# The truth about female desire



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

I find this article interesting. The truth about female desire: It’s base, animalistic and ravenous - Salon.com



> “Women’s desire — its inherent range and innate power — is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times, when all can seem so sexually inundated, so far beyond restriction,” he writes. “Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety.” In fact, he argues, “one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”
> 
> This book — how do I put this without sounding hyperbolic? This book should be read by every woman on earth. It should be handed out to pubescent girls right alongside “Our Bodies, Our Selves” and be required course reading for Human Sexuality 101. It is a must-read for any person with even a remote erotic interest in the female gender.


I haven't read the book but it seems to refute many of the common mantras that are being repeated around everywhere including TAM about female desire.

Any thoughts about this?


----------



## samyeagar

I think this is a conclusion that many have brought up and agreed with here at TAM, and have known this for quite some time now.


----------



## sinnister

My guess, this book is too "intellectual" to resonate with normal folk such as myself.

But if girls are taught that magazines and vampire movies aren't really what men are like, they won't be so let down in the romance/sex department when the time comes for them to become women.


----------



## samyeagar

sinnister said:


> My guess, this book is too "intellectual" to resonate with normal folk such as myself.
> 
> But if girls are taught that *magazines and vampire movies aren't really what men are like*, they won't be so let down in the romance/sex department when the time comes for them to become women.


Except a lot of them are being taught that that is what they deserve...


----------



## Deejo

This isn't a secret.

It just needs to be acknowledged by both genders. For as long as female sexuality gets tagged with 'promiscuity' and has a big red flag waving over it, and chastity is seen as virtuous, and flying the white flag, then there is a vested interest in maintaining the fairy tale. Again ... for both genders.

For those that break through the veil, it's a veritable playground. Filled with excitement, fun, and the possibility that you get hurt if you aren't careful.

My issue is that it is still relatively easy for women to flip the script. I don't blame them. I just wonder if they do so consciously or as a matter of image preservation.

I've been 'picked up' by women. In several cases it has been immediately following the end of a LTR for them. It usually becomes VERY sexual, very quickly. I'm fine with this. She seems fine with this. Therefore, I treat things as fine.

But invariably it becomes clear she isn't fine, and this is where I wonder if they're playing the 'you took advantage of me' card is a coping mechanism trying to reconcile the red flag waving woman who is a sexual dynamo, with the prim and proper, virtuous white flag waving PTA mom.

Can't have it both ways.

I'm not a selfish cad when you hit on me and we have sweaty, monkey sex.

You are not a hapless victim taken advantage of, when you decide maybe the sweaty monkey sex wasn't such a good idea.

Bottom line, men NEED to recognize that some, many, women are EXTREMELY sexual. And they shouldn't be punished for that. They should be thrown a friggin ticker tape parade.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo - it is a bummer that you have experienced extremely sexual women in those circumstances and not better ones that aren't on the heels of them coming out of relationships.

But that's really not representative of what extremely sexual women are about or what they are like. That's just a slice out of your experience with them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I wrote this blog post this weekend:

I Married a Sex God: Highly Sexual Females


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo - it is a bummer that you have experienced extremely sexual women in those circumstances and not better ones that aren't on the heels of them coming out of relationships.
> 
> But that's really not representative of what extremely sexual women are about or what they are like. That's just a slice out of your experience with them.


Oh, I'm not bitter. 

And as I've shared with you before, after discovering my own 'unicorn', it just seemed like ESF's (Extremely Sexual Females) started coming out of the woodwork.

Good ones. Healthy ones.

I was in a relationship with a wonderful woman that had broken up with her partner of 5 years, because she wanted to experience 'a sexually liberating relationship', and her partner was under the impression that women should be treated like China dolls, and 'Nice Girls wouldn't do that ...' and THAT I think is the outlook lots of folks have to ditch.

I'm not at a place where I tag my relationships as 'good or bad' based on their longevity.

And lets face it, the only experience I'm really all that invested in, is the one I'm having.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I wrote this blog post this weekend:
> 
> I Married a Sex God: Highly Sexual Females


Well ... fancy that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know you're not bitter. It just really is a bummer that you had those experiences in that way with those women.

Plenty of us highly sexual chicks are aware and can bring out our Hornista even when we aren't having an exit affair.

So I just wanted to point that out. I know you know it, too.

When you've known as many walking chick boners as I have known in my life, you also know they don't play the "took advantage of me card" when they are self-aware.

No regrets!

Super happy you are in a good place right now.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> This isn't a secret.
> 
> It just needs to be acknowledged by both genders. For as long as female sexuality gets tagged with 'promiscuity' and has a big red flag waving over it, and chastity is seen as virtuous, and flying the white flag, then there is a vested interest in maintaining the fairy tale. Again ... for both genders.
> 
> For those that break through the veil, it's a veritable playground. Filled with excitement, fun, and the possibility that you get hurt if you aren't careful.


A fricken MEN to this. 



> My issue is that it is still relatively easy for women to flip the script. I don't blame them. I just wonder if they do so consciously or as a matter of image preservation.
> 
> I've been 'picked up' by women. In several cases it has been immediately following the end of a LTR for them. It usually becomes VERY sexual, very quickly. I'm fine with this. She seems fine with this. Therefore, I treat things as fine.
> 
> But invariably it becomes clear she isn't fine, and this is where I wonder if they're playing the 'you took advantage of me' card is a coping mechanism trying to reconcile the red flag waving woman who is a sexual dynamo, with the prim and proper, virtuous white flag waving PTA mom.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> I'm not a selfish cad when you hit on me and we have sweaty, monkey sex.
> 
> You are not a hapless victim taken advantage of, when you decide maybe the sweaty monkey sex wasn't such a good idea.
> 
> Bottom line, men NEED to recognize that some, many, women are EXTREMELY sexual. And they shouldn't be punished for that. They should be thrown a friggin ticker tape parade.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I know you're not bitter. It just really is a bummer that you had those experiences in that way with those women.
> 
> Plenty of us highly sexual chicks are aware and can bring out our Hornista even when we aren't having an exit affair.
> 
> So I just wanted to point that out. I know you know it, too.
> 
> When you've known as many walking chick boners as I have known in my life, you also know they don't play the "took advantage of me card" when they are self-aware.
> 
> No regrets!
> 
> Super happy you are in a good place right now.


Great blog post FW, and very timely given the topic here.

Current GF and I stayed in town over the weekend. As we were driving in, she told me that a tenant where she works asked her out.

I said, "So did you say yes?"

She said, "No. He's a sweet guy. Reminds me of Tom Hanks. He wouldn't know what to do with me. He'd be horrified. I'd break him."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I know you're not bitter. It just really is a bummer that you had those experiences in that way with those women.
> 
> Plenty of us highly sexual chicks are aware and can bring out our Hornista even when we aren't having an exit affair.
> 
> So I just wanted to point that out. I know you know it, too.
> 
> When you've known as many walking chick boners as I have known in my life, you also know they don't play the "took advantage of me card" when they are self-aware.


Not just self aware but confident enough to not bother with people who would give them grief about it. (Like my Mom!)



> No regrets!
> 
> Super happy you are in a good place right now.


Me too, Deejo.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> She said, "No. He's a sweet guy. Reminds me of Tom Hanks. He wouldn't know what to do with me. He'd be horrified. I'd break him."


Sex-dar.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Perhaps I'm naieve but I would find it shocking that a large percentage of men don't already know this. I would think even average looking men who don't have the "golden ratio" as they say on TAM have had some wild experiences. 

I guess I'm just finding it hard to believe that so many men are in the dark about this. Are there really that many men out there that don't know how sexual woman can be. Anyone who has ever been seduced should know this. These sexual women are being sexual with men (okay sometimes women too), so from a percentage standpoint I think most men should know whats out there. Or maybe not....


----------



## Faithful Wife

Many men aren't as sexual as some women are. It is assumed that all men are highly sexual...but they aren't. (NAMALT)

As a highly sexual woman, I can tell you that if we approach a less sexual man, he is usually turned off by it. 

Due to many many factors, a lot of men still distrust a highly sexual woman. So they actually WANT it to be rare, not common.


----------



## Married but Happy

Faithful Wife said:


> Many men aren't as sexual as some women are. It is assumed that all men are highly sexual...but they aren't. (NAMALT)
> 
> As a highly sexual woman, I can tell you that if we approach a less sexual man, he is usually turned off by it.
> 
> Due to many many factors, a lot of men still distrust a highly sexual woman. So they actually WANT it to be rare, not common.


From what I've seen, you are so right about this!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Reformed, from what I've gathered, you are a highly sexual person yourself, so you will always attract highly sexual women. Highly sexual people find each other, and have sex.

Less sexual people don't always see the same cues in the sexual jungle. They may be being pursued by someone sexually and not even notice it.


----------



## sinnister

Faithful Wife said:


> Reformed, from what I've gathered, you are a highly sexual person yourself, so you will always attract highly sexual women. Highly sexual people find each other, and have sex.
> 
> *Less sexual people don't always see the same cues in the sexual jungle. They may be being pursued by someone sexually and not even notice it*.


This is VERY true.


----------



## Deejo

ReformedHubby said:


> Perhaps I'm naieve but I would find it shocking that a large percentage of men don't already know this. I would think even average looking men who don't have the "golden ratio" as they say on TAM have had some wild experiences.
> 
> I guess I'm just finding it hard to believe that so many men are in the dark about this. Are there really that many men out there that don't know how sexual woman can be. Anyone who has ever been seduced should know this. These sexual women are being sexual with men (okay sometimes women too), so from a percentage standpoint I think most men should know whats out there. Or maybe not....


I don't think most men are going to argue that 'women' can be sexual. 

But I also think that many men aren't aware of what is possible with, or desired by, a highly sexual woman. For that matter, if her thinking isn't in alignment, she may not be aware of, or accepting of it either.


----------



## samyeagar

Deejo said:


> I don't think most men are going to argue that 'women' can be sexual.
> 
> But I also think that many men aren't aware of what is possible with, or desired by, a highly sexual woman. For that matter, if her thinking isn't in alignment, she may not be aware of, or accepting of it either.


Every woman I have been with would fit into the extremely sexual category. My first, we were teenagers, but even then, her sexuality was well developed, and we fired on all cylinders together until she died. My second, my ex-wife was extremely sexual, though she had a whole host of issues that made the experience less than enjoyable for me. Her NPD carried over into the bedroom, and things outside of the sex finally took it's toll on the sex, and the final four years were sexless. The sex we had together was explosive for sure, but very damaging to me at the same time. My STBW...she blows the other two out of the water. Extremely sexual, she recognized it from an early age and never tried to suppress it. The two of us together...she has taken it to a whole new level to where even she has been shocked by her drive and desire.


----------



## Cosmos

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> I find this article interesting. The truth about female desire: It’s base, animalistic and ravenous - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the book but it seems to refute many of the common mantras that are being repeated around everywhere including TAM about female desire.
> 
> Any thoughts about this?


If men knew what really went on in women's minds, I think they might have difficulty readjusting their thinking. 

For centuries women had to hide their sexuality and pretend that their thoughts were as pure as the driven snow. The truth is... they're not all that much different from men's.


----------



## samyeagar

samyeagar said:


> Every woman I have been with would fit into the extremely sexual category. My first, we were teenagers, but even then, her sexuality was well developed, and we fired on all cylinders together until she died. My second, my ex-wife was extremely sexual, though she had a whole host of issues that made the experience less than enjoyable for me. Her NPD carried over into the bedroom, and things outside of the sex finally took it's toll on the sex, and the final four years were sexless. The sex we had together was explosive for sure, but very damaging to me at the same time. My STBW...she blows the other two out of the water. Extremely sexual, she recognized it from an early age and never tried to suppress it. The two of us together...she has taken it to a whole new level to where even she has been shocked by her drive and desire.


To add onto this...I have always been able to hold my own with no problems in the sexual arena, but the best way to describe things with my STBW...to make a very stereotypical guy analogy...I was used to driving high end consumer grade sports cars, and I have stepped into the drivers seat of a formula one racer...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Many men aren't as sexual as some women are. It is assumed that all men are highly sexual...but they aren't. (NAMALT)
> 
> As a highly sexual woman, I can tell you that if we approach a less sexual man, he is usually turned off by it.
> 
> *Due to many many factors*, a lot of men still distrust a highly sexual woman. So they actually WANT it to be rare, not common.


Agreed. I would like to point out that sexuality (sexualism?) is not something that exists on a linear scale. The many, many factors of which you speak influence the behavior of women as well. The dynamic can be derned confusing! And I think it contributes to a lot of the dysfunction you see in relationships.

I would love to see a day when sexuality is allowed to be looked at straight without the religious, faulty moral and other weirdnesses that are attached to it.


----------



## StayInIt

Some men are just not very comfortable with female sexuality. Its turns my husband off if I initiate and even though we have tried different things, in the end he craves the same thing over and over. I accept this in order to stay married, and I take care of my own needs regularly so I don't turn him off me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

StayInIt said:


> *Some men are just not very comfortable with female sexuality*. Its turns my husband off if I initiate and even though we have tried different things, in the end he craves the same thing over and over. I accept this in order to stay married, and I take care of my own needs regularly so I don't turn him off me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And a lot of women don't understand male sexuality, or at least they buy into the stereotypes and are quite confused when their man turns out not to fit the conventional wisdom...


----------



## StayInIt

Oh man, true and when you add in all the differing personality quirks it amazing anyone can get along with anyone else.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

No surprise here. Before I met my wife, every woman I was with pursued me. I turned away far more than I accepted and the ones I said yes to had their clothes off before I could blink.

I don't think a lot of women even understand their own desire, that it is good, it doesn't make them bad, but they need to respect and control that aspect of themselves or, like anyone, it could lead them places they regret. I think more education and conversation on the topic would go a long way to help more women, men too, to avoid a lot of misunderstandings and mistakes when it comes to sexuality.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

StayInIt said:


> Oh man, true and when you add in all the differing personality quirks it amazing anyone can get along with anyone else.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


For sure. I am and always have been extremely sexual, though I have only been with three women, all within the confines of a LTR. The thing is, I slept with all of them on either the first or second date. I always had opportunity, but never really sparked to act. There was just something about these women, and they were drawn to me as well. I have an extremely tight connection between sex and emotion so I really can't do the whole ONS or FWB thing. My STBW on the other hand is able to separate the two without any problems. Very different. Together, I've been able to let the more raw lustful side of me out with wild abandon, and she's opened up the emotional side in herself, and we're having sex 10-15 times a week all top shelf quality.


----------



## Anon Pink

StayInIt said:


> Some men are just not very comfortable with female sexuality. Its turns my husband off if I initiate and even though we have tried different things, in the end he craves the same thing over and over. I accept this in order to stay married, and I take care of my own needs regularly so I don't turn him off me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is just sad!

I couldn't accept that at all. Perhaps my sexuality is too fragile, but I couldn't accept that being with a man meant I had to tone down my sexual desires. I could not ever be happy in that scenario.


----------



## StayInIt

Anon Pink said:


> That is just sad!
> 
> I couldn't accept that at all. Perhaps my sexuality is too fragile, but I couldn't accept that being with a man meant I had to tone down my sexual desires. I could not ever be happy in that scenario.


Eh, it evens out. He is AD military, so it's mostly just part of the territory. Honestly, after a 15 hour day I can understand how being approached for sex would be a total turn off. If I back off then I have a better change of getting laid when he's rested up then if I pressure him. We all have our individual preferences and we have been married long enough to for me to know his.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Deejo said:


> But I also think that many men aren't aware of what is possible with, or desired by, a highly sexual woman. _For that matter, if her thinking isn't in alignment, she may not be aware of, or accepting of it either._


Very good point. My wife always says that I corrupted her (jokingly). I think a lot of times highly sexual people can help others open up, but only if they are willing to. Honestly when I was younger I was "corrupted" too. Perhaps having the right partner along the way helps.


----------



## 45188

I tell guys this all the time. They think only ****s think this way. Its ridiculous!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

StayInIt said:


> *Some men are just not very comfortable with female sexuality. Its turns my husband off if I initiate *and even though we have tried different things, in the end he craves the same thing over and over. I accept this in order to stay married, and I take care of my own needs regularly so I don't turn him off me.


 Speaking to the outlined in blue (only)....

...I am not so sure this is always the case, the part about if a man is not comfortable.. though "comfortable" may not be the right word here (and given your last post it may be about his being too tired).. but for SOME MEN.. it may not be their *preference*..they prefer a more subtle approach from their woman....Oh they want to be wanted.. but maybe with a dance with them...a look, a slight lift of her dress.. but let them THINK they are the MAN in charge.. type of deal...... 

Having read a book on 10  Libido Types and *Lover styles*... 

...And taking great notice of the threads/posts where men have been asked if they prefer Aggressive women or they prefer the more subtle... (I had my reasons in trying to understand my own husband... even did a thread on this -but deleted it because I felt his being the way HE is..sounded too strange!)... 

What came out of that was...some of the more naturally aggressive Males had a higher preference for the female to be subtle with her sexuality (meaning not overt)... I didn't say all.. but a good # of men on TAM felt this way & I'd still coin them very sexual, I remember who some of them were! ...

It's like they get off on being the sexual Pursuer , something about bringing the woman to her knees...if SHE is too easy, this diminishes the thrill just a bit...he needs his dance of dominance...using his charm to win her... I've seen men outright say they would feel it *is pressure* if their women was too forward...in initiation anyway...

Now...having read this a # of times.. I realized through these posts... that I am perfectly matched with my husband, oh he is a little passive....a Sensual Receptive lover...but the plus... he prefers the Aggressive type ! This is HIS FANTASY, for the woman to take him and USE HIM... Ha ha... 

Coming into this understanding was like a







moment for me -to just how good we are for each other...and how other men would Never work with me.. when I want something...I need to express it.. full freedom.. .I can come on strong, hot and heavy..and I ENJOY IT... to take this from me ... it would demean me and suck a part of my personality and enthusiasm with it....ya know.. 



Anon Pink said:


> *That is just sad!
> 
> I couldn't accept that at all. Perhaps my sexuality is too fragile, but I couldn't accept that being with a man meant I had to tone down my sexual desires. I could not ever be happy in that scenario*.


Most of us would be fragile in this way.. we are used to men being the Lust initiator.. even though my personality can be aggressive... I am still HIGHLY sensitive here..I could not enjoy unless I KNEW he wanted me there... and was loving it... not into brow beating for sex...that would get so old..so fast.

But I can not BE this woman (there would be restraint, hard as it may be)...unless it is under the umbrella of a shared intimate emotionally connected romantic strings attached relationship.. some things need established...to be released from the cage...


----------



## StayInIt

Like I said, I know what makes him tick. I don't bother him when I am hard up.


----------



## StayInIt

Oh and no, he has said explicitly that it makes him uncomfortable when I initiate. Like I am pressuring him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

StayInIt said:


> Oh and no, he has said explicitly that it makes him uncomfortable when I initiate. Like I am pressuring him.


I can't remember what thread it was on, but I recently read one by a guy who was saying that he doesn't like it when his wife initiates or if she does, he wants her to be sly and hint around about it, not come right out and ask for sex.

This isn't that uncommon.


----------



## StayInIt

For sure, it's just another preference. I had to come to terms with it or inadvertently feel totally **** shamed when he would turn me down. I guess I should mention I have a really high drive and he finds it abnormal, so maybe he just needs boundaries to maintain his comfort in our marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

A highly sexual female with a high drive is frequently a bit intimidating to a less sexual male.


----------



## StayInIt

Not so much intimidating. Closer to inconvenient, I suppose. You can't stay 25 forever and life happens along the way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Speaking for myself, I'd call it intimidating. And I was intimidating them even when they were 25.

Some are more like "meh".

Some are like "um...you scare me".

Some are like "oh, yeah I'll try to hold on for dear life and see what happens."

Some are like "no thank you, I know what lies ahead".

Some are like "I don't know what to do with you".

Some are like "momma warned me about girls like you".

Some are like "oh yay, I hit the jackpot!" (some of these change their minds soon after)

Some are like "you are emasculating me" (by being hornier than they are)

Some are like "sure, I'll call you some time" (and don't)

Some insinuate there is something wrong with the highly sexual female.

It varies a lot.


----------



## StayInIt

I spent most of my twenties being a degenerate student and rocker chick. It took a long time for me to be the kind of woman whoul could be in a relationship and when I did my sex drive was usually an issue, which made me more uncomfortable with dating. I took a lot of time off dating when my grandma got sick. There was no one else who could take care of her and she was having falls. I reconnected with my now husband during is time and we ended up back together. He was gone when my grandma developed dementia- when she did I started the darkest and hardest part of my life. I would go visit him when we could afford it, so stressed out that I was climbing the walls for sex. He has 18 hour days then and could barely chew his dinner, much less bone. He was overwhelmed and turned off by me. This checked me pretty hard, and I have been excising an iron fist over my libido ever since. Would he like a highly sexual wife and time do do something about it? Probably. Does he? Nope. I knew there would be sacrifices when we got married, so it's on me.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> I can't remember what thread it was on, but I recently read one by a guy who was saying that he doesn't like it when his wife initiates or if she does, he wants her to be sly and hint around about it, not come right out and ask for sex.
> 
> This isn't that uncommon.


The whole ask for sex thread was confusing to me. I've certainly verbalized what I want and my wife does the same. Its always been part of the build up to me. Yet lots of folks on that thread were indicating that sex magically happens, like they don't talk sexy to one another. There are many ways to seduce in my opinion. I think verbalizing your desire is different than asking permission , but it was treated the same in that thread. Perhaps that was the disconnect.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ConanHub said:


> No surprise here. Before I met my wife, every woman I was with pursued me. I turned away far more than I accepted and the ones I said yes to had their clothes off before I could blink.
> 
> *I don't think a lot of women even understand their own desire, that it is good, it doesn't make them bad, but they need to respect and control that aspect of themselves or, like anyone, it could lead them places they regret. I think more education and conversation on the topic would go a long way to help more women, men too, to avoid a lot of misunderstandings and mistakes when it comes to sexuality.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:

Perfectly said, especially the part about education, I think I would change that to _positive sex education_.

There is a certain amount of irony in this thread on some levels.
Women on one hand think that men don't understand their sexuality and that they desire sex like men.

If left by themselves , little children would start experimenting with sex , and they would eventually have penetrative sex without being taught how. That is hard wired into us a s human beings. So how is it that men don't know that women desire sex?

The truth is, the average man_ does_ understand that. But guess what?
Somewhere along the line , the average man is taught that his sexual thoughts about women are bad. He is taught that he shouldn't look at a woman and think sexual thoughts > _enter sexual objectification misinterpretation here _< if he
* _respects_ * women. So in his mind respect for women and viewing them as craving sex does not compute. Quite a lot of it is based in politics.
The average man fears that he can shamed for being sexually aggressive, by women.
He risks being called a " _bad man_" , simply because he expresses himself in a way that connects with with the inner desires of women who aren't even aware that such feelings existed inside of them.

There is no trick or magic about getting women into bed.
The sexually aggressive man's method is simply, don't waste time on women who aren't interested in sex when he wants sex.

If you are a sexually aggressive confident man who doesn't give a fcuk about being politically correct , interested women always seek you out.

The problem with most men is that they have been bought up to fear women, and they tip toe around her sexuality , because they fear rejection. Rejection brings with it the risk of being labeled as a creep. These men toe the political lines and after marriage ,end up becoming the passive aggressive " nice guy" who's afraid of verbalizing his sexual needs because he doesn't want to look like a pervert.

Men who are confident about themselves and aware, know that every woman has a sexy she devil inside of her, and knows exactly how to get that genie out of the bottle. 
Seduction between two people like that is as natural as breathing , and doesn't have to be learned.
I have been with women who were cold and stoic in public, but very sexually aggressive in bed, it's like Jekyl and Hyde. In my experience , such women were very direct and hated playing games. The already knew men wanted to get into their pants so roses and chocolate didn't work. 

The men who don't GAF about being politically correct always end up with their hands full of sexual opportunities from all sorts of women, but they also end up being labeled as " _players_ ", " _bad men_" , and so forth.

In fact we see a lot of it right here on TAM and therein lies part of the irony.

I think it comes down to this. If you are married, understanding your woman's sexuality is a journey that would take the rest of your life. If you are a knowledgeable man ,that journey gets better as she gets older.

I would advise every man who's sexually active, or married, to examine sexuality from different cultures especially , Eastern cultures like Hindu or Thai cultures. Also, study the topic of seduction outside of what's projected by the Western media, and you will be enlightened.


----------



## FizzBomb

Cosmos said:


> If men knew what really went on in women's minds, I think they might have difficulty readjusting their thinking.
> 
> For centuries women had to hide their sexuality and pretend that their thoughts were as pure as the driven snow. The truth is... they're not all that much different from men's.


:iagree:


----------



## nuclearnightmare

I was so interested in the subject matter I read the book in question. There is a lot of serious research described in there but a reliable theory of female sexuality does not come together. And for good reason - the implications of the findings are often unclear and not always consistent.

What I found the most interesting in the book was how fragile women's sex drive can be. Sometimes it just disappears. Going along fine in a marriage and then pooof....no more attraction to husband. Not due to a bad marriage or due to his looks changing or anything explainable. That's what the search for female V was about...a pill to solve this problem. Which the book BTW does not judge to be imminent.

When I read through the sex threads on T A M that is what amazes me. It is not how sexual women are but it is how fragile/unreliable their sex drive can be throughout their lives........some of them. That is the phenomenon that seems to be plaguing marriages. Much more so than the "hyper-sexual wife" .........many men would do anything to have that "problem" to solve.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I belong to a small private message board group that had, no joke, 15 women (out of 30 members) in sexless marriages or relationships, where they were very high drive and their men were not. Some of the men were totally non-sexual. One of these women began hiring male prostitutes on business trips in Vegas. Others cheated. The ones who didn't cheat or hire it out are dying, slowly, painfully, and just as loudly as the men down in SIM here at TAM.

It really depends on where and what you are reading.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Somewhere along the line , the average man is taught that his sexual thoughts about women are bad. He is taught that he shouldn't look at a woman and think sexual thoughts > _enter sexual objectification misinterpretation here _< if he
> * _respects_ * women. So in his mind respect for women and viewing them as craving sex does not compute. Quite a lot of it is based in politics.
> The average man fears that he can shamed for being sexually aggressive, by women.
> He risks being called a " _bad man_" , simply because he expresses himself in a way that connects with with the inner desires of women who aren't even aware that such feelings existed inside of them.


Well, I for one think men should give a fvck about respecting women and our sexuality, and find your suggestion otherwise to be a bit disturbing.

I am a very sexual person, but learned to hide this at a very young age. Why? Because too many men viewed that sexuality as theirs for the taking. I wasn't a person, just T&A, there solely for the purpose of helping some horny guy realize his porn star fantasies. My boobs were free for the groping, my no's were to be ignored, and nothing mattered at all but what my body could do for them.

Sexual thoughts are fine and dandy. I started having them at a very young age myself. But the PC ideas that you always mock is really only about understanding that those sexual thoughts don't entitle you to another person's body. This lesson is still a very important chapter in sex education.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The truth about female desire*



nuclearnightmare said:


> I was so interested in the subject matter I read the book in question. There is a lot of serious research described in there but a reliable theory of female sexuality does not come together. And for good reason - the implications of the findings are often unclear and not always consistent.
> 
> What I found the most interesting in the book was how fragile women's sex drive can be. Sometimes it just disappears. Going along fine in a marriage and then pooof....no more attraction to husband. Not due to a bad marriage or due to his looks changing or anything explainable. That's what the search for female V was about...a pill to solve this problem. Which the book BTW does not judge to be imminent.
> 
> When I read through the sex threads on T A M that is what amazes me. It is not how sexual women are but it is how fragile/unreliable their sex drive can be throughout their lives........some of them. That is the phenomenon that seems to be plaguing marriages. Much more so than the "hyper-sexual wife" .........many men would do anything to have that "problem" to solve.


I have come to accept this as well. 'Unreliable' is no doubt a word some folks will have a problem with, but it is also the most appropriate. Which is why once again, I think the fairytales and double standards don't serve anyone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yep, really sad that you guys really never be able to completely predict us, right?

See what you are calling reliable, is really just saying "she should reliably always want sex with you specifically". And I'm sorry to say it, but we really do want sex reliably with *certain* partners. Men will spend and make millions trying to figure out how to make us reliably want a specific guy...and we can and will feel that reliable desire...but when we try to tell you guys about it, the answer back to us is "don't listen to her, she doesn't know what she wants".


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The truth about female desire*



always_alone said:


> Well, I for one think men should give a fvck about respecting women and our sexuality, and find your suggestion otherwise to be a bit disturbing.
> 
> I am a very sexual person, but learned to hide this at a very young age. Why? Because too many men viewed that sexuality as theirs for the taking. I wasn't a person, just T&A, there solely for the purpose of helping some horny guy realize his porn star fantasies. My boobs were free for the groping, my no's were to be ignored, and nothing mattered at all but what my body could do for them.
> 
> Sexual thoughts are fine and dandy. I started having them at a very young age myself. But the PC ideas that you always mock is really only about understanding that those sexual thoughts don't entitle you to another person's body. This lesson is still a very important chapter in sex education.



Note that CM said the 'average man' Always. Based upon the experiences you have posted, and their resulting impact on how you gauge men, I can't accept that the men in your life who shaped your thoughts were average. You were victimized. 'Average men' don't do that. They do give a f**k. They even talk about it with women on message boards.

And even despite all that, you still have a powerful sex drive. To me that says a lot.


----------



## ntamph

I’ve started to believe that trying to predict anyone’s sexual desire besides your own is pretty iffy and most people don’t even understand themselves.

There’s a huge diversity in the way that people express their sexuality (proof: the internet) and making any unfounded assumptions is really stupid to me. If you want to connect with and understand someone then you need to listen to them and what they want. Hopefully they will help you fulfill their needs and then they can do the same for you. I once thought that most women are stone cold frigid but boy was I wrong. This forum can teach you a lot and not looking at the world through selective filters will teach you even more.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep, really sad that you guys really never be able to completely predict us, right?


Not at all. That's one of the things that makes life interesting.

What's sad is that 9 1/2 years of bliss can turn into 28 years of sexlessness where both of you are equally baffled over what went wrong and eventually drift apart to the point where you're virtual strangers under the same roof.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I can't accept that the men in your life who shaped your thoughts were average.


More average than you think, IMHO. We all have these ideas of what "good" people do or don't do. And public persona maintains the illusion. But what happens when no one is looking can be an entirely different story.

The numbers of men who admit that they would have non-consensual sex with a woman if they thought they could get away with no consequences is truly staggering.

To be clear: I'm not saying that all men are like this. Only that they are not the tiny fringe element that you imagine them to be either. Some of my stories are extreme, but they are not unique.


----------



## always_alone

nuclearnightmare said:


> When I read through the sex threads on T A M that is what amazes me. It is not how sexual women are but it is how fragile/unreliable their sex drive can be throughout their lives........some of them.


If it makes you feel any better, men are pretty unreliable too in this respect.


----------



## Oldfaithful

Just read for a while on here. Men want a highly sexual woman who hasn't had a lot of partners and has never had casual sex.


----------



## Fozzy

Wow, the generalizations are flyin' today!


----------



## ntamph

Oldfaithful said:


> Just read for a while on here. Men want a highly sexual woman who hasn't had a lot of partners and has never had casual sex.


I wouldn't mind as long as she was willing to focus that energy on me.


----------



## Oldfaithful

Let me rephrase. The majority of men on TAM seem to want a highly sexual woman with no history. It's very strange.


----------



## ntamph

Oldfaithful said:


> Let me rephrase. The majority of men on TAM seem to want a highly sexual woman with no history. It's very strange.


I agree.

You've got to believe that you're bringing enough to the table to keep her happy and satisfied. Look at what kind of person she is. Everyone can cheat. Thinking about it too much will make you go crazy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Well, I for one think men should give a fvck about respecting women and our sexuality, and find your suggestion otherwise to be a bit disturbing.
> 
> I am a very sexual person, but learned to hide this at a very young age. Why? Because too many men viewed that sexuality as theirs for the taking. I wasn't a person, just T&A, there solely for the purpose of helping some horny guy realize his porn star fantasies. My boobs were free for the groping, my no's were to be ignored, and nothing mattered at all but what my body could do for them.
> 
> Sexual thoughts are fine and dandy. I started having them at a very young age myself. But the PC ideas that you always mock is really only about understanding that those sexual thoughts don't entitle you to another person's body. This lesson is still a very important chapter in sex education.


This ^^^right there is the_ exact_ line of reasoning which makes this thread ironic.

In engineering systems , there is a name for that type of phenomenon .
I think it's called a positive feedback loop.


----------



## samyeagar

Oldfaithful said:


> Let me rephrase. The majority of men on TAM seem to want a highly sexual woman with no history. It's very strange.


I would put a caveat on this, in my case at least...with my situation with my STBW, it's not the history that bothers me in the least...I just don't want to hear about it.


----------



## Oldfaithful

Who would want to hear about it? 

I think some of it is that a lot of men see women as their possession and some how every man they have been with has somehow taken a piece of her away. Like women are consumables and you have to compete with men she's been with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Oldfaithful said:


> Just read for a while on here. Men want a highly sexual woman who hasn't had a lot of partners and has never had casual sex.



Ummmm,

My wife is a highly sexual woman who's had absolutely zero partners before me.
In fact at 46 yrs old , her drive is far past mine.


Sounds impossible?

Well, there are quite a few of us , right her on TAM. Couples who are having even more sex that those who've had lots of partners before.


You can be highly sexual without _even _having sex.
I know some little kids who are highly sexual.
Not every person having lots of sex is highly sexual and not every highly sexual person has had lots of partners.

If that were true then prostitutes or sex workers would be highly sexual, and according to your logic , make excellent partners.

A person doesn't necessarily have to have lots of partners to be highly sexual.
A person could be married to the only partner they've had sex with , and be _still_ highly sexual, in fact even more sexual than a person who's had lots of casual flings.
A person could have had lots of sexual partners in the past ,and NOT be highly sexual , or even NOT sexually attracted to their present partner.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldfaithful...Yes, that is true, men tend to think like that.

But I think this is changing. As the world is more open to a hookup culture, the men and women in that culture are realizing they just can't be all hung up about sex if they want it to flow freely between them. Younger people are pushing past some of our older ideas that were holding us back. I am sure they are creating their own whole set of problems to deal with, but at least one huge step forward will be made by the shedding of the shame coats we were all expected to wear. At least now, young men and women can openly proclaim to love and want sex. (The ones who are sexual anyway. There will still be a percentage of the population who isn't).


----------



## ntamph

Oldfaithful said:


> Who would want to hear about it?
> 
> I think some of it is that a lot of men see women as their possession and some how every man they have been with has somehow taken a piece of her away. Like women are consumables and you have to compete with men she's been with.


I think I'm at the level of maturity where I could discuss her sexual past if it were done so that we could both learn about each others wants. This is great communication.

I've read this many times by many different posters: why would you want your partner to have never had good sex in their entire lives before you?


----------



## samyeagar

Oldfaithful said:


> Who would want to hear about it?
> 
> I think some of it is that a lot of men see women as their possession and some how every man they have been with has somehow taken a piece of her away. Like women are consumables and you have to compete with men she's been with.


That's just it isn't it? I dare say most people wouldn't really care to hear much about their partners past beyond the very basics. The problem is, the more of a past one has, the more there is to potentially come up.

My STBW had some pretty lengthy conversations about sex before we started dating. Not a whole lot of detail at that point, but she got a certain impression about my past and felt as if she wouldn't have any problems with me talking about it more, and so she figured I would be the same in not minding hearing about it. I've heard more than I cared to...some of it out of necessity due to situations we were in, certain people we would be interacting with. She felt that way all the way up until she heard more details about my sex life with my ex-wife and it shook the hell out of her. The only reason those details came out was again, situational...there was a need to know.

This kind of goes into what CM said...partner count and sexuality and experience are all mutually exclusive. I am extremely sexual, yet have only slept with three women. I am almost 42. My STBW is extremely sexual and had been with over 30 men. The trap she fell into was equating partner count with experience, and she was dead wrong and it jolted her when she realized that.


----------



## samyeagar

ntamph said:


> I think I'm at the level of maturity where I could discuss her sexual past if it were done so that we could both learn about each others wants. This is great communication.
> 
> I've read this many times by many different posters: *why would you want your partner to have never had good sex in their entire lives before you*?


I agree with the bolded part, but I don't think that maturity has much to do with wanting to or not wanting to hear details.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> This ^^^right there is the_ exact_ line of reasoning which makes this thread ironic.
> 
> In engineering systems , there is a name for that type of phenomenon .
> I think it's called a positive feedback loop.


Sorry, but I still don't see the irony in pointing out that respect for another person should be part and parcel of sexual education.

You can minimize and disparage what I say all you want, but the fact remains that the reason the "PC" crowd talk about respect for women is that there often isn't any. I've even seen people right here on TAM, a marriage forum no less, warn women that if they don't put out voluntarily, it *will* be taken from them by the physically stronger sex. No joke.

ETA: I've also encountered plenty who think that because they know women to be highly sexual, this automatically means they will want to be highly sexual with them. I've literally had guys (yes, more than one) break into my room while I'm sleeping and actually think I will want to have sex with them. 

Because, you know, women are sexual and all have rape fantasies, so of course this will turn her on.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> Sorry, but I still don't see the irony in pointing out that respect for another person should be part and parcel of sexual education.
> 
> You can minimize and disparage what I say all you want, but the fact remains that the reason the "PC" crowd talk about respect for women is that there often isn't any. I've even seen people right here on TAM, a marriage forum no less, warn women that if they don't put out voluntarily, it *will* be taken from them by the physically stronger sex. No joke.
> 
> ETA: I've also encountered plenty who think that because they know women to be highly sexual, this automatically means they will want to be highly sexual with them. *I've literally had guys (yes, more than one) break into my room while I'm sleeping and actually think I will want to have sex with them. *
> 
> Because, you know, women are sexual and all have rape fantasies, so of course this will turn her on.


These are the men you think are "average"? Jesus.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fozzy said:


> These are the men you think are "average"? Jesus.


Therein lies the irony...


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Sorry, but I still don't see the irony in pointing out that respect for another person should be part and parcel of sexual education.
> 
> You can minimize and disparage what I say all you want, but the fact remains that the reason the "PC" crowd talk about respect for women is that there often isn't any. I've even seen people right here on TAM, a marriage forum no less, warn women that if they don't put out voluntarily, it *will* be taken from them by the physically stronger sex. No joke.
> 
> ETA: I've also encountered plenty who think that because they know women to be highly sexual, this automatically means they will want to be highly sexual with them. * I've literally had guys (yes, more than one) break into my room while I'm sleeping and actually think I will want to have sex with them*.
> 
> Because, you know, women are sexual and all have rape fantasies, so of course this will turn her on.


A lot of your experiences are outside the norm for a lot of people, and it has certainly shaped the way you think, process, feel.

One of the reasons a lot of people seem to find themselves in the same types of situations, attracting the same types of people over and over is because behaviors and attitudes, what is shown to the outside world, is what does the attracting. Sure, there are always exceptions, but we tend to attract people because of the vibe we send out.

A person obviously can't control how other people act, what they think. When one finds themselves in situations where they don't like how things are going, especially if they seem to find themselves in similar situations over and over again, the best first place to start in changing things is to look at the things one can actually control, and that usually starts with themselves.

A simple analogy that I'm sure falls apart on many levels...but if I am looking for a hooker, church isn't going to be my first stop...


----------



## samyeagar

Send out a vibe that you are jaded towards men, that the average man is an ass only out for his pleasure and using you...well, guys that DON't think and feel that way are going to avoid you. The only ones who will approach are the very ones you have a problem with...the ones who don't care...see the self feeding cycle there?


----------



## Deejo

I think we have the market on misunderstanding one another sexually pretty well covered.

Hope we don't have to completely rehash what we already know.

The truth about female desire?

It isn't what we think it is.

And as Ocotillo noted, that keeps us intrigued, enamored, and sometimes, frustrated.


----------



## Deejo

samyeagar said:


> Send out a vibe that you are jaded towards men, that the average man is an ass only out for his pleasure and using you...well, guys that DON't think and feel that way are going to avoid you. The only ones who will approach are the very ones you have a problem with...the ones who don't care...see the self feeding cycle there?


I'd like to keep the lines clear between what no doubt, is thoughtful advice, but can also look like 'blaming the victim'.

I don't think the latter is what you intended.


----------



## samyeagar

Deejo said:


> I'd like to keep the lines clear between what no doubt, is thoughtful advice, but can also look like 'blaming the victim'.
> 
> I don't think the latter is what you intended.


There is certainly no blaming the victim intended, but that is also a very thin line when it comes to personal responsibility, especially when it comes to long term behavioral and situational patterns.


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> Send out a vibe that you are jaded towards men, that the average man is an ass only out for his pleasure and using you...well, guys that DON't think and feel that way are going to avoid you. *The only ones who will approach are the very ones you have a problem with...the ones who don't care...see the self feeding cycle there?*


" Positive feedback loop "^^^.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I'd like to keep the lines clear between what no doubt, is thoughtful advice, but can also look like 'blaming the victim'.
> 
> I don't think the latter is what you intended.


I don't think it's " blaming the victim."

If I think that all woman are crooks who are only after my money and would steal my money if they get the chance no matter how " goody two shoes " they appear in public, then the only women I would attract would be crooks , because it is what I project.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Deejo said:


> I have come to accept this as well. 'Unreliable' is no doubt a word some folks will have a problem with, but it is also the most appropriate. Which is why once again, I think the fairytales and double standards don't serve anyone.


 I did find the (name of the machine that measures blood flow) studies interesting. That women seemed to be getting turned on physically (viewing pictures, videos etc) while seemingly not being consciously aware of it. Almost appeared to be a complete parallel with men and emotions. i.e. Men are less consciously in touch with their emotions/feelings than women are. While women are less in touch with their sexual feelings/response than men are.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> I think we have the market on misunderstanding one another sexually pretty well covered.
> 
> Hope we don't have to completely rehash what we already know.
> 
> *The truth about female desire?
> 
> It isn't what we think it is.*
> 
> And as Ocotillo noted, that keeps us intrigued, enamored, and sometimes, frustrated.


The same is true for male desire. There is a lot of confusion for many females. I have kind of accepted that I don't get it. I won't probably ever really get it. And that is ok. But I can see why this is so hard.

It can be hard for us to reconcile, on the one hand, men have a biological component that is cited for why they can f in unconnected situations. But it is also the very height of an intimate connection on the other.... even when the wife/partner is not interested and thus part of said connection. Nope. I don't get it!


----------



## ocotillo

nuclearnightmare said:


> (name of the machine that measures blood flow)


Plethysmograph!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> I don't think it's " blaming the victim."
> 
> If I think that all woman are crooks who are only after my money and would steal my money if they get the chance no matter how " goody two shoes " they appear in public, then the only women I would attract would be crooks , because it is what I project.


That is how I read it. As blaming the victim. Blaming the victim is ALWAYS unconscious and unintended. What the poster's reply was

"A lot of your experiences are outside the norm for a lot of people, and it has certainly shaped the way you think, process, feel."

When I think about the places where I was assaulted. 

My college dorm room. Lock broken. Is college an inappropriate place to be?

The living room of a family friend. Is going out with my family inappropriate?

In my own apartment. Is renting an apartment an inappropriate thing for a female to do?

There are people who look at sex and sexuality in positive and healthy ways. And people who don't. The latter is going to affect the landscape for the former.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep, really sad that you guys really never be able to completely predict us, right?
> 
> See what you are calling reliable, is really just saying "she should reliably always want sex with you specifically". And I'm sorry to say it, but we really do want sex reliably with *certain* partners. Men will spend and make millions trying to figure out how to make us reliably want a specific guy...and we can and will feel that reliable desire...but when we try to tell you guys about it, the answer back to us is "don't listen to her, she doesn't know what she wants".


sorry, but no that is not what I'm talking about. Does not have anything to do with a woman wanting somone else or cheating or wanting to. The guy (e.g. husband) that she used to want badly and often, now does nothing for her....and she has no clue why. Thus the search for a female "viagra" is trying to find a pill that restores female desire. Whereas for men restoring desire itself was not the objective - it was restoring performance.


----------



## Deejo

I do think it is nearly impossible for a woman to comprehend the impact testosterone, or it's lack, can have on a man's sex drive.

There are a few women here that have experienced test spikes, SA in particular comes to mind, and it had a big impact on how they saw male sexuality subsequently.

But, arguably I would say MOST men, particularly young, active, healthy men, fall into the 'horny' category pretty much 24/7. Which is why having school, athletics, jobs or engaging activities is a good way to deflect those powerful sexual feelings. Although it's also no secret that testosterone levels have been falling for the last 50 to 60 years in North American males.

I just find this stuff interesting, because, well ... it is interesting.

I keep hearing about the concept of female viagra, and maybe it's me, but I see this as a misnomer. Something like 'Sex Chocolate' or 'Spanish Fly' sounds what they should be looking for. Something that fires the chemicals creating desire and arousal.

I take viagra. It has ZERO impact on my drive or desire. It's about the plumbing, not about the wiring. 

I don't know many folks who disagree with the notion that sex and intimacy is the canary in the coal mine in terms of monitoring a married couples 'happiness' with their marriage. 

No. Sex isn't all there is in marriage. But take it out of the equation and it doesn't leave a whole lot either.

In the case of women,


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> That is how I read it. As blaming the victim. Blaming the victim is ALWAYS unconscious and unintended. What the poster's reply was
> 
> "A lot of your experiences are outside the norm for a lot of people, and it has certainly shaped the way you think, process, feel."
> 
> When I think about the places where I was assaulted.
> 
> *My college dorm room. Lock broken. Is college an inappropriate place to be?
> 
> The living room of a family friend. Is going out with my family inappropriate?
> 
> In my own apartment. Is renting an apartment an inappropriate thing for a female to do?*
> 
> There are people who look at sex and sexuality in positive and healthy ways. And people who don't. The latter is going to affect the landscape for the former.


Not inappropriate in any of those circumstances, but I wasn't addressing specific incidents, but rather broader patterns of behavior and thought processes. Going along with CM's example...if he feels and believes women are generally out to take advantage of him financially, bemoans that feeling to women, behaves that way by not being willing to pay for a date, most of the women who are NOT like his preconceived notion are not going to be willing to pay for the sins of the women who made him feel and believe that way, and will move on...thus...Where have all the good ones gone?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> In the case of women,


Not fair! Now I am waiting on what you were going to say.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> I do think it is nearly impossible for a woman to comprehend the impact testosterone, or it's lack, can have on a man's sex drive.
> 
> There are a few women here that have experienced test spikes, SA in particular comes to mind, and it had a big impact on how they saw male sexuality subsequently.


Or my wife. A woman who's interest in sex disappeared almost overnight was suddenly throwing her stuff in a flat arc towards the couch, unbuttoning her blouse and kicking off her shoes the instant she came through the front door. And the change was again, virtually overnight. 

I'm not complaining. --Just bewildered at the (apparent) randomness of the swings.


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> Not fair! Now I am waiting on what you were going to say.


LOL! Wow ... total ADD moment.

Now I forget ...

In the case of women ... a few folks here have outlined my fundamental problem, and that shared by many, many, men.

That what was once readily on the menu and and performed with lust, love and gusto, suddenly, somehow, magically and mysteriously becomes gross, perverted, and disgusting.

I personally believe most of the time, it's tied to a partner ... and not that the partner has actually changed a whole lot at all, either for better or worse.

I just think it is something in the secret sauce of a woman's sexual chemistry, be it biological or otherwise that invariably makes her start wanting the strange with someone other than her partner. And that can be VERY hard for a male to come to terms with.

I posted recently that a woman I was dating flat out told me she felt anxious and under pressure when we were together about having sex ... despite the fact that I hadn't so much as nibbled her ear lobe, let alone thrown her up against a wall. She said those fated words, "Honestly, right now, I wouldn't care if I ever had sex again. And I don't think you'd be ok with that."

To which I responded, "And you'd be right!"

We had a good laugh about it, ate dinner, and that was the end of that. We'll stay friends.

I accept that a woman may feel compelled to say those words. And if she does, I am compelled to leave the relationship. Immediately. 

If we are in a relationship, sex isn't EVER something that I feel the need to negotiate, or jump through hoops for. Say the words, "I wouldn't care if I never have sex again ..." and I'm gone. Follow that up with "But I know it's important to you, and I do enjoy when you and I are intimate." And that at least tells me there may be something to work with.

Basically ... I'm done trying to figure out women's desire. And I don't say that with any snark or vitriol. More like simple self awareness.

I revel in her desire and try to foster it when I'm in a relationship. If it disappears, I no longer see any need to remain in the relationship.

And for me, it isn't just about 'getting a piece of ass'. Desire MUST be present, even if it's greatly reduced. The fire needs to keep burning.

I think that's what I was going to say ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sexuality of both men and women is much easier to understand if you remove your personal experience from it and understand that there is a scale of proclivity. A lot of people cling to the "but I always thought" or "I was taught that" and then the rest of the statement is erroneous. But if you were educated incorrectly, this means nothing to the natural world and you should shed those ideas immediately upon understanding they were wrong. Instead, people tend to be irritated that they were taught wrong and want to talk about that more than just talking about the real truth.


----------



## always_alone

My *only* point was that there is no irony in suggesting that men shouldn't feel entitled to a woman's body just because she is highly sexual. 

But it would be impossible to agree with that small point, because apparently it's just too horrendously PC for words, and since it is just so damn rare for men to ever do anything inappropriate, it must be the women who are to blame. They asked for it, don'tcha know, because that's how they expect men to behave.

Never mind the statistics, never mind the experiences or women all over the world. Never mind the attitudes that get reinforced over and over again, even in supposedly "friendly" places like TAM. Never mind that the fact that women's sexuality is so often used against them is one of the key reasons for hiding it behind a wall.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I just think it is something in the secret sauce of a woman's sexual chemistry, be it biological or otherwise that invariably makes her start wanting the strange with someone other than her partner. And that can be VERY hard for a male to come to terms with.


Why "secret sauce", and why difficult to understand? Isn't it exactly the same as a guy getting bored and wanting some strange?

So many seem to think that men are inclined to polygamy while women are inclined to monogamy.

Well, I got news for ya.


----------



## Redpill

Females programmed for monogamy? LOL. Ok, sure. Statistics show they cheat just as much as men. 

Listen, if you're at least 6 ft tall with a muscular or athletic build and bring in a six figure salary, then she'll stay faithful to you.

Otherwise, if you're an average white male working mon-fri 9-5 and bringing in a middle income, chances are you are too boring for little princess and if given the chance she will practice hypergamy and try to trade up. It is their biological nature.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Redpill, that is 100% true. A woman is going to throw you overboard for a better man, or rather, not really give you a chance to begin with...because "science" and "hypergamy". YEP! You better believe it!


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> My *only* point was that there is no irony in suggesting that men shouldn't feel entitled to a woman's body just because she is highly sexual.
> 
> But it would be impossible to agree with that small point, because apparently it's just too horrendously PC for words, and since it is just so damn rare for men to ever do anything inappropriate, it must be the women who are to blame. They asked for it, don'tcha know, because that's how they expect men to behave.
> 
> Never mind the statistics, never mind the experiences or women all over the world. Never mind the attitudes that get reinforced over and over again, even in supposedly "friendly" places like TAM. Never mind that the fact that women's sexuality is so often used against them is one of the key reasons for hiding it behind a wall.


Gender generalizations aren't gender specific. My experience with women, far more often than not are that they are to some degree financial users of men. That has been my personal experience, reinforced over and over. That is a huge reason why my partner count is so low, especially for a man my age.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But sam....the financial thing, does that really have to do with sexuality or not?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> But sam....the financial thing, does that really have to do with sexuality or not?


Gender based generalizations based one ones personal experiences...

And you asked a really complicated question didn't you? Sexual attraction, sexual attractivesness, money certainly can affect that for some people, but then you get into the issue of general attractiveness vs sexual attractiveness, as in 'They are attractive, but I don't want to have sex with them' and while those can be mutually exclusive, for some it is not. I can tell you for myself, that no matter how physically attractive she may be, if she sets of my money grubber spidey sense, I will not feel any desire to have sex with her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The desire or ability to steal is there for both genders. You have seen it directly from the female population toward the male population. But men do it to women, too (haven't you heard of all the online schemes?)

If you could separate that particular topic from sexuality and desire, it would be helpful. Because the motivation and desire to steal from each other is normal and natural, is present in nature, and is not gender specific.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

ntamph said:


> I think I'm at the level of maturity where I could discuss her sexual past if it were done so that we could both learn about each others wants. This is great communication.
> 
> I've read this many times by many different posters: *why would you want your partner to have never had good sex in their entire lives before you?*



good post. but my answer to bolded is

i. first off, strike the word "good" from the question.
ii. The answer then is - because you would never have to 'deal with' her sex life before you. Sometimes when one has an irrational fear of something, it's easiest if one never encounters that something. 

Men have some irrational thoughts and fears, can be compelling nonetheless. I think it's safe to say women have irrational thoughts/fears too.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

samyeagar said:


> I can tell you for myself, that no matter how physically attractive she may be, if she sets of my money grubber spidey sense, I will not feel any desire to have sex with her.



For me,if a man or woman sets off my pompous rich jerk who thinks he/she can own me spidey sense,I will not feel any desire to have sex with him/her.
It's an individual preference thing,not a gender specific preference thing. 

ETA,same goes for the money grubber vibe.Male or female...it doesn't matter.Keep your grubby little fingers off my hard earned cash if that's all you're after


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> The desire or ability to steal is there for both genders. You have seen it directly from the female population toward the male population. But men do it to women, too (haven't you heard of all the online schemes?)
> 
> If you could separate that particular topic from sexuality and desire, it would be helpful. Because the motivation and desire to steal from each other is normal and natural, is present in nature, and is not gender specific.


I understand what you are saying here, but it feels like you are nitpicking the non existant details of my broader point which was simply...

gender based generalities go both ways

Now, more specifically to what you said, the desire to use members of the opposite sex for their own personal gratification goes both ways as well...wait a minute...is that sort of the point of this thread?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

ocotillo said:


> Plethysmograph!


exactly what I meant to say


----------



## Faithful Wife

I thought the point of this thread was "the truth about female desire". Not "the truth about how both genders would rob each other blind if they could, because that's just nature". No?


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Sexuality of both men and women is much easier to understand if you remove your personal experience from it and understand that there is a scale of proclivity. A lot of people cling to the "but I always thought" or "I was taught that" and then the rest of the statement is erroneous. But if you were educated incorrectly, this means nothing to the natural world and you should shed those ideas immediately upon understanding they were wrong. Instead, people tend to be irritated that they were taught wrong and want to talk about that more than just talking about the real truth.


I love when you talk dirty.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I thought the point of this thread was "the truth about female desire". Not "the truth about how both genders would rob each other blind if they could, because that's just nature". No?


Agreed.

But didn't the source of this thread regarding womens desire basically come to the conclusion, "It's complicated."?

My bottom line, is that I don't believe there is any mysticism involved.

Nor is there a universal recipe to trigger it; particularly if it has already left the building.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> I thought the point of this thread was "the truth about female desire". Not "the truth about how both genders would rob each other blind if they could, because that's just nature". No?


No. The truth about female desire is that's it's not all that different from men. They are both after the same thing in the end.

The whole money thing came up as a counter point to the broad generalizations about men.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> I thought the point of this thread was "the truth about female desire". Not "the truth about how both genders would *FVCK* each other blind if they could, because that's just nature". No?


Is THAT closer to the correct conclusion?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo and Sam....you are two of my favorite guys here, and two natural sex gods, to boot.

But you are both still clinging a bit to your pasts and letting it color your ideas about women and women's sexuality.

I can promise you that if your lives were different and you weren't jilted, you would not be saying these things in quite the same way. If you could both step out from under your previous lives and just look at female sexuality as you understand it now while having actual SEX with highly sexual females, then I wouldn't still be gently rattling your cages.

Your past is behind you. If those events hadn't happened, you would be better off. Yet that still doesn't change female sexuality one whit. It has always been what you see now....wimmins be horny.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sam yes closer, but not "if they could"...rather "they DO" every day.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Redpill said:


> Females programmed for monogamy? LOL. Ok, sure. Statistics show they cheat just as much as men.
> 
> *Listen, if you're at least 6 ft tall with a muscular or athletic build and bring in a six figure salary, then she'll stay faithful to you.*
> 
> Otherwise, if you're an average white male working mon-fri 9-5 and bringing in a middle income, chances are you are too boring for little princess and if given the chance she will practice hypergamy and try to trade up. It is their biological nature.


Well, I'm all of those things and I question how much it mitigates adultery. Perhaps its appealing to women that are seeking those characteristics in the short term, but I'm not sure if it makes a difference long term. I don't honestly believe that my wife would cheat, but hypothetically speaking if it did happen I don't think it would be with someone like me. I guess my theory is the whole point of strange would be trying something different, not what you get everyday. That's why I can admit that I have insecurities about my wife hanging around with men that are the opposite of me. Ever heard of the term "affair down"? The other man is rarely a super stud on TAM. Anyways my point is nobody is safe, it can happen to anybody.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo and Sam....you are two of my favorite guys here, and two natural sex gods, to boot.
> 
> But you are both still clinging a bit to your pasts and letting it color your ideas about women and women's sexuality.
> 
> I can promise you that if your lives were different and you weren't jilted, you would not be saying these things in quite the same way. If you could both step out from under your previous lives and just look at female sexuality as you understand it now while having actual SEX with highly sexual females, then I wouldn't still be gently rattling your cages.
> 
> Your past is behind you. If those events hadn't happened, you would be better off. Yet that still doesn't change female sexuality one whit. It has always been what you see now....wimmins be horny.



It's a necessary paradox for me.

Without the past I experienced ... I don't find my unicorn.

Female sexuality isn't my problem or concern at all anymore. Trying to come to terms with my own was challenging enough.

I love the wimminz.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Gender generalizations aren't gender specific. My experience with women, far more often than not are that they are to some degree financial users of men. That has been my personal experience, reinforced over and over. That is a huge reason why my partner count is so low, especially for a man my age.


Oh my gawd, why is this always so bloody hard?

Obviously anyone can fling around a patently false generalization, but this was never my point, and I said so explicitly. Explicitly!

My *only* point is that it is neither ironic nor PC to recognize that a lot of women hide their sexuality because it has been used against them. Yes, we have the desire, but no you may not always see it because some of us are very cautious about how we display it or talk about it because we don't want to have to deal.with people who interpret us the wrong way.

Note to self: just learn to keep your mouth shut already. All that ever happens is you get misinterpreted and told what a hateful sow you are.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Without the past I experienced ... I don't find my unicorn.


I don't think so, my dear man. For yes, your past shaped you, as we all are shaped. BUT my point is, the only real diff between you and Sam and my hubby, is that my hubby was never jilted. So he knows what you guys had to over come stuff to know...he was "allowed" to know it without being jerked around first. He faced other challenges you guys didn't. But in sexuality, what he experienced was more pure and direct and not distracted by bad women who either stopped wanting sex, or who jilted him. Does that make sense?


----------



## Cosmos

Oldfaithful said:


> Just read for a while on here. Men want a highly sexual woman who hasn't had a lot of partners and has never had casual sex.


And those she has had must have been inferior lovers - preferably with micro penises. If not, she should lie, lie lie...


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh my gawd, why is this always so bloody hard?
> 
> Obviously anyone can fling around a patently false generalization, but this was never my point, and I said so explicitly. Explicitly!
> 
> My *only* point is that it is neither ironic nor PC to recognize that a lot of women hide their sexuality because it has been used against them. Yes, we have the desire, but no you may not always see it because some of us are very cautious about how we display it or talk about it because we don't want to have to deal.with people who interpret us the wrong way.
> 
> Note to self: just learn to keep your mouth shut already. All that ever happens is you get misinterpreted and told what a hateful sow you are.


I think you started it by completely misintrepreting my post to suit your past experiences.

What I clearly meant when Istated that the average man seeks to be PC around the " secret" of women's desire is that he forces himself to think that women don't desire sex as much and in the same way as men. He does that because he's asfraid thinking otherwise would make him look perverted.

And I clearly stated that SEVERAL times in my post.

And I think your stastements were also clear.
You feel that it's ok for you to use negative gender generalizations to broadbrush men , but somehow think that it's not politically correct for a man to do so to women.
I completely reject that in spite of whatever you've been through. Another guy might accept your double standard , but not me.

If you feel a certain way about men because of your past experience, then at least you can understand that some men might feel the same way about women because of their past experiences. If you want to be understood , then at least you can seek to understand and show some empathy to men who feel like you do to the opposite gender.

