needed to get up in a few hours and I just wanted some more sleep.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Because for some of us, the need arises continuously. The "pattern" is the minimum repetition needed to address the need. If I have sex with my wife three times in one day, that does not lengthen how long it takes for me to feel the need the next time. So if we have sex today, I will get horny 2 or 3 days from now. If we have sex three times today, I cannot go 6 or 8 or 10 days without feeling horny. I will still feel horny 2 or 3 days after the day or weekend spent having sex multiple times.


So, the "need" you're talking about is the need for a _physical_ "release"? Well, I can understand that to a point. I've read that fluid _on average _takes between 48-72 hours to build up inside of the testicles to the point of feeling the 'need' to be expelled. 

From both a physical and a psychological standpoint, it may "feel better" if a man ejaculates inside of a woman's vagina...or inside her mouth...or with the use of her hand. I mean, I know that if my husband scratched my back, it would "feel better" both physically (because I couldn't reach the itch) and psychologically (because he loved me enough to do this for me, that which I couldn't do for myself). But just because it "feels better", does that make it a "need" for me? Does that mean that I should "require" him to scratch my back whenever it itches, and that if he just doesn't FELL like it, that he doesn't "love" me? 



> Trust me, I wish I did not feel this need. I wish it was not so strong. And I wish it did not return as quickly as it does. And remember, I am basically not having sex with my wife so I am 100% accommodating her lack of need and not requiring her to compromise at all. Still, if ask me whether I feel the need for sex every few days. Even if I masturbate every single day. Yes, I feel the need for her again and again and again. Like clockwork. Every week. And it would require sex once or twice a week for me to feel that the need had been satisfied. There is nothing she could do once or twice a month that would address the need in between. I wish it were otherwise. But for many of us, it isn't. I hate that about myself just as much or more than I hate my wife for not being able to help me address the need


I have heard men talking this way about sex and about themselves before. They 'hate' themselves for having this thing they call a "need" and they hate the woman for not taking care of that need as often as they...well..."need". I understand that our beliefs about sex, men, women and even marriage have MUCH to do with how we feel. 

I wonder sometimes if we've been 'mislead' into beliefs that simply aren't true, and that those false beliefs are the basis for so much of our discomfort...


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

@blahfridge Not exactly the same as we are on the same time schedules, but some times when our drives get mismatched we will use "I say when, but she says what" as a coping method. We recognize sex isn't necessarily intercourse, and not solely about getting off. The what that she says may be oral, a HJ or even us just making out and me finishing myself off on her boobs. Or it may start out like that but wind up with intercouse. 

All that is needed is some quality naked time and paying attention to one another. Yes, the quality should be there but I don't expect her to do anything she's not into at that moment, less is more. Again is for shorter term coping.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> I've been reading this thread and not commenting since I posted my own story. It's good to see the different perspectives, but here's a question for all of you. If an LD spouse is supposed to make him/herself more available as a loving, sharing gesture and to honor their HD partner's desire for more frequency, *is it also required of the LD spouse that they fully participate in each and every sexual encounter?* How does the HD spouse feel about that? Is it just that you want more sex or is does the quality have to be commiserate with the quantity?


For my late husband, the answer would be 'YES!'. He wanted me to be as enthusiastic as HE was. Each. And. Every. Time. 

I get tired just remembering...

If he wanted sex in order to feel "validated", he wanted me to feel like I wanted to validate HIM; not that *I* needed validation FROM him. 

So glad those days are O-V-E-R!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

CharlieParker said:


> @blahfridge Not exactly the same as we are on the same time schedules, but some times when our drives get mismatched we will use "I say when, but she says what" as a coping method. We recognize sex isn't necessarily intercourse, and not solely about getting off. The what that she says may be oral, a HJ or even us just making out and me finishing myself off on her boobs. Or it may start out like that but wind up with intercouse.
> 
> All that is needed is some quality naked time and paying attention to one another. Yes, the quality should be there but I don't expect her to do anything she's not into at that moment, less is more. Again is for shorter term coping.


I like this thought process, Charlie. But I'm curious about something...

You say it's not about getting off BUT...

Have there been "naked times" when you HAVEN'T gotten off? Do you EXPECT to 'get off' once you 'get naked'?


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

Vega said:


> I like this thought process, Charlie. But I'm curious about something...
> 
> You say it's not about getting off BUT...
> 
> Have there been "naked times" when you HAVEN'T gotten off? Do you EXPECT to 'get off' once you 'get naked'?





CharlieParker said:


> @blahfridge Not exactly the same as we are on the same time schedules, but some times when our drives get mismatched we will use "I say when, but she says what" as a coping method. We recognize sex isn't necessarily intercourse, and not solely about getting off. The what that she says may be oral, a HJ or even us just making out and me finishing myself off on her boobs. Or it may start out like that but wind up with intercouse.
> 
> All that is needed is some quality naked time and paying attention to one another. Yes, the quality should be there but I don't expect her to do anything she's not into at that moment, less is more. Again is for shorter term coping.


Find me a man who can get naked with a woman and not expect, hope on some level that he will get off. It was NEVER just caressing and holding each other with my H. If I allowed any cuddling at all, he would stroke me and cling to me until I finally gave in and had sex with him or I turned away and then he would get furious, often stomping out of the room. If I did have sex, he was happy the next day, but then the pattern would start all over again. Sex became a silent battleground for us in our marriage. Makes me sad just to type this.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> I like this thought process, Charlie. But I'm curious about something...
> 
> You say it's not about getting off BUT...
> 
> Have there been "naked times" when you HAVEN'T gotten off? Do you EXPECT to 'get off' once you 'get naked'?


For brevity I edited out the parenthetical "not solely about getting off (although we both agree that is important too)". 

Yes, there have been times I didn't get off, but not for a lack of trying. Expect to? I'd say it's more a want/hope to. I learned to try to not to expect any orgasms, mine, hers or both, not that I'm always good at it.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

CharlieParker said:


> For brevity I edited out the parenthetical "not solely about getting off (although we both agree that is important too)".
> 
> Yes, there have been times I didn't get off, but not for a lack of trying. Expect to? I'd say it's more a want/hope to. I learned to try to not to expect any orgasms, mine, hers or both, not that I'm always good at it.


O.k. Do you feel any less "close" to your wife if you DON'T get off?


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

blahfridge said:


> Find me a man who can get naked with a woman and not expect, hope on some level that he will get off. It was NEVER just caressing and holding each other with my H. If I allowed any cuddling at all, he would stroke me and cling to me until I finally gave in and had sex with him or I turned away and then he would get furious, often stomping out of the room. If I did have sex, he was happy the next day, but then the pattern would start all over again. Sex became a silent battleground for us in our marriage. Makes me sad just to type this.


As I said, yes hope to and want to. Expect to, no. Make my wife "give in", hell no. That's part of the point, she gets to pick what ever it is she is comfortable at that time. That may not be PiV but I trust that it will be soon enough. 

And we do plenty of it's not going to lead to sex naked holding and caressing, but that's not I'm talking about.

Being furious and stomping ain't gonna get me laid. Sorry.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> Find me a man who can get naked with a woman and not expect, hope on some level that he will get off. It was NEVER just caressing and holding each other with my H. If I allowed any cuddling at all, he would stroke me and cling to me until I finally gave in and had sex with him or I turned away and then he would get furious, often stomping out of the room. If I did have sex, he was happy the next day, but then the pattern would start all over again. Sex became a silent battleground for us in our marriage. Makes me sad just to type this.


I'm sorry this happened to you, blahfridge. Unfortunately, it happens too many times, especially with people who profess to "love" us. :frown2:

What your husband did isn't even CLOSE to "love", except for love of HIMSELF.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> Find me a man who can get naked with a woman and not expect, hope on some level that he will get off. It was NEVER just caressing and holding each other with my H. If I allowed any cuddling at all, he would stroke me and cling to me until I finally gave in and had sex with him or I turned away and then he would get furious, often stomping out of the room. If I did have sex, he was happy the next day, but then the pattern would start all over again. Sex became a silent battleground for us in our marriage. Makes me sad just to type this.


I suspect that's because you didn't have sex with him nearly as often as he'd have liked. I think it's unreasonable to expect naked cuddling and caressing to not lead to intense frustration if there isn't sufficient sex in the relationship, too.

We spend a lot more time naked, cuddling and caressing than we do having sex. We do have full on sex almost daily, though, usually in the morning or during the evening (sometimes both), before we go to bed to sleep. Then, we like to cuddle, and often read. She likes to play with me, but it's very low key and isn't fully arousing - it actually puts me to sleep most of the time. Of course, if we weren't having so much great, mutually satisfying sex, then it might be a problem to avoid arousal all the time. But we do, and this just serves to increase the intimacy, togetherness, and bonding time - without sex. If anything, _she_ is the one more likely to get aroused and try to ramp things up further. Even if I'm tired or not particularly in the mood, I'll do my best for her happiness and satisfaction.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> O.k. Do you feel any less "close" to your wife if you DON'T get off?


Less close than if I had gotten off? Maybe, OK, but it's still generally an increase in closeness and certainly not a negative overall. That is part of the point. I can recall several occasions I've gotten on the elevator with a big grin (feeling "close") and full balls.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

@blahfridge and @Vega: So that I don't have to sift thru an 80 page thread, I assume someone asked and both have replied with the frequency of sex in your marriages. Was there plenty of sex in your marriages? What @Married but Happy points out is pretty much a standard dynamic. If the relationship has a healthy sex life as part of it, then there are many more opportunities to have more intimacy that does not involve sex. Again, communication is critical but is frequently lacking. When that happens, we get a vicious feedback loop of the "touching leads to sex so he/she better not touch me" dynamic. That can also lead into or compliment the "I'm going to test my spouse to see if physical touching can exist without sex, and I'll duplicate this test a zillion times until I'm satisfied" dynamic too. Thank God I am married to the person that I am. Life is too short to play games with the person who is supposed to love. I'm not heaping blame on you 2. In fact, I have zero clue as to what your marriages were really like. I see your side, but not your H's. 

You can never tell if you are communicating with a true victim or a lunatic. More people should consider that before giving knee jerk advice.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Was this when on average he was getting as much sex as he wanted?

On the rare occasions where we are having regular sex - 2-3X/week, I'm very happy to cuddle up naked next to my spouse and not want sex - though I may get aroused just from the presence of her naked body. If its been a month or two, then its more difficult to lie next to a naked woman and not want sex. 

I'm curious though, if you are going to cuddle naked, why not have sex? 




blahfridge said:


> Find me a man who can get naked with a woman and not expect, hope on some level that he will get off. It was NEVER just caressing and holding each other with my H. If I allowed any cuddling at all, he would stroke me and cling to me until I finally gave in and had sex with him or I turned away and then he would get furious, often stomping out of the room. If I did have sex, he was happy the next day, but then the pattern would start all over again. Sex became a silent battleground for us in our marriage. Makes me sad just to type this.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

uhtred said:


> I'm curious though, if you are going to cuddle naked, why not have sex?


So that he can prove that he doesn't just want her for sex.

Something similar might be a husband talking with his wife. But, he's concerned that she only wants to use him to talk about her day.

She should prove this isn't true by never talking about herself.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I DO think this is a huge theme with many HD folks. 

Doesnt matter if it is conscious or subconscious - they often put a lot of pressure on their partners to show a high level of passion.

Try a little experiment. Try to force emotional synchronization in a good day/bad day scenario. 

John comes home from a great day at work. 
Susie comes home from the day from hell. 

Soon as he realizes they are out of synth John starts complaining that Susie isn't happy. And then cueing her to BE happy. To smile, laugh and relax. 

It's actually the same pattern. And just as toxic. 




Vega said:


> For my late husband, the answer would be 'YES!'. He wanted me to be as enthusiastic as HE was. Each. And. Every. Time.
> 
> I get tired just remembering...
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> Was this when on average he was getting as much sex as he wanted?
> 
> On the rare occasions where we are having regular sex - 2-3X/week, I'm very happy to cuddle up naked next to my spouse and not want sex - though I may get aroused just from the presence of her naked body. If its been a month or two, then its more difficult to lie next to a naked woman and not want sex.


The dynamic that's explained is a LOT more common than you think.



> I'm curious though, if you are going to cuddle naked, _why not have sex_


Why do we HAVE to have sex, just because we're cuddling naked next to someone?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Vega said:


> Why do we HAVE to have sex, just because we're cuddling naked next to someone?


We don't HAVE to, but quire a few people would enjoy it, almost certainly including any man that you were cuddling naked with.

Whether or not you attach any importance to what he would enjoy it is up to you.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> I DO think this is a huge theme with many HD folks.
> 
> Doesnt matter if it is conscious or subconscious - they often put a lot of pressure on their partners to show a high level of passion.
> 
> ...


Yes. There are a number of partners who want *us* to be as THEY are.
And vice versa...

But I think there are too many who think that the LD is NOT an HD because there's something "wrong" with the LD...that the LD is consciously and _deliberately_ "starving" the HD sexually. This is partially because of the glorification of sex (and orgasm WiTH someone) in our society. 

Sometimes, the LD just wants to curl up with a good book and give his or her spouse a kiss goodnight without the HD thinking that the kiss is meant as a "tease". :frown2:


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

. . .


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Sorry, lost on the references, which "dynamic". (not complaining, just not sure if you are referring to the poster I quoted or some other.

You don't *have* to have sex. It was a serious question though, you are lying naked next to the person you love, why not have sex? Sex is nice. 

To me its like asking, if you are sitting on the sofa watching TV, why wouldn't you hold hands, or lean against each other. You don't *have* to, but its just nice to do. 





Vega said:


> The dynamic that's explained is a LOT more common than you think.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we HAVE to have sex, just because we're cuddling naked next to someone?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
I don't think it's difficult to be clear on signals. If there is tension over a desire gap, it is the LDs responsibility to avoid ambiguity. 

Part of what makes M2 great - is she has never pretended that this is a difficult thing to do. Because it isn't. 

And what makes this so important is that this is a highly asymmetric situation. Because this type miscommunication is far more painful to the HD who ends up getting rejected, than the LD who is doing the rejecting. 







Vega said:


> Yes. There are a number of partners who want *us* to be as THEY are.
> And vice versa...
> 
> But I think there are too many who think that the LD is NOT an HD because there's something "wrong" with the LD...that the LD is consciously and _deliberately_ "starving" the HD sexually. This is partially because of the glorification of sex (and orgasm WiTH someone) in our society.
> ...


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> @blahfridge and @Vega: So that I don't have to sift thru an 80 page thread, I assume someone asked and both have replied with the frequency of sex in your marriages. Was there plenty of sex in your marriages? What @Married but Happy points out is pretty much a standard dynamic. If the relationship has a healthy sex life as part of it, then there are many more opportunities to have more intimacy that does not involve sex. Again, communication is critical but is frequently lacking. When that happens, we get a vicious feedback loop of the "touching leads to sex so he/she better not touch me" dynamic. That can also lead into or compliment the "I'm going to test my spouse to see if physical touching can exist without sex, and I'll duplicate this test a zillion times until I'm satisfied" dynamic too. Thank God I am married to the person that I am. Life is too short to play games with the person who is supposed to love. I'm not heaping blame on you 2. In fact, I have zero clue as to what your marriages were really like. I see your side, but not your H's.
> 
> You can never tell if you are communicating with a true victim or a lunatic. More people should consider that before giving knee jerk advice.


You're right Plan 9, you can never tell who you are communicating so I try never to be too quick to judge. In answer to your question, yes there was plenty of sex until there was not. We had an active sex life until the pregnancies and babies came and then it went down hill. Compounding the problem was our incompatible hours, as I stated in another post, and a myriad of other issues in our marriage. I lost interest in sex with my H as we both began to prioritize the children more than our relationship, him more than me. He once told me flat out that he had no interest in doing things without including our kids. We both had our frustrations with the relationship, his happened to be sex. Was it my fault that the frequency declined? Yes, it was. I should have made myself available to him even when I was overtired and angry. It would have made him happier but I don't know that it would have made him more inclined to meet my needs. Sex was something he felt entitled to that he wasn't getting enough of. He maintains that he never would have cheated had I not started to reject him sexually. I've had many low moments and guilt over that, wondering what was wrong with me and why couldn't I give him what he wanted. Even today I was thinking about it as Valentine's Day approaches. Then I remembered that he first started cheating on me when I was pregnant with our son. 

It's not so black and white for most people when sex declines in a marriage nor do I think it's a case of playing some kind of game.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
I think the tough thing for you - is having had so many bad sexual experiences. Pressure to:
- Have sex more than you wanted to
- Act more passionate than you felt
- Be happy even when the experience was very one sided

Enough exposure to this type treatment and sex starts to feel like something your partner does TO you, instead of WITH you. 

That tends to create a knee jerk hostility towards HD folks. I'm not blaming, just describing.
-----------------

My view of this stuff used to have a lot of sharp edges. Kind of like yours  does. 

But time and tide have rounded my corners, my edges. I'd probably summarize it like this. 

I expect my partner to follow the golden rule and do unto me as (situation reversed) they'd have me do unto them. And equally important avoid doing unto me, what they'd want me to avoid doing to them. 

Ultimately though - compatibility rules. If M2 had the same type reflexive reaction to sex, she does to acts of service, we wouldn't of ever got married. 





Vega said:


> Yes. There are a number of partners who want *us* to be as THEY are.
> And vice versa...
> 
> But I think there are too many who think that the LD is NOT an HD because there's something "wrong" with the LD...that the LD is consciously and _deliberately_ "starving" the HD sexually. This is partially because of the glorification of sex (and orgasm WiTH someone) in our society.
> ...


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

blahfridge said:


> Sex was something he felt entitled to


Um, yeah, no. Past tense sounds good. Are you still married?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> Vega,
> I think the tough thing for you - is having had so many bad sexual experiences. Pressure to:
> - Have sex more than you wanted to
> - Act more passionate than you felt
> ...


Oh MEM...

I'm so sorry. I know that you've posted several times recently, and I've wanted to respond, but life got in the way. 

Yes, you're right. I've had some bad experiences with sex (understatement?). But after my late husband, I also had a GOOD experience with it. Unfortunately, as GREAT as the sex was, 'he' admitted later on that he was pretty much using me for sex until his ex girlfriend was "free" (she was separated from her husband, and he was waiting for her to leave him...which she eventually did...for someone OTHER THAN the great sex 'him'. So he used me, only to be used himself. Gotta love that Karma!) 

But I learned something from him. As crappy as the relationship/sex I had with my late husband, and as GOOD as sex can be (we spent 3 hours in bed one day and NEIHER ONE OF US had an orgasm. Didn't know men like that existed!), it caused me to shy away from sex and relationships. I'm not the 'casual sex'/FWB/ONS kind of woman. The last sex I had was wonderful, but I was kind of "dummied-down" to FWB...without my knowledge or consent. And, I EXPLICITELY told him, that was what I DIDN'T want. He lied. So sad. I'm done. 

But over the past decade or so, I really started to wonder about sex, relationships, marriage, men and women. For instance, I've wondered if we're SUPPOSED to have sex as often as we do. I've wondered if men are SUPPOSED to 'thrust' during PIV because so many women do NOT have an orgasm that way. I've wondered why it's almost EXPECTED that if a woman doesn't feel like having an orgasm that she SHOULD have sex anyway and when most men wouldn't even FATHOM having sex WITHOUT having an orgasm. 

I've wondered why there seems to be the expectation of "frequent" sex in marriage when so many people--men and women--don't want it as frequently as some, and why those who DON'T want sex as often as their partner are seen as "dysfunctional"--especially since it's so COMMON. 

I've wondered why so many people interpret the bible as a way to 'get sex' from their spouse, when the word 'sex' wasn't even a WORD when it was written. I've wondered why some people think that the phrase "...to have and to hold..." has something to do with sex when it has nothing to do with sex. And yes, I've wondered if this whole marriage "thing" was created as a way for men to _obligate_ women to have sex with them, and now that women have the 'right' to say to 'NO' to sex in marriage, if some of them(women) are exercising this new 'right' just because they CAN.

I'm sorry I'm rambling, but as you can see, I have a LOT of questions. But I also have a lot of answers, at least for myself. I KNOW that the next relationship I have, what I DON'T want is to be with someone who sees orgasm as the 'goal' of sex...who sees sex as much, much MORE than intercourse...who doesn't tell me that he wants to have sex with me, and if I decline, THEN ask for a BJ or a HJ "instead"...as if a BJ or a HJ _isn't _"sex"...who doesn't think that if I'm declining sex for the 4th day in a row (because I'm busy working 20 friggin' hours that day) that I'm probably "having an affair"...

At the same time, I read about some of these men who seem so in-tune to their wives, lavishing attention on them on a daily basis. OMG...if that ever happened to me, I would probably be so grateful that I'd have NO PROBLEM "taking care of him" for the rest of my life. 

But alas...I think we take advantage of each other. :frown2:

On a closing note (I can hear TAMMER'S yelling right now, "Yaaaay!!!! Vega is almost finished with her rant!), you touched on something that's very important to me: The Golden Rule. 

I try to live my life by it. Sometimes I fail. But when it comes to sex I keep thinking that if my spouse wants me to do something that I'm not interested in doing, how HE would feel if I 'imposed' myself on HIM? I may not have been interested in sex at the moment (especially 'he' just finished running me into the ground), but I may have had sex with him the following day...or two...

Am I so 'wrong' for NOT wanting to simply have sex for an orgasm? Am I so "dysfunctional" to want sex to have more meaning than 'getting off'? Am I "neurotic" for treasuring it so much that I don't want it to become as common as brushing my teeth? (My late husband actually wanted me to give him a BJ while he was brushing his teeth. I declined...)

Is wanting 'intimacy' without the goal of an orgasm so 'bad'?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
What a great post. Thing about the golden rule, is that it guides both of us. She doesn't want me to feel ignored, because she hates feeling ignored. And I don't want her to feel pressured because I wouldn't want to feel pressured. 

And yes - it is true M2 taught me what pressure felt like. I have a thread on it somewhere. She put me on a 3/day schedule for about 3 weeks. And ummm - she sort of mimicked my approach to her. It made me feel anxious. Seriously. She only stopped doing it after 3 weeks because she could tell I had learned my lesson. 

So we both kind of follow the golden rule.

More on this tomorrow. 





Vega said:


> Oh MEM...
> 
> I'm so sorry. I know that you've posted several times recently, and I've wanted to respond, but life got in the way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> Vega,
> What a great post.


Wow. Thanks, MEM! I feel honored getting such a nice compliment from a Moderator! *blushes*



> And yes - it is true M2 taught me what pressure felt like. I have a thread on it somewhere. She put me on a 3/day schedule for about 3 weeks. And ummm - she sort of mimicked my approach to her. It made me feel anxious. Seriously. She only stopped doing it after 3 weeks because she could tell I had learned my lesson.


I LOVE this!! I used to think --when I was with my late husband--how he would feel if I treated him EXACTLY the same way that he treated ME. 

Yes, he wanted sex 3 times a day. How would he have felt if *I* wanted sex 10 times a day? I already know the answer. He wouldn't have liked it in the least. 

I was fortunate however to convince him to stop having his cybersex. I asked him how he would feel if *I* was having cybersex with strangers on the internet. At first he laughed and said, "I wouldn't mind, as long as I was with you while you were doing it!" I replied, "Why would YOU get that right? After all, you didn't give it to me! Heck no. If YOU did it out of *my* view, I get to do it out of YOUR view". 

He turned as white as a ghost. 

It took him exactly one week, but he came to me (shocker) and told me that he wouldn't like it...that he would have been extremely jealous and angry if *I* had done that. I then asked him, "If YOU wouldn't like it, what makes you think that *I* should be o.k. with it?" 

*crickets heard chirping in the background*

He had no answer. But he DID stop.

At least, at home. 

I think if we ALL applied the Golden Rule the right way, we just might be living in a different world...


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega you have a lot to say on this subject and I will be honest and say that most of it I disagree with.

I do have a question for you though.... when you say all of the above, ask the questions etc do you understand that your perspective on this issue is your POV and not a universal one? Do you understand that many of us do have healthy sex lives without all the baggage and need to over complicate things? In short do you know that your POV is specific to your life? Can you concede that you do not understand how the other half live, love and thrive on healthy sexual connections?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> Vega you have a lot to say on this subject and I will be honest and say that most of it I disagree with.
> 
> I do have a question for you though.... when you say all of the above, ask the questions etc do you understand that your perspective on this issue is your POV and not a universal one? Do you understand that many of us do have healthy sex lives without all the baggage and need to over complicate things? In short do you know that your POV is specific to your life? Can you concede that you do not understand how the other half live, love and thrive on healthy sexual connections?


Yes, I DO understand. But do YOU understand that I'm not looking for "just" sex? '

I want LOVE. REAL love. I am TIRED of having sex with someone because they and "society" thinks that I'm "supposed" to have sex. Or THEY'RE "supposed" to have sex. I'm tired of the whole sex "thing". 

I want LOVE. I want love to include sex, but not to be all about sex. I want to be doing dishes with my life partner, and be swaying to music playing in the background...our hips touching...gently...we can climb upstairs later on and start to make love...not "have sex" but to make LOVE. I don't want the 'thrusting' toward an orgasm. I want my partner to love me, whether HE/WE have an orgasm or not.

I want my life partner to see me for ME. To look at me if I have cancer...to hold me in his arms, seeing me losing my hair....my 'crowning glory' and still see me as "beautiful" in his eyes (to date, I have been told that I look like Sandra Bullock, but I've never been told that I am "beautiful", even by my late husband..."). I want to be able to play Parcheesi in the nude WITHOUT it HAVING to lead to sex 

I want LOVE. The kind of love that says, "It doesn't matter if we have sex or not . As long we're together." 

That doesn't mean that I don't want sex at all. 

But I'll tell ya...If I ever found someone like that, I know myself well enough to know that I would want to screw his brains out for the rest of our lives together. 

DANG it. I don't want sex to "rock my WORLD', I want it to rock my SOUL. For a friggin' change...

If only...


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Well I hope you find all of that Vega. I did and more. It's not all roses though (well it is today, literally, as it's valentines Day) but mostly it is all good. But we have both sex and we make love.

Still think your picker is broken, such a list of not such great men.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> Well I hope you find all of that Vega. I did and more. It's not all roses though (well it is today, literally, as it's valentines Day) but mostly it is all good. But we have both sex and we make love.
> 
> *Still think your picker is broken, such a list of not such great men*.


Yup. You're right. My "picker" is DEFINITELY broken. Never thought it wasn't. 

But what I've wondered is that if my 'picker' is 'broken, if there are just as many MEN and WOMEN who have 'pickers' that are just as 'broken' as mine? 

I mean, some men want women for sex. Married or not. Some women want men for sex, too. And money. 

How many want the opposite sex "just" for love?


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> Yup. You're right. My "picker" is DEFINITELY broken. Never thought it wasn't.
> 
> But what I've wondered is that if my 'picker' is 'broken, if there are just as many MEN and WOMEN who have 'pickers' that are just as 'broken' as mine?
> 
> ...


Well I want MrH for love, sex and money, all of that sits well with me. But for me love and sex go hand in hand.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Vega said:


> Yes, I DO understand. But do YOU understand that I'm not looking for "just" sex? '
> 
> I want LOVE. REAL love. I am TIRED of having sex with someone because they and "society" thinks that I'm "supposed" to have sex. Or THEY'RE "supposed" to have sex. I'm tired of the whole sex "thing".
> 
> ...


FINALLY, you're really communicating with the group. Your views - IMHO - are almost exactly the same as virtually everyone else on this forum. Who WOULDN'T want what you described? Unless you are a young person who is all about "living in the moment", i.e. living the "hookup" life - what you described is the end goal of almost everyone I know who wants to have a great marriage. The problems you run into when trying to achieve that are varied and numerous. But with candid communication and the desire to build a special relationship - most everything else will take care of itself. Sex is one of those critical components to a relationship, but it's not one of the primary components. Just like the primary emotions + deeper thought bring about secondary emotions - there are primary components that need to come together in order to have real intimacy (sex included). It's why in most cases when you see a thread about a sexless relationship, it's not the sex itself but an underlying cause that thwarts having a healthy sex life.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Vega said:


> How many want the opposite sex "just" for love?


There is a term for a person one wants around "just" for love. Friend.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

I think sometimes people look past the fact that maintaining a sexual relationship does in fact take work, no different then any other aspect of a relationship. You hear all these sayings about "Continue to date your SO", etc... and the reality is, it is very easy to get complacent in a LTR. The expectation seems to be that sex should just happen "naturally", and when it doesn't, so be it.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> How many want the opposite sex "just" for love?


"Just" for love? No. Love is not enough. I want it all! (And yes, love is a very large and extremely important part of that all.)


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Vega,

The extrapolation hamster (*) is working overtime trying to fit your specific instance to the general population.

If I extrapolated humanity's position from my own experience the human race would be extinct millenia ago. 

The average (cough) person wants sex 3 times a day as much as the person wants it 3 times a year. This does not mean your experience is not a data point, but in the grand scheme of things it's a data point, nothing more, nothing less. 

(*) The extrapolation hamster is a close relative of my favorite psychology experimental animal, the rationalization hamster.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Much of what you want is what many people want, and a fair number have. (other than the swaying hips, doing dishes - unless you have a huge sink that doesn't work well......).

In some ways your attitudes resemble my wife's and so I find them very interesting. You want to "Parcheesi in the nude WITHOUT it HAVING to lead to sex" - so I'm interested in why. Playing games is great - we often do that, but why play nude if there is no intent to seduce? (unless you are more comfortable nude). Why not play in your comfy bathrobe?

Its sad no one has told you that you are beautiful. I've told my wife many times, but she doesn't believe me. 

One recurring theme in your posts is that you seem to want physical intimacy but without orgasm. Can you explain? Most people find an orgasm to be really nice, and a very frequent complaint by women about their sex lives is that they don't get an orgasm. Why is it a bad thing? 

You talk about 
"...make love...not "have sex" but to make LOVE. I don't want the 'thrusting' toward an orgasm..."

What do you see as "making love". Not as a concept but as actual actions. I'm very interested in this because my wife has given the same impression, but has never been able to describe what she means. For her its not long back rubs, or spending a long time hugging and kissing, or watching funny movies, or anything else I can imagine or that she can describe.

You want sex to rock your soul, but what would that actually take? You know what you don't want, but can you describe what you do want? Is it more than just sex with someone who cares about you and loves you?







Vega said:


> Yes, I DO understand. But do YOU understand that I'm not looking for "just" sex? '
> 
> I want LOVE. REAL love. I am TIRED of having sex with someone because they and "society" thinks that I'm "supposed" to have sex. Or THEY'RE "supposed" to have sex. I'm tired of the whole sex "thing".
> 
> ...


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

uhtred said:


> Much of what you want is what many people want, and a fair number have. (other than the swaying hips, doing dishes - unless you have a huge sink that doesn't work well......).
> 
> In some ways your attitudes resemble my wife's and so I find them very interesting. You want to "Parcheesi in the nude WITHOUT it HAVING to lead to sex" - so I'm interested in why. Playing games is great - we often do that, but *why play nude if there is no intent to seduce? (unless you are more comfortable nude). Why not play in your comfy bathrobe?*
> 
> ...


You're overthinking it IMHO. You're talking with someone who has spent years with a H who did not equate sex with love but a means to a physical release only. In her mind (I think!) Vega could have been anyone and her perception is that her H would felt the same for anyone who looked decent. Both of you are coming from backgrounds that are full of bitter disappointments with their spouses and sex, and both have had the opposite experiences. 

Consider something as benign as a glass of water sitting on a table. To a person that is suffering from chronic thirst, he/she will grab for the glass right away and guzzle it down because it's there. Why else does the glass of water exist? For the person who is normally satisfied and does not have that constant thirst - that same glass of water can be easily utilized in other ways besides drinking it to quench a thirst. It could be used to water plants, to go into a soup/stew or even to color easter eggs if you add a color tablet. To someone that goes without regularly, the naked body will drive that person to seek sex. To someone who is sexually satisfied, the naked body does not always lead to thoughts of lust. As the person pouring the water, Vega probably rarely even wanted to put a glass of water on the table in the first place because some a$$hole would come around and take it. Why give water to an a$$hole probably ran thru her mind.

Being jaded by a selfish lover - or by a spouse who wanted all the good stuff in marriage without having to suffer the bad and to work at it - Vega was conditioned to have an either/or view of sex. I don't think she takes what she wrote as literal truth regarding the thrusting, because there are certain requirements that need to take place in order to have sex. I think it's more to do with the experiences of sex where she probably felt pressured by her husband to "get into it" and to orgasm. In her own words, she thinks that if she met that right person that she can see herself screwing his brains out. That's not a statement that someone makes who does not also acknowledge the physical pleasure component to sex. With the right person, she would be a both/and person where she can feel BOTH love from sex and pleasure at the same time. 

My suspicion about the "LD Vega" is correct. She's not really LD. She's LD with a specific someone.


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> Yes, I DO understand. But do YOU understand that I'm not looking for "just" sex? '
> 
> I want LOVE. REAL love. I am TIRED of having sex with someone because they and "society" thinks that I'm "supposed" to have sex. Or THEY'RE "supposed" to have sex. I'm tired of the whole sex "thing".
> 
> ...


Well there is your problem. It's almost never just about sex with my W.
So when the marriage goes sexless, it's indicative of a problem with the relationship in the romance/love department and it hurts that she doesn't want an emotional/intimate connection which is why it's not OK for there to be no sex.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

JamesTKirk said:


> Well there is your problem. It's almost never just about sex with my W.
> So when the marriage goes sexless, it's indicative of a problem with the relationship in the romance/love department and it hurts that she doesn't want an emotional/intimate connection which is why it's not OK for there to be no sex.


Can you have an emotional/intimate connection with her WITHOUT sex? 

Is sex the ONLLY way you can have that connection?


----------



## JamesTKirk (Sep 8, 2015)

Vega said:


> Can you have an emotional/intimate connection with her WITHOUT sex?
> 
> Is sex the ONLLY way you can have that connection?


That's not what I'm saying.
Imagine a Venn diagram where you have two circles that overlap in the middle. One is emotional intimacy and the other is sexual intimacy. I want both, preferably at the intersection, and that's where it usually is.
Sometimes it's far left or far right outside that intersection, I can not have only one of the two. If it's only sexual intimacy or only emotional intimacy, then I think the relationship is dysfunctional.
The exception is medical/health. Of course if one of us was unable to have sex, that would be a totally different conversation.

That's kind of like asking if you can have a meal without a beverage (but no analogy is perfect.)

EDIT: I'll add that what you were complaining about is all of one and not the other. You don't want sex without emotion any more than I want emotion without sex. I don't I'd want that either.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> Can you have an emotional/intimate connection with her WITHOUT sex?


No. Period. Full stop.

Plenty of men are like me. But plenty are not. Look for a man who likes it but doesn't need it. Such a man will be a better match for you. They are out there. Keep looking. I wish nothing less for you than a strong bond to a man who rocks your world emotionally and sexually. I hope you find that man soon.



> Is sex the ONLY way you can have that connection?


No. But without the sex part, the rest - while nice - is not sufficient to maintain a romantic relationship (for me). As many others have said, I have lots of friends. I have an emotional connection with all of them. But I don't have sex with any of them. Someone who wants an emotional connection with me but who does not want to have sex with me wants to be my friend - NOT my spouse. Can I have a healthy / satisfying / fulfilling emotional connection to my SPOUSE without sex? No.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> Can you have an emotional/intimate connection with her WITHOUT sex?
> 
> Is sex the ONLLY way you can have that connection?


Of course I can - with a friend. I didn't marry my wife to NOT have sex - marriage is _the_ sexual relationship condoned by society. If we have different levels of sexual need and desire, then we're better suited as friends, and should not marry or stay married.

And sex is not the ONLY way I can have that connection, but it is a very important way for me. If I am getting my needs met, I make every effort to ensure her needs are met. If I make that effort and there is no reciprocation, I feel unloved and rejected. Without sex, the bond with my wife would grow weaker, and I would want less of other forms of intimacy too, knowing that she only wants her needs met in that may, but has no wish to help me fulfill my needs in the ways I need. Her lack of desire - or maybe selfishness - will create the same selfishness in me, and will likely result in me leaving in order to find someone who loves me in ways that matter to me.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> My suspicion about the "LD Vega" is correct. She's not really LD. She's LD with a specific someone.


While I agree with much of what you wrote, I have mentioned before that sometimes I've been HD and sometimes the LD. And sometimes, both HD and LD in the same relationship. 

My "drive" is not _consistent_. For instance, one day I might want _sex_, but I don't desire an _orgasm_. Even if we had sex for several hours, I wouldn't have an orgasm. My body _physically_ doesn't want an orgasm. 

Other times, I may feel so horny that I can give myself 5 orgasms in a row (let's say that my partner isn't around for whatever reason). To date, I have never had 5 orgasms in a row _with a partner_. Once they "got theirs", they lost interest in sex. Period. Yuck. 

Even when I was having sex ever day and WANTED sex every day, I still wasn't having _orgasms_ every day. 

Is being LD or HD dependent on how many orgasms we have, how much sex we have or...both?


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> While I agree with much of what you wrote, I have mentioned before that sometimes I've been HD and sometimes the LD. And sometimes, both HD and LD in the same relationship.
> 
> My "drive" is not _consistent_. For instance, one day I might want _sex_, *but I don't desire an orgasm*. Even if we had sex for several hours, I wouldn't have an orgasm. My body _physically_ doesn't want an orgasm.
> 
> ...