Is that too much to ask?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> If you feel a certain way about men because of your past experience, then at least you can understand that some men might feel the same way about women because of their past experiences. If you want to be understood , then at least you can seek to understand and show some empathy to men who feel like you do to the opposite gender.
> 
> Is that too much to ask?


Again, I explicitly stated that I was not judging all men. Explicitly! How much more explicit would you like me to be? I am not saying that all men are bad, I'm saying that being "PC" has real value in this world. Not for the sake of it, or because it's "supposed" to be that way, but because the important bits are about respecting other people.

And what I was responding to was your insinuation that anyone who uses the term "player" disparagingly or is concerned about men who "don't give a fvck about being politically correct" is somehow lacking in self awareness or of knowing what she wants as a woman.

When, fact is, those labelled as players or as those who "don't give a fvck" are the most likely candidates for acting disrespectfully, and most in need.of such lessons (as evidenced by the words and tactics of the players themselves), whereas those that truly do allow a woman to express he sexuality are *rarely* if ever called players or bad men. Just great lovers.



> The average man fears that he can shamed for being sexually aggressive, by women.
> He risks being called a " bad man" , simply because he expresses himself in a way that connects with with the inner desires of women who aren't even aware that such feelings existed inside of


But go ahead. I get it. My pigeon hole has been determined on this site already, and so everything I say is automatically about how much I judge and hate men, and how ridiculously PC and full of double standards I am. Got it. Thanks for listening.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Again, I explicitly stated that I was not judging all men. Explicitly! How much more explicit would you like me to be? I am not saying that all men are bad, I'm saying that being "PC" has real value in this world. Not for the sake of it, or because it's "supposed" to be that way, but because the important bits are about respecting other people.
> 
> And what I was responding to was your insinuation that anyone who uses the term "player" disparagingly or is concerned about men who "don't give a fvck about being politically correct" is somehow lacking in self awareness or of knowing what she wants as a woman.
> 
> When, fact is, those labelled as players or as those who "don't give a fvck" are the most likely candidates for acting disrespectfully, and most in need.of such lessons (as evidenced by the words and tactics of the players themselves)
> 
> 
> 
> But go ahead. I get it. *My pigeon hole has been determined* on this site already, and so everything I say is automatically about how much I judge and hate men. Got it. Thanks for listening.


You kind of have helped dig the hole a little bit yourself...


----------



## nuclearnightmare

always_alone said:


> Why "secret sauce", and why difficult to understand? Isn't it exactly the same as a guy getting bored and wanting some strange?
> 
> So many seem to think that men are inclined to polygamy while women are inclined to monogamy.
> 
> Well, I got news for ya.


actually that is the closest the book in question comes to a 'theory' on why the sex drive of (some) women cannot withstand years of sexual loyalty to their husband - monogamy. The hypothesis is (does have a little psych test data to back it up) that women's sexual desires are much more inflamed by the idea of sex with "a stranger" than men's are. I.e. rape fantasies involving a man she has never met...a real, bonafide stranger in an alley. Therefore, the reasoniong goes, the longer she is married to her husband the less 'strange' he becomes....i.e. he becomes the closest thing to the opposite of a stranger she has ever known. 
(note the 'need to maintain some distance between spouses' comment in the article at the very end. wow.....good luck with that. that's quite a conundrum for a marriage!)


----------



## always_alone

samy[B said:


> [/B]eagar;7843730]You kind of have helped dig the hole a little bit yourself...


Yes, well, it's true. I am rather unapologetic when arguing for principals that I believe in, and vociferous to boot.

But the whole man-hating, double standard thing is what really gets me, as I've never put forward these ideas, but am constantly accused of them. Indeed, I've tried to put forward ideas many times to knock down double standards or to demonstrate good qualities that men have, and these too are often interpreted as man-hating double standards.

I suppose I should really just give up?


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Yes, well, it's true. I am rather unapologetic when arguing for principals that I believe in, and vociferous to boot.
> 
> But the whole man-hating, double standard thing is what really gets me, as I've never put forward these ideas, but am constantly accused of them. Indeed, I've tried to put forward ideas many times to knock down double standards or to demonstrate good qualities that men have, and these too are often interpreted as man-hating double standards.
> 
> *I suppose I should really just give up*?


No not at all. Personally, I think you raise some very good points. The issue I have, and what rubs me the wrong way, and I suspect there are other men here who feel the same as I do, is that the brush you are painting with does not even come close to covering me. I understand you give your standard disclaimer about how you are not painting all men like that, but you do tend to get very worked up and go in that direction. I will admit that I do have a sensitivity to a lot of the things you say because I spent 20 years in a relationship with a narcissist and was constantly painted as something I wasn't.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Why "secret sauce", and why difficult to understand? Isn't it exactly the same as a guy getting bored and wanting some strange?
> 
> So many seem to think that men are inclined to polygamy while women are inclined to monogamy.
> 
> Well, I got news for ya.


I'm wired for monogamy. Oddly, I'm pretty sure this is why I haven't scored a long term partner yet. My standards got much higher after the failure of my marriage.

I used to believe that women were smarter, more emotionally in touch, more delicate, more committed, more loving and ... monogamous. I seriously believed if you loved a woman with all your heart she would love you back with all of hers. After all ... that's the fairytale.

I don't believe those things any more. Honestly? I really don't even know why I believed them in the first place.

I think your stuff is hard for me to read and get my head around because it is quite simply, absolutely and utterly alien to me. Just as you claim most of the men you know ARE the way you describe. Myself, and most of the men I know, ARE not.

Respect and dignity for the person I'm engaged or involved with is a no-brainer for me. It's standard operating procedure. The difference in my thinking now, is that she doesn't get those things by default. I don't treat anyone poorly, but if you want the best of me, you need to earn it.

I like you. Don't know why. Don't know you. I like the fight in you, even though I often don't understand it.

I no longer believe that women possess any of the qualities I indicated above, more so than their male counterparts. That includes the capacity for infidelity, lying, and outright malice.

Realizing this has been liberating, not constraining or depressing.

Humans are NOT monogamous. Trying to stick our foot into that shoe takes a lot of work from both sides to keep interest, trust, respect, desire, and sex something that each only wants from the other.

At the end of the day, that's what this site is all about. 

We DO want to be able to solve that equation. Regardless of how hurtful and ugly it can get at times. I don't think either gender has higher ground to stand on when it comes to causing emotional damage and pain to the other. All we can do is try to learn, and make better choices as a result.

My current GF's drive is without question higher than mine. I travel for work ... a lot. Right now, at best, we see each other 3 times a month.

Deep down we both know that isn't sustainable. Not for what either of us wants. And yes, I'm factoring in the level of her 'desire'. She wants sex. A lot. And she makes that very clear. Amen to that.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone, I know this is going to seem completely out of left field, but it just popped into my head...

What do you think of the fact that for the most part, my STBW breasts are my playground, that I reach out and grab them, touch them, fondle them pretty much when ever and how ever I please? Obviously not causing physical pain, or at socially unacceptable times, but also not with much regard to her sexual pleasure either?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sorry to speak for always alone but I don't think she will mind....

Sam, you are very far off base about where AA is coming from, based on even asking her that question. You seem to think she is talking about what goes on between a consensual couple is "wrong" and "bad" and "objectifying". 

She isn't.


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> always_alone, I know this is going to seem completely out of left field, but it just popped into my head...
> 
> What do you think of the fact that for the most part, my STBW breasts are my playground, that I reach out and grab them, touch them, fondle them pretty much when ever and how ever I please? Obviously not causing physical pain, or at socially unacceptable times, but also not with much regard to her sexual pleasure either?


I wonder what she would think of the fact that at random times in our house, if I was passing my wife in the corridor I would sometimes pin her against the wall, bodily whilst she tries to wriggle free?

I wonder what she would think if I told her that sometimes we pillofight or play wrestle each other down on the bed and sometimes I pin her down on the bed and we start making love?

Because that's part of my sexual dominance and aggression. 

And it's stuff we enjoy often.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry to speak for always alone but I don't think she will mind....
> 
> Sam, you are very far off base about where AA is coming from, based on even asking her that question. You seem to think she is talking about what goes on between a consensual couple is "wrong" and "bad" and "objectifying".
> 
> She isn't.


I knew you'd notice that, but I would have liked to have seen her make that explicit distinction herself.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> oldfaithful...Yes, that is true, men tend to think like that.
> 
> But I think this is changing. As the world is more open to a hookup culture, the men and women in that culture are realizing they just can't be all hung up about sex if they want it to flow freely between them. Younger people are pushing past some of our older ideas that were holding us back. I am sure they are creating their own whole set of problems to deal with, but at least one huge step forward will be made by the shedding of the shame coats we were all expected to wear. At least now, young men and women can openly proclaim to love and want sex. (The ones who are sexual anyway. There will still be a percentage of the population who isn't).


so this is a margin comment not completely on thread topic - but what exactly is so great about a/the hook up culture? I think of it as human beings gradually making the personal (sexual acts) impersonal. Perhaps you are using the term to make the other point, not advocating it per se......


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> I knew you'd notice that, but I would have liked to have seen her make that explicit distinction herself.


She will, I'm sure.

I personally don't know where you are getting the question from. If you read what she is saying, she is not talking about what happens consensually between adults as fun play time. :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

nuclearnightmare said:


> so this is a margin comment not completely on thread topic - but what exactly is so great about a/the hook up culture? I think of it as human beings gradually making the personal (sexual acts) impersonal. Perhaps you are using the term to make the other point, not advocating it per se......


If we want to understand true sexuality, we have to take morality out of the picture. That was the point of the book the OP started the thread with. Saying that a casual sex act must also necessarily be impersonal is applying morality to it.


----------



## Created2Write

Honestly, I see why AA is so frustrated with these conversations. She mentions how a guy once *broke into her room* at night on the assumption that it would turn her on and that she'd have sex with him, and that gets paired with a husband fondling his wife's breasts or pillowfighting and wrestling and then making love; that completely minimizes the very inappropriate and horrible behavior of the guy who broke into her room, and it also toxifies the natural and beautiful desires of a husband toward his wife.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry to speak for always alone but I don't think she will mind....
> 
> Sam, you are very far off base about where AA is coming from, based on even asking her that question. You seem to think she is talking about what goes on between a consensual couple is "wrong" and "bad" and "objectifying".
> 
> She isn't.


I'd have to agree with you there. I don't think she would take issue with what goes on between consenting adults. Not that this thread is about AA but I think the two main issues at least for me are that I interpret her posts as casting all men in the same box, and sometimes she has a tendency to tell men what's going on in their heads and often times it isn't accurate.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> She will, I'm sure.
> 
> *I personally don't know where you are getting the question from*. If you read what she is saying, she is not talking about what happens consensually between adults as fun play time. :scratchhead:


I do read what she has said, over a great many threads. She tends to paint with a very broad brush, though she is usually good about making the standard disclaimer, but it is quite obvious that her personal life experiences have colored her views on things. I think that the same advice you gave to Deejo and I earlier, letting go, could be very helpful to her as well.

In no way am I saying she doesn't raise valid points, and very good ones most of the time, that I actually agree with, but sometimes her approach and delivery make it very difficult to agree without it feeling like one is siding with the enemy.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> Honestly, I see why AA is so frustrated with these conversations. She mentions how a guy once *broke into her room* at night on the assumption that it would turn her on and that she'd have sex with him, and that gets paired with a husband fondling his wife's breasts or pillowfighting and wrestling and then making love; that completely minimizes the very inappropriate and horrible behavior of the guy who broke into her room, and it also toxifies the natural and beautiful desires of a husband toward his wife.


No. That incident was used as an example of what was wrong with average men. I'm not sure that is an example of anything but a very small portion of the male population and should have been presented as such.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> If we want to understand true sexuality, we have to take morality out of the picture. That was the point of the book the OP started the thread with. Saying that a casual sex act must also necessarily be impersonal is applying morality to it.




Yes to understand something it does often mean to keep ones persoanl beliefs, prejudices at bay. the book reinforces that idea. 

I , on the other hand, was just wondering if you were saying that the hook up culture is a positive thing for the world?
and please feel free to define any term you are using.


----------



## Faithful Wife

AA is a violent sexual abuse survivor. You are the survivor of an NDP wife. You had a choice. She did not. So yes, I do agree she has had such negative experiences that it has colored her world forever. But still....choice was not involved in her case. Therefore, for her to overcome her past is quite a different issue (though I think she is working through many things right here, right now).

AA is speaking for human rights.

Siding with her would be siding with "the enemy"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

nuclearnightmare said:


> Yes to understand something it does often mean to keep ones persoanl beliefs, prejudices at bay. the book reinforces that idea.
> 
> I , on the other hand, was just wondering if you were saying that the hook up culture is a positive thing for the world?
> and please feel free to define any term you are using.


Yes it is positive in the sense that it will reflect the true nature of us horny azz wimmins.

Whether it will benefit people personally or not, is individual.

The benefit to society will be that they will see that men and women are not actually sexually different.

Young women now are showing us just exactly that. Future generations will not have the ridiculous notion that women are "naturally monogamous". For that reason, yes, it is good, it is growth, because it is TRUTH.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> AA is a violent sexual abuse survivor. You are the survivor of an NDP wife. You had a choice. She did not. So yes, I do agree she has had such negative experiences that it has colored her world forever. But still....choice was not involved in her case. Therefore, for her to overcome her past is quite a different issue (though I think she is working through many things right here, right now).
> 
> AA is speaking for human rights.
> 
> Siding with her would be siding with "the enemy"?


Precisely. Too many people forget this and judge her quite harshly, which really plays along _with_ her experiences. I daresay if they'd walked in her shoes they would understand her perspective.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Created2Write said:


> Honestly, I see why AA is so frustrated with these conversations. She mentions how a guy once *broke into her room* at night on the assumption that it would turn her on and that she'd have sex with him, and that gets paired with a husband fondling his wife's breasts or pillowfighting and wrestling and then making love; that completely minimizes the very inappropriate and horrible behavior of the guy who broke into her room, and it also toxifies the natural and beautiful desires of a husband toward his wife.


Totally makes sense. I would never discredit someone who was a victim of assault. But, can you see the flip side. If you're not a man who who would assault a woman. You would have a very hard time seeing how sexual assault relates to a lot of these topics. I'm not trying to diminish anyone's life experiences, but if you are not the "creeper" you don't think like one. All you can say is I'm sorry for what happened to you. 

I'm not sure what you mean by toxifies the natural beauty of a husband towards a wife. Perhaps my wife and I are pervs but when it comes to the sexual part of our relationship its tilted more towards lust than romance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RH, Created meant that Sam's question in itself toxifies the man-woman consensual dynamic...not that AA's ideas do.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> AA is a violent sexual abuse survivor. You are the survivor of an NDP wife. You had a choice. She did not. So yes, I do agree she has had such negative experiences that it has colored her world forever. But still....choice was not involved in her case. Therefore, for her to overcome her past is quite a different issue (though I think she is working through many things right here, right now).
> 
> AA is speaking for human rights.
> 
> Siding with her would be siding with "the enemy"?


I understand all of that, and yes I had a choice, and the one I finally made has ended up with my NPD ex with custody of my kids, two of which have not spoken to me in over six months. Yes, it's different, though I would appreciate what I went through, and what I will continue to go through for the rest of my life not be marginalized by comparison.

Perhaps I should have chosen a different word from enemy...but I really do think she needs to tweak her communication style when she is trying to make points to people who are not already on the same page as she is.


----------



## Created2Write

ReformedHubby said:


> Totally makes sense. I would never discredit someone who was a victim of assault. But, can you see the flip side. If you're not a man who who would assault a woman. You would have a very hard time seeing how sexual assault relates to a lot of these topics. I'm not trying to diminish anyone's life experiences, but if you are not the "creeper" you don't think like one. All you can say is I'm sorry for what happened to you.


I absolutely see the flip side. And I'm sure it's unpleasant to feel like someone is implying that all or most men would assault women, however, when that person has said that they don't hold that view, it is then the responsibility of those reading to give them the benefit of the doubt. Then, instead of focusing on the emotion or writing style of that person, look at what they're actually saying. Because, until sexual assault is a thing of the past, it will always be relevant to these topics. 



> I'm not sure what you mean by toxifies the natural beauty of a husband towards a wife. Perhaps my wife and I are pervs but when it comes to the sexual part of our relationship its tilted more towards lust than romance.


That's not what I mean. My point was that, in asking AA whether or not she approved of a husband fondling his wife's breasts(what sam asked), and how she felt about pillow fights and playwrestling(like CM did) they were relating her horrific experiences to the natural sexual lives of husbands and wives. She is, clearly, not talking about those things and it's insulting to her and every woman who has suffered by minimizing her experiences in that way.

I wasn't referring to lust in marriage at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> I think that the same advice you gave to Deejo and I earlier, letting go, could be very helpful to her as well.


Sam...you said this to me in a previous post. I would not have drawn any comparison otherwise.

Yet there really is a difference between asking you to let go certain things and asking her to let go certain things. Sorry but, bad marriages don't really compare with rape.

Which in no way minimalizes your experience. They are not even close to the same experience. But you were the one who brought it up and that's the only reason I said anything about HER experience.


----------



## Deejo

Let's not make the thread about Always Alone. 

Unless we're talking about her desire for sweaty monkey sex, which she has alluded to without ever using the term 'sweaty monkey sex'.

That's all me ...


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> I understand all of that, and yes I had a choice, and the one I finally made has ended up with my NPD ex with custody of my kids, two of which have not spoken to me in over six months. Yes, it's different, though I would appreciate what I went through, and what I will continue to go through for the rest of my life not be marginalized by comparison.
> 
> Perhaps I should have chosen a different word from enemy...but I really do think she needs to tweak her communication style when she is trying to make points to people who are not already on the same page as she is.


From what I've seen, AA _has_ tweaked her communication style from even a year or two ago. Perhaps it's now others responsibility to change how they read her posts? Trauma is incredibly difficult to deal with because things that are glaringly obvious to the person who has gone through it are not always obvious to those who haven't. And when they don't see what is meant by the person who has endured the trauma, it creates a lot of anger and frustration that is next to impossible to ignore, thus making communication difficult. 

My trauma wasn't caused by anyone, and it certainly isn't on the same scale as AA's, so I'm not at all trying to compare our experiences. But I do understand her feelings, to a degree. I've had to explain and re-explain my perspective and experiences to people, and it makes me angry that I have to repeat myself so often because, to me, these things should be obvious. So please don't assume, and don't take her passion for this issue for bitterness.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

~Matthew 7:12 KJV.




Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.

~Confucius

If anyone wishes to reread my initial post on this thread, it is clear that I was speaking about CONSENSUAL SEX between adults.


----------



## Fozzy

Oh god, someone compared CM to Confucius earlier and now see what happens


----------



## ocotillo

Some days, I think we've all argued enough together that I'd like to invite you all to my house for a wine party so we could do it in style. 

(I guess you can tell that my wife and I have opened a bottle....)


----------



## Created2Write

Thanks CM, but I can read just fine.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fozzy said:


> Oh god, someone compared CM to Confucius earlier and now see what happens



Actually I was about to quote the fourth noble truth of Buddhism which deals with desire, it is quite fitting within the context of this thread.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> Some days, I think we've all argued enough together that I'd like to invite you all to me house for a wine party so we could do it in sytle.


Count me in!


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo, will there be free shoes? Because I'm a wh*re like that.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> ocotillo, will there be free shoes? Because I'm a wh*re like that.


Well there is a direct link from shoes to sexual desire over here. I have such a thing for heels, I love wearing them and especially like having sex while wearing them. 

I will pass on the wine as it is breakfast time here, might go shoe shopping instead.


----------



## ConanHub

always alone. Me, my mother and sisters were all victims of violent sexual assault. This thread wasn't about that and I was enjoying it. Hate your attackers and all the truly creepy men you have been around but don't take it out on the men on this board.

CM would probably rip the idiot in half that tried to help himself by breaking into your room. I know I would. But you seem to always target a man that I have never once seen promote rape or molestation of women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I think your stuff is hard for me to read and get my head around because it is quite simply, absolutely and utterly alien to me. Just as you claim most of the men you know ARE the way you describe. Myself, and most of the men I know, ARE not.


I'm sorry to have so thoroughly derailed this thread with my comment and further attempts to explain. Let me re-frame in a way that is closer to the spirit of this discussion:

Women have sexual desire; some have heaps of it, some less. 

Some, especially those who have had their sexuality used against them, will deliberately cloak this fact to protect themselves.

Some of those will get so used to the cloak, so comfortable in it, that their desire is wiped out completely.

Others might react in a different way, becoming extremely sexual. This reaction seems to be well-received by men, but can be thoroughly self-destructive for the woman.

And some women, who haven't had these negative experiences, or who have always been on good terms with their desires, have no trouble expressing them freely and in healthy ways.

To me this is an enviable position. Up until of course, they start wielding it as power to the detriment of others.

I'm *not* trying to say that all men ARE one way or the other, or even most men. I am saying that sexual assault and abuse are relevant to women's desire because it is common enough and has a huge impact on how a woman can experience her desire.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Sam...you said this to me in a previous post. I would not have drawn any comparison otherwise.
> 
> Yet there really is a difference between asking you to let go certain things and asking her to let go certain things. Sorry but, bad marriages don't really compare with rape.
> 
> Which in no way minimalizes your experience. They are not even close to the same experience. But you were the one who brought it up and that's the only reason I said anything about HER experience.


First off, unless you have been in a marriage with a woman who is NPD, and has gone though textbook parental alienation, watching your children turn into their NPD mother with no recourse, then to simply describe it as a bad marriage IS marginalizing it. In no way am I comparing it to what always_alone went through. They are very different things, but each extremely mentally and emotionally traumatic, the likes of which most people go through their lives never experiencing.

I did not bring up my boob grabbing example as a comparison or counter to sexual assault. I brought it up in the very broad sense of social conditioning and a stand alone starting point hence nothing was quoted along with it. Men have been condition to believe what I stated as my actions to be wrong, disrespectful, degrading, and objectifying, even in the confines of a committed relationship. Women have also been conditioned to believe that as well, hell, boob grabbing is the quintessential example of objectification behavior, along with butt grabbing, even in the confines of a committed relationship. I would imagine there are an awful lot of men out there that would love to behave as your husband and myself do, but their desire, their raw sexuality has to be suppressed lest the be labeled and objectifyer. I would imagine many of those men's wives want to welcome that behavior, but have been conditioned, and not just by men, but by women as well that letting a man do that is letting him objectify her, and so she has to suppress her sexuality and desires. Sexual suppression is not a women only thing, and to a large extent, your husband and I ARE men who said you know, fvck what is PC.


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> Some days, I think we've all argued enough together that I'd like to invite you all to my house for a wine party so we could do it in style.
> 
> (I guess you can tell that my wife and I have opened a bottle....)


I'll bring the 7 layer dip ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> I would imagine there are an awful lot of men out there that would love to behave as your husband and myself do, but their desire, their raw sexuality has to be suppressed lest the be labeled and objectifyer.


If you are talking about this in the context of marriage or a relationship, then to those men I would say, if you choose to stay, why are you complaining that this was "imposed" upon you? Simple as that.

It is a choice to stay married.

Whatever anyone's reasons are, it is still their choice. That's my opinion.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> *There are a few women here that have experienced test spikes, SA in particular comes to mind, and it had a big impact on how they saw male sexuality subsequently.*


 Yes.. I believe I REALLY REALLY REALLY "get it"....

I think my drive was higher at age 42 than my husbands was at 18... he *didn't* act the way I was.. he sure as heck had more patience and wasn't ALLLLL over me -like he was dying for it or couldn't keep his hands off of me -due to that antsy tension filled need.... My father was LIKE THIS -so my Mother tells me..

When I first came here...I was embarrassed to go on about this too much...seemed so OVER THE TOP.....didn't want to come off too Dirty, floozy, sex crazed (but I was!)...







.... I knew I had to devote myself to other areas on this forum to get some credibility .. but really all I could think about was SEX...and more SEX...

I came out of my shell a bit when *Mary35* did a thread about this - her insane drive messing with her head...after starting some synthetic hormones.. Boy I sure didn't need any of those! 

Then *I'mInLoveWithMyHubby* also did a thread on this.. I just let it hang out.. I had physical symptoms in addition....and it was 24/7 .... 

I found this NEED almost tormenting if it was not fulfilled..I lived around his erections... I also realized something..and it was a little scary.. I am BIG on not separating love & sex.. but I swear if I was single , this would have been thrown out the window...this also helped me see HOW MEN CAN FEEL THIS WAY IN THE SEXUAL... . The way I was feeling... Oh goodness... the whole cougar phenomenon....I GET IT.... yet such a lifestyle would have had the power to HURT me too.. because as Horny as I was... I was also basking in the emotional... during this...talk about intensity... God help my poor husband.. thinking he didn't desire me... I would start fights with him... I was so sensitive !

Thankfully he was HAPPY about this , wanted to ride that out a as long as he could...would take my Bad moments with the good...but IF he pushed me away during that spell... .ya know what.... I don't know.. I really don't know... 

My body & mind was on fire.. didn't need a drop of foreplay for 8 straight months.. he would complain my body temperature was







.....even my underarms smelled foul suddenly...like a teenage boys -needed clinical strength deodorant.... felt like I was on AIR..almost high, renewed Confidence.. hardly needed any sleep...all I wanted to do was FLIRT .. & get Laid... everything outside of SEX seemed HO HUM to me.. 

This was such a profound awakening experience for me..I want to believe I can ride the wings of it out -until I die.. that menopause will not take me down...as it seems it did ocotillo's wife... 



> *ocotillo said*: *Or my wife. A woman who's interest in sex disappeared almost overnight was suddenly throwing her stuff in a flat arc towards the couch, unbuttoning her blouse and kicking off her shoes the instant she came through the front door. And the change was again, virtually overnight.
> 
> I'm not complaining. --Just bewildered at the (apparent) randomness of the swings*.


 I wonder how long this lasted for her & if she felt *levels* to it....Like for me...I was in the sky for 8 months straight ....I'd attack him when he came home... be his stripper... Mrs Creativity...then I came down to a high rise building you might say... I was able to concentrate on OTHER things once again..& enjoy them.. ... needed foreplay again... yet I enjoyed having the brain in the gutter.. 

At this point, our drives were in sync...a blessing really... we like to keep it revived.. that was 5 yrs ago.. still going strong.



> *But, arguably I would say MOST men, particularly young, active, healthy men, fall into the 'horny' category pretty much 24/7. Which is why having school, athletics, jobs or engaging activities is a good way to deflect those powerful sexual feelings. Although it's also no secret that testosterone levels have been falling for the last 50 to 60 years in North American males*.


 I remember saying to my husband...







if this is what young men deal with, how in the hell do they get ANYTHING DONE...I couldn't understand how they could even study, being so distracted! 



> I keep hearing about the concept of female viagra, and maybe it's me, but I see this as a misnomer. Something like 'Sex Chocolate' or 'Spanish Fly' sounds what they should be looking for. Something that fires the chemicals creating desire and arousal.
> 
> *I take viagra. It has ZERO impact on my drive or desire. It's about the plumbing, not about the wiring*.


 This fact played on my mind so many times...Oh it was great...love the stuff...but I so wanted to UP his DRIVE with it....reading how sex is all in the mind -this up lifted my spirits... to do all I can to Trip his triggers...I had him taking horny goat weed, tried Tongkat ali for a time ..but this made his skin crawl...& he didn't want touched...that was the end of that !



Redpill said:


> *Females programmed for monogamy? LOL. Ok, sure. Statistics show they cheat just as much as men.
> 
> Listen, if you're at least 6 ft tall with a muscular or athletic build and bring in a six figure salary, then she'll stay faithful to you.
> 
> Otherwise, if you're an average white male working mon-fri 9-5 and bringing in a middle income, chances are you are too boring for little princess and if given the chance she will practice hypergamy and try to trade up. It is their biological nature*.


 Awe -just another perspective...Sex is Great..I need it.... but the things I look for in a man are not what you listed here ..IF I heard the man was this rich.. I would immediately think ...he is probably a workaholic with mounting temptation on the job given his looks , lifestyle and allure... No thanks..not my type....Muscular build - too much is a turn off for me... 

A working man who comes home every day, greets his wife with a kiss, listens to her.. is there for his family, responsible -honorable...who enjoys the simple things in life, understands a little Romance goes a long way....these are FAR more appealing to me.. and yeah..under the covers is very very important ....all we need is one willing CO** to play with. 



> *Deejo said*: *I used to believe that women were smarter, more emotionally in touch, more delicate, more committed, more loving and ... monogamous. I seriously believed if you loved a woman with all your heart she would love you back with all of hers. After all ... that's the fairytale*.


I still believe this about myself.... We got through the most turbulent of upped female desire.. we can look back &







.. it was a little crazy for a time...some fights along the way...yet it really was the best thing that's ever happened to us.. bringing us where we needed to be.. my loosing every inhibition, even taking the reins -his fantasies....and *F I N A L L Y* getting "the male sex drive" ..along with understanding the emotional aspect as well. 



> * I no longer believe that women possess any of the qualities I indicated above, more so than their male counterparts. That includes the capacity for infidelity, lying, and outright malice.
> 
> Realizing this has been liberating, not constraining or depressing.
> 
> Humans are NOT monogamous. Trying to stick our foot into that shoe takes a lot of work from both sides to keep interest, trust, respect, desire, and sex something that each only wants from the other.*


I believe we are wired *to Love and Be loved*...but we must be ever so careful here...to keep those fires burning for each other...to not allow apathy in, neglect, resentment, an emotional high driver feeling unloved & rejected...it's a dangerous place to be...better to be in touch with our demons...and transparent with our Lovers ...determined to wind every storm together....

Scientists are on to something with the Prairie Vole studies...

The science of love -Scientists are finding that, after all, love really is down to a chemical addiction between people


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> I knew you'd notice that, but I would have liked to have seen her make that explicit distinction herself.


I've made this distinction umpteen times. Never even said otherwise. 

Clearly a couple others have noticed this as well, so it's not like I'm making it up.


----------



## Deejo

Well, you brought it back around nicely.

And look, we're now even having snacks and wine at Ocotillo's. Things turned out fine.



always_alone said:


> I'm sorry to have so thoroughly derailed this thread with my comment and further attempts to explain. Let me re-frame in a way that is closer to the spirit of this discussion:
> 
> Women have sexual desire; some have heaps of it, some less.
> 
> Some, especially those who have had their sexuality used against them, will deliberately cloak this fact to protect themselves.
> 
> Some of those will get so used to the cloak, so comfortable in it, that their desire is wiped out completely.
> 
> Others might react in a different way, becoming extremely sexual. This reaction seems to be well-received by men, but can be thoroughly self-destructive for the woman.
> 
> And some women, who haven't had these negative experiences, or who have always been on good terms with their desires, have no trouble expressing them freely and in healthy ways.
> 
> To me this is an enviable position. Up until of course, they start wielding it as power to the detriment of others.
> 
> I'm *not* trying to say that all men ARE one way or the other, or even most men. I am saying that sexual assault and abuse are relevant to women's desire because it is common enough and has a huge impact on how a woman can experience her desire.


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> I would imagine many of those men's wives want to welcome that behavior, but have been conditioned, and not just by men, but by women as well that letting a man do that is letting him objectify her, and so she has to suppress her sexuality and desires. Sexual suppression is not a women only thing, and to a large extent, your husband and I ARE men who said you know, fvck what is PC.


Basically, this^^^ is what I meant in my first post about not giving a fcuk about being PC.

And in the context of this thread, which is very relevant, if some of us can remove our gender biases , we would see that it swings BOTH WAYS.

Both men and women who say fcuk PC run the risk of being labeled by society.
And that's part of the paradox which Dejoo mentioned earlier.

That's why I ended by saying that every man should seek to understand his woman's sexuality. It is a lifetime job because of sexual conditioning.
Also , what I think would help is understanding sexuality and seduction in other cultures.

Simple as that.


----------



## Deejo

You are my outlier SA. I still believe those things about you too. I admire your marriage.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I still believe this about myself.... We got through the most turbulent of upped female desire.. we can look back &
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. it was a little crazy for a time...some fights along the way...yet it really was the best thing that's ever happened to us.. bringing us where we needed to be.. my loosing every inhibition, even taking the reins -his fantasies....and *F I N A L L Y* getting "the male sex drive" ..along with understanding the emotional aspect as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sam....don't get me wrong. I have read a lot about NPD and actually do know TWO people who are going through a D from one right now. It is tragic and clearly has caused harm to you and your kids (and my friends and their kids). I never tried to draw a comparison, ok? You brought that up, not me. Again, please don't paint me as if I mean that your sitch wasn't a disaster, I understand it was and you'll never get that part of your life back.

But separately from that...since I'm not the one who EVER advocated that men should be all nicey nicey and not display their lust *in a relationship*, I'm not sure what you are getting at with your last post to me. Do you think I'm on that band wagon telling men to be celibate in marriages because they might be seen as too lusty? If you do think that, you really don't get me. Therefore, why would I have empathy about that message? I don't say it, I don't agree with it, and I don't endorse it. To any man in a sexless marriage I say he should decide for himself where his sexual life fits into his priorities. If he chooses to stay, I don't think he's weak, I just think he made a CHOICE. But if he made that choice in order to avoid being labeled "lusty", then I don't know why he would do that other than for his own poor misguided education. I don't advocate that at all.

If sex is a priority for you, match up with someone who has the same priority. If you don't, who is to blame for that?

"but I was always told that..."

"but I grew up thinking..."

"but it was drummed into my head that..."

And again I say, well, if you learned something that wasn't correct, the first step to correction is to look at the truth instead. Why keep going back to "but I was told..."


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> That's why I ended by saying that every man should seek to understand his woman's sexuality. It is a lifetime job because of sexual conditioning.
> Also , what I think would help is understanding sexuality and seduction in other cultures.
> 
> Simple as that.


I think THIS is the big takeaway for a man.

The woman who I was very attracted to, but had no interest in sex? I wasn't angry at her. It was PAINFULLY obvious. I could have jumped through hoops trying to 'flip her switch'. But either she was telling the absolute truth, or I'm simply not the guy that can do the flipping _for her_.

Since I had my own sexual epiphany, MOST of the women I meet are extremely sexual. And if they aren't, it becomes pretty obvious pretty quick, that it just isn't going to work. I have not yet had the opportunity to discover if that heightened sexuality will last over the long term. And I'm not complainin'.


----------



## tacoma

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> I find this article interesting. The truth about female desire: It’s base, animalistic and ravenous - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the book but it seems to refute many of the common mantras that are being repeated around everywhere including TAM about female desire.
> 
> Any thoughts about this?


I think this concept outlined in the review is on the money.

The attitude you speak of in our society is nothing more than sexual repression and it's social/cultural not biological.

My experience with women is that they really aren't any different than men in their sexual motivations, desires, and biological reactions than men once you get past the social conditioning.

The tragedy is most women will never know this about themselves because of how deeply ingrained it is in them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I think THIS is the big takeaway for a man.
> 
> The woman who I was very attracted to, but had no interest in sex? I wasn't angry at her. It was PAINFULLY obvious. I could have jumped through hoops trying to 'flip her switch'. But either she was telling the absolute truth, or I'm simply not the guy that can do the flipping _for her_.


And this right there is another point I touched in my opening post. EVERY woman has that switch in her that can be flipped.
My words were " _every woman has an inner she devil._

With some women it takes a lot more work than others because of their psychosexual issues and other [ important ]peripherals.

The problem with some men is that they are conditioned to believe that if they jump through all of those hoops you mention, it would magically " flip the switch" and the old she devil manifests itself again.
That's the " PC " approach.

It NEVER works like that.

And other men simply find themselves trapped with no more moves and divorce is not a pleasant or easy option.
Checkmate.


----------



## tacoma

Just an idea.

Perhaps this is where that old gem "She never says what she wants" comes from.

Perhaps this sexual conditioning is why men are often confused about women sexually.

It's because they themselves are confused by the dissonance between what their bodies tell them they want and what their social indoctrination tells them they want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Does the misunderstanding have to be someone's "fault"? Or could it just be that we were all doing the best we could with what we knew and had at the time? The truth is what it is, no matter what we are taught. Taught that the world is flat? Makes no difference to the round world.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> If you are talking about this in the context of marriage or a relationship, then to those men I would say, if you choose to stay, why are you complaining that this was "imposed" upon you? Simple as that.
> 
> It is a choice to stay married.
> 
> Whatever anyone's reasons are, it is still their choice. That's my opinion.


Well the custody arrangement was imposed on him. If she is a real N P D she is nothing less than a monster, and will be imposing things and schemes on him for the rest of his life. I think it is better to acknowledge that both individuals in question have suffered and leave it at that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

nuclear...sam and I are friends and I trust he knows I was not dismissing or downplaying HIS sitch with HIS NPD wife. I have reached out to him on lots of stuff over the past couple of years (and he has helped me on many things, too). 

My talking about choosing to stay is a general statement about anyone choosing to stay for any reason.

I myself am divorced once already over a sexless marriage. I've been through a wringer, too. I haven't discussed it here, but trust me, I'm scarred and I get it, too. I had to choose to stay or leave as well and struggled over many of the same issues that are discussed here all the time. I had to face down my own bad learning and unlearn it. I haven't been handed some easy road laid in gold to walk.


----------



## Fozzy

For clarification--can someone please tell me what NPD stands for? I tried google but no help...


----------



## Faithful Wife

narcissistic personality disorder


----------



## nuclearnightmare

well I'll try to steer myself back into focus on the subject of this thread. My bottom line is that female desire appears to be about as understandable as the Big Bang. It can be studied and progress can be made but we- humankind- are not there yet. Therefore there is as yet no option to simply learn "the truth"about it. The truth is not yet known.....


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> narcissistic personality disorder


thank you!


----------



## 12345Person

There's nothing to study.

Women **** strangers
Women like strange
Women use guys for sex
Women also dumpster dive once or twice in their life
Women fantasize about threesomes (mostly M-M-F)
Women also love public sex

etc

It's really no different. Complicating the matter is mostly because a lot of guys don't want to think women think just like them. A bit scary for them, I guess.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> Does the misunderstanding have to be someone's "fault"? Or could it just be that we were all doing the best we could with what we knew and had at the time? The truth is what it is, no matter what we are taught. Taught that the world is flat? Makes no difference to the round world.


Not initially but now we know better.

To use your planetary analogy, to believe that female sexually is naturally biologically repressed in this day and age is akin to continuing to believe the Earth is flat in 2014.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anonymous, Yep. That's the truth and it has always been the truth. It is also the truth for men. What we believe about it makes no difference. However if you believe it is the way it really is, a lot of things make more sense in your personal life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tacoma said:


> Not initially but now we know better.
> 
> To use your planetary analogy, to believe that female sexually is naturally biologically repressed in this day and age is akin to continuing to believe the Earth is flat in 2014.


Sure. But I don't believe that so...your point?


----------



## tacoma

Anonymous Person said:


> It's really no different. Complicating the matter is mostly because a lot of guys don't want to think women think just like them. A bit scary for them, I guess.


While this is true I believe that for many women the thought that their sexuality is on par with that of a males is even scarier to them than it is to the men who hold this belief.

Considering the state of female sexuality among many teens and twentysomethings today I don't think this belief is going to survive more than another generation or two.

I know I'm doing all I can to make certain it's not worming it's way into my daughters mind but it's difficult to be the sole rational voice amongst a horde of screaming dogmatics.

I find myself contradicting her mother about this quite often.

Luckily my kid is a pretty rational critical thinker and objective evidence isn't hard to find to present to her.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure. But I don't believe that so...your point?


My point is that to continue to teach our daughters that their sexuality is some gilded prize that needs to be earned is ethically wrong because we now know better.

To teach them that their sexuality is somehow different in general because they're female is ethically wrong because now we know better.

To teach them that their perfectly natural and normal sexuality is somehow perverse is bordering on abuse in this day and age.

To intentionally stigmatize someone to believe they are somehow wrong or bad because they feel natural biological desires is ignorant at best.
Life demeaning at worst.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I totally agree, and I raised two awesome sex positive kids, a boy and a girl.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Another assertion that women and men are "the same" in some respect, probably to be refuted at some point in the future IMO.
just more dogma....


----------



## tacoma

nuclearnightmare said:


> Another assertion that women and men are "the same" in some respect, probably to be refuted at some point in the future IMO.
> just more dogma....


We are much more the same sexually than we are different.

We are driven by the same motivators on a biological level.


----------



## over20

I feel that because women can be multi orgasmic in a shorter amount of time than men, means women are made to be even MORE sexual than men....which is AWESOME but not PC, also adding to the fact that we can cum from our G-spots and clxts in possibly one same sex session.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anonymous Person said:


> *There's nothing to study.
> 
> Women **** strangers
> Women like strange
> Women use guys for sex
> Women also dumpster dive once or twice in their life
> Women fantasize about threesomes (mostly M-M-F)
> Women also love public sex
> 
> etc
> 
> It's really no different. Complicating the matter is mostly because a lot of guys don't want to think women think just like them. A bit scary for them, I guess*.





> *Faithful wife said*: *Anonymous, Yep. That's the truth and it has always been the truth. It is also the truth for men. What we believe about it makes no difference. However if you believe it is the way it really is, a lot of things make more sense in your personal life.*


So what if some of us do NOT fall into the subset who Do & want what is on this list, are WE looked at -as repressed - and not in touch with our sexuality? 

I don't know what dumpster diving means ?? ... but none of these are true for me or my H....neither would do a stranger, we wouldn't feel right about USING someone for sex (nor do I feel this is a hang up)....never fantasized about 3 somes (neither has H)....and believe me, I do not hold back on the fantasy life- mine are only man/woman -period)....for him... it's Us or a "solo woman".. (Yes...he is very tame)....

And he'd never dare do Public sex...nor would I....maybe off the beaten path in the woods ...but never where people are in close proximity where one could get caught.

Fantasizing about some strange...it happens...I like porn..

I get the feeling on threads like this and so many others that those who hold older fashioned views on this ...we don't belong here.. it's like we all want to see the day come where our teens should drop their drawers -praise the pleasure... no shame...do it liberally , freely with whomever.. REALLY ??? ...This is good??

I do not agree at all.. I feel there is a time and a place.. our young people do not make wise choices .and they FU** their lives up good with free peace loving sex.. but I am sure I am only seen here as one holding back Progress with my views... 

Sexual boundaries...self control in the midst of raging hormones thinking of the other person... too much of this IS missing in society today.... If some of us still see Sex as a very special GIFT (this word appears to offend many so I have learned on this forum)... between 2 people in love..... this does not make one repressed or living in the dark ages or Grandma's time...to still believe and cherish such things..


----------



## 12345Person

SimplyAmorous said:


> So what if some of us do NOT fall into the subset who Do & want what is on this list, are WE looked at -as repressed - and not in touch with our sexuality?
> 
> Did you not say that if you were single, you would throw LOVE & SEX out for a minute or two? Even if you don't do the things on the list, doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy them or try them if the right circumstances came along. And it doesn't mean you are "repressed" if you dislike them, even.
> 
> I don't know what dumpster diving means ?? ... but none of these are true for me or my H....neither would do a stranger, we wouldn't feel right about USING someone for sex (nor do I feel this is a hang up)....never fantasized about 3 somes (neither has H)....and believe me, I do not hold back on the fantasy life- mine are only man/woman -period)....for him... it's Us or a "solo woman".. (Yes...he is very tame)....
> 
> Dumpster diving is when you **** someone way below your preferences because of the circumstances.
> 
> There's a chance you and your husband have tame fantasies because of your upbringing and relationship? What do you think?
> 
> And he'd never dare do Public sex...nor would I....maybe off the beaten path in the woods ...but never where people are in close proximity where one could get caught.
> 
> Fantasizing about some strange...it happens...I like porn..
> 
> You should try it, it's really hot. Imagine ****ing your husband in the baseball park at 1:00 in the morning as it's raining. If you want to get away with it, go to a poor neighborhood as nobody gives a single **** there.
> 
> I get the feeling on threads like this and so many others that those who hold older fashioned views on this ...we don't belong here.. it's like we all want to see the day come where our teens should drop their drawers -praise the pleasure... no shame...do it liberally , freely with whomever.. REALLY ??? ...This is good??
> 
> It's already happening, actually. Even in middle school kids are experimenting and trying out new things. PLEASE don't ask how I know.:rofl:
> 
> I do not agree at all.. I feel there is a time and a place.. our young people do not make wise choices .and they FU** their lives up good with free peace loving sex.. but I am sure I am only seen here as one holding back Progress with my views...
> 
> Of course kids should be educated on their choices, but that doesn't necessarily lead to abstaining from a bountiful sex life with many different partners and experiences.
> 
> Sexual boundaries...self control in the midst of raging hormones thinking of the other person... too much of this IS missing in society today.... If some of us still see Sex as a very special GIFT (this word appears to offend many so I have learned on this forum)... between 2 people in love..... this does not make one repressed or living in the dark ages or Grandma's time...to still believe and cherish such things..
> 
> You never wish you could have sex with other men or see how other guys feel like? Because I assure there's a difference between one guy to the next and the experiences can greatly differ. One day you're handcuffing a scrawny teenager and the next you're being pinned on the wall by a large man. Mwahahaha. :smthumbup::rofl:
> 
> I'm not advocating that you cheat on your husband, btw. Just giving you insight as to why some people spent a good portion of their lives trying out different partners. It can be very fulfilling if you know what you're getting into.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The truth about female desire*



SimplyAmorous said:


> So what if some of us do NOT fall into the subset who Do & want what is on this list, are WE looked at -as repressed - and not in touch with our sexuality?
> 
> I don't know what dumpster diving means ?? ... but none of these are true for me or my H....neither would do a stranger, we wouldn't feel right about USING someone for sex (nor do I feel this is a hang up)....never fantasized about 3 somes (neither has H)....and believe me, I do not hold back on the fantasy life- mine are only man/woman -period)....for him... it's Us or a "solo woman".. (Yes...he is very tame)....
> 
> And he'd never dare do Public sex...nor would I....maybe off the beaten path in the woods ...but never where people are in close proximity where one could get caught.
> 
> Fantasizing about some strange...it happens...I like porn..
> 
> I get the feeling on threads like this and so many others that those who hold older fashioned views on this ...we don't belong here.. it's like we all want to see the day come where our teens should drop their drawers -praise the pleasure... no shame...do it liberally , freely with whomever.. REALLY ??? ...This is good??
> 
> I do not agree at all.. I feel there is a time and a place.. our young people do not make wise choices .and they FU** their lives up good with free peace loving sex.. but I am sure I am only seen here as one holding back Progress with my views...
> 
> Sexual boundaries...self control in the midst of raging hormones thinking of the other person... too much of this IS missing in society today.... If some of us still see Sex as a very special GIFT (this word appears to offend many so I have learned on this forum)... between 2 people in love..... this does not make one repressed or living in the dark ages or Grandma's time...to still believe and cherish such things..


Its hard to argue with results SA, and you have very good results.

I don't want my daughter treating sex like holding hands with someone. Nor do I want to send the message that she is a bad person for being sexual. I see no issue with conveying the concept of sex as you outline it to a young person. Nothing wrong with describing it as a special gift that needs to be considered to whom it is given. I think conveying the notion of boundaries and respecting the boundaries of others is very important.

My perspective about sex is solely within the parameters of adult sexuality. Specifically, post-divorce, adult sexuality. The rules, my rules now, are very very different than my perspective was 30 years ago.

If for purely hypothetical reasons, you were single and all your kids were out of the house now, would you approach sex in the same way you did when you met your husband, based upon your experience with, and desire for sex now?


----------



## 12345Person

Deejo said:


> If for purely hypothetical reasons, you were single and all your kids were out of the house now, would you approach sex in the same way you did when you met your husband, based upon your experience with, and desire for sex now?






SimplyAmorous said:


> I found this NEED almost tormenting if it was not fulfilled..I lived around his erections... I also realized something..and it was a little scary.. I am BIG on not separating love & sex.. but I swear if I was single , this would have been thrown out the window...this also helped me see HOW MEN CAN FEEL THIS WAY IN THE SEXUAL... . The way I was feeling... Oh goodness... the whole cougar phenomenon....I GET IT.... yet such a lifestyle would have had the power to HURT me too.. because as Horny as I was... I was also basking in the emotional... during this...talk about intensity... God help my poor husband.. thinking he didn't desire me... I would start fights with him... I was so sensitive !


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> nuclear...*sam and I are friends and I trust he knows I was not dismissing or downplaying HIS sitch with HIS NPD wife.* I have reached out to him on lots of stuff over the past couple of years (and he has helped me on many things, too).
> 
> My talking about choosing to stay is a general statement about anyone choosing to stay for any reason.
> 
> I myself am divorced once already over a sexless marriage. I've been through a wringer, too. I haven't discussed it here, but trust me, I'm scarred and I get it, too. I had to choose to stay or leave as well and struggled over many of the same issues that are discussed here all the time. I had to face down my own bad learning and unlearn it. I haven't been handed some easy road laid in gold to walk.


Of course we are FW, and I know you aren't 

I would have to go back and dig again, but what sent me off on the derailment was what seemed to me to be the implication that women were the only ones who had to suppress sexuality, lest they receive a label. And that is simply not true.

Part of my journey to where I am right now...from the very beginning of my personal sexual awakening when I was very young, I realized immediately that not all women were like the conventional wisdom, but surely the ones I knew in a sexual way were outliers right? My first was a sexual dynamo, even at the young age of 16. She already knew how to orgasm in different ways, and not just solo, but with men. She was the one who approached me from the very beginning. She had no idea at the time that she was my first, and I will never forget her reaction when she found out. She laughed at me, not because I had been a virgin as I originally thought, but because things had been so effortlessly good. Then as I became older, met more women, learned their sexuality, my experience with more and more data points told me that maybe the conventional wisdom was the actual outlier. Sure seemed that way in my personal experience.

My ex-wife was also extremely sexual, though in the NPD abusive way. When my STBW started learning more details about my past sex life with my ex, my STBW did start pressing a bit once she started realizing that her assumptions were wrong. We had a pretty heated discussion about some things, but one simple statement from me stopped that in it's tracks. I told her to think about everything she knew of my ex wife and how she behaves, and that didn't stop at the bedroom door.

The sexual aspects of being in a relationship with an NPD woman are often overlooked in favor of the extreme emotional, mental, and financial cruelty they lay on their victims. It is well documented that male NPD's often have a sexual addiction along with it, but from my personal experience, I think female NPD's are not so different from their male counterparts in the sex department.

Things with my STBW are pretty well documented here, but I will add that she is pretty much the opposite of the conventional wisdom, but her sexuality didn't catch me off guard because she fell in line with my own personal experience. What did catch me off guard was the sheer intensity of her drive and desire for me.

From the beginning, I knew that I didn't fit with the conventional wisdom about men. Yes, I was always horny, but my desire was always more focussed. I never went through a time where I wanted to bang anything with a pulse. Not to toot my own horn, but I was never the stereotypical bumbling male lover. Always loved the foreplay, the afterglow, the whole experience, and have always been able to read my partners. I had to hide parts of my sexuality or else I would have been labeled gay, a wuss, and not just by men. I was friend zoned by a lot of women because I didn't think and act the part of how men should act. Of course, I had already friend zoned them so there was no hurt, but it was certainly an interesting observation.

My STBW is having to unlearn so much about what she knew about men, but like me, her thoughts were formed by personal experience, and in her experience, men were the absolute worst parts of the stereotypes. This unlearning process for her has had its bumps in the road, but at the same time, she is discovering in herself a sexual beast that she always knew was there, but couldn't understand, and could never figure out how to express fully.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Unless we're talking about her desire for sweaty monkey sex, which she has alluded to without ever using the term 'sweaty monkey sex'.
> 
> That's all me ...


Not sure it would be sweaty monkey sex that I'm after. It's true they're not shy about doing it in public, which can be pretty thrilling, but from what I've seen it's pretty much the same position over and over again, and they often look bored, picking at their nails or checking out the scenery.

Not that I'm an expert, but can't say I get the fascination. :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA, you know I love ya. But when I'm talking about overall theory, it isn't always about you personally. Sometimes you will not be able to fit yourself into what I'm saying, and that doesn't mean I'm saying something against you or about you.

I personally do not feel it is "wrong" to have sex with a lot of people. Trying to make it right or wrong is making a morality statement, and I simply don't have that kind of morals. I do not think sex is "wrong" when it is consensual (and between adults). So my adult kids have both had a whole lotta sex, they are both well adjusted, one of them is married now, and the other one is happily having as much sex and fun as he wants to until he settles down, too. I realize this would not be what you want for your kids....I'm sorry, but it doesn't bother me at all. I am happy for my kids. They are safe and sexual and not ashamed of their lifestyle.


----------



## samyeagar

tacoma said:


> My point is that to continue to teach our daughters that their sexuality is some gilded prize that needs to be earned is ethically wrong because we now know better.
> 
> To teach them that their sexuality is somehow different in general because they're female is ethically wrong because now we know better.
> 
> To teach them that their perfectly natural and normal sexuality is somehow perverse is bordering on abuse in this day and age.
> 
> To intentionally stigmatize someone to believe they are somehow wrong or bad because they feel natural biological desires is ignorant at best.
> Life demeaning at worst.


While I agree that there is nothing inherently special about female sexuality when compared to a mans, that it shouldn't be pedistalized, I do wonder how much that mindset helps in someways to protect women from a societal point of view? I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I am likely to anyway.

Take rape. From a societal stand point, it is viewed as one of the most heinous acts, sometimes worse than murder. I understand that the boys will be boys, she was asking for it, mindsets still exist, but could that be indicative of a divide in viewpoints regarding female sexuality? Those that subscribe to that mindset place little or no value on it? While the ones who view rape as the horrible crime it is are the ones who pedistalize female sexuality?

I see that as a very fine line, and I do think societaly we are in the middle of a turning point, a transition, and I think that is part of the root of some of the confusion. Women and men are both still taught that a womans sexuality is a prize, something to be earned, cherished, a badge of honor if you capture it, but at the same time it is being taught to both men and women that it is something to be given freely, on a whim if she wants, that she rightfully has control of it herself...the thing is, it's only valuable if SHE places value on it, and should not be assumed to have any intrinsic value simply because she is a woman. That power should be hers, and not societies.

Hell, look at my own wording...female sexuality is something given by women, and taken by men...sheesh...


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> It's because they themselves are confused by the dissonance between what their bodies tell them they want and what their social indoctrination tells them they want.


Most women I know are perfectly clear on what they want. Just because they choose not to be sexual with a given guy at a given time doesn't mean they don't know their own sexuality or are sitting around waiting for a guy to figure out how to unlock it.

I have struggled with my desires, but only because I had more than was possible for me to share in my particular circumstances. No doubt I hid that desire from others, but I always knew it was there and exactly why I was hiding it. No one could have "unlocked" it. I chose who I was willing to be with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> I see that as a very fine line, and I do think societaly we are in the middle of a turning point, a transition, and I think that is part of the root of some of the confusion. *Women and men are both still taught that a womans sexuality is a prize, something to be earned, cherished, a badge of honor if you capture it, but at the same time it is being taught to both men and women that it is something to be given freely, on a whim if she wants, that she rightfully has control of it herself...the thing is, it's only valuable if SHE places value on it, and should not be assumed to have any intrinsic value simply because she is a woman. That power should be hers, and not societies.*


:iagree:

The part underlined is the " catch 22 " lots of women get confused about.
Society tends to push and pull people in all sorts of weird directions , pretending to empower you by stripping you of the right to your own thoughts.
If you don't " get with the crowd" then you are ostracized.

Lol, 
That's why I like freethinkers.
Too bad they're just a tiny minority.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also SA....I'm going to use you for an example and I hope you'll forgive me but this is honestly how I feel...

I know you and your H have gone to strip clubs. But I'm pretty sure you both also judge those strippers as immoral and wouldn't want your kids to date one or be one. So you are happy that someone makes immoral sexuality choices so that you can use them ala carte when you want to for your own purposes, but you also feel superior to them. This, to me, is a wide double standard.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Take rape. From a societal stand point, it is viewed as one of the most heinous acts, sometimes worse than murder. I understand that the boys will be boys, she was asking for it, mindsets still exist, but could that be indicative of a divide in viewpoints regarding female sexuality? Those that subscribe to that mindset place little or no value on it? While the ones who view rape as the horrible crime it is are the ones who pedistalize female sexuality?


Rape is heinous whether committed against a man or a woman. It's heinous-ness (heinosity?) isn't about pedestalizing sex in either case, it's about violating a person, invading their autonomy, harming them physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Torture is also heinous for the same sorts of reasons. And if anything makes these two crimes worse than murder, it's simply that the victim must continue to live with the devastating consequences. 

The boys will be boys mentality utterly trivializes what rape and sexual assault are and do, and is a repugnant attitude. When someone rapes a boy, does anyone *ever* say this?


----------



## Faithful Wife

always...they do say that in the gay community when a man is raped.

I think rape will always be trivialized by those who perpetuate the conditions for it.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> The part underlined is the " catch 22 " lots of women get confused about.
> Society tends to push and pull people in all sorts of weird directions , pretending to empower you by stripping you of the right to your own thoughts.
> If you don't " get with the crowd" then you are ostracized.


Men are equally confused, IMHO, on one hand trying to live up to the expectation that they are unfeeling d!cks on legs needing to stick it into as many holes as humanly possible, and on the other trying desperately to fill the emotional void that this attitude creates.


----------



## 12345Person

always_alone said:


> Men are equally confused, IMHO, on one hand trying to live up to the expectation that they are unfeeling d!cks on legs needing to stick it into as many holes as humanly possible, and on the other trying desperately to fill the emotional void that this attitude creates.


Post of the year.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> always...they do say that in the gay community when a man is raped.
> 
> I think rape will always be trivialized by those who perpetuate the conditions for it.


Ugh. Really? Ugh.

Well in either case it's horribly misguided to trivialize it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Anonymous Person said*:* Did you not say that if you were single, you would throw LOVE & SEX out for a minute or two? Even if you don't do the things on the list, doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy them or try them if the right circumstances came along. And it doesn't mean you are "repressed" if you dislike them, even*.


Gotta run somewhere... but I do want to get back to this .. yes I described my FEELINGS in this... how it was tormenting...if I had not been married at the time... but at the same time.. I also said those feelings frightened me.. it was NOT the way I have ever been or felt before.. I don't think we should always give in to our lusts.. after all some of us may be 500 lbs if we did.. You know what I mean.. I can eat chocolate all darn day --but it isn't good for me..

gotta run.


----------



## tacoma

samyeagar said:


> While I agree that there is nothing inherently special about female sexuality when compared to a mans, that it shouldn't be pedistalized, I do wonder how much that mindset helps in someways to protect women from a societal point of view?


You're absolutely right about it protecting women from a societal viewpoint but the kicker is that it's the societal viewpoint that makes that protection necessary in the first place.
It's completely circular and repressive as hell.
"Act in the way society demands or society will punish you."

It's evil genius really.
Getting out of this loop requires those repressed members to endure pain/damage in order to break the cycle.
That's what feminism is/was for.



> I see that as a very fine line, and I do think societaly we are in the middle of a turning point, a transition, and I think that is part of the root of some of the confusion. Women and men are both still taught that a womans sexuality is a prize, something to be earned, cherished, a badge of honor if you capture it, but at the same time it is being taught to both men and women that it is something to be given freely, on a whim if she wants, that she rightfully has control of it herself...the thing is, it's only valuable if SHE places value on it, and should not be assumed to have any intrinsic value simply because she is a woman. That power should be hers, and not societies.


Agreed, we are in the midst of a sexual evolution and there is going to be some confusion and pain before we find ourselves on the other side.



> Hell, look at my own wording...female sexuality is something given by women, and taken by men...sheesh...


It ain't easy is it?


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Most women I know are perfectly clear on what they want. Just because they choose not to be sexual with a given guy at a given time doesn't mean they don't know their own sexuality or are sitting around waiting for a guy to figure out how to unlock it.


We run in different circles AA.
I live in a very conservative environment.

My next door neighbors eldest daughter got married a few years ago.
Her and her husbands first kiss happened on the altar after they took their vows.

I'm also speaking from the point of view over time.

When I was just starting out in my dating life (teens) the vast majority of women I became involved with did indeed have no clue about their own sexuality.
The dissonance I mentioned earlier was the norm and a sexually open, enlightened woman was a very rare treat.

Of course we have come a long way from that time but a great number of women still hold vestiges of this repressive time.

It's going the way of the Dodo but we aren't there yet.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Men are equally confused, IMHO, on one hand trying to live up to the expectation that they are unfeeling d!cks on legs needing to stick it into as many holes as humanly possible, and on the other trying desperately to fill the emotional void that this attitude creates.