Are the bolded the same thing? Or does "wasn't having" mean you wanted one and tried but it didn't happen?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

CharlieParker said:


> Are the bolded the same thing? Or does "wasn't having" mean you wanted one and tried but it didn't happen?


Sometimes I would be aroused enough to have an orgasm. Other times I wouldn't be. If I'm going to have sex, I can pretty much tell before any kind of foreplay whether or not it's "going to happen". 

And then there would be those frustrating times when I wanted sex AND the orgasm, and sex ended before I "got mine". :frown2:


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> Sometimes I would be aroused enough to have an orgasm. Other times I wouldn't be. If I'm going to have sex, I can pretty much tell before any kind of foreplay whether or not it's "going to happen".


Thanks. Is that mental a thing? 

My wife used to be able to orgasim from PiV parctically every time, post menopause she only tries 20% of the time and then it's not a sure thing and never from PiV. I know it shouldn't bother me but I do struggle with it. 



Vega said:


> And then there would be those frustrating times when I wanted sex AND the orgasm, and sex ended before I "got mine". :frown2:


That's just wrong, and like you said earlier yuck.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think this is very unusual. There are many people who want sex but are unable to have an orgasm, but you are the first I've encountered who wants sex but specifically doesn't want to O.

That's OK, but I can see it being very confusing for potential partners.



Vega said:


> snip
> My "drive" is not _consistent_. For instance, one day I might want _sex_, but I don't desire an _orgasm_.
> snip


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> My "drive" is not _consistent_. For instance, one day I might want _sex_, but I don't desire an _orgasm_. Even if we had sex for several hours, I wouldn't have an orgasm. My body _physically_ doesn't want an orgasm.
> 
> Other times, I may feel so horny that I can give myself 5 orgasms in a row (let's say that my partner isn't around for whatever reason).


Nothing wrong with not being consistent. You are fine. Plenty of people are like you. Plenty of people are not.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you are trying to convince the rest of us that you are normal and we are defective. Or trying to convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with how you feel about sex.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with how you feel about sex. But some of us feel differently. And there is nothing wrong with us, either. 



> Is being LD or HD dependent on how many orgasms we have, how much sex we have or...both?


I would say LD and HD are relative rather than absolute. It only exists within a couple. And it may change from time to time within the same couple. HD means at this time you want more sex with your current partner than your current partner currently wants with you. They might want more with someone else. They might want more after their period ends. They might want more when they ovulate. Lots of guys want much less shortly after they orgasm compared to how much they wanted a moment earlier.

There is not a single definition. And a person is not necessarily always one or always the other. Not even when they stay with the same partner.

Here is another one of Hold's compatibility tests (to add to "would you consider alternating control over sex on a weekly basis?"): if you find that you are consistently either the HD or the LD with your current partner, then I would think long and hard about whether you are with the correct partner. I think it works out best when sometimes one of you is the LD and sometimes the other one is. Then both of you know what it feels like to chase and how it feels to be chased. Both know what it feels like to be approached and what it feels like to be rejected. Yes, of course, some couples don't have a problem even though one of them is always the HD and the other is always the LD. But I think that is a risk factor that needs exploring early in the relationship. And frankly, it needs a fairly selfless LD. If you are the LD and no one has ever accused you of being a martyr, or they have and you have determined that you are never going to allow yourself to be that way again, then perhaps you should think twice about staying in a relationship where you are consistently the LD. It might seem like you are in control and thus "safe". In many cases, that safety is an illusion.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> I think this is very unusual. There are many people who want sex but are unable to have an orgasm, but you are the first I've encountered who wants sex but specifically doesn't want to O.
> 
> That's OK, but I can see it being very confusing for potential partners.


Not so sure how "unusual" it is, but I think it's certain a lot more common than you may think! :surprise:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Sometimes I get the feeling that you are trying to convince the rest of us that you are normal and we are defective. Or trying to convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with how you feel about sex.
> 
> I agree. There is nothing wrong with how you feel about sex. But some of us feel differently. And there is nothing wrong with us, either.


Not trying to convince *you all* that you're "defective" if you like/want sex more than me or more than a TRUE LD. 

There's nothing "wrong" or "dysfunctional" about wanting sex. But there's also nothing necessarily "wrong" or "dysfunctional" about NOT wanting it, either. There are many valid reasons why some people don't want sex (or, a LOT of it), even if their relationship is WONDERFUL on all other fronts. They may be very affectionate, but they're still not interested in sex. Some of them (not me) just don't see the point in spending all that time and effort working toward a 'good feeling' that only lasts for a few seconds. In order to get that good feeling often, they would have to have sex more often. If they spend all that time on sex, they won't have time for other things. Doesn't seem like it's worth the effort. 



> I would say LD and HD are relative rather than absolute. It only exists within a couple. And it may change from time to time within the same couple. HD means at this time you want more sex with your current partner than your current partner currently wants with you. They might want more with someone else. They might want more after their period ends. They might want more when they ovulate. Lots of guys want much less shortly after they orgasm compared to how much they wanted a moment earlier.


Yup! 



> There is not a single definition. And a person is not necessarily always one or always the other. Not even when they stay with the same partner.


Yup! I agree again! The HD can become the LD, depending on other factors. 



> Here is another one of Hold's compatibility tests (to add to "would you consider alternating control over sex on a weekly basis?"): if you find that you are _consistently_ either the HD or the LD with your current partner, then I would think long and hard about whether you are with the correct partner.


How long do you have to be "consistently" be either HD or LD before you make the decision? Over a month? 6 months? 6 years? Doesn't seem to be any "standard". 



> I think it works out best when sometimes one of you is the LD and sometimes the other one is. Then both of you know what it feels like to chase and how it feels to be chased. Both know what it feels like to be approached and what it feels like to be rejected.


Maybe we should ALL just STOP wanting sex and then NEITHER partner would have to worry or fear rejection...*pauses for reaction* I'm KIDDING!!!!!!!



> Yes, of course, some couples don't have a problem even though one of them is always the HD and the other is always the LD. But I think that is a risk factor that needs exploring early in the relationship. And frankly, it needs a fairly selfless LD. *If you are the LD and no one has ever accused you of being a martyr, or they have and you have determined that you are never going to allow yourself to be that way again, then perhaps you should think twice about staying in a relationship where you are consistently the LD*. It might seem like you are in control and thus "safe". In many cases, that safety is an illusion


What determines the LD 'status'? Is it orgasms or sex? I know of PLENTY of women who have been having "regular" sex with their husband's over the duration of their 20,30 and 40 year marriages, and those women have NEVER had an orgasm with their husband. Their husbands are clueless and have no desire to know the truth.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Not so sure how "unusual" it is, but I think it's certain a lot more common than you may think! :surprise:


There is actually an entire group of tantric-minded individuals that strongly believe orgasm should be avoided even when one is desired. The philosophy is that lovemaking should not be goal driven, but instead driven by emotional connection, and avoiding orgasm serves as a tool to specifically focus on the emotional connection. 

When doing this it is also believed that both the male and female body cultivates sexual energy that will transmutate itself into energizing one's overall wellbeing and life force.

OK, that is and sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but even those in the fetish community that practice orgasm denial as a form of punishing BDSM experience a sense of euphoria by avoiding orgasms. This is likely because the brain prepares all the chemistry needed to produce the sensation of an orgasm and then when the orgasm never happens, the result is that the brain has ample hormones and chemistry to make us "feel really good" and those chemicals have to go somewhere! Thus in my opinion one is left in a prolonged state of euphoria as the brain chemistry that was prepared for an orgasm gradually gets released into the body over the remainder of the next day or two. 

Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

CharlieParker said:


> Thanks. Is that mental a thing?
> 
> My wife used to be able to orgasim from PiV parctically every time, post menopause she only tries 20% of the time and then it's not a sure thing and never from PiV. I know it shouldn't bother me but I do struggle with it.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say it's SOLELY a "mental" thing. I think one hand washes the other, in this case. 

There are times when:

Thinking about sex can lead my body to wanting sex.
Thinking about sex DOESN'T lead my body to wanting sex.
My body 'decides' that it wants an orgasm, even when I'm wasn't thinking about sex
My body 'decides' that it wants an orgasm BECAUSE I was thinking about sex. 

I'm sure that's as clear as mud, right about now, lol!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> There is actually an entire group of tantric-minded individuals that strongly believe orgasm should be avoided even when one is desired. The philosophy is that lovemaking should not be goal driven, but instead driven by emotional connection, and avoiding orgasm serves as a tool to specifically focus on the emotional connection.
> 
> When doing this it is also believed that both the male and female body cultivates sexual energy that will transmutate itself into energizing one's overall wellbeing and life force.
> 
> ...


Are you talking about Karezza?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Are you talking about Karezza?


That would be one group of people with that idea, but there are similar philosophies of thought throughout tantric sex. 

As for the people into Karezza I honestly think they are about "less is more" and "don't exert yourself" making love. While tantric folks can be about all this etherial concepts to try and push themselves beyond the limits of known human experiences. The fact that both situations would view avoiding orgasm as beneficial seems only like a coincidence. 

Then you have the whole "tease & denial" folks that like to go a month without orgasm or try to even give them up indefinitely upon experiencing the benefits of prolonged euphoria.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> As for the people into Karezza I honestly think they are about "less is more" and "don't exert yourself" making love.
> 
> While tantric folks can be about all this etherial concepts to try and push themselves beyond the limits of known human experiences. The fact that both situations would view avoiding orgasm as beneficial seems only like a coincidence.
> 
> Then you have the whole "tease & denial" folks that like to go a month without orgasm or try to even give them up indefinitely upon experiencing the benefits of prolonged euphoria.


I've looked into Karezza myself. I got the impression that their philosophy is that orgasm isn't the 'goal' of lovemaking, hence, the more 'gentler' approach to sex. Copulating vigorously enough can bring on orgasm easily, which is another reason for the more 'gentler' approach. If one or both parties DO happen to reach orgasm, it's o.k., but it isn't the goal, and that lovemaking can continue by focusing on each other. There's more of a 'connection' during the whole act, and during the act, one isn't trying to 'stimulate' the other. 

One woman described it as feeling like she and her partner were on more of an equal plane because the orgasm was shelved. 

Personally, I would love to try it. I wouldn't want to substitute it for 'traditional' sex, but to _include_ it as part of our sexual-bag-of-tricks, would be a welcome change. 

As for tantra, I've heard of it, but I haven't looked into it. 

Yet...:grin2:


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> Other times, I may feel so horny that I can give myself 5 orgasms in a row (let's say that my partner isn't around for whatever reason). To date, I have never had 5 orgasms in a row _with a partner_. Once they "got theirs", they lost interest in sex. Period. Yuck.
> 
> Even when I was having sex ever day and WANTED sex every day, I still wasn't having _orgasms_ every day.


Oh dear. That's terrible! That would turn me right off sex too -- at least with a partner.

Advocate for yourself. Don't put up with that noise. That's so last millennium!


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> I've looked into Karezza myself. I got the impression that their philosophy is that orgasm isn't the 'goal' of lovemaking, hence, the more 'gentler' approach to sex. Copulating vigorously enough can bring on orgasm easily, which is another reason for the more 'gentler' approach. If one or both parties DO happen to reach orgasm, it's o.k., but it isn't the goal, and that lovemaking can continue by focusing on each other. There's more of a 'connection' during the whole act, and during the act, one isn't trying to 'stimulate' the other.
> 
> One woman described it as feeling like she and her partner were on more of an equal plane because the orgasm was shelved.
> 
> ...


I got my wife to try Karezza a few times, but OMG she enjoyed way too much making me fail at any attempt to try. I also enjoyed way too much trying and failing as well. 

Each time was like, OK we should just try to relax. My wife would somehow manage to reach orgasm while completely motionless, and OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not describe anything hotter than that experience. So then because I would walk away from that feeling like I just got hit with a nuclear thermal blast and explode myself, I would describe it as the most spectacular and fun karezza fail ever!

I used to be a member of that site many many years ago, but it was too much fun to argue that finding all kinds of ways to fail at karezza was way more fun than actually being successful at it! That did not go so well as I was way too good at talking people into allowing their orgasms to happen again, but only to let it happen through purposely driven failure.

OMG, I just went back and read one of my nodes. I basically accused them of being oxytocin addicts and using that behavior to avoid the needed conflicts in marriage required for any and all personal development to occur. I argued that if you don't orgasm, you stay in a euphoric state and become eager to please your partner. By keeping things calm a couple can possibly maintain that indefinitely. But at the same time problems that need attention are likely being ignored because the couple has been placed in a state of perpetual sedation.

Bag-o-tricks is a healthy way in my opinion to look at Karezza.

Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I got my wife to try Karezza a few times, but OMG she enjoyed way too much making me fail at any attempt to try. I also enjoyed way too much trying and failing as well.
> 
> Each time was like, OK we should just try to relax. *My wife would somehow manage to reach orgasm while completely motionless, and OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not describe anything hotter than that experience. So then because I would walk away from that feeling like I just got hit with a nuclear thermal blast and explode myself, I would describe it as the most spectacular and fun karezza fail ever!*
> 
> ...


LOLOLOL! That doesn't sound like much of a "fail" to me! :laugh: I think the whole point is not to approach sex as _SEEKING_ an orgasm. if one of you has one, that's fine. If BOTH of you have one, that's fine. But if NEITHER of you have one, _that's also fine_, because _it's not the goal in the first place_.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> LOLOLOL! That doesn't sound like much of a "fail" to me! :laugh: I think the whole point is not to approach sex as _SEEKING_ an orgasm. if one of you has one, that's fine. If BOTH of you have one, that's fine. But if NEITHER of you have one, _that's also fine_, because _it's not the goal in the first place_.


Exactly!

Many of the individuals on Reuniting | Healing with Sexual Relationships including the site owner (very nice lady by the way) strongly advocate that you actually do need to purposely avoid an orgasm in order to experience karezza, and that it takes the body a while to reboot sexually from experiencing regular orgasms regardless if they are intentional or not. So in order to actually experience this, one would need to successfully manage to try it for a period of at least a few weeks if not more than a month, in which if you have one orgasm during that period by mishap, that is OK. 

So if you are trying to explore karezza, but still having orgasms every time you have sex a few times a week, then for those that actually do practice karezza, they will argue (Including Marnia) that whatever it is that you are doing is NOT karezza even if it is inspired by it, and that all your ongoing problems in the relationship are likely the result of the "coolidge effect." 

In my opinion the "coolidge effect" is actually very useful, particularly to the partner with a lower drive that needs his/her partner to back off for a period of time and be satisfied. Meanwhile karezza if practiced correctly would be a continual state of milder desire and sexual intercourse that is viewed as perpetual even when placed on "pause." For many that increased closeness perhaps only serves to create more instability in a relationship. 

Would I ever really want to try and experience that for real without orgasms for a month or more? The idea makes me get all excited about failing!

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega said:


> But there's also nothing necessarily "wrong" or "dysfunctional" about NOT wanting it, either.


Completely agree. But there is something "wrong" with being LD for an extended period of time with someone you are married to, IF (and only if) the other persons very much wants more sex. In that situation, both are "wrong" for their partner. And both should want to separate. Not because they are dysfunctional. But because they are incompatible. Neither side is more at fault for the mismatch. The HD is just as "wrong" for the LD as the LD is for the HD. Neither is dysfunctional separately. But brought together, they create a dysfuncitonal system.



> How long do you have to be "consistently" be either HD or LD before you make the decision? Over a month? 6 months? 6 years? Doesn't seem to be any "standard".


As with so many of these issues, there is no single answer that applies universally for all couples. For me, I would say 6 months is a fairly long time to be consistently LD toward one's partner if there is no serious medical condition preventing sex. To me, if you go 6 months with a substantial mismatch, you should start treating the mismatch as a serious issue needing to move up to a higher priority in one's life and relationship. If you get to a year without being able to resolve the mismatch, I would seriously consider ending the relationship even if everything else is great.



> Maybe we should ALL just STOP wanting sex and then NEITHER partner would have to worry or fear rejection...*pauses for reaction* I'm KIDDING!!!!!!!


I am not. I consider my sex drive to be a curse and wish I had never had any sexual urges. As it is, it has brought me nothing but pain, frustration, feeling rejected and depressed.



> What determines the LD 'status'? Is it orgasms or sex? I know of PLENTY of women who have been having "regular" sex with their husband's over the duration of their 20,30 and 40 year marriages, and those women have NEVER had an orgasm with their husband. Their husbands are clueless and have no desire to know the truth.


Again, there is no single universally applicable definition.

And the situation you describe is why I say that consistent mismatch can work when the LD is generous. And frankly, to me, if the wife is willing to consent regularly then I would tell the HD not to complain.

To me, one hallmark of a HD/LD mismatch is the LD consistently rejecting sexual overtures from their partner. Some HDs would say that there is also an element of intensity. Yes, their LD partner consents but they provide only starfish sex and clearly don't get much out of it. To me, the person who is the "problem" in that scenario is often the HD. If the LD has expressed what they need for the sex to be better, and the HD has refused to conform to what the LD needs, then the HD is the "problem" causing the mismatch. Maybe the HD is too lazy or too stubborn to change. On the other hand, if the LD refuses to communicate what they need to enjoy the sex more (maybe because they are worried about hurting their partner's feelings, or damaging their partner's fragile ego, or because they don't view the required changes to be physically possible for their current partner), then I think the LD is the one "at fault" for the couple's less than stellar sex life.

But HD and LD is not about fault. It is about mismatch and incompatibility. It can be either person's "fault". Or both's. Or neither's. Each couple needs to be addressed as their own situation. If it were easy to diagnose the problem and easy to prescribe a cure then this would not be such an intractable problem.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> But HD and LD is not about fault. It is about mismatch and incompatibility. It can be either person's "fault". Or both's. Or neither's. Each couple needs to be addressed as their own situation. If it were easy to diagnose the problem and easy to prescribe a cure then this would not be such an intractable problem.


There actually is a female version of viagra. It is NOT taken by the female though which makes it very difficult to market and therefor it was never produced. Long story short it was a pill that only increased a female's libido indirectly by causing her male counterpart to be slightly sedated so that he would be a better listener, and the drug also would remove any inhibitions for just being completely honest for a change. Needless to say clinical trials proved very controversial, but in all cases the women actually experienced increased libido after experiencing a partner that would listen and be honest, even if she was completely enraged by the conversations that would took place.