Most definitely.

It's a wonder we (men and women) can have meaningful sincere relationships with each other at all.


----------



## Runs like Dog

So 210 posts later and no one's any closer to understanding why how when if about the female libido, least of all the women here.

I think you've answered your own question in the negative.


----------



## Fozzy

SimplyAmorous said:


> So what if some of us do NOT fall into the subset who Do & want what is on this list, are WE looked at -as repressed - and not in touch with our sexuality?
> 
> 
> I get the feeling on threads like this and so many others that those who hold older fashioned views on this ...we don't belong here.. it's like we all want to see the day come where our teens should drop their drawers -praise the pleasure... no shame...do it liberally , freely with whomever.. REALLY ??? ...This is good??


I get what you're feeling here SA. It's almost like reverse sl*t-shaming (prude shaming?). I think everyone can be grown up enough to respect each others choices in this matter.

I have three young daughters. My normal paternal instinct demands that I keep everything with a penis at least 500 yards away from them at all times until they're 40. However, I also understand the pain that comes from a sexually dysfunctional relationship, and I don't want that for my children. I see in my wife what can happen when parents don't communicate about sex with their children...keep it in the closet, don't teach about their body, etc. Mrs Fozzy's parents version of a "growing up" chat involved pitching a box of maxi pads to her and walking away. She didn't even know how to use a tampon until she was an adult. 

I think there's a balance to be struck between "out of control, humping the fire hydrant" and complete sexual repression. Finding that balance is part of my job as a parent, and it's going to be challenging to do this without a healthy female perspective to guide me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Runs like Dog said:


> So 210 posts later and no one's any closer to understanding why how when if about the female libido, least of all the women here.
> 
> I think you've answered your own question in the negative.



:rofl:

Yeah...I just don't have any understanding about female libido.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Fozzy said:


> I think there's a balance to be struck between "out of control, humping the fire hydrant" and complete sexual repression. Finding that balance is part of my job as a parent, and it's going to be challenging to do this without a healthy female perspective to guide me.


It strikes me that part of it is also helping my son and daughters be true to themselves. Some folks naturally have an easier time with different sexual experiences. What some find to be fun exploration, others will find to be meaningless encounters that leave them feeling bad about themselves. Supporting those who fall in one cannot be about shaming those that fall in the other. 

Unfortunately, most "fixes" are a pendulm that does not stop at the middle ground. And there is no zealot like the reformed zealot.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Anonymous Person said:


> There's nothing to study.
> 
> Women **** strangers
> Women like strange
> Women use guys for sex
> Women also dumpster dive once or twice in their life
> Women fantasize about threesomes (mostly M-M-F)
> Women also love public sex
> 
> etc
> 
> It's really no different. Complicating the matter is mostly because a lot of guys don't want to think women think just like them. A bit scary for them, I guess.


dumpster dive?? sorry, what's that?


----------



## 12345Person

nuclearnightmare said:


> dumpster dive?? sorry, what's that?


When you **** someone who is way below your preferences.


----------



## samyeagar

nuclearnightmare said:


> dumpster dive?? sorry, what's that?


Going after the unemployed, lives in his mommas basement, unkempt guy...a guy who is not the stereotype of hotness, but she still bones him anyway...Sort of like the female equivalent of a guy doing a fat chick...


----------



## nuclearnightmare

tacoma said:


> We are much more the same sexually than we are different.
> 
> We are driven by the same motivators on a biological level.


yes. that's a much more reasonable statement, and I tend to agree. More specifically one of the main points of the book and article is that the need/drive for sexual variety (multiple partners) in women is much more akin to that in men than previously believed.


----------



## Deejo

samyeagar said:


> Women and men are both still taught that a womans sexuality is a prize, something to be earned, cherished, a badge of honor if you capture it, but at the same time it is being taught to both men and women that it is something to be given freely, on a whim if she wants, that she rightfully has control of it herself...the thing is, it's only valuable if SHE places value on it, and should not be assumed to have any intrinsic value simply because she is a woman. That power should be hers, and not societies.
> 
> Hell, look at my own wording...female sexuality is something given by women, and taken by men...sheesh...


I have no issue with this in the context of teaching kids and teens about sex. I think we can convey something as important, without cheapening it, or stigmatizing it.


----------



## samyeagar

Deejo said:


> I have no issue with this in the context of teaching kids and teens about sex. I think we can convey something as important, without cheapening it, or stigmatizing it.


Nor do I in principle, and I also think it would be very healthy to do the same for male sexuality.


----------



## Deejo

All of the posts relating to the thing we weren't going to go down the road of discussing have been removed.

Please don't continue the thread-jack of the original topic of the other thing we can't really seem to agree on.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Not sure it would be sweaty monkey sex that I'm after. It's true they're not shy about doing it in public, which can be pretty thrilling, but from what I've seen it's pretty much the same position over and over again, and they often look bored, picking at their nails or checking out the scenery.
> 
> Not that I'm an expert, but can't say I get the fascination. :scratchhead:


I was actually using the time honored tradition of deflection and humor to de-emphasize direct personal references to you ... by making an outlandish personal reference to you. Brilliantly, I might add.

I think it's important that you understand something about me. I am absolutely 100% serious in my posts, about 15% of the time.

In short, I was using a euphemism. I'm thinking you are too.

I was going to use a slimy, entangled, eel analogy, but decided eels aren't funny ... monkeys are.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> In short, I was using a euphemism. I'm thinking you are too.


Brilliantly, I might add.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

_Originally Posted by SimplyAmorous 
So what if some of us do NOT fall into the subset who Do & want what is on this list, are WE looked at -as repressed - and not in touch with our sexuality? 

Did you not say that if you were single, you would throw LOVE & SEX out for a minute or two? Even if you don't do the things on the list, doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy them or try them if the right circumstances came along. And it doesn't mean you are "repressed" if you dislike them, even. 

I don't know what dumpster diving means ?? ... but none of these are true for me or my H....neither would do a stranger, we wouldn't feel right about USING someone for sex (nor do I feel this is a hang up)....never fantasized about 3 somes (neither has H)....and believe me, I do not hold back on the fantasy life- mine are only man/woman -period)....for him... it's Us or a "solo woman".. (Yes...he is very tame)....

Dumpster diving is when you **** someone way below your preferences because of the circumstances.

There's a chance you and your husband have tame fantasies because of your upbringing and relationship? What do you think?

And he'd never dare do Public sex...nor would I....maybe off the beaten path in the woods ...but never where people are in close proximity where one could get caught.

Fantasizing about some strange...it happens...I like porn..

You should try it, it's really hot. Imagine ****ing your husband in the baseball park at 1:00 in the morning as it's raining. If you want to get away with it, go to a poor neighborhood as nobody gives a single **** there.

I get the feeling on threads like this and so many others that those who hold older fashioned views on this ...we don't belong here.. it's like we all want to see the day come where our teens should drop their drawers -praise the pleasure... no shame...do it liberally , freely with whomever.. REALLY ??? ...This is good??

It's already happening, actually. Even in middle school kids are experimenting and trying out new things. PLEASE don't ask how I know.

I do not agree at all.. I feel there is a time and a place.. our young people do not make wise choices .and they FU** their lives up good with free peace loving sex.. but I am sure I am only seen here as one holding back Progress with my views... 

Of course kids should be educated on their choices, but that doesn't necessarily lead to abstaining from a bountiful sex life with many different partners and experiences. 

Sexual boundaries...self control in the midst of raging hormones thinking of the other person... too much of this IS missing in society today.... If some of us still see Sex as a very special GIFT (this word appears to offend many so I have learned on this forum)... between 2 people in love..... this does not make one repressed or living in the dark ages or Grandma's time...to still believe and cherish such things..

You never wish you could have sex with other men or see how other guys feel like? Because I assure there's a difference between one guy to the next and the experiences can greatly differ. One day you're handcuffing a scrawny teenager and the next you're being pinned on the wall by a large man. Mwahahaha. 

I'm not advocating that you cheat on your husband, btw. Just giving you insight as to why some people spent a good portion of their lives trying out different partners. It can be very fulfilling if you know what you're getting into._

my background is essentially the same as SA and her husband's. So if I was to assert to you that sex is like driving, that at first mistakes are made etc. But that anyone can learn how to do it, and do it well. just takes practice......

what do you think?


----------



## samyeagar

nuclearnightmare said:


> _Originally Posted by SimplyAmorous
> So what if some of us do NOT fall into the subset who Do & want what is on this list, are WE looked at -as repressed - and not in touch with our sexuality?
> 
> Did you not say that if you were single, you would throw LOVE & SEX out for a minute or two? Even if you don't do the things on the list, doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy them or try them if the right circumstances came along. And it doesn't mean you are "repressed" if you dislike them, even.
> 
> I don't know what dumpster diving means ?? ... but none of these are true for me or my H....neither would do a stranger, we wouldn't feel right about USING someone for sex (nor do I feel this is a hang up)....never fantasized about 3 somes (neither has H)....and believe me, I do not hold back on the fantasy life- mine are only man/woman -period)....for him... it's Us or a "solo woman".. (Yes...he is very tame)....
> 
> Dumpster diving is when you **** someone way below your preferences because of the circumstances.
> 
> There's a chance you and your husband have tame fantasies because of your upbringing and relationship? What do you think?
> 
> And he'd never dare do Public sex...nor would I....maybe off the beaten path in the woods ...but never where people are in close proximity where one could get caught.
> 
> Fantasizing about some strange...it happens...I like porn..
> 
> You should try it, it's really hot. Imagine ****ing your husband in the baseball park at 1:00 in the morning as it's raining. If you want to get away with it, go to a poor neighborhood as nobody gives a single **** there.
> 
> I get the feeling on threads like this and so many others that those who hold older fashioned views on this ...we don't belong here.. it's like we all want to see the day come where our teens should drop their drawers -praise the pleasure... no shame...do it liberally , freely with whomever.. REALLY ??? ...This is good??
> 
> It's already happening, actually. Even in middle school kids are experimenting and trying out new things. PLEASE don't ask how I know.
> 
> I do not agree at all.. I feel there is a time and a place.. our young people do not make wise choices .and they FU** their lives up good with free peace loving sex.. but I am sure I am only seen here as one holding back Progress with my views...
> 
> Of course kids should be educated on their choices, but that doesn't necessarily lead to abstaining from a bountiful sex life with many different partners and experiences.
> 
> Sexual boundaries...self control in the midst of raging hormones thinking of the other person... too much of this IS missing in society today.... If some of us still see Sex as a very special GIFT (this word appears to offend many so I have learned on this forum)... between 2 people in love..... this does not make one repressed or living in the dark ages or Grandma's time...to still believe and cherish such things..
> 
> You never wish you could have sex with other men or see how other guys feel like? Because I assure there's a difference between one guy to the next and the experiences can greatly differ. One day you're handcuffing a scrawny teenager and the next you're being pinned on the wall by a large man. Mwahahaha.
> 
> I'm not advocating that you cheat on your husband, btw. Just giving you insight as to why some people spent a good portion of their lives trying out different partners. It can be very fulfilling if you know what you're getting into._
> 
> my background is essentially the same as SA and her husband's. *So if I was to assert to you that sex is like driving, that at first mistakes are made etc. But that anyone can learn how to do it, and do it well. just takes practice......
> 
> what do you think*?


Yes and no. Just like any other athletic activity, most people can do it. Practicing improves the skill, but there are some people out there that were born with that something extra, a natural born talent that set them apart. Something that all the practice in the world won't make someone without it as good. Take baseball for example. Most people can throw, hit and catch, and the more they practice, the better they get, but the ones that make it to the big leagues, they have something that practice just can't give the normal person...some sort of innate talent that makes them a 'natural' I think sex is the exact same way.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

always_alone said:


> Rape is heinous whether committed against a man or a woman. It's heinous-ness (heinosity?) isn't about pedestalizing sex in either case, it's about violating a person, invading their autonomy, harming them physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Torture is also heinous for the same sorts of reasons. And if anything makes these two crimes worse than murder, it's simply that the victim must continue to live with the devastating consequences.
> 
> The boys will be boys mentality utterly trivializes what rape and sexual assault are and do, and is a repugnant attitude. *When someone rapes a boy, does anyone *ever* say this?*



(bolded) The answer is yes, if the perpetrator is a woman.

In response to a couple of your other posts in this thread, I agree with you that there are certain environments where the rate of sexual assault is well above the norm. i.e. that it is not nearly as much the case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time as it is simply being in that environment. One example is the U.S. military - I don't know what the deal is but it seems to me to be just short of an epidemic. 

...and it would not surprise me in the least if the rate at colleges/universities is also high. dont mean to be too harsh but it is hard to match the sheer stupidity of the average 18-19 yr old guy (I'll confess to it when I was that age). Now add in that for sex education, in America at least, we simply don't get it done. don't know why exactly but we somehow just cannot manage it. mix in movies, internet porn etc and.........walaaaahh! _Welcome to college guys; enjoy the hook up culture!! _ what could go wrong?


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Brilliantly, I might add.












Well done.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Deejo said:


> All of the posts relating to the thing we weren't going to go down the road of discussing have been removed.
> 
> Please don't continue the thread-jack of the original topic of the other thing we can't really seem to agree on.


was there really only one thing we weren't going to discuss?? I thought there were a few....
what was the one thing.....? too curious!


----------



## Deejo

nuclearnightmare said:


> was there really only one thing we weren't going to discuss?? I thought there were a few....
> what was the one thing.....? too curious!


Rape and torture.


----------



## samyeagar

Deejo said:


> Rape and torture.


I'm sure there is a really bad parody song in there somewhere...


----------



## always_alone

nuclearnightmare said:


> Now add in that for sex education, in America at least, we simply don't get it done. don't know why exactly but we somehow just cannot manage it. mix in movies, internet porn etc and.........walaaaahh! _Welcome to college guys; enjoy the hook up culture!! _ what could go wrong?


And this is exactly why I made that fateful comment early on. People have some pretty funny (not to mention, warped) ideas about women's desire and sexuality, and PC or not, we need to make very clear that these do not necessarily equate to what one can or should expect from any given woman.

The guys I mentioned earlier on that broke into my room? The reason I mentioned them was not because this resulted in any form of sexual assault. No that part of my history comes from elsewhere, and is another issue entirely. What was interesting about these guys (there were two, on two different occasions, in two different places) was that they actually thought I would want them. They seemed genuinely surprised that I was angry, and genuinely surprised that I didn't want to sleep with them.. One of them even said to me, "you don't understand. I mean no harm. I'm just like you." 

Seriously. If anyone had ever accused these guys of molesting women or assaulting them, I've no doubt they would deny it, and be somewhat horrified. Yet, there they were crawling in through my windows because "surely she wants it."

These guys were easy enough to run off, and probably not that much of a threat. Either that, or I'm just that fierce.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> And this is exactly why I made that fateful comment early on. People have some pretty funny (not to mention, warped) ideas about women's desire and sexuality, and PC or not, we need to make very clear that these do not necessarily equate to what one can or should expect from any given woman.
> 
> The guys I mentioned earlier on that broke into my room? The reason I mentioned them was not because this resulted in any form of sexual assault. No that part of my history comes from elsewhere, and is another issue entirely. What was interesting about these guys (there were two, on two different occasions, in two different places) was that they actually thought I would want them. They seemed genuinely surprised that I was angry, and genuinely surprised that I didn't want to sleep with them.. One of them even said to me, "you don't understand. I mean no harm. I'm just like you."
> 
> Seriously. If anyone had ever accused these guys of molesting women or assaulting them, I've no doubt they would deny it, and be somewhat horrified. Yet, there they were crawling in through my windows because "surely she wants it."
> 
> These guys were easy enough to run off, and probably not that much of a threat. Either that, or I'm just that fierce.


I in no way doubt you, or your assessment of that situation. If you said you felt as if your life was in danger and were a shaking mess, I'd believe that no question as well. I don't think however that that is in any way representative of the general, or really even minority mindset among men to think that is alright. I can see however, based on your experiences not once, but twice how that could seem to be more than just a small splinter mindset in men.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> The guys I mentioned earlier on that broke into my room? The reason I mentioned them was not because this resulted in any form of sexual assault. No that part of my history comes from elsewhere, and is another issue entirely. What was interesting about these guys (there were two, on two different occasions, in two different places) was that they actually thought I would want them. They seemed genuinely surprised that I was angry, and genuinely surprised that I didn't want to sleep with them.. One of them even said to me, "you don't understand. I mean no harm. I'm just like you."


I have (had now, it was a REALLY long time ago for me) experienced similar. No break ins. But dudes who thought that since I had had sex with that guy, that I was one who did and would thus assume I would with them. It was a do or don't switch, not that I was an individual person with my own thoughts, feelings and needs.

I don't think social dysfunction is limited to men. But I can attest to having experienced this as well. One guy got MAD at me that since I did it, why wouldn't I do it with him. Yah maybe cuz you're a turd?


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> I in no way doubt you, or your assessment of that situation. If you said you felt as if your life was in danger and were a shaking mess, I'd believe that no question as well. I don't think however that that is in any way representative of the general, or really even minority mindset among men to think that is alright. I can see however, based on your experiences not once, but twice how that could seem to be more than just a small splinter mindset in men.


That many many many people, both male and female, see women as sexual gatekeepers cannot be denied. I just listened to Blurred Lines today. I made myself. It really is a crappy song. Two lines repeated over and over

I know you want.
You are a good girl.
then
...

<-----Blurred lines

F that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Fozzy said:


> *I get what you're feeling here SA. It's almost like reverse sl*t-shaming (prude shaming?).*


 Here is an article written by a college student who is *ASHAMED* that she has not had sex yet...Why -because the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction....

Virginity vs Promiscuity and Everything In Between: My Experience 

Can anyone disagree with what she says here ? (didn't know what "Skins" was, looked it up)....


> Just look at the media and the huge list of TV shows aimed at our age group showing young people f***ing just about anyone and anything that can move. We are part of the Skins generation that glamorises promiscuity, where anyone who isn’t doing it by 18 is either, and I quote from Skins, “ridiculously ‘un-cool’, or just plain pathetic.”














> *Fozzy said*: * I think everyone can be grown up enough to respect each others choices in this matter.*


 Would be nice but it's not always so...I've had posters wanting to enlighten me to why my thinking it WRONG...personal messages & all..to use the term "Gift" in reference to sex...asked to read this article (do they really think I don't read the other side -seriously?)...another wanting me to read a 3rd wave feminist book because again, I NEED ENLIGHTENED...I am wrong.... my views are outdated ...also I was told I "feed the misogynist men" ...now that was a reference to *hate*... like I condone men hating Women...I rally them on ! This all because I hold a Romantic view of sexuality...damn!..I feel so misunderstood at times. 

It's disheartening...that's all...



> *tacoma said:* *The dissonance I mentioned earlier was the norm and a sexually open, enlightened woman was a very rare treat.
> 
> Of course we have come a long way from that time but a great number of women still hold vestiges of this repressive time.
> 
> It's going the way of the Dodo but we aren't there yet*.


 I sure agree it is going the way of the Dodo.. and here again, it IS the ENLIGHTENED WOMAN who is putting out..she is the rare treat...she is the norm today... but really... why is she putting out.. today if you don't you get automatically dumped...how many fake orgasms to please the man? 

I found this article -on the Repression part it said>> 
Sexually Repressed, Sexually Immature Or Sexually Dysfunctional -- Which One Is It?



> *How you know you are sexually repressed.*..
> 
> *1.* You are sexually inhibited and may see anything sexual as something dangerous that can interfere with the proper conduct of the "good" man or woman -- so you've been told.
> 
> *2*. Your whole life is constructed in such away that your sexual nature, desires, and urges are separate from other parts of your life. For example, you see yourself as a professional, business person, a politician, an activist, a teacher, a doctor, a parent, etc., but not as a sexual professional, sexual politician, sexual doctor, or even a sexual parent.
> 
> *3.* Your approach to sexuality is of a purely cognitive construct within a purely linguistic domain. For example, you can be so good at putting your sexual feelings and sensations in written word but have no idea what to do with your sexual feelings and sensations when with a real alive and breathing man or woman -- and you always have a problem understanding the sexual feelings, sensations and experiences of your partner.
> 
> *4.* You are uncomfortable with and dread sexual intimacy. For example, you may be physically "attractive" in the social sense of the word, but you still find yourself avoiding social contacts that are likely to lead to intimacy. You may also be "okay" being with others as long as you are able to keep them at a distance, but as soon as things begin to feel intimate at all, you either cut off further contact or at least discourage it.
> 
> *5.* You may enjoy and find pleasure in certain sexual activities like hugging, touching, and kissing but experience feelings of terror, disgust, or revulsion when it comes to specific kinds of activities, such as sexual intercourse or contact with genitals.
> 
> *6.* You are not just physically but also sexually clumsy, because you do not know you have access to the natural way of being sexually comfortable in your own skin -- and sexuality.
> 
> *7*. And sex -that is just another routine chore to keep you in cycle or to keep your spouse happy enough to stay in the relationship.


 It's the automatic stamp of Repression -that if a woman wants to wait for LOVE, to give her all to someone very special..... I just don't feel this deserves that label 100% of the time...It just seems it is being presented here as though if you don't fit this mold, you are not sexually FREE or healthy.. but maybe I am misunderstanding too... 




> *Fozzy said*: I have three young daughters. My normal paternal instinct demands that I keep everything with a penis at least 500 yards away from them at all times until they're 40. However, I also understand the pain that comes from a sexually dysfunctional relationship, and I don't want that for my children. *I see in my wife what can happen when parents don't communicate about sex with their children...keep it in the closet, don't teach about their body, etc. Mrs Fozzy's parents version of a "growing up" chat involved pitching a box of maxi pads to her and walking away. She didn't even know how to use a tampon until she was an adult. *


 I'd be the 1st to speak against that sort of passive parenting....... We are very open with our kids... we don't do "*a talk*"...it is an ongoing free flowing atmosphere where they can bounce anything off of us....we seek to hear their opinions and views along the way...to KNOW our kids, know what they face, to guide them...we've been there...I want them to see all sides to an issue... the emotional, the physical, the possible consequences, to care how the other feels...understand not everyone views sex or uses it for the same reasons... it's so much more than ..."just put a condom on it " and STD talk.. the school can offer this... but the home...we have our role of influence as well....

Our boys know I am on TAM, they know I have like 50 books on sexuality, they think it's pretty damn cool ... It would be nothing for us to get into a deep discussion on hormones...we've talked about whacking it /porn... No shame... we have a lot of laughs too...they don't see us as Stringent or repressed by any means.. 



> *I think there's a balance to be struck between "out of control, humping the fire hydrant" and complete sexual repression. Finding that balance is part of my job as a parent, and it's going to be challenging to do this without a healthy female perspective to guide me*.










.. we have a role of influence here...but oh how different people think..these are competing for the minds of our young people..the social norms will greatly influence society, just as marriage is now dying....it's no longer necessary... 

Grandma & the church can be blamed for NOT talking about sex openly beautifully -giving it the Praise it deserves -even if it's aim was committed relationships.....their silence has been a grave downfall... they failed us here... but on the other side of this coin.... are we better today... are people happier in their relationships...or are we raising a whole host of new issues to muddle through....has sowing wild oats helped Female Desire ??

One of our guy friends drives bus for a College campus, he's had to stop them from having sex on the bus...hoards of them getting off at parties...drunk..he always does the late night weekends... maybe I have just heard too much... one girl was begging him to DO HER.. 



> *Anonymous Person said:* *Did you not say that if you were single, you would throw LOVE & SEX out for a minute or two? Even if you don't do the things on the list, doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy them or try them if the right circumstances came along. And it doesn't mean you are "repressed" if you dislike them, even. *


 Yeah a thrill in the moment..after all it's an orgasm !! ..but not afterwards.. not if the man was not my everything, who I could call day or night, bask in the afterglow...feel I was his everything...

Yes I had strong physical stirrings.. But I also bought toys, rented porn...I had outlets to satisfy...so if I went against my own ethical code -giving myself to someone who didn't care ENOUGH....who am I going to blame... my hormones ....the guy..LIfe.... I would be letting myself down...that has to mean something *to ME*...Obviously having more boundaries is not *as FUN*, & many here would find it purely senseless ...I get that... 



> *There's a chance you and your husband have tame fantasies because of your upbringing and relationship? What do you think?*


 but Fantasies are unbridled ... does anyone have these CHAINED / caged in their heads?? I know I never had.. . the same sexual type fantasies I have TODAY is what I had when I was a teen ....nothing has changed...(I would say I just fantasized MORE - add a little intensity to it perhaps)....even though I am more liberated & free acting out what I want ... 

His fantasies has remained the same also...over all of these years.. he had Playboy and Hustler -he was disgusted with Hustler magazines style..saw it as pure degrading... 

Why do we have the fantasies we do...can we even understand it? fascinating subject though. 

I think it's all harmless for the most part... Rented a dvd narrated by sex Therapists...about Fantasies...It's healthy to have them, lots of them...it's GOOD for our sex lives...couldn't agree more..but many are never meant to be acted out in real life...



> *I'm not advocating that you cheat on your husband, btw. Just giving you insight as to why some people spent a good portion of their lives trying out different partners. It can be very fulfilling if you know what you're getting into*.


 It's important to deeply know ourselves and what we want from Sex/ relationships.... yes... I was never looking to test drive the men....nor did I want test driven either... I know how I am wired ...I would have felt Used, and empty when the man moved on to another... I don't think that makes me insecure, I think it makes me in touch with myself...and sensitively beautiful and like wise, I ONLY cared to meet up / hook up with men who have a similar way of viewing the act...or he would not be a good fit for me. 



> *Deejo said*: My perspective about sex is solely within the parameters of adult sexuality. Specifically, post-divorce, adult sexuality. The rules, my rules now, are very very different than my perspective was 30 years ago.
> 
> *If for purely hypothetical reasons, you were single and all your kids were out of the house now, would you approach sex in the same way you did when you met your husband, based upon your experience with, and desire for sex now?*


 If I let my lusts rule the night when I met new men... I believe I could get addicted to that RUSH... and it would NOT be good *for me*, or what I deeply wanted ..(a Long term emotionally connected relationship)...... so therefore.... I'd need to reasonably hold the reins on my appetite ...because really...I would only be hurting myself to give in to that..


----------



## Deejo

Rough terrain, when even other women are s!ut shaming or abstinence shaming.

In my naivete when I was young. I really DID think I was going to marry my first girlfriend whom I loved and became intimate with.

Hell, I don't even think most people use the term promiscuous correctly. There is nothing indiscriminate about the partners I choose.


----------



## 12345Person

SimplyAmorous said:


> Would be nice but it's not always so...I've had posters wanting to enlighten me to why my thinking it WRONG...personal messages & all..to use the term "Gift" in reference to sex...asked to read this article (do they really think I don't read the other side -seriously?)...another wanting me to read a 3rd wave feminist book because again, I NEED ENLIGHTENED...I am wrong.... my views are outdated ...also I was told I "feed the misogynist men" ...now that was a reference to *hate*... like I condone men hating Women...I rally them on ! This all because I hold a Romantic view of sexuality...damn!..I feel so misunderstood at times.
> 
> It's disheartening...that's all...
> 
> I think it's mostly that many of us thought similar to you until we actually started putting ourselves out there. You might think the way you do now, but if you actually experienced other men, your thoughts might change.
> 
> It's the automatic stamp of Repression -that if a woman wants to wait for LOVE, to give her all to someone very special..... I just don't feel this deserves that label 100% of the time...It just seems it is being presented here as though if you don't fit this mold, you are not sexually FREE or healthy.. but maybe I am misunderstanding too...
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding. It's OK to have only one partner in your life. But until you experience the thrill of being with multiple partners and the joy it can bring into your life, you won't really understand what's it all about.
> 
> Yeah a thrill in the moment..after all it's an orgasm !! ..but not afterwards.. not if the man was not my everything, who I could call day or night, bask in the afterglow...feel I was his everything...
> 
> I think you just tell yourself this, because you never plan on experiencing other men. You would feel much different than what you think.
> 
> If I let my lusts rule the night when I met new men... I believe I could get addicted to that RUSH... and it would NOT be good *for me*, or what I deeply wanted ..(a Long term emotionally connected relationship)...... so therefore.... I'd need to reasonably hold the reins on my appetite ...because really...I would only be hurting myself to give in to that..
> 
> It wouldn't be forever, though. Once you're ready, settle down, etc. Eventually, after you had your fun, you would be able to settle down.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Faithful wife said:* *SA, you know I love ya. But when I'm talking about overall theory, it isn't always about you personally. Sometimes you will not be able to fit yourself into what I'm saying, and that doesn't mean I'm saying something against you or about you.
> 
> I personally do not feel it is "wrong" to have sex with a lot of people. Trying to make it right or wrong is making a morality statement, and I simply don't have that kind of morals. I do not think sex is "wrong" when it is consensual (and between adults). So my adult kids have both had a whole lotta sex, they are both well adjusted, one of them is married now, and the other one is happily having as much sex and fun as he wants to until he settles down, too. I realize this would not be what you want for your kids....I'm sorry, but it doesn't bother me at all. I am happy for my kids. They are safe and sexual and not ashamed of their lifestyle*.


 I know you are not speaking to me personally... of course not.. I offer a different perspective... that's all.. me & you are no different, in the fact ..we like to "counter" ....I want to put my 2 cents in too... and I hope it adds to the discussion.. 



> *Faithfulwife said*: *Also SA....I'm going to use you for an example and I hope you'll forgive me but this is honestly how I feel...
> 
> I know you and your H have gone to strip clubs. But I'm pretty sure you both also judge those strippers as immoral and wouldn't want your kids to date one or be one. So you are happy that someone makes immoral sexuality choices so that you can use them ala carte when you want to for your own purposes, but you also feel superior to them. This, to me, is a wide double standard*.


 Yes, I have been very open about going to a higher class strip club, they encouraged marrieds through the door...they were strict with their rules, had bouncers / no touching...and I don't regret the experience .... I sat & talked to some of those strippers.. got to see a human side..heard about their lives.....considering where I have come from...as in the past I would have looked down on them...so to sit face to face ...it was good..... I/we enjoyed their craft ..ya know.. I did not sit in judgment or feel any superior position to them....heck I wish I was that young & beautiful ...& could dance like that !! Some were freaking amazing.. 

Many thoughts go through my head in what is ethical (could be any subject)... where are the lines... *IF* there is a Creator...what does he/she want from us...Expect from us....One thing is clear....Men were born visual ....and women are stunningly beautiful ..... is it perverted to get aroused watching a woman dance??

I watched this move called the







years ago.... boy did she take a lot of Flack.. was it wrong?? Just because others were up in arms... I didn't think so .... to be very honest with you... 

How do you feel FW?? 

I found it FUN. Was I wrong to enjoy this FUN ?? Blonde would tell me I was... she thinks men should be able to look at a naked woman with no lustful thoughts at all. I suppose of all the morally upright women on TAM.. she is the cream of the crop..

I couldn't hold a candle ...

Let me just say this... that experience has broadened my horizons ...There was sadness in that place too on both sides....then I started questioning should I feel like the JLD's ...even Blonde again... that all these women are victims...of men's Lusts...should I be ashamed I am hurting women by walking in the door.... or like the Snake Dancer - some enjoy their craft... we were kind to them..

Just because I personally would not choose to be in porn or be a stripper... I mean come on, I don't even drink!... I wanted a big boisterous family for goodness sakes.. how would that fit into my dreams...Try not to paint me too harshly ...I was wanting the kind patient Family man type.. No regrets here. 



> *NobodySpecial said*:* But dudes who thought that since I had had sex with that guy, that I was one who did and would thus assume I would with them. It was a do or don't switch, not that I was an individual person with my own thoughts, feelings and needs.*


Similar happened to my mother....when I was 9... she had some men coming to the house, next door neighbor's husband (my friends father -never learned this until last year)...but he lured her for a drive and raped her - I guess cause he seen her with those other men, he felt she was up for another.. I always wondered why my friend moved so suddenly ...now I know...



> *That many many many people, both male and female, see women as sexual gatekeepers cannot be denied.* I just listened to Blurred Lines today. I made myself. It really is a crappy song. Two lines repeated over and over.


 Yep.. Old thread of mine... I explored that topic .. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...-gatekeeper-did-your-wife-manipulate-you.html



> *Anonymous Person said:* *I think it's mostly that many of us thought similar to you until we actually started putting ourselves out there. You might think the way you do now, but if you actually experienced other men, your thoughts might change.
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding. It's OK to have only one partner in your life. But until you experience the thrill of being with multiple partners and the joy it can bring into your life, you won't really understand what's it all about.*


 When I read your replies Anonymous Person.. I get this feeling (and you've been kind about it -thank you ).... but I still get this feeling , that due to my not having experienced something ...basically I am naive and therefore my voice doesn't really count. that unless one has tasted the actual fruit of something...they can not possibly know what they deeply desire... 

Without knowing some of my history .. .what I experienced growing up..let's just say...I watched my Mother, my best friend, self destruct in front of me ...over her choices with men.. lots of men... this affected me in a profound way... she lost me, her job, our home together & basically her sanity..I remember the sounds of sex in the bedroom in that little house, different men coming around....now really....why would I want to walk her path... If anything screwed up my perceptions of beauty in the sexual, it was the example of my own mothers choices... as a 9 yr old girl.....it being used casually...left a very bad taste in my mouth.. I vowed from a young age, no man was going to treat me like that... but I never gave up hope on finding love... 

This explains how I have always felt, I say that sincerely....how do you explain...you don't just take someone who feels* like this*...and suddenly they want to party hardy.. it's something embedded inside of us....

My Mother was never a Romantic person..but my Father WAS.. I take after him... Taken from the Sexual views  thread. 



> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "save yourself for the one, your beloved"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> Sex should be reserved for those who are deeply in love with the strings of emotional attachment/commitment. Loveless sex is not appropriate, People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts. Those who hold the romantic view often talk in terms of sex as sacred, as a Gift to be preserved & given to someone of profound significance.
> 
> Romantic view holds that sex should be connected with a thirst for deep psychological & bodily knowledge, Mutually reciprocated gift-giving & intimacy are it's purpose.
> 
> The feeling of being in love is a feeling that one’s beloved is an irreplaceable soul mate.
> 
> Complications arise, however, when romantic feelings do not last or when someone who has made a commitment to sexual exclusivity finds himself or herself in love with someone else.
> 
> The romantic view emphasizes interpersonal intimacy, but sees the duration of commitment as contingent. Commitment lasts for as long as romantic love lasts. But commitment is a must. A one-time encounter with a stranger may be consensual -but it would not be appropriate for those who hold the Romantic view.


----------



## 12345Person

SimplyAmorous said:


> When I read your replies Anonymous Person.. I get this feeling (and you've been kind about it -thank you ).... but I still get this feeling , that due to my not having experienced something ...basically I am naive and therefore my voice doesn't really count. that unless one has tasted the actual fruit of something...they can not possibly know what they deeply desire...
> 
> Your voice counts a lot on this forum, since you can share a rather... rarer perspective in these times.
> 
> But I myself did not know how great a bountiful sex life was until I explored it. That's not to say there wasn't a lot of pain in some of the experiences. There was ALOT of pain and some of it was recent.
> 
> The great experiences outweigh the bad, though. :smthumbup:
> 
> Without knowing some of my history .. .what I experienced growing up..let's just say...I watched my Mother, my best friend, self destruct in front of me ...over her choices with men.. lots of men... this affected me in a profound way... she lost me, her job, our home together & basically her sanity..I remember the sounds of sex in the bedroom in that little house, different men coming around....now really....why would I want to walk her path... If anything screwed up my perceptions of beauty in the sexual, it was the example of my own mothers choices... as a 9 yr old girl.....it being used casually...left a very bad taste in my mouth.. I vowed from a young age, no man was going to treat me like that... but I never gave up hope on finding love...
> 
> Sex wasn't the problem. There were many other issues she was dealing with, perhaps she thought sex could fill a void.
> 
> This explains how I have always felt, I say that sincerely....how do you explain...you don't just take someone who feels* like this*...and suddenly they want to party hardy.. it's something embedded inside of us....
> 
> So, it seems like your experiences as a child, observing your mother, turned you off from experimenting. That's fine.
> 
> Perhaps you wouldn't enjoy it, now, because you are married and it's obvious you love your husband. The physical pleasure would be great, but the void created inside of you by losing your husband would never be filled.
> 
> But if you were younger, single, etc., I'm sure you would find a lot of enjoyment from ****ing different people.:rofl:


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> I sure agree it is going the way of the Dodo.. and here again, it IS the ENLIGHTENED WOMAN who is putting out..she is the rare treat...she is the norm today... but really... why is she putting out.. today if you don't you get automatically dumped...how many fake orgasms to please the man?


Seems to me some disentangling is useful here.

I agree with Faithful Wife that there's nothing wrong with multiple sexual partners. At one extreme, and not so long ago or far away, *everyone* was shamed sexually. Young boys were taught that they would go blind from masturbation. Young women were taught they were hellbound harlots for showing their ankles. This kind of constant shaming made everything about sex a source of guilt and bad feeling that to my mind is clearly unhealthy. Compared to this sexual liberation *is* enlightened.

I also agree with you. At the other extreme, we are pushing every boundary, forgetting that some of these proclivities and behaviours are borne from unhealthy and self-destructive attitudes. Most of sex education is porn, which tells young women that all a man needs is an erection, and he is moan-worthingly fantastic, and tells young men that women are cum vessels wih rape fantasies to be used and abused at will. Compared to this, reminding people that sexual relations *are* real relations between people deserving of respect and care *is* the enlightened POV, IMHO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA...Check out this blog post. It is about the meaning of Sex Positive, what it is and what it isn't.

What Sex-Positivity Is -- And Is Not. by Carol Queen | Good Vibes

I think you are truly on the path to being Sex Positive, but you are still accidentally shaming people for their sexuality, and you wrap that up in "concern" for them.

I think when you are able to overcome this, you'll be much further in your own sexuality.

As long as anyone would hire a stripper but wouldn't date one or wouldn't want their kid to be one, they are not quite there yet. This isn't a jab at you, it is a call to awareness (and applies to others, too).


----------



## 12345Person

Faithful Wife said:


> SA...Check out this blog post. It is about the meaning of Sex Positive, what it is and what it isn't.
> 
> What Sex-Positivity Is -- And Is Not. by Carol Queen | Good Vibes
> 
> I think you are truly on the path to being Sex Positive, but you are still accidentally shaming people for their sexuality, and you wrap that up in "concern" for them.
> 
> I think when you are able to overcome this, you'll be much further in your own sexuality.
> 
> As long as anyone would hire a stripper but wouldn't date one or wouldn't want their kid to be one, they are not quite there yet. This isn't a jab at you, it is a call to awareness (and applies to others, too).


I'm not going to agree, totally. A guy might pay for a prostitute's service, but I doubt he'd want to marry one or for his daughter to be one.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just means the guy is not truly Sex Positive because he's a hypocrite. He wants to use a person's body for something that he himself doesn't believe is "right" or "moral" yet he is ok with sexually gratifying himself with that person's body.

Believe it or not, there are ethical men and women who use prostitutes who would also date one, take one to dinner, or be advocates for their daughter who is a prostitute and is working toward decriminalizing it.


----------



## tacoma

> Here is an article written by a college student who is ASHAMED that she has not had sex yet...Why -because the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction....


I understand and agree with the point of the article you posted and am trying my damnedest to teach my girl the dangers of the current sexual culture but I just wanted to point out that the quoted statement above is a fairly recent thing for females it has always been this way for males.

Men from the generation previous to mine even were ashamed of their virginity due to societal pressure.

I don't understand how our culture can teach each gender completely conflicting opposite ideals about sexuality and not see how badly they were screwing us up.

I don't worry too much about the culture in the article because history shows me that everywhere major cultural changes have been successful it has been mostly due to the over the top rebellion against the current status quo generally motivated by extremism counteracting current beliefs.

I see this in the civil rights and women's movements and now I'm seeing it in this sexual revolution.

Once enough advances have been made to secure success in these endeavors it usually tones down so as not to alienate the support they have gained.

While personally my rational mind thinks this method is idiotic and dangerous (Why can't we just admit we were wrong and fix the problem in a rational manner?) it does usually work in the long run.


----------



## tacoma

Anonymous Person said:


> I'm not going to agree, totally. A guy might pay for a prostitute's service, but I doubt he'd want to marry one or for his daughter to be one.


That guy is a hypocrite.


----------



## tacoma

> I sure agree it is going the way of the Dodo.. and here again, it IS the ENLIGHTENED WOMAN who is putting out..she is the rare treat...she is the norm today... but really... why is she putting out.. today if you don't you get automatically dumped...how many fake orgasms to please the man?


You misunderstand me SA.

I wasn't inferring it was the enlightened woman putting out at all because those unenlightened women were putting out as well.

That's not the difference I was getting at.

I also believe you are misunderstanding my "rare treat" comment.

The enlightened woman was a treat physically because she was not generally inhibited in bed yes but my main point was she was a treat because I didn't have to deal with her insecurities and inhibitions.

If I'm intimate with someone especially someone I am emotionally bound to having them feel guilt or pain due to their intimacy with me hurts me on an emotional level.

It sucks to have a woman want you, pursue you, claim you, take you, and then feel as if she shouldn't have partially because you weren't worthy of her gilded vagina (Usually unspoken but the point none the less).

How do you think that makes a man feel?

I felt used, and now blamed for something I thought was beautiful and intimate.
It cheapened my sexuality to be with someone like that.

You seem to be equating "enlightened" with "promiscuous" and I don't see it that way at all.

Being promiscuous for the sake of appeasing ones culture is not at all enlightened.It's as unenlightened as one can get.

Enlightened to me is a woman "owning" her own sexuality with no regrets due to pressure from society.

It makes no difference if that woman is promiscuous sleeping with multiple men or virginal waiting for sex with someone she has a deep emotional connection with before sex.

The enlightened woman knows what she wants, takes steps to get it, and takes responsibility for her own sexuality regardless of cultural norms.

This is the only type of woman I've ever been completely comfortable with sexually and honestly they are very very rare.

Edit:

I want to add SA that over the years I've come to know your story.
I've paid attention to it fairly closely, it was educational to me because of my problems with "unenlightened" women.
Your story is a tale of one of those unenlightened women finding her way to enlightenment and that is journey I greatly appreciate learning about.


----------



## 12345Person

Faithful Wife said:


> Just means the guy is not truly Sex Positive because he's a hypocrite. He wants to use a person's body for something that he himself doesn't believe is "right" or "moral" yet he is ok with sexually gratifying himself with that person's body.
> 
> Believe it or not, there are ethical men and women who use prostitutes who would also date one, take one to dinner, or be advocates for their daughter who is a prostitute and is working toward decriminalizing it.


It doesn't make him a hypocrite. 

And being "sex positive" (whatever that means) is not relevant. Everyone is going to approach sex in their own way and feel differently about it.

I've know a person who engaged in incest (safe). I've also known a father and daughter who had threesomes and orgies together, but never did anything to each other. It's their own approach to sex, though, I'm not sure you would encourage or support your children ****ing each other?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Are you implying that consensual incest is uncommon? Because it isn't.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I think you are truly on the path to being Sex Positive, but you are still accidentally shaming people for their sexuality, and you wrap that up in "concern" for them.


I can't speak for SA on this point, but it seems to me that such concerns are not necessarily a failure to be sex positive.

For example, I know this guy, and he wants a relationship. But he destroys each and every one because he also prefers to be in absolute control of the sex, and likely has intimacy issues, and what he invariably does is hire prostitutes to fulfill his sexual needs.

Now, we could judge him for hiring prostitutes instead of working on a real relationship, and I can see how this is sex negative, and judgemental.

But at the same time, he is on a path of self-destruction, making his own problem worse rather than better. I can't really say anything because he's an adult and can do whatever he wants, but I do have concern. Is that sex negative?

Similarly, I've gone down the path of utterly self-destructive behaviour, and think it would have been awesome if someone had cared enough to point that out to me, so I might've been able to make some needed changes sooner rather than later. 

We all have our own paths, to be sure, but it sometimes helps to learn from other people's concerns --even if they are judgements that we're going too far. 

No?


----------



## Married but Happy

tacoma said:


> That guy is a hypocrite.


He _might_ be a hypocrite, _or_ he might not. It depends on his perspective regarding her and her profession and why.

I can go to a woman barber and pay for her services without having any desire to become a barber or date one, or for my hypothetical daughter to become one, based on many factors _other_ than moral disdain. That does not make me a hypocrite. It could be career potential, intellectual compatibility, or even too great an age difference.


----------



## always_alone

Anonymous Person said:


> It doesn't make him a hypocrite.


I disagree. If you feel no moral compunction about hiring prostitutes or watching strippers, or whatever, then you've no right to judge them. If you're willing to sleep with them under a paid model, why would you find it problematic or distasteful to date them or admit their rights to run their business safely?


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> I can't speak for SA on this point, but it seems to me that such concerns are not necessarily a failure to be sex positive.
> 
> For example, I know this guy, and he wants a relationship. But he destroys each and every one because he also prefers to be in absolute control of the sex, and likely has intimacy issues, and what he invariably does is hire prostitutes to fulfill his sexual needs.
> 
> Now, we could judge him for hiring prostitutes instead of working on a real relationship, and I can see how this is sex negative, and judgemental.
> 
> But at the same time, he is on a path of self-destruction, making his own problem worse rather than better. I can't really say anything because he's an adult and can do whatever he wants, but I do have concern. Is that sex negative?
> 
> Similarly, I've gone down the path of utterly self-destructive behaviour, and think it would have been awesome if someone had cared enough to point that out to me, so I might've been able to make some needed changes sooner rather than later.
> 
> We all have our own paths, to be sure, but it sometimes helps to learn from other people's concerns --even if they are judgements that we're going too far.
> 
> No?


The thing is, in this case, IMO, the prostitutes in his life have nothing to do with your concern for him as a friend (I assume he's a friend). They could just be women who are in one way or another not healthy to his overall life. Yes?

The fact that they are specifically prostitutes to me in no way makes it any different and therefore have nothing to do with sex positivity or negativity in this particular case. Self-destructive behavior has nothing to do with sex positivity. You could be self-destructive and also sex positive or also sex negative.


----------



## ocotillo

Anonymous Person said:


> I'm not going to agree, totally. A guy might pay for a prostitute's service, but I doubt he'd want to marry one or for his daughter to be one.





Anonymous Person said:


> It doesn't make him a hypocrite.


If the reasons why a guy might pay for a prostitute's service and yet not want to marry one or see his daughter become one are purely pragmatic rather than ethical, I'd agree with you.

There's lots of things I wouldn't want my children to do purely for reasons of health and safety that have nothing to do with the morality of the occupations in and of themselves.

I think it's fairly obvious though that FW was talking about social acceptance.


----------



## 12345Person

Faithful Wife said:


> Are you implying that consensual incest is uncommon? Because it isn't.


A small percentage of people.

Let's not pretend otherwise.


----------



## 12345Person

always_alone said:


> I disagree. If you feel no moral compunction about hiring prostitutes or watching strippers, or whatever, then you've no right to judge them. If you're willing to sleep with them under a paid model, why would you find it problematic or distasteful to date them or admit their rights to run their business safely?


I would not marry or want my children to be like a few people I've slept with. I've slept with a few losers in the past. Wouldn't want to marry them or for my children to be like them.

The answer is simple. Even if you think someone is a loser, you can still use them for sex.

Has nothing to do with "morals". No one is obligated to marry or approve of the lifestyle of every single person they've slept with.


----------



## 12345Person

So, Faithful, would you ever support an incestual relationship IF it was going on between your children?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anonymous Person said:


> So, Faithful, would you ever support an incestual relationship IF it was going on between your children?


I have always wondered if I am a touch sick. If there is no risk of pregnancy and it is consensual, what is the problem?


----------



## CharlotteMcdougall

Though many women are highly sexual, we live in a society where women are told to be sexy but not overtly sexually inclined. I grew up being **** shamed because my mother wished that she dated more, instead of getting married too young. 

I have noticed that a lot of men will say that they want a highly sexual woman, but when they met one, they feel compelled to shame her or be intimidated. 

My husband enjoys my sexuality and encourages me to express it with him. I had my fun when I was single but I knew I was ready to settle down. I have no interest in being sexual with anyone but my husband. If my husband and I did not have a fiery sexual connection, I would not have married him. There is no sense in spending the rest of your life being sexually frustrated.


----------



## CharlotteMcdougall

NobodySpecial said:


> I have always wondered if I am a touch sick. If there is no risk of pregnancy and it is consensual, what is the problem?


----------



## Deejo

Well ... this got frickin' weird.


----------



## NobodySpecial

CharlotteMcdougall said:


>


I didn't say I was going to DO it. I just cannot find an objective problem with it in my mind!


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I can't speak for SA on this point, but it seems to me that such concerns are not necessarily a failure to be sex positive.
> 
> For example, I know this guy, and he wants a relationship. But he destroys each and every one because he also prefers to be in absolute control of the sex, and likely has intimacy issues, and what he invariably does is hire prostitutes to fulfill his sexual needs.
> 
> Now, we could judge him for hiring prostitutes instead of working on a real relationship, and I can see how this is sex negative, and judgemental.
> 
> But at the same time, he is on a path of self-destruction, making his own problem worse rather than better. I can't really say anything because he's an adult and can do whatever he wants, but I do have concern. Is that sex negative?
> 
> Similarly, I've gone down the path of utterly self-destructive behaviour, and think it would have been awesome if someone had cared enough to point that out to me, so I might've been able to make some needed changes sooner rather than later.
> 
> We all have our own paths, to be sure, but it sometimes helps to learn from other people's concerns --even if they are judgements that we're going too far.
> 
> No?


I really appreciate this post because it lacks superficiality.
It resonates deep within me.

I never like the idea of people being too concerned with what other anonymous people do legally within the confines of their private space.

A lot of people don't " get" that these things are relative and subjective to cultural mores.

I can post sexual stuff different people of other cultures practice which would shock people here, but it is normal and expected in their cultures.

Human sexuality is a subjective , interesting and sometimes messy thing.


----------



## tacoma

NobodySpecial said:


> I have always wondered if I am a touch sick. If there is no risk of pregnancy and it is consensual, what is the problem?


It has a serious ick factor for me but that's my own problem.

I don't ethically or rationally find anything wrong with it.

I wouldn't vote against it's legalization or judge someone for engaging in it.


----------



## Fozzy

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is an article written by a college student who is *ASHAMED* that she has not had sex yet...Why -because the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction....
> 
> Virginity vs Promiscuity and Everything In Between: My Experience
> 
> Can anyone disagree with what she says here ? (didn't know what "Skins" was, looked it up)....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice but it's not always so...I've had posters wanting to enlighten me to why my thinking it WRONG...personal messages & all..to use the term "Gift" in reference to sex...asked to read this article (do they really think I don't read the other side -seriously?)...another wanting me to read a 3rd wave feminist book because again, I NEED ENLIGHTENED...I am wrong.... my views are outdated ...also I was told I "feed the misogynist men" ...now that was a reference to *hate*... like I condone men hating Women...I rally them on ! This all because I hold a Romantic view of sexuality...damn!..I feel so misunderstood at times.
> 
> It's disheartening...that's all...
> 
> I sure agree it is going the way of the Dodo.. and here again, it IS the ENLIGHTENED WOMAN who is putting out..she is the rare treat...she is the norm today... but really... why is she putting out.. today if you don't you get automatically dumped...how many fake orgasms to please the man?
> 
> I found this article -on the Repression part it said>>
> Sexually Repressed, Sexually Immature Or Sexually Dysfunctional -- Which One Is It?
> 
> 
> 
> It's the automatic stamp of Repression -that if a woman wants to wait for LOVE, to give her all to someone very special..... I just don't feel this deserves that label 100% of the time...It just seems it is being presented here as though if you don't fit this mold, you are not sexually FREE or healthy.. but maybe I am misunderstanding too...
> 
> 
> I'd be the 1st to speak against that sort of passive parenting....... We are very open with our kids... we don't do "*a talk*"...it is an ongoing free flowing atmosphere where they can bounce anything off of us....we seek to hear their opinions and views along the way...to KNOW our kids, know what they face, to guide them...we've been there...I want them to see all sides to an issue... the emotional, the physical, the possible consequences, to care how the other feels...understand not everyone views sex or uses it for the same reasons... it's so much more than ..."just put a condom on it " and STD talk.. the school can offer this... but the home...we have our role of influence as well....
> 
> Our boys know I am on TAM, they know I have like 50 books on sexuality, they think it's pretty damn cool ... It would be nothing for us to get into a deep discussion on hormones...we've talked about whacking it /porn... No shame... we have a lot of laughs too...they don't see us as Stringent or repressed by any means..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. we have a role of influence here...but oh how different people think..these are competing for the minds of our young people..the social norms will greatly influence society, just as marriage is now dying....it's no longer necessary...
> 
> Grandma & the church can be blamed for NOT talking about sex openly beautifully -giving it the Praise it deserves -even if it's aim was committed relationships.....their silence has been a grave downfall... they failed us here... but on the other side of this coin.... are we better today... are people happier in their relationships...or are we raising a whole host of new issues to muddle through....has sowing wild oats helped Female Desire ??
> 
> One of our guy friends drives bus for a College campus, he's had to stop them from having sex on the bus...hoards of them getting off at parties...drunk..he always does the late night weekends... maybe I have just heard too much... one girl was begging him to DO HER..
> 
> Yeah a thrill in the moment..after all it's an orgasm !! ..but not afterwards.. not if the man was not my everything, who I could call day or night, bask in the afterglow...feel I was his everything...
> 
> Yes I had strong physical stirrings.. But I also bought toys, rented porn...I had outlets to satisfy...so if I went against my own ethical code -giving myself to someone who didn't care ENOUGH....who am I going to blame... my hormones ....the guy..LIfe.... I would be letting myself down...that has to mean something *to ME*...Obviously having more boundaries is not *as FUN*, & many here would find it purely senseless ...I get that...
> 
> but Fantasies are unbridled ... does anyone have these CHAINED / caged in their heads?? I know I never had.. . the same sexual type fantasies I have TODAY is what I had when I was a teen ....nothing has changed...(I would say I just fantasized MORE - add a little intensity to it perhaps)....even though I am more liberated & free acting out what I want ...
> 
> His fantasies has remained the same also...over all of these years.. he had Playboy and Hustler -he was disgusted with Hustler magazines style..saw it as pure degrading...
> 
> Why do we have the fantasies we do...can we even understand it? fascinating subject though.
> 
> I think it's all harmless for the most part... Rented a dvd narrated by sex Therapists...about Fantasies...It's healthy to have them, lots of them...it's GOOD for our sex lives...couldn't agree more..but many are never meant to be acted out in real life...
> 
> It's important to deeply know ourselves and what we want from Sex/ relationships.... yes... I was never looking to test drive the men....nor did I want test driven either... I know how I am wired ...I would have felt Used, and empty when the man moved on to another... I don't think that makes me insecure, I think it makes me in touch with myself...and sensitively beautiful and like wise, I ONLY cared to meet up / hook up with men who have a similar way of viewing the act...or he would not be a good fit for me.
> 
> If I let my lusts rule the night when I met new men... I believe I could get addicted to that RUSH... and it would NOT be good *for me*, or what I deeply wanted ..(a Long term emotionally connected relationship)...... so therefore.... I'd need to reasonably hold the reins on my appetite ...because really...I would only be hurting myself to give in to that..


I may be alone here, but I'm giving this a standing ovation.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> The thing is, in this case, IMO, the prostitutes in his life have nothing to do with your concern for him as a friend (I assume he's a friend). They could just be women who are in one way or another not healthy to his overall life. Yes?


True. Who they are or what they do is pretty much irrelevant, as really the issue is that even though he wants to connect on a deeper level and feels that as a void in his life, he keeps destroying every good thing that comes along by cheating and running back to situations where he fully controls the dynamics. It's *his* fear of intimacy that's his problem.

Or at least that's my take. Others have said he has the perfect man life because he has sex whenever he wants and on his own terms, and who am I to judge him?

And the answer is no one, really, but my sense is that his choices are feeding his disconnect and unhappiness --and inability to relate to women in any real way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Anonymous Person said*: *Your voice counts a lot on this forum, since you can share a rather... rarer perspective in these times.*


 I appreciate that coming from you .  I often feel like a lone "she wolf" but I dare stick my head in anyway..



> *But I myself did not know how great a bountiful sex life was until I explored it. That's not to say there wasn't a lot of pain in some of the experiences. There was ALOT of pain and some of it was recent.
> 
> The great experiences outweigh the bad, though*.:smthumbup:


 It's important that we look can look back & appreciate the road we've traveled..with it's good & it's bad ....and the lessons there of...on this we can agree... 

With us...I might have been a little repressed with wanting the lights out/ under a sheet , no hanging from the chandeliers, never tired a toy.. ..but I never was with *the big O*....from the very beginning, we were in sync...we always had the fireworks together...he was amazing at holding out.. What else did I need!



> *Sex wasn't the problem. There were many other issues she was dealing with, perhaps she thought sex could fill a void*


 in her retelling.. she allowed passion for a young womanizer to turn her world upside down... he worked on the house, didn't want her $$, wanted something else...trusting his charm...hoping for* requited love*..it was all a JOKE ...he started bringing other men around....she learned later he was getting paid for it... she tried to stop it... one of those was her 1st battering....all while I lived with her....

When my father got wind of this... I was immediately taken off of her....this could have saved me from being raped... My Mother was not a good example to me..she has made horrendous mistakes in her life...

We've talked about this...Sex grew to mean nothing to her, she became detached/ NO emotion... She never believed in  after *this phase* in her life and loosing me.. she went on to marry an alcoholic who used to say she could shed her clothes like peeling a banana... I realize how OVER THE TOP this must sound....but to say it wasn't the sex... sex was the seed to her downfall ... it could have been avoided... She never blamed the men, she blamed herself.. this ripped her from my life.. 

The lessons from this was branded on me... 



> *Faithfulwife said*:* I think you are truly on the path to being Sex Positive, but you are still accidentally shaming people for their sexuality, and you wrap that up in "concern" for them.
> 
> I think when you are able to overcome this, you'll be much further in your own sexuality.
> 
> As long as anyone would hire a stripper but wouldn't date one or wouldn't want their kid to be one, they are not quite there yet. This isn't a jab at you, it is a call to awareness (and applies to others, too)*.


 That was a good article - I LIKED it..:smthumbup:... where you are going is in this part >>



> I can’t stress this enough. If anyone, no matter how sexually frisky and happy they are, tries to use the notion of sex-positivity to judge someone else’s sexual orientation, gender expression, sexual choices, or sexual response, they are not behaving in a sex-positive fashion. Period. (And they’re misusing the term.)..Now in the next line is my response to that >>>
> 
> When you are sex-positive, you get that you are not like everybody else, and that’s all good. As in:
> –I’m attracted to people who are like this, and others may be attracted to people who are like that. All said right here...I prefer to meet up with a man who holds primarily a romantic view of sex, we grow a shared commitment before going all the way.. some would not prefer that but the man who has lots of experience .. This doesn't mean however, that I judge other people and their choices.. you are saying this.. I am not saying this..and I am also sure many couples such as us has enjoyed some Erotic entertainment together.. If others want to see this as being a Hypocrite, I can't stop you.. that's fine.





> *tacoma said*: *I understand and agree with the point of the article you posted and am trying my damnedest to teach my girl the dangers of the current sexual culture but I just wanted to point out that the quoted statement above is a fairly recent thing for females it has always been this way for males.
> 
> Men from the generation previous to mine even were ashamed of their virginity due to societal pressure*.


 these things hit home for me...as our oldest is still a virgin -a MALE yet.. he's just finished his degree..He is waiting for find that special woman..he is very particular, maybe too much...he is not trying to fill a void with sex, he is not gay, he is not fat, homely , awkward, but a cross country runner, popular with the girls.. he just doesn't believe in having sex without Lasting love. He is a worship Leader -so his beliefs play a role... he is a counselor for juvenile delinquents ...I would love to be a fly on the wall if he ever shares he's never been laid yet.. most wouldn't believe it....not today.. he is not ashamed..He is kinda stubborn like his mother in how he feels I guess..he doesn't do strip clubs - by the way! 



tacoma said:


> *You misunderstand me SA.
> 
> I wasn't inferring it was the enlightened woman putting out at all because those unenlightened women were putting out as well.
> 
> That's not the difference I was getting at.
> 
> I also believe you are misunderstanding my "rare treat" comment.
> 
> The enlightened woman was a treat physically because she was not generally inhibited in bed yes but my main point was she was a treat because I didn't have to deal with her insecurities and inhibitions.*


 Yes I was misinterpreting you ...I threw my own version of "treat" in there.. but if you LOVE someone , really want the woman, you would HELP Her overcome her inhibitions and gently guide her.. Like my husband, though I must admit he should have tried much harder than he did, he was very happy though. [/COLOR][/B]



tacoma said:


> *If I'm intimate with someone especially someone I am emotionally bound to having them feel guilt or pain due to their intimacy with me hurts me on an emotional level.
> 
> It sucks to have a woman want you, pursue you, claim you, take you, and then feel as if she shouldn't have partially because you weren't worthy of her gilded vagina (Usually unspoken but the point none the less)*.


 I don't know what you mean, they HAD sex, then they felt guilty about it ? It's odd.. 

We have a guy friend who was telling us about his new GF years ago, after they did the deed, he would hear her praying for Forgiveness in the bathroom -then one day she asked him to pray with her, he outright told her > "NO, I just had great sex and I'm not sorry!" so yeah this was one of the issues with this new woman, lots of catholic guilt going on! He had some others for sure, we were his listening ear.. 



> You seem to be equating "enlightened" with "promiscuous" and I don't see it that way at all.
> 
> Being promiscuous for the sake of appeasing ones culture is not at all enlightened.It's as unenlightened as one can get.
> 
> *Enlightened to me is a woman "owning" her own sexuality with no regrets due to pressure from society.
> 
> It makes no difference if that woman is promiscuous sleeping with multiple men or virginal waiting for sex with someone she has a deep emotional connection with before sex.
> 
> The enlightened woman knows what she wants, takes steps to get it, and takes responsibility for her own sexuality regardless of cultural norms.
> 
> This is the only type of woman I've ever been completely comfortable with sexually and honestly they are very very rare.*


 Very good.. I can get on the band wagon with everything you said here, I was reading you all wrong. I wrote this on another thread .. kinda speaking of the same things.. knowing ourselves and what we want >


> *Simplyamorous said*: I see this on US...holding true to what we ultimately want...
> 
> When we meet up with others like minded...who have resolved who they are, what they want, no shame in how they Love and Play.. then it's a potential match, isn't it?
> 
> ..We are all different...... pleasing others when it goes against our own views...how we envision Sex to be....is still conforming to pressure, whether it is HIS pressure in the moment or what we feel is societal pressure catering to an acceptance of the vixen woman who pleases her Boyfriend.... doesn't this reduce us to "sheep" in a sense...If we want to unleash the bad girl after the vows, this too is our prerogative...but we may RISK loosing some men along the way... that can go both ways even... so still best to hold true on how we deeply feel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is the ultimate Double edged sword in this way.. because our body screams to GO THERE.....heck if he is HOT and he wants you , it's damn hard to resist......but the aftermath may not be the outcome we planned on/ imagined...this too needs to have it's tug of war in us...the more we care, the more we should beware.





> * Tacoma said:*
> *I want to add SA that over the years I've come to know your story.
> I've paid attention to it fairly closely, it was educational to me because of my problems with "unenlightened" women.
> Your story is a tale of one of those unenlightened women finding her way to enlightenment and that is journey I greatly appreciate learning about*.


 I've been Gawd awful open on this forum..someone ought to KICK ME...it's been such a thrilling journey, I'm still writing about it ....I am still high on enthusiasm...


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA, you missed my point, but that's ok.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> I can't speak for SA on this point, but it seems to me that such concerns are not necessarily a failure to be sex positive.
> 
> For example, I know this guy, and he wants a relationship. But he destroys each and every one because he also prefers to be in absolute control of the sex, and likely has intimacy issues, and what he invariably does is hire prostitutes to fulfill his sexual needs.
> 
> Now, we could judge him for hiring prostitutes instead of working on a real relationship, and I can see how this is sex negative, and judgemental.
> 
> *But at the same time, he is on a path of self-destruction, making his own problem worse rather than better. I can't really say anything because he's an adult and can do whatever he wants, but I do have concern. Is that sex negative?
> *
> *Similarly, I've gone down the path of utterly self-destructive behaviour, and think it would have been awesome if someone had cared enough to point that out to me, so I might've been able to make some needed changes sooner rather than later.
> 
> We all have our own paths, to be sure, but it sometimes helps to learn from other people's concerns --even if they are judgements that we're going too far.
> *
> No?


Love your attitude in this post....and you have spoken for me beautifully Always alone... 

I want to believe this is how I operate and my true motives.. I've lived a very good life ...what else do we have but a listening ear.. little sharing of experiences, a touch of concern...we can all learn from each other.. 

In regards to your guy friend...maybe this will shed some light...

 Do You Have An Intimacy Disorder?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fozzy said:


> I may be alone here, but I'm giving this a standing ovation.


Nope, you're not alone!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> *SA, you missed my point, but that's ok*.


 I seem to do that a lot....right over the head...or I take it in another direction entirely... 



NobodySpecial said:


> *I have always wondered if I am a touch sick. If there is no risk of pregnancy and it is consensual, what is the problem?*


 Emotional attachment, feelings, wanting to tie yourself to that person, heartbreak...people can look out of entirely different sexual lenses...why we can so badly misunderstand another...

Taken from that sex thread a couple posts back...

...*** Human sexuality can be viewed from 6 perspectives or “lenses,” says Dr. Caroline J. Simon, professor of philosophy at Hope College, in Holland, MI. In more than 20 years of teaching classes in sexual ethics, she noticed that most textbooks described only two of them. She has broken these down (below) ....further explanation in her book >>
Bringing Sex into Focus: The Quest for Sexual Integrity .....

“Rival views of how sex matters in our pluralistic society often mean that there are few shared understandings, conventions or rules of engagement,” she says. “It is little wonder that there is so much pain arising from misunderstanding & so many disappointed expectations in the sexual realm.”

Sounds you hold a "Plain sex view" of sexuality.. these are the last 3 of the 6.....



> *4. * *"Plain Sex" view*~ "just enjoy it for what it is".... Cultural constructs linking love & sex are outmoded: Sexual desire is an acute bodily desire for physical contact with another. Sex is an intensely pleasurable physical activity. Sex should be based on mutual consent leading to mutual sexual satisfaction, so that “noone gets hurt.”
> 
> In the 1970's, Alan Goldman , penned an article entitled “Plain Sex” -speaking of the times reliable & convenient birth control & undermined any link between sex & commitment.
> With the practice of “safe sex,” recreational sex began to seem appropriate between consenting adults. Throughout history...many seen sex "for pleasure alone" ... but before reliable contraception such people were widely viewed as irresponsible libertines and gigolos, if male, and for females, the word even worse.
> 
> This view claims feels the above views are outdated, no longer do we need to link Love & sex..... Sexuality is now best seen as simply an acute physical desire for an intensely pleasurable physical activity that naturally leads to engaging in bodily exploration.
> 
> This view puts its emphasis on mutual consent/ mutual consideration leading to mutual satisfaction. When “no one gets hurt” and each party gets what he or she wants, plain sex appears to avoid lots of problems.
> 
> *5. **Power View* ~ Sexuality is a potent instrument for controlling others/ sex wields power". ... Sexual desire is the desire to possess another, while wanting to avoid being objectified by the other. One must be savvy to the potential for sexual exploitation, manipulation and violence (in it's rawest forms).
> 
> Sexuality is seen as "energy", as a force, Sexual interaction lays us bare & can strip us of control as we surrender to desire. Knowing oneself as a being who commands another’s sexual attention is invigorating / experiencing oneself as sexually attractive is enlivening. Yet this power is fragile & leaves you at the mercy of another's way of seeing - when I become a “sex object,” someone else decides whether I am valued, set aside, desired or dismissed.
> 
> In order to seize control & not be controlled, I need to objectify my sexual “partner” (in thought or by actions) before my sexual “partner” can objectify me... “Partner” becomes a misnomer because the mutuality of such encounters is mutual rivalry in a contest over power.
> 
> Self-Protection is vital here...one must enter into sexual relationships with one’s eyes wide open, savvy about the potential for exploitation & manipulation, taking care to preserve one’s own dignity by not being the victim of another’s conscious or unconscious exertions of power.
> 
> *6. **Expressive View*~ "a form of self expression"...Sex is a source of personal empowerment that is central to human flourishing. Sexual restraint is unnatural but sexuality should be used without hampering the empowerment of others
> 
> Sexual expression garners creative power. Writer Sally Tinsdale voices a modest version of this view saying .... “Sex can help us to like ourselves and find a generosity of spirit, open ourselves to the world and simply be alive".... another calls it "body language".....
> 
> Another says ..."I believe that the celebration of the erotic & of our desire to express it sexually ought to be a major issue in our life together because it is the primary wellspring of our capacity to be creative together ... to love one another, write poetry, struggle for justice & friendship".
> 
> Because the expressive lens sees sexual expression as vital to personal empowerment, it sees sexual restraint as diminishing or warping the self.
> 
> The importance placed on sexual expression as part of a full human life sets the view apart from the plain sex view, as it is more than just a desire for pleasure..however intense. It sees sexuality and sexual activity as central to one's identity.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> I appreciate that coming from you .  I often feel like a lone "she wolf" but I dare stick my head in anyway..


Well I cannot say whether I agree with you are not. Given FW's reaction, I am guessing not. I will never know because your posts are such a visual assault, I can't read them. Not trying to be mean. You have every right to post however you please. But if you feel "lone" anything, you might get more people reading if you don't down the dancing baloney.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> Well I cannot say whether I agree with you are not. Given FW's reaction, I am guessing not. I will never know because your posts are such a visual assault, I can't read them. Not trying to be mean. You have every right to post however you please. But if you feel "lone" anything, you might get more people reading if you don't down the dancing baloney.


I've had a couple others say similar ...I am assuming you are using a cell phone to read posts then...I've never used a cell or ipod on TAM...

Wondering if the icons become mountain sized or something... I was wondering what happened in photobucket, the darn things went from small to blown up x 10 ....if they turn into that on these threads on a little phone, yeah ...I'd skip my posts too!


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've had a couple others say similar ...I am assuming you are using a cell phone to read posts then...I've never used a cell or ipod on TAM...


Nope. All PC, all the time.



> Wondering if the icons become mountain sized or something... I was wondering what happened in photobucket, the darn things went from small to blown up x 10 ....if they turn into that on these threads on a little phone, yeah ...I'd skip my posts too!


Do your thing, whatever. I would like to read your posts if they weren't scattered with pink, weird quotation segments and chicks with snakes.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> Do your thing, whatever. I would like to read your posts if they weren't scattered with pink, weird quotation segments and chicks with snakes.


Your feelings are loud & clear, I get it..not long ago there was another poster here who was taking pop shots at my colors & chicks & snakes too.....I will continue to post as I enjoy .I try to make it interesting.. 

If I felt someone actually cared, however, I would go out of my way to be considerate in my posts specifically to them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> Your feelings are loud & clear, I get it..not long ago there was another poster here who was taking pop shots at my colors & chicks & snakes too.....I will continue to post as I enjoy .I try to make it interesting..
> 
> If I felt someone actually cared, however, I would go out of my way to be considerate in my posts specifically to them.


I care. I was not trying to pot shot you. I would love to read your stuff. But it's your style. Do as you wish.


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> I care. I was not trying to pot shot you. I would love to read your stuff. But it's your style. Do as you wish.


Then copy paste it into Wordpad.


----------



## DoF

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is an article written by a college student who is *ASHAMED* that she has not had sex yet...Why -because the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction....
> 
> Virginity vs Promiscuity and Everything In Between: My Experience
> 
> Can anyone disagree with what she says here ? (didn't know what "Skins" was, looked it up)....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice but it's not always so...I've had posters wanting to enlighten me to why my thinking it WRONG...personal messages & all..to use the term "Gift" in reference to sex...asked to read this article (do they really think I don't read the other side -seriously?)...another wanting me to read a 3rd wave feminist book because again, I NEED ENLIGHTENED...I am wrong.... my views are outdated ...also I was told I "feed the misogynist men" ...now that was a reference to *hate*... like I condone men hating Women...I rally them on ! This all because I hold a Romantic view of sexuality...damn!..I feel so misunderstood at times.
> 
> It's disheartening...that's all...
> 
> I sure agree it is going the way of the Dodo.. and here again, it IS the ENLIGHTENED WOMAN who is putting out..she is the rare treat...she is the norm today... but really... why is she putting out.. today if you don't you get automatically dumped...how many fake orgasms to please the man?
> 
> I found this article -on the Repression part it said>>
> Sexually Repressed, Sexually Immature Or Sexually Dysfunctional -- Which One Is It?
> 
> 
> 
> It's the automatic stamp of Repression -that if a woman wants to wait for LOVE, to give her all to someone very special..... I just don't feel this deserves that label 100% of the time...It just seems it is being presented here as though if you don't fit this mold, you are not sexually FREE or healthy.. but maybe I am misunderstanding too...
> 
> 
> I'd be the 1st to speak against that sort of passive parenting....... We are very open with our kids... we don't do "*a talk*"...it is an ongoing free flowing atmosphere where they can bounce anything off of us....we seek to hear their opinions and views along the way...to KNOW our kids, know what they face, to guide them...we've been there...I want them to see all sides to an issue... the emotional, the physical, the possible consequences, to care how the other feels...understand not everyone views sex or uses it for the same reasons... it's so much more than ..."just put a condom on it " and STD talk.. the school can offer this... but the home...we have our role of influence as well....
> 
> Our boys know I am on TAM, they know I have like 50 books on sexuality, they think it's pretty damn cool ... It would be nothing for us to get into a deep discussion on hormones...we've talked about whacking it /porn... No shame... we have a lot of laughs too...they don't see us as Stringent or repressed by any means..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. we have a role of influence here...but oh how different people think..these are competing for the minds of our young people..the social norms will greatly influence society, just as marriage is now dying....it's no longer necessary...
> 
> Grandma & the church can be blamed for NOT talking about sex openly beautifully -giving it the Praise it deserves -even if it's aim was committed relationships.....their silence has been a grave downfall... they failed us here... but on the other side of this coin.... are we better today... are people happier in their relationships...or are we raising a whole host of new issues to muddle through....has sowing wild oats helped Female Desire ??
> 
> One of our guy friends drives bus for a College campus, he's had to stop them from having sex on the bus...hoards of them getting off at parties...drunk..he always does the late night weekends... maybe I have just heard too much... one girl was begging him to DO HER..
> 
> Yeah a thrill in the moment..after all it's an orgasm !! ..but not afterwards.. not if the man was not my everything, who I could call day or night, bask in the afterglow...feel I was his everything...
> 
> Yes I had strong physical stirrings.. But I also bought toys, rented porn...I had outlets to satisfy...so if I went against my own ethical code -giving myself to someone who didn't care ENOUGH....who am I going to blame... my hormones ....the guy..LIfe.... I would be letting myself down...that has to mean something *to ME*...Obviously having more boundaries is not *as FUN*, & many here would find it purely senseless ...I get that...
> 
> but Fantasies are unbridled ... does anyone have these CHAINED / caged in their heads?? I know I never had.. . the same sexual type fantasies I have TODAY is what I had when I was a teen ....nothing has changed...(I would say I just fantasized MORE - add a little intensity to it perhaps)....even though I am more liberated & free acting out what I want ...
> 
> His fantasies has remained the same also...over all of these years.. he had Playboy and Hustler -he was disgusted with Hustler magazines style..saw it as pure degrading...
> 
> Why do we have the fantasies we do...can we even understand it? fascinating subject though.
> 
> I think it's all harmless for the most part... Rented a dvd narrated by sex Therapists...about Fantasies...It's healthy to have them, lots of them...it's GOOD for our sex lives...couldn't agree more..but many are never meant to be acted out in real life...
> 
> It's important to deeply know ourselves and what we want from Sex/ relationships.... yes... I was never looking to test drive the men....nor did I want test driven either... I know how I am wired ...I would have felt Used, and empty when the man moved on to another... I don't think that makes me insecure, I think it makes me in touch with myself...and sensitively beautiful and like wise, I ONLY cared to meet up / hook up with men who have a similar way of viewing the act...or he would not be a good fit for me.
> 
> If I let my lusts rule the night when I met new men... I believe I could get addicted to that RUSH... and it would NOT be good *for me*, or what I deeply wanted ..(a Long term emotionally connected relationship)...... so therefore.... I'd need to reasonably hold the reins on my appetite ...because really...I would only be hurting myself to give in to that..


This IS a great post. Everything you said can be consolidated into one quote.

Intimacy without feelings/meaning is worthless to you.

Don't worry, I feel the same way. 

And yes MOST people are sheep and follow the heard.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

It appears that highly sexual women are also more likely to have extramarital affairs if married or flings if not. Careful what you wish for, I guess. 

From an article about a study of highly sexual women:

Almost all the women had experienced brief flings and simultaneous relationships with more tahn one partner. Ten (23%) were married and five more were in long-term relationships they considered "satisfying" (total, 34%). However, most, including those in committed relationships, said they were open to flings.

Strong, insistent libidos that are difficult to control--these women appear rather "male." They marry, but often have extra-marital affairs. 


The Real Lives of Highly Sexual Women | Psychology Today


----------



## Faithful Wife

They appear rather "male"....of course they had to say that, since the world still can't quite accept that being highly sexual is not gender specific and it never was...but since for centuries people had to tell themselves that being highly sexual was only ok for males, we still have that lingering language about it.

This is changing fast though. Even that article was from 2010 and I bet would have been worded differently today.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> *They appear rather "male"....*of course they had to say that, since the world still can't quite accept that being highly sexual is not gender specific and it never was...but since for centuries people had to tell themselves that being highly sexual was only ok for males, we still have that lingering language about it.
> 
> This is changing fast though. Even that article was from 2010 and I bet would have been worded differently today.


I agree, that thought is BS. I just don't see men are naturally predisposed to cheating over women. Highly sexual people as the rest of the article would indicate, I could potentially see that happening, but I don't like the way the author puts out the widely accepted assumption that horndog men are going to chase any skirt that passes by.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The truth about female desire*



ebp123 said:


> It appears that highly sexual women are also more likely to have extramarital affairs if married or flings if not. Careful what you wish for, I guess.
> 
> From an article about a study of highly sexual women:
> 
> Almost all the women had experienced brief flings and simultaneous relationships with more tahn one partner. Ten (23%) were married and five more were in long-term relationships they considered "satisfying" (total, 34%). However, most, including those in committed relationships, said they were open to flings.
> 
> Strong, insistent libidos that are difficult to control--these women appear rather "male." They marry, but often have extra-marital affairs.
> 
> 
> The Real Lives of Highly Sexual Women | Psychology Today


So ... the kind of woman we are encouraging more women to feel comfortable being, is actually a woman that doesn't know what she wants ... other than to get laid ... with whomever, whenever ... which actually makes her more like a dude? According to Psychology Today?

Well then ... Get thee to a nunnery! And cover up those dirty pillows.


----------



## firebelly1

ConanHub said:


> ...the ones I said yes to had their clothes off before I could blink.
> 
> I don't think a lot of women even understand their own desire, that it is good, it doesn't make them bad, but they need to respect and control that aspect of themselves or, like anyone, it could lead them places they regret. I think more education and conversation on the topic would go a long way to help more women, men too, to avoid a lot of misunderstandings and mistakes when it comes to sexuality.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Conan - are you saying that if a woman had her clothes off before you could blink that she necessarily fits into the category of woman you're talking about - one who doesn't respect or control her own sexuality?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...if I read the article correctly, the study was done by putting out a craigslist ad for "highly sexual females"...and that was determined by how many O's they had a week. Pretty flimsy. BUT I do at least advocate the very IDEA that they are now getting used to, which is as I said, being highly sexual isn't gender specific.

Fozzy...exactly. Highly sexual people, men or women, are not always totally indiscriminate. Some are one partner through life types, like SA.


----------



## firebelly1

Deejo said:


> I keep hearing about the concept of female viagra, and maybe it's me, but I see this as a misnomer. Something like 'Sex Chocolate' or 'Spanish Fly' sounds what they should be looking for. Something that fires the chemicals creating desire and arousal.
> 
> I take viagra. It has ZERO impact on my drive or desire. It's about the plumbing, not about the wiring.


I read a book that included a chapter on hermaphrodites (I don't think that's the PC term anymore so sorry) but the science for a long time assumed that these folks lacked sexual desire because their testosterone levels were naturally low. The folks in the study said that just wasn't true at all - having low testosterone did not give them low sex drives.


----------



## firebelly1

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...if I read the article correctly, the study was done by putting out a craigslist ad for "highly sexual females"...and that was determined by how many O's they had a week. Pretty flimsy. BUT I do at least advocate the very IDEA that they are now getting used to, which is as I said, being highly sexual isn't gender specific.
> 
> Fozzy...exactly. Highly sexual people, men or women, are not always totally indiscriminate. Some are one partner through life types, like SA.


I've been wondering through this whole thread...does frequency define "highly sexual"? I guess it's a question about HD v LD in general. Is it entirely defined by how often you want it? Seems simplistic.


----------



## Fozzy

firebelly1 said:


> I've been wondering through this whole thread...does frequency define "highly sexual"? I guess it's a question about HD v LD in general. Is it entirely defined by how often you want it? Seems simplistic.


IMO, what could be a better definition than level of drive? As FW indicated, simply counting O's per week is ridiculous. There are plenty of highly sexual people that CAN'T orgasm. There are also a lot of highly sexual people that aren't in a relationship, and not having a lot of encounters. So using frequency as a measure is just as bad.

edited: it's "orgasm" not "orgrasm"


----------



## firebelly1

Anonymous Person said:


> There's nothing to study.
> 
> Women **** strangers
> Women like strange
> Women use guys for sex
> Women also dumpster dive once or twice in their life
> Women fantasize about threesomes (mostly M-M-F)
> Women also love public sex
> 
> etc
> 
> It's really no different. Complicating the matter is mostly because a lot of guys don't want to think women think just like them. A bit scary for them, I guess.


I think this is true, and as Tacoma pointed out, and as the study I think shows, women may like these things but be so sexually repressed mentally that they don't know they like them; can't let themselves like them.


----------



## firebelly1

Fozzy said:


> IMO, what could be a better definition than level of drive? As FW indicated, simply counting O's per week is ridiculous. There are plenty of highly sexual people that CAN'T orgasm. There are also a lot of highly sexual people that aren't in a relationship, and not having a lot of encounterss. So using frequency as a measure is just as bad.
> 
> edited: it's "orgasm" not "orgrasm"


But does "level of drive" mean how often one feels horny? I guess I'm taking a little offense because I think of myself as a pretty highly sexual woman but don't necessarily want sex every day.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

firebelly1 said:


> But does "level of drive" mean how often one feels horny? I guess I'm taking a little offense because I think of myself as a pretty highly sexual woman but don't necessarily want sex every day.


From the study, it seems that you can self identify as being highly sexual in a number of ways. It's a spectrum.

At one end were women who had sex 3 times a week and masturbated about as often but who wanted sex every day.

At the other end are women who masturbate as many as 70 times a week, have sex 30+ times a week, had sex with multiple partners in a week, had cyber sex 2 dozen times a week, etc.


----------



## Fozzy

firebelly1 said:


> But does "level of drive" mean how often one feels horny? I guess I'm taking a little offense because I think of myself as a pretty highly sexual woman but don't necessarily want sex every day.


You make a good point, there are many ways you can define being highly sexual. Being comfortable in your own skin and how you view others sexually is a big part of it as well (whether you're a "shamer", etc). Those things can conflict with physical drive and upset the whole applecart. For purposes of a study though, I'd guess that things like that would be too difficult to quantify. You have to establish some kind of a baseline somewhere. Basically, asking people how often they'd rather be having sex in a given period of time seems like the easiest way to get you in the ballpark.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Deejo said:


> So ... the kind of woman we are encouraging more women to feel comfortable being, is actually a woman that doesn't know what she wants ... other than to get laid ... with whomever, whenever ... which actually makes her more like a dude? According to Psychology Today?
> 
> Well then ... Get thee to a nunnery! And cover up those dirty pillows.


Well, I dare say that if we all woke up tomorrow and the societal norm was that men and women were free to have as many sexual partners as they wanted, that they didn't have to stay faithful in marriage, that there was no stigma or repercussions for having multiple partners, then there would be a lot of happy men out there. I suspect women wouldn't be happy about it, though, even if the same sexual freedom applied to them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ebp123 said:


> *Well, I dare say that if we all woke up tomorrow and the societal norm was that men and women were free to have as many sexual partners as they wanted, that they didn't have to stay faithful in marriage, that there was no stigma or repercussions for having multiple partners, then there would be a lot of happy men out there.* I suspect women wouldn't be happy about it, though, even if the same sexual freedom applied to them.


AFAIC this is a terrific yard stick to a good marriage. When the legal and social constraints are removed, you would choose it anyway.


----------



## firebelly1

Fozzy said:


> You make a good point, there are many ways you can define being highly sexual. Being comfortable in your own skin and how you view others sexually is a big part of it as well (whether you're a "shamer", etc). Those things can conflict with physical drive and upset the whole applecart. For purposes of a study though, I'd guess that things like that would be too difficult to quantify. You have to establish some kind of a baseline somewhere. Basically, asking people how often they'd rather be having sex in a given period of time seems like the easiest way to get you in the ballpark.


Fair enough.


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> Conan - are you saying that if a woman had her clothes off before you could blink that she necessarily fits into the category of woman you're talking about - one who doesn't respect or control her own sexuality?


I had about 40 partners before I was 20 so a lot of the women were young and stupid like me. Looking back, I would have advised them to wait longer and be pickier about who they were intimate with. I was just hooking up. I only had a date or two with maybe three of them and broke a lot of hearts, not proud of that at all.

I would say I was a bad call for most of them. I wasn't mean, just stupid. A couple of them new damn well I was a plaything and had a hell of a lot of fun with me. Those ladies maybe should have respected themselves more but they were way more experienced than me and I chock it up to a learning experience for me.

I was mostly referring to women who have very strong sexual desire and they let their lust do their thinking for them.

They end up servicing more men than a public restroom when it really wasn't what they wanted and by the time they figure it out, they are ashamed of their history because the men they want to be with have a different view of sexuality. Often these women have a fairly reserved view of number of partners as well but maybe needed to understand their strong sex drive earlier in life before creeps and stupid young guys like me could take advantage. Actually, the majority of them were real sweethearts and had nothing but good intentions towards me. My description of respect and control doesn't fit all the women I was with.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## firebelly1

ebp123 said:


> Well, I dare say that if we all woke up tomorrow and the societal norm was that men and women were free to have as many sexual partners as they wanted, that they didn't have to stay faithful in marriage, that there was no stigma or repercussions for having multiple partners, then there would be a lot of happy men out there. I suspect women wouldn't be happy about it, though, even if the same sexual freedom applied to them.


I disagree. I think that's another stereotype.


----------



## firebelly1

ConanHub said:


> A couple of them new damn well I was a plaything and had a hell of a lot of fun with me. Those ladies maybe should have respected themselves more
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think this is what I was getting at. If you were a plaything and they had fun with you, does that necessarily mean that in doing so they didn't respect themselves? Can't either gender just have sex for fun and it have nothing to do with whether or not they respect themselves?


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> I think this is what I was getting at. If you were a plaything and they had fun with you, does that necessarily mean that in doing so they didn't respect themselves? Can't either gender just have sex for fun and it have nothing to do with whether or not they respect themselves?


Sure, if they understand the repercussions or ramifications of their actions. A few of my partners certainly knew and were fine with it, but a lot of them were young and a bit naive about relationships and their own powerful sex drive. I think there could be more conversation and teaching about female sex drive so at least young women could have a better understanding of the powerful urges to have sex and what they would like to do with it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## committed4ever

A lot of what is posted on this thread seems to be opinion and theories put forth as fact. Read the thread earlier, so I may be getting this wrong but didn't someone say that morality has no place with sexuality or something to that effect. That seems to be a subjective rather than objective viewpoint.

I freely admit that my viewpoint is skewed more toward SA, and I don't apologize for it. Others here are at the opposite end of that spectrum. But why should that viewpoint have to be branded as repressed (again, I read the thread earlier so I may be miss-remembering). So if said that people on the opposite end of SA's viewpoint were loose and/or promiscioous, how would that be viewed? As prudish on my part?

My opinion (and my opinion only) is that people on both ends and in the middle should be allowed to co-exist and not be stereotyped in a negative way for having their various viewpoint. We all know what we think of others' actions, viewpoints, and behaviors, but what we think, is after all, just that --- WHAT WE THINK AND NOT FACT.


----------



## always_alone

ConanHub said:


> I had about 40 partners before I was 20 so a lot of the women were young and stupid like me. Looking back, I would have advised them to wait longer and be pickier about who they were intimate with. I was just hooking up. I only had a date or two with maybe three of them and broke a lot of hearts, not proud of that at all.
> 
> I would say I was a bad call for most of them. I wasn't mean, just stupid. A couple of them new damn well I was a plaything and had a hell of a lot of fun with me. Those ladies maybe should have respected themselves more but they were way more experienced than me and I chock it up to a learning experience for me.
> 
> I was mostly referring to women who have very strong sexual desire and they let their lust do their thinking for them.
> 
> They end up servicing more men than a public restroom when it really wasn't what they wanted and by the time they figure it out, they are ashamed of their history because the men they want to be with have a different view of sexuality. Often these women have a fairly reserved view of number of partners as well but maybe needed to understand their strong sex drive earlier in life before creeps and stupid young guys like me could take advantage.


It's interesting that you think women who slept with you should have respected themselves more.

Are you sure it was *they* who lacked respect for themselves?


----------



## Caribbean Man

committed4ever said:


> A lot of what is posted on this thread seems to be opinion and theories put forth as fact. Read the thread earlier, so I may be getting this wrong *but didn't someone say that morality has no place with sexuality or something to that effect. That seems to be a subjective rather than objective viewpoint.*


:iagree:

Yep.

I saw it too and I was flabbergasted, but I decided not to challenge it because I didn't want to derail the thread into a philosophical debate.

Everyone has their own way of viewing sex , which I think is their right.But I have a problem with those people who continually try to shove things down other people's throat who believe differently , and try to make them feel as though they are odd or queer or stupid because they believe in a _different_ value system.

Sexuality and morality would always be extremely subjective matters. 
If I am not allowed to judge someone else's attitude towards sex and morality, then why should they be able to cast aspersions on mine?


----------



## ConanHub

always_alone said:


> It's interesting that you think women who slept with you should have respected themselves more.
> 
> Are you sure it was *they* who lacked respect for themselves?


You hit the nail on the head with that one a a!

But this was about female sexuality so I left my end out of it.

You are exactly right. I did not respect myself as much as I should have in regards to my own sexuality. That is part of the reason I called myself young and stupid.

Between the ages of 17 and 19 I had partners in their mid twenties and early thirties.

Those women certainly weren't naïve. But I don't hold anything against any of them...... except the belly dancer.


----------



## firebelly1

I came upon this video today that, for me, hits the nail on the head about the struggle women have with their own sexuality. Does wanting sex and being clear that we want sex, for it's own sake, make us wh***s? I suspect that the waxing and waning of a woman's desire to have sex within the context of her relationship frequently has something to do with this internal struggle. 

Now that I'm a mother, is it ok for me to be sexual?
Now that I'm a wife, is it ok if I fantasize about X,Y,Z? 
If I initiate sex, will my husband feel emasculated? 
If I initiate sex, does that make me a wh*re?

And for us single girls, can we just have sex without wanting a "relationship"? The responses I see on this forum seem like most folks think that is a resounding "no." But that bleeds over into relationship folks. If it's not okay for a single girl to pursue sex just 'cause she's horny, then it's not okay for a married woman to do that either because it is the pursuit of sex for its own sex that makes us wh*res. Make sense? In order for us not to be wh*res we have to want to have sex for "higher" reasons than just plain old physical desire.


----------



## firebelly1

ConanHub said:


> You are exactly right. I did not respect myself as much as I should have in regards to my own sexuality. That is part of the reason I called myself young and stupid.


I'm glad you take accountability for your part. I hear what you are saying - girls can walk around in this fog where their sexuality takes over and they distance themselves from it cognitively and make stupid choices. They do it because for women to admit that they like sex is paramount to admitting they are a wh*re. 

I think you are right - if we allow women to be okay with their sexuality and be more conscious of it, they can avoid the bad consequences that can come of it. 

And there is a self-respect element to it. A lot of girls have sex with guys not really because they themselves are sexually empowered but because they are seeking validation from the guy.


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> I'm glad you take accountability for your part. I hear what you are saying - girls can walk around in this fog where their sexuality takes over and they distance themselves from it cognitively and make stupid choices. They do it because for women to admit that they like sex is paramount to admitting they are a wh*re.
> 
> I think you are right - if we allow women to be okay with their sexuality and be more conscious of it, they can avoid the bad consequences that can come of it.
> 
> And there is a self-respect element to it. A lot of girls have sex with guys not really because they themselves are sexually empowered but because they are seeking validation from the guy.


Spot on. Couldn't agree more.:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## always_alone

firebelly1 said:


> And for us single girls, can we just have sex without wanting a "relationship"? The responses I see on this forum seem like most folks think that is a resounding "no." But that bleeds over into relationship folks. If it's not okay for a single girl to pursue sex just 'cause she's horny, then it's not okay for a married woman to do that either because it is the pursuit of sex for its own sex that makes us wh*res. Make sense? In order for us not to be wh*res we have to want to have sex for "higher" reasons than just plain old physical desire.


I agree. The whole Madonna / ***** dichotomy is a big part of the problem. Women just have no adequate sexual role models. If you are deserving of respect, you must be as pure as the driven snow. If you are to have sex, it is about procreation, not dirty desire. To be actually sexual basically means you don't deserve respect, but are a sex toy to be used and abused at man's whim.

Strippers, porn stars, hookers are the predominant images of women's sexuality. We are told over and over again that our sexuality is meaningless unless validated by a man and catering to his fantasy (except lesbians, of course). Even here on TAM it's all about wearing lingerie, acting like a porn star, all just to keep him interested. Woe to she who fails in this. It's as though women's sexuality doesn't exist until a man is there to rank its value and mark it with his seal of approval.

Faithful Wife has a blog post asking "would you do you?", and I think this is a useful approach, for both sexes, but especially for women who are too reliant on male validation. Men seem to have much less problem owning their sexuality, recognizing that it comes from within and isn't dependent on someone else telling them that they are entitled to it.

Women need to be more in control of defining and experiencing their own sexuality, without relying on outdated and harmful stereotypes, IMHO


----------



## ocotillo

committed4ever said:


> A lot of what is posted on this thread seems to be opinion and theories put forth as fact. Read the thread earlier, so I may be getting this wrong but didn't someone say that morality has no place with sexuality or something to that effect. That seems to be a subjective rather than objective viewpoint.


I think morality is one of those words that people sometimes use a little too casually. 

Ethics is the formal language of morality and although it's certainly not a hard science, it is far less subjective than things like religious views, social mores, (Despite the etymology of the word) popular attitudes, etc.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ConanHub said:


> *You are exactly right. I did not respect myself as much as I should have in regards to my own sexuality. That is part of the reason I called myself young and stupid.
> 
> Between the ages of 17 and 19 I had partners in their mid twenties and early thirties.
> 
> Those women certainly weren't naïve.*


:iagree:


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> I'm glad you take accountability for your part. I hear what you are saying - girls can walk around in this fog where their sexuality takes over and they distance themselves from it cognitively and make stupid choices. They do it because for women to admit that they like sex is paramount to admitting they are a wh*re.
> 
> I think you are right - if we allow women to be okay with their sexuality and be more conscious of it, they can avoid the bad consequences that can come of it.
> 
> And there is a self-respect element to it. *A lot of girls have sex with guys not really because they themselves are sexually empowered but because they are seeking validation from the guy*.


This describes to a tee why my STBW's partner count is what it is. Of course she likes sex, and has had sex for the sake of just being horny, but the root of her sexual awakening was seeking validation.


----------



## See_Listen_Love

always_alone said:


> I agree. The whole Madonna / ***** dichotomy is a big part of the problem. Women just have no adequate sexual role models. If you are deserving of respect, you must be as pure as the driven snow. If you are to have sex, it is about procreation, not dirty desire. To be actually sexual basically means you don't deserve respect, but are a sex toy to be used and abused at man's whim.
> 
> Strippers, porn stars, hookers are the predominant images of women's sexuality. We are told over and over again that our sexuality is meaningless unless validated by a man and catering to his fantasy (except lesbians, of course). Even here on TAM it's all about wearing lingerie, acting like a porn star, all just to keep him interested. Woe to she who fails in this. It's as though women's sexuality doesn't exist until a man is there to rank its value and mark it with his seal of approval.
> 
> Faithful Wife has a blog post asking "would you do you?", and I think this is a useful approach, for both sexes, but especially for women who are too reliant on male validation. Men seem to have much less problem owning their sexuality, recognizing that it comes from within and isn't dependent on someone else telling them that they are entitled to it.
> 
> Women need to be more in control of defining and experiencing their own sexuality, without relying on outdated and harmful stereotypes, IMHO


I think this is feminist BS, fed for over a long time to men, which has basically led to men feeling guilty about most everything that is wrong in a relation, in society, in companies, in the world at large.

There is enough scientific information available now to refute those dogmatic feminist viewpoints. They were maybe valid in the past, but are obsolete now.

Let the stereotypes go yourself!


----------



## always_alone

See_Listen_Love said:


> I think this is feminist BS, fed for over a long time to men, which has basically led to men feeling guilty about most everything that is wrong in a relation, in society, in companies, in the world at large.
> 
> There is enough scientific information available now to refute those dogmatic feminist viewpoints. They were maybe valid in the past, but are obsolete now.
> 
> Let the stereotypes go yourself!


Feminist bs? To dare to suggest that women should define their own sexuality independent of ridiculous stereotypical role models?

Why would this make men feel guilty? What does it even have to do with them? And what science, pray tell, comes even close to invalidating it?

I am not the one reinforcing the stereotypes, I am challenging them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

...If one googled ...."*Sexual Empowerment*" or "*Embracing one's sexuality*" for women - many articles pop up with various slants to them...I have read many...I liked this one, though some may feel it is too conservative minded.. 

I think we could all agree on the ending though... 



> Embrace your sexuality | Metro
> 
> *So, you like sex. Shame on you, right? *
> 
> Many women, from post-war baby boomers to the fresh-faced crop of Generation Y, still have problems dealing with—even acknowledging—their own sensuality and sexuality. We navigate a minefield of religious and societal sanctions, health hazards, and a global media that bombards us with sexual imagery while at the same time being capable of uttering the words Sex, Sin and whor** in the same sentence. What are we as women to do? We asked a few readers and friends about embracing our own sexuality, and here’s what they had to say: Sexuality doesn’t mean promiscuity. Being sexual doesn’t mean sleeping around.
> 
> It’s not the number of men you’ve slept with that make your sex life truly fulfilling, but the quality of the sex, and how you feel about yourself after, that count. A woman can be her truest sexual self within the confines of a monogamous relationship—as a matter of fact, that’s where most women find the sexual identity they were looking for. As one married male musician tells us, “Finding and embracing your sexual self doesn't necessarily mean shame or being a sl**, particularly if your explorations are within the bounds of a loving, responsible relationship.”
> 
> *Unshackle your mind*
> 
> Although religious and moral codes are invaluable to maintaining order, they’re still rooted in an age where a woman’s sexuality was taboo. Those of us who are strong in our faiths find ourselves conflicted: how do we remain true to what we believe while still finding personal, emotional and sexual fulfillment?
> 
> Here, the choice is a personal one. But as we try to solve a dilemma that can erroneously be seen as a choice between body and soul, remember that many of the admonitions against what a woman thinks, feels and does are mired in an age when we were barely allowed to do any of the above.
> 
> Even our secular sisters feel the weight of social opinion. It’s especially galling because the condemnation for acting on our sexual feelings falls upon us, rather than on the broader backs of our brothers.“Men count their ‘conquests’ as notches on their belt, but women are considered ‘*****s’,” one banker observes. An article on sexuality suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek, that when women are asked how many people they’ve slept with, they halve their ‘number’, while men double theirs.
> 
> *Find a safe place*
> 
> We can’t express our sexuality if we feel pressured or threatened. In order to be truly fulfilled, we need to find a safe place... and that ‘place’ doesn’t necessarily mean a location. Safety has to do with being with someone you trust, who will open his mind wide enough to help you open yours.“Finding a safe place” also means making your life a maco-free zone. It’s a small country, and everyone knows somebody who knows somebody who did this, that and the other with somebody else. “Discreet” isn’t synonymous with “prudish”. Being sexual doesn’t mean getting drunk enough to whip off your top while a dozen cell phones upload your antics to the World Wide Web. Don’t feed the gossips. Better yet, get them out of your life. Who needs friends who spend more time getting their jollies over other people’s lives than living for themselves?
> 
> *Remember, you’re not alone*
> 
> The insurance agent in the grey suit patiently explaining your claim form to you was probably blindfolded and tied up last night. Your post-lady has an account at SexToysRUs.com. “The actions that society condemns in public, it commits behind closed doors,” one man suggests. We all like sex. We’re programmed to like sex. People are having more sex than you could possibly imagine, even those who act like butter won’t melt in their mouths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The key to enjoying our own sexuality is to remember that it’s not about what ‘people’ would think, but what we think. How great sex makes us feel, what a healing, bonding joy it is. Set the boundaries you feel comfortable with and play within them. And for the sake of love, don’t be too hard on yourself.... friend adds, “You judge yourself way harder than society does.” Embracing our sexuality is a life-long journey towards self-discovery; get yourself a First Class ticket to ride.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> See what you are calling reliable, is really just saying "she should reliably always want sex with you specifically". And I'm sorry to say it, but we really do want sex reliably with *certain* partners.


This notion you push of the existence of some sexual pseudo-elite is bothersome. Its another form of shaming men. Its not enough that he's sexless for her own lack of desire... oh no, better to kick him while he's down... he's sexless because of all that he lacks. Its "Oh, she wants all kinds of sex buddy, just not with you anymore because you don't have *it*." If that's so, wonderful!! Then women should "man up" and gtfo out of his life rather than making excuses. But then, with her sexual elite sex-dar, why was she with him in the first place? Let's pin nothing at all on her... its all him. 

How is a man to know whether he's that *certain* partner to her, except by her having sex with him? And how is it that a woman may have a very active sex life with a man for a long time, only to completely clam up? He was the *certain* kind of partner and now he's not? Did she just make a mistake and not sniff it out sooner, or is the entire concept utter cr*p? Maybe her sex-dar was off for a few years?

The very notion of there being these *certain* partners is offensive - a bizarre sexual elitism that you sell here and on your blog. What is informative or useful about claiming this faux superiority of "very sexual people"? Why would such a qualifier be necessary for women if, as you say, women are all very sexual with *certain* partners? If you're not getting laid like tile... well, sorry for ya, you're just not in FW's sexual elite. Your partner is looking for that *certain* partner that isn't you. That's your theory FW?

Men and women's sex drives rise and fall like the tides, are affected by a myriad of non-sexual issues throughout the course of life and relationships, and this elite notion of "very sexual people" is just bunk. The majority of sexless relationships aren't the result of someone not being in some bogus group of sexual elite or some major divergence from sexual norm. They are sexless because of various breakdowns in the relationship, stresses of life, and personal baggage.

Why is it that when the discussion is female desire in the context of men in sexless relationships, you point out how badly women want sex reliably with *certain* partners, in effect putting him down as not being *it*; but when the context is of women in sexless relationships, you're quick to point out that these women are with men who just aren't very sexual? Do you just get to randomly pick and choose how sexual someone is, or is it just all women, and just the men whose wives are still putting out (whose status may arbitrarily change should she decide to clam up). Why not keep it level? Maybe these men who are denying their wives want sex reliably with *certain* partners too, and their wives just don't have *it*.

Does this not seem one-sided to you? Do you apply this thinking to sexless women in your women's group who can't understand their men's lack of interest? "Well hon, men are actually very sexual, but only with *certain* partners - and that's just not you." For some reason, I doubt you do... but its perfectly ok to apply that logic with the genders reversed huh?

I don't know much about the existence of a sexual elite, so maybe I'm just one of your "not very sexual people"  But I do know that if I ever end up in a sexless relationship again, I'm going to drop her on her @ss and she can go find whatever *certain* partner she wants, because I sure as h*ll don't want her.


----------



## FrenchFry

The reason I appreciate FW so much is not because I see her as creating a form of sexual elitism, but rather delineating that people of all genders have different sex drives and how to work within these levels, especially if you and your partner are on different ones.

Part of her reasoning is that women don't operate mostly on sex-dar and if sex becomes important or unimportant--that's when issues begin to arise and yes, that is on women. I believe there is still a good deal of cultural conditioning that judges women who operate on that basis instead of looking at things like "ability to provide" and "being a good man." If women were encouraged to place long term sexual compatibility on the same level as these other factors, what I think FW is hypothesizing is that we would see a lot less of these cases where women are cruising along on new relationship bonding hormones until they drop off and turn into the reality of a mismatched sex drive and a lack of sexual chemistry. To me, sex-dar isn't about finding the elite but finding who is really on your level.

She can speak for herself, but my interpretation has been different.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...you've made it clear several times that you don't buy what I'm saying. No problem with that, ok? I'm not going to debate it.

However, you are reading me totally wrong on a few points. If a woman or a man are simply not that sexual, then it will not matter who their partner is. This is one reason why I don't feel MMSL will work in many cases...their claim is that women ALL have responsive desire and they WILL respond to their husband if he is alpha enough. I'm saying, no, if she just isn't that sexual, then that won't work. She will not be able to change her base nature if she just isn't that sexual. Even if a few good romps result and she has a bit of responsive desire now and then, a woman who just isn't that sexual will NOT rise above her own proclivity level for her husband OR any partner in the long term. Short bouts of higher sexual activity can occur, but the base line won't change.

But Dvls...regardless of the personal irritation that happens between me and you...I don't really want to debate my blog or my theory with you, since you don't seem to want to actually discuss it, you just want to diss me.

If you want a real discussion or debate about it, I'm happy to take it off the board with you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> ...I don't really want to debate my blog or my theory with you, since you don't seem to want to actually discuss it, you just want to diss me.
> 
> If you want a real discussion or debate about it, I'm happy to take it off the board with you.


I have no intention to diss you. I like opinionated people. My attack on your theory isn't an attack on you personally. What you've just said is a much more hedged version of your ideas, which are more often expressed in a way that is demeaning of men while protective of women. If things like sexdar and vsps exist, then I can't see how "highly sexual" women might end up in sexless marriages. Besides that, Underlying the whole notion, as you commonly express it, is that there is some inadequacy in the man if his wife lacks interest or wanes. MMSL is a tool that may or may not apply. I know this better than most - as I had a wife for whom sex wasn't of core importance to the relationship, much less a must have.

Its not that I think all women will respond. Its that if a man fixes his issues and she still does not, he knows its time to end that relationship. Something I think she should have done if she's too bothered to want him.

Ultimately, what bothers me is that I perceive you to lay the issues all on the man. If she was sexual, but doesnt want sex anymore, your knee-jerk response appears to be an attack on him as not being the *certain* guy she does want sex with - as was expressed in the post I quoted. Yet, you dont trot this out for sexless women. That's when your knee-jerk response is "he's not very sexual or is only pretending to be". It comes off quite a bit more sexist than the hedging response. Why not apply the same thinking to female sexlessness? Maybe she's not the *certain* woman? I suspect, its because you've been there too, and the empathy for it only goes one way... it was his fault, because you were a VSP. When he's the sexless one, its his fault, he's inadequate - she only reliably has sex with *certain* guys. 

Not an attack on you personally, but a major issue I have with how you often present your ideas.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

When a man or a woman tells me their partner isn't very sexual,this is the list running through my mind:
-do they have medical issues?
-do they have confidence problems?body image issues?
-do they attach level of respect with sexual acts? (iow,do they feel they'll be judged poorly for having sexual desire,do they feel they won't be respected if they show their sexuality?)
-He's not into you
-She's not into you
-You're aren't giving him/her what she needs to get stoked for sex
-they're bored
-they resent you
-They're f**king someone else


----------



## Faithful Wife

You're still mis-reading me, Dvls. So why would I debate you about it or discuss it further when you're not representing what I'm really saying? I'm sorry you don't get what I mean, but that's not my problem. You're free to disagree with what you believe I am saying, even though you aren't getting it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Part of her reasoning is that women don't operate mostly on sex-dar and if sex becomes important or unimportant--that's when issues begin to arise and yes, that is on women.


Please understand that I'm not simply being argumentative here, but that isn't what Ive read. What Ive read, is that "very sexual women" have sexdar, enabling them to sniff out very sexual men. I perceive this as just a veiled attack on men, with a woman's whim determining his "worthiness". But if this is all true, there would be no "very sexual women" in sexless marriages no? The truth is you're just as blind going into relationships as we are, and what you cued your interest on may have been wrong, or even change with time. None of which is a statement on his place in some arbitrary sexual hierarchy.

When you want him, he's a sex god, and when you don't, he's not. Yet he may not have changed at all. Its totally arbitrary and subjective, so as to be meaningless... a projection of your thoughts of the man, to the real facts of the man. You make him, and you unmake him, all by your own interest/mental state... not objective qualities of the man.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> You're still mis-reading me, Dvls. So why would I debate you about it or discuss it further when you're not representing what I'm really saying? I'm sorry you don't get what I mean, but that's not my problem. You're free to disagree with what you believe I am saying, even though you aren't getting it.


Did you not purposefully imply in the post I quoted that women want reliable sex and the deciding factor was whether he's the *certain* partner? Does that not mean that her drive is a function of *him*? Does that not argue for it being her responsibility to end the relationship if that drive does not exist for him?

Or were you over generalizing? Because I read "women want reliable sex with *certain* men" and I can't reconcile that with "some women are low drive and wont perk up for anyone". I see a contradiction.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Did you not purposefully imply in the post I quoted that women want reliable sex and the deciding factor was whether he's the *certain* partner? Does that not mean that her drive is a function of *him*? Does that not argue for it being her responsibility to end the relationship if that drive does not exist for him?
> 
> Or were you over generalizing? Because I read "women want reliable sex with *certain* men" and I can't reconcile that with "some women are low drive and wont perk up for anyone". I see a contradiction.


Sounds like having it both ways.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Please understand that I'm not simply being argumentative here, but that isn't what Ive read. What Ive read, is that "very sexual women" have sexdar, enabling them to sniff out very sexual men. I perceive this as just a veiled attack on men, with a woman's whim determining his "worthiness". But if this is all true, there would be no "very sexual women" in sexless marriages no? The truth is you're just as blind going into relationships as we are, and what you cued your interest on may have been wrong, or even change with time. None of which is a statement on his place in some arbitrary sexual hierarchy.
> 
> *When you want him, he's a sex god, and when you don't, he's not. Yet he may not have changed at all. Its totally arbitrary and subjective, so as to be meaningless... a projection of your thoughts of the man, to the real facts of the man. You make him, and you unmake him, all by your own interest/mental state... not objective qualities of the man.*


:iagree:

Which is what I've meant by saying a lot of what is being passed off as fact about sexual attraction in women on this thread and others, is very subjective.

But I have no problem with that.

The average person can only speak from their own exposure / experience...

But it is good , when we have an idea that we think is worth sharing , if we understand that others will also have other ideas that they think is worth sharing too. The appreciation and exchange of these ideas makes for knowledge, and when integrated , produces a multidimensional view of the subject .

I would also be very careful when denouncing other people's attempts of explaining sexual attraction from their perspective as pseudo science if mine wasn't based in hardcore scientific research.


----------



## FrenchFry

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> When you want him, he's a sex god, and when you don't, he's not. Yet he may not have changed at all. Its totally arbitrary and subjective, so as to be meaningless... a projection of your thoughts of the man, to the real facts of the man. You make him, and you unmake him, all by your own interest/mental state... not objective qualities of the man.


This isn't what I've read at all.

I'm not trying to be argumentative either so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Please understand that I'm not simply being argumentative here, but that isn't what Ive read. What Ive read, is that "very sexual women" have sexdar, enabling them to sniff out very sexual men. I perceive this as just a veiled attack on men, with a woman's whim determining his "worthiness".


I find this very amusing coming from you.

Where is the veiled attack on men? I don't recall FW commenting on anyone's worthiness. Suitability as a partner, maybe, but no deeper than that.

Nor has she ever said that all women are highly sexual, or that they all have perfectly-attuned sexdar, at least that I can recall.

In the post you first quoted, she was responding to someone who said that women are "unreliable" in our desires, and I think was just trying to point out that this isn't the case.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> This isn't what I've read at all.
> 
> I'm not trying to be argumentative either so I'll leave it at that.


How else do you describe an ethereal notion like "sexdar" -which by all accounts is tantamount to saying "magic" and throwing ones hands in the air - while knowing that many HD women end up in relationships with LD men? Was their sexdar broken? Of what use is this unexplainable concept if its not reliable? How can we impune evo-psych in one paragraph, and offer "sexdar" in the next? 

Claiming to have sexdar is just ex post facto justification of being sexually satisfied with what you found. Some of the most sexual women I've ever known have been some of the most sexually dissatisfied women I've ever known; hopping from one guy to the next in search of whatever *it* is. Sexdar my hiney... these women are throwing hot sh*t at the wall and hoping something sticks. When something does stick, they latch onto the man as if he's the greatest thing in the world. Then when it cools and falls off, he loses sex god status and goes back to being just another turd. This blinding relationship glow isn't some magical power to divine what man had the supernatural ability to please you, allowing you to bypass all the sorry lesser men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I would like to say that I have asked Dvls directly here to not bother with this discussion because it is obvious to me that he just wants to throw shade. I also offered to take it off the board if he actually did want to understand any of my points. I also sent him two PM's re-iterating my request for him to take the discussion off the board as it will obviously quickly just turn into a snit fit between us.

Yet he has straight up ignored my requests...so that he can keep on right here, just throwing shade.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I find this very amusing coming from you.


Are you similarly amused when women highlight male-bias on this forum? Didn't think so.



always_alone said:


> Where is the veiled attack on men? I don't recall FW commenting on anyone's worthiness. Suitability as a partner, maybe, but no deeper than that.


The veiled attack is in the very quote I responded to.

"See what you are calling reliable, is really just saying 'she should reliably always want sex with you specifically'. And I'm sorry to say it, but we really do want sex reliably with *certain* partners."

So this guy is wrong to think that the woman who chose to marry him ought to reliably want to have sex with him? To tell him that she wants reliable sex with someone else is not a veiled attack that he's now somehow inexplicably inadequate for her to reliably have sex with in spite of her choice to marry him? She chose him, but now he's not good enough to have sex with reliably... but *certain* partners are. I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than an attack on the man, especially since FW doesn't give sexless women these pearls of wisdom. "Sorry honey, you just don't do it for him to want you reliably anymore... *certain* women do." Are you good with that one too, or is it a bit insulting to the woman?



always_alone said:


> Nor has she ever said that all women are highly sexual,


"we really do want sex reliably" in a blanket thread about female desire isn't meant to be a blanket statement about female desire huh?



always_alone said:


> or that *they all have perfectly-attuned sexdar*, at least that I can recall.
> 
> In the post you first quoted, she was *responding to someone who said that women are "unreliable" in our desires, and I think was just trying to point out that this isn't the case.*


The bolded two statements back to back is hilarious. I'm not sure FW has ever addressed the tuning of sexdar, only that highly sexual women have it and that's how they supposedly sniff out highly sexual men. Yet, the desire for the men that sexdar leads them to, doesn't seem to reliably get HD women into relationships with HD men... else half her women's group - HD women complaining of sexlessness, wouldn't have complaints.

Is that not the definition of "unreliable"? Not only did you not reliably find the HD man you wanted, but in other cases women *did* pick a HD man, only to not be interested in him any longer. You divine and sniff out highly sexual men, except when you don't; and even when you do, you still might not stay interested in him. Is there anything here that even remotely justifies the word "reliable"? Besides, I'd expect those who mock evo psych to have a much better explanation than unreliable "sexdar".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I would like to say that I have asked Dvls directly here to not bother with this discussion because it is obvious to me that he just wants to throw shade. I also offered to take it off the board if he actually did want to understand any of my points. I also sent him two PM's re-iterating my request for him to take the discussion off the board as it will obviously quickly just turn into a snit fit between us.
> 
> Yet he has straight up ignored my requests...so that he can keep on right here, just throwing shade.


Your demand was that I have this discussion privately with you and delete my posts. Why? Its not a popularity contest FW. Is there some reason no one else should be privy to the discussion?

I replied to your PMs. I simply chose not to go hide in back alley discussions that have no reason to be hidden. When you make public statements, you can defend those statements in public. I know, that's not your style. You prefer whatever statement you make to stand authoritatively.

In PMs, all I've asked of you is to admit the excessive generalization that is claiming that women want reliable sex with *certain* men, inexplicably not the man they chose to marry. You spin this off as if some inadequacy of the man, rather than what it is: piss poor choosing by the woman as a result of her oh so reliable desires and sexdar.

Her desire is so reliable she married a man who isn't that *certain* man she can have reliable sex with.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Are you similarly amused when women highlight male-bias on this forum? Didn't think so.


What amuses me is after your endless claims about what all women are like and all men, and insistence that we all just have to deal with these objective facts about attraction and desire, you all of a sudden are upset that some men might not be desirable to some women.

Part of me wanted to respond to your post with "Women like what we like. Suck it up, buttercup.". But I managed to restrain myself in pursuit of more fruitful dialogue.

Truth is, I can't speak for FW on this, only myself. And my impression is that you are confusing three very different concepts: One is "highly sexual", which not all men or women are. One is "reliable desire." And the third is sexdar. From what I read, these are all distinct, and what is said about one doesn't necessarily apply to the other.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The veiled attack is in the very quote I responded to.
> 
> "See what you are calling reliable, is really just saying 'she should reliably always want sex with you specifically'. And I'm sorry to say it, but we really do want sex reliably with *certain* partners."
> 
> So this guy is wrong to think that the woman who chose to marry him ought to reliably want to have sex with him? To tell him that she wants reliable sex with someone else is not a veiled attack that he's now somehow inexplicably inadequate for her to reliably have sex with in spite of her choice to marry him?


Well, the initial claim was that women are unreliable, and my own response was that men are just as unreliable. Which is to say, we all risk losing interest or getting turned off by a$$hole moves by our partners or growing resentments. In many cases, like it or not, the reason a woman loses desire for a specific man is because of how he is behaving or treating her. This may make him think she's the problem (ie unreliable), when in fact her desire is perfectly reliable -it's just that he doesn't do it for her anymore.

That's my opinion, at any rate, and I don't think it's any harder or more esoteric that a man saying he's lost interest in his wife for whatever reason. He still wants sex, right? Just not with her.


----------



## ocotillo

Greetings, AA



always_alone said:


> Well, the initial claim was that women are unreliable...


I'm not finished yet, but that appears to me to be the claim of the book itself. That is to say, women do not always understand the reasons for their loss of libido themselves.



always_alone said:


> ..and my own response was that men are just as unreliable. Which is to say, we all risk losing interest or getting turned off by a$$hole moves by our partners or growing resentments. In many cases, like it or not, the reason a woman loses desire for a specific man is because of how he is behaving or treating her.


Those sort of things would probably fall into the category of the explainable (?)


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Truth is, I can't speak for FW on this, only myself. And my impression is that you are confusing three very different concepts: One is "highly sexual", which not all men or women are. One is "reliable desire." And the third is sexdar. From what I read, these are all distinct, and what is said about one doesn't necessarily apply to the other.


In your opinion,
Are any of these concepts scientific?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> , you all of a sudden are upset that some men might not be desirable to some women.


That would be well and good if that's what I was actually objecting to. FWs statement is to counter the claim that the womans desire is unreliable by saying that the woman doesn't want sex reliably with him, the husband, but supposedly some mythic man out there. If the woman didn't want the man, she shouldn't have chosen him; if the woman would reliably want sex with some other man, she shouldn't stay with him. The reliability of her desire is rightly questionable - she chose one guy, but would only reliably have sex with *certain* other men. The dismissiveness in the attack, that he presumes his partner would reliably want sex with him (what a radical notion), when really no... He's inadequate, she desires *certain* other partners for reliable sex. She choses him, then doesn't want him, its implied that its something missing from him - the very man she chose, and this is considered "reliable" desire. Forgive me for expecting that she'll soon be just as "reliable" for guy #2.



always_alone said:


> Part of me wanted to respond to your post with "Women like what we like. Suck it up, buttercup.". But I managed to restrain myself in pursuit of more fruitful dialogue.