Badsanta


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Completely agree. But there is something "wrong" with being LD for an extended period of time with someone you are married to, IF (and only if) the other persons very much wants more sex. In that situation, both are "wrong" for their partner. And both should want to separate. Not because they are dysfunctional. But because they are incompatible. Neither side is more at fault for the mismatch. The HD is just as "wrong" for the LD as the LD is for the HD. Neither is dysfunctional separately. But brought together, they create a dysfuncitonal system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


THIS! My H is still of the opinion that it was all my fault because I was the reason our frequency went down. But, he made no effort to help me over come my lessened desire for him. The only thing he did was buy a couples massage video and expect me to watch it. No time away together without the children, no helping me at home in the ways that I would truly appreciate, no understanding/empathy extended toward me for being stuck in the suburbs with three small children after giving up my career, his inability to relate to my feelings about the 3 miscarriages I had. He could only see that I was rejecting his advances. It made him angry, sullen, detached, and even contemptuous toward me, which in turn, lessened my sexual interest in him even more. It was like a chicken and egg scenario.

Had he just been patient, had both of us been better at communicating, we could have gotten past it. Ironically, it was precisely because our sex life had improved which caused him to finally confess that he'd been unfaithful. I think he regrets more telling me than the cheating. Had I never known, we would probably now have a normal sex life again. Sometimes the HD just has to wait it out for a while and try to be patient. In a long term marriage, it's unrealistic to expect the level of desire to be consistent.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

BetrayedDad said:


> Don't kid yourselves folks. There are unequivocally two kinds of LDs.
> 
> LDs who don't want sex and LDs who just don't want sex WITH YOU.


A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE FOLKS...



Vincelota said:


> He thinks I just have a low libido, the truth is i have a low libido around him..


Man, I get tired of being right.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

BetrayedDad said:


> Man, I get tired of being right.


Liar, liar, pants on fire...>


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Vega said:


> What determines the LD 'status'? Is it orgasms or sex? I know of PLENTY of women who have been having "regular" sex with their husband's over the duration of their 20,30 and 40 year marriages, and those women have NEVER had an orgasm with their husband. Their husbands are clueless and have no desire to know the truth.


If a woman marries a man who can't make them frequently have an orgasm, or stays with a man who can't make them have the same, they shouldn't be surprised to find it never gets better.

If a man can't actually tell whether a woman has had an orgasm or not and or doesn't care, they shouldn't be surprised to find that their sexual partner/s will at some point turn the sex tap off.

If you (as in the generic) settle for less, you're guaranteed to get less.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

badsanta said:


> There actually is a female version of viagra. It is NOT taken by the female though which makes it very difficult to market and therefor it was never produced. Long story short it was a pill that only increased a female's libido indirectly by causing her male counterpart to be slightly sedated so that he would be a better listener, and the drug also would remove any inhibitions for just being completely honest for a change. Needless to say clinical trials proved very controversial, but in all cases the women actually experienced increased libido after experiencing a partner that would listen and be honest, even if she was completely enraged by the conversations that would took place.
> 
> Badsanta


Ding ding ding!! Would that be sodium pentothal?


----------



## bkyln309 (Feb 1, 2015)

All this ooey gooey new age karezza crap. I want good sex and I want orgasms as often as possible.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Vega said:


> While I agree with much of what you wrote, I have mentioned before that sometimes I've been HD and sometimes the LD. And sometimes, both HD and LD in the same relationship.
> 
> My "drive" is not _consistent_. For instance, one day I might want _sex_, but I don't desire an _orgasm_. Even if we had sex for several hours, I wouldn't have an orgasm. My body _physically_ doesn't want an orgasm.
> 
> ...


I think this is the key. If a partner wants to and is able to keep making love even after they've had an O (this could apply to either gender), then the other partner can keep going and get more or just enjoy more love making or whatever.

But I don't get what is up with partners who just shut down after an O. I know both men and women do this, but I don't understand why or how that can happen if it is understood that their partner is not satisfied yet? :scratchhead:

I've heard men describe the period right after O of being so detached and uninterested in a partner all of a sudden, and literally wanting to "get away" somehow. I've heard women describe this feeling, too. I remember reading an article once about this desire to flee after intimacy, and how there may be some biological thing to it, as in, if you've just spent some amount of time rolling around in the hay and not been keeping watch of your pride/castle/babies/outlook post or whatever, that your body delivers you the sense and hormones that say "flee the scene!" so that you can go tend to business and not get eaten by lions while you abandoned your post to get some nookie.

When I read about other's experience with this though, I can only relate intellectually. I cannot relate emotionally, because I've not had lovers who act this way. Or if I have, they only lasted for a short while because as soon as I felt someone just totally pulling away after sex or wanting to flee I was like, yeah you are not for me, buh bye.

The great lovers I've had in my life were always the type who would keep going as long as either party wanted or needed, and then snuggle all night in the after glow types. No matter who had how many O's, no one was trying to flee or get out of helping the other partner have as many O's (or just nice pleasant sexual experiences) as they wanted.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> But I don't get what is up with partners who just shut down after an O. I know both men and women do this, but I don't understand why or how that can happen if it is understood that their partner is not satisfied yet? :scratchhead:
> 
> *I've heard men describe the period right after O of being so detached and uninterested in a partner all of a sudden, and literally wanting to "get away" somehow.* I've heard women describe this feeling, too. I remember reading an article once about this desire to flee after intimacy, and how there may be some biological thing to it, as in, if you've just spent some amount of time rolling around in the hay and not been keeping watch of your pride/castle/babies/outlook post or whatever, that your body delivers you the sense and hormones that say "flee the scene!" so that you can go tend to business and not get eaten by lions while you abandoned your post to get some nookie.
> 
> ...


I remember having that experience very strongly in college with a few certain partners. I have never felt that way about my own wife. So at least in my own experience, feeling that way depends on the nature of the relationship. 

I can remember having sex and then the girl would want me to stay in bed with her for the rest of the evening and sleep through the night together. I would have this overwhelming feeling of discomfort, that she was invading my personal space, and that I needed to get away and go to my own place. With my wife however I have never felt her invade my personal space and I am always just as comfortable with her as when I am alone, even if our bodies remain plopped all over each other in a semiconscious state after sex.

Why do I think I felt the need to get away after sex with that one person? If I answer candidly I think it was because the relationship was built purely on lust and there was no underlying friendship or aspects of our personalities that had anything in common. 

When my wife and I were dating, I remember her plundering through all my stuff and getting really excited as in, "I've never met anyone else that has a nerdy collection of something that is more impressive that my own nerdy collection of these exact same things!" The two of us at the time were a great match in terms of mutual attraction, friendship, and admiration for each other's careers. I haver never experienced this with anyone else, nor did I care to, so she was the one and always has been. 

Badsanta


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> But I don't get what is up with partners who just shut down after an O. I know both men and women do this, but I don't understand why or how that can happen if it is understood that their partner is not satisfied yet? :scratchhead:
> 
> I've heard men describe the period right after O of being so detached and uninterested in a partner all of a sudden, and literally wanting to "get away" somehow.


Communication. Yes, it should be understood, but in the moment there can be misunderstandings. We've both occasionally had to say "did you cum?" or "hey, wait, I'm not done". That's not an easy thing to do, but important either way. 

And in general, early on my more experienced wife made it very clear that she expected everyone to get theirs and when done there was to be no running away, particularly to the shower (period sex excepted).


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think it varies with people. A lot of men, and some women have a significant mood (?? something) change after an O. Not only does physical stimulation feel bad, the idea of sex is less appealing.

Still, I think if you have gotten yours, its only fair to do what your partner wants - and I do. 

I get this effect to a significant effect. After I finish is the one rare time when I don't really feel like sexual activity. Lasts maybe 10 minutes. It doesn't stop me from doing things for my wife, but for those 10 minutes is more of a chore than fun. 

Its a really strange effect - difficult to imagine until it happens.




Faithful Wife said:


> I think this is the key. If a partner wants to and is able to keep making love even after they've had an O (this could apply to either gender), then the other partner can keep going and get more or just enjoy more love making or whatever.
> 
> But I don't get what is up with partners who just shut down after an O. I know both men and women do this, but I don't understand why or how that can happen if it is understood that their partner is not satisfied yet? :scratchhead:
> 
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> Sometimes the HD just has to wait it out for a while and try to be patient. In a long term marriage, it's unrealistic to expect the level of desire to be consistent.


The rationalization hamster just took the checkered flag home...

You can blame your partner all you want but at the end of the day it's up to you to communicate as well.

And patience... Because by being patient and sticking around in a sexless marriage is really the answer to such issues.

I apologize for the sarcasm but patience in a sexless marriage only leads to less sex on the way to none. The moment sex is used as a carrot or stick the marriage is toast.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I am done after I orgasm. Period. Full stop. If she did not get hers before, she is not getting it after. Not saying that is good or doesn't make me a bad lover. Just saying, that is what it is. If my partner is not comfortable always getting hers before I get mine, then she is not a compatible partner for me.

I am posting this just for the record so women who are stuck with partner who are done after they orgasm don't think they are the only female stuck with is stuck a dud. Or that every guy on TAM is an incredible lover and how did I get stuck with a dud. Plenty of guys (and gals) are lousy lovers unless you teach them how to make you happy. And some people are not teachable. If you are with someone who is bad in the sack and not teachable, or if you prefer not to be the teacher, then leave.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> I am done after I orgasm. Period. Full stop. If she did not get hers before, she is not getting it after. Not saying that is good or doesn't make me a bad lover. Just saying, that is what it is. If my partner is not comfortable always getting hers before I get mine, then she is not a compatible partner for me.
> 
> I am posting this just for the record so women who are stuck with partner who are done after they orgasm don't think they are the only female stuck with is stuck a dud. Or that every guy on TAM is an incredible lover and how did I get stuck with a dud. Plenty of guys (and gals) are lousy lovers unless you teach them how to make you happy. And some people are not teachable. If you are with someone who is bad in the sack and not teachable, or if you prefer not to be the teacher, then leave.


Interesting. So do you care about your partners pleasure? I just don't get this attitude at all, well in a non committed relationship where sex is the only priority it seems understandable but not if it is a loving, committed relationship.

MrH is very skilled at holding his O off until I am done but on the odd occasion where he Os before me then makes sure I get mine. Anything less seems selfish and yes I would say that a partner like this is a dud in bed. Not good enough.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

john117 said:


> The rationalization hamster just took the checkered flag home...
> 
> You can blame your partner all you want but at the end of the day it's up to you to communicate as well.
> 
> ...


John, the sex in my marriage had actually gotten better once our children were a little older and I was done breastfeeding, so your theory doesn't always hold water. If you've read anything I've posted on this subject, you would know that I did try to communicate, though of course, I could have done better. My H's main mode of communication was to start stroking me in the middle of the night and then stomp out of the room if I didn't submit. So, yeah, I'd say our main problem was communication. That's what it usually boils down to, doesn't it? 

Carrot or stick? I wanted some understanding, attention outside the bedroom, and support around the house. He wanted sex. Did I deny him because he wasn't giving me all those things? Maybe subconsciously - at the time, I was exhausted, stressed, unhappy, and resentful towards him. But where is his responsibility in the mess that our marriage became? Oh right, he would have magically met all my needs and never cheated had I just had sex with him more often. That would have made him happy and all would have been right with the world. 

And I don't forgive the sarcasm cause I hate that kind of PA scolding. Just say it man, and don't act like you're sorry for doing so. :grin2:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> Interesting. So do you care about your partners pleasure? *I just don't get this attitude at all, well in a non committed relationship where sex is the only priority it seems understandable but not if it is a loving, committed relationship.
> *
> .


How is his attitude "understandable" EVEN in a non-committed relationship? 



> MrH is very skilled at holding his O off until I am done but on the odd occasion where he Os before me then makes sure I get mine. *Anything less seems selfish and yes I would say that a partner like this is a dud in bed. Not good enough
> *


If someone is going to be sexually selfish BEFORE marriage (whether they marry one sexual partner or another) they're probably going to be selfish AFTER marriage. Marriage doesn't change an individual's basic nature.

Besides, how many selfish men does a woman have to go through before she finds a man who doesn't _care_ how many selfish men she had to go through to find one who's unselfish?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Vega said:


> How is his attitude "understandable" EVEN in a non-committed relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In those men who were not willing to offer to get you there after they got theirs, how many showed some pretty bad selfish behavior outside of the bedroom?

What were those behaviors, if you recall? 

Did any of them ask for a timeout till they recovered a bit? If so, how did you receive that suggestion? I'm guessing it would suck because you would need to build back up to orgasm. Seems like that would take time and cause frustration and anger. It might even cause some to give up.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> In those men who were not willing to offer to get you there after they got theirs, how many showed some pretty bad selfish behavior outside of the bedroom?


Most of the time their selfishness didn't rear it's ugly head until AFTER they got what they wanted sexually. After all, it wouldn't make sense to them to act like an a-hole BEFORE getting laid, right? 



> What were those behaviors, if you recall?


I've blocked most of it out (thankfully). In my first marriage, my ex-husband was very attentive while we were dating. The moment--and I mean _literally_--he said "I do..", he changed. It was like a switch went off in his head that told him, "I've been 'nice' to you for the past year, and I hate you for 'making' me put on an act for so long to get what I want. From now on, you OWE me!" 



> Did any of them ask for a timeout till they recovered a bit?


Nope. Almost every one was "one-and-done". Most took less than 5 minutes from start to finish. 



> If so, how did you receive that suggestion?


N/A



> I'm guessing it would suck because you would need to build back up to orgasm. Seems like that would take time and cause frustration and anger. *It might even cause some to give up*


Yup!


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Thanks Vega.


----------



## manwithnoname (Feb 3, 2017)

Very important to many, including myself.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> Yup!


Sorry that sucks, but thanks for sharing, helps explain some of your outlooks. I don't get it, I'm hard wired to please her, it's really important to me. I don't want to please her, I need to. Which is why I struggled so much when later in life she started to have difficulty orgasming and a decreased desire to even try.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

blahfridge said:


> John, the sex in my marriage had actually gotten better once our children were a little older and I was done breastfeeding, so your theory doesn't always hold water. If you've read anything I've posted on this subject, you would know that I did try to communicate, though of course, I could have done better. My H's main mode of communication was to start stroking me in the middle of the night and then stomp out of the room if I didn't submit. So, yeah, I'd say our main problem was communication. That's what it usually boils down to, doesn't it?
> 
> Carrot or stick? I wanted some understanding, attention outside the bedroom, and support around the house. He wanted sex. Did I deny him because he wasn't giving me all those things? Maybe subconsciously - at the time, I was exhausted, stressed, unhappy, and resentful towards him. But where is his responsibility in the mess that our marriage became? Oh right, he would have magically met all my needs and never cheated had I just had sex with him more often. That would have made him happy and all would have been right with the world.
> 
> And I don't forgive the sarcasm cause I hate that kind of PA scolding. Just say it man, and don't act like you're sorry for doing so. :grin2:


Most people aren't mind readers, and communication tends to be better once we accept this. I know it's a bit cold but try to be specific goal oriented. I want husband to do X Y Z. Then we can do A B C.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

CharlieParker said:


> Sorry that sucks, but thanks for sharing, helps explain some of your outlooks. I don't get it, I'm hard wired to please her, it's really important to me. *I don't want to please her, I need to*. Which is why I struggled so much when later in life she started to have difficulty orgasming and a decreased desire to even try.


Annnnnnnd...just why do you say you "need" to please her? 

The reason I ask is because some men want to please their partner for their _partner's _sake, while others want to please their partner for _their own _sake. After all, a number of men tie their ego up into their sexuality. If they can "make" a woman orgasm, they feel like a hero. If they can't, they feel like a failure, and often blame the women for "making" them feel that way about themselves! 

I've mentioned before that I've had sex while knowing ahead of time that I wasn't going to have an orgasm. It would be nice for a change, if HE said that unless *I* wanted one, HE didn't, either...instead of me playing 'martyr' _all_ the time.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Vega said:


> Annnnnnnd...just why do you say you "need" to please her?
> 
> The reason I ask is because some men want to please their partner for their _partner's _sake, while others want to please their partner for _their own _sake.


For me it's both, they are closely related and it's more subconscious.



> After all, a number of men tie their ego up into their sexuality. If they can "make" a woman orgasm, they feel like a hero. If they can't, they feel like a failure, and often blame the women for "making" them feel that way about themselves!


No, that is so not me. 



> I've mentioned before that I've had sex while knowing ahead of time that I wasn't going to have an orgasm. It would be nice for a change, if HE said that unless *I* wanted one, HE didn't, either...instead of me playing 'martyr' _all_ the time.


We haven't discussed it, but it has happened and from her words and reactions I don't think that would, with regularity, work well for her (and TBH me neither )


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Vega said:


> How is his attitude "understandable" EVEN in a non-committed relationship?
> 
> If someone is going to be sexually selfish BEFORE marriage (whether they marry one sexual partner or another) they're probably going to be selfish AFTER marriage. Marriage doesn't change an individual's basic nature.
> 
> Besides, how many selfish men does a woman have to go through before she finds a man who doesn't _care_ how many selfish men she had to go through to find one who's unselfish?


But Mrs Holland said "I just don't get this attitude at all, *well in a non committed relationship where sex is the only priority it seems understandable* but not if it is a loving, committed relationship."

The key there being "where sex is the only priority". I think she meant FWB or casual sex relationships where both parties know they are not seeking an LTR with this person. In those cases, I think people may be sometimes purely hedonistic or basically selfish, sometimes at least, however it works for them. 

I haven't had any technically FWB's but I had a make out buddy who I would have limited intimacy with...though he would sometimes have an O. If he did, I didn't expect him to come out of it and then come put attention on me. It just wasn't part of our deal. Instead I'd just look at him while he was dozing and think "how cute" and then sometimes split or sometimes wait around for him to wake up. I wasn't there for a mutually loving type of sexual relationship. It was just a funship.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,
This resonates.

Almost everyone - regardless of gender - ties some amount of ego to desirability. This is natural selection 101. If no one wants to mate with you, your blood line disappears. So there's a very practical basis for the drive to be desired. 

And while your self awareness continues to progress rather nicely, you have some real work to do where symmetry is concerned. 

Let me frame this as tightly as possible. Both HD's and LD's have the SAME desire to BE DEISRED. The difference between the two is how they EXPRESS that desire. 

Often, the LD wants to be pursued, but not 'caught'. This type of ego protective behavior - teasing an already sex starved partner - is every bit as toxic as the HD pressuring their partner to pretend to 'be' more turned on then they really are. 






Vega said:


> Annnnnnnd...just why do you say you "need" to please her?
> 
> The reason I ask is because some men want to please their partner for their _partner's _sake, while others want to please their partner for _their own _sake. After all, a number of men tie their ego up into their sexuality. If they can "make" a woman orgasm, they feel like a hero. If they can't, they feel like a failure, and often blame the women for "making" them feel that way about themselves!
> 
> I've mentioned before that I've had sex while knowing ahead of time that I wasn't going to have an orgasm. It would be nice for a change, if HE said that unless *I* wanted one, HE didn't, either...instead of me playing 'martyr' _all_ the time.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> The key there being "where sex is the only priority". I* think she meant FWB or casual sex relationships where both parties know they are not seeking an LTR with this person*. In those cases, I think people may be sometimes purely hedonistic or basically selfish, sometimes at least, however it works for them.