You'd get no argument from me there, just don't pretend its reliable. Women's desire changes like the weather according to so many factors its not even funny, even their cycle.



always_alone said:


> Well, the initial claim was that women are unreliable, and my own response was that men are just as unreliable.


I can accept that. I can't accept this blanket statement that reliable sex is reserved for only *certain* men. Its just another retelling of Sex Gods and seems awfully sexually elitist to me. May we all be blessed to be the chosen ones... oh wait, being chosen doesn't necessarily mean anything in this "reliable" discussion. Rather, may we all be blessed to be sex gods that get reliable sex.



always_alone said:


> That's my opinion, at any rate, and I don't think it's any harder or more esoteric that a man saying he's lost interest in his wife for whatever reason. He still wants sex, right? Just not with her.


And this is where a cultural influence creeps into my thinking, in that most of us dont perceive loss of interest to be an inadequacy of the woman beyond her appearance, but its most definitely perceived to be a huge mock-worthy failing of a man from which terms like cuckold receive their sting. A man being denied is potentially about his appearance, his performance and even his being. And make no bones about it, men place far greater weight in their performance and value as sexual partners than women do. So saying a wife would reliably have sex with *certain* (read - better) men as a blanket statement, carries a lot of charge. If men expressed such a desire that they'd have reliable sex, but not with her, I think most women would find it insulting even absent that extra cultural "charge". Notice you dont see FW saying this to sexless women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> I'm not finished yet, but that appears to me to be the claim of the book itself. That is to say, women do not always understand the reasons for their loss of libido themselves.


I went through that very song and dance with my ex. And only after every possible bogus explanation was addressed, the marriage a mess and in counseling following my infidelity, was it finally revealed that she didn't desire anyone sexually, period. That her focus and energy was on the children, and she couldn't understand my regular need for sex. So she didn't want me, but expected me to just go without? I wish I'd have just left in hindsight, but this "I dont want you and no one else can have you" mentality was a big part of my resentment and rationalizations that I justified cheating with. Its a toxic brew. Reliable desire my @ss.

Years of cutting through layers of bs just to say, "I have no sex drive". I was an idiot for buying what she said at face value and staying as long as I did.


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I went through that very song and dance with my ex. And only after every possible bogus explanation was addressed, the marriage a mess and in counseling following my infidelity, was it finally revealed that she didn't desire anyone sexually, period. That her focus and energy was on the children, and she couldn't understand my regular need for sex. So she didn't want me, but expected me to just go without? I wish I'd have just left in hindsight, but this "I dont want you and no one else can have you" mentality was a big part of my resentment and rationalizations that I justified cheating with. Its a toxic brew. Reliable desire my @ss.
> 
> Years of cutting through layers of bs just to say, "I have no sex drive". I was an idiot for buying what she said at face value and staying as long as I did.


I'm a member of the choir here. My wife lost her desire when the first child was conceived and got it back around the time the youngest was graduating from high school. 
All those excuses for all those years were exposed as simply window dressing for a lack of desire. When sex was important to her, no effort was too small. She would leave work early or call in sick to get it and woe betide me if I wasn't of the same mind as her on this.

Of course, my experience is extremely limited here and pouncing on something that confirms my own bias is automatically suspect.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I can accept that. I can't accept this blanket statement that reliable sex is reserved for only *certain* men. Its just another retelling of Sex Gods and seems awfully sexually elitist to me. May we all be blessed to be the chosen ones... oh wait, being chosen doesn't necessarily mean anything in this "reliable" discussion. Rather, may we all be blessed to be sex gods that get reliable sex.
> 
> And this is where a cultural influence creeps into my thinking, in that most of us dont perceive loss of interest to be an inadequacy of the woman beyond her appearance, but its most definitely perceived to be a huge mock-worthy failing of a man from which terms like cuckold receive their sting. A man being denied is potentially about his appearance, his performance and even his being. And make no bones about it, men place far greater weight in their performance and value as sexual partners than women do. So saying a wife would reliably have sex with *certain* (read - better) men as a blanket statement, carries a lot of charge. If men expressed such a desire that they'd have reliable sex, but not with her, I think most women would find it insulting even absent that extra cultural "charge". Notice you dont see FW saying this to sexless women.


Just flip the script Dvl's and you will find it very easy to understand.

Some women are just sexy right? And men will reliably want them, right? And other women, well, they gain weight, or they're too boring, or too human, or too wrapped up in their kids, or they don't wear lingerie, or they become ball-busting feminists, or whatever, and he loses interest.

This is all perfectly understandable, right? Because clearly she is to blame for being fugly, or selfish, or annoying, or boring, or whatever, right?

But those sexy ones, they are *always* desire-worthy and drool-worthy.

Right?

Women's desire is no more unreliable than men's, IMHO.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Reliable desire my @ss.
> 
> Years of cutting through layers of bs just to say, "I have no sex drive". I was an idiot for buying what she said at face value and staying as long as I did.


Actually, I get the impression she was totally reliable. She was playing you from the beginning, wasn't she, and trying to trap you into the dull suburban life she always dreamed of?

I'm guessing that your mistake was interpreting her short term sex drive as the real deal. A mistake you seem bent on repeating over and over again, no less.

I also suspect that the piles of resentment you had for her and your life didn't help matters any.

But what do I know?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Just flip the script Dvl's and you will find it very easy to understand.
> 
> Some women are just sexy right? And men will reliably want them, right? And other women, well, they gain weight, or they're too boring, or too human, or too wrapped up in their kids, or they don't wear lingerie, or they become ball-busting feminists, or whatever, and he loses interest.
> 
> This is all perfectly understandable, right? Because clearly she is to blame for being fugly, or selfish, or annoying, or boring, or whatever, right?
> 
> But those sexy ones, they are *always* desire-worthy and drool-worthy.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Women's desire is no more unreliable than men's, IMHO.



So then , how is that concept any different to Athol's " sex rank" and other similar concepts you all profess to hate ?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Some women are just sexy right? And men will reliably want them, right? And other women, well, they gain weight, or they're too boring, or too human, or too wrapped up in their kids, or they don't wear lingerie, or they become ball-busting feminists, or whatever, and he loses interest.


I'm not sure you're making your point as clearly as you might when you include things associated with LD/ND (Like being too wrapped up in the kids) in your list.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Just flip the script Dvl's and you will find it very easy to understand.
> 
> Some women are just sexy right? And men will reliably want them, right? And other women, well, they gain weight, or they're too boring, or too human, or too wrapped up in their kids, or they don't wear lingerie, or they become ball-busting feminists, or whatever, and he loses interest.
> 
> This is all perfectly understandable, right? Because clearly she is to blame for being fugly, or selfish, or annoying, or boring, or whatever, right?
> 
> But those sexy ones, they are *always* desire-worthy and drool-worthy.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Women's desire is no more unreliable than men's, IMHO.


This post wasn't necessary, I already admitted that a woman can lose a man's interest on looks - or more specifically, if they don't age well in parallel. The same goes for women.

From my perspective, this is about where the similarity ends. On the other hand, by all accounts I'm aware women have a plethora of reasons they lose interest - including the incredibly helpful: "I don't know". I'm reading this book now, and there is some discussion of women being seemingly consciously separate from their libido. It makes me wonder if a female's conscious attraction and this lower level libido are separate systems, and when the lower system isn't firing, the higher system just makes something up to seem cohesive. My ex wife cried in MC over the fact that she didn't have any idea why she had no sex drive any longer. There was no real reason "why" it was, it just was. I believe she honestly believed every excuse she told me, but she was just as much trying to justifying it to herself as she was trying to justify it to me. Unbeknownst to me at the time, she had even changed birth control after I started making noise - thinking it may have been the culprit. She had no answer, she just lost all drive for sex.

Is it offensive to think that our conscious minds might not be at the steering wheel all the time, and that sometimes, all its doing is trying to make sense of everything happening under the surface? That's what I've come to think of my ex, and its a much better place than thinking she purposefully had me chasing down problems that weren't truly problems.

If this happens with men, I'm not aware of it. I've never heard a man say he doesn't know why he doesn't want sex with his wife anymore. What I've heard is that he's bored or she's let herself go.

A negative response to an event is still reliable behavior. An inexplicable negative response tied to nothing in particular is about as unreliable as it gets.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Actually, I get the impression she was totally reliable. She was playing you from the beginning, wasn't she, and trying to trap you into the dull suburban life she always dreamed of?
> 
> I'm guessing that your mistake was interpreting her short term sex drive as the real deal. A mistake you seem bent on repeating over and over again, no less.
> 
> I also suspect that the piles of resentment you had for her and your life didn't help matters any.
> 
> But what do I know?


7 years of a rockin' married sex life sure is a long time to set the hook if her objective was to manipulate me into getter her suburban life. Once upon a time I might have agreed with you because I had built up this image of her as the devil. Today, that anger has long since passed. Her wants just changed.

Perhaps I was mistaken about her sex life, but if that were the case, how am I to tell the difference from someone who is long term HD and someone who is short term HD? You only know in time. Personally, I don't believe there was any deception there. She changed. She didn't know why, but there it was.

Resentment didn't creep into my world until AFTER the years of runaround and excuse making. It didn't substantially take hold until the final two years of the marriage, and TBH, I recognize that now as the alarms telling me I should've gotten out of the marriage. Hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Is it offensive to think that our conscious minds might not be at the steering wheel all the time, and that sometimes, all its doing is trying to make sense of everything happening under the surface? That's what I've come to think of my ex, and its a much better place than thinking she purposefully had me chasing down problems that weren't truly problems.
> 
> If this happens with men, I'm not aware of it. I've never heard a man say he doesn't know why he doesn't want sex with his wife anymore. What I've heard is that he's bored or she's let herself go.


Yes, well, there's been a whole host of reasons why women lose desire too, but you don't want to hear them because they are "blaming men" or "shaming them" by making them look bad.

Guess what? Some guys suck in bed; some are d!cks, some become really boring, some let themselves go, some spend all their time at work or cruising other women. I could go on. There's a whole host of reasons that women lose attraction, and they aren't so very different from men's, IMHO.

But you keep insisting that none of them can be true because they're too hurtful. No, they must lose attraction for "no reason". <shrug>. If that's what makes you feel better.

Is it terrible to suggest that we don't always perfectly know our motives? Of course not. We all have differing levels of awareness about who we are and why we are that way. Men and women.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> So then , how is that concept any different to Athol's " sex rank" and other similar concepts you all profess to hate ?


Sex rank is bs because it purports to be both objective and universal, and all the alpha-beta crap that goes along with it is grounded in pseudo-scientific ad hoc claims.

I'm not positing any universal truths here, or saying that all people will respond one way or the other to a set of stimuli. Just suggesting that loss of attraction or desire just isn't that different for women, and there's no need to run around devising bizarre theories about how women's limbic systems are divorced from their consciousness.

It's true that women have been taught to repress their sexuality, and are often shamed for it, or have other reasons to keep it cloaked, and this might change how desire is expressed or how blunt a person might be about how boring heir partner is in bed (or whatever), but I don't see any of it as particularly mysterious.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Resentment didn't creep into my world until AFTER the years of runaround and excuse making. It didn't substantially take hold until the final two years of the marriage, and TBH, I recognize that now as the alarms telling me I should've gotten out of the marriage. Hindsight is 20/20.


Oh, well the way you told it before led me to believe it was the kids that got your resentment meter running, and since that was her life-long dream, it struck me that this in itself was a massive turn-off.

But like I said, what do I know? I only know what I've seen you post here.

And yes, people do change their priorities, wants and needs over time. It's not just women.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Personally, I don't believe there was any deception there. She changed.


But didn't you say that all of her friends were surprised that she went for you because she wasn't really that type, and they all had her figured for a totally different kind of guy and lifestyle than what you offered?

Maybe self-deception?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Sex rank is bs because it purports to be both objective and universal, and all the alpha-beta crap that goes along with it is grounded in pseudo-scientific ad hoc claims.
> 
> I'm not positing any universal truths here, or saying that all people will respond one way or the other to a set of stimuli. Just suggesting that loss of attraction or desire just isn't that different for women, and there's no need to run around devising bizarre theories about how women's limbic systems are divorced from their consciousness.
> 
> It's true that women have been taught to repress their sexuality, and are often shamed for it, or have other reasons to keep it cloaked, and this might change how desire is expressed or how blunt a person might be about how boring heir partner is in bed (or whatever), but I don't see any of it as particularly mysterious.


So you are agreeing that much of what you are saying with respect to FW's concept of women's sexuality re "_highly sexua_l", "_reliable desire._" and " _sexdar_ " is highly subjective and grounded in pseudo-scientific ad hoc claims?

Or are you saying that it is grounded in hard science.

If it is not, then would you agree that you accept her concepts and not Athol's simply because it suits your cognitive bias?

Please note that everyone is entitled to their own biases.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I'm not sure you're making your point as clearly as you might when you include things associated with LD/ND (Like being too wrapped up in the kids) in your list.


I dunno about that. A couple of women I've known got weirded out by sex once they had kids. It was hard for them, for example, to reconcile their view of breasts as sexual organ and as feeding machine. 

One friend of mine explicitly said that now that she fully understood the consequences of sex, she was reluctant to engage in any more.

No idea how common this is, but I kind of get it. Having kids does a number on the body, and you pretty much have to develop a whole new relationship to it.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> So you are agreeing that much of what you are saying with respect to FW's concept of women's sexuality re "_highly sexua_l", "_reliable desire._" and " _sexdar_ " is highly subjective and grounded in pseudo-scientific ad hoc claims?
> 
> Or are you saying that it is grounded in hard science.
> 
> If it is not, then would you agree that you accept her concepts and not Athol's simply because it suits your cognitive bias?
> 
> Please note that everyone is entitled to their own biases.


Evo psych is bs pseudo-scientific theory that purports to be universal and objective, and explanatory.

"Highly sexual" and "reliable desire" are both adjectives to describe people, not theories or explanations. As such they play a different role. And unlike alpha and beta, no one is saying that highly sexual is inherently better than asexual, or that desire is always, and should always be, reliable. They're neither ideals nor explanations. Just simple descriptions.

Sex-dar is a noun, but I see it as more of a label than an explanation. Kind of a short way of saying "our eyes met and we exchanged a brief but meaningful communication that, yeah, we're both into sex and find each other attractive".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Oh, well the way you told it before led me to believe it was the kids that got your resentment meter running, and since that was her life-long dream, it struck me that this in itself was a massive turn-off.


You've misremembered my posts. I wouldn't have married her if she wanted kids as a part of her life long dream. When we married, we were both very solidly agreed that we didn't want kids - we both thought we were too selfish. She in fact said she didn't want to share my time. Her preacher even counseled us prior to getting married on how critically important it was to agree on whether we wanted children or not.

It wasn't the kids that drove my resentment at all though. My children are amazing and I couldn't have asked for better. It was that my wife obsessed with motherhood. No babysitter was good enough. Only the best daycare was tolerable. Every single child related thing had to be *perfect*. What really drove my resentment was the eventual recognition that I was on a very distant backburner for her. Our marriage never came first. We never came first. I'd have been fine with a life of wife and children. It wasn't part of my life's plan, but I'm not so inflexible. Somewhere in having children however, I lost my wife. That didn't work for me and no matter what I did, I couldn't bring her back. It was like someone came and took my wife, and replaced her with a random daycare worker who had no interest in me.

My real marriage was over before my resentment set in; before most of my big mistakes were made; and long before the divorce was final. I just took a long time to concede to what I perceived at the time as my failure. What bigger failure can you have as a man than to lose your wife's interest? Before the resentment, my thinking was focused exclusively on what *I* must be doing wrong to make her so distant and this gave rise to a number of "nice guy" mistakes. But in the end, it wasn't me. She just had new priorities and I wasn't one of them, even non-sexually.

All the explanations for her lack of desire for sex were red herrings I wasted my time on because I believed what she said. But she was just grasping at straws to explain it herself.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Yes, well, there's been a whole host of reasons why women lose desire too, but you don't want to hear them because they are "blaming men" or "shaming
> them" by making them look bad.


That is what it reads like to me. Which I totally don't get. If I find out that my actions have an effect on the undesired outcome, I tend to be over joyed. That means the only person I have to change is me. Which is a butt load easier than having to deal with anyone else.



> Guess what? Some guys suck in bed; some are d!cks, some become really boring, some let themselves go, some spend all their time at work or cruising other women. I could go on. There's a whole host of reasons that women lose attraction, and they aren't so very different from men's, IMHO.


What gets me is this notion of "reliability". Am I really reading right that the expectation that a person's drive is fixed and that they are expected to maintain the same level as the starting state (presumably the wedding day?).

Who wants that? I won't want a relationship that contains activities based on an expectation of fixed values. I want a relationship that grows, matures and develops. Because that is just plain better than not.

"Drive" is just another word for desire. Anything and everything can effect it. From characteristics of your partner to characteristics of your own body and mind.

Posters like dvls make me a little ponderous. My advice to sexless men in marriage, if you ever hear yourself say things like we are not having sex _and all I get is stupid excuses_, STOP. The issue has already been framed in a way that is unsolvable. If you think that sex is owed such that she needs to make excuses to get out of it, then you have already failed to be the main of character, strength and confidence that she wants you to be. And she will NOT feel safe exploring root causes with you if she thinks you just want her to stop making excuses and put out.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I dunno about that. A couple of women I've known got weirded out by sex once they had kids. It was hard for them, for example, to reconcile their view of breasts as sexual organ and as feeding machine.
> 
> One friend of mine explicitly said that now that she fully understood the consequences of sex, she was reluctant to engage in any more.
> 
> No idea how common this is, but I kind of get it. Having kids does a number on the body, and you pretty much have to develop a whole new relationship to it.


Well I can kinda, sorta imagine that, but it strikes me as almost circular in a "Flip the script" style of response where you attempt to speak from a male perspective inasmuch as elements of the original question seem to be getting incorporated into the answer.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But didn't you say that all of her friends were surprised that she went for you because she wasn't really that type, and they all had her figured for a totally different kind of guy and lifestyle than what you offered?
> 
> Maybe self-deception?


Yep, nobody would have put her with me. She thought guys like me were bad news, but here I was, and I seemed like a really good guy doing exciting things and still going places. She used to say I was responsibly irresponsible. Instead of buying into what everyone else perceived of her, I bought into how she explained herself - a naïve little good girl with a secret wild side who desperately wanted to get out of the box and live a bigger life. She wanted career success, a life of travel, adventure, city living, arts and entertainment. To live happy go lucky ever after. After all of her hometown friends had children, we had our careers, good money and had gone on plenty of adventures - she changed her mind.

Self deception? Who knows? Should I not believe what women say they want in life? Or should I just chalk it up to a change of mind and behaviors that rendered us incompatible? Seems either way I'm just as likely to get burned, so its not something I worry about. The burns will come. Today I choose to only concern myself with what I want. I can't control whether someone else is deceptive or changes their mind.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Sex-dar is a noun, but I see it as more of a label than an explanation. Kind of a short way of saying "our eyes met and we exchanged a brief but meaningful communication that, yeah, we're both into sex and find each other attractive".


Eyes meeting is a reliable indicator of someone sexual proclivity? Since there are plenty of HD women who end up marrying men who turned out to be LD, can't we simply say the concept of sexdar is completely bogus and just throw it out?

You don't have sexdar. You just find the dude attractive. We don't need to invent a new word and pretend to have some magical power to divine the nature of other's sexuality.

You know what sexdar could also be? Evo psych in disguise. That fuzzy sense you can't quite explain a mechanism for may be nothing more than tall, broad shoulders, good jaw, lean musculature and other things that signal health, high testosterone, and virility.

But, we don't actually want to explain anything about female desire and attraction. Its much better if we couch it in mystical terms like "sexdar" right? I think the reason this is so difficult to pin down, is that women don't want it to be pinned down. You want there to be no formula, no rhyme or reason... just independent choice and romantic mysticism.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yes, well, there's been a whole host of reasons why women lose desire too, but you don't want to hear them because they are "blaming men" or "shaming them" by making them look bad.
> 
> Guess what? Some guys suck in bed; some are d!cks, some become really boring, some let themselves go, some spend all their time at work or cruising other women. I could go on. There's a whole host of reasons that women lose attraction, and they aren't so very different from men's, IMHO.
> 
> .


You're not hearing me. Having reasons is reliable. If I suck in bed, it stands to reason that someone isn't going to want to keep sleeping with me. This is reliable. This is what men do also.

What men do not do, is inexplicably lose desire completely randomly.



always_alone said:


> But you keep insisting that none of them can be true because they're too hurtful. No, they must lose attraction for "no reason". <shrug>. If that's what makes you feel better.


AA... THIS CAME RIGHT OUT OF MY EX's MOUTH DURING MC. I am insisting on what SHE actually said, and what I've heard many women say; what the book this thread is actually based on even says. Read it.

Don't pretend I'm ducking something hurtful. That makes YOU feel better because you get to avoid this inconsistency in female behavior. I'd have much preferred to have known early on in my marriage trouble wtf I was doing wrong so I could make corrections. If I suck in bed, there are ways to improve; if I'm neglectful, I know to be more thoughtful. If its that I'm fat, I know to work out. If its my attitude, I know to be more mindful.

But this wasn't actually the case. She did not know why she had no libido anymore, and the reasons she gave were reasons she told herself too. HER WORDS. Words this book seems to echo.

THAT is unreliable female desire. Absent any stimulus, it declined all on its own seemingly without reason. This is the extremely frustrating rabbit hole many men find themselves running down. 

Men have no similar unreliable rabbit holes in their desire. At least, none I've ever heard.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Well I can kinda, sorta imagine that, but it strikes me as almost circular in a "Flip the script" style of response where you attempt to speak from a male perspective inasmuch as elements of the original question seem to be getting incorporated into the answer.


Sorry, but I don't think I quite understand what you're saying here.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> THAT is unreliable female desire. Absent any stimulus, it declined all on its own seemingly without reason. This is the extremely frustrating rabbit hole many men find themselves running down.
> 
> Men have no similar unreliable rabbit holes in their desire. At least, none I've ever heard.


Just because you don't know what the reason is doesn't mean there is no reason.

Lots of guys lose their desire for "no reason" until they find out it was low-T, aging, certain forms of medication, nutritional deficiencies, stress, hidden resentments, or what have you.

Just because you think guys are more willing to say "I have to go spread my seed now because us guys are wired that way" or "sex with you doesn't cut it, so I'll just take my porno fix now" doesn't make their desire more reliable, or them any more insightful about their own motivations.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> But, we don't actually want to explain anything about female desire and attraction. Its much better if we couch it in mystical terms like "sexdar" right? I think the reason this is so difficult to pin down, is that women don't want it to be pinned down. You want there to be no formula, no rhyme or reason... just independent choice and romantic mysticism.


Umm, in case you didn't notice, *you're* the one claiming there is no rhyme or reason to female desire. And *I'm* the one pointing out to you that there are reasons a-plenty.

You'll have to talk to FW about sex-dar, because it's not my word or idea. I do think you're completely misunderstanding it though.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Sorry, but I don't think I quite understand what you're saying here.


One of the assertions in  the book  under discussion is that female desire is more complex and therefore more fragile than male desire is.

Maybe I just need a second cup of coffee this morning but you appear to have incorporated a specific and common example of that phenomenon in your response to DvlsAdvc8. (i.e. A woman being too wrapped up in her kids.)

Sure there's eventually going to be fallout from that, but if you're going argue that male desire is no more reliable than female desire is, I'm not sure that observation helps make the case, since it is a response to the changed sexual dynamic in the marriage; not the cause of it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're not hearing me. Having reasons is reliable. If I suck in bed, it stands to reason that someone isn't going to want to keep sleeping with me. This is reliable. This is what men do also.
> 
> What men do not do, is inexplicably lose desire completely randomly.


You call it inexplicable. I call it not yet explained. The feedback loop of relationship and feelings is not

Me: What's wrong?
You: A very Spock like and fully researched explanation to the precise root causes which assume that they are all my specific problem with no pitfalls like fear of rejection, fear of hurt feelings, insecurity, changing hormones.... the list is endless.

I don't believe that this is a male female thing. But the feedback loop in relationship can be confusing, regardless of the issue. And with sex, it is even harder, all of us sent out into the world with a bunch of expectations about what SHOULD happen. 

I know I am going somewhat afield of where this started. I can't get I get whatever this sexdar thing is. But I did want to reply to some of your comments.



> AA... THIS CAME RIGHT OUT OF MY EX's MOUTH DURING MC. I am insisting on what SHE actually said, and what I've heard many women say; what the book this thread is actually based on even says. Read it.
> 
> Don't pretend I'm ducking something hurtful.


I would not say you are ducking something hurtful so much as stuck in blame mode, which AFAIC is a very common marital misstep. People, rightly, are motivated to find solutions. Instead of seeking root causes, they seek responsibility which is one small step away from blame.

I would not say so much that she was unreliable. Or that "women" are unreliable. But that both of you were ineffective and finding root causes. Which is not helpful toward your ex marriage. But may be helpful going forward for you or anyone trying not to make the same mistakes next time.

I cannot count the number of times my husband had to delve in a creative and sensitive way to what was going on in my head. And likewise me for him.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Just because you don't know what the reason is doesn't mean there is no reason.
> 
> Lots of guys lose their desire for "no reason" until they find out it was low-T, aging, certain forms of medication, nutritional deficiencies, stress, hidden resentments, or what have you.


Well sure, the reason may have been a 7 year misalignment of the planets, I can't know for sure, but I ran down every reason a rational person would - and every bogus explanation she gave me. Whether you want to say the reason is unidentified or not, there still exists no explanation. She was on, now she's off... maybe she'll randomly be back on again decades later like Octillo's wife. In my rabid hunt for answers I found women to whom it happens even within a single year. Months of not desiring sex with hubby, seemingly for no reason at all, with no changes to their lifestyle, only to one day feel it burn again and the sex life ratchets up again. Completely inconsistent and unreliable. These women all have disorders?

If you read the book, you'll discover just how consciously disconnected and sporadic women's desire is. It is unreliable, and women themselves don't know why.



always_alone said:


> Just because you think guys are more willing to say "I have to go spread my seed now because us guys are wired that way" or "sex with you doesn't cut it, so I'll just take my porno fix now" doesn't make their desire more reliable...


Uh... actually, those are more reliable. Sexual desire is there the whole way. The entire reason I jumped on FW's post, is that she posited that her desire was reliable, but only for *certain* men. I know this to not be the case. Many women have sporadic gaps in their desire even they don't understand. 



always_alone said:


> Umm, in case you didn't notice, *you're* the one claiming there is no rhyme or reason to female desire. And *I'm* the one pointing out to you that there are reasons a-plenty.


Uhm, no, you're mixing topics and applying a general statement across both of them. This sexdar topic is about the reasons you are attracted to a man. Highly sexual people have a magical ability to sniff out other highly sexual people by only looking. Its purposefully mystical, and its proponent dismissive of evo psych, probably because she doesn't want to think that she's beholden to some biological constraint. Its all her individual wants and mystical ability to find "highly sexual men". Recognizing that there are any sort of standards is a non-starter, because then, "I'm not special" or really a free agent choosing based on individual preferences. Its desired that many preferences not be built into our biology - it steals the romance and the individualism that many people really need to cling to.

The unreliable topic isn't about the reasons women have or don't have desire for a man. Its about women not having desire at all for anyone, or sporadic on again off again desire, for no reason. When the spigot turns back on, was it just that they finally ate their spinach? I'm not sure there is something to blame or not, but I'm hesitant to think all these women at various ages and conditions suffer from some ailment like low-T, from which they often come out of on their own.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Sex rank is bs because it purports to be both objective and universal, and all the alpha-beta crap that goes along with it is grounded in pseudo-scientific ad hoc claims.
> 
> I'm not positing any universal truths here, or saying that all people will respond one way or the other to a set of stimuli. Just suggesting that loss of attraction or desire just isn't that different for women, and there's no need to run around devising bizarre theories about how women's limbic systems are divorced from their consciousness.
> 
> It's true that women have been taught to repress their sexuality, and are often shamed for it, or have other reasons to keep it cloaked, and this might change how desire is expressed or how blunt a person might be about how boring heir partner is in bed (or whatever), but I don't see any of it as particularly mysterious.


Whenever you get the opportunity , Google the term " _sexdar_ ."

In fact, it is not really a term, it's more like a slang, and here's what the Urban dictionary says it means;

*sexdar*

The ability to sense if a person has had a sex change
_Dude: Dude, my new girlfriends weird! 
Dude 2: Why is that, she's freakin' hot! 
Dude: When I met her, my sexdar went off and now i'm thinking why is her armpit unshaved and full of hair...like a man? 
Dude 2ude, she used to be a man! 
*gasp*
_

Here's a link to that page, the only one online that defines the term " sexdar."

Urban Dictionary: sexdar

So, can you tell me exactly what are these concepts based on , if not evo psych and personal experiences / observations?

And are you saying that women's or even men's limbic system and consciousness are one and the same?
Because as far as I know , even science can't fully define exactly what is consciousness , and what part of the brain it originates.


----------



## always_alone

Okay, Dvl's, you got me.

No man ever has lost desire without a specific known --and legitimate -- reason, and all men are perfectly self aware and in tune with their motivations. And not only that, but all men have a totally consistent desire that will only change due to some failing on her part. Because, we all know, it's always the woman's responsibility because she is complex and irrational, you can't believe a word she says, and in all likelihood her desire will just *poof* go like magic one day, and of course it's completely random and has nothing to do with anything.

And you were absolutely the perfect husband, diligently chasing down every angle, fixing all wrongs until your ex's life was perfection personified, and that absolutely proves that her "change" had nothing to do with who she was *before* meeting you, or how motherhood affected her, or anything at all to do with the dynamic between you, cuz of course, you were dutifully being perfect during the whole span of your relationship, until the end of course, but that's okay since, no thanks to her, the relationship was already over.

Got it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I would not say you are ducking something hurtful so much as stuck in blame mode, which AFAIC is a very common marital misstep. People, rightly, are motivated to find solutions. Instead of seeking root causes, they seek responsibility which is one small step away from blame.


I know when/how I sought to place blame and I don't deny that process. But this is in fact her answer, not my placement of blame - she knew of no reason that her libido switched off, and all the reasons she threw out in the years prior were just made up - "maybe its this... maybe its that...". There was nothing. While eventually I was at fault for a number of things that would occur subsequently, this initial deprioritizing and libido loss was not a result of anything I did and she admitted as much in MC. So its not blame shifting of me to point to her drive as unreliable - there's no blame on me for her drive to begin with. That her loss of desire was related to me was my initial and incorrect assumption actually.



NobodySpecial said:


> I would not say so much that she was unreliable. Or that "women" are unreliable. But that both of you were ineffective and finding root causes. Which is not helpful toward your ex marriage. But may be helpful going forward for you or anyone trying not to make the same mistakes next time.
> 
> I cannot count the number of times my husband had to delve in a creative and sensitive way to what was going on in my head. And likewise me for him.


The weird on again, off again sporadic nature of female desire as I've experienced it and has been related to me by other's experience, I can only describe as unreliable. Hey, it would be awesome if one day a biological cause was found similar to men and low-T... but I won't hold my breath. I have my money on it being an intrinsic quality - one woman who was trying to give me advice when I was beginning to crack said something like, "oh, there are long periods I have no desire... but I just have sex with him anyway and wait it out and it comes back. He never knows the difference. Every woman goes through these periods. The sex was still nice even though I wasn't interested in having it." Now, she may have just been trying to make me feel better - as I was feeling pretty down about myself and had become absurdly self-analyzing... but I think she has something real there and I wonder if its more common than women let on. The book this thread is based on would imply it is.

I'm afraid I simply refuse to go through the process of seeking out what is wrong again and jumping through all these hoops. If a woman has no desire for me, I'll go find a woman that does even if it means a new woman every few years. After my experience blowing years on chasing this imaginary rabbit down the hole and the number it did on my psyche, I'm absolutely unwilling to ever do it again.

I'm not obligated to find a solution for any woman. Absent something she asks me to change, her libido is her own to manage. I have no desire to remain in a relationship with someone who doesn't desire me. I can do better staying single.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And are you saying that women's or even men's limbic system and consciousness are one and the same?
> Because as far as I know , even science can't fully define exactly what is consciousness , and what part of the brain it originates.


Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that women's desire isn't any more difficult to understand than men's. That doesn't mean it isn't difficult, just that it isn't some fickle force with no rhyme or reason. Or if it is, no more so than men.

I've heard guys say things like, "I should find her hot, but I don't" or "I don't know why, but it didn't work out." Or, "it's all there on paper, but the chemistry was off." Or whatever -- you get my drift. My SO has even said he honestly thought he was hard when he wasn't. 

So how is that any different from the types of things women say.

Fickle desires, ignorance of our deepest motivations, and endless erroneous rationalizations to explain our behaviour post facto are *human* characteristics, not specifically female ones.

That's all I'm trying to say.

As for sexdar, the definition you supplied is surely not how FW is using the term. And it would appear it's been put to use in a pretty wide variety of contexts. But the consternation over it surely makes me wonder: have none of you ever communicated non-verbally with another person?


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The weird on again, off again sporadic nature of female desire



There is nothing weird and magically on again off again about FEMALES desire any more than males. That is the point I am objecting to. Just as because we don't know all the gaps in the origin of species does not necessarily mean god did it, just because you don't know what caused it in your wife, and she does not know, doesn't mean it is unknowable.

I am female. When my desire drops or is dropping, I know what causes it. I am not magic. Or weird. I am introspective. A little smart. With a husband who is awesome. I am safe saying things like, yah honey it's you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Okay, Dvl's, you got me.
> 
> No man ever has lost desire without a specific known --and legitimate -- reason, and all men are perfectly self aware and in tune with their motivations. And not only that, but all men have a totally consistent desire that will only change due to some failing on her part. Because, we all know, it's always the woman's responsibility because she is complex and irrational, you can't believe a word she says, and in all likelihood her desire will just *poof* go like magic one day, and of course it's completely random and has nothing to do with anything.


All you have to do is point to a man who gives a laundry list of excuses as to why he's not interested in anything sexual anymore (not sex with you, ANYTHING sexual), only to be cornered on those excuses and just throw his hands up with "I don't know", but have it randomly return and go away again. That's no man I've ever heard of. Have you?

I believed EVEYRTHING my ex told me was a problem so much so that I spent years running various concoctions of these things down only to have her admit in the end they were all made up. Knowing that in advance, should I have believed a word she says? I would have saved myself some trouble if I didn't.

Are you saying I shouldn't believe her when in MC she said her loss of drive had nothing to do with me, the kids, her job, or anything else and that the excuses she made were just anything she could think of that might explain it. She even switched BC to see if that was the issue after I started systematically addressing every issue she invented with hugely dissatisfying results.

We had a host of regular low-conflict issues as any marriage does - that I share the blame in. If one of those cost her all her libido, then I pray I'm never with that kind of woman again.



always_alone said:


> And you were absolutely the perfect husband, diligently chasing down every angle, fixing all wrongs until your ex's life was perfection personified, and that absolutely proves that her "change" had nothing to do with who she was *before* meeting you, or how motherhood affected her, or anything at all to do with the dynamic between you, cuz of course, you were dutifully being perfect during the whole span of your relationship, until the end of course, but that's okay since, no thanks to her, the relationship was already over.
> 
> Got it.


Ah yes, play the "I think I'm perfect" card. I'm not perfect. But I worked at EVERY. SINGLE. DAMN. THING. she thought up to justify her lack of libido. I have every right to blame her for that wild goose chase. As to who she was before she met me? Should I not believe she was who she said she was?? Are you arguing both sides of the coin? Listen to what she says, but don't listen to what she says?

As far as dynamic, we had a GREAT dynamic. The closest of friends who went the extra mile for one another. I put her through college. We had an absolutely awesome sex life that was just effortless. That dynamic changed after children in that she didn't want alone time with me anymore. She rejected when I pushed for US time as being time she felt like she had to steal from the kids. She never had enough time with the kids. On one hand, I felt a duty to this great mother for my children, and on the other I felt totally neglected and ignored. The collapse of our sex life only gave this sharp focus. I was not of critical value anymore.

In MC, she adamantly went on about how her loss of drive had nothing to do with the kids - because that had become my focus point after my bug hunt. It wasn't having kids she said. I wasn't the cause she said. She said she didn't have a reason. She even thought we were fine for most of those years - she said she was downright happy with things until she started suspecting me cheating - which started in the last year of the marriage. Even after all of it she wanted to stay married and didn't think her lack of drive was a big deal.

So I guess I was just supposed to live sexless with a neglectful woman? I cheated. It was wrong. It was weak, and I wish I'd have just bit the bullet sooner and LEFT. But make no bones about it I'm happy I got caught... because that finally brought clarity that I needed to find myself again after years of self-doubt, and gtfo of that marriage. It was catharsis that I needed.

Any woman that deprioritizes me again will find herself on the curb a minute later. No exceptions. That's my new boundary, and I don't give a hot sh*t about her excuses.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> There is nothing weird and magically on again off again about FEMALES desire any more than males. That is the point I am objecting to. Just as because we don't know all the gaps in the origin of species does not necessarily mean god did it, just because you don't know what caused it in your wife, and she does not know, doesn't mean it is unknowable.
> 
> I am female. When my desire drops or is dropping, I know what causes it. I am not magic. Or weird. I am introspective. A little smart. With a husband who is awesome. I am safe saying things like, yah honey it's you.


I'm glad you know why your desire changes. My wife had no reason. She was perfectly safe in saying "yeah honey, its you" to me as well... and she did. And when I made the necessary changes, it became something else... and when I fixed that, it became something else.... because it was all made up.

Regardless, she didn't want sex - with anyone. Is that reliable sexual desire?

Look, I'm still mad about the wild goose chase and all the self-doubt it caused. TBH, I don't really care what her reasons or problems were anymore. I don't care if she was visited by David Hassellhoff in a dream and told not to have sex anymore. I'm happy to be RID of her and with a woman who does have passion for me. But if my girlfriend ever deprioritizes me the way I was when I was married, she's gone. Its a deal breaker for me whatever the unknown reasons.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I've heard guys say things like, "I should find her hot, but I don't" or "I don't know why, but it didn't work out." Or, "it's all there on paper, but the chemistry was off." Or whatever -- you get my drift.


None of those preclude sexual desire entirely. Again, that's the critical difference... no sexual desire at all. Not *certain* men. NO ONE. The switch is off, and it may or may not come back on and go away again - with no apparent reason or consistency that anyone, even the women themselves, can discern.

Its not a case of blame shifting. As I said, I spent years thinking the problem had something to do with ME or my actions, and trying to address it. Over time, I became a MESS of self-doubt. ME... Mr. Certain. What I should have done is end the marriage. Whatever her reasons really were, I wasn't happy with her this way and her efforts never lasted more than a couple weeks.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

This subject has triggered very bad memories and I've gotten diarrhea fingers again. Its time for me to take a break from the forum for a little while and re-center.


----------



## always_alone

Dvl's : I don't know what happened with your wife. I don't know her and I don't know you. All I have to go on is what you post here.

And fact is lack of desire *is* reliable. If someone says they don't want you, they don't. You can count on it. Will they change their minds? Perhaps yes, and perhaps no. None of us are perfectly consistent in this regard. 

You want examples of guys who don't want sex? They are out there. Some play studly in their youth for a while, maybe because they're expected to, or because it's fun, and later they shut down. Some are deeply hurt by women and decide they want nothing more to do with them. Some decide partnered sex is too much trouble and retreat to a fantasy world, some are just asexual from the get go. Some get married, have kids, and turn around and decide they're gay.

So no, men aren't more reliably consistent, either for their partner or fin terms of sex generally, and women can't predict whether one will want to sleep with us from one moment to the next either. Them's the breaks.

But you've already moved on and found your solution, haven't you? Because certainly no one is telling you to stay with a partner who doesn't desire you.

We're just trying to show you that he conclusions you've drawn about all women are off the mark.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> And fact is lack of desire *is* reliable. If someone says they don't want you, they don't. You can count on it.


Semantic shifts can be an art form:

*Me:* We've gotten the last five lights red. Why can't they synchronize the lights in this town?

*Wife:* They are synchronized dear. They're synchronized to be red.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> As for sexdar, the definition you supplied is surely not how FW is using the term. And it would appear it's been put to use in a pretty wide variety of contexts. But the consternation over it surely makes me wonder: have none of you ever communicated non-verbally with another person?


I get what you're trying to say about sexual desires which we don't fully understand. My belief is that even though they're exclusive to human beings, there's a difference between the genders.
Being " different" doesn't mean one is more acceptable or even less mysterious than the other, it simply means that we're both unique in our own ways , and each person's desire is subject to the idiosyncrasies of human nature itself.

With respect to her use of the term " sexdar" I have no problem with her use of the term, I just brought it up in the discussion to show you how subjective the concept itself is .

She used it to deliver an original idea and concept about female sexuality , in the same way Athol uses his terms and phrases to deliver his " concepts."

My problem is in pretending that one has more weight or accuracy than the other when both are rooted in the same thing. Personal research ,observation and anecdotal evidence , all of which are very subjective and not based in hard science.

Neither of them can be scientifically authenticated .

However , I have absolutely no problem in any person having a bias for one or the other.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Semantic shifts can be an art form:
> 
> *Me:* We've gotten the last five lights red. Why can't they synchronize the lights in this town?
> 
> *Wife:* They are synchronized dear. They're synchronized to be red.


Cute, but the point of this exchange was not to say that all women are equally sexual, or that men can count on women's desire to remain consistent through the whole of her life.

Rather it was to counter get idea that women are completely unpredictable or irrational in a way that men are not.

You can't expect people to be other than who they are. And if he or she lacks sexual desire or is asexual, that is just as reliable as someone with strong desire. No one is playing any cutsy semantic shifts. Reliable desire is not the same thing as highly sexual, IMHO.

You can count on people--men and women --to be who they are -- until they change. 

It would perhaps make it easier on all of us if you could predict exactly when and where such changes occur, maybe even better still if you could control them all. But you can't.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> My problem is in pretending that one has more weight or accuracy than the other when both are rooted in the same thing. Personal research ,observation and anecdotal evidence , all of which are very subjective and not based in hard science.
> 
> Neither of them can be scientifically authenticated .
> 
> However , I have absolutely no problem in any person having a bias for one or the other.


I get what you're saying. The difference that I see is this: MMSL pretends to be universal and objective and how all men should be, nay *have* to be, if they want a viable sex life. I've never seen FW claim that anyone needs be one way or the other to be happy or successful in life. Rather, she allows that we're all different and have our own paths. 

Which really is much more reasonable an approach, given the evidence out there.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> but if you're going argue that male desire is no more reliable than female desire is, I'm not sure that observation helps make the case, since it is a response to the changed sexual dynamic in the marriage; not the cause of it.


Doesn't that depending on who were talking about here? 

I'm not trying to say that all people are the same or react the same way. Just that the "women have unreliable libidos" is just as factual as "women aren't good at math" or "women don't understand logic"


----------



## Created2Write

So, when men lose their interest in women it's chocked up to natural desire and preference. But when a woman does she's an unreliable b!tch? 


Oh boy.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Rather it was to counter get idea that women are completely unpredictable or irrational in a way that men are not.


I don't like the negative connotation of those adjectives and hope I haven't attributed either to the female gender.

But reality is still reality. Among other things, women are the ones who carry and bear the children and have to mentally adjust to the duality of being both a wife and mother in ways a man can only try to understand. That is a complication that men simply don't have to deal with themselves.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> But reality is still reality. Among other things, women are the ones who carry and bear the children and have to mentally adjust to the duality of being both a wife and mother in ways a man can only try to understand. That is a complication that men simply don't have to deal with themselves.


True. But some women have no problems with the dual role, and others do. Some have sex like fiends throughout their pregnancy; while others lose desire completely. Some recover quickly and return to pre-baby life; others do not.

Childbearing and birth is something that women do, but that doesn't make it a universal experience.

Analogous would be male responses to low or fluctuating testosterone levels.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Okay, Dvl's, you got me.
> 
> No man ever has lost desire without a specific known --and legitimate...


Wait. Who has the right to determine for someone else what reason is "legitimate"? And more to the point, what good does it do to determine a reason isn't?


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> All you have to do is point to a man who gives a laundry list of excuses as to why he's not interested in anything sexual anymore (not sex with you, ANYTHING sexual),


His name is Robert. He is my friend's husband.



> only to be cornered on those excuses and just throw his hands up with "I don't know", but have it randomly return and go away again. That's no man I've ever heard of. Have you?


Yes. His name is Robert. He is my friend's husband.

Look there is nothing in your sample set of one, your wife, and your frankly stupid "cornering" and calling her feelings "excuses" and goodness only knows what other dysfunction of your relationship with your wife. But it does nothing to speak to the behavior of women.

Nobody can look in the sum total of your marriage and answer what the dysfunction was, though you have given some clues you don't see. That you need to apply this as reason for the irrationality of "women" is just not very insightful or experienced.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm sorry, I don't even get the point of the whole "unreliable" debacle? One unfortunate man's ex-wife's account is supposed to define an entire gender?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Doesn't that depending on who were talking about here?
> 
> I'm not trying to say that all people are the same or react the same way. Just that the "women have unreliable libidos" is just as factual as "women aren't good at math" or "women don't understand logic"


I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your original response. I've got an open mind and am prepared to be convinced.

I was just pointing out the logical ouroboros here when loss of desire in direct response to a partner's loss of desire is included. 

To flesh this out into a crass example, is male desire really unreliable because after three years of rejection a man quits asking?

It occurred to me afterwards that perhaps you had something else in mind in your use of the term, "..or too wrapped up in their kids" other than loss of desire. (?)


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> I'm sorry, I don't even get the point of the whole "unreliable" debacle? One unfortunate man's ex-wife's account is supposed to define an entire gender?


C2W,

This thread started as a result of a Salon.com summary of a recent book entitled, _What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire_

Like everything else in this genre, your mileage will vary.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I'm sorry, I don't even get the point of the whole "unreliable" debacle? One unfortunate man's ex-wife's account is supposed to define an entire gender?


One unfortunate man's account of his ex-wife. Changing the words around makes a pretty big difference.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> One unfortunate man's account of his ex-wife. Changing the words around makes a pretty big difference.


Sexlessness isn't something to mock, imo. I may not agree with what Dvls believes about women or female desire, but I can and do have compassion for his former situation. It, clearly, still affects him today. 

I do think it's a bit of an emotional reaction to assume and argue that most women are like his wife, and I think if could let go of the past he might experience the "truth" about female sexual desire in a way he never has before.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your original response. I've got an open mind and am prepared to be convinced.
> 
> I was just pointing out the logical ouroboros here when loss of desire in direct response to a partner's loss of desire is included.
> 
> To flesh this out into a crass example, is male desire really unreliable because after three years of rejection a man quits asking?
> 
> It occurred to me afterwards that perhaps you had something else in mind in your use of the term, "..or too wrapped up in their kids" other than loss of desire. (?)


Look at it this way, then: Some men get squeamish about having sex with her when she's pregnant because they're afraid of hurting the baby. I've heard many women complain about this, that they're literally begging for it and he simply won't.

To be honest, when I used that example, I just tossed it out as a common one that people say about women all the time, and didn't pause to examine the full logic of a flipped script. I also mentioned lingerie, which also probably wouldn't survive a simple 180, over easy.

And I can see why your reluctant to use "ureliable" to describe a man who has lost his libido after years of rejection. It's rather more of a steady erosion that is pretty easily understood. But I think that what gets lumped as "unreliable" in women is also of this ilk, especially if you know the back-story.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> Sexlessness isn't something to mock, imo. I may not agree with what Dvls believes about women or female desire, _but I can and do have compassion for his former situation_. It, clearly, still affects him today.


Me too. I only question his account of the root causes. And his fixation on blame.


----------



## Mr. Nail

A very long time ago, a woman was quoted as saying words to this effect, "There is no point in trying to understand Male bonding, It doesn't exist. It's just an excuse to get together and play games. If it was 'bonding', they would talk about important things."
Often as I've slogged through this thread I've been tempted to say " there is no point in trying to understand female sexual desire. it doesn't exist" but I don't because it simply isn't true. What is true is that as men we have a lot of trouble spotting it because we are looking for the wrong clues. 
Personally this past week my wife's behavior has changed. If she were male I would need to be worried about a possible infidelity. But the signs are inconsistent and from a female point of view reasonable. I suspect in a week or two the situation will straighten out or find a new level.
MN


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> C2W,
> 
> This thread started as a result of a Salon.com summary of a recent book entitled, _What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire_
> 
> Like everything else in this genre, your mileage will vary.


Smartest words ever written.


----------



## firebelly1

It's too bad that a thread on women's sexual desire has devolved into an argument. Lets get back to the fun part...the fact that this article points out that women physiologically want sex much more often, in different ways, than we traditionally have thought. 

There's some real nuggets here, I think, for men who are frustrated by what appears to be a sexless SO. I love CM's statement (to the effect) that every woman has a she-tiger ready to be let out - the guy just needs to find the way to let it out. NOT saying that men aren't doing enough, just saying I think there is always hope. I really do.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire: Books...sounds like a really interesting book, I am tempted to buy it.



> *DvlsAdvc8 said* :The weird on again, off again sporadic nature of female desire as I've experienced it and has been related to me by other's experience,* I can only describe as unreliable.* Hey, it would be awesome if one day a biological cause was found similar to men and low-T... but I won't hold my breath. I have my money on it being an intrinsic quality - one woman who was trying to give me advice when I was beginning to crack said something like, *"oh, there are long periods I have no desire... but I just have sex with him anyway and wait it out and it comes back. He never knows the difference. Every woman goes through these periods. The sex was still nice even though I wasn't interested in having it."* Now, she may have just been trying to make me feel better - as I was feeling pretty down about myself and had become absurdly self-analyzing... but I think she has something real there and I wonder if its more common than women let on. The book this thread is based on would imply it is.


 All of us females can only speak from our own experiences...I can not relate to what this woman said to you... at all.... 

Even though I was a bit repressed...wanted the lights out & stupid stuff like this, felt masturbating was shameful...Never stopped me!! ... I personally have never had a season of NOT getting horny.... I NEEDED it at the very least once a week throughout the entire time I have been a young teen till almost reaching 50... 

Having read a book on Hormones ...I learned some things I never knew that I bet many men do not know either...The Alchemy of Love and Lust: Books

*Breast Feeding*...the book starts out with this story where the marriage almost broke down... wife suddenly looses ALL interest in sex.... Culprit....a Nursing mother produces unusually high levels of *prolactin*, this hormone surges to approx 10 times it's normal value while the baby suckles... it takes 2-3 hrs to return to normal...if New mothers do this on a regular basis, she will have a severely reduced sex drive.

I never breast fed, I tried it for maybe a month with our 2nd, didn't like it...give me those bottles please!... With all my pregnancies, I was MORE horny (must have been all that extra Test -with many sons)...and I remember with each one...after the C-section...a little complaining...not being able to wait till I was supposed to -for sex.. we never listened to Docs orders here...(why our 3rd son was born 11 months later)...



> She even switched BC to see if that was the issue after I started systematically addressing every issue she invented with hugely dissatisfying results.


*Birth Control*.. I recall a thread on here, wish I would have saved it...how this woman went off her birth control and she suddenly went NUTS for sex.. she had no idea how her husband was feeling all of those years ...it hit her right in the face.. I did find this thread.. it's only 2 pages long ....this can cause much misunderstanding & misery in a marriage... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-ma...ssants-birth-control-effects-sex-drive-2.html

I have never taken any hormonal birth control our entire marriage...didn't like those side effects, wanting nothing to do with it...so this is probably why I never had one of those seasons of Never wanting it -either..

For us...the worry of not being able to conceive...was our Monkey wrench...but even through that... I would complain how I had to forgo my orgasm to "get the girl" (according to the books on getting the sex you want)... I hated that! I really wanted my orgasm..... so the horniness was there, I just allowed "timing" and whatever it would take (I felt if we did it too much, he would reduce his sperm count... when he was tested, it was Good...but not Alpha High ya know)... so that was where my head was at (unfortunately)... Had we never experienced trouble conceiving...I don't think my husband would have EVER felt rejected by me...

*Resentment* ...I feel is one of the biggest culprits to shutting down a sex drive...in the woman or the man... which can be over an endless array of issues.. as individual as the couple themselves....I have never experienced this but reading on Tam has been Eye opening to this fact.. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-ma...l-etc-how-robs-us-intimacy-we-crave-most.html

*Physical Attractiveness *... even in "His Needs, Her Needs".. this is considered one of the 10 emotional Needs on the list... many like to call this "shallow" but I wouldn't agree......just because ones emotional needs are different over another's ... should not give rise to judge the other...learn if it's important to your spouse and do what you can to keep them happy.. it's just like Love Languages...



> *firebelly1 said*: It's too bad that a thread on women's sexual desire has devolved into an argument. Lets get back to the fun part...the fact that this article points out that women physiologically want sex much more often, in different ways, than we traditionally have thought.
> 
> There's some real nuggets here, I think, for men who are frustrated by what appears to be a sexless SO. *I love CM's statement (to the effect) that every woman has a she-tiger ready to be let out* - the guy just needs to find the way to let it out. NOT saying that men aren't doing enough, just saying I think there is always hope. I really do.


 I believe I had a She-tiger in me all along but my husband was more on the passive side.. very sensitive to my initial show of want /receptiveness.........and this wasn't doing us any favors in our past....when I compare the LENGTHS I went to- to get more sex out of him in mid life... (though that was FUN!!)... to what he did to get more out of me..when he wanted more.... I have gotten ....this was the closest thing I came to resenting him..I had a right to know how he was feeling.. darn him.. so he could be happy.

I feel he had lots to work with.. . he wasn't much of a flirter...too silent.. he had the touch, but had he added some verbal to it..it could have went a long way....though some of this was my own doing... when we met I told him he was different, I used to complain how I couldn't stand men flirting -it was all hot air...idiots...I wanted to slap some of them when I was a waitress.. ..add this.. to a Guy who was so honorable, he never wanted me to think it was "just about Sex"... 

...so there is where we missed it .... 

Because I always initiated, he didn't seem to understand women are like "crock pots".... he needed to pursue to get me going.. I never In all our our yrs laid there thinking... "When will this be over" or didn't enjoy it, I would have hog tied him to give it to me -once he got me going.


----------



## Miss Taken

I can't speak for other women but can speak for myself. I think my desire has always been reliable. Naturally, I am a HD woman, the only time I never had any desire was when I was taking hormonal contraceptives. Boy does birth control work when it removes the desire to have sex or even "take matters into one's own hands"! I quit taking any hormones and my drive went back to normal within a month. Even when I'm mad, sad or resentful towards him, I still want sex just maybe not with him.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And fact is lack of desire *is* reliable. If someone says they don't want you, they don't. You can count on it. Will they change their minds? Perhaps yes, and perhaps no. None of us are perfectly consistent in this regard.
> 
> We're just trying to show you that he conclusions you've drawn about all women are off the mark.


Nothing that has been said here explains my experience but "unreliable". My ex never said she didn't want me. She in fact wanted to keep the marriage even after I had a bunch of affairs. I am criticizing the reliability of her sex drive. The first half of the marriage she was a sexual vixen, the second half of the marriage she was mostly a cold fish, with occasional, sporadic spurts of her former self. In MC, she claimed to love having sex with me, but when not actually having sex, sex wasn't something she ever thought about or craved... it was often just forgotten. When I was I was insistent, I'd get sex, after pushing past this bizarre avoidance dance of hers. Afterward, she'd seem quite satisfied. Eventually however, you dont want to initiate with a woman who always seems to want to avoid sex inexplicably. She always said she liked our sex. She would go months in this sex avoidance state, then actually respond with desire for maybe a week or so. There was no difference in our lives during one state or the other.

How does a woman go from being very sexual for years, to suddenly being weirdly bashful/undesiring/avoidant, with random pops of actual desire? Why would a woman opt to give bjs more often than she has sex with a man? When she did initiate after having our first kid, she would basically give me a bj. When I moved to transition these into piv, she would basically shut down and say she just wants to give the bj. I got far more bjs in the second half of the marriage than piv sex to the point that I began questioning my bedroom skills. WhenI questioned her on it, she claimed it was just less fuss and she knew I needed it. *she knew I needed it*. "Nah, I just want to do for you" were her exact words, and this was the majority of our sex life for the second half of the marriage. What happened to her need? Why would it randomly come and go? Why would you initiate a bj, if there is some big issue lingering over the relationship dynamic that kills your sex drive? Anyone have a better explanation? I'm all ears.

What is unreliable desire if this is not it?

And while this absent minded lack of desire is unknown to SA and other women here, I heard it echoed from other women when I was trying to figure out what was going on with my wife. It was very much expressed as "sex is nice, but I dont really think about it or crave it... maybe once in a blue moon." or "I'm rarely interested even when hubs initiates, I usually play coy for some reason and turn him down here and there just because sex isn't on my mind. Other times, I let him do his thing, its good, but I still wasn't desiring to have sex. You can't expect her to just desire you all the time. We don't think about sex as much as you do". This from women who were trying to HELP me. A recurring theme was that this behavior of my ex's was pretty normal! Only a sliver of women I talked to thought there was something really wrong about the situation and started bringing up all the things commonly discussed on this forum -emotional needs, loss of attraction, lack of participation, maybe she's having an affair etc etc. Or the blanket statement, "she's crazy."

I dont know what you call it, but I call it unreliable, and in the back of my mind there is definitely a fear that I'll get attached to someone else only to see them do the same thing. As most of the women I spoke to about it said, "eh, She seems pretty normal. We're not sex obsessed like you dudes are." I dont think showing your husband you actually have desire, and some interest in sex for the benefit of your own pleasure is even remotely obsession.

This kind of thing makes me never want to be married again.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Another thing that really bothers me about these desire discussions and male vs female sexlessness, is that when a man isn't desired by his wife everyone seems to focus on what *he's* doing wrong. Its "what's wrong with him"? -he's not meeting her emotional needs; -he's not participating; -he's acting in a way that caused her to lose attraction to him etc etc. When a woman isn't desired by her husband, everyone's focus is also *him*. What's his problem? What's wrong with him? -he's watching too much porn; -he's low drive; -he's too passive; -he's lazy; -he's complacent.

Its always *him*.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Another thing that really bothers me about these desire discussions and male vs female sexlessness, is that when a man isn't desired by his wife everyone seems to focus on what *he's* doing wrong. Its "what's wrong with him"? -he's not meeting her emotional needs; -he's not participating; -he's acting in a way that caused her to lose attraction to him etc etc. When a woman isn't desired by her husband, everyone's focus is also *him*. What's his problem? What's wrong with him? -he's watching too much porn; -he's low drive; -he's too passive; -he's lazy; -he's complacent.
> 
> Its always *him*.


When I was posting about DH's occasional drive/erection issues I noticed a few folks asked me what I was doing wrong but mostly it was "he's masturbating too much." "does he look at porn?" "get his T checked!" etc.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Miss Taken said:


> ,* the only time I never had any desire was when I was taking hormonal contraceptives. Boy does birth control work when it removes the desire to have sex or even "take matters into one's own hands"! I quit taking any hormones and my drive went back to normal within a month. *


I find it funny that on this entire thread about female desire, nobody mentioned birth control , [ except you. ]

I heard this from time to time with other women , BC messes up with your hormones and causes your drive to drop. That was the main reason my wife decided against birth control as a means of contraception.
Her sister told her about that particular " side effect."


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> There's some real nuggets here, I think, for men who are frustrated by what appears to be a sexless SO. I love CM's statement (to the effect) that every woman has a she-tiger ready to be let out - the guy just needs to find the way to let it out. NOT saying that men aren't doing enough, *just saying I think there is always hope. I really do.*


I firmly believe this^^^.

Of course , all I have is anecdotal evidence and what my personal observation, but they do.
And my observation is that different women would express it in different ways.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I find it funny that on this entire thread about female desire, nobody mentioned birth control , [ except you. ]
> 
> I heard this from time to time with other women , BC messes up with your hormones and causes your drive to drop. That was the main reason my wife decided against birth control as a means of contraception.
> Her sister told her about that particular " side effect."


I've mentioned it a few times. My ex switched birth control. At the time, she told me she thought she might be reacting badly to what she was on - but in a non-sexual sense - its screwing with her cycle, she feels cyclicly ill etc. In MC, she admitted that she was fine on the original BC - no illness, and her reason for changing was that she read somewhere that certain BC will kill sex drive in certain women. I don't know why she concealed her reasons for changing, but it shows she recognized a problem with her new low drive. So she went off one kind, went without for about 4-5 months, then went on another. She gave me the impression it was a heath issue, not to address a sexual issue. She said in MC that she didn't feel any different from the first one, to without, to the second one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I firmly believe this^^^.
> 
> Of course , all I have is anecdotal evidence and what my personal observation, but they do.
> And my observation is that different women would express it in different ways.


This blames the man too. Its his job to get the tiger out?

So, he's doing it right when he gets the tiger was out for years, then when it goes back into the cage and only comes out again once in a blue moon, he's now doing it wrong?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've mentioned it a few times. My ex switched birth control. At the time, she told me she thought she might be reacting badly to what she was on - but in a non-sexual sense - its screwing with her cycle, she feels cyclicly ill etc. In MC, she admitted that she was fine on the original BC - no illness, and her reason for changing was that she read somewhere that certain BC will kill sex drive in certain women. I don't know why she concealed her reasons for changing, but it shows she recognized a problem with her new low drive. So she went off one kind, went without for about 4-5 months, then went on another. She gave me the impression it was a heath issue, not to address a sexual issue. She said in MC that she didn't feel any different from the first one, to without, to the second one.


What do you think was the main reason behind her switching off?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This blames the man too. Its his job to get the tiger out?
> 
> So, he's doing it right when he gets the tiger was out for years, then when it goes back into the cage and only comes out again once in a blue moon, he's now doing it wrong?


It is the way it is.

Maybe it's biological, but women seem to be able to " feel sexy" in a different way to men.
Men feel horny and want sex, but a woman can feel sexy without feeling horny ,just desiring validation of her sensuality, if you know what I mean.

A woman would dress provocatively , look at herself in the mirror and feel sexy. Doesn't mean she wants a man to ride her..

Men don't do that.
They get horny, they want sex, not validation.

So although it might seem a bit unfair, it takes a man [ in heterosexual women] to bring it out. However, she still has her part to play .

She must be willing to stop fighting and release.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> What do you think was the main reason behind her switching off?


I never figured it out to be honest. In MC, she said SHE didn't know. It drove me literally crazy.

I suspect it had something to do with being a mom. The kids were her *everything*, and there were hints of "moms don't do things like that", "teenagers do that, not people our age", when I'd try to spice things up. Some sort of change in mindset that simply disregarded sex or sexual behavior not fitting with her archetype of wholesome mom. All of her energy, thought and interest seemed to lay in parenting - being a good mom - something like that. It extended beyond her lack of desire. Her every conversation was about the kids. Before my meltdown, she even began her hinting and beating around the bush about leaving her job to be a SAHM selling it to me as how much money we could save on daycare, taxes, even groceries. She never had enough time with the kids... so on and so forth. But she never came out directly with it and said, "I want to be a SAHM". It was always hints and envy of the SAHM's in our neighborhood... their craftiness, baking, homeschooling, interior decorating, so on and so forth.

She flatly said no to this however. I believe her when she said she simply never thought about sex. That she was obviously disinterested didn't even occur to her until I kept bringing it up and it was pulling teeth to get her to finally admit that she really wasn't interested the vast majority of the time, even though she insisted she really enjoyed our sex. Sex just wasn't on her radar. She didn't think about it. Didn't crave it. She knew I did, but said she thought the difference in our sex drive states was a totally normal progression of relationships. The husband always wants sex, and the wife is mostly indifferent. She's say things like, "that's why people always joke about women having headaches and that however much sex you had before the marriage, is how much sex you'll have for the rest of the marriage." She had no problem with that.

She kicked her drive up once she suspected me of cheating though, but I was already checked out. I didn't care anymore, and it all felt so fake.


----------



## Miss Taken

Caribbean Man said:


> I find it funny that on this entire thread about female desire, nobody mentioned birth control , [ except you. ]
> 
> I heard this from time to time with other women , BC messes up with your hormones and causes your drive to drop. That was the main reason my wife decided against birth control as a means of contraception.
> Her sister told her about that particular " side effect."


I think it's often overlooked. I was fine taking birth control off and on for years before I had kids. Once my first son was born, something changed and no matter which I used, I experienced some side kind of side effects whether sexual or otherwise. 

If only there were a male contraceptive outside of condoms and vasectomies...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Caribbean Man said *:* I find it funny that on this entire thread about female desire, nobody mentioned birth control , [ except you. ]*


 Hey now.. I mentioned it 1st -even though I never took one Birth control pil, or used any hormonal methods...



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Another thing that really bothers me about these desire discussions and male vs female sexlessness, is that when a man isn't desired by his wife everyone seems to focus on what *he's* doing wrong. Its "what's wrong with him"? -he's not meeting her emotional needs; -he's not participating; -he's acting in a way that caused her to lose attraction to him etc etc. When a woman isn't desired by her husband, everyone's focus is also *him*. What's his problem? What's wrong with him? -he's watching too much porn; -he's low drive; -he's too passive; -he's lazy; -he's complacent.
> 
> Its always *him*.


 Having read books on Testosterone....men have 10-50 times more Test over us women.... why men are more aggressive...and LIKE to pursue ...it's what makes you a MAN... isn't it...and women are GENERALLY the more receptive partner...more subtle... (me & my husband are somewhat backwards here..it is what it is).... though he "slayed the dragon" up to 5 times a day before we met -so his sex drive was plenty adequate ...if not obsessive.... 



> *Caribbean Man said: *It is the way it is.
> 
> Maybe it's biological, but women seem to be able to " feel sexy" in a different way to men.
> Men feel horny and want sex, but a woman can feel sexy without feeling horny ,just desiring validation of her sensuality, if you know what I mean.
> 
> A woman would dress provocatively , look at herself in the mirror and feel sexy. Doesn't mean she wants a man to ride her..
> 
> Men don't do that.
> They get horny, they want sex, not validation.
> 
> So although it might seem a bit unfair, it takes a man [ in heterosexual women] to bring it out. However, she still has her part to play .
> 
> She must be willing to stop fighting and release.


:iagree:



> *DvlsAdvc8 said :* *This blames the man too. Its his job to get the tiger out?*
> 
> So, he's doing it right when he gets the tiger was out for years, then when it goes back into the cage and only comes out again once in a blue moon, he's now doing it wrong?


 The reason I say this about my husband was.. he was *more Horny more Often than I was.* (common scenario when young men are in their PRIME).... he would have loved once a day but settled for 1-2 times a week.. why [email protected]#$ .... All he had to do was shake me up a little...try new things...inspire me... he was the one FEELING IT... suffering it ....I would think that would be motivation enough... (sure put a flame under me to get creative!!).... 

So I feel it's on the more HD partner to get down & pull out all the stops, read...learn of what trips their trigger...it's on your mind anyway... YOU DID THAT DvlsAdvc8... but really....my husband didn't do that...he just figured he wouldn't rock the boat (his own words)... he said other men had it worse...too much listening to the men at work complaining... so he cooled his jets.. 

Women do not understand the urgency of the male sex drive in our younger years ...as our men are at our beck & call, one touch & he's READY to roll.... there is no "suffering" on our end...we are Filled... . I always felt desired, *I took it for granted*....and Yes...this is the shame of it....I used to wonder if it ever went down!

Yeah I needed it so often but not like the mental hi-jack I had in Mid life..(purely a hormonal shift).... I would have died & went to heaven with 3 times a day....now I was obsessed....the tables have turned on their heads...*we finally get a taste of what our husband's were putting up with*...what an eye opener! I had a whole range of emotions over this..I got it ...but it was too late ...that ship had sailed... he couldn't play Bunny Rabbit...but beings he KNEW how that felt, he wasn't going to leave me high & dry...he did all he could.... 

If us women just had a taste of what you men go through.. it could do wonders..so I feel..

So yeah.. the man, in his antsy state....needs to woo, please, do all he can to make it FUN & pleasurable ....so we'll be clawing for more ....more....to get the tigress out...... My H was purely a Making Love man... I was happy... it was ENOUGH... but there could have been other doors opened with me.... had he tried new things , maybe a sex game....introduced new positions / places (it was ME who said "Lets try doggie, do it on the trampoline!)... he could have teased me more......wrestled me to the ground...whisked me off my feet, shown some hungry ravashing (I did those things !)......I feel his enthusiasm surely would have caught mine (or it should work this way)....he just wasn't like this...I had the Big O from day 1...but still... It could have been more. 

Meanwhile every time I read a Romance Novel, it turned me on like lightning...or we watched any Hot scene in a movie...I was after it....I think I was pretty Easy to get going...really.. it didn't matter if we had kids or not.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I dont know what you call it, but I call it unreliable, and in the back of my mind there is definitely a fear that I'll get attached to someone else only to see them do the same thing. As most of the women I spoke to about it said, "eh, She seems pretty normal. We're not sex obsessed like you dudes are." I dont think showing your husband you actually have desire, and some interest in sex for the benefit of your own pleasure is even remotely obsession.
> 
> This kind of thing makes me never want to be married again.


Stop repeating the same old patterns, then, and you'll probably be fine. 

There are lots of women who are as or more sexual than your average man, and who know themselves, their desires, and aren't going to play crazy head games with you. 

But you're so set that you're right, and that you understand women better than any woman ever possibly could, that you'll probably never ever see this.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> So although it might seem a bit unfair, it takes a man [ in heterosexual women] to bring it out. However, she still has her part to play .
> 
> She must be willing to stop fighting and release.


Oh, groovy. Another man who knows how it is for all women, and of course she always needs his super-studly self to realize she wants sex.

Not!

You're right about one thing: Women can feel sexy without wanting any given man to ride. But, surprise, surprise, women can feel sexy and *want* sex, and even pursue it. Just because she is selective doesn't mean she doesn't have the desire, or needs to be "unlocked" or "released"


----------



## Lyris

I can relate to what Dvls is saying. I'd say my desire is unreliable. I don't really need sex physically much, and if left to myself could easily go without for long stretches.

I don't though, and why I don't is pretty complex. I don't really desire sex much, although I love it and enjoy it, but I do desire my husband on a chemical level. Getting close to him, smelling him and touching him turns my desire for sex on. In his absence, it's not there. Or not very strongly anyway. 

If I was married to someone I wasn't so attracted to I could absolutely imagine going off sex altogether. 

Maybe it's a bad deal for my husband I don't know. I guess I'll find out if he ever leaves me for a more FW type.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> If us women just had a taste of what you men go through.. it could do wonders..so I feel..


I agree and went through the same thing SA. We've talked about this before. I wish for those in mismatched drive marriages, the lower drive spouse could get a boost of testosterone for a short while, just to get them to a physical place where they FELT that unrelenting pull of the mind and body to get naked and bang bodies. "Oh dinner's burning, who cares! Get over here now!"


----------



## Anon Pink

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I never figured it out to be honest. In MC, she said SHE didn't know. It drove me literally crazy.
> 
> I suspect it had something to do with being a mom. The kids were her *everything*, and there were hints of "moms don't do things like that", "teenagers do that, not people our age", when I'd try to spice things up. Some sort of change in mindset that simply disregarded sex or sexual behavior not fitting with her archetype of wholesome mom. All of her energy, thought and interest seemed to lay in parenting - being a good mom - something like that. It extended beyond her lack of desire. Her every conversation was about the kids. Before my meltdown, she even began her hinting and beating around the bush about leaving her job to be a SAHM selling it to me as how much money we could save on daycare, taxes, even groceries. She never had enough time with the kids... so on and so forth. But she never came out directly with it and said, "I want to be a SAHM". It was always hints and envy of the SAHM's in our neighborhood... their craftiness, baking, homeschooling, interior decorating, so on and so forth.
> 
> She flatly said no to this however. I believe her when she said she simply never thought about sex. That she was obviously disinterested didn't even occur to her until I kept bringing it up and it was pulling teeth to get her to finally admit that she really wasn't interested the vast majority of the time, even though she insisted she really enjoyed our sex. Sex just wasn't on her radar. She didn't think about it. Didn't crave it. She knew I did, but said she thought the difference in our sex drive states was a totally normal progression of relationships. The husband always wants sex, and the wife is mostly indifferent. She's say things like, "that's why people always joke about women having headaches and that however much sex you had before the marriage, is how much sex you'll have for the rest of the marriage." She had no problem with that.
> 
> She kicked her drive up once she suspected me of cheating though, but I was already checked out. I didn't care anymore, and it all felt so fake.


I think this speaks pretty loudly about what we don't teach our young people about sex. 

In our early years, I believed as your wife did. It wasn't until I came to TAM that I really finally understood how important sex was to feeling loved and when a spouse has no drive that's a huge problem in the relationship. 

I think there are lots of husbands, perhaps not here at TAM, out there who also resign themselves to not getting decent sex. Just as many women who resign themselves to the same fate.

Why don't we do a better job giving people permission to say and be believed that sex is so important it could ruin our marriage if it isn't satisfactorily worked out?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh, groovy. Another man who knows how it is for all women, and of course she always needs his super-studly self to realize she wants sex.
> 
> Not!
> 
> You're right about one thing: Women can feel sexy without wanting any given man to ride. But, surprise, surprise, women can feel sexy and *want* sex, and even pursue it. Just because she is selective doesn't mean she doesn't have the desire, or needs to be "unlocked" or "released"



Ummmmm,

NO.

What I said was that a woman doesn't * need* a man to feel sexy or sensual , she can do so all by herself.

Perhaps you're confusing what I'm saying with what FW's saying , about women needing a " sex god " or a man with " sexdar" / " reliable desire " which ironically , you said that you agreed with a few pages ago.

Nowhere in my post have I said women * need* a super stud , and furthermore , nowhere in my post did I even imply that I was every woman's " super stud."

However , I know for sure , I am my wife's " super stud " , and much more.
Have been for the last two decades.

Perhaps you probably don't like how that sounds either, doesn't really sit well with your political views. 
I " get " that...
















But , it is what it is.


----------



## RandomDude

What we arguing about now? That women get horny too?

Errr... like duh :scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Stop repeating the same old patterns, then, and you'll probably be fine.


What pattern would that be? I sought what I wanted, found it and married her. Her priorities changed, mine didn't. This is an inherent risk regardless of my patterns. Should I start changing my priorities to match a woman's? No.

Don't mistake my giving my take on why women do many of the things they do as being something I bash over people's heads in real life. Forums are places for ideas. I pride myself on learning people and putting together explanations that predict behavior. My ex's lack of drive, dramatic shift of priority, wanting to stay after my affairs - all broke my understanding of her, and I'm still in "wtf" mode.

Some people like to think everyone has a totally unique set of motivations and reasons for their behavior. I tend to think most of these things are common across the population in general with a degree of variance that can be categorized, just as we categorize personality types. When people read things like Briggs-Myers the first time, the usual response is "omg... that's so me." You're an INTP right? Surely you identify with the desire to create little buckets of understanding that explain things. You can't always go by what a person says, male or female - actions speak a lot louder than words and words are often calculated to present whatever image a person prefers to project. Hell, the women who identified with my ex's indifference toward sex may have only been trying to show empathy or mitigate how serious I thought the problem was - another characteristic I strongly associate with women that I don't dismiss.

I haven't reached a satisfying answer here... so it bothers me. But if understanding people was a simple thing, I wouldn't be interested in talking about it.


----------



## FrenchFry

Okay.

Please talk about the Salon article. If you want to talk about FWs concepts, you can go to her website but she has made it clear she no longer wishes to talk on this about her concepts and has requested that we all stop. 

I don't want to close the thread but if the article itself is exhausted, then I will and we can move on.

Thanks!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lyris said:


> I can relate to what Dvls is saying. I'd say my desire is unreliable.


Omg thank you! I never understand why I get so much of one kind of feedback in real life, only to see complete opposition to that feedback on this forum. It becomes a real pita to differentiate truth from fiction, speaking from empathy vs antagonism, and figure out how common a given characteristic is. What you describe is almost spot on the same way my ex described it. She desired my presence... she wanted to be close to me, sitting on the couch watching a movie. She always wanted me around; she loved my smell; the sound of my voice; the way I walk with an unintentional strut; the way I'm sooo serious but then throw out the most hilarious comment; ...but she almost never desired sex after we had children, whether I seduced or not... and while it might sound conceited, I'm pretty damn good at seduction! My running around at the end, and after the marriage, was partly confirming that I wasn't just lying to myself. That her lack of sexual desire wasn't about ME or what I'm doing. Rebuilding my self-confidence.

Unreliable drive among women is way more common in real life than seems acceptable to so many people on this forum. Our culture is even littered with jokes about female desire as a result. Such jokes are funny because they contain grains of truth.


----------



## FrenchFry

Probably because people who don't experience life like this get tired of being put in the same box and there is no better place than the internet to find all of the people who are like "You think this is BS too, huh?"


Just a guess.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What pattern would that be? I sought what I wanted, found it and married her. Her priorities changed, mine didn't. This is an inherent risk regardless of my patterns. Should I start changing my priorities to match a woman's? No.


Just that from the way you talk about women, you seem to always go for exactly he same types, so much so that other types of women are completely invisible to you. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I tend to think most of these things are common across the population in general with a degree of variance that can be categorized, just as we categorize personality types. When people read things like Briggs-Myers the first time, the usual response is "omg... that's so me."


And the research that sparked this discussion finds that women's desire is base, animalistic, and ravenous, as strong as men's.

Yet what you see are women who are "unreliable", unpredictable, not really into sex, etc. Why is that?

I get that you never got an adequate explanation as to why your wife went off you, and I get that you didn't like any of the preferred explanations (which ranged from hormones, to resentments, to socialization, to a return to baseline). That's fine, as none of us here know your ex or her motives.

But why cling to these notions that women will never pursue, will switch off at the drop of a hat, aren't very sexual, etc and so on when so much of the research says otherwise?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Ummmmm,
> 
> NO.
> 
> What I said was that a woman doesn't * need* a man to feel sexy or sensual , she can do so all by herself.


Yes, but every time you say his you frame it in terms of "unlike men, she is "seeking validation", needs to be "unlocked" or "released".

Can it just simply be that she dresses sexy because it turns her on? Why do you assume she must be seeking validation?

Sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar, and doesn't require endless interpretation or hidden meanings.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Just that from the way you talk about women, you seem to always go for exactly he same types, so much so that other types of women are completely invisible to you.


Why do you have that view? I've related a number of my pickup stories in other threads, and I thought it was pretty apparent I go for all sorts of different types. The only thing they all have in common is body shape. I have certain non-physical things I prefer above other things, but I'm attracted to a billion different variations of these things. Bold and adventurous? Awesome. Mousey and sweet? Awesome. I prefer bold and adventurous, but I'm still quite attracted to the mousey ones.



always_alone said:


> And the research that sparked this discussion finds that women's desire is base, animalistic, and ravenous, as strong as men's.
> 
> Yet what you see are women who are "unreliable", unpredictable, not really into sex, etc. Why is that?


The book that sparked this discussion includes discussion of how female desire can be vague - even to women themselves, and sporadic. Octillo seemed to note this in one of his prior posts too. I'm not finished with the book, but I'd suggest having a look. Do I have any doubt that *when* a woman feels desire, it is as base, animalistic and ravenous as a man's? No. But even the book makes a case for the inconsistency of such desire and women's lack of sexual awareness.



always_alone said:


> I get that you didn't like any of the preferred explanations (which ranged from hormones, to resentments, to socialization, to a return to baseline).


I don't reject them arbitrarily. She herself pursued the potential issue with hormones without success. I ran down a whole host of things she invented to justify her lack of desire - things that might be the root of resentments - and I now know they were just pulled from the sky. She said she honestly didn't have a problem with anything. In my original thread, I described what was to me her apparent mindset: life is perfect. What socialization and baseline issue? Its true she was the prototype naïve little good girl, but she chose me for the very reason that I was both extreme and nice. She desperately wanted out of the box of her small little town full of homogenous judgment heavy people. That I would shower her with experiences without making her feel stupid was a primary reason she latched on to me. Are you saying those who grow up as naïve good little girls are bound to one day return to being wholesome saints with no desire?



always_alone said:


> But why cling to these notions that women will never pursue, will switch off at the drop of a hat, aren't very sexual, etc and so on when so much of the research says otherwise?


I know some women pursue, most I know prefer not to. Most women I know prefer an assertive man and want the narcissistic (not in the disorder sense) rush of a man boldly pursuing them. The book makes this case as well. 

I believe a woman may switch off at the drop of a hat because I experienced it. I've heard the same related from others. I've heard women say they run hot and cold. The book doesn't say otherwise, it in fact reinforces this notion. While not the focus, one could say some of the book leans heavily toward "unreliable".


----------



## Interlocutor

The most dangerous animals need the strongest cages.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Is anyone other than Octillo and me actually reading the book?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Unreliable drive among women is way more common in real life than seems acceptable to so many people on this forum. Our culture is even littered with jokes about female desire as a result. Such jokes are funny because they contain grains of truth.


I just want to say.. Most of my friends are like this..(one of my friends H's cheated, another has been turned down many times, she told me he cried once ...she didn't care, she wasn't feeling it).....another has never orgasmed & doesn't get it...could live without sex... 

Plus my husband comes home & shares how some of those guys talk at work about their wives......always running jokes how they don't get any... '"sex, what's that?"... mention a holiday, they will make a comment they still won't get any...and if/when they do..a Bj for instance, It'd be another year till the next....

Everytime this one gets some, he tells my H -cause it is so damn rare...when he is frustrated on the Job, H pretty much knows WHY...what he is dealing with at home....this man became wholly infatuated with a younger woman ...close to cheating.....another one WAS...another divorced his wife over it...another gets near nothing & throws himself into porn... his Catholic wife would have his hide..I guess he has learned to hide it well....

And this is all just a small Shop!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The same is true of every place I've ever worked, but most of the guys seem to take it in stride... it is what it is, why trade out one woman with no desire for the next woman with no desire. I've since recognized since that some of men's complaints are really the result of taking the passive approach to sex - not initiating or engaging in foreplay unless she shows something to indicate she will be receptive. But others are just flat out told no, she doesn't feel like it - and criticized for wanting sex "all the time". Older guys even tell younger guys "Oh... don't expect that to last... wait till you have kids then see how freaky you are." "You're getting married? I hope you had your fill of sex."

I even know a woman who doesn't like sex because she thinks sex is something her husband comes around to get *from* her - instead of thinking as I would, that its something they share and get mutual benefit from. For some reason this woman reminds me of AA (no offense AA... its only a vibe).


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The same is true of every place I've ever worked, but most of the guys seem to take it in stride... it is what it is, why trade out one woman with no desire for the next woman with no desire. I've since recognized since that some of men's complaints are really the result of taking the passive approach to sex - not initiating or engaging in foreplay unless she shows something to indicate she will be receptive. But others are just flat out told no, she doesn't feel like it - and criticized for wanting sex "all the time". Older guys even tell younger guys "Oh... don't expect that to last... wait till you have kids then see how freaky you are." "You're getting married? I hope you had your fill of sex."
> 
> I even know a woman who doesn't like sex because she thinks sex is something her husband comes around to get *from* her - instead of thinking as I would, that its something they share and get mutual benefit from. For some reason this woman reminds me of AA (no offense AA... its only a vibe).


This stereotype of women is pushed at every turn in society, and just because it's a stereotype doesn't automatically make it untrue...


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its true she was the prototype naïve little good girl, but she chose me for the very reason that I was both extreme and nice. She *desperately wanted out of the box of her small little town full of homogenous judgment heavy people. That I would shower her with experiences without making her feel stupid *was a primary reason she latched on to me. Are you saying those who grow up as naïve good little girls are bound to one day return to being wholesome saints with no desire?


No, what I'm saying is that this is your type, and your pattern, and that this is exactly the type that poses a high risk for the behaviours/attitudes you wish to avoid.

There are a lot of "weekend adventurers", if you know what I mean. People who totally get off on being "cool", having fun, sowing oats. They are much higher risk for returning to conservative values and behaviours because for them being out there was just a phase, a bit of experimentation, not an expression of their true selves.

Since you seem to be only ever look at the surface, you don't seem to see this. Maybe I'm way off, but that's my impression.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I believe a woman may switch off at the drop of a hat because I experienced it. I've heard the same related from others. I've heard women say they run hot and cold. The book doesn't say otherwise, it in fact reinforces this notion. While not the focus, one could say some of the book leans heavily toward "unreliable".


Again, though, the research that shows this "unreliability" usually fails to account for important variables that actually go a long way to explaining differences between the expression of men's and women's desire.

For example, women often let men pursue because men get freaked out by sexually aggressive women, and are more likely than not to reject them. So women learn to accommodate this.

Another example: women are often taught that any sexual thoughts she has are shameful, and that "good" women don't really want sex -- so she learns from a very young age to deny how she feels and what she wants.

Or on the flipside, a woman who is not that sexual to begin with learns the only way to get or keep a relationship is to pretend to be more sexual than she is --so she does.

The messages that women receive about their sexuality are very different from the ones that men receive, so there is zero surprise that self-perception studies find differences.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> This stereotype of women is pushed at every turn in society, and just because it's a stereotype doesn't automatically make it untrue...


Doesn't necessarily make it true either.

And we can reinforce them by continuing to teach everyone that men like sex and women don't, and any man who commits to marriage is doomed for a lifetime.

Or we can realize that the facts don't all conform to our theories, and instead of re-writing the facts, we can change the theories.

If we can stop teaching women that sex is not pleasurable for them, that they should be ashamed for wanting it, that they have to wait for him to make the advance (and on and on and on),
my bet is that you'll start seeing huge differences in both behaviour and women's self reports.

We've come some distance with sexual liberation, but it's still not far enough.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I even know a woman who doesn't like sex because she thinks sex is something her husband comes around to get *from* her - instead of thinking as I would, that its something they share and get mutual benefit from.


Yes, well sometimes it really isn't for mutual benefit because the guy is just there to get himself off and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about her pleasure. 

Just sayin'


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> No, what I'm saying is that this is your, type and your pattern, and that this is exactly the type that poses a high risk for the behaviours/attitudes you wish to avoid.


I thought you've said before that I go for "easy" women? Or desperate, financially strapped gold digger women? I really don't have some special thing for the wholesome type. My current girlfriend isn't one of them. I've pursued only a couple of that type since D. I actually have a mild preference for risky women with tats and attitudes... sort of ****y females - most of them still know how to clean up and be a lady, but the naïve wholesome types rarely seem to know how to let go of perceptions and be a little wild. You've misread my "type" I think, if I even really have a type.



always_alone said:


> There are a lot of "weekend adventurers", if you know what I mean. People who totally get off on being "cool", having fun, sowing oats. They are much higher risk for returning to conservative values and behaviours because for them being out there was just a phase, a bit of experimentation, not an expression of their true selves.
> 
> Since you seem to be only ever look at the surface, you don't seem to see this. Maybe I'm way off, but that's my impression.


And how would you say one is to tell the real thing from the imitation? Do you think I should have disregarded what my ex said she wanted when we were dating?

I feel like you're arguing both sides. "You ignore what women say! You can't go by what women say, you have to look past the surface!"




always_alone said:


> Again, though, the research that shows this "unreliability" usually fails to account for important variables that actually go a long way to explaining differences between the expression of men's and women's desire.


I don't know what you're citing. I'm talking about the book that is the subject of this thread. The book's overall message is pretty affirming of rabid female desire and initiation, but there are quite a few unreliable nuggets in here women like you won't like. The impression it leaves me is that, "When you're on, you're really on... but being on or off is somewhat random, unsure or unaware."



always_alone said:


> For example, women often let men pursue because men get freaked out by sexually aggressive women, and are more likely than not to reject them. So women learn to accommodate this.


Not my experience, but I'm fine with that notion. This isn't what the book argues. It argues that inherent in most women is narcissistic desire to be pursued, and this is the basis for the most commonly reported female sexual fantasy: rape. Its not that she actually desires to be raped, but its that she desires the narcissistic supply of a man (its fantasy, so this is absolutely the right man), being so attracted to her he can't contain himself. You have to admit the preponderance of evidence is in favor of this narcissism being a wider, more basic element than high level conscious calculations or learned accommodations. Do women commonly report fantasizing about being the pursuer? Not that I've ever heard or seen.



always_alone said:


> Another example: women are often taught that any sexual thoughts she has are shameful, and that "good" women don't really want sex -- so she learns from a very young age to deny how she feels and what she wants.


This is the same for men though. We're supposed to suppress our sexual interests and be "nice guys". This is why so many men are only able to hint.



always_alone said:


> Or on the flipside, a woman who is not that sexual to begin with learns the only way to get or keep a relationship is to pretend to be more sexual than she is --so she does.


And men pretend all sorts of things to show less sexual motivation than they really have. Where's the men faking that they are more sexual than they really are? While it might exist somewhere, the notion seems satirical to me. Where's the women faking that they're less sexual than they are? While anecdotal, just like all the sexual jokes, it seems to bolster the stereotypes no? Grains of truth here?



always_alone said:


> The messages that women receive about their sexuality are very different from the ones that men receive, so there is zero surprise that self-perception studies find differences.


I grew up with the message that women want nice guys and nice guys don't go after sex. Simultaneously that sexual performance was critical to being a valuable male (just like success) and status comes with bedding women, but that women think guys acting on their sexual interests are @ssholes. The message sold is "Your value depends on your sexual prowess, but you're not allowed to pursue sex. Be nice to women, and they will respond". We are sold a covert contract. What most guys discover is: No. They don't respond to being nice and non-sexual. They get "friend zoned".

So because I was sold this message that I'm not supposed to be overtly sexual, have I become less sexual? No. In fact, I rejected the messages because I wasn't getting sex and sex really matters to me. I desire it. Do women not do this with their faulty messages? If they really do desire sex as much as, and as consistently as men, why not? Honest question. Sex is pretty compelling desire for a man, and he'll do just about whatever is necessary to get it. Hence passive pleasing behaviors and dishonesty.

I'm not aware of any man who has been lied to by a woman so she could have sex with him. Get to his money, get a relationship with him, a host of things... yes... but lie to have sex with him? No. I think that's insightful.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yes, but every time you say his you frame it in terms of "unlike men, she is "seeking validation", needs to be "unlocked" or "released".
> 
> Can it just simply be that she dresses sexy because it turns her on? Why do you assume she must be seeking validation?


No, no , no , that's not how I framed my response.

That's YOUR mental framework in which you view almost every issue between the sexes. One in which their are constant antagonisms in places where none really exist, or even should exist.

Basically what I said is that she dresses that way because it makes her feel sensual or sexy, doesn't means that it turns her on , of that she's looking for sex.
She seeks validation because it is a human thing , not a female or male thing.
Human beings are social , and as a species , we tend to draw most of our awareness and consciousness from external sources. 
Even consciousness or validation of our sex appeal must come from external sources.

Men too , seek validation , but they do it in a different way.
No man is an island.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Doesn't necessarily make it true either.
> 
> And we can reinforce them by continuing to teach everyone that men like sex and women don't, and any man who commits to marriage is doomed for a lifetime.


The "doomed" narrative is a hell of a lot more common than the "randy" narrative. Are all these men lying? Are they all just incapable of avoiding their wives becoming resentful women who don't want sex? Are all these men just not the *certain* men she would have reliable sex with?

You don't see anything telling about how common this story and all these jokes are? Where's the jokes about women not getting all the crazy sex they desire? The world is not so uptight anymore. A number of female comics base their routines on sex - and yet to date, I've never seen one go on about how her man has no desire. His limp noodle or minute man status is fair game - grains of truth; but lack of desire? Male comics often use it and its funny because many men identify. Shouldn't women be able to identify with female comics on this basis if its true? 

Not at all scientific, but I think its insightful anecdotal evidence.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> The messages that women receive about their sexuality are very different from the ones that men receive, so there is zero surprise that self-perception studies find differences.


One thing that is striking to me is how blind both genders seem to be to the messages the other has been taught.

I've been shocked many times on this forum by how blasé some of the ladies seem be when advising a man to just "Take" his wife. The mental turmoil for many men is enormous here because they've been taught all their life that their sex drive is something evil and invasive at its core. Even with a consenting partner who actually wants that, it takes some mental gymnastics to get out from under that pall. 

There's no love for the "Nice guy" because his conduct is annoying, but behaviorists are split on what the root cause is. Some believe the source is a negative view of himself and his own sexuality which translates into the "Friends first," bartering type of approach which many (Most?) women regard as an annoying turn-off. How many men on TAM have struggled with this at some point in their lives? I'd guess that most of us have.

Farther up this thread, you mentioned that some men are squeamish about having sex with a pregnant wife. I see that as yet another manifestation of the same fear that male sexuality is inherently injurious and destructive. 

I'm not pointing this out to try to get into a measuring contest over which gender has it worse. (I honestly don't know how the two could even be compared.) I'm just pointing out that negative attitudes and shame are not heaped entirely on one gender alone.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

ocotillo said:


> I've been shocked many times on this forum by how blasé some of the ladies seem be when advising a man to just "Take" his wife. The mental turmoil for many men is enormous here because they've been taught all their life that their sex drive is something evil and invasive at its core. Even with a consenting partner who actually wants that, it takes some mental gymnastics to get out from under that pall.


wow..I honestly NEVER knew that about men.I was always under the impression that men are taught to be proud of their sex drive and that they should try to show it at every chance they get.

Really shocking to read otherwise.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> One thing that is striking to me is how blind both genders seem to be to the messages the other has been taught.
> 
> I've been shocked many times on this forum by how blasé some of the ladies seem be when advising a man to just "Take" his wife. The mental turmoil for many men is enormous here because they've been taught all their life that their sex drive is something evil and invasive at its core. Even with a consenting partner who actually wants that, it takes some mental gymnastics to get out from under that pall.
> 
> There's no love for the "Nice guy" because his conduct is annoying, but behaviorists are split on what the root cause is. Some believe the source is a negative view of himself and his own sexuality which translates into the "Friends first," bartering type of approach which many (Most?) women regard as an annoying turn-off. How many men on TAM have struggled with this at some point in their lives? I'd guess that most of us have.
> 
> Farther up this thread, you mentioned that some men are squeamish about having sex with a pregnant wife. I see that as yet another manifestation of the same fear that male sexuality is inherently injurious and destructive.
> 
> I'm not pointing this out to try to get into a measuring contest over which gender has it worse. (I honestly don't know how the two could even be compared.) I'm just pointing out that negative attitudes and shame are not heaped entirely on one gender alone.


:iagree:I completely agree with this.:iagree:

Both genders have been taught, using different messages, that sexuality is wrong.

BUT and there always is one...

Society still looks upon a sexually assertive man with admiration much more often than a sexually assertive woman.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You've misread my "type" I think, if I even really have a type.


You misunderstand me. I'm not saying you go for wholesome necessarily, but one who is looking to you to sweep her off into adventureland. But never mind. You say you don't have a type, you don't have a type. What do I know? I'm just a random internet stranger. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know what you're citing. I'm talking about the book that is the subject of this thread. The book's overall message is pretty affirming of rabid female desire and initiation, but there are quite a few unreliable nuggets in here women like you won't like. The impression it leaves me is that, "When you're on, you're really on... but being on or off is somewhat random, unsure or unaware."


And you consistently ignore all variables that might explain this nugget of "unreliability", all examples to the contrary, and any fact that disrupts your categorization of all women as being one way and all men being another. 

You say that men aren't supposed to pursue sex, but in the world I live in men pursuing sex is what they do, what they are supposed to do. You've said as much yourself umpteen times, yet now your twisting the story around to suit your argument du jour. In actual fact it's the men who are asexual and the ones who have unreliable desire -- the ones you like to pretend don't even exist -- that are shamed and ridiculed for failing to be studly enough. You've said as much yourself in other contexts.


----------



## samyeagar

ScarletBegonias said:


> wow..I honestly NEVER knew that about men.I was always under the impression that men are taught to be proud of their sex drive and that they should try to show it at every chance they get.
> 
> Really shocking to read otherwise.


It's been absolutely true in my experience. Along with the rest of the conflicting messages. We're supposed to want sex, but we're sex addicts, objectifying women if we go after it. Which is it? Men are supposed to be sexually aggressive, but yet her pleasure is paramount...she comes first.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not at all scientific, but I think its insightful anecdotal evidence.


What about thread after thread of women here who want sex more than their husbands do and aren't able to get it.

Is that also insightful anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> It's been absolutely true in my experience. Along with the rest of the conflicting messages. We're supposed to want sex, but we're sex addicts, objectifying women if we go after it. Which is it? *Men are supposed to be sexually aggressive, but yet her pleasure is paramount...she comes first.*


Yes.

Sexually aggressive about her pleasure to be exact. That my perfect lover!


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> The mental turmoil for many men is enormous here because they've been taught all their life that their sex drive is something evil and invasive at its core.


I find this surprising too. I've never seen a man ridiculed for objectifying women, talking about them as "*****es" to be "taken", or bragging about how many they've banged, and so on.

The ones I've seen ridiculed are the ones who aren't "taking" it, who aren't objectifying, and who aren't out there proving how studly they are.

ETA: And as a woman, I've been told that I'm just supposed to suck up this behaviour because that's "just how men are" and "boys will be boys".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yes, well sometimes it really isn't for mutual benefit because the guy is just there to get himself off and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about her pleasure.
> 
> Just sayin'


Yep. In fact, I'm good friends with a couple (primarily the husband) and the wife complained about this very thing when I was trying to get perspective on the dysfunction in my marriage. Hearing both sides would have been downright funny if it weren't so tragic.

She complains he's selfish in bed, but admits she is very passive. He admits he doesn't do much, but says he used to put a lot of effort into her, but it didn't matter. She never wanted sex back then either, regardless of what he does, so why should he spend time catering to someone who doesn't even care about doing it at all? 

Hilariously, I think they're both spewing hot air. She doesn't actually care much about sex, as indicated by her lack of effort toward getting him to do whatever satisfies her, and he is in fact lazy and doesn't want to do for her. He justifies it by her lack of effort in pursuing what she wants from him. If you don't push for what you want, you don't really want it very bad... and honestly, he's fine with her not pushing for it, because, I suspect, he is in fact lazy. She justifies her lack of interest by placing responsibility for it on his laziness, but doesn't make any attempt to get him to do what she supposedly wants.

They're both right about the other and nobody changes because they don't really want it to change; I suspect this is actually what they want, and they just don't want to be judged by the other for it. Its weird, and maybe even a little sad.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> Yes.
> 
> Sexually aggressive about her pleasure to be exact. That my perfect lover!


And a woman who sexually aggressive about my pleasure is my perfect lover


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> What about thread after thread of women here who want sex more than their husbands do and aren't able to get it.
> 
> Is that also insightful anecdotal evidence?


This is a forum for such problems. Shouldn't that be expected? If its pervasive why isn't it clearly visible in our popular culture, as lack of female desire is? There are women who have made careers out of lampooning men, why no jabs here?


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> And a woman who sexually aggressive about my pleasure is my perfect lover


We are SOOO not perfect for each other. But we've been on the dismissed end of sex so we carry the battle scars.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> We are SOOO not perfect for each other. But we've been on the dismissed end of sex so we carry the battle scars.


Yeeeeah, I can see that  Quite pleased that I have found my perfect lover, and the added bonus...she wants me to be just as aggressive back...fireworks, explosions, sky on fire


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> For example, women often let men pursue because men get freaked out by sexually aggressive women, and are more likely than not to reject them. So women learn to accommodate this.
> 
> Another example: women are often taught that any sexual thoughts she has are shameful, and that "good" women don't really want sex -- so she learns from a very young age to deny how she feels and what she wants.


 you know, we really can't judge by an outward anything...we are all so very individual.. until someone gets to the deepness of why we are the way we are, why we feel as we do...what trips our triggers..what we want in life..(is it ultimately marriage or a casual hormonal rush fling)... connecting those dots ...learning of our personalities -showing some vulnerability.... it's all a crap shoot, isn't it.. 

I am old fashioned, I do NOT believe a woman should chase a man, be friendly......that's all well & good.... but he needs to show his intentions...Yes I want to be at least pursued to know he has PICKED ME OUT and I am attractive to him.. anything less -I would reject.. and move along... 

This makes us feel desired, chosen...then we get our play... to feel out his Intentions and if they are acceptable to us.. what he is offering... what he is after....you just don't push yourself on a man (my personal opinion here) ...unless of course you just want SEX...I guess then it makes more sense.. if I did that ..I would come off as a bonafide d**k tease -given what I was looking for. 

YET.. this doesn't mean that we are all timid like a mouse ...I can be aggressive... it's part of my personality, I like conflict / a little debate...once I'm in a committed relationship ....going after what I want, when I want it, how I want it...taking the reins is enjoyable to me...in fact if the guy didn't like it.. he would not be good for me ! ......I just need the comfort of the committed to allow this side to flourish.



> *always_alone said* : Or on the flipside, a woman who is not that sexual to begin with learns the only way to get or keep a relationship is to pretend to be more sexual than she is --so she does.


 just as this happens... it can go both ways... take time & get to know the deeper...



> *DvlsAdvc8 said*: Not my experience, but I'm fine with that notion. This isn't what the book argues. *It argues that inherent in most women is narcissistic desire to be pursued, and this is the basis for the most commonly reported female sexual fantasy: rape. Its not that she actually desires to be raped, but its that she desires the narcissistic supply of a man (its fantasy, so this is absolutely the right man), being so attracted to her he can't contain himself.* You have to admit the preponderance of evidence is in favor of this narcissism being a wider, more basic element than high level conscious calculations or learned accommodations.


 Explained here *>>*


> Rape fantasies can be either erotic or aversive. In erotic fantasies, the woman thinks: "I'm being forced and I enjoy it." In aversive fantasies, she thinks: "I'm being forced and I hate it." Forty-five-percent of the women in the recent survey had fantasies that were entirely erotic. Nine percent were entirely aversive. And 46 percent were mixed.
> 
> Rape or near-rape fantasies are central to romance novels, one of the perennial best-selling categories in fiction. These books are often called "bodice-rippers" and have titles like Love's Sweet Savage Fury, which imply at least some degree of force. In them, a handsome cad becomes so overwhelmed by his attraction to the heroine that he loses all control and must have her, even if she refuses--which she does initially, but then eventually melts into submission, desire, and ultimately fulfillment.
> 
> Romance novels are often called "porn for women." Porn is all about sexual fantasies. In porn for men, the fantasy is sexual abundance--eager women who can't get enough and have no interest in a relationship. In porn for women as depicted in romance novels, the fantasy is to be desired so much that the man loses all control, though he never actually hurts the woman, and in the end, marries her.
> 
> Women's Rape Fantasies: How Common? What Do They Mean? | Psychology Today





> *DvlsAdvc8 said*: *Do women commonly report fantasizing about being the pursuer? Not that I've ever heard or seen*.


I do and have... I've always been attracted to introverted passive types...so long as he is horny and crazy about me...and just ME.... I'll take him... yet ..with my H....he struggles to carry that rape fantasy out...oh well...Love him anyway...he lets me rape him.. It's all good -seeing the excitement on his face..



> *Samyeagar said:**And a woman who sexually aggressive about my pleasure is my perfect lover*


 Yep.. H would give that a :smthumbup: 

It seems rare to find this sort of thing explained in sex books...but I found it in one of mine.....""Ted wants his wife to be the sexual aggressor. He loves it wen she pushes him over & jumps on top; it's the most thrilling thing he's ever known to watch his wife actively take part in the sexual act and actually work to find the postion where she receives the most stimulation. And when she's expressive about how good shes feeling , Ted can barely contain his excitement". "


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I find this surprising too. I've never seen a man ridiculed for objectifying women, talking about them as "*****es" to be "taken", or bragging about how many they've banged, and so on.


I'm sure I'm not the only man on this forum who has shaken his head in disgust at the quality of men you've had the misfortune to be around.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only man on this forum who has shaken his head in disgust at the quality of men you've had the misfortune to be around.


And yet, guys like Dvl's have spent pages and pages and pages on this forum telling me that men objectify women, that it is part of their biological wiring, and that men always first think about sex and "wanting that", that they are happy to have as much sex as possible without any feelings or interest whatsoever in the woman they are pursuing.

And, on top of that, if I can't accept that truth about male sexual desire, I should resign myself to being alone forever with only my cats to keep my company. 

Where was the head shaking then?


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> And yet, guys like Dvl's have spent pages and pages and pages on this forum telling me that men objectify women, that it is part of their biological wiring, and that men always first think about sex and "wanting that", that they are happy to have as much sex as possible without any feelings or interest whatsoever in the woman they are pursuing.
> 
> And, on top of that, if I can't accept that truth about male sexual desire, I should resign myself to being alone forever with only my cats to keep my company.
> 
> Where was the head shaking then?


You ever hear of the Victim Triangle?


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> And yet, guys like Dvl's have spent pages and pages and pages on this forum telling me that men objectify women, that it is part of their biological wiring, and that men always first think about sex and "wanting that", that they are happy to have as much sex as possible without any feelings or interest whatsoever in the woman they are pursuing.
> 
> And, on top of that, if I can't accept that truth about male sexual desire, I should resign myself to being alone forever with only my cats to keep my company.
> 
> Where was the head shaking then?


On the subject of objectification, I do think there was a disconnect, and you two were arguing past each other. I know that happened when you and I were discussing it. You are taking a very strict dehumanizing definition, while he was taking a more physical attraction definition.

In the case of my STBW and I, yeah, I enjoy looking at her naked physical form, I love grabbing her ass and boobs when the urge strikes me, and I can guarantee I am not thinking about how well she did answering those questions on Jeopardy last night. In that sense, I am objectifying her as I am focusing purely on the physical, the things I can touch, the tangibles. Am I objectifying her in the fashion you describe as objectification? Not even close. If it wasn't for my attraction to her as a woman, all of what she is, her intellect, her compassion, her empathy, he wit, I would not enjoy with her the physical things I do.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You misunderstand me. I'm not saying you go for wholesome necessarily, but one who is looking to you to sweep her off into adventureland.


Oh I see. Yes, I misunderstood you. This applies to a degree in that I have a preference for women who are eager to go off on adventure. That doesn't mean I'm "sweeping her off" necessarily like I'm prince charming, though plenty fit that mold. Just as many are independent adventure seekers themselves without me.



always_alone said:


> And you consistently ignore all variables that might explain this nugget of "unreliability", all examples to the contrary, and any fact that disrupts your categorization of all women as being one way and all men being another.


I am relating to you what is in the book. Are you saying the book ignores such variables? Having lost its credibility, should we also throw out the cases the book makes that you happen to like? Is it, "if you agree with me, you have sound evidence, but if you disagree with me, you're not taking into account sufficient variables"?



always_alone said:


> You say that men aren't supposed to pursue sex, but in the world I live in men pursuing sex is what they do, what they are supposed to do. You've said as much yourself umpteen times, yet now your twisting the story around to suit your argument du jour. In actual fact it's the men who are asexual and the ones who have unreliable desire -- the ones you like to pretend don't even exist -- that are shamed and ridiculed for failing to be studly enough. You've said as much yourself in other contexts.


You've misunderstood me. I am not twisting to suit the argument. I am in fact describing to you the very contradiction that is at the heart of being male in our culture, and why so many men are so confused about what masculinity is, how to "be themselves" and still pursue sex, love and acceptance. 

We are INCESSANTLY shamed for our desire of sex, even while its considered a given that we have laser like focus on sex. How's that for a contradiction? Its expressed as: "You *just* want sex! Is sex all you think about!? Men are pigs!" We're sold that women want nice guys who aren't focused on sex. Guys who suppress their sexual desire to put all those "nice" things first. Not because THEY want to, but because they're taught that this is what women want. Do not, for the love of God, be sexually assertive when you want to be. She'll think you're just another @sshole trying to get laid. Instead, be passive, and don't become sexual until she does. You've got to take all your cues from her and be what SHE wants you to be. She's really in charge of this game. The result is a man who is coy about his desire and unable to assert himself for fear of being rejected for his *shameful* desire of SEX. To their shock, nice guys don't get laid. Yet the sexually assertive man - the guy literally being the opposite of the nice guy - gets plenty. This contradiction is the bane of most young men's existence, and the damage it does lasts in men long into adulthood and even marriage. It pervades his relationships with women. This is why the PUA world promotes what on the surface appears callous: Do not care. It is more accurately: do not be shamed for your desires. You have as much right to pursue what you want as anyone else and no one can tell you you are wrong for it. Stop trying to be as you think they want you to be -what you think they'll like. In the non-sexual context women often use - "be yourself". Well, being ourselves means direct pursuit of sex when we want sex. Unsurprisingly, just being male and directly pursuing sex as we see fit, works a hell of a lot better toward actually getting sex than this nice guy persona that our culture shames men into. Our sexual motivations are not wrong just because they don't parallel a woman's. A man seeking sex isn't a lesser to a woman seeking love - but most women think it is - and its the very men who end up buying into this who end up struggling to get laid, because it extends to everything else: her opinion matters more than mine.

Take away the bogus notions of what we're told about how to be a "good man", and guess what? We want sex and seeking it doesn't mean we're bad men. Its at the very core of our interest in women. No surprises there. The shaming for it is so pervasive that a huge number of men retreat from their own sexuality and become this sexually underhanded "nice guy" character that popular culture tells them they need to be in order to be "good men". And in the most cruel of twists, women aren't actually attracted to this persona they had a hand in making.

The truth is that what women or culture call "nice" or "good" men, is really just "an honest man who stays with me". The vile for male sexuality is just socially acceptable female bitterness over a guy who doesn't stay with them after having sex. But just because you had sex, doesn't obligate him to stay, and honestly seeking the sex that he wanted doesn't make him a "bad man". A liar is a "bad man", but sexually assertive men don't lie. Lying to get sex is actually a product of this grand contradiction. The liar has the base sexual motivation of every other man, but because of sexual shamming, can't be honest and sexually assertive to get it. He's been taught women will not accept him if he seeks out sex for its own sake, so he does so under false pretenses he's been sold that she wants. The liars usually don't even do very well with women, because they're still beholden to the "nice guy" shame that believes "If I'm nice to her (even if its part of the lie), I'll get laid."


----------



## always_alone

It strikes me as very ironic that what is a truth in one thread quickly becomes a falsehood in another.

On one hand, I'm constantly told that all the guys I know must be those very strange and terribly rare evil men that no one on TAM ever encounters or knows anything at all about. And yet on thread after thread after thread, I get told that men are biologically wired to spread their seed, and pursue sex, and love to talk crudely about it in locker rooms, and collect notches on their bedposts, and brag about their conquests, and happily objectify women, and care mostly about how they look. And that all of this is perfectly normal guy activity. 

And all the so-called nice guys are thoroughly disparaged, told they will never have sex again, and are just beta providers not worth anything.

To be honest, in many ways the guys I know IRL are much *less* likely than guys right here on TAM to be touting alpha chest thumping and "taking" women, and being biologically wired to spread their seeds.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anon Pink said:


> Yes.
> 
> Sexually aggressive about her pleasure to be exact. That my perfect lover!


I am the "sexually aggressive about her pleasure" type. I'm more of a sexual giver than a receiver. I want to rock her world and fully justify her desire for me. My satisfaction in the relationship significantly depends on it. Without feeling that I'm satisfying her and she desires what I can give, I will be unhappy.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I see all you are saying except that it is usually easy to tell when a guy wants you for sex and nothing else. Women often feel they are hurt if he doesn't want her around after sex, but I dare say we know better and just ignore our gut. 

In short, we know who the players are. At least I do, and if any woman says they don't, I'll be glad to show them how to figure it out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> We are INCESSANTLY shamed for our desire of sex, even while its considered a given that we have laser like focus on sex. How's that for a contradiction? Its expressed as: "You *just* want sex! Is sex all you think about!? Men are pigs!" We're sold that women want nice guys who aren't focused on sex. Guys who suppress their sexual desire to put all those "nice" things first. Not because THEY want to, but because they're taught that this is what women want.


I dunno, man. Whenever I've heard a woman say something like "you *just* want sex", it's because that's actually all he wants, and he doesn't give a rat's a$$ about her. 

What she's saying is not "you're an a$$hole for wanting sex", she's saying "you don't care about me as a person, you're just looking to hook up".

And you have assured me time and time again that this is true. Indeed, lots of men here have. And the only exceptions are once some strange switch is flipped in his head, and he decides that he actually loves her. Then all of a sudden he needs the sex to express that love.

All this talk about how complex female desire is, but male desire is just as unpredictable, IMHO.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> And yet, guys like Dvl's have spent pages and pages and pages on this forum telling me that men objectify women, that it is part of their biological wiring, and that men always first think about sex and "wanting that", that they are happy to have as much sex as possible without any feelings or interest whatsoever in the woman they are pursuing.
> 
> And, on top of that, if I can't accept that truth about male sexual desire, I should resign myself to being alone forever with only my cats to keep my company.
> 
> Where was the head shaking then?


You and I have talked about popular vs formal usage of the term, "Objectification" before. DvlsAdvc8 has always seemed to me to be using the term more loosely in the sense of simply noticing sexually attractive females in social settings, which is something few straight men with a pulse don't do. 

That doesn't mean a man may not still place agency on a very high pedestal and be extremely uncomfortable with anything that even has the appearance of violating it. 



always_alone said:


> It strikes me as very ironic that what is a truth in one thread quickly becomes a falsehood in another.
> 
> On one hand, I'm constantly told that all the guys I know must be those very strange and terribly rare evil men that no one on TAM ever encounters or knows anything at all about. And yet on thread after thread after thread, I get told that men are biologically wired to spread their seed, and pursue sex, and love to talk crudely about it in locker rooms, and collect notches on their bedposts, and brag about their conquests, and happily objectify women, and care mostly about how they look. And that all of this is perfectly normal guy activity.


I think this is rapidly drifting away from what I (At least) was talking about.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> That doesn't mean a man may not still place agency on a very high pedestal and be extremely uncomfortable with anything that even has the appearance of violating it.


Okay, well, fair enough. I think agency should be on a high pedestal, frankly. For both sides.

Too much encouragement of "just take her" is what rape culture is all about. No thanks.


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I never figured it out to be honest. In MC, she said SHE didn't know. It drove me literally crazy.
> 
> I suspect it had something to do with being a mom. The kids were her *everything*, and there were hints of "moms don't do things like that", "teenagers do that, not people our age", when I'd try to spice things up. Some sort of change in mindset that simply disregarded sex or sexual behavior not fitting with her archetype of wholesome mom. All of her energy, thought and interest seemed to lay in parenting - being a good mom - something like that.


Yeah - I don't know if this explains everything for your wife but I think this idea is really powerful - it's hard for a lot of women to see themselves as good moms AND sexual beings and so they suppress their sexuality. Completely my theory, but there you have it. I'd say find yourself a woman who is already a mom and fully in touch with her sexual side. At least this won't be an issue anymore.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> She complains he's selfish in bed, but admits she is very passive. He admits he doesn't do much, but says he used to put a lot of effort into her, but it didn't matter. She never wanted sex back then either, regardless of what he does, so why should he spend time catering to someone who doesn't even care about doing it at all?



You know what? This may well be the crux of the whole thing. The social pendulum has swung to the point where many people are raised to be incredibly selfish. People don't know what love is. What character and integrity are. They love to get love. Or pretend love to get a spouse and sperm/egg donor. She wanted what she wanted but was not willing to do anything about it. He wanted what he wanted but now is just fat and lazy. And between the too of them, they are a big old mess.

There is No Way that two people like that don't have added issues with incompatibility of expectations across many areas of their marriage.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Okay, well, fair enough. I think agency should be on a high pedestal, frankly. For both sides.
> 
> Too much encouragement of "just take her" is what rape culture is all about. No thanks.


And yet how many women here say they want their man to do just that? See the confusion for men in this? You just tied it to rape culture, something which a lot of us men try and distance ourselves as far from as possible. I understand the distinction in what you are trying to say, but geez...mixed messages...


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> And yet how many women here say they want their man to do just that? See the confusion for men in this? You just tied it to rape culture, something which a lot of us men try and distance ourselves as far from as possible. I understand the distinction in what you are trying to say, but geez...mixed messages...


You're not getting a mixed message from one woman - you're getting a particular message from AA and other types of messages from other women. AA has every right to speak her mind, but you guys are letting her push your buttons. Agree to disagree and let's start talking about sex again damn it.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> You're not getting a mixed message from one woman - you're getting a particular message from AA and other types of messages from other women. AA has every right to speak her mind, but you guys are letting her push your buttons. Agree to disagree and let's start talking about sex again damn it.


The mixed messages for me started to appear when I started to realize that the conventional wisdom I had always been fed didn't match with my own personal experiences. That is when I decided to do things my own way, and if a woman didn't like me for it, well then we weren't a match.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> You're not getting a mixed message from one woman - you're getting a particular message from AA and other types of messages from other women. AA has every right to speak her mind, but you guys are letting her push your buttons. Agree to disagree and let's start talking about sex again damn it.


And thankfully I don't get any mixed messages from my woman...she is straight forward, loud and clear and to the point..."Just take me" and I'm happy to oblige.


----------



## Big Dude

firebelly1 said:


> You're not getting a mixed message from one woman - you're getting a particular message from AA and other types of messages from other women.


This is of course true. But the mixed messages go far beyond this one conversation. I came to TAM about a year ago to try and figure out something...anything...about my wife's sexual desire. After starting several threads and reading many more, this is what I've learned from the collective wisdom of TAM:

Sexually speaking, women are Just. Like. Men.
Sexually speaking, women are very different from men.
How can a woman desire sex when she chases kids and steps on Cheerios all day?
How can a woman sexually desire a man who washes the dishes and cleans up Cheerios all day?
Women need an emotional connection to feel sexual attraction for a man.
Women delay sex with men they have an emotional connection with, and are eager to have sex with aggressive D-bags.

My conclusion after 30 pages of this thread?

There is no truth about female sexual desire.


----------



## firebelly1

Sorry. I know it's true. You are getting mixed messages. 

But, yes there is a truth and I think that's what this book is pointing out. The truth is, unless a woman is physiologically asexual, she _is_ sexual. Her expression of her sexuality is impacted by many things, physical and psychological, but physiologically, women are wired to want sex just as much as men are. So if she isn't appearing to want sex, the key is to figure out what physical or psychological thing is in the way. Not the man's job to do that, but ironically he is the one who often cares most to figure it out.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> It strikes me as very ironic that what is a truth in one thread quickly becomes a falsehood in another.
> 
> On one hand, I'm constantly told that all the guys I know must be those very strange and terribly rare evil men that no one on TAM ever encounters or knows anything at all about. And yet on thread after thread after thread, I get told that men are biologically wired to spread their seed, and pursue sex, and love to talk crudely about it in locker rooms, and collect notches on their bedposts, and brag about their conquests, and happily objectify women, and care mostly about how they look. And that all of this is perfectly normal guy activity.


I don't really follow the contradiction you're trying to point out or the details of your "terribly rare evil men". I do suspect that given your history and the way you talk about men, that you'd be inclined to surround yourself with very "safe" men who are oh so careful with what they say - even if they're not outright "nice guys".

For the latter type of guys, these behaviors are only stark examples of willingness to do as they please without thinking it needs some woman's politically correct approval. A man may not do any of those things and still not be the passive type guy you seem to be comfortable with (well, I'd probably keep the wiring, pursuit of sex, and objectification per my definition... even for the passive guys - they're just a lot less overt). Bragging in the locker room and crude speech doesn't a "bad man" make, even though most people would find it a bit tacky. Getting laid is even validating for some men. I'm not sure any guys actually does the "notches on the bed post" thing, but I don't see anything wrong with being proud any more than its wrong for women feel proud when their attractiveness is validated. Obsession with either might be low-self esteem, but so what? Not exactly evil. Many guys, rightly or wrongly, evaluate just how physically attracted a woman is to him by her willingness to have sex. Men, even attractive ones, don't get a lot of compliments on our looks - we're even sold that our worth is more in our success and accomplishments than it is on our looks; we're not even supposed to worry or care about our looks - that's considered female territory. So we seek validation of our physical attractiveness in male terms: success - bedding her is the equivalent of our being thought really hot. This is where you get "notches on the bed posts" - validation of our attractiveness expressed in terms of success. Surely you like to being told you're pretty? For the most part, we don't get told we're pretty. 



always_alone said:


> And all the so-called nice guys are thoroughly disparaged, told they will never have sex again, and are just beta providers not worth anything.


I wasn't really I intending to discuss alphas and betas, but a problem among many betas who internalize sexual shame and believe that they can only get sex by being nice rather than asserting their own wants and believing those wants are as perfectly valid as hers.

I'm not much concerned with his "worth", but sexually, this sort of male is not going to be a very attractive male to the vast majority of females. Even if he's physically attractive, the persona will eventually be dissatisfying even if he gets a foot in the door. In a manner of speaking, this man sold his soul, and will defer to her on a whole host of matters. Her opinion matters more to him than his opinion, so he can't assert himself well. She is more important than he is. Weakness of self leaks from him all over the place. This is the man who turns to porn to escape the pressure of sex with his wife. In his mind, everything is all about her... and if he feels he's not measuring up, he runs. He goes along with a decision of hers and quietly resents her for his own inability to assert himself.