But that's just it. People don't always KNOW that the other person isn't seeking an LTR and just wants casual sex or an FWB situation. It's not as if some people don't lie about their intentions(_before_ having sex, of course). 

After all, it might reduce *your* chances of getting laid if you told them (that it was your goal), and *you* don't want to come across as 'shallow', or, risk rejection. 

Besides, sex can be the "only" priority even in LTR's/marriages. After all, it's what MANY women complain about, and sometimes, it's even true...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> Vega,
> This resonates.
> 
> Almost everyone - regardless of gender - ties some amount of ego to desirability. This is natural selection 101. If no one wants to mate with you, your blood line disappears. So there's a very practical basis for the drive to be desired.


While they may tie _some_ of their ego to desirability, they don't tie MOST or ALL of their ego to it. Some people get more ego gratification from their job than sex. Some get it more from being a mother...or simply a 'good person' or how they dress...or how much money they make and how many 'things' they have than from sex. 



> Let me frame this as tightly as possible. Both HD's and LD's have the SAME desire to BE DEISRED. The difference between the two is how they EXPRESS that desire.


Here's where I don't agree. HD's and LD's don't have the same desire to BE desired _sexually_. The LD wants to be desired for ALL of who he or she is and/or for other qualities; not ONLY or MOSTLY in a sexual context. In other words, the LD wants to be valued for what _(s)he _values, which often time, is NOT sex or not MOSTLY sex. 

The difference between the two isn't HOW they express the (sexual) desire, it's how _OFTEN_, which is why they're referred to as HD or LD in the first place. 



> *Often, the LD wants to be pursued, but not 'caught'*. This type of ego protective behavior - teasing an already sex starved partner - is every bit as toxic as the HD pressuring their partner to pretend to 'be' more turned on then they really are.


Some LD's do this. How many, is hard to tell. When *I* was LD, being 'pursued' was the _second_ to last thing I wanted. Being 'caught' was the last.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Vega,

Like everything, there is a spectrum when it comes to folks 'posture' on TAM. 

Normally I start by bracketing. That is, I define the two extremes and proceed from there. Not today. Instead I'm gonna start with the centerline and use that to make the point. 

If you observe @farsidejunky what you find is someone who follows an iterative pattern: Observe, orient, decide, act. And his action sequence typically goes something like this: 
- confirm his situation assessment
- persuade (if possible)
- engage in conflict if persuasion failed
- escalate to combat if conflict failed

You might want to consider how helpful that approach is. 





Vega said:


> While they may tie _some_ of their ego to desirability, they don't tie ALL of their ego to it. Some people get more ego gratification from their job than sex. Some get it more from being a mother...or simply a 'good person' or how they dress...than from sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I have to agree. If I finish first, I always find some way to give my wife an O, even if I'm not physically capable of PIV. 



MrsHolland said:


> Interesting. So do you care about your partners pleasure? I just don't get this attitude at all, well in a non committed relationship where sex is the only priority it seems understandable but not if it is a loving, committed relationship.
> 
> MrH is very skilled at holding his O off until I am done but on the odd occasion where he Os before me then makes sure I get mine. Anything less seems selfish and yes I would say that a partner like this is a dud in bed. Not good enough.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> The key there being "where sex is the only priority". * I think she meant FWB or casual sex relationships where both parties know they are not seeking an LTR with this person. * In those cases, I think people may be sometimes purely hedonistic or basically selfish, sometimes at least, however it works for them.





Vega said:


> But that's just it. People don't always KNOW that the other person isn't seeking an LTR and just wants casual sex or an FWB situation. It's not as if some people don't lie about their intentions(_before_ having sex, of course).
> 
> After all, it might reduce *your* chances of getting laid if you told them (that it was your goal), and *you* don't want to come across as 'shallow', or, risk rejection.
> 
> Besides, sex can be the "only" priority even in LTR's/marriages. After all, it's what MANY women complain about, and sometimes, it's even true...


I'll agree with @Vega in that in all the relationships I had in my college days that in many situations I was just after sex, BUT I did not realize that myself. I was even lying to myself to convince both of us that the relationship had potential. After a few bad breakups, I started to learn more about what I wanted in a partner. Until that moment there were some of my partners I treated horribly and could care less about them after getting what I wanted, but even I could not understand WHY I felt that way, much less even try to talk to her about it, or the funship would cum to a stop so-to-speak. 

In my opinion, I think people just need to experience a variety of relationships, so that they really understand how to recognize the real deal when it happens. Until then it is like bumping and grinding around in the dark, and you have no idea what it is you might even be looking for, but you actually do know it when you find it! At least that was the way it was for me!

Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I'll agree with @Vega in that in all the relationships I had in my college days that in many situations *I was just after sex*, BUT I did not realize that myself. I was even lying to myself to convince both of us that the relationship had potential. After a few bad breakups, I started to learn more about what I wanted in a partner.* Until that moment there were some of my partners I treated horribly and could care less about them after getting what I wanted, but even I could not understand WHY I felt that way, much less even try to talk to her about it, or the funship would cum to a stop so-to-speak.
> *
> In my opinion, I think people just need to experience a variety of relationships, so that they really understand how to recognize the real deal when it happens. Until then it is like bumping and grinding around in the dark, and you have no idea what it is you might even be looking for, but you actually do know it when you find it! At least that was the way it was for me!
> 
> Badsanta


Even though you were like that in your college days, there are many men who haven't grown up yet, even in their 40s, 50s and beyond. 

Makes me ask the question: How much responsibility do we have _toward_ others? 

When I decided not to date for a while (last year) a few of my well-meaning friends tried to urge me into going out with someone. They had their single male friends on speed dial and were willing to 'set me up'. They said, "You don't have to have sex with them; just get out of the house for dinner and a movie or something!" They even tried to convince me to let THEM pay for the evening. 

I would have felt like I was "using" them if had done that. I wouldn't have felt like I 'owed' them sex, but I would have felt like I was leading them on. Even if we 'agreed' up front that we would pay our separate ways, even if we DIDN'T have sex, there was no guarantee that it would 'end' at only ONE date. What if they THOUGT that all they wanted was 'companionship' for the evening, and at the end of the evening, they would have really LIKED me, and wanted more than I was willing to give, either sexually, emotionally or both? 

I felt a certain sense of responsibility toward them to NOT put either of us in a potentially uncomfortable position. 

How many men do you think would do something similar? How many would turn down dating and sex with an attractive woman because they felt a certain responsibility toward her, knowing that if they ONLY wanted sex that she might want MORE from him...and that he wasn't prepared to 'give' what she may want? 

I can understand that some people CAN and DO agree that sex will be 'it', and sometimes it works out. But from what I understand, it usually...doesn't. One person 'catches feelings' or simply lies about their intentions from the beginning...or 'she' may not particularly like having sex with the guy, but he buys her fancy dinners and presents...or 'he' may LOVE the sex, but he doesn't want a relationship with her, but his actions say otherwise. 

Self-awareness and self-control I think is 'key'. 

Yet how many horny 20 year old college students REALLY want to exercise self-control so no one gets hurt?

By the time the reach your level of self-awareness Badsanta, much of the damage has already been done.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Yet how many horny 20 year old college students REALLY want to exercise self-control so no one gets hurt?
> 
> By the time the reach your level of self-awareness Badsanta, much of the damage has already been done.


The damage goes both ways. I had a few girls use me as well and lead me on because of what I could do for them with various aspects of things they desired. I remember both hurting others and also being hurt by others. 

I however look back with a strong sense of thankfulness for having experienced that damage from both perspectives, because those experiences are a very strong part of my personality and actually do serve to make me into a better person today, although I humbly admit I still have much to learn. 

So in that sense I actually value the damage done to me!

Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> The damage goes both ways. I had a few girls use me as well and lead me on because of what I could do for them with various aspects of things they desired. I remember both hurting others and also being hurt by others.
> 
> I however look back with a strong sense of thankfulness for having experienced that damage from both perspectives, because those experiences are a very strong part of my personality and actually do serve to make me into a better person today, although I humbly admit I still have much to learn.
> 
> ...


Awesome. 

Now, how do you think you would feel if the women who damaged you, damaged you in the same way over and over again...? Not limiting the experiences to your college days, but to your 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond? How about if you got into a few LTR's with some of those hurtful women--including marriage?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

...


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> How is his attitude "understandable" EVEN in a non-committed relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is "understandable" because an encounter that is really only about the sex can be a selfish thing, there is no need to justify or to have huge concerns about the other person. 

As for the second part I agree marriage doesn't change an individuals basic nature, the bigger issue is how well a lot of people truly know their partners basic nature before marriage? If you believe what you have written here then why did you marry your ex? He was clearly a sexually selfish person pre marriage.

And to the last sentence I would say the number should not be more than two selfish men (or women) per life time. If there have been more than two then the issue is more to do with the person doing the bad choosing rather than the duds they pick.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> But that's just it. People don't always KNOW that the other person isn't seeking an LTR and just wants casual sex or an FWB situation. It's not as if some people don't lie about their intentions(_before_ having sex, of course).
> 
> After all, it might reduce *your* chances of getting laid if you told them (that it was your goal), and *you* don't want to come across as 'shallow', or, risk rejection.
> 
> Besides, sex can be the "only" priority even in LTR's/marriages. After all, it's what MANY women complain about, and sometimes, it's even true...


As people get older there should be little excuse to not have a discussion up front or very early on...
"are you looking for casual or to see if something develops?"
"are we exclusive"
etc

As we gain more life experience it should be a red flag to ourselves if we cannot pick a player from a genuine person. If someone is unable to differentiate between a player v's genuine guy then it would be better to stay out of the dating pool if these issues are vital to one's mental heath and happiness.

As to the last sentence, not buying into it. I have never heard (or read) of one man that had sex as their only priority.

I like you Vega, you are questioning and inquisitive. You do however seem to be your own worst enemy. You picked a dud husband (as did I for different reasons) and you seem to think ALL or MOST men are like him (I do not think ALL or MANY men are like my ex and that is why it was easy to move onto a very good relationship post divorce).
When we are in a relationship is it important to constantly re evaluate ourselves and look at ourselves honestly to see where we are going right or wrong. It is vital to take responsibility for our own actions, the things that lead us to the life we are living.

You cannot change other people so if we pick a dud partner it is our fault for making that mistake.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Vega said:


> But that's just it. People don't always KNOW that the other person isn't seeking an LTR and just wants casual sex or an FWB situation. It's not as if some people don't lie about their intentions(_before_ having sex, of course).
> 
> After all, it might reduce *your* chances of getting laid if you told them (that it was your goal), and *you* don't want to come across as 'shallow', or, risk rejection.
> 
> Besides, sex can be the "only" priority even in LTR's/marriages. After all, it's what MANY women complain about, and sometimes, it's even true...


Yes, I guess all of that is true...but I've spent enough time sorting through the guys available to me to learn how to set my intention, ask the right questions, and then trust my intuition about what they say and do.

And that has yielded me all I needed to know about a guy when I'm just looking for one thing. When I am, the guys I'm interacting with turn up to be the guys with similar (current) goals.

It is true that maybe we would be open to "more" if the right person turned up. But for the most part, men in my age group who say they are not looking for anything serious right now (or with me) are honest and those intentions end up being truthful.

Again I'm not really ok with just FWB's, but these guys tend to be ok with limited intimacy as well. 

If they aren't, we just end it. We don't bother spending time discussing how to make it "more" (or at least I don't). If there is potential for "more", I will know it right away and either proceed accordingly or not, based on the circumstances.

Once you get your picker fixed and can trust it, these things come a lot easier.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Awesome.
> 
> Now, how do you think you would feel if the women who damaged you, damaged you in the same way over and over again...? Not limiting the experiences to your college days, but to your 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond? How about if you got into a few LTR's with some of those hurtful women--including marriage?


To be candid with you, the corrosive nature of those relationships while hard to recognize on the surface was very apparent in that sex was emotionally unsettling to the point it was downright painful as soon as those relationships started. I experienced that when using partners and when partners used me.

So I am going to argue that I doubt seriously anyone would marry someone that was just using them for sex. If anything the idea of marrying someone that could only give you emotionally painful sex would be self torture to the person being dishonest. 
@Vega I honestly think perhaps there was some of that, but your partners saw more in the relationship with you than just sex and actually loved you. At some point you must have felt it too or you would not have gotten married. But for whatever reason life is messy and not all relationships are sustainable. Just because something was perhaps unsustainable doesn't mean you should try to go back and redefine all your relationships as people using you. Even if you are asking hypothetically, your question will do no good for people suffering, feeling undeserving of love, and questioning if they have ever been loved or not. 

Researchers suggest that there is one primary difference between people that feel a strong connection with their partners and those that do not, and it is simply the notion that those with a strong connection feel deserving of love.

Badsanta


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

...

OK, I think I'm rambling now...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> It is "understandable" because an encounter that is really only about the sex can be a selfish thing, there is no need to justify or to have huge concerns about the other person.
> 
> The selfishness is EXACTLY what I'm trying to avoid. If anything, part of my problem is that I'm a bit too altruistic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*!*



MrsHolland said:


> As people get older there should be little excuse to not have a discussion up front or very early on...
> "are you looking for casual or to see if something develops?"
> "are we exclusive"
> etc
> .


HA! I did that with the last man I was with. I told him UP FRONT that I wasn't interested in FWB or 'casual sex'. He told ME that he wasn't "into" that stuff either. Once I realized what was happening, _and ended it_, he went from person to person where we both worked and told people that HE wanted FWB, and that *I* wanted "more" (I told him that I wasn't ready for a full-on "relationship" and wanted to take things slowly"). I also found out that I was basically the "filler-girl" while he was waiting for his 'soul-mate' to leave her husband so they could be together. As it turned out, the 'player' got 'played'. She DID finally leave her husband, but not for the 'player'. 



> As we gain more life experience it should be a red flag to ourselves if we cannot pick a player from a genuine person. If someone is unable to differentiate between a player v's genuine guy then it would be better to stay out of the dating pool if these issues are vital to one's mental heath and happiness.


Sometimes, players are wolves in sheep's clothing. It may take a while to get to know their true nature. Hence, another reason WHY I have stayed out of the dating pool for over a year now. The dating pool I used to swim in has turned out to be shark-infested waters with rip-tides and whirlpools. 



> As to the last sentence, not buying into it. I have never heard (or read) of one man that had sex as their only priority


Really? I have...



> I like you Vega, you are questioning and inquisitive. You do however seem to be your own worst enemy. You picked a dud husband (as did I for different reasons) and *you seem to think ALL or MOST men are like him *(I do not think ALL or MANY men are like my ex and that is why it was easy to move onto a very good relationship post divorce).
> When we are in a relationship is it important to constantly re evaluate ourselves and look at ourselves honestly to see where we are going right or wrong. It is vital to take responsibility for our own actions, the things that lead us to the life we are living.


Not all, but more than you and I think...



> You cannot change other people so if we pick a dud partner it is our fault for making that mistake


I have said before that the biggest problem I had was to be TOO 'trusting' and TOO 'forgiving'. My forgiving nature wasn't valued as a 'good' thing; it set me up to become a doormat. 

Not. Anymore. 

It sucks because I have to go _against_ my own nature. In other words, I can't be 'myself'. I can't BE a trusting person. I can't BE a forgiving person. Even though I can protect myself a bit more, I can see that I have to protect myself from SO MANY PEOPLE who don't have my best interests at heart. 

Once I become serious about dating, I'll be more equipped to separate the wheat from the chaff with a bit more accuracy. And thanks to everyone here on TAM, I will be. 

I hope. :laugh:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I honestly think perhaps there was some of that, *but your partners saw more in the relationship with you than just sex and actually loved you*. At some point you must have felt it too or you would not have gotten married. But for whatever reason life is messy and not all relationships are sustainable. Just because something was perhaps unsustainable doesn't mean you should try to go back and redefine all your relationships as people using you. Even if you are asking hypothetically, your question will do no good for people suffering, feeling undeserving of love, and questioning if they have ever been loved or not.
> 
> Researchers suggest that there is one primary difference between people that feel a strong connection with their partners and those that do not, and it is simply the notion that those with a strong connection feel deserving of love.
> 
> Badsanta


LOVED me??!? 

My late husband told me after we had been married for 2 years that he "didn't even know what love IS"! Oh, he was great at saying the words, but as for feeling the feelings....?

He eventually confessed that the ONLY reason he married me was because he "knew" I wouldn't have sex with him for very long UNLESS we were married. 

I was also with someone before him who told me he loved me, and later on that he "always saw our relationship as FWB" and "was never IN LOVE with me" (while living together for over 4 years!). He was the cheater who brought me to TAM in the first place. 

Was also with someone who told me he loved me, yet punched me in the face less than a minute after he told me. Is THAT "love"? I later learned that he used to beat the crap out of his ex-wife...did he "love" her, too?

I could actually go on....:frown2:


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> LOVED me??!?
> 
> My late husband told me after we had been married for 2 years that he "didn't even know what love IS"! Oh, he was great at saying the words, but as for feeling the feelings....?
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear that! If you have lost your faith in men after going through that, I would not blame you! No one deserves for those things to happen to them.

I do know if you were to try and help me when I was having problems, that you would suggest for me to try going without sex for an extended period of time (couple of months) in hopes that I would discover that I no longer needed sex as much as I thought I did. I'm guessing that will be your mantra moving forwards with men. Perhaps you will find someone that feels that way and can build a very intimate relationship with you based more on focusing primarily on emotional bonding and limit physical intimacy to rituals of being kind and gentle towards one another.

How do you go about finding a partner for that? I once tried to advocate someone try that and she ended up exploring karezza with an old friend that she had sexual partners with when she was an teenager. He had always loved her, thought kindly of her, and even provided a home for her and her children after her divorce. She was not physically attracted to him, but knew that he was very fond of her even though they had not had sex together in over 30 years. So she tried it, and he was willing to explore that with her. But there was a problem... He was just simply too boring for her and the experience only served to strain the friendship and spiral her life even more out of control. 

Life is just a freaking mess! 

Badsanta


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega it is correct that many people lie, often, little white lies or big ones. I lie to myself everyday about some of my bad habits. Often people lie to make themselves look and feel better, other times to deflect from hurting another person. This is all fairly small scale stuff.

But if you observe people to see if their words and actions align then it is much easier to guage the true intent of another person. Players pick victims, they play games to see if they can catch you in their net. IMHO one mistake is to be too forgiving when someone has wronged you. Sure, forgive them to gain some peace but don't let them then have the opportunity to walk all over you. Being forgiving of a person that has wronged you may well seem like the right thing to do but if you want to find someone that truly loves you and has your best interests at heart then watch to see if their behaviour changes for the better after the event, if it doesn't then they really don't care about you.

Tough love babe, yes I do think most of your problems are self created. There are good and bad people everywhere but some have an innate sense of working out who are the good and who are the bad, some people are not able to read the clues.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> Sorry to hear that! If you have lost your faith in men after going through that, I would not blame you! No one deserves for those things to happen to them.


Well...let's just say that I haven't lost my faith in men COMPLETELY.

Yet.

But my faith in them NOW is shaky. Uncertain. Skeptical. I'm not as trusting as I used to be, and it feels...wrong. On one hand I want to trust. On the other, I know NOT to. Heck, even the person you've been with for umpteen years can easily betray you, even if you've been having 'regular sex' with them, and otherwise been a "wonderful" spouse/friend/mother/father/etc. And sometimes they leave even if you CAN'T have sex because you're SICK. The whole relationship/marriage--thing--is discouraging. 

People don't seem to marry because of what they can _give_ to a spouse; it's more about what they can _get_. There always seems to be this underlying current of "have 'enough' sex with me or I'll find it elsewhere" looming over relationships. What happened to LOVE? 

This does NOT mean that I'm 'giving up'. For now, I'm focusing on my own life. Taking a sabbatical, so to speak. 

I can tell you one thing: My tolerance level has gone waaaaaaay down since I've been on TAM. Meaning, that I won't tolerate bad behavior or make excuses for 'them' anymore. 



> I do know if you were to try and help me when I was having problems, that you would suggest for me to try going without sex for an extended period of time (couple of months) in hopes that I would discover that I no longer needed sex as much as I thought I did. I'm guessing that will be your mantra moving forwards with men. Perhaps you will find someone that feels that way and can build a very intimate relationship with you based more on focusing primarily on emotional bonding and limit physical intimacy to rituals of being kind and gentle towards one another.


I see a lot of frustration in people who are not getting as much sex as they want. Their solution seems to be, to somehow have more sex. What I was trying to do Badsanta, was to suggest a possible paradigm shift in your thinking. Seems to be, that if you don't have what you want, you'll suffer some kind of negative consequence. How about *NOT* wanting it, and see what happens? Would you be happier if you realize that you don't "need" it as much as you think you do? Maybe. I only made the suggestions I made to try something _different_. 



> How do you go about finding a partner for that? I once tried to advocate someone try that and she ended up exploring karezza with an old friend that she had sexual partners with when she was an teenager. He had always loved her, thought kindly of her, and even provided a home for her and her children after her divorce. She was not physically attracted to him, but knew that he was very fond of her even though they had not had sex together in over 30 years. So she tried it, and he was willing to explore that with her. But there was a problem... He was just simply too boring for her and the experience only served to strain the friendship and spiral her life even more out of control.


We chatted about karezza before, and in all honesty, I like the idea that it does seem to be a more 'loving' approach to lovemaking. It would be something that I might want to incorporate into lovemaking, although not making it an every day occurrence. Once again, something _different_. I guess it's the difference between ALWAYS having to have intercourse (and orgasm), _every_ time we have sex, and sometimes just laying naked together and holding hands...listening to each other's breathing, WIHTOUT the goal being intercourse and/or an orgasm. To most, they would look at me like I had 4 heads. 

Still, I ask myself...why _not_?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> Vega it is correct that many people lie, often, little white lies or big ones. I lie to myself everyday about some of my bad habits. Often people lie to make themselves look and feel better, other times to deflect from hurting another person. *This is all fairly small scale stuff*.


Small scale? Maybe. 

But some people--grown azz adults--still tell some whoppers. 

Frankly, I can't remember the last time I lied....



> But if you observe people to see if their words and actions align then it is much easier to guage the true intent of another person. Players pick victims, they play games to see if they can catch you in their net. IMHO one mistake is to be too forgiving when someone has wronged you. Sure, forgive them to gain some peace but don't let them then have the opportunity to walk all over you. Being forgiving of a person that has wronged you may well seem like the right thing to do but if you want to find someone that truly loves you and has your best interests at heart then watch to see if their behaviour changes for the better after the event, if it doesn't then they really don't care about you.


I agree, yet it's still not always easy to tell. Someone may say one thing today, but you may not realize that their actions don't match their words for quite some time. I have since learned to be more _observant_. 

The greatest accomplishment for me would be to walk away from someone who has 'wronged' me (in a serious way, of course) IMMEDIATELY. Right now, it's still taking me SOME amount of time to do so. I seem to have gone from YEARS to MONTHS to WEEKS. 



> Tough love babe, yes I do think most of your problems are self created. There are good and bad people everywhere but some have an innate sense of working out who are the good and who are the bad, some people are not able to read the clues.


Tough love accepted. Thank you! :smile2: 

I AM still trying to work out reading the clues, as the clues aren't always obvious. I'm pretty good at reading them for other people; not myself so much. 

Change takes time, and I'm in no hurry. 

And I AM getting better! :wink2:


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega just a question for you..... when you are in the beginnings of a relationship do you observe men in their natural surroundings? Do you look at how they interact with others, who their friends are, their work history, their passion for life, relationship with their family, how they treat others such as waiters etc? There is so much you can tell about a person when you view them as part of their whole picture.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> Vega just a question for you..... when you are in the beginnings of a relationship do you observe men in their natural surroundings? Do you look at how they interact with others, who their friends are, their work history, their passion for life, relationship with their family, how they treat others such as waiters etc? There is so much you can tell about a person when you view them as part of their whole picture.


LOL! Funny you should ask...!

I started doing last year, about 6 months ago. I changed jobs and got into a profession that's mostly dominated by men (I didn't change jobs _for_ that reason, lol!). 

The thing is, that I don't want to get into a relationship BEFORE I've had a chance to listen/see/observe them in their 'natural' surroundings. I get to do this while we're both at work. I get to hear their cursing and swearing, hear how they talk to other women and ABOUT women and even about other men. 

Believe me, knowing what little I've seen, I wouldn't give the time of day _in a romantic setting _to MOST of them...


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Well...let's just say that I haven't lost my faith in men COMPLETELY.
> 
> Yet.
> 
> ...


I do think your idea of wanting to try something different in a relationship is very valid and comes from the context of wanting to focus on love and connection as opposed to pushing someone away. 

So @Vega have you ever wondered why so many male heavy porn users tend to end up on the Karezza website trying to learn how to rebalance themselves and stop the behavior of "PMO" so much? In my opinion they too want the exact same thing (love and connection) but without the struggle of all the hormones of being a male. While you probably could meet someone on that site, you would probably end up with a guy struggling to get a handle on his hyper sexuality and the interference it has caused him in his life. He would be open to exploring karezza probably... then there are the other men that would look at you like a four headed sexual abomination of some kind if you ask the to try and explore that. 

I do think it is a viable for of therapy for those that really need an emphasis on love and connection, but asking a guy to engage you sexually and avoid orgasms will likely open a whole can of worms in terms of compulsive behaviors from the anxiety of avoiding orgasms and neediness from the instinctual drive to orgasm. PERHAPS the "compulsive neediness" will be a positive experience for both of you, but be prepared to have the proverbial "beta man" that will need you to nurture him through this experience in the event you find someone to try it with... 

Also keep in mind that the dynamics of karezza are almost parallel to that of someone with a fetish of edging and ruined orgasms. Once arousal has been prolonged to a certain point and an orgasm minimized, men will experience NO refractory period. The prolonged state of euphoria of this can become problematic if combined with someone with a tendency towards compulsive behavior, thus your heavy porn users using karezza thinking it is love and connection when it is only a way to chase euphoric novelty.

Regards,
Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I do think your idea of wanting to try something different in a relationship is very valid and comes from the context of wanting to focus on love and connection as opposed to pushing someone away.


Thank you. I never wanted to push someone away, but I don't want to be so focused on sex as the main form of love and connection. 



> So @Vega *have you ever wondered why so many male heavy porn users tend to end up on the Karezza website trying to learn how to rebalance themselves and stop the behavior of "PMO" so much*? In my opinion they too want the exact same thing (love and connection) but without the struggle of all the hormones of being a male. While you probably could meet someone on that site, you would probably end up with a guy struggling to get a handle on his hyper sexuality and the interference it has caused him in his life. He would be open to exploring karezza probably... then there are the other men that would look at you like a four headed sexual abomination of some kind if you ask the to try and explore that.


Nope. Never wondered about it. The only reason I liked the site was because it seemed to be a bit more 'tantric' than the average penetration-thrusting-orgasm _pattern_ of sex. Most women don't achieve an orgasm through thrusting alone and very often, they're left 'high and dry' (without orgasm). Karezza seemed to be a method that kind of leveled the playing field. That is, instead of only ONE person "getting theirs", how about if NEITHER 'get theirs'? 

Much of the time, the LD doesn't have orgasms during sex. Perhaps they feel cheated or 'used' the HD usually has orgasms during sex. So, I started thinking...what if BOTH people had sex, but NEITHER had an orgasm, at least SOME of the time. Would the LD be willing the have more sex if the HD was willing to have less orgasms? 



> *I do think it is a viable for of therapy for those that really need an emphasis on love and connection, but asking a guy to engage you sexually and avoid orgasms will likely open a whole can of worms in terms of compulsive behaviors from the anxiety of avoiding orgasms and neediness from the instinctual drive to orgasm.* PERHAPS the "compulsive neediness" will be a positive experience for both of you, but be prepared to have the proverbial "beta man" that will need you to nurture him through this experience in the event you find someone to try it with...


First of all, I don't believe that orgasm is as "instinctual" as many believe (but that's a different thread altogether, lol!)
Second, I wouldn't be asking him to avoid orgasm completely; just occasionally during sex. He's perfectly welcome to masturbate. Just not inside of *me*. (Like I've mentioned, this is NOT to be used as 'steady diet'!) 



> Also keep in mind that the dynamics of karezza are almost parallel to that of someone with a fetish of edging and ruined orgasms. Once arousal has been prolonged to a certain point and an orgasm minimized, men will experience NO refractory period. The prolonged state of euphoria of this can become problematic if combined with someone with a tendency towards compulsive behavior, thus your heavy porn users using karezza thinking it is love and connection when it is only a way to chase euphoric novelty.


Karezza and 'edging' aren't the same. Edging is _deliberate_. With karezza there is no 'edging'. The reason you have an orgasm during sex is because your penis is stimulated the right way for long enough until you reach orgasm. Men usually do this through thrusting (quasi mimicking is hand during masturbation). 

But what would happen if you penetrated your wife's vagina with your penis and didn't thrust? How long would you last before orgasm OR would you have orgasm at all?

The point of karezza is to make the "love" in "lovemaking" the focus of the experience. make love for 45 minutes (or 15 or 120) WITHOUT an orgasm.

Are you "up" for the challenge? Oh, wait...you wrote that you and your wife already did that, and you had a MIND BLOWING experience. :wink2:


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> The point of karezza is to make the "love" in "lovemaking" the focus of the experience. make love for 45 minutes (or 15 or 120) WITHOUT an orgasm.
> 
> Are you "up" for the challenge? Oh, wait...you wrote that you and your wife already did that, and you had a MIND BLOWING experience. :wink2:


I'm pretty sure my wife is determined to make me fail any challenge! That is like her primary source of validation in our bedroom. 

My primary source of validation is to know that despite all my failures in the bedroom, that she still somehow chose me! 

Nonstop fun!

Badsanta


----------



## sonoranzia (Feb 21, 2017)

Wow. Thank you so much for this post. I am a LD person (though not always, but I've been so stressed and depressed for so long, coping with major life changes, etc), and kept just expecting that my husband should "understand" and got upset that he didn't. Reading through at least the first several pages of this thread really changed my opinion, and I hope will improve our marriage as well.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

@Vega:

This is going to sound harsh, but I really hope you see it for what it is which is an attempt to help you.

You are entitled to be LD.

I do think it is important to note, however, that you are justifying why it is okay to be LD based on the fact that you have had a string of lousy lovers.

The underlying theme behind your posts is one stuck in the drama triangle, alternating between the victim and the persecutor chairs. Then you double down and justify that behavior by blaming those lousy lovers.

The first problem with that is you are blaming somebody else for your choices.

The second is there is one common denominator with every single one of those relationships, and that is you.

If you fix your picker, you will find better lovers. However, I promise that will not happen until you stop justifying remaining in the drama triangle based on your past.

The drama triangle is not emotionally healthy. Emotionally unhealthy people will seek out other emotionally unhealthy people.

That is how the pattern continues.

Removing yourself from the drama triangle starts here:

https://www.lynneforrest.com/articles/2008/06/the-faces-of-victim/

Take care.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



farsidejunky said:


> The first problem with that is you are blaming somebody else for your choices.
> 
> The second is there is one common denominator with every single one of those relationships, and that is you.


I had been wanting to say just that but refrained thinking that Vega is probably hurting enough as it is and that it might be better for her to make that discovery from within. In the meantime if she needs to almost give up on all men as she goes through that process, ...well that is likely how the process will work itself out, if it ever does. 

But seriously @Vega you are going to have to learn how to choose better! The fact that all the good men have likely already been chosen and nailed down into a marriage by someone else and leaving you with mostly idiots to choose from will likely serve to validate your opinion that all men just want sex and can't form lasting/loving bonds with a partner. So not only do you need to choose well, but you need to start being aggressive about it as the longer you wait, the more you have to weed through, and the more difficult/impossible it will become.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



badsanta said:


> I had been wanting to say just that but refrained thinking that Vega is probably hurting enough as it is and that it might be better for her to make that discovery from within. In the meantime if she needs to almost give up on all men as she goes through that process, ...well that is likely how the process will work itself out, if it ever does.


No sweat, Badsanta. Far is trying to help. I get it. Unfortunately, it's difficult to put EVERYTHING out there in a few paragraphs, so Far (...and others...) really have no idea how "far" I've come (sorry, couldn't resist! :laugh



> But seriously @Vega you are going to have to learn how to choose better! The fact that all the good men have likely already been chosen and nailed down into a marriage by someone else and leaving you with mostly idiots to choose from will likely serve to validate your opinion that all men just want sex and can't form lasting/loving bonds with a partner. So not only do you need to choose well, but you need to start being aggressive about it as the longer you wait, the more you have to weed through, and the more difficult/impossible it will become


I'm not looking for anything right now. I know that my age will be a factor, and I'm well aware of the "idiots" there are to choose from, lol! That's why I'm in no hurry. 

In the meantime, I can 'arm' myself better. 

Oh, by the way...I DO believe that almost ALL men want sex. What I DON'T believe is that almost ALL men _*JUST*_ want sex, or that sex is "THE" most important aspect of an intimate relationship. Are THOSE men far and few between? Yes.

But I'm willing to wait...:wink2:


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Vega said:


> No sweat, Badsanta. Far is trying to help. I get it. Unfortunately, it's difficult to put EVERYTHING out there in a few paragraphs, so Far (...and others...) really have no idea how "far" I've come (sorry, couldn't resist! :laugh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IMHO your situation is as much about respect and self respect, not just sex. Bullies pick victims, selfish people pick victims, players pick victims. It sounds crass but that is the reality. Simply by having enough self respect you can eliminate the "idiots" very quickly. 

Doesn't really sound like you have ever really met a compatible man and by compatible I don't just mean in the bedroom but also outside the bedroom. You have your desire for the type of sex you want and all power to you but it is like you are putting on some false bravado and saying it is my way or the highway and you are not finding a man that only wants it your way. 

There are plenty of good men out there, water finds its own level so I still say the issue is more with you. Who cares how many idiots there are, they should not be a concern if you find some balance and start attracting the good ones. 

But compromise is always needed, you cannot have the sex all the way you want unless the other does too. And to come around full circle it comes across as you are the one saying "yes, sex is the bottom line" because if they don't want it your way then you don't want them. That is unfair and unrealistic. A good sex life grows and changes to suit both people involved. Both have equal rights to say what it is they want and if there really is a true love then they each accommodate the other because the others happiness is as important as their own.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



MrsHolland said:


> IMHO your situation is as much about respect and self respect, not just sex. Bullies pick victims, selfish people pick victims, players pick victims. It sounds crass but that is the reality. Simply by having enough self respect you can eliminate the "idiots" very quickly.


Agreed. :smile2:



> Doesn't really sound like you have ever really met a compatible man and by compatible I don't just mean in the bedroom but also outside the bedroom. You have your desire for the type of sex you want and all power to you but it is like you are putting on some false bravado and saying it is my way or the highway and you are not finding a man that only wants it your way.


Yes, I want compatible both inside AND outside the bedroom, but what's more important to me is being compatible OUTSIDE the bedroom FIRST. 

My way or the highway? No. In fact it was THEY who wanted things THEIR way. What I want THIS time--and I won't settle for less--is _reciprocity_. Like I've said before, I'm DONE being a doormat. 



> But compromise is always needed, you cannot have the sex all the way you want unless the other does too. And to come around full circle it comes across as you are the one saying "yes, sex is the bottom line" because if they don't want it your way then you don't want them. That is unfair and unrealistic. A good sex life grows and changes to suit both people involved. Both have equal rights to say what it is they want and if there really is a true love then they each accommodate the other because the others happiness is as important as their own


Like I said above, what I've been missing in my relationships is reciprocity. Not "equality", but FAIRNESS. Fair is not always equal, but doggone it...if 'he' wants a stand alone bj, he'd should be prepared at some point to give ME stand alone oral sex. That's _FAIR_. 

If I give myself to him sexually, even if I'm not in the mood, is HE going to do the same thing for ME, even if HE isn't in the mood?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Vega said:


> If I give myself to him sexually, even if I'm not in the mood, is HE going to do the same thing for ME, even if HE isn't in the mood?


I must be missing something. Are men capable of getting an erection, if they aren't in the mood? 

I guess they are, if they are forced? I am lost here. Will you explain?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



2ntnuf said:


> I must be missing something. Are men capable of getting an erection, if they aren't in the mood?
> 
> I guess they are, if they are forced? I am lost here. Will you explain?


 @2ntnuf I think Vega is referring to what is often demonstrated on the TV show "The League." A situation in which a man finds himself in a very threatening situation, so much so that he will get a "fear boner" because his anxiety reaches beyond what he is able to control and he becomes sexually aroused.

@Vega not only wants respect, she wants to project it with such a level of fierceness that her next BF feels immediately threatened to the point of erection!










Not the same as forcing an erection, but more like just scaring the crap out of someone until it happens completely naturally.

Badsanta


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

That is completely reasonable. 

Many women have that in their relationships, but some are stuck with poor companions. 





Vega said:


> Agreed. :smile2:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



badsanta said:


> @2ntnuf I think Vega is referring to what is often demonstrated on the TV show "The League." A situation in which a man finds himself in a very threatening situation, so much so that he will get a "fear boner" because his anxiety reaches beyond what he is able to control and he becomes sexually aroused.
> 
> @Vega not only wants respect, she wants to project it with such a level of fierceness that her next BF feels immediately threatened to the point of erection!
> 
> ...