I have had some of these traits myself that I've worked on over the years, so its not at all that I think anyone is worthless. In high school I was a very "nice guy". On the plus side (sarcasm), I didn't have to spend any money on dates and condoms. 



always_alone said:


> To be honest, in many ways the guys I know IRL are much *less* likely than guys right here on TAM to be touting alpha chest thumping and "taking" women, and being biologically wired to spread their seeds.


I don't think anyone on this forum would be even mildly surprised that you've surrounded yourself with beta men if that's what you've done. The more alpha, sexually assertive man is probably a "threat" to you. Your mind's eye unnecessarily envisions a bunch of Neanderthal brutes I suspect - but this is just a personal caricature that you carry. The betas or nice guys and their careful to avoid offending or displeasing women nature, are a lot safer to you. What's ironic is that something you despise, lying to get sex from women, is a beta behavior.

A man can be a beta and not be a "nice guy", so I'm not really talking about an alpha/beta thing when I'm talking about the sexual shame that creates "nice guys".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ebp123 said:


> In short, we know who the players are. At least I do, and if any woman says they don't, I'll be glad to show them how to figure it out.


I have no objection to this, but there's this thing about players - they're not players if nobody plays ball. Whether the women understand he's only interested in sex or not, they are drawn to certain qualities about him.


----------



## Sandfly

Big Dude said:


> This is of course true. But the mixed messages go far beyond this one conversation. I came to TAM about a year ago to try and figure out something...anything...about my wife's sexual desire. After starting several threads and reading many more, this is what I've learned from the collective wisdom of TAM:
> 
> Sexually speaking, women are Just. Like. Men.
> Sexually speaking, women are very different from men.
> How can a woman desire sex when she chases kids and steps on Cheerios all day?
> How can a woman sexually desire a man who washes the dishes and cleans up Cheerios all day?
> Women need an emotional connection to feel sexual attraction for a man.
> Women delay sex with men they have an emotional connection with, and are eager to have sex with aggressive D-bags.
> 
> My conclusion after 30 pages of this thread?
> 
> There is no truth about female sexual desire.


Grasshopper, you have indeed obtained 'enlightenment'.

Stage one, that is. Just 99 stages left to master. There is a short cut though.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> You're not getting a mixed message from one woman - you're getting a particular message from AA and other types of messages from other women. AA has every right to speak her mind, but you guys are letting her push your buttons. *Agree to disagree and let's start talking about sex again damn it.*


Lol,

I like this^^^woman!
No politics, no BS , just straight talk!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Okay, well, fair enough. I think agency should be on a high pedestal, frankly. For both sides.
> 
> Too much encouragement of "just take her" is what rape culture is all about. No thanks.


I hate to say this, but most people get what is being said by this "take her" language. It has a sharper value for you. Its not a removal of her agency or "take her against her will". Its want her bad enough to act directly and unambiguously of his own desire - assertiveness.

I'm a big fan of agency, and I'm still going to take my gf when I really just have to have her. right. now. ...and she loves how desired it makes her feel when I do. This is because she trusts me, and knows that she can stop me at any time. But I put that on her to say... she's never said it, and if I asked I'm 100% sure she would say "Except if I'm feeling ill, why the hell would I say stop!?"

I'm just never going to say "hey babe, I want you so bad right now... can I jump you?" With the exception of women who have been raped and have an issue trusting, I can't imagine a guy who wouldn't have better results just DOING rather than ASKING permission. A lot of men and women are sexless because a guy is one of these "nice guys" who won't just do it, and often can't even ask for permission... instead relying on her to initiate or some non-verbal clue that she's interested. He can't act of his own want, and she's so turned off by his lack of assertiveness she doesn't really want anything.

How passively dispassionate. Unsexy imo, but to each his/her own. Still, I think this is the most common form of sexless relationship.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> Sorry. I know it's true. You are getting mixed messages.
> 
> But, yes there is a truth and I think that's what this book is pointing out. The truth is, unless a woman is physiologically asexual, she _is_ sexual. Her expression of her sexuality is impacted by many things, physical and psychological, but physiologically, women are wired to want sex just as much as men are. So if she isn't appearing to want sex, the key is to figure out what physical or psychological thing is in the way. Not the man's job to do that, but ironically he is the one who often cares most to figure it out.


:iagree: x 100%

For some men it might be a little more difficult and for others it might mean that they are not matched as a couple.
But for every woman it is highly possible to tap into her an help her release inner sensuality.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Big Dude said:


> There is no truth about female sexual desire.


"There is no spoon!" lol


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> The mixed messages for me started to appear when I started to realize that the conventional wisdom I had always been fed didn't match with my own personal experiences. * That is when I decided to do things my own way, and if a woman didn't like me for it, well then we weren't a match*.



Yup.

Basically that's what I said earlier in this thread about not giving a damn about being PC.

Doesn't mean not caring about the woman, but not believing in any of the stereotypes and roles society tends to push down our throats about both genders.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Okay, well, fair enough. I think agency should be on a high pedestal, frankly. For both sides.


I agree. Popular misconception is that male sex drive is not compatible with respect for agency, which leads to the ridiculous notion that most men are predators and potential rapists under the skin.

A man wouldn't be human if some of this didn't bleed through in the form of shame. (Depending upon how much of this attitude he's been exposed to.)


----------



## always_alone

Big Dude said:


> Sexually speaking, women are Just. Like. Men.
> Sexually speaking, women are very different from men.
> How can a woman desire sex when she chases kids and steps on Cheerios all day?
> How can a woman sexually desire a man who washes the dishes and cleans up Cheerios all day?
> Women need an emotional connection to feel sexual attraction for a man.
> Women delay sex with men they have an emotional connection with, and are eager to have sex with aggressive D-bags.
> 
> My conclusion after 30 pages of this thread?
> 
> There is no truth about female sexual desire.


Yeah, well, that's the thing. We're individuals, with different histories, different levels of desire, different ways of expressing it. 

For so long women were thought not to like sex at all, to just want to gate-keep and grit their teeth when it was time to make babies, and so the discovery they do in fact like sex a lot seems revolutionary. But it's still true that some women don't like sex very much. Just as there have always been women who were very sexual.

One size doesn't fit all.

But one size doesn't fit all men either, so it ends up being complicated for everyone.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't really follow the contradiction you're trying to point out or the details of your "terribly rare evil men". I do suspect that given your history and the way you talk about men, that you'd be inclined to surround yourself with very "safe" men who are oh so careful with what they say - even if they're not outright "nice guys".


Yet another failure of communication on my part, I guess.

I was just pointing out that people keep telling me that there's something wrong with he men I've been exposed to, and "most men" aren't like that, and certainly no one here on TAM can possibly relate to anything I'm talking about, ever.

I find this disingenuous because I see exactly those sorts of attitudes and behaviours right here on TAM all the time. Indeed, when a man outright says "men are predators" and "after only one thing" (like on any GNO thread), everyone just nods sagely, and talks about how naive women are to think men are "nice".

But the second that a woman suggests she doesn't want someone who only wants sex, but would like respect, and to be appreciated as a person, she gets hammered down for being "unreliable", "shaming" men and knowing nothing about the male sex drive.

And it's totally clear that you have no idea who I am or the people I choose to associate with. I can assure you, they are not a bunch of spineless beta-ites that just "safe", and tell women everything we want to hear, nor are they liars, playing the sorts of passive-aggressive games you constantly insist "nice guys" are about.

On the contrary, they are fine, upstanding people who lead interesting lives, and who genuinely love and respect women, and somehow manage to not automatically hate something because it's "feminist". 

The reason I have plenty of experience with a$$holes is because the world is full of them. This is *not* gender specific.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I really dislike and find it wholly obnoxious the way Nice Men are talked about on this thread...like they are worthless... succumbing to shame -being mentioned a # of times...like they are all just pu$$y whipped idiots ...

I find this sort of talk very UGLY , demeaning and not considerate of the type of man I married.... just cause a man doesn't think he ought to whip his di** out and fu** a girl within 3 dates does not = what so quickly is being painted here...

Doesn't anyone believe in Honorability anymore...this doesn't mean such a man doesn't posses a freaking sex drive but he is considerate of how the other feels...he understands rover will have his day...and there will be plenty of playing / running in the grass.... if he wants such a life with that particular woman...My husband (NO SH**) respected me MORE for waiting ... and I abhor how you talk about these sort of men Dvlsadv8....just cause your experience as a Nice guy sucked donkey doesn't relegate that all men are like this..or would even care to take your path....or they can not find Love.. obviously women are just as Dumb as men in their young life to give it up to all a$$holes who use them... 

So what we are left with is....a myriad of women who feel like a man just wants to "get off" and can't understand why her husband needs an emotional connection....cause she has allowed unattached users to use her... and all the good guys turn into PUA's who lost their sensitive Romantic side.. Lovely.. and we wonder why the world is loosing empathy...and everyone is selfish and feels rejected... Men and women are both guilty of putting things of lessor value above what is truly important for a long lasting relationship. 

Does any of you recognize that some men honestly & truly care about their woman, enjoy being with her... making her happy BECAUSE SHE MAKES HIM HAPPY TOO (what an unrecognized idea here !)....building a life/ family together...and still believes in the sanctity of marriage...


----------



## Big Dude

Sandfly said:


> Grasshopper, you have indeed obtained 'enlightenment'.
> 
> Stage one, that is. Just 99 stages left to master. There is a short cut though.


Master Sandfly, surely you know that master Po would never leave a disciple hanging like that!


----------



## WadeWilson

Big Dude said:


> How can a woman desire sex when she chases kids and steps on Cheerios all day?
> How can a woman sexually desire a man who washes the dishes and cleans up Cheerios all day?


Don't know...
Differences between people, but I believe there is a happy medium you just have to find what works for you...

Me, I could have came home, saw my wife stressed and gather the kids, put food in their bellies wash dishes and clean up any mess...

Now at the end of the day one of two results would occur.

Result one: I could climb in bed and gently ask if she's in the mood, I could easily be denied.

Result two: if I rip off my clothes give her an "Oh it's happening look." Strip her down... Well let's say there's two happy campers that night.


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> I find this sort of talk very UGLY , demeaning and not considerate of the type of man I married.... just cause a man doesn't think he ought to whip his di** out and fu** a girl within 3 dates does not = what so quickly is being painted here...


I think you might be misunderstanding, SA. Your husband is hardly alone here.


----------



## Threetimesalady

I had a post on here and took it off...First, it probably would not have been noticed and second because of the simple fact that there is no answer to the truth about female desire...We females are all different...We act different with all males...When we meet the right one we would raise heaven and hell to be with him and perform all the rituals that are hidden within our mind...But, he must be special...So special that some of us save ourselves for him...

A female's desire can depend on the circumstances of where and how she lives...She must feel happy and secure...Without any doubt I can say that if we were in a two room apartment that I would not be as happy as we are now...We made our heaven...This is a part of us that secured this special place in our hearts...Why some women give in to any Tom, **** and Harry around is beyond me...I didn't, wouldn't and IMO it has messed up the lives of more women around than I ever thought possible...

Nowadays this destruction starts in their teens...Some younger...If you think it is bad now, give it some time...As for me I am glad that I grew up as I did...Kind of messed up what I was sexually, but eventually battled my way through to evolve into who I am....


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ocotillo said:


> I think you might be misunderstanding, SA. Your husband is hardly alone here.


 I am not sure if I am misunderstanding or not (wouldn't be the 1st time  and it won't be the last)... I just don't appreciate these sort of men being put down ...

There is nothing inherently wrong with the woman who would turn her nose to the alpha Playboys...I don't find it attractive at all that a man has bed a bunch of women.... and there is nothing inherently wrong with men who don't act like them...or aspire to be like them....some do not feel that lifestyle has "integrity" with it...or it is scaling it by a thread...

And it has nothing to do with repression or the sexual revolution hitting him upside the head either.. we are not all alike or want the same things in Love & Sex..


----------



## Threetimesalady

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really dislike and find it wholly obnoxious the way Nice Men are talked about on this thread...like they are worthless... succumbing to shame -being mentioned a # of times...like they are all just pu$$y whipped idiots ...
> 
> I find this sort of talk very UGLY , demeaning and not considerate of the type of man I married.... just cause a man doesn't think he ought to whip his di** out and fu** a girl within 3 dates does not = what so quickly is being painted here...
> 
> Doesn't anyone believe in Honorability anymore...this doesn't mean such a man doesn't posses a freaking sex drive but he is considerate of how the other feels...he understands rover will have his day...and there will be plenty of playing / running in the grass.... if he wants such a life with that particular woman...My husband (NO SH**) respected me MORE for waiting ... and I abhor how you talk about these sort of men Dvlsadv8....just cause your experience as a Nice guy sucked donkey doesn't relegate that all men are like this..or would even care to take your path....or they can not find Love.. obviously women are just as Dumb as men in their young life to give it up to all a$$holes who use them...
> 
> So what we are left with is....a myriad of women who feel like a man just wants to "get off" and can't understand why her husband needs an emotional connection....cause she has allowed unattached users to use her... and all the good guys turn into PUA's who lost their sensitive Romantic side.. Lovely.. and we wonder why the world is loosing empathy...and everyone is selfish and feels rejected... Men and women are both guilty of putting things of lessor value above what is truly important for a long lasting relationship.
> 
> Does any of you recognize that some men honestly & truly care about their woman, enjoy being with her... making her happy BECAUSE SHE MAKES HIM HAPPY TOO (what an unrecognized idea here !)....building a life/ family together...and still believes in the sanctity of marriage...


Honey, I couldn't have said it better...I married a man like your husband...He respected me and went by my rules...Nowadays I wonder if either sex knows how to act...Women give out this non-meaning spread my legs and hope he comes back...and men are so confused they don't know when to and not to punt...

As for me, I'm glad that part of my life is over...


----------



## Sandfly

Big Dude said:


> Master Sandfly, surely you know that master Po would never leave a disciple hanging like that!


Ha ha  

You are perfect as you are... whether you believe you were created for it, or it happened over a billion years through a process of elimination, it is impossible for you not to be a perfect fit already for your opposite.

You don't have to learn anything, you just have to express your affection naturally and without thinking, but with empathy (i.e. by imagining you were in their shoes.)

Empathy: What is it like to be a small flower with little muscles wandering the street at night where any group of shady looking men could contain a flower picker? How would you feel?

This is the logic of women looking for a tall, confident man, willing to confront a challenge. If he's afraid to die, he's just no use, whatever his other good qualities may be. 

If the same man is scared of a woman, whether it's him being scared she'll leave, or cheat? What a turn-off - he should be scared of nothing, including her!

In all things, "she wants to look up to him", not be an equal. 

I've had relationships where they insist they want an equal, only to observe that they enjoy being directed and defended. 

Out the corner of my eye, I even see (and I laugh inside) that they are evaluating me for courage and conviction, rather than niceness.

You can tell a woman is judging you - it's when they fall silent and watch you interacting with others - out the corner of your eye, you should see how hard they are staring at you and watching your body language


----------



## ScarletBegonias

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am not sure if I am misunderstanding or not (wouldn't be the 1st time  and it won't be the last)... I just don't appreciate these sort of men being put down ...
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with the woman who would turn her nose to the alpha Playboys...I don't find it attractive at all that a man has bed a bunch of women.... and there is nothing inherently wrong with men who don't act like them...or aspire to be like them....some do not feel that lifestyle has "integrity" with it...or it is scaling it by a thread...
> 
> And it has nothing to do with repression or the sexual revolution hitting him upside the head either.. we are not all alike or want the same things in Love & Sex..


FWIW,I read your post to DH...he really liked it.He said most men look at him like he's a "chick" because his view of sex and what gets him hot is so different from the general male population.


----------



## TiggyBlue

ScarletBegonias said:


> FWIW,I read your post to DH...he really liked it.He said most men look at him like he's a "chick" because his view of sex and what gets him hot is so different from the general male population.


Ah... but look at the wives your husband and SA husband has 

So really does it matter what others think? seemed to get them awesome wives


----------



## ScarletBegonias

TiggyBlue said:


> Ah... but look at the wives your husband and SA husband has
> 
> So really does it matter what others think? seemed to get them awesome wives


thank you I guess I don't see it that way for myself bc I'm so damn dysfunctional.I try to be a good wife but sometimes I fail miserably.He's a saint for putting up with me.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> Ah... but look at the wives your husband and SA husband has
> 
> So really does it matter what others think? seemed to get them awesome wives


This is so true: it really doesn't matter what others think.

But knowing just how happily married, loved and sexed that nice guys can be might be instructive to those who are constantly being told that it's their "niceness" that's the problem.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> This is so true: it really doesn't matter what others think.
> 
> But knowing just how happily married, loved and sexed that nice guys can be might be instructive to those who are constantly being told that it's their "niceness" that's the problem.


Telling that to the guys that are on this forum will help them?

In what way?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Conrad said:


> Telling that to the guys that are on this forum will help them?
> 
> In what way?


I personally think advice should be tailored to the individual taking into account the personality of his wife. If she's selfish,spoiled and stubborn then he can't get away with being a nice guy bc she'll run over him and leave tire tracks on his back.


----------



## samyeagar

ScarletBegonias said:


> thank you I guess I don't see it that way for myself bc I'm so damn dysfunctional.I try to be a good wife but sometimes I fail miserably.He's a saint for putting up with me.


This describes EXACTLY how my STBW feels as well. She has said so in almost those exact words.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> Telling that to the guys that are on this forum will help them?
> 
> In what way?


Not that it will help them, but that it might.

Because so many here seem to think "nice" is a huge problem for men, and are constantly told they have to stop being this way.

When really, the problem may lie elsewhere.

(Although I do agree with SB that if you're married to a selfish, controlling shrew, she'll run you right into the ground if you let her.)


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> Not that it will help them, but that it might.
> 
> Because so many here seem to think "nice" is a huge problem for men, and are constantly told they have to stop being this way.
> 
> When really, the problem may lie elsewhere.
> 
> (Although I do agree with SB that if you're married to a selfish, controlling shrew, she'll run you right into the ground if you let her.)


Do you think it's likely that a good percentage (likely a majority) of the men that seek out this forum are married to someone who exhibits the tendencies of a selfish, controlling shrew?


----------



## ReformedHubby

ScarletBegonias said:


> I personally think advice should be tailored to the individual taking into account the personality of his wife. If she's selfish,spoiled and stubborn then he can't get away with being a nice guy bc she'll run over him and leave tire tracks on his back.


Honestly sometimes I wonder if this nice guy epidemic that is spoken about on TAM is as prevalent as we make it out to be. I also sometimes question the solutions we offer. 

I think these men need to be educated _before_ they get married. I say this because if a "nice guy" is indeed married to woman that walks all over him and disrespects him I don't think he's got it in him to turn it around with "that" woman. He obviously allowed her to put him in that place and she is probably savvy enough to keep him as a doormat even if he tries to change things. 

I don't honestly know what I am regarding the whole alpha/beta thing. I say this because it varied somewhat depending on the relationship I was in. Had I married this one particular young lady that my entire family and all of my friends absolutely hated, I could easily have seen myself posting about an unappreciative wife. All I did was give and all she did was take. In the end I listened to mama. I think we all know what balance we prefer in a relationship, and it isn't terribly difficult to find partners that you are compatible with in that way. 

In real life I see all kinds of nice guys that chose well and don't get taken for granted.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> Do you think it's likely that a good percentage (likely a majority) of the men that seek out this forum are married to someone who exhibits the tendencies of a selfish, controlling shrew?


I think a lot of men blame their wives for being selfish controlling shrews when the problems run a lot deeper than that.

Which isn't to say that there aren't women who are incorrigibly selfish and nasty, but it is to say that not every display of emotion is a sh!t tests o fitness test, and that it's not always just the wives who are feeding the dynamic.

I agree that busting your hump to cater to her every whim probably isn't a very healthy way to relate --to anyone, for that matter. But I don't agree that niceness, or the associated characteristics (caring, sensitive, supportive) are the huge problems they are made out to be on this forum.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> Honestly sometimes I wonder if this nice guy epidemic that is spoken about on TAM is as prevalent as we make it out to be. I also sometimes question the solutions we offer.
> 
> 
> In real life I see all kinds of nice guys that chose well and don't get taken for granted.


:iagree:


----------



## ScarletBegonias

We also have to remember we're getting one side of the story too.The husband's might be getting painted in a worse light than what it's like in reality...same for the wives being discussed here.You just never actually know unless both people are members.


----------



## ReformedHubby

ScarletBegonias said:


> We also have to remember we're getting one side of the story too.The husband's might be getting painted in a worse light than what it's like in reality...same for the wives being discussed here.You just never actually know unless both people are members.


Soooo true. I actually stopped posting about my wife for the most part because I found that I spent half the time defending her. Lots of folks wielding sledgehammers they wanted to use on their former spouses trying to get you to use one on yours.


----------



## samyeagar

ScarletBegonias said:


> We also have to remember we're getting one side of the story too.The husband's might be getting painted in a worse light than what it's like in reality...same for the wives being discussed here.You just never actually know unless both people are members.


Well, when it comes to my STBW, there only one side people need to know, and that is She is Freakin' Awesome!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScarletBegonias said:


> FWIW,I read your post to DH...he really liked it.He said most men look at him like he's a "chick" because his view of sex and what gets him hot is so different from the general male population.


 Awe I like that ... It's funny I had 2 pms last night after that little rant...thinking I might be upset...not at all.. I just like to get my Jab in there... and really....I make a mistake when I keep saying "My Husband" (I beat that to death)...I am meaning others as well of course...







...as Ocotillo said "Your husband is hardly alone here."

Honestly though... My H was somewhat of a Nerd ..(typical glasses, not into sports, introverted).....a stubborn one though....we've talked about this....he LIKED who he was ....he didn't like a whole lot of other people though ~ thought they were A-holes & still does today....

Really nobody was going to change him... if he didn't find the right type of women who appreciated what he had to offer...he would have just as soon stayed single....he's told me a # of times had he not met me, he might have never married...

And why shouldn't he feel this way... he was honest...gave a lot of attention & affection to his GF, understanding, a hard worker, came from a loving family, very responsible, a great listener, stable minded....had good intentions from the get go..... I hear SO many women complain about all young guys being so immature, it's why they go for older men even....wasn't my experience at all.

All he did that bothered me was smoke...and he quit ....he believes in treating a girl he cares about in a beautiful way...I had my future in mind -why would I overlook all of these wonderful qualities... even if he was kinda Beta..so what...it was all GOOD Beta.. this makes all the difference I say. 



> *TiggyBlue said*: Ah... but look at the wives your husband and SA husband has
> 
> So really does it matter what others think? seemed to get them awesome wives





> *ScarletBegonias said*: thank you I guess I don't see it that way for myself bc I'm so damn dysfunctional.I try to be a good wife but sometimes I fail miserably.He's a saint for putting up with me.


 I was a little dysfunctional in the beginning...I had to iron some things out.. mine was patient with me and his fine example is what helped me be a better person... 



> *ScarletBegonias said*: I personally think advice should be tailored to the individual *taking into account the personality of his wife.* If she's selfish,spoiled and stubborn then he can't get away with being a nice guy bc she'll run over him and leave tire tracks on his back.


 This is how I feel also.... I have thought had my dad & Step mom not gotten a hold of me in my youth ...where I learned some hardship & appreciation, who knows.....I was not spoiled at all.. H felt I was emotionally neglected even.. so when goodness walked into my life.. I greatly appreciated it ! 

But what if I had been spoiled rotten...with my personality...I probably could have mowed him down...I do think he would have been smart enough to dump me though.. Yeah. I feel so...



> *ReformedHubby said:* I don't honestly know what I am regarding the whole alpha/beta thing. I say this because it varied somewhat depending on the relationship I was in. Had I married this one particular young lady that my entire family and all of my friends absolutely hated, I could easily have seen myself posting about an unappreciative wife. All I did was give and all she did was take. *In the end I listened to mama*. I think we all know what balance we prefer in a relationship, and it isn't terribly difficult to find partners that you are compatible with in that way.
> 
> In real life I see all kinds of nice guys that chose well and don't get taken for granted.


 You listened to Mama..







...I think far too many get into a fog & ignore their family/ friends who can see the writing on the wall....

I am on the look out for my own sons...as they are much like their father. .. I could tell very quickly with 3rd son's GF....NOT A GOOD MATCH...it was unbalanced & she had drama issues.. I told him outright, it's not going to last...you can do better.... Mama was right.. Girl he is with now compliments his personality so well.. Enjoy seeing the dynamic.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> I don't agree that niceness, or the associated characteristics (caring, sensitive, supportive) are the huge problems they are made out to be on this forum.


I can think of two colleagues at one place I worked who were simply _brilliant _at being friends with women. They could be found in the dictionary under 'caring, sensitive and supportive'.

But they never had a steady girlfriend in the five-odd years I worked with them. That's a long time for a good man to be lonely. 

One kept meeting up with my G/F for lunch (we all worked together, but had different rotas), which I indulged, only because I knew he was too soft to try anything. She'd have had to rape him for him to think he had a chance. 

I was happy that she should waste her 'friending' tendencies on someone who couldn't move to the next level to save his soul.

These men don't deserve their rubbish treatment. 

We want to help them at least try a different approach. So _maybe _it doesn't work for them. But nice isn't working, and there's no maybe about _that_.

I agree that the language used in lots of these 'be a man' books is horrible, awkward, immature and misogynistic.

But a nice man who has been alone for 5 years, is already well on his way to hating women... 

This saddens me. We should help them. But not by carrying on with the lie that nice = attractive. Do you want them to end up frustrated and resentful? That way lies danger.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ScarletBegonias said:


> I personally think advice should be tailored to the individual taking into account the personality of his wife. If she's selfish,spoiled and stubborn then he can't get away with being a nice guy bc she'll run over him and leave tire tracks on his back.


THIS! All the men are this and women are that stuff, whether or not it is true, is not useful compared to looking at the two people involved. Yes we can learn from experiences of others. But you first have to establish that their experience is similar to yours and thus can take advantage of that advice from experience.

The "Nice Guy" scene is a perfect example. There are lots of Nice Guys who can take advantage of the doormat as attraction killer advice. But there are plenty of self avowed nice guys who really.... well.... aren't. My husband is a very very "nice" man in the traditional sense of the word. He is even occaisonally a bit of a door mat (though not fearful of me in the same way you see on here. What you would Never Ever Ever hear him do is guilt me if there was some cause for me to not be feeling sexual. He would Never Ever Ever accuse me of making excuses or "justifying" my lack. He would be hurt and bummed. But he would Never Ever Ever basically accuse me of being broken with the need to fix myself with conversation about all my "reasons". He would love me, cherish me, hold me until I came back to him. And BECAUSE he did, I would do every single thing it took to make it back.


----------



## Conrad

ReformedHubby said:


> Honestly sometimes I wonder if this nice guy epidemic that is spoken about on TAM is as prevalent as we make it out to be. I also sometimes question the solutions we offer.


I don't think it's as prevalent "across the nation"

But, it sure as hell is prevalent here.


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> What you would Never Ever Ever hear him do is guilt me if there was some cause for me to not be feeling sexual. He would Never Ever Ever accuse me of making excuses or "justifying" my lack.


And, you interpret the advice here as guys like me, C-Man, dvls, etc. advising men to "guilt" their wives and SO's into sex?

Please produce some of those posts.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yet another failure of communication on my part, I guess.


Communication is a two way street. I wasn't blaming you. I just didn't get it. 



always_alone said:


> I was just pointing out that people keep telling me that there's something wrong with he men I've been exposed to, and "most men" aren't like that, and certainly no one here on TAM can possibly relate to anything I'm talking about, ever.


I admit, I have extreme difficulty relating to many of your positions. I haven't lived your life. As to whether there's something off about the men you know, I have no idea, I don't know them. But I feel like you cast them in this quasi-saintly light. Men who are perfectly empathic, say nothing crude or insensitive, keep sex from the forefront of their minds, and have finely tuned emotional nuance are men that are so far outside my understanding of myself and men in general that, to me, it often sounds like you're describing women.



always_alone said:


> But the second that a woman suggests she doesn't want someone who only wants sex, but would like respect, and to be appreciated as a person, she gets hammered down for being "unreliable", "shaming" men and knowing nothing about the male sex drive.


I've said this a million times, but I'll say it again... and try to polish it some more: We don't want ONLY just sex. We do want intimacy, partners and love... but these are NOT what we seek. These are generally NOT in our minds when we are pursuing. Sex IS. Whether by nature or nurture, we experience or are allowed to experience a very limited range of emotion. Our entire lives are spent hearing "man up", "suck it up", "don't be a puss", "boys don't cry", "stop being so sensitive", "control yourself" and shown that our value lies in our accomplishments. We are not complimented for our looks or given the support and comfort girls most often are. We're often encouraged to not stand out on anything but success. We are success machines. WIN the game. WIN the girl. WIN respect. Make money. 

Sex satisfies our physical desire, but even while we are quite adept at compartmentalizing and "turning off" emotional sensitivity from a lifetime of "buck up" - it is also one of only a few ways we can reliably achieve emotional satisfaction - particularly in our youth. So unsurprisingly, we seek sex like its required to breath. We are boiling with testosterone that makes us lusty, passionate and CRAVING while lacking emotional outlets.

Sex satisfies every. single. one. of these issues and it feels good. The healthy man will seek it quite overtly.

Now introduce women who are extremely adamant that a man should not be so sexually focused. We hear it from our mothers, we see it on tv, we hear girls constantly complaining about the @sshole who wanted to get laid. We hear that if he's drawn to you for sex, he's obviously incapable of appreciating you for anything else. That seeking sex means he only wants sex. Sexual motivation is shamed. He hears these messages before he's even become sexual. Some of the mal-translations he makes: women don't want sex; men who seek sex are @ssholes. It becomes internalized that pursuit of sex makes one a "bad man". Again, we're success machines. For many of us, being a "bad man" is a failure - failing to live up to expectations. But we have a solution! Women are constantly providing us a road map to success! -what we see as a way to get the AIR we need to breath - sex, without pursuing sex and being "bad men". Listen to what she says. Be nice. Compliment her. Be her best friend. Be sweet. Be sensitive. They sound so wonderful in most women's minds because you're so often stuck within a context - in this case, the context of a guy you're already attracted to. You want the guy you're already attracted to to show a measure of sweetness and sensitivity - but really, most of it should be reserved for you. He should be hard and manly to the world, but nice and sweet to you - because then you're special. You're not special if he's this sweet guy to everyone. Instead, he's a pushover and you're never attracted to him in the first place. This is the crazy sh*t I perceive to be going on in your psyche beneath your awareness. So to most women it makes perfect sense to say they want a "sweet guy". "Of course I want a nice guy!!!" -said every woman ever.

To the degree he has received these messages, and extent to which he received or didn't receive attention from girls as he came of age, many boys - listening to what the girls say - do EXACTLY what the girls say. 
They act cautiously. The suppress their sexual motivations to avoid any appearance of seeking sex. They are the nicest of guys. They do EXACTLY what the girls have claimed they want. He's following the rules. He will be successful. This is often awkward and then they say "be yourself"... but being himself means being overtly sexual, and being overtly sexual means being a "bad guy". Dance sucker, dance.

He's not successful. They still don't want him and he can't understand it. But but... he's done everything right. He listened to women! That guy over there is no better looking but he's getting laid. He didn't even follow the rules! -according to what women have told him, that guy is an @sshole. He's been betrayed? All these women wouldn't do that right? Maybe he's worthless? He eventually finds a woman regardless, but the damage is already done and he will carry some of it the rest of his life if he never recognizes it.

We are shamed for being tender and shamed for not being tender. We are shamed for asserting our sexual desires, and for being too passive to assert our sexual desires. A man's life is a constant barrage of contradicting notions of masculinity. Men teach that a boy should be hard. Women teach that a boy should show softness. Girls say they want a sensitive guy. Girls show that they don't want a sensitive guy.

Most men get through with enough attention to come out fairly healthy and well adjusted. Other men give up the success machine entirely - they stop caring, and even become legitimate "bad men". The rest cling to this nice guy notion and continue to feel at the mercy of women.




always_alone said:


> And it's totally clear that you have no idea who I am or the people I choose to associate with. I can assure you, they are not a bunch of spineless beta-ites that just "safe", and tell women everything we want to hear, nor are they liars, playing the sorts of passive-aggressive games you constantly insist "nice guys" are about.
> 
> On the contrary, they are fine, upstanding people who lead interesting lives, and who genuinely love and respect women, and somehow manage to not automatically hate something because it's "feminist".
> 
> The reason I have plenty of experience with a$$holes is because the world is full of them. This is *not* gender specific.


If these men were not pursuing these women they "love and respect" with sex at the very forefront of their minds, I'm inclined to believe you've met some extraterrestrials in human form. Even the very "best" of men is primarily motivated to seek out women for his sexual interest. Even the most well adjusted, healthy guy that hits on you, does so because getting laid was his primary motivation. Makes no bones about it, he's after you for sex. That he has this motivation does not preclude his having or developing additional interests in you, nor does it mean he lacks respect for you. This is the part I suspect you'll never understand.

Baring extraterrestrials, if you don't perceive all your guys as having this primarily sexual motivation, I suspect its only because they've hidden it from you. A characteristic of the nice guy approach. Healthy men do not shy away from their wants. He may be quite respectful, but his sexual motivations are still quite evident. If a guy never seems to press or lead you in the slightest, but waits for you to give a bunch of signs that you're ready/interested before making a sexual move, or even depending on you to make the first sexual move - I'd put money down that he fits the description of the classic nice guy (given your negative experiences - hey, this might even be what you prefer)... but if he does this, you can bet it comes complete with all the nice guy problems; passiveness, covert contracts and all that jazz.

If you don't think so, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see anywhere else this can go.


----------



## ocotillo

ReformedHubby said:


> In real life I see all kinds of nice guys that chose well and don't get taken for granted.


If you're using the term to describe traits like honesty, loyalty, romanticism, courtesy and respect, I'd agree with you.

A lot of the time though, people are using the term to describe something else. 

I've got a friend who falls into that niche. "Here Ocotillo," he said: "I picked up this Browning BLR in 444 Marlin the other day, but it's hurting my shoulder too much. Why don't you hold on to it for awhile?" 

I thought he was only lending me the rifle to play with for a week or two before he sold it, but once it was in my possession, he refused to take it back and refused to accept money for it. 

After a friend has given you a nine hundred dollar rifle, how do you say "No" when he wants you to drop everything and go shooting with him anytime he wants from now to the end of all time? You can't. --Not without feeling lower than dirt. 

Sure it was a nice thing to do, but it pisses people off when it feels like their autonomy is being taken away.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ReformedHubby said:


> In real life I see all kinds of nice guys that chose well and don't get taken for granted.


SimplyAmorous' husband.

But I think most of us will agree their case isn't common. Passive behavior from a man, or having these "nice guy" traits, will usually cause problems for almost any woman.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> SimplyAmorous' husband.
> 
> But I think most of us will agree their case isn't common. Passive behavior from a man, or having these "nice guy" traits, will usually cause problems for almost any woman.


It's not quite that easy to identify him either.

It depends on which phase of their life you were talking about.

He permitted her to keep children in their bed for years.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I abhor how you talk about these sort of men Dvlsadv8.


There is nice and then there is "nice" SA.

I'm not aware of any passive men who are not so as a result of fear of consequences real or perceived.

You are very happy with your husband and I am very happy for you, and him. But the dynamic in your relationship isn't likely to play out in the vast majority of relationships. It is FAR more likely that she will lose attraction to him, be sexually dissatisfied with his lack of assertiveness, or outright doormat him - because he'll accept it.

Waiting until you're married to have sex doesn't make you a nice guy or "nice guy", if those are your values. Its not about the timing of the sex, its about the consistency of his wants and actions. Waiting can very well be an assertive action, not a passive one. The passive action is "she'll only have sex with me if we're married, so I won't make a move for sex until we're married". The assertive action is, "I'm morally opposed to sex before wedlock, so I'm not going to pursue sex until then even though I want sex right now." The former is deferring his wants for what her wants. The latter is consistent with his own wants - and should withstand her wanting sex before marriage if that were the case.

A lot of people end up in relationships with people they don't actually want, because of this passive deference of one parties wants to the other's wants. I believe its often the man's wants that are deferred, because we so commonly shamed for many of those wants. While shame has lessened for women, its only increased in complexity for men. Its hard to even know the real person behind the passive person, and women want to really know the real man. Most women sniff this out of the air about a guy and reject the passive man. He lacks enough self to actually know the real man.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> And, you interpret the advice here as guys like me, C-Man, dvls, etc. advising men to "guilt" their wives and SO's into sex?
> 
> Please produce some of those posts.


The use of words like "justify" as if this is owed. The use of the word "excuse" as if it is owed. These are things that demonstrate to me that concern for her well being are not at the center of the solution. Or even much of a priority at all.

As long as she fixes herself so sex resumes...

And for the record, I did not name names. I cannot remember which of the people you refer to have said these things. I don't think C-Man has for instance.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If these men were not pursuing these women they "love and respect" with sex at the very forefront of their minds, I'm inclined to believe you've met some extraterrestrials in human form. Even the very "best" of men is primarily motivated to seek out women for his sexual interest. Even the most well adjusted, healthy guy that hits on you, does so because getting laid was his primary motivation. Makes no bones about it, he's after you for sex. That he has this motivation does not preclude his having or developing additional interests in you, nor does it mean he lacks respect for you. This is the part I suspect you'll never understand.


My SO was seeking a person who he could relate to and develop a meaningful relationship with. He is probably more nurturing than I am, more caring, and very supportive. 

If that makes him an extraterrestrial, well so be it. I'm no xenophobe. He can have as much sex as he wants (more even), and never gets nagged. 

Ah, the life of an alien.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> My SO was seeking a person who he could relate to and develop a meaningful relationship with. He is probably more nurturing than I am, more caring, and very supportive.
> 
> If that makes him an extraterrestrial, well so be it. I'm no xenophobe. He can have as much sex as he wants (more even), and never gets nagged.
> 
> Ah, the life of an alien.


I thought you had posted once upon a time about him watching porn and not pursuing sex with you?

(don't take this as adversarial or an attempted dig)


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> My SO was seeking a person who he could relate to and develop a meaningful relationship with. He is probably more nurturing than I am, more caring, and very supportive.
> 
> If that makes him an extraterrestrial, well so be it. I'm no xenophobe. He can have as much sex as he wants (more even), and never gets nagged.
> 
> Ah, the life of an alien.


Do you feel you are comfortable and at peace with your sexuality and desire, or do you feel it gets tangled up in factoring where your SO, or any man for that matter, is coming from when you are the object of their desire? (I'd love any woman to respond to this, not just AA)

I mean, I have seen women get pursued by one guy and be utterly skeved out.
Swap out the guy, and she's game for anything.

Not a trick question. I'm really interested.

At the risk of making myself sound awesome ... (just a forewarning)
I have been with women who dumped their otherwise 'good men' for being sexual duds. At which point we start making the Kama Sutra look like a kid's pop-up book.
It is rather amazing, and quite honestly, I don't know personally if that level of sexual engagement is sustainable. I'll leave that to the monogamous Extra Sexual Peeps to chime in on.

As I have very honestly trying to get my head around this topic, my belief is MOST men have a relatively static level of desire. It may ebb or flow but there is a 'default' setting.

I just don't know if this is the case with women. My perception is that it is highly variable, I'd like to rescind my agreement (some 1000 pages ago) referring to female desire as 'unreliable'. Although I can see why a man with a 'set' desire level, may refer to female desire as unreliable. Let's face it, there are chemical changes that happen to a woman on a regular basis that can influence desire. I just don't like the negative connotation that unreliable carries with it.

I don't know that the argument is going to take us anywhere.

I prefer 'sharing'. I've shared before that much like SA, I truly believe that I stifled a tremendous amount of my desire for MOST of my sexual life. Opening that door was rather incredible ... and awesome.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> My SO was seeking a person who he could relate to and develop a meaningful relationship with. He is probably more nurturing than I am, more caring, and very supportive.
> 
> If that makes him an extraterrestrial, well so be it. I'm no xenophobe. He can have as much sex as he wants (more even), and never gets nagged.
> 
> Ah, the life of an alien.


We are aliens too then.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Do you feel you are comfortable and at peace with your sexuality and desire, or do you feel it gets tangled up in factoring where your SO, or any man for that matter, is coming from when you are the object of their desire? (I'd love any woman to respond to this, not just AA)


I'd be game to if I knew what you meant!


> I mean, I have seen women get pursued by one guy and be utterly skeved out.
> Swap out the guy, and she's game for anything.


Well, that doesn't make perfect sense? Since it is the person that is the most important factor?



> Not a trick question. I'm really interested.
> 
> At the risk of making myself sound awesome ... (just a forewarning)
> I have been with women who dumped their otherwise 'good men' for being sexual duds. At which point we start making the Kama Sutra look like a kid's pop-up book.
> It is rather amazing, and quite honestly, I don't know personally if that level of sexual engagement is sustainable. I'll leave that to the monogamous Extra Sexual Peeps to chime in on.


It is. Not always. But often. That is why my mind goes numb when people start talking number of times per week. It varies widely. And if you are that focused on frequency, it is hard to imagine that it is very good.



> As I have very honestly trying to get my head around this topic, my belief is MOST men have a relatively static level of desire. It may ebb or flow but there is a 'default' setting.


I don't know about that. But in my experience the person you are with is every bit as important as for women in the raw desire department, the thing that makes it sustainable and amazing. The thing that makes it go just past sticking a piece into a hole. 



> I just don't know if this is the case with women. My perception is that it is highly variable, I'd like to rescind my agreement (some 1000 pages ago) referring to female desire as 'unreliable'. Although I can see why a man with a 'set' desire level, may refer to female desire as unreliable. Let's face it, there are chemical changes that happen to a woman on a regular basis that can influence desire.
> 
> I don't know that the argument is going to take us anywhere.
> 
> I prefer 'sharing'. I've shared before that much like SA, I truly believe that I stifled a tremendous amount of my desire for MOST of my sexual life. Opening that door was rather incredible ... and awesome.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> The use of words like "justify" as if this is owed. The use of the word "excuse" as if it is owed. These are things that demonstrate to me that concern for her well being are not at the center of the solution. Or even much of a priority at all.
> 
> As long as she fixes herself so sex resumes...
> 
> And for the record, I did not name names. I cannot remember which of the people you refer to have said these things. I don't think C-Man has for instance.


I said "excuses" and "justify", and I mean them. My using them has no relation to my concern for her well-being - they describe her motivation for having given me false reasons for her lack of interest. She didn't actually know. She in fact began to feel guilty about her lack of drive - and the "excuses" for it, were her way of "justifying" why she lacked it. Grasping at straws to explain something.

In terms of sex being "owed". No. But if a woman I'm with doesn't actively sexually desire me, that's not a woman I want to stay with. I put effort into triggering that desire, I put effort into sustaining that desire - if that desire is not sustained, then something is wrong or I'm with the wrong woman. I can look to address the problem, or I can leave. I looked for the problem, and she gave me whatever justifications she could come up with - none of which were in fact real issues. She used them as a buffer to protect herself from her own feelings of being "broken".

I have to remind myself of this when I get caught up in those feelings and triggered. She didn't know why she had no desire. At the end, she said she felt like she was broken -like something was wrong with her. She used to be this, and now she's that. All the things she pulled out of thin air were just defenses, not from me - I wasn't critical of her, but from her OWN feeling that she was "broken". In her mind: - "maybe I'm not broken, maybe its because he does x".

It would be nice to understand why, but in the end, I can't be happy in a relationship where I don't feel desired and valued. Sex was just one critical aspect of it - one that really gets my attention. There were a myriad other ways I felt devalued as a result of her prioritizing the kids. I wasn't even on the radar, and I often wondered if I wasn't there but all the things I do were still done, would she even notice?

My feelings on it are quite distinct from being "owed".


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> I'd be game to if I knew what you meant!
> 
> 
> Well, that doesn't make perfect sense? Since it is the person that is the most important factor?
> 
> 
> It is. Not always. But often. That is why my mind goes numb when people start talking number of times per week. It varies widely. And if you are that focused on frequency, it is hard to imagine that it is very good.
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. But in my experience the person you are with is every bit as important as for women in the raw desire department, the thing that makes it sustainable and amazing. The thing that makes it go just past sticking a piece into a hole.


My point being, that I know women, have seen women post here about what they would LIKE to have done to them ... but not necessarily with the person they are partnered with. Nothing wrong with this, really, it's the flipside of the woman who greets her man at the door wearing lingerie and a smile, and his response is, "I'm hungry, what have you got for dinner?"

Let me condense the nonsense ...

I will make it clear from my perspective why I want to understand female sexual desire.

Because I want to be, and remain, sexually desirable to the female I am with.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that other men want the same.

It isn't about looking for a hole to put a piece in. It's about feeling like you are the exact right and desired 'fit' that both you and your partner want from the relationship.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I said "excuses" and "justify", and I mean them. My using them has no relation to my concern for her well-being - they describe her motivation for having given me false reasons for her lack of interest. She didn't actually know. She in fact began to feel guilty about her lack of drive - and the "excuses" for it, were her way of "justifying" why she lacked it. Grasping at straws to explain something.


She did not know. But she was being demanded for a reason. What would you really do in that position? The real likely reason was that the two of you are just incompatible. But no one ever really wants to consider that. Either you weren't for each other, or were on completely different planes. No blood, no foul.




> In terms of sex being "owed". No. But if a woman I'm with doesn't actively sexually desire me, that's not a woman I want to stay with. I can look to address the problem, or I can leave.


Absolutely. One of the things that is ATTRACTIVE about my husband is that he would do exactly that. I love you, but we are apparently incompatible. And I think more people need to consider the latter sooner. Because there ARE people out there who marry someone with whom they just are not compatible with or marry people with ulterior motives. 

I am not trying to take shots at you. But just listening to you talk about your attitude toward your wife here makes you unattractive across the ether. I can only imagine what it would feel like for her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Let me condense the nonsense ...
> 
> I will make it clear from my perspective why I want to understand female sexual desire.
> 
> Because I want to be, and remain, sexually desirable to the female I am with.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that other men want the same.
> 
> It isn't about looking for a hole to put a piece in. It's about feeling like you are the exact right and desired 'fit' that both you and your partner want from the relationship.


Start with honest sexual and physical attraction. Don't pick a woman who thinks your wallet or your other attributes are MORE attractive than your actual body. In other words, only choose a woman who is choosing YOU on the same basis that you are choosing HER. Which in large part will be determined by pure, raw physical and sexual attraction.

If that part is there, then the other parts should be considered, too...other areas of attraction can add to and emphasize the physical/sexual attraction. But if they are there and the physical/sexual attraction is not, then the sex buzz will not last.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> My point being, that I know women, have seen women post here about what they would LIKE to have done to them ... but not necessarily with the person they are partnered with. Nothing wrong with this, really, it's the flipside of the woman who greets her man at the door wearing lingerie and a smile, and his response is, "I'm hungry, what have you got for dinner?"
> 
> Let me condense the nonsense ...
> 
> I will make it clear from my perspective why I want to understand female sexual desire.
> 
> Because I want to be, and remain, sexually desirable to the female I am with.


It seems to me that it would be more useful to understand HER desire. 



> I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that other men want the same.
> 
> It isn't about looking for a hole to put a piece in. It's about feeling like you are the exact right and desired 'fit' that both you and your partner want from the relationship.


It sounds like it for you. It doesn't sound like it for every one on here.


----------



## DoF

The truth about female desire is that there is no such a thing.

Females are PEOPLE and each and every person has different desires.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Start with honest sexual and physical attraction. Don't pick a woman who thinks your wallet or your other attributes are MORE attractive than your actual body. In other words, only choose a woman who is choosing YOU on the same basis that you are choosing HER. Which in large part will be determined by pure, raw physical and sexual attraction.
> 
> If that part is there, then the other parts should be considered, too...other areas of attraction can add to and emphasize the physical/sexual attraction. But if they are there and the physical/sexual attraction is not, then the sex buzz will not last.



And I agree with this absolutely.

I think for me, and I'm comfortable citing Dvl's case, as he has spelled out the details; we THOUGHT this was exactly the case with the women we chose for marriage.

Until ...

It's the 'Until' that seems to be the variable. My case was the same as Dvl's, children. We're not talking about a slow-down, a drought, or a shift ... I'm talking about a Defcon 1, desire lockdown. And as in Dvl's case, the consistent answer I got for several years was, "I don't know."

I know that I contributed. I own that. But I do think as several posters have also indicated, and you have as well, that once desire has bled out, respect usually isn't far behind, and if that goes, the relationship and marriage is gone, regardless of whether one chooses to remain in it.

I realize this thread has been contentious at times, but, look at it's length, breadth and scope.

People are invested in the discussion, from both genders.

I thought my ex-wife was the most sexual woman I had ever encountered. And again, we get along very well now, and we have rekindled respect. But wow ... I was wrong.

At the same time, I grant that I was probably wrong about her level of sexuality as well. She doesn't have near the experience that I have with other people post-divorce. But ... the men she has been involved with, are way, way, into her, and I have a pretty good understanding of why that probably is. And I mean that as a compliment.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Conrad said:


> It's not quite that easy to identify him either.
> 
> It depends on which phase of their life you were talking about.
> 
> He permitted her to keep children in their bed for years.


I was just speaking in general about a passive guy or nice guy and a woman who remains attracted to him.

Most commonly sex becomes a major issue. Its at first "safe" that he's not really bent on pursuing it (suppressed), but later becomes dissatisfying to her that he doesn't pursue it. I think there begins to be a sense from the woman that he should "Be a man! Ravish me!" She can speak for herself whether she gets any of this sort of sense I perceive in women generally.

Most women sniff this out about a guy pretty early - it often doesn't fit their concept of manliness, so the passive guy has a hard time getting interest from women.

I have no opinion on children in the marriage bed or how its bearing on being this passive type. I wouldn't allow it myself. It really comes down to: is he doing what he wants, or is he primarily deferring to what he thinks she wants.

Fortunately, SA is pretty aware and doesn't take advantage of her husbands apparent selflessness, or dismiss him (lose attraction) because of it.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Deejo said:


> And I agree with this absolutely.
> 
> I think for me, and I'm comfortable citing Dvl's case, as he has spelled out the details; we THOUGHT this was exactly the case with the women we chose for marriage.
> 
> Until ...
> 
> It's the 'Until' that seems to be the variable. My case was the same as Dvl's, children. We're not talking about a slow-down, a drought, or a shift ... I'm talking about a Defcon 1, desire lockdown. And as in Dvl's case, the consistent answer I got for several years was, "I don't know."


Chiming in here bc it was something I noticed recently about my drive.

I get to experience both lifestyles...with and without child around. When my son is over my drive drops.I still want sex but it isn't as urgent as it is on a regular basis.I don't know why it happens.It's odd for sure.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Start with honest sexual and physical attraction. Don't pick a woman who thinks your wallet or your other attributes are MORE attractive than your actual body. In other words, only choose a woman who is choosing YOU on the same basis that you are choosing HER. Which in large part will be determined by pure, raw physical and sexual attraction.


I just cannot agree more with this.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was just speaking in general about a passive guy or nice guy and a woman who remains attracted to him.
> 
> Most commonly sex becomes a major issue. Its at first "safe" that he's not really bent on pursuing it (suppressed), but later becomes dissatisfying to her that he doesn't pursue it. I think there begins to be a sense from the woman that he should "Be a man! Ravish me!" She can speak for herself whether she gets any of this sort of sense I perceive in women generally.


Experiencing this currently actually and having active discussions with DH about it.I don't need him to ravage me,rape and pillage the village but it would sure feel good to get more intensity and passion out of him. Sometimes he's such a nice guy that I feel he isn't hot for me bc he's so sexually nice.I mean,yeah,he'll go down on me with enthusiasm and obsess about my taste and scent,etc.But there's no fire in him for me it seems.I can't describe it.
But...if he was intense,passionate,and burning for me he would be a different person in other areas too.That wouldn't make me happy at all.


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> It seems to me that it would be more useful to understand HER desire.


Exactly my point. But ... that can also be a minefield if the perception is that I am adjusting or adapting my behavior, in order to be in better alignment with HER desire.

Some people call it playing games. We don't need to go there in this thread ... just highlighting how this can get even more confusing for the boys.





NobodySpecial said:


> It sounds like it for you. It doesn't sound like it for every one on here.


For a guy that is angrily posting here in light of being sexually ignored by his wife for months, or years ... I get it. I can see beyond the ranting. I don't think that means they just want their wives to spread their legs so they can get off. They want their wives to want them back.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...let me make a caveat. I personally don't think anyone should get married young. I do not think we have the capacity to understand our own proclivity level, our real attractions or our real motivates before we are at least 30 years old. Some people get lucky like SA and her husband and actually meet and marry someone they will end up being attracted to in the long term. But most people I know who were married in their 20's are divorced now (and half of everyone is divorced no matter what age they were married).

So...what you wanted from your ex-wife just wasn't something she could know when young. And when people like you have been through that, I think you need to remember the point: People in their 20's do not have a reliable gauge of their own true desires, wants and attractions.

I do wish the pain you (and others) feel from that loss of desire could be mitigated by this fact.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> Exactly my point. But ... that can also be a minefield if the perception is that I am adjusting or adapting my behavior, in order to be in better alignment with HER desire.
> 
> Some people call it playing games. We don't need to go there in this thread ... just highlighting how this can get even more confusing for the boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a guy that is angrily posting here in light of being sexually ignored by his wife for months, or years ... I get it. I can see beyond the ranting. I don't think that means they just want their wives to spread their legs so they can get off. They want their wives to want them back.


It is the #1 emotional need for a man.

Sexual fulfillment - which INCLUDES (as an integral part) - her desire for him.

There is no substitute for this in a relationship.

None

When I read a woman wondering if she should marry a guy that she isn't "really" attracted to, my advice is RUN RUN away... as fast as you can.

Any momentary pain you cause him is MINISCULE compared to what you have in store for him.


----------



## Deejo

ScarletBegonias said:


> Chiming in here bc it was something I noticed recently about my drive.
> 
> I get to experience both lifestyles...with and without child around. When my son is over my drive drops.I still want sex but it isn't as urgent as it is on a regular basis.I don't know why it happens.It's odd for sure.


I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there is a great deal to this. I think this is one of the primary reasons my ex looks forward to not having the kids. She actually asked to swap our weekend arrangement to coincide with when her partner doesn't have his kids. Makes sense to me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> She did not know. But she was being demanded for a reason. What would you really do in that position? *The real likely reason was that the two of you are just incompatible. But no one ever really wants to consider that.* Either you weren't for each other, or were on completely different planes. No blood, no foul.


That doesn't bother me at all. Why do you think I divorced her?

However, if I don't know why something is, I'm not going to tell someone things that are not it.



NobodySpecial said:


> I am not trying to take shots at you. But just listening to you talk about your attitude toward your wife here makes you unattractive across the ether. I can only imagine what it would feel like for her.


Try years of goose chasing and deprioritization and see how great your attitude is. 

My attitude about it is many years in the making. I'm still mad at her for wasting my time and filling me with so much self-doubt. When you're so low that a random girl at a gas station flirting with you makes you feel like a million bucks, that you're not completely worthless - the event that began my affairs, you're pretty damn low. When you've lost so much confidence in your sexual performance that you seek out other women just to judge whether you actually suck in bed or not... you're really bottoming out.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...let me make a caveat. I personally don't think anyone should get married young. I do not think we have the capacity to understand our own proclivity level, our real attractions or our real motivates before we are at least 30 years old. Some people get lucky like SA and her husband and actually meet and marry someone they will end up being attracted to in the long term. But most people I know who were married in their 20's are divorced now (and half of everyone is divorced no matter what age they were married).
> 
> So...what you wanted from your ex-wife just wasn't something she could know when young. And when people like you have been through that, I think you need to remember the point: People in their 20's do not have a reliable gauge of their own true desires, wants and attractions.
> 
> I do wish the pain you (and others) feel from that loss of desire could be mitigated by this fact.


I agree. Thought we had that covered. I was 35, she was 31. Kids were the X factor. I don't think she suckered me. I don't think she planned, or even wanted what occurred on the intimacy front. But it did.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> For a guy that is angrily posting here in light of being sexually ignored by his wife for months, or years ... I get it. I can see beyond the ranting. I don't think that means they just want their wives to spread their legs so they can get off. They want their wives to want them back.


Something that a highly sexual person is used to, is understanding that, hey, if someone just ain't into you, it ain't nuttin' personal.

You move on.

So yeah, if you marry a girl in her early 20's and expect her to understand her desires and sexuality, then get completely wasted personally when she can't sustain her desire for you...I'd say really you (not you personally, Deejo) just need to learn the lesson: YOU CHOSE WRONG. 

But to hold on to that pain and keep wondering how in the world can we find a woman who desires us in the long term...oh wow, it is just IMPOSSIBLE because female desire is unreliable...this is simply refusing to just accept that you chose wrong.

It really isn't complicated.

Personally, I think the BIG lie you guys keep telling yourselves (not you personally) is that women don't care that much about looks and the physical aspect. If this lie would stop being passed around and if guys expected to only be with women who were truly into them and their bodies on a physical basis...you'd have much more success.

A woman should be into you physically and sexually even if you were broke, or else she just ain't that into you and certainly won't be in the long run.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> Experiencing this currently actually and having active discussions with DH about it.I don't need him to ravage me,rape and pillage the village but it would sure feel good to get more intensity and passion out of him. Sometimes he's such a nice guy that I feel he isn't hot for me bc he's so sexually nice.I mean,yeah,he'll go down on me with enthusiasm and obsess about my taste and scent,etc.But there's no fire in him for me it seems.I can't describe it.


Exactly! Its about sexual assertiveness. The feeling that he REALLY wants you for HIS benefit, because he's just so damn hot for you. Being more of a giver than a receiver (I have bizarre receiving issues, even gifts), I have to stay mindful of this too. Its sometimes "show her that you want her for your own selfish reasons, not that you're so eager to be sexually generous to her so that she will like you." They're very different things and it took me awhile to wrap my head around it. I'm inclined to think "Uh... duh? I'm giving you head. Obviously I'm crazy hot for you." No. It's not quite like that. I perceive there to be a desire in women for a man to want them for his benefit. Not sure why I didn't grasp this immediately, because similarly, I want a woman to want me for her pleasure about as much as I want my pleasure.



ScarletBegonias said:


> But...if he was intense,passionate,and burning for me he would be a different person in other areas too.That wouldn't make me happy at all.


Balance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I agree. Thought we had that covered. I was 35, she was 31. Kids were the X factor. I don't think she suckered me. I don't think she planned, or even wanted what occurred on the intimacy front. But it did.


31 is still barely old enough for these decisions, IMO.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly! Its about sexual assertiveness. The feeling that he REALLY wants you for HIS benefit, because he's just so damn hot for you. Being more of a giver than a receiver (I have bizarre receiving issues, even gifts), I have to stay mindful of this too. Its sometimes "show her that you want her for your own selfish reasons, not that you're so eager to be sexually generous to her so that she will like you." They're very different things and it took me awhile to wrap my head around it. I'm inclined to think "Uh... duh? I'm giving you head. Obviously I'm crazy hot for you." No. It's not quite like that. I perceive there to be a desire in women for a man to want them for his benefit. Not sure why I didn't grasp this immediately, because similarly, I want a woman to want me for her pleasure about as much as I want my pleasure.


That just gave me an idea of how to express my feelings to him actually. Thanks

This part: I want a woman to want me for her pleasure about as much as I want my pleasure.

That's how I feel about sex.I love to please and it gets me off to please but I still want the man for my own personal pleasure.
he is struggling to grasp this.


----------



## Sandfly

ScarletBegonias said:


> Sometimes he's such a nice guy that I feel he isn't hot for me bc he's so sexually nice....
> ... But there's no fire in him for me it seems.I can't describe it.


Always Alone, do you feel like admitting that 'nice' isn't actually what you want too, or will it be another ten pages later.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Faithful Wife said:


> 31 is still barely old enough for these decisions, IMO.


Depends on the 31 year old,imo.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> My case was the same as Dvl's, children. We're not talking about a slow-down, a drought, or a shift ... I'm talking about a Defcon 1, desire lockdown. And as in Dvl's case, the consistent answer I got for several years was, "I don't know."


I'll join the chorus here. It happened at the 9 year point and lasted nearly *28 years.*


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Sandfly said:


> Always Alone, do you feel like admitting that 'nice' isn't actually what you want too, or will it be another ten pages later.


Just to be clear,my post isn't an admission of any sort.Nice is actually what I want bc in my experience with men,the price of the other stuff is too high.