Oh, Badsanta, STOOOOOP, LOL!....

From my understanding (from some men themselves) men can get erections for NO identifiable reason. Erections are not ALWAYS related to sex. 

Has nothing to do with being "threatened" or me wanting them to feel "threatened". 

I HAVE been with a man who had an erection. I told him in so many words that I didn't want sex. I THEN discovered that he had a (full) erection. He told me, "Ignore it". So, we BOTH did. He was 28 years old. 

I understand that many men get erections throughout the day that have NOTHING to do with sex. They're not even THINKING about sex...

...until they get them...

Maybe they TRAIN themselves to think that way (*Vega waits patiently for the ration of "stuff" that Badsanta and others are about to bestow upon her...*)


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



2ntnuf said:


> I must be missing something. Are men capable of getting an erection, if they aren't in the mood?
> 
> I guess they are, if they are forced? I am lost here. Will you explain?


:scratchhead:

OK on TAM and elsewhere we are bombarded with the mantra that a woman should acquiesce when her partner wants sex and I agree to a certain extent. If he is a loving, loyal, good man then he can have pretty much all he wants and more BUT this needs to be a two way thing. So yeah if a woman wants to have sex with her man he either needs to get an erection OR he can bring her to O in other ways as we all know.

If men want women to initiate then they have to be available and keen or they will find their wife stops initiating.

I know that any time (within reason eg not driving or at a dinner party) then I can have sex, I know he will not say no even if it is the furthest thing from his mind. OK if it takes time to get erect then so be it, it's all part of the fun.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Some men get erections at random times. Some from thinking about sex even if they don't want sex. Many from being stimulated even if they do not want sex. 

But that may not be relevant, depending on what is meant by "sex". There are lots of ways a man can please a woman if he doesn't have an erection. 





2ntnuf said:


> I must be missing something. Are men capable of getting an erection, if they aren't in the mood?
> 
> I guess they are, if they are forced? I am lost here. Will you explain?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

I think that for most couples the ideal is for each to be happy to please their partners when the partner wants sex. "Please" doesn't need to be intercourse, since some men can't get erections whenever they want, and some women find intercourse painful if they are not in the mood, but should include things like oral. 

The exception is that some people seem to find sex very distasteful / degrading / awful when they are not in the mood. Since I don't feel that way, I have a difficult time understanding it, but it does seem to exist. 






MrsHolland said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> OK on TAM and elsewhere we are bombarded with the mantra that a woman should acquiesce when her partner wants sex and I agree to a certain extent. If he is a loving, loyal, good man then he can have pretty much all he wants and more BUT this needs to be a two way thing. So yeah if a woman wants to have sex with her man he either needs to get an erection OR he can bring her to O in other ways as we all know.
> 
> ...


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Vega said:


> Like I said above, what I've been missing in my relationships is reciprocity. Not "equality", but FAIRNESS. Fair is not always equal, but doggone it...if 'he' wants a stand alone bj, he'd should be prepared at some point to give ME stand alone oral sex. That's _FAIR_.
> 
> If I give myself to him sexually, even if I'm not in the mood, is HE going to do the same thing for ME, even if HE isn't in the mood?


Sounds reasonable to me. Just state it plainly, your idea of fairness that is. To often we are expected to guess what is in your head . 

As far as the last point goes, there is in the mood and in the mood. In > 20 years I have NEVER turned my wife down when she came to me. I wasn't necessarily 'in the mood' when she decided she was but the mere expression of interest certainly lights my fire. 

I can honestly think of only one time when I had a momentary thought of 'really?', but I didn't turn her down . That was a very odd 3 day period where she was insatiable, wish they'd come around periodically so i could 'struggle' with that problem <g>. 

So anyway, I do think in general this mood thing is different between men and women. For my wife at least, when she is not in the mood most times it ain't happening. When I am not in the mood it is pretty easy to change that in 3 minutes...


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Vega said:


> I understand that many men get erections throughout the day that have NOTHING to do with sex. They're not even THINKING about sex...
> 
> ...until they get them...
> 
> Maybe they TRAIN themselves to think that way (*Vega waits patiently for the ration of "stuff" that Badsanta and others are about to bestow upon her...*)


Well @Vega you have now got me to thinking about TRAINS and now I can't stop. Wow, isn't this fun to watch!





































Wait, weren't you asking something about erections? Anyway, I'm still thinking about trains, as they are so cool. I'll get back to you later the topic of erections.

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Vega,
When folks complain that they have a huge sexual desire gap it typically raises a question:
Is this (LD) how my partner IS, or is this how they are WITH ME. And that fits a common profile: I like you more as a friend than lover. 

But the point you raise is a really good one. What happens when the reverse is true? When someone desires, but doesn't like or respect you very much?

You are definitely not alone in this regard. There have been MANY threads where the HD goes on about how bad their sex life is. But when you carefully read their posts, it becomes obvious they don't much like or respect their wives. And when I point that out - I typically say: if I can see that from your internet posts - hard to believe your partner doesn't pick up on it in real life. 




Vega said:


> Agreed. :smile2:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



MEM2020 said:


> Vega,
> When folks complain that they have a huge sexual desire gap it typically raises a question:
> *Is this (LD) how my partner IS, or is this how they are WITH ME. And that fits a common profile: I like you more as a friend than lover.
> *
> But the point you raise is a really good one. What happens when the reverse is true? When someone desires, but doesn't like or respect you very much?


The LD has similar questions: Does he really like _ME_ or does he just like _SEX_? After all, 'he's' had sex with umpteen people _before_ me. And, if I don't have sex with 'him', he'll just look for it elsewhere... 

How much sex does someone have to have in order to "prove" that they like you as a lover _AND_ a friend? 



> You are definitely not alone in this regard. There have been MANY threads where the HD goes on about how bad their sex life is. But when you carefully read their posts, it becomes obvious they don't much like or respect their wives. And when I point that out - I typically say: if I can see that from your internet posts - hard to believe your partner doesn't pick up on it in real life


Absolutely! Yet, you'll also often hear/read, "Well, if my partner had more sex with me, I'd "like"/"respect" him/her more." Really?! 

It's not that the LD partner doesn't have sex with their spouse_ AT *ALL*_ (in most cases). Just not AS MUCH. Not _AS *OFTEN*_. 

Some people tend to equate love with sex. Yet, many of those _very same people _have no issue having sex OUTSIDE of "love". That's why I don't believe that it's a good idea to the frequency of sex as a 'barometer' for how much your partner 'loves' you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Vega,
It feels like you see half the picture very clearly. The other half is this: someone can like and respect you AND like how you treat them - without desiring you. 

Desire is largely 'its own thing'. It just is. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but you describe your ex husbands as having intense desire for you, but not being very nice to you. In the simplest sense - using you for sex. 

The flip side of that coin is using someone's desire for you - to achieve your own goals - independent of how that impacts them.

Being used - feels bad. Be that as a provider of sex or financial security or parenting skills. 




Vega said:


> The LD has similar questions: Does he really like _ME_ or does he just like _SEX_? After all, 'he's' had sex with umpteen people _before_ me. And, if I don't have sex with 'him', he'll just look for it elsewhere...
> 
> How much sex does someone have to have in order to "prove" that they like you as a lover _AND_ a friend?
> 
> ...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

The whole "sex vs love" topic is interesting. I actually had my W tell me once that she knew I loved her, just that I loved her more when we had sex. This to me shows a disconnect, and could be in part due to our drives (me being the higher driver and her being the lower drive) and how we view sex in our relationship. I think what she perceives as "loving her more", when we did have a somewhat regular sex life, I was definitely more affectionate towards her (i.e. more hug/kiss type). The thing is, I am generally not a very huggy/kissy person, never have been. Part of the reason why I can be that way with my W is because of the emotional connection/closeness I feel towards her when we do have sex regularly. Take away the sex, you take away part of the emotional connection. Now keep in mind as well, it isn't as if I start treating my W like trash lol. I still do everything I can for her, I am just simply not as huggy/kissy. I don't love her any less, but the reality is, when there is a component of a relationship that goes MIA, you can't expect everything to remain as is.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Ellis,

It's definitely an amplifier when it's good. 

But - the lack of sex is only subtractive for me - when coupled with indifference. 




EllisRedding said:


> The whole "sex vs love" topic is interesting. I actually had my W tell me once that she knew I loved her, just that I loved her more when we had sex. This to me shows a disconnect, and could be in part due to our drives (me being the higher driver and her being the lower drive) and how we view sex in our relationship. I think what she perceives as "loving her more", when we did have a somewhat regular sex life, I was definitely more affectionate towards her (i.e. more hug/kiss type). The thing is, I am generally not a very huggy/kissy person, never have been. Part of the reason why I can be that way with my W is because of the emotional connection/closeness I feel towards her when we do have sex regularly. Take away the sex, you take away part of the emotional connection. Now keep in mind as well, it isn't as if I start treating my W like trash lol. I still do everything I can for her, I am just simply not as huggy/kissy. I don't love her any less, but the reality is, when there is a component of a relationship that goes MIA, you can't expect everything to remain as is.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



> MEM2020;17444354]
> It feels like you see half the picture very clearly. The other half is this: someone can like and respect you AND like how you treat them - without desiring you.


This is how I see the picture:

Someone can have sex with you, and love or like you. 
Someone can have sex with you, and _not_ love you or even like you
Someone can NOT have sex with you, and yet _still _ love or like you
Someone can NOT have sex with you and _not_ love you or like you at all, 
AND…
Someone will have sex with you because they love _YOU_, 
Someone will have sex with you because they love _SEX_.
Someone won't have sex with you because they _don’t_ love you
Someone won't have sex with you because they _don’t _love or even _like_ SEX



> Correct me if I'm wrong but you describe your ex husbands as having intense desire for you, but not being very nice to you. In the simplest sense - using you for sex.


My late husband had an intense desire for _sex_; not for _me_. 



> The flip side of that coin is using someone's desire for you - to achieve your own goals - independent of how that impacts them.
> 
> Being used - feels bad. Be that as a provider of sex or financial security or parenting skills.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Yes

Though - the paradox you run into in a sexless marriage looks like this: 

LD: If you really love me, you wouldn't WANT me to do anything I don't want to do 
HD: If you really love me, you would WANT to do this for me if not with me 

If you drill one level down on that - the picture gets a lot - darker 

I have had more than a few HD folks tell me that if their spouses cared for them - they would 'pretend' to be turned on. 
This is just as an LD flirting with their partner in public when they have no intention of connecting later.

One is the desire to be deceived in the service of ego. Oh - and shocker - the other is the desire to be desired without any sense of reciprocity. 

Neither is remotely ok. 

Asking someone to be physically intimate and emotionally deceptive - is beyond messed up. And teasing a starving partner is beyond cruel. 





Vega said:


> This is how I see the picture:
> 
> Someone can have sex with you, and love or like you.
> Someone can have sex with you, and _not_ love you or even like you
> ...


----------



## Vinnydee (Jan 4, 2016)

Sex is the sole reason we are all here and what we are programmed to do. As hard as we humans find it to believe this, we are nothing more than the product of successful sex. If a long line of people dating back to the first ones, did not have sex, none of us would be here. We are genetically designed as a storage and delivery system to pass along our genes who are actually in charge of us for the most part. Wanting to procreate is our strongest drive because those who did not want sex never got to pass along their genes, leaving only those who liked sex to populate the world as it is now. Our genes are the immortal ones. Using our DNA, our ancestry can be traced back to our roots. Our genes contain information from out past that is mixed with ours and then passed on to a new generation. 

You can do whatever you want to do with your life, but our prime directive is to pass along our genes via sex. It is the purpose in life with all other reasons being manmade. We are basically meat bags for our genes. Most that we do is geared to attracting sex partners with the best genes to mix with ours. We become rich for this. We become powerful for this. We become celebrities for this reason. This is why women still want alpha males if they can get them and men want girls that appear to be genetically superior in our minds. We really do not know why we are attracted to people, but we do know that it is genetic. No sex = the end of your line of genes. Our genes are in charge, not us. What we do dies with us but our genes will live on as long as our descendants keep having sex.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I always wanted my wife to actually desire me. If I had known what would be required for that to occur, I would have been pleased if she had simply pretended all along that she did and kept me none the wiser. That it took me supporting her through cancer and surgery and chemo and radiation for her to desire me makes it hard for me to wish that she had gone through it sooner. The cruel irony is that by the time she got around to desiring me, I pretty much stopped being interested in partner sex.

And I think the situation where the clash arises years into the relationship is different than where there was little or no desire initially. That is, if the LD was pretending to have desire in the beginning to "hook" the HD (bait and switch), then I think the LD has undertaken the responsibility to keep pretending. That it gets harder and harder to maintain the pretense is simply the price of the path they embarked on. If they wanted to be themself, they should have been honest form the beginning. If they hid the truth to lure in their target, then keep hiding it. Yes, that is a terrible way to live and a sham marriage. But that is what they chose. If someone waited until after a house and a couple of kids to announce their lack of desire, I have zero sympathy for how difficult it is for them to maintain a facade. As between the person who perpetrated the fraud and the one who was defrauded, clear to me which one is entitled to sympathy.

On the other hand, where there was plenty of desire at the start but it waned over time, then be honest about what is happening. I think if there WAS desire at the start then in many or most cases it can be rekindled through honest communication and earnest effort on both sides to reconnect. So the HD would be wrong and selfish and misguided to ask the LD to pretend to feel desire or enjoyment if they don't.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



MEM2020 said:


> Yes
> 
> Though - the paradox you run into in a sexless marriage looks like this:
> 
> ...


We could probably write a book about which view is the truth and WHY. For now, it seems that the HD's view would be considered to be more 'coercive' by most, including the 'experts'. 



> If you drill one level down on that - the picture gets a lot - darker
> 
> I have had more than a few HD folks tell me that if their spouses cared for them - they would 'pretend' to be turned on.
> This is just as an LD flirting with their partner in public when they have no intention of connecting later.
> ...


Oh, I agree that MUCH of sex doesn't happen in a vacuum. A lot of it _*is*_ about ego. 

But some people DO have enough self-control over their ego, and they don't desire to be 'desired'. The LD partner who flirts with his or her partner without the intention of connecting later simply lends more ammo to the idea that the HD sees ALL roads as leading to sex. The LD may have been flirting for the _sake of flirting_. They may not even be aware that their actions are being viewed as more like 'teasing' or as a precursor to sex (later). If the LD becomes aware of this, the LD may shut down even FARTHER, because the LD will learn that (s)he can't really do or say ANYTHING without the HD sexualizing it.

MEM, I think the issue that I have isn't so much the HD is HD in the first place; it's _WHY_. So much of what people write about has to do with "biology" or "nature". Yet, I've seen so much to the contrary that it makes me wonder not so much about why the LD is LD, but why the HD is HD. 

Is it about ego gratification? 
Is it about validation as a "man" or a "woman"? 
Is it about feeling like a 'god' or 'goddess'?
Is it about "power"? 

Other?

I don't think we can solve the 'paradox' as you described until we answer some other difficult questions, and get some hard HONEST answers.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Vinny,

This is what I don't get about your post. On one hand you say this: 



Vinnydee said:


> Sex is the sole reason we are all here and what we are *programmed* to do. .


And this: 



> Our genes are in charge, not us


On the other hand, you say THIS: 



> You can do whatever you want to do with your life,...


If our "genes" are in control, then how can we "do whatever we want with our lives"? 

I see sex as a _choice_. I also see procreation as a _choice_. We may have the 'equipment' to procreate, but that doesn't mean that we MUST procreate. The option is there, IF we choose to use it. 

Also, if it's "in our genes" to have sex and procreate, then WHY does each sex often have the ability and the desire to have sex, even when procreation is off the table (such as, after menopause)?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Also, if it's "in our genes" to have sex and procreate, then WHY does each sex often have the ability and the desire to have sex, even when procreation is off the table (such as, after menopause)?


If a Catholic priest were to give a sermon on that topic, I would show up early to get a front row seat! ....but I find it odd that such a beautiful aspect of marriage is often completely neglected by the church.

So @Vega why do we still desire sex once our fertility has come and gone, and why for many couples is that portion of life sometimes noted as being the most sexually active and rewarding? 

That topic fascinates me, but I have no answers for you. Based on everything I have read, our sexuality is closely tied to our own personal development. In the stages of life where one finds themselves no longer fertile and devoted to raising children, this is a time at which one can finally focus again on his/her own personal development in life.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> If a Catholic priest were to give a sermon on that topic, I would show up early to get a front row seat! ....but I find it odd that such a beautiful aspect of marriage is often completely neglected by the church.
> 
> So @Vega why do we still desire sex once our fertility has come and gone, and why for many couples is that portion of life sometimes noted as being the most sexually active and rewarding?
> 
> That topic fascinates me, but I have no answers for you. Based on everything I have read, our sexuality is closely tied to our own personal development. In the stages of life where one finds themselves no longer fertile and devoted to raising children, this is a time at which one can finally focus again on his/her own personal development in life.


LOL! Yes Badsanta, I see what you're saying! Catholics used to believe that the main purpose of sex was for procreation and yet..."we" still feel those physical and psychological "urges" after our ability to produce children has long passed...

So how does Catholicism explain that? 

Possibly through the biblical scripture about Sara and Mary. Sara had a child at 90+ years old. Mary produced a child without having had sex with any man. Through those stories and faith, it's believed that all things are possible through God. 

I went through menopause 10 year ago, and I've been celibate for over a year now. Yet, during that year, I've still felt that physical 'tickle' between my legs, now and then. Yet, even if I had sex, I probably "biologically" could NOT become pregnant. Of course, there's ALWAYS that possibility...a 'wayward' egg or something, lol! 

If people can be born with two heads, then why not be born with a "fertilized" egg WITHOUT sex?

P.S. If a Catholic priest gave a sermon about sex, I'd be sitting RIGHT NEXT TO YOU!!! And I'm CATHOLIC! :laugh:


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> P.S. If a Catholic priest gave a sermon about sex, I'd be sitting RIGHT NEXT TO YOU!!! And I'm CATHOLIC! :laugh:


My wife is Catholic and I remember joking with her one day about the topic of "temptation" and what is someone to do if all the urges of temptation are actually for one's spouse... She told me that is actually OK!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Vega,

When you first started posting I got the feeling your motivations made it impossible for you to understand any viewpoint other than your own. And that hasn't changed at all. 




Vega said:


> We could probably write a book about which view is the truth and WHY. For now, it seems that the HD's view would be considered to be more 'coercive' by most, including the 'experts'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> My wife is Catholic and I remember joking with her one day about the topic of "temptation" and what is someone to do if all the urges of temptation are actually for one's spouse... She told me that is actually OK!


Actually, no. "Lust" is a sin. 

Even if it's with your spouse...:surprise:


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



MEM2020 said:


> Vega,
> 
> When you first started posting I got the feeling your motivations made it impossible for you to understand any viewpoint other than your own. And that hasn't changed at all.



You mean, kinda like an HD's viewpoint, MEM? 

Seems like we BOTH want each other to "understand", yet nothing is done. 

So, what is your suggestion so that BOTH can be happy?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Vega said:


> So, what is your suggestion so that BOTH can be happy?


I disagree with the implicit assumption that every pair can be happy together.

The suggestion for people who are far apart on their libido for each other is to separate and each find a more compatible partner.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Vega,
Normally I'm averse to doing this. You can either treat life like a classroom or a racetrack. In the former case, comprehension and connection are prized above winning. In the latter case competing and winning are the highest priority. 

You are clearly on the racetrack. 

And I am in the classroom. You are welcome to join me or not. 

I will tell you that - M2 and I are happy despite our desire mismatch - largely because we have a classroom model, not a racetrack model of marriage. 





Vega said:


> You mean, kinda like an HD's viewpoint, MEM?
> 
> Seems like we BOTH want each other to "understand", yet nothing is done.
> 
> So, what is your suggestion so that BOTH can be happy?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

Wow, this thread is still going > A few thoughts to add



MEM2020 said:


> Yes
> 
> Though - the paradox you run into in a sexless marriage looks like this:
> 
> ...





Vega said:


> We could probably write a book about which view is the truth and WHY. For now, it seems that the HD's view would be considered to be more 'coercive' by most, including the 'experts'.


I don't know if I agree that the HDs view is considered more "coercive" by most. If anything, you could argue the LD viewpoint is just as coercive or selfish (i.e I will only do something I WANT TO DO). If you disregard sex, in general, if you are in a relationship and your stance is you will only do something that you want to do, why are you even in that relationship, seriously? Maybe I have a bit of an idealistic view of relationships, but I would think for most, the appeal of being in a relationship is being able to share experiences with someone you care about, doing things that you know makes the other person happy, etc... What kind of relationship do you really have if at the end of the day it is all about what I want? Now of course this doesn't mean you have to be a slave to your SO, but an unwillingness to compromise, an unwillingness to take into account the happiness of your SO, that just seems like a recipe for disaster (whether we are talking about sex on non sex related items).

Separately, and I think I have touched on this in the past, the problem IMO with this thread, at least with the opening post, it basically reads that the HD has to prove why sex should be important (i.e. the HD is the one with the problem). It isn't about who is right or wrong. Honestly, I think in many cases it is as simple as a compatibility issue. There is no doubt that an LD person would probably be better suited with an LD person, and likewise for an HD person. If you mix the two, and then add in where at least one of the persons is unwilling to address or work on, then usually that is where the problems occur.

As I have said before, any time you deprioritize an aspect of a relationship, you have to be willing to deal with the consequences, you can't expect everything else to stay the same. Taking the stance of "well, this is just the way I am now so deal with it", it is time to seriously look at yourself and ask why you are even still in such a relationship. There could be other reasons (finances, kids, etc...), but just be honest about instead of solely projecting it back at the other person.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*

This was comparing
If you loved me you would have sex with me adn
If you loved me you wouldn't want me to have sex I didn't want. 

One is coercive: you *must* do something you don't want.

The other is controlling: "you cannot do something you want". 

The second would NOT be controlling if it were accompanied by "and you are free to have sex with someone else". 

This I think gets to one if the deep mysteries to me in HD/LD. If the LD doesn't want sex (for whatever completely valid reasons), why do they care if the HD has sex with someone else? Its like saying "I don't like chocolate, so you can never eat any, because I want us to always eat the same thing together". 











Vega said:


> We could probably write a book about which view is the truth and WHY. For now, it seems that the HD's view would be considered to be more 'coercive' by most, including the 'experts'.
> snip
> 
> 
> O.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Uhtred 
Good partners recognize that the vow to 'forsake all others' is part commitment and part responsibility. 

And it definitely feels 'coercive' to me, for anyone to try to demand another person's celibacy or 'near celibacy'.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

MEM2020 said:


> Uhtred
> Good partners recognize that the vow to 'forsake all others' is part commitment and part responsibility.
> 
> And it definitely feels 'coercive' to me, for anyone to try to demand another person's celibacy or 'near celibacy'.


We've had this discussion before, MEM, and even if you're right about coercion, it doesn't mean that that many people expect their partner to remain faithful while being no under no responsibility to meet the partners' sexual needs.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

The importance of sex, IMO, is raised to a feverishly high pitch primarily due to one cause:

In Judeo-Christian (and their offspring, such as Islam) belief systems, once you're married, you are bound and restricted to only having sexual relationships with ONE person.

Nothing else we do as adults makes us 100% dependent on a single adult for ANYTHING else. 

So, this one thing - sex - is treated differently than anything else on the planet, once married, and it's a very negative treatment, forcing a form of dependence on the married parties.

I'm not saying I'd want it any other way - I was raised in the US, so I was raised with these Judeo-Christian princples.

But I'd like to see it go both ways. Specifically - since each party is bound to have sex with nobody else - each partner should realize, going into it, that the activity of denying it from their partner is also a form of violation of the marital agreement.


As far as the roles it plays? I became sexually active in college. From that day forward, sexual intimacy with a woman has ALWAYS been a way to develop closer emotional, mental and spiritual bonds with her, through a physical process. And, until I met my wife, I never knew a woman whose desires for sex were not equal to or greater than my own. Or rather, until I had been married for 5 or so years, I did not meet such a woman, although my wife now maintains this is how she'd always been but knew I would not marry her if I knew it earlier....


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes to all this. That said - many folks enter marriage with profoundly unrealistic expectations.

For instance there are core elements of a relationship which can only be given - not demanded. 

Transparency and passion fall into that category. 




DustyDog said:


> The importance of sex, IMO, is raised to a feverishly high pitch primarily due to one cause:
> 
> In Judeo-Christian (and their offspring, such as Islam) belief systems, once you're married, you are bound and restricted to only having sexual relationships with ONE person.
> 
> ...


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

*Re: Is Sex The &quot;Bottom Line&quot;?*



Vega said:


> The LD has similar questions: Does he really like _ME_ or does he just like _SEX_? After all, 'he's' had sex with umpteen people _before_ me. And, if I don't have sex with 'him', he'll just look for it elsewhere...


If someone wants to have a sexual relationship (dating/marriage etc) with you, of course most will look for it elsewhere if sex is for the most part absent.



Vega said:


> Some people tend to equate love with sex. Yet, many of those _very same people _have no issue having sex OUTSIDE of "love". That's why I don't believe that it's a good idea to the frequency of sex as a 'barometer' for how much your partner 'loves' you.


Then don't use it as barometer for love.

Personally I don't equate sex with love. That said if I love someone romantically/sexually I will want to share sex with them frequently because I enjoy the feeling that shared sex brings and I like to share such pleasures with those I love sexually.



Vega said:


> MEM, I think the issue that I have isn't so much the HD is HD in the first place; it's _WHY_. So much of what people write about has to do with "biology" or "nature". Yet, I've seen so much to the contrary that it makes me wonder not so much about why the LD is LD, but why the HD is HD.
> 
> Is it about ego gratification?
> Is it about validation as a "man" or a "woman"?
> ...


Yet you fail to consider pleasure for pleasures sake.

Some of us enjoy partaking in partnered sex, and have a tendency to want more of what we enjoy.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

FWIW I think MEM has totally nailed this thread and has articulated beautifully the deeper issue.

Vega it seems you judge people and base your opinion of them on their sex drive, this is unhealthy and unbalanced. Look at the person, their intent, integrity (or lack of), core beliefs as these are the measure of a person, their sex drive is not. HD people are not immoral or users just out to get laid. A person can be a good or not so good person and have any sort of drive across a large spectrum.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

And the race to the victim chair continues...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Vega, I get the idea that you feel most people have a choice as to how much they need / desire sex. I disagree. I think people have a choice as to how they behave. How they react to the need (and the pain from having that need remain unsatisfied, if it is not being met). But I do not think people have nearly as much choice over how much desire they feel in the first place or how much pain they feel when the desire is unrequited. I think that is a core aspect of their personality and a core aspect of our disagreement.

To me, this is like homosexuality. If you believe it is a choice, then you tend to believe that "those people" should just choose to conform to the majority orientation and stop complaining. If you think that homosexuality is "wired", then you tend to have more sympathy for people complaining that some outside force is preventing them from acting upon their desire. If you see it as a choice, you tend to find it easier to label that choice as wrong. if you see it as an intrinsic orientation, you are less likely to view the possession of that orientation as intrinsically wrong.

If you see HD as an orientation, you are more likely to give HDs credit (maturity, self-control) for not acting upon their desires or on the pain from being unsatisfied. If you see the level of their desire as a choice, then you aren't going to give them much credit for choosing not to act on their desire.

I can tell you that I have always hated being HD. I wish I had no sex drive at all, as it has only caused me pain. For me, having a high desire for sex does not feel like something I am choosing. It feels like a curse I am burdened with. I have finally found a "remove curse" scroll. Of course, the side effect of invoking the scroll is that my self-respect, self-confidence, ambition and passion for life were all removed along with my desire for partner sex. I can assure you, none of this feels at all voluntary to me.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

farsidejunky said:


> And the race to the victim chair continues...


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> Asking someone to be physically intimate and emotionally deceptive - is beyond messed up.



This is how I think of casual sex and ONS.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

2ntnuf,
I'm not a big fan of casual sex - but - if two people are physically lonely and desire each other - and take precautions not to infect each other with a pathogen - and neither of them makes any promises as to strings attached - that is their business as adults. 

And usually in a ONS - the passion itself is genuine. Unless one of them is visibly MUCH wealthier than the other 

On TAM, there are two things which seem similar - but often aren't. 

1. A desire for more frequent sex (this falls into the 'mechanics' of life and therefore subject to compromise between committed partners)
2. A desire for more 'passion' during sex (pure emotion - and not subject to compromise or negotiation)

A partner who is really into you, will accommodate a higher frequency than their ideal provided you don't double down and press them to protect your ego by 'simulating' more passion than they really feel. 






2ntnuf said:


> This is how I think of casual sex and ONS.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holding,
Compatibility rules. Why I believe that love without compatibility often = intense unhappiness for at least one person. 

It takes a very determined person to do what Farsidejunky has - which is some version of this: 

We can have a SYMETRICALLY intense, modest or minimal connection. And you can choose whichever of those you wish. 






Holdingontoit said:


> Vega, I get the idea that you feel most people have a choice as to how much they need / desire sex. I disagree. I think people have a choice as to how they behave. How they react to the need (and the pain from having that need remain unsatisfied, if it is not being met). But I do not think people have nearly as much choice over how much desire they feel in the first place or how much pain they feel when the desire is unrequited. I think that is a core aspect of their personality and a core aspect of our disagreement.
> 
> To me, this is like homosexuality. If you believe it is a choice, then you tend to believe that "those people" should just choose to conform to the majority orientation and stop complaining. If you think that homosexuality is "wired", then you tend to have more sympathy for people complaining that some outside force is preventing them from acting upon their desire. If you see it as a choice, you tend to find it easier to label that choice as wrong. if you see it as an intrinsic orientation, you are less likely to view the possession of that orientation as intrinsically wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

SB,
Ultimately this ties back to the definition of the prime vow, the first vow - the vow to love. 

And with regard to that, I don't think many of us feel bound by convention or expectation, I certainly don't. 

For me it is: How you feel when you are putting your partner first. Their wants, needs, desires - whatever it is. 

When two people can easily and often put the other first - usually makes for a good marriage. 






Sawney Beane said:


> We've had this discussion before, MEM, and even if you're right about coercion, it doesn't mean that that many people expect their partner to remain faithful while being no under no responsibility to meet the partners' sexual needs.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Let's take a look at this. 

Here is your post which I commented on:



> Asking someone to be physically intimate and emotionally deceptive - is beyond messed up.



If I understand what you are telling me, you are saying there IS emotion in casual sex and ONS. You say that the "passion" or horniness that each person feels is the emotion. 

I don't know if being horny or randy is an emotion or not. I thought is was your body letting you know you have a physical need? I think now, it is also the brain saying it has a need for some dopamine, glucosamine and chondroitin...........wait, not those last two. :grin2: You get what I mean, though? I don't remember all of the chemical names released during sex. I do realize some of them are released during ejaculation and right after. I can't speak for women. 

My conclusions are tied in with my thoughts above.






MEM2020 said:


> 2ntnuf,
> I'm not a big fan of casual sex - but - if two people are physically lonely and desire each other - and take precautions not to infect each other with a pathogen - and neither of them makes any promises as to strings attached - that is their business as adults.
> 
> 
> ...


A partner who is really into you, in my opinion, will accommodate you more frequently because they are more into you. They will only accommodate you to the limit they feel comfortable with, then the passion will start to dry up. 

They will sometimes try to fake the passion, but most men who know their wives, will notice a difference when they were truly into it. 

I think there is a finite amount that anyone can expect from a certain person. I think that varies with each of us. I think it varies again with who we are with. 

Settling? Yes, we all do it. We cannot have that perfect dream girl or guy within our head. They don't exist. Never did. The person we married? Who we think they are is not necessarily who they are. I'm not saying they are being deceptive. I'm saying we deceive ourselves. 

Yes, sometimes they are deceptive. Sometimes. 

I think HD and LD are definitions within a specific relationship. I do not believe they are healthy to use as a general term. In some relationships(edit: "other relationships those two individuals have", should replace some relationships), the HD might be the LD or vice versa(Edit: delete the words, "or vice versa", they just confuse). Much of that depends on what I posit above. Make any sense?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Kind of weird.

This thread.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM2020 said:


> Compatibility rules. Why I believe that love without compatibility often = intense unhappiness for at least one person.
> 
> It takes a very determined person to do what Farsidejunky has - which is some version of this:
> 
> We can have a SYMETRICALLY intense, modest or minimal connection. And you can choose whichever of those you wish.


I agree about compatibility. That is why I wrote to @Vega recently that the way to make both LD and HD happy is for them to separate and find new partners.

I understand exactly what @farsidejunky did. I did the same. Decided that instead of trying to maximize what I got out of the relationship, I would focus on making it even. H2 gets no more than I get. For a long while she gave little so she got little. She did not like getting at the low level. Eventually she she upped her game. Mostly by way of being pleasant and affectionate instead of condescending and cold. But she would provide more sex if I were interested.

The advice to the typical HD is actually quite easy to say. Disengage. If the LD does not come chasing to get you back, you lost nothing and should leave. Just hard to convince the typical HD to take this advice. So easy to think "if I am getting so little while chasing them, how can I get more by walking away and giving less?" But that is how it works. And they don't want to leave. They don't want AN answer. They want THE answer they want. More frequent and more passionate sex with their current partner.

My case is very typical. H2 really did not come around until she got cancer and I stayed with her. I don't think there was anything I could have done with young and healthy H2 to get her to rethink her behavior. My only choices at that point were to accept sexlessness or leave. Now that she sees I really am am determined to stay "no matter what", and she believes that she brings less to the table than she used to, she values me in ways that she did not before. It was a long road and I made some decisions that made it worse. But honestly I don't think there was much I could have done to make it better. Except leave.

Because you are correct. Compatibility is HUGE.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

Vega said:


> We talk about sex every day.......
> .....So tell me...is it REALLY the end all to BE all? And if so,
> 
> WHY??????
> ...


The less sex you get, the more it occupies your mind, the more you want it! Hence a lot of people talking (or complaining) about not getting enough or kinkier sex that they crave.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

2ntnuf,

This is really good. I never really thought about - hunger - as an emotion. Even though it can be purely driven by the mechanics of life - it can also be more than just a matter of 'hunger avoidance'. I cooked Beef Bourguignon tonight. I like cooking that - it's easy - smells delicious - and tastes great. So in a limited way the anticipation makes me happy. 

So - just thinking out loud here but - if I'm going for a ONS - I'm almost solely focused on the physicality of it. 

And maybe the woman I want to sleep with is also. 

So if we are both looking for a mainly physical connection - and let's say I'm traveling and rarely come to this location and I have already been clear on that point. Why is that inherently deceptive? 

I'm not saying I like the idea of a ONS - I'm just asking why it's an example of deception. 

-------
I contrast that with a spouse who pretends to orgasm when they didn't. And my bigger point was - the spouse who pretends to rapture because they know their partner will react very badly if they don't. 

Because to me, that's really the pure poison. I'm HD, I'm pushing you to a higher frequency of physical intimacy, while simultaneously pressing you to lie about what the experience feels like for yourself. 








2ntnuf said:


> Let's take a look at this.
> 
> Here is your post which I commented on:
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

2nt,
As far as frequency compromise goes - that seems right to me. A partner who is into you - wants to please you and will flex on frequency. 

But if you want it straight you have to actually encourage transparency in a way that doesn't come natural to most folks. 

For us that means something sort of like this: 

- I'm gonna make the experience as good as possible for you - and whatever happens - happens. And that's ok. 
- If we are at a frequency that isn't working very well for you - I want - I need - to know that. 





2ntnuf said:


> Let's take a look at this.
> 
> Here is your post which I commented on:
> 
> ...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Key for the HD: you have to really want the real truth. You have to be willing to say "thank you for sharing" - and mean it - even when they say something that cuts you to the core. If you don't want the real truth, if you only want the fantasy you wish were true, then you may get what you asked for - but it will not be satisfying.

Took my wife a couple of years to realize I was being honest when I said "thank you" after she told me something about me or our marriage that made her unhappy. For a long time she figured I was being patronizing and she disliked my thanking her for sharing unpleasant truths. Most people don't actually want to hear them, so she couldn't believe I did.

And remember, none of that cured our mismatch. Eventually I accepted the honest truth - which was that my wife had no intention of satisfying my need for sex no matter how unhappy I was when it went unsatisfied. The truth does not always or even mostly result in more sex. It simply results in both sides knowing the truth. Then each has to decide what to do about it.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Is sex _the _bottom line? No. (at lest not for most)

But it is not just an important, but rather essential element. Without it, everything else loses meaning. 

Think of it this way:
You've got a car. A beautiful car. Gorgeous body accentuated by elegant and sensuous lines. The interior is top grade leather with all the amenities imaginable from a super sound system to a perfect voice activated GPS. It has incredible horsepower under the hood providing enough power to launch you anywhere quickly, and in style. 

But there's a flaw in the transmission. Shifting is hesitant and sometimes it doesn't shift at all, leaving you to putter around maddeningly in first gear. When it does shift, it's awkward and hard to handle. Nothing ever feels smooth driving this car. It's worse than inefficient and unfulfilling, it usually feels like a laborious chore. 

In the end, it doesn't matter how sexy or well appointed the car is, or that 90% of it is absolutely grade a material and construction, the 10% that isn't functioning well makes the car all but useless... and certainly no fun to live with. In the end, frustration is the overriding outcome, and will remain so until the transmission gets fixed or replaced.


----------