Also,I shared something that isn't comfortable for me to share bc I haven't sorted through it fully for myself yet.I trusted no one would jump on that as some sort of admission of not truly wanting a nice guy...now I feel stupid for trusting.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScarletBegonias said:


> Depends on the 31 year old,imo.


Yes, it does. If I remember correctly, when you were much younger you chose a man for "the wrong reasons". Having done that, ended it, and had a child...puts you in a much better understanding of yourself than many at your age.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, it does. If I remember correctly, when you were much younger you chose a man for "the wrong reasons". Having done that, ended it, and had a child...puts you in a much better understanding of yourself than many at your age.


Very true


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Exactly my point. But ... that can also be a minefield if the perception is that I am adjusting or adapting my behavior, in order to be in better alignment with HER desire.


I guess I don't see what the problem is with this. I think the problem comes in when people adjust to what they incorrectly THINK is the nature of the desire which winds up making it worse. 



> Some people call it playing games. We don't need to go there in this thread ... just highlighting how this can get even more confusing for the boys.


I am not one of the ones calling it playing games. I have no problem doing things that are effective at making oneself and ones partner happy.





> For a guy that is angrily posting here in light of being sexually ignored by his wife for months, or years ... I get it.


I am not unsympathetic. I just think that each poster should be advised based on their own situation. Not treated as "man" dealing with "woman" and thus action plan a,b,c will be effective. 

I know for a FACT that if DH COMPLAINED to me about lack of sex, it would have the opposite of the desired effect. If he asked me over and over why can't we have sex, why don't we have sex and hounded me or "reasons" then had the gall to decide that my reasons were not valid. Frick no. That is not Nice Guy. That is I want mine. The difference between me and the people in this relationship is I would be Long Gone.

Now if a guy is being a doormat and living in fear of his wife, and his killing her desire that way, then to him I say keep the best part of nice and stand up to her for heaven's sake.

They are not the same thing.




> I can see beyond the ranting. I don't think that means they just want their wives to spread their legs so they can get off. They want their wives to want them back.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Try years of goose chasing and deprioritization and see how great your attitude is.


I am glad you are done and happy now. No offense, but it wouldn't take me years to figure that one out! But I am luckier than most. I am not religious. (Yay for atheism! No god to fret over.) I have no family that would give me a hard time... I am well aware that tossing in the marital towel is no small matter.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Start with honest sexual and physical attraction. Don't pick a woman who thinks your wallet or your other attributes are MORE attractive than your actual body. In other words, only choose a woman who is choosing YOU on the same basis that you are choosing HER. Which in large part will be determined by pure, raw physical and sexual attraction.
> 
> If that part is there, then the other parts should be considered, too...other areas of attraction can add to and emphasize the physical/sexual attraction. But if they are there and the physical/sexual attraction is not, then the sex buzz will not last.


My exw and I chose each other based on physical attraction from the start. She spotted me days before I spotted her. She'd watch me pick up my baby sister from elementary school from time to time. She even secretly followed me home one day to see where I lived. I met her the next day, when, by chance driving home, she was in the vehicle in front of me. I noticed a hot girl constantly looking in her mirrors, but still got in the turn lane to go home while she continued driving ahead. She stuck her hand out of the window and waved goodbye. I pulled back into traffic, followed her home and got her number. She said if I hadn't followed her, she would have gotten me the next day picking up my sister.

The physical attraction was there, but she was a virgin. It was 3 months before we had sex - the longest I've ever dated someone without sex.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That doesn't bother me at all. Why do you think I divorced her?
> 
> However, if I don't know why something is, I'm not going to tell someone things that are not it.


How do you know that you don't know it? Make no mistake, I agree with you wrt this. But emotions are weird. UNLESS she was intentionally BSing you for money or some other thing. Then she is a conscienceless piece of crap.



> Try years of goose chasing and deprioritization and see how great your attitude is.
> 
> My attitude about it is many years in the making. I'm still mad at her for wasting my time and filling me with so much self-doubt. When you're so low that a random girl at a gas station flirting with you makes you feel like a million bucks, that you're not completely worthless - the event that began my affairs, you're pretty damn low. When you've lost so much confidence in your sexual performance that you seek out other women just to judge whether you actually suck in bed or not... you're really bottoming out.


I am sorry you had to go through that. I hope you came out more confident so that you simply don't allow anyone to make you believe that again.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I am glad you are done and happy now. No offense, but it wouldn't take me years to figure that one out! But I am luckier than most. I am not religious. (Yay for atheism! No god to fret over.) I have no family that would give me a hard time... I am well aware that tossing in the marital towel is no small matter.


lol I'm an atheist.

I stuck it out because I perceived not doing so as admission of failure. Divorce meant ruining this illusion I built up of having everything just perfect - having done everything "right" - I had "life" down. Got the great job, got the hot wife, got the house and the cars and the toys and even the model children. Everyone wants to be me, I'm awesome.

*crash* 

Its certainly not the only retarded thing I've done and it probably won't be the last.


----------



## firebelly1

Deejo said:


> Do you feel you are comfortable and at peace with your sexuality and desire, or do you feel it gets tangled up in factoring where your SO, or any man for that matter, is coming from when you are the object of their desire? (I'd love any woman to respond to this, not just AA)
> .


I think this is a fundamental question. My experience is that for most women, it is the latter. It doesn't even occur to us to think about our own sexuality as a separate entity from whether or not we are attractive to our mate. Coming to the realization that they are separate things is a huge awakening. 

To another topic being discussed: there's a few of you that experienced the shut down and I can see where that experience would make you doubt the assertion that certain men turn a woman on and certain men don't. Because, at one point you did turn her on and then it stopped. And I really think you can chalk that up to women a) having a hard time seeing themselves as mothers AND sexual beings and b) emotional and physical exhaustion.

Obviously, it isn't just about attraction. BUT...I'm realizing more and more that one of the reasons I desired my stbxh so much all the time was because I thought he was so damn, physically hot. Really good looking and a body type that I loved. He gained and lost 30-40 pounds here and there, but it didn't matter, he had good bones, so to speak.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol I'm an atheist.
> 
> I stuck it out because I perceived not doing so as admission of failure. Divorce meant ruining this illusion I built up of having everything just perfect - having done everything "right" - I had "life" down. Got the great job, got the hot wife, got the house and the cars and the toys and even the model children. Everyone wants to be me, I'm awesome.
> 
> *crash*
> 
> Its certainly not the only retarded thing I've done and it probably won't be the last.


Can I ask a question? How important is it for your wife to be "hot"?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> How do you know that you don't know it? Make no mistake, I agree with you wrt this. But emotions are weird. UNLESS she was intentionally BSing you for money or some other thing. Then she is a conscienceless piece of crap.


She wasn't using me for money. She had a good job herself.

You can only point to something that you know. If you don't know, you have nothing to point to.

But like I said, it wasn't just the sex. It was a total deprioritization in favor of motherhood. She didn't want to go on date nights because sitters weren't good enough. When we did, she'd check in repeatedly and talk incessantly about the kids. She didn't want to do any of our past *us* activities. All activities were family activities, because she felt like a bad mom trying to get away from her kids otherwise.

When you think about it, of course she didn't want sex. We never did much of anything alone together after the kids. She didn't want a husband in anything other than name. She didn't want to do anything of the things that imo are necessary to maintain an intimate bond. Being a mom was everything. Of course she didn't want sex.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> I know for a FACT that if DH COMPLAINED to me about lack of sex, it would have the opposite of the desired effect. If he asked me over and over why can't we have sex, why don't we have sex and hounded me or "reasons" then had the gall to decide that my reasons were not valid. Frick no.


Have you actually lived this like some of us have? Because it doesn't really play out the way you're describing it.

The "Reasons" don't come up as the result of "Hounding" or "Complaining." Give a little credit here. They first creep into the marriage right smack in the middle of interactions that have always been appreciated before. You come up behind her in the kitchen; put your arms around her, tilt her back so her head is resting on your shoulder and kiss her neck. That always melted my wife.

Fill in the blank here with whatever your husband does that gets you hot and bothered. Now picture those same things suddenly striking you with a convenient migraine. Every damn time.

My wife didn't want the marriage to end anymore than I did, so she invented all sorts of these reasons. Ultimately though, they were just window dressing on an almost total lack of desire that started just a few weeks after the first child was conceived. --And that's something she freely admits today.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> She wasn't using me for money. She had a good job herself.
> 
> You can only point to something that you know. If you don't know, you have nothing to point to.
> 
> But like I said, it wasn't just the sex. It was a total deprioritization in favor of motherhood. She didn't want to go on date nights because sitters weren't good enough. When we did, she'd check in repeatedly and talk incessantly about the kids. She didn't want to do any of our past *us* activities. All activities were family activities, because she felt like a bad mom trying to get away from her kids otherwise.


Ugh. Not just poor you. Poor kids. What a horrid way to grow up, smothered by Mom.




> When you think about it, of course she didn't want sex. We never did much of anything alone together after the kids. She didn't want a husband in anything other than name. She didn't want to do anything of the things that imo are necessary to maintain an intimate bond. Being a mom was everything. Of course she didn't want sex.


Meh. I am a Mom. I want sex all the time. They sleep.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Men seem to easily understand the idea that they can't get it up for (and shouldn't be expected to) a woman they are not physically attracted to.

But women? Somehow we are expected to "magically" get it up for a guy who isn't all that physically attractive to us...and keep it up over time?

The thing people seem to miss when SA talks about her feelings about her H is that she is physically HOT for him....she has also admitted that she would lose attraction for him if he got fat. 

We accept this when a man says it, but when a woman says it...a lot of guys still want to rush in with "but no...physical attraction really isn't that important to women...they are more concerned with lifestyle, money, etc".

Then when guys look around and go "but that guy ISN'T hot and SHE is hot for him, so clearly it isn't about attraction". 

All this means is that when those guys look at the guy they claim ISN'T hot on some objective basis...is that women can have their individual preferences as to what is hot that won't necessarily be what the world thinks is hot. This is why there really is someone for everyone.


----------



## Conrad

ocotillo said:


> Have you actually lived this like some of us have? Because it doesn't really play out the way you're describing it.


Not even close.


----------



## Sandfly

ScarletBegonias said:


> Just to be clear,my post isn't an admission of any sort.Nice is actually what I want bc in my experience with men,the price of the other stuff is too high.
> 
> Also,I shared something that isn't comfortable for me to share bc I haven't sorted through it fully for myself yet.I trusted no one would jump on that as some sort of admission of not truly wanting a nice guy...now I feel stupid for trusting.


I haven't harmed you, SB, so that's a bit of an over-reaction.

You say above that you sought out a nice husband_ consciously _because in the past, your tendency was to end up with not-nice. 

Your instincts in the past have been to _pass the nice types over. _Pretty much what I was saying.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> Have you actually lived this like some of us have? Because it doesn't really play out the way you're describing it.


Oh good. Glad to hear it. 



> Fill in the blank here with whatever your husband does that gets you hot and bothered. Now picture those same things suddenly striking you with a convenient migraine. Every damn time.
> 
> My wife didn't want the marriage to end anymore than I did, so she invented all sorts of these reasons.


I hate to say I disagree with you. She let you go. She could have fixed it. 



> Ultimately though, they were just window dressing on an almost total lack of desire that started just a few weeks after the first child was conceived. --And that's something she freely admits today.


I am going to be dead honest. I wonder if the fact that you put up with it for 28 years contributed. Or maybe I just don't understand what Nice Guys look like once they have done this for 28 years. Dunno.

Can't get your 28 years back. Maybe I am coming to understand that this is just the difference between 28 years and just a few. Maybe it is not so different after all.

I am a woman. I know very well what it is like to have your drive drop off the bottom of everything. I had babies. After the first one, I would have cheerfully never had sex again. And if that were the case, I would be divorced today. When I went on depo, I was insane AND had no drive. If I had stayed on that, we'd be divorced today. DH was very very patient. It is not really an applicable example because I understood very well that he was not going to do that. And I understood _intellectually_ that my life would be better if I figured out how to get my groove back. I gritted my teeth (figuratively) and faked it till I made it. I did deep breathing to calm myself so that I did not feel absolutely stupid in the lingerie. 

He did a LOT to help. He never once pressured me. He would rub my back and feet. Sweet soft kisses. He would take the baby AWAY. But in the end, if I did not get back on the horse and do the thing, then that would have been it.

I wonder if the right advice is, if she is not willing to do the thing, understand it now and get out NOW. Don't waste 28 years.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Oh, groovy. Another man who knows how it is for all women, and of course she always needs his super-studly self to realize she wants sex.
> 
> Not!
> 
> You're right about one thing: Women can feel sexy without wanting any given man to ride. But, surprise, surprise, women can feel sexy and *want* sex, and even pursue it. Just because she is selective doesn't mean she doesn't have the desire, or needs to be "unlocked" or "released"


Quoted for absolute truth!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I
> I know for a FACT that if DH COMPLAINED to me about lack of sex, it would have the opposite of the desired effect.


Trust me, this isn't the first step we take. By the time we have to say something about it like this, we're throwing our hands in the air after trying many other things.

We're well aware of the cost of bringing it up. However, by this point, there's nothing left to lose.

I'm reading other posts saying that when this sort of desire thing becomes an issue, its time to acknowledge you chose wrong. Why is it the women dont do this? The man, who still desires her, is left to make this realization? What a mess.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I hate to say this, but most people get what is being said by this "take her" language. It has a sharper value for you. Its not a removal of her agency or "take her against her will". Its want her bad enough to act directly and unambiguously of his own desire - assertiveness.
> 
> I'm a big fan of agency, and I'm still going to take my gf when I really just have to have her. right. now. ...and she loves how desired it makes her feel when I do. This is because she trusts me, and knows that she can stop me at any time. But I put that on her to say... she's never said it, and if I asked I'm 100% sure she would say "Except if I'm feeling ill, why the hell would I say stop!?"
> 
> I'm just never going to say "hey babe, I want you so bad right now... can I jump you?" With the exception of women who have been raped and have an issue trusting, I can't imagine a guy who wouldn't have better results just DOING rather than ASKING permission. A lot of men and women are sexless because a guy is one of these "nice guys" who won't just do it, and often can't even ask for permission... instead relying on her to initiate or some non-verbal clue that she's interested. He can't act of his own want, and she's so turned off by his lack of assertiveness she doesn't really want anything.
> 
> How passively dispassionate. Unsexy imo, but to each his/her own. Still, I think this is the most common form of sexless relationship.


This absolutely makes sense. I can agree with this.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Trust me, this isn't the first step we take. By the time we have to say something about it like this, we're throwing our hands in the air after trying many other things.
> 
> We're well aware of the cost of bringing it up. However, by this point, there's nothing left to lose.
> 
> I'm reading other posts saying that when this sort of desire thing becomes an issue, its time to acknowledge you chose wrong. *Why is it the women dont do this*? The man, who still desires her, is left to make this realization? What a mess.


Because often times the man is still providing, protecting and fathering, and probably doing a good job at it too...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> S*implyAmorous' husband.
> 
> But I think most of us will agree their case isn't common. Passive behavior from a man, or having these "nice guy" traits, will usually cause problems for almost any woman*.


 I suppose it's not common.. but you know what ..I believe in decent men like this.. I think of our sons reading all of this.... 5 of them...and they are so much like their Father.. are they all DOOMED? Did we not raise them right ?? 

What should I do, throw "No more Mr Nice Guy" at them.. do you think I want them to marry a woman who will abuse them & render them sexless... Actually I do speak about these books... things I learn on here....I give them nuggets of wisdom often .... 




Conrad said:


> *It's not quite that easy to identify him either.
> 
> It depends on which phase of their life you were talking about.
> 
> He permitted her to keep children in their bed for years*.


You're Right on this Conrad... But I never wanted anyone else, I was happy with him, always my best friend, I was never bored, I was sexually satisfied (we always "O" ed together-what else did I need !)....I never had a phase where I lost my sex drive...as I have explained. 

Yeah HE WAS too passive.. I've explained at nauseum how this happened.... it started with not being able to conceive ...my incessant focus on







and wanting him to "save it up" ...he started feeling rejected.... I was bi*chy & moody at times (still had our 1st son so it wasn't all bad-he brought joy to our lives)...... he didn't want to rock the boat.. ... 

Then the babies started coming...I could hardly contain my JOY...felt like the heavens opened up unto us...this was my DREAM... after 6 yrs of trying... we had 5 more....

Can I say in this... we were both very STUPID .... . but yeah he was feeling it more than me and should have made waves about it... these were our greatest mistakes in our marriage... that isn't too bad, is it !???



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was just speaking in general about a passive guy or nice guy and a woman who remains attracted to him.
> 
> Most commonly sex becomes a major issue. Its at first "safe" that he's not really bent on pursuing it (suppressed), but later becomes dissatisfying to her that he doesn't pursue it.* I think there begins to be a sense from the woman that he should "Be a man! Ravish me!" She can speak for herself whether she gets any of this sort of sense I perceive in women generally.*


 I always felt Greatly loved.... Sex / affection, attention was at my beck & call....his desire always evident... since I always felt this... it never dawned on me that he was lessor cause he wasn't the ravishing type.... once we got going.... I felt enough of that.. ya know..

And even though many times I initiated - I never even put 2 thoughts to this... it didn't bother me at all! Till I wanted it more than him...*then it did *!



> *Most women sniff this out about a guy pretty early - it often doesn't fit their concept of manliness, so the passive guy has a hard time getting interest from women.*


When he is head over heels for you...and it shows in the man's actions...how he treats you...it gets lots of attention from me.. He did take the initiative and ask me to be his Girl & very quickly I might add, within a week of meeting...even though he thought he'd get rejected, he put himself out there - Manly move, right!



> *I have no opinion on children in the marriage bed or how its bearing on being this passive type. I wouldn't allow it myself. It really comes down to: is he doing what he wants, or is he primarily deferring to what he thinks she wants.*


 I don't think he minded per say....if he just got the attention 1st...it went like this.. when I wanted it... the babies were put away.. when he wanted it ...he wasn't as obvious taking that initiative...it's hard to explain... I can hardly understand it myself..(which was part of this )...as I am not like that, I go after what I want or make a fuss...assuming this is pretty normal behavior... 



> *Fortunately, SA is pretty aware and doesn't take advantage of her husbands apparent selflessness, or dismiss him (lose attraction) because of it.*


 I spend too many yrs not being AS focused on him as I should have been.. had he died on me, I would have been hit in the face with what was lost.. so I will never take advantage again. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...let me make a caveat. * I personally don't think anyone should get married young. I do not think we have the capacity to understand our own proclivity level, our real attractions or our real motivates before we are at least 30 years old.* Some people get lucky like SA and her husband and actually meet and marry someone they will end up being attracted to in the long term. But most people I know who were married in their 20's are divorced now (and half of everyone is divorced no matter what age they were married).


 30... Geez... I grew up in a more conservative area, and most got married younger and it's not that bad... I don't know.. I'm not against it.. Purely depends on the individuals involved & what they are seeking in life...are they self aware..do they have a clear vision of their dreams.../goals, a handle on their compatibility... some are more mature in their early 20's over some age 40, so I've seen.

Younger marriages, so I feel, will fare better among the more grounded conservative minded romantic types...which is how I would describe us both.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Can I ask a question? How important is it for your wife to be "hot"?


Physical attractiveness is the first element I seek, but not the be all end all. I didnt marry her because she was hot.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Sandfly said:


> I haven't harmed you, SB, so that's a bit of an over-reaction.
> 
> You say above that you sought out a nice husband_ consciously _because in the past, your tendency was to end up with not-nice.
> 
> Your instincts in the past have been to _pass the nice types over. _Pretty much what I was saying.


I didn't say you harmed me,now did I sandfly? 
Also,I had plenty of nice men. I was just as drawn to them as the not so nice men. I just didn't know how to let the nice ones love me so I abused them. That's my fault,not theirs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## firebelly1

You know what else is hot...a guy's voice. My stbxh has this gorgeous, deep, gravelly voice. Yep, I'm just gonna keep bringing it back to sex folks.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> I hate to say I disagree with you. She let you go. She could have fixed it.


Please elaborate I'd like to understand what you're saying here. 




NobodySpecial said:


> I am going to be dead honest. I wonder if the fact that you put up with it for 28 years contributed. Or maybe I just don't understand what Nice Guys look like once they have done this for 28 years. Dunno.


Don't misunderstand. I *freely* acknowledge my own contribution to the problem here. There's no shortage of hobbies, interests and things I'm passionate about and I filled my life with them. After several years of this, she didn't have to refuse anymore because I had little interest in the subject myself. Funny how that happens.

I'm an old man now, but I was a big boy when I was younger. I don't honestly think I fit the popular definition of the unassertive, socially awkward, lonely, afraid to say what he's really thinking, afraid to offend anybody, covert giver that's embodied in the catch-all term, "Nice guy," but maybe others would see it differently. 

Funny thing though. When her rock steady cycle started to get erratic, things changed drastically. Suddenly she was the one having trouble concentrating at work; struggling with inappropriate thoughts about attractive work mates; plagued by an insomnia that only sex would cure and downright pissy when that couldn't happen.

The book we're discussing on this thread rings true to me in many ways, but I'm only one person with a pretty obvious bias.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Meh. I am a Mom. I want sex all the time. They sleep.


Thats not the point I was trying to make. Its not just that you're a mom, but do you still dedicate exclusive time to connect with your husband in non-sexual ways? Thats what my relationship with my ex was built on, that's what even sex was built on. I can understand losing sexual desire for someone you spend no quality alone time with. What I really don't understand is why one would be so resistant to doing these things. Not doing things together was as much a part of my problem with her as sex. It all just says "you're not that important". If she thinks that, well no doubt she wouldn't want sex.

It wasn't just being a mom, it was that she was lost in being a mom. Thats all she wanted to be. I thought maybe she was overworked, and it was the first thing I stepped up to address. It was more than that. It wasn't even about me. I suspect she would have gone this way with any man.


----------



## Sandfly

ScarletBegonias said:


> I didn't say you harmed me,now did I sandfly?
> Also,I had plenty of nice men. I was just as drawn to them as the not so nice men. *I just didn't know how to let the nice ones love me so I abused them*. That's my fault,not theirs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol, you're impossible 

No, you didn't say that, but you said something about jumping on your post and how could you ever trust me again.

That's a shame, that what's in bold. I see it all the time though.

You could perhaps help with the answer to :

"How does one let the nice men love you?"

It's an intriguing idea. What changes are necessary to make it work? Yes, this would be very useful to have out there.


----------



## firebelly1

Ok. I give up.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But women? Somehow we are expected to "magically" get it up for a guy who isn't all that physically attractive to us...and keep it up over time?


I dont think this is what us guys think/expect at all. Rather, we find your attraction to physical things perplexingly inconsistent. Hey, I had washboard abs and bigger shoulders/arms when I met my ex, but its not like I let myself become a fat slob. My ex and I were always pretty well matched in terms of looks. But we also see a host of women crazy about their husbands even after he gains a beer belly, while she keeps her figure. There's clearly more to it.

Two different bodies, the latter of which she'd never chose if she was single, and she's still hot for the guy. This is the most common happy marriage I know of. I'm not sure how this is justified on grounds of looks.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thats not the point I was trying to make. Its not just that you're a mom, but do you still dedicate exclusive time to connect with your husband in non-sexual ways? Thats what my relationship with my ex was built on, that's what even sex was built on. I can understand losing sexual desire for someone you spend no quality alone time with. What I really don't understand is why one would be so resistant to doing these things. Not doing things together was as much a part of my problem with her as sex. It all just says "you're not that important". If she thinks that, well no doubt she wouldn't want sex.
> 
> It wasn't just being a mom, it was that she was lost in being a mom. Thats all she wanted to be. I thought maybe she was overworked, and it was the first thing I stepped up to address. It was more than that. It wasn't even about me. I suspect she would have gone this way with any man.


Through her actions, she let you know that being a mom was basically the reason she married you.

Watch what they do, pay little attention to what they say.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Men seem to easily understand the idea that they can't get it up for (and shouldn't be expected to) a woman they are not physically attracted to.


Maybe I'm just weird. Unless we're talking about something obviously wrong, I think almost all women are attractive in their own way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> Maybe I'm just weird. Unless we're talking about something obviously wrong, I think almost all women are attractive in their own way.


I think most men and women are attractive in their own way, too.

But that doesn't mean I could get it up for them on a consistent basis. The ones who do it for me, who I am honestly sexually attracted to, no problem.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Sandfly said:


> Lol, you're impossible
> 
> No, you didn't say that, but you said something about jumping on your post and how could you ever trust me again.
> 
> That's a shame, that what's in bold. I see it all the time though.
> 
> You could perhaps help with the answer to :
> 
> "How does one let the nice men love you?"
> 
> It's an intriguing idea. What changes are necessary to make it work? Yes, this would be very useful to have out there.


 sometimes I am. I apologize for not being clear that I didn't feel attacked or anything. "jumped on" was a poor choice of words.I should have stated I shouldn't have trusted that people wouldn't try to use it to prove a point about nice men vs the other kind of men.

How does one let the nice men love you? Well,that answer is going to be specific to the individual and is probably a good topic for a whole different thread. Mine was a mental illness thing...I didn't deserve love from a good guy in my mind.I was evil and unworthy and just to prove that my mind was right,I behaved in a horrible way to them.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Conrad said:


> Watch what they do, pay little attention to what they say.


ugh.I really hate that sentence and so many men here say it.I know for a lot of cases it's true but that doesn't make me enjoy seeing it applied to all women.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

ScarletBegonias said:


> ugh.I really hate that sentence and so many men here say it.I know for a lot of cases it's true but that doesn't make me enjoy seeing it applied to all women.


Maybe that's the reason there are so many men on CWI... Brb taking shelter from the incoming rocks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It can be re-stated thus: YOUNG PEOPLE of both genders rarely fully understand their own sexuality, and this should be understood about ourselves and each other so that we don't expect them to behave and act in ways they aren't mature enough to act in yet.

Therefore, when very young people of both genders claim to be "this way" and "that way", only a very few of them will still claim the same things a decade later. SOME will, (lookin' at you SA) but those will be the lucky ones who achieve self-awareness early. NOT the norm.


----------



## Created2Write

I know this wasn't addressed to me but a few of the points made me want to chime in. 



> I admit, I have extreme difficulty relating to many of your positions. I haven't lived your life. As to whether there's something off about the men you know, I have no idea, I don't know them. But I feel like you cast them in this quasi-saintly light. Men who are perfectly empathic, say nothing crude or insensitive, keep sex from the forefront of their minds, and have finely tuned emotional nuance are men that are so far outside my understanding of myself and men in general that, to me, it often sounds like you're describing women.


I can't speak for AA, but as someone who was never into the PU/casual sex scene, I can tell you that this description is definitely NOT what I wanted, even with my sheltered upbringing. What I wanted was very simple: I wanted a man who was more interested in me as a person than how good I'd be in bed. Now, that didn't mean I didn't want a sexual relationship. When my sexual hormones turned on, they turned all the way on. I didn't even care if he had a previous sexual history, and actually preferred that he did. I knew I'd have no clue what to do during sex, and vividly recall being about nineteen and deciding that I wouldn't care if the guy had previous sexual partners. 

My dad tried explaining male sexuality to me once, and utterly failed. Poor man still can hardly say the word "sex" around me, he gets too embarrassed. But one thing I was never, ever, taught was that a man's sexuality was something to be shamed, or hidden, or ignored. Nor did I want the guys I dated to feel that way. However, I knew _a lot_ of guys who were only in relationships because of sex. I've always known that marriage was important to me. I never dated a guy I wouldn't have considered marrying. (Just my choice.) So it was important for me to know that they wouldn't drop me like a hot potato the moment they saw a girl who was prettier than I. 

All of that to say this: I don't believe(and I don't think AA does either) that a man's sexual desires are, by default, disrespectful to women. But there are men who use their sexual desires in a disrespectful way. I have a friend who was crazy in love with a guy she was dating. She had her own personal boundaries with regards to sex, and he guilt-tripped her into having sex with him when she wasn't ready. (His own words, by the way.) And then promptly dumped her. In my opinion, that is disrespectful behavior. To be fair, knowing the girl, I think it's a pretty good bet that she probably didn't make her stance clear. She's a very submissive personality and often went along with what people encouraged her to do without much opposition, which can be very misleading. Still, I do believe that when a woman makes her position clear, the man should respect that. And I believe it's the woman's responsibility to make that position clear, but that's another topic.



> I've said this a million times, but I'll say it again... and try to polish it some more: We don't want ONLY just sex. We do want intimacy, partners and love... but these are NOT what we seek. These are generally NOT in our minds when we are pursuing. Sex IS. Whether by nature or nurture, we experience or are allowed to experience a very limited range of emotion. Our entire lives are spent hearing "man up", "suck it up", "don't be a puss", "boys don't cry", "stop being so sensitive", "control yourself" and shown that our value lies in our accomplishments. We are not complimented for our looks or given the support and comfort girls most often are. We're often encouraged to not stand out on anything but success. We are success machines. WIN the game. WIN the girl. WIN respect. Make money.
> 
> Sex satisfies our physical desire, but even while we are quite adept at compartmentalizing and "turning off" emotional sensitivity from a lifetime of "buck up" - it is also one of only a few ways we can reliably achieve emotional satisfaction - particularly in our youth. So unsurprisingly, we seek sex like its required to breath. We are boiling with testosterone that makes us lusty, passionate and CRAVING while lacking emotional outlets.
> 
> Sex satisfies every. single. one. of these issues and it feels good. The healthy man will seek it quite overtly.


My only objection to this is that, depending on the mans upbringing, I don't think he only pursues a woman for sex. My husband never had relationships _for_ sex. He had relationships because he genuinely liked the women, he had feelings for them, he enjoyed their company, and could see himself being with them long-term. Please note, I'm not saying that a man has to choose between one or the other: sex or actually enjoying a woman's company. Just that, with some like my husband, the woman's company comes first, and sex second. I'm also not saying my husband wasn't interested in sex, or that it wasn't constantly on his mind. Just that it wasn't his primary motivation for having the relationships he did.



> Now introduce women who are extremely adamant that a man should not be so sexually focused.


Not all of us are like this. Please don't assume we are. I have never had an issue with how sexually focused my husband is, not even before marriage. I didn't even mind that my other bfs were as sexually focused as they were. I had no issue with that whatsoever. 



> We hear it from our mothers,


If so, they're terrible mothers. Or, at least, very misguided. 



> we see it on tv,


Where, exactly? I'm not arguing, I'm just curious.



> we hear girls constantly complaining about the @sshole who wanted to get laid.


This one I'm really not so sympathetic toward. You can't expect every women to have the same desires in life as you. Even if she is highly sexual, she may not want to have sex outside of a committed relationship. I wouldn't if I were single again. However, that doesn't mean the man's sexual desire is being shamed...just that his boundaries aren't the same as hers. If he wants sex without a commitment, there are plenty of women who are looking for the same thing. (I'm not trying to imply that NSA sex is bad, by saying "without a commitment", btw. )



> We hear that if he's drawn to you for sex, he's obviously incapable of appreciating you for anything else.


I, personally, don't think this is always true. I do think it is in some cases. So, please try and understand the other side as well. It made me feel cheap and unimportant to be dumped because of sex. I was young(19-20), had grown up in a very sheltered home, and didn't understand my own sexuality yet. I wanted to feel invested in, "worth it", I guess. I didn't expect him to not want sex, but I did expect him to wait until I was ready. Instead of trying to understand my view, one of the guys I dated only argued with me about it. Tried to change my mind. He even said to me, "It's not like I want to put a time-frame on it. I just feel it's important to the relationship." Which I understood, and I told him "I understand. But I'm not ready yet, and I don't know when I will be." 

He dumped me two days later. I really, really liked him. A lot. He was extremely attractive(the only reason I passed my IST in the Delayed Entry Program through the Marine Corps was because he was running in front of me. I'd have run four ISTs in a row if it meant looking at his @ss the whole time.), he had an amazing sense of humor, a dashing smile. Wow, was I smitten. Like, immediately. If he'd only been a little patient, he'd have gotten what he wanted so very badly. But he was so focused on the now, and what he wanted right then, that he missed out altogether. His loss. 



> That seeking sex means he only wants sex.


Sometimes it feels that way. A guy tells me he doesn't want to put a time frame on it, so it's not like we'll be doing it the next time we see each other, I tell him I'm not ready yet, and bam! I'm dumped. How am I not supposed to feel that he only wanted sex? And moreover, wasn't even willing to date me for it? If he wanted NSA sex, he should have said so from the beginning, but he never said it once. It's worth noting, I think, that he came back to me six months later and asked me to take him back. Said that of all the girls he dated, I was the only one he could see spending the rest of his life with, and he didn't realize what an awesome girl he had until I wasn't there any more. But I was already dating DH, and...................._having sex_. 



> Sexual motivation is shamed. He hears these messages before he's even become sexual. Some of the mal-translations he makes: women don't want sex; men who seek sex are @ssholes.


I think this is an issue that really needs to be addressed because I don't think men who seek sex are @ssholes, nor do I think women who seek sex are s!uts, or that women who don't seek sex are prudes. However, I think each person is responsible for their own actions, thoughts and behaviors. Seeking sex doesn't man a man an @ss or a woman a s!ut, but how they behave before, during, and after seeking sex _can_ make them an @ss or a s!ut. 



> It becomes internalized that pursuit of sex makes one a "bad man". Again, we're success machines. For many of us, being a "bad man" is a failure - failing to live up to expectations. But we have a solution! Women are constantly providing us a road map to success! -what we see as a way to get the AIR we need to breath - sex, without pursuing sex and being "bad men". Listen to what she says. Be nice. Compliment her. Be her best friend. Be sweet. Be sensitive. They sound so wonderful in most women's minds because you're so often stuck within a context - in this case, the context of a guy you're already attracted to. You want the guy you're already attracted to to show a measure of sweetness and sensitivity - but really, most of it should be reserved for you. He should be hard and manly to the world, but nice and sweet to you - because then you're special. You're not special if he's this sweet guy to everyone. Instead, he's a pushover and you're never attracted to him in the first place. This is the crazy sh*t I perceive to be going on in your psyche beneath your awareness. So to most women it makes perfect sense to say they want a "sweet guy". "Of course I want a nice guy!!!" -said every woman ever.


Sheesh...I don't know the women you do, but they sound highly immature and confusing. I've always known what I wanted. I've always been clear about what I want. I never lied, I never pretended. I wanted a guy who was nice to everyone, not just to me. If it was only to me, it'd be insincere. I wanted a genuinely nice guy who was confident in himself, and I found one. 



> To the degree he has received these messages, and extent to which he received or didn't receive attention from girls as he came of age, many boys - listening to what the girls say - do EXACTLY what the girls say.
> They act cautiously. The suppress their sexual motivations to avoid any appearance of seeking sex. They are the nicest of guys. They do EXACTLY what the girls have claimed they want. He's following the rules. He will be successful. This is often awkward and then they say "be yourself"... but being himself means being overtly sexual, and being overtly sexual means being a "bad guy". Dance sucker, dance.


Again, these women sound horrible. 



> He's not successful. They still don't want him and he can't understand it. But but... he's done everything right. He listened to women! That guy over there is no better looking but he's getting laid. He didn't even follow the rules! -according to what women have told him, that guy is an @sshole. He's been betrayed? All these women wouldn't do that right? Maybe he's worthless? He eventually finds a woman regardless, but the damage is already done and he will carry some of it the rest of his life if he never recognizes it.


I can't understand this because I was never this way. I knew what I wanted, found what I wanted, and banged him. Not every woman lies about what she wants. There are plenty of us who know ourselves, we know what we want, and we're upfront about our desires. Maybe the women you've known aren't that way, but very few of the women I know are as you describe. Very, very few. If any. I don't say that to discount your experience, but merely to point out that your experience does not define an entire gender. Or even an entire society. I have heard a lot of the bashing of a man's sexual desire, but I've heard female sexual desire bashed in much the same way, if not worse. Even in church I heard about how men couldn't help how they are, which implied that somehow women could? It made no sense. Why did men get a free pass to be sexual while I had to feel guilty about having sexual dreams that made me roar with arousal? No one told me about masturbation until after marriage(though I realized I'd been doing something very like it since I was...six), yet my brother knew about it in his teens. 

Male sexuality isn't treated any differently than female sexuality, imo, in that both are often misunderstood, misrepresented, and ignored.



> We are shamed for being tender and shamed for not being tender. We are shamed for asserting our sexual desires, and for being too passive to assert our sexual desires. A man's life is a constant barrage of contradicting notions of masculinity. Men teach that a boy should be hard. Women teach that a boy should show softness. Girls say they want a sensitive guy. Girls show that they don't want a sensitive guy.


I really dislike your word usage. By saying "girls" you're being all-inclusive, and I absolutely was never as you describe. I'm assuming your gf isn't as you describe, either, so clearly not all of us are that way. And I also don't like that you're blaming women for the sufferings of men and their sexuality, when there are men(a lot of them) who _are_ @ss holes when they seek out sex. They aren't doing your gender any favors, yet you don't seem to ever talk about them. Which, frankly, makes you seem like one yourself, bent on laying all responsibility at women's feet. 



> Most men get through with enough attention to come out fairly healthy and well adjusted. Other men give up the success machine entirely - they stop caring, and even become legitimate "bad men". The rest cling to this nice guy notion and continue to feel at the mercy of women.


So the @ss holes are @ss holes because of women? Nope. I am absolutely not buying that one. I dated two @ss holes in my life, and they weren't @ss holes because they wanted sex, they were @ss holes because they chose to be that way. I didn't make them that way. The other girls they dated didn't make them that way. 



> If these men were not pursuing these women they "love and respect" with sex at the very forefront of their minds, I'm inclined to believe you've met some extraterrestrials in human form. Even the very "best" of men is primarily motivated to seek out women for his sexual interest. Even the most well adjusted, healthy guy that hits on you, does so because getting laid was his primary motivation. Makes no bones about it, he's after you for sex. That he has this motivation does not preclude his having or developing additional interests in you, nor does it mean he lacks respect for you. This is the part I suspect you'll never understand.


I reject the first part of your statement. I don't believe that every man only pursues a woman because of sex. I never will believe that. However, I don't disagree with the second part of your statement; I don't think that being motivated by sex equals a lack of respect, or means a man will automatically treat a woman with disrespect, or means that he isn't _also_ interested in a relationship. 



> Baring extraterrestrials, if you don't perceive all your guys as having this primarily sexual motivation, I suspect its only because they've hidden it from you. A characteristic of the nice guy approach. Healthy men do not shy away from their wants.


Just because he's a "nice guy" doesn't mean he has an unhealthy approach to his sexuality. Just that is motivation is different.



> He may be quite respectful, but his sexual motivations are still quite evident. If a guy never seems to press or lead you in the slightest, but waits for you to give a bunch of signs that you're ready/interested before making a sexual move, or even depending on you to make the first sexual move - I'd put money down that he fits the description of the classic nice guy (given your negative experiences - hey, this might even be what you prefer)... but if he does this, you can bet it comes complete with all the nice guy problems; passiveness, covert contracts and all that jazz.
> 
> If you don't think so, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see anywhere else this can go.


I agree and disagree.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScarletBegonias said:


> How does one let the nice men love you? Well,that answer is going to be specific to the individual and is probably a good topic for a whole different thread. Mine was a mental illness thing..*.I didn't deserve love from a good guy in my mind.I was evil and unworthy and just to prove that my mind was right,I behaved in a horrible way to them*.


I've read this in articles but I never quite understood it.... though you are not alone in this behavior...

Someone should open this thread topic..(should I)... it would surely be Unique ....maybe this underlying reason is more common than we realize, but so rarely discussed..


----------



## ScarletBegonias

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've read this in articles but I never quite understood it.... though you are not alone in this behavior...
> 
> Someone should open this thread topic..(should I)... it would surely be Unique ....maybe this underlying reason is more common than we realize, but so rarely discussed..


I do think it's more common than people realize. You don't even realize why you're behaving that way at the time. That knowledge comes later if you're lucky to have it dawn on you at all. 
All I know is there are more than a few nice men walking around w scars on their heart that I put there...I wish I could take it back every single day.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lyris

Faithful Wife said:


> Men seem to easily understand the idea that they can't get it up for (and shouldn't be expected to) a woman they are not physically attracted to.
> 
> But women? Somehow we are expected to "magically" get it up for a guy who isn't all that physically attractive to us...and keep it up over time?
> 
> The thing people seem to miss when SA talks about her feelings about her H is that she is physically HOT for him....she has also admitted that she would lose attraction for him if he got fat.
> 
> We accept this when a man says it, but when a woman says it...a lot of guys still want to rush in with "but no...physical attraction really isn't that important to women...they are more concerned with lifestyle, money, etc".
> 
> Then when guys look around and go "but that guy ISN'T hot and SHE is hot for him, so clearly it isn't about attraction".
> 
> All this means is that when those guys look at the guy they claim ISN'T hot on some objective basis...is that women can have their individual preferences as to what is hot that won't necessarily be what the world thinks is hot. This is why there really is someone for everyone.


My husband isn't a Nice Guy particularly, but I'd say I fit the profile of a LD woman, or at least a woman with responsive desire, and I also relate to the unreliable or fluctuating desire that has been described here.

But I have sex with my husband several times a week, enthusiastically and passionately. Because I am very attracted to him on a physical, chemical level. And also because I know our emotional bond will weaken without sex. I wouldn't have sex just for that reason though at least not enthusiastically. 

I remember a long time ago saying to my husband when we were going through a separation before we were married that it wasn't fair for him to kiss me. Because I couldn't resist him, he made me melt every time. That sounds funny I know, but actually I was very upset at the time. I felt he was using my attraction to him to manipulate me unfairly. He hadn't realised how strong my attraction to him was until then. 

Oh and we got together at 18, so I suppose that was blind good fortune.

I'm going to disagree with FW about one thing though. I don't think there's someone for everyone. I think some people will end up alone. 

So what would my advice be to men married to women who have low drives? If they don't have the kind of chemical attraction to your body and scent I've described I'd say leave and try to find someone else. Or accept the situation.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...let me make a caveat. I personally don't think anyone should get married young. I do not think we have the capacity to understand our own proclivity level, our real attractions or our real motivates before we are at least 30 years old. Some people get lucky like SA and her husband and actually meet and marry someone they will end up being attracted to in the long term. But most people I know who were married in their 20's are divorced now (and half of everyone is divorced no matter what age they were married).
> 
> So...what you wanted from your ex-wife just wasn't something she could know when young. And when people like you have been through that, I think you need to remember the point: People in their 20's do not have a reliable gauge of their own true desires, wants and attractions.
> 
> I do wish the pain you (and others) feel from that loss of desire could be mitigated by this fact.


This really is true. DH and I married at 20, and over the last five years, my priorities have changed. My wants and needs have become more clear, I'm able to understand his more successfully, and when it comes to how we interact, we're much less juvenile and dramatic. And things I thought were dealbreakers even a year ago, aren't _that_ big of a deal. He's a respectful, warm, thoughtful, intelligent, confident man who works so very, very hard, earns an amazing living for his age, keeps himself in great physical shape, and loves me with every ounce of himself. 

I hit the jackpot with him. Some of the issues we had before hardly seem important now.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Trust me, this isn't the first step we take. By the time we have to say something about it like this, we're throwing our hands in the air after trying many other things.
> 
> We're well aware of the cost of bringing it up. However, by this point, there's nothing left to lose.
> 
> I'm reading other posts saying that when this sort of desire thing becomes an issue, its time to acknowledge you chose wrong. *Why is it the women dont do this? *The man, who still desires her, is left to make this realization? What a mess.


No idea really, though I think that they do. I know a few women who did though in at least 2 cases they cheated first, which is past crap-tastic. I know that if it had not been a priority to the man I love to death and part of my philosophical vision of a happy marriage, I would have not gone through the effort when my drive tanked. But I would still have enjoyed his companionship. And there is no doubt that lifestyle and kids are added to the equation. 

The bottom line is, I don't see the point the what men do and what women do conversation. People can be jerky or misguided regardless of gender. You see plenty of disconnected men who stay so they don't get reamed in a divorce... 

I would love it if one of you gents was willing to post on the family section on how to raise your kids so that they are less likely to participate in this relationship debacle. For my part, because of the work we did early in our marriage allows us to model a happy and healthy marriage, which is likely to the good. Also absent religion as well as thinking the social stigma around sexuality is stupid, we are unlikely to add that to the mix.

But I would love it if you could opine how to help my daughter not grow up to be your wife. (Can't say I like your ex much, if you want to know the truth.) And how to ensure my son can create a healthy relationship while being able to set limits and cut bait if it is time. I am guessing you can look at the now you who won't take it anymore, and the previous you who did, and give us parents some advice!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> This really is true. DH and I married at 20, and over the last five years, my priorities have changed. My wants and needs have become more clear, I'm able to understand his more successfully, and when it comes to how we interact, we're much less juvenile and dramatic. And things I thought were dealbreakers even a year ago, aren't _that_ big of a deal. He's a respectful, warm, thoughtful, intelligent, confident man who works so very, very hard, earns an amazing living for his age, keeps himself in great physical shape, and loves me with every ounce of himself.
> 
> I hit the jackpot with him. Some of the issues we had before hardly seem important now.


The best day of my life was the day I realized that the more I can chill out and accept the better life will be. I have no right to try to expect the moon and the stars. I got him. And he was just enough. Just right. He accepts my warts and I his.


----------



## Machiavelli

ocotillo said:


> Maybe I'm just weird. Unless we're talking about something obviously wrong, I think almost all women are attractive in their own way.


That's because you're a man. Because of "cost" differences most men are looking for an excuse to say "yes" and most women are looking for an excuse to say "no." Most men are attracted to most women, most women are somewhat sexually repelled by most men, including their friend-zoned orbiters.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lyris said:


> I remember a long time ago saying to my husband when we were going through a separation before we were married that it wasn't fair for him to kiss me. *Because I couldn't resist him, he made me melt every time.* That sounds funny I know, but actually I was very upset at the time. I felt he was using my attraction to him to manipulate me unfairly. He hadn't realised how strong my attraction to him was until then.


I think this is the thing a lot of people don't get. When it is there, it is THERE. Maybe it wouldn't be for a completely non-sexual person, but Lyris is not that. LD is way different than asexual or non-sexual.

My H could stand to lose 10 pounds. But I don't even bother telling him this because to be honest, if he did lose it I would be even MORE attracted to him than I am now...to the point of distraction! I can barely keep my eyes and hands off him as it is. If he actually did lose the weight I'd be even more sexual toward him, which would then possibly be "too much" for him (since it is already very high).

I'm sure you are right Lyris...that some people will end up alone. I do think though that they just didn't encounter those who would have been a good fit for them, or they had emotional reasons not to couple up.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sing it Mach...tell everyone all about how evo-psyche says ALL of us women are only attracted to the top 10% of men. You would know, right? 

(yes, this is snark)


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> It can be re-stated thus: YOUNG PEOPLE of both genders rarely fully understand their own sexuality, and this should be understood about ourselves and each other so that we don't expect them to behave and act in ways they aren't mature enough to act in yet.
> 
> Therefore, when very young people of both genders claim to be "this way" and "that way", only a very few of them will still claim the same things a decade later. SOME will, (lookin' at you SA) but those will be the lucky ones who achieve self-awareness early. NOT the norm.


It IS possible to grow up together. But it is not easy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Sing it Mach...tell everyone all about how evo-psyche says ALL of us women are only attracted to the top 10% of men. You would know, right?
> 
> (yes, this is snark)


This is pure self protection from guys who want to deflect their own fear. If it isn't them, well then it isn't them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScarletBegonias said:


> I do think it's more common than people realize. You don't even realize why you're behaving that way at the time. That knowledge comes later if you're lucky to have it dawn on you at all.
> All I know is there are more than a few nice men walking around w scars on their heart that I put there...I wish I could take it back every single day.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have a GF who is basically attracted to the Alpha Type.. she is a beautiful blonde... but because she was so HURT in her 1st marriage by this man...cheated on her repeatedly... lied...manipulated.... when they divorced she hated him so much she took back her maiden name even...I wasn't in her life at that time - when we reunited , he was BACK in her life, weaseled his way back into her bedroom, she was so in lust with him.. me & another friend kept telling her how this was going to go down... anyway... that all ended..

And when she would meet a nicer man, she was so mean to him, she didn't trust anything he said, she accused him of things.. some of the stuff she was telling me after a date, I was like "WHAT - why did you do that??" I mean she was downright rude..

She just felt they all just wanted to use her .. I have never met anyone that has found it that hard to trust.. her last BF broke up with her umteen times as he couldn't handle it..even called me once about her...telling me how he was done......He felt she needs therapy..... but it's the closest I have seen to some force to be mean to someone who treats you good....

She'll say she wants a nice man like my H - all those qualities, "why can't someone love me like that" -am I that bad.. she'll ask me... then when someone similar may step into her life....she can't even explain why she gets mean with them....It's a quandary.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I think this is the thing a lot of people don't get. When it is there, it is THERE. Maybe it wouldn't be for a completely non-sexual person, but Lyris is not that. LD is way different than asexual or non-sexual.
> 
> My H could stand to lose 10 pounds. But I don't even bother telling him this because to be honest, if he did lose it I would be even MORE attracted to him than I am now...to the point of distraction! I can barely keep my eyes and hands off him as it is. If he actually did lose the weight I'd be even more sexual toward him, which would then possibly be "too much" for him (since it is already very high).
> 
> I'm sure you are right Lyris...that some people will end up alone. I do think though that they just didn't encounter those who would have been a good fit for them, or they had emotional reasons not to couple up.


This does not resonate with me, thus supporting my position that it is not super helpful to make broad gender assumptions. I am not sure how to say this without giving away personal information that will make me roundly hated on this board (or more than I already am maybe! ) But I have a reputation with my husband for being a VERY sexual, horny, dirty girl. Even so, I am not ALWAYS sexed up. I am currently going through a serious low patch. I know that if it does not get its thing going on its own, I am going to have to do the thing to get the groove back on.

I love my husband a ton. I am a highly sexual person. And he turns me on. But there are times when I can go weeks with nothing but maintenance sex to be nice when I would rather say Yah, I love you. Leave me alone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not sure why you think it should resonate with you, I was talking about myself and not trying to say everyone is like me or like each other.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure why you think it should resonate with you, I was talking about myself and not trying to say everyone is like me or like each other.


No reason. I was just shooting off what you said. Thanks for supporting my point that gender generalizations are not all that useful, maybe?


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...let me make a caveat. I personally don't think anyone should get married young.


I was 19 and my wife was 18. And I agree. We were nearly 30 when things went south.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Sing it Mach...tell everyone all about how evo-psyche says ALL of us women are only attracted to the top 10% of men. You would know, right?
> 
> (yes, this is snark)


Never say "ALL". There is no "ALL." Which is why I say "most." 

Now, before I ever heard of evo-psych, I had a feeling about this. Earlier generations did, too. Which is why they used to say "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." When I grew up, I learned that what that means in plain language is when you turn down a woman's offer of sex, she's going to get real mad. Why? Because no man has ever turned her down before, then along comes a guy she really wants, wants enough to say so outright, and he turns her down; a new and humiliating experience.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Whatever that's supposed to mean, um, sure.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> Ok. I give up.



Lol,


I know how you feel...:rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> The best day of my life was the day I realized that the more I can chill out and accept the better life will be. I have no right to try to expect the moon and the stars. I got him. And he was just enough. Just right. He accepts my warts and I his.


I'm not a very complicated person(at least, I don't think I am.) I am very emotional, I feel things very, very strongly and deeply, there's no such thing as "half-hearted" with me about anything in my life. I give all of myself to anything and anyone I love, and I express it all the time. I can't hide my feelings, and I go crazy if I try to. DH looked at this as...an inconvenience, I think, during the first few years of our marriage because he's not the same way. Expressing his feelings is difficult for him(unless it's during sex. He can't hide what he's feeling _at all_ in the bedroom. I can read him like a book...), and that created issues between us when it came to showing love to each other. I gave out more than I received quite a lot, and there was a lot of resentment that built up. 

But now we're both changing our viewpoints. He sees my capability to love completely as endearing, rather than annoying. He appreciates what that means and realizes that I respond tenfold to the sweet gestures he makes. And I'm learning to appreciate the smaller things that used to not make much of a difference. No one can be Shakespeare all of the time, and I've found that I don't need a fancy night out every single week to have a passionate evening. Beer, COD, a little playful wrestling/teasing each other, is usually MUCH more satisfying than spending nearly a hundred bucks on a meal we won't even eat half of. And it puts us each in better moods, and often leads to crazy awesome desire in both of us. I realized that this last week when we had sex late at night, even when we were both tired, simply because he came home in a bad mood, and by a little playful teasing and a lot of positive affirmation, I turned his night completely around. 

I just see things differently now. And it's like it happened the day I turned 25. Just like my sex drive kicked in to overdrive the day I turned 18.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I wanted a man who was more interested in me as a person than how good I'd be in bed. Now, that didn't mean I didn't want a sexual relationship.


I'm really grasping to find a way to explain this in a way that women will "get". Here's another go: 

As is known, I love the pickup scene. I love the interpersonal dynamic, the wit, the challenge, the whole "game" of it. The more nuggets of attraction "truth" I find and confirm - the more I like it. It says to me there's reason behind what on the surface appears to be madness. One of the most simple and ridiculously well demonstrated principles in picking up a hot woman is this: Do NOT compliment her. I'm asking you to trust me on this if you doubt - it is 100% true.

Why would this be? Its totally counter-intuitive right? Well we can really only guess as to why, but part of the thinking goes - beautiful women get compliments all the time. Coming from a relative stranger, they are worthless. They're even a negative in that she thinks "you only want me for my looks". Or phrased another way, "you only want sex." Attractive women do not respond to compliments from an approaching guy unless they have an issue of self-worth. Less attractive women tend not to acknowledge such compliments because they don't believe them to be genuine. Both suspect the man of trying to get something from her.

So you have a man approaching a woman with nothing but a compliment because he IS sexually attracted to her, and he's already in the hole because the compliment betrays his sexual motivations. The man's intentions may not be ONLY sex - in fact, I think most guys are totally open to more. But its his sexual attraction that he is acting on. He doesn't know her. He wants her sexually, and thus wants to know her. I would offer that your husband was just like this, the typical guy, except that I know you grew up around him so you were already friendly. A compliment from such a known, "safe" man is more readily accepted as genuine. Same compliment, two different men, one is genuine and the other is perceived to be trying to "get" something. Now multiply such behaviors over a ton of other male/female interactions, combine that with all the anti-sex messages men receive from women and you will produce a ton of men who lose their assertiveness.

Its more complicated when a man already knows a woman, but when a man approaches a woman he doesn't know, he is doing so purely out of his sexual motivation. Whether that motivation continues to exist after finding out more about her is hit or miss. But make no mistake, it is SEX that drives a man to approach a woman he knows nothing about. This does not mean the man is not interested in everything else she has to offer as a person - only that those things are not his primary motivation. This is the vast majority of approaches imo. From what I understand from others, in decades past, it was more common to meet the opposite sex through mutual friends and community activity like church - as you did your husband, but today, most of such interaction ends with high school. You go off to college and most of the approaches a guy makes are going to be pretty cold approaches.

This knee-jerk negative reaction that the guy complimenting you is trying to get something from you, that this is all he wants, is one of many clear signs that men are shamed for sexual motivations.



Created2Write said:


> depending on the mans upbringing, I don't think he only pursues a woman for sex. My husband never had relationships _for_ sex. He had relationships because he genuinely liked the women, he had feelings for them, he enjoyed their company, and could see himself being with them long-term. Please note, I'm not saying that a man has to choose between one or the other: sex or actually enjoying a woman's company. Just that, with some like my husband, the woman's company comes first, and sex second. I'm also not saying my husband wasn't interested in sex, or that it wasn't constantly on his mind. Just that it wasn't his primary motivation for having the relationships he did.


There is some nuance to this I'm trying to get across, apparently unsuccessfully. While I am saying sex is his primary and ultimate motivation, I am not saying that it is ALL he wants. But pursuing a woman is done as a result of sexual attraction. The vast majority of men know whether they want to have sex with you within split seconds of first seeing you. The "grew up together" case of your husband is a difficult case to fit because you're talking about young people still figuring out the change from platonic male/female relations to sexuality period. I think its easier to understand what I'm getting at when restricted to single adults. But still, the notion that a guy in his late teens does not constantly have sex on the brain is utterly foreign to me. I literally cannot imagine your husband was any different. I'm serious. We want it like we want to breath when being held under water. It is downright intense and our primary motivation for even seeking out the company of females. Where the misunderstand beings imo, is that just because we seek you from this place of sexual motivation, does not mean that we are locked into only wanting sex. There may be plenty of other things we end up attracted to you for, or even things about you that we end up losing our sexual attraction because of, but if not for that sexual motivation we wouldn't go seeking you out any more than we seek male companionship; and we all know guys are way more interested in meeting females than males - especially good looking ones. Hint hint, its not because the good looking one's have a magic glow that screams "great personality here". Sex *is* the motivation.



Created2Write said:


> Not all of us are like this. Please don't assume we are. I have never had an issue with how sexually focused my husband is, not even before marriage. I didn't even mind that my other bfs were as sexually focused as they were. I had no issue with that whatsoever.


No one admits to being like this. But men see it in actions ALL THE TIME as they come up.



Created2Write said:


> If so, they're terrible mothers. Or, at least, very misguided.


No, these women have the same built in suspicions as the women who negatively perceive compliments from approaching men - "men are out to get something". Mother's convey to son's to be "good men" but there is an implication that "good men" means men not pursuing sex. 



Created2Write said:


> Where, exactly? I'm not arguing, I'm just curious.


Watch just about any movie or tv show based in high school with a male character who gets the ladies. He's almost always portrayed as a bad guy. Super respected stud, but still a bad guy.

The messages boys receive are extremely conflicted.



Created2Write said:


> This one I'm really not so sympathetic toward. You can't expect every women to have the same desires in life as you.


You assumed way more than I put into that paragraph. I have no expectation other than that women should not assume that a guy approaching her with a compliment in hopes of getting a date shouldn't be thinking "he's just thinks I'm a POA". Its that sort of perception that causes men to become passive and sneaky. "Damn... all I did was compliment her and she's already got her sex shields up." His next attempt will be coy and "innocent".



Created2Write said:


> It made me feel cheap and unimportant to be dumped because of sex.


I understand how you feel, and what I'm about to say is going to come off uncaring when I don't mean it to... but since you weren't interested in sex, and he was, then he did you a favor by dumping you. That's an assertive guy. He didn't trick you into it, play a bunch of head games to get you to do it. Sex was important to him, and he wanted a girl who would have it with him. Your comfort levels with sex differed too greatly and he rightly broke up with you. Flip it around and its still a good breakup - you dump him because he wants sex and you don't.



Created2Write said:


> If he'd only been a little patient, he'd have gotten what he wanted so very badly. But he was so focused on the now, and what he wanted right then, that he missed out altogether. His loss.


I'm sure he got what he wanted elsewhere, and I know you got what you wanted elsewhere. That doesn't make him a bad guy. That you imply he is and have this negativity/bitterness (I don't have the right word here) toward him ("his loss") is the sort of sexual shaming I'm referring to. Its kinda subtle, but pervasive. The break up was a positive affirmation of both of your wants.



Created2Write said:


> Sometimes it feels that way. A guy tells me he doesn't want to put a time frame on it, so it's not like we'll be doing it the next time we see each other, I tell him I'm not ready yet, and bam! I'm dumped. How am I not supposed to feel that he only wanted sex? And moreover, wasn't even willing to date me for it?


You're not, but consider if you were the one who wanted sex. Why should you hold out waiting for this person who has exceeded the time you're comfortable with having sex? How long should a guy wait? Its all a judgment call. You weren't ready and you made your decision - and that decision meant he's not your guy and you're not his girl.



Created2Write said:


> If he wanted NSA sex, he should have said so from the beginning, but he never said it once. It's worth noting, I think, that he came back to me six months later and asked me to take him back. Said that of all the girls he dated, I was the only one he could see spending the rest of his life with, and he didn't realize what an awesome girl he had until I wasn't there any more. But I was already dating DH, and...................._having sex_.


That's not a guy seeking nsa sex. That's just a guy who wants to have sex, when you weren't ready to have sex. As for how it panned out, you win some and you lose some. You might have waited another 2 years. Its easy to think he made the wrong decision in hindsight. He acted on what he wanted. That's the right decision whether it pans out or not.












Created2Write said:


> Not every woman lies about what she wants.


I'm not sure where this came from. I didn't mean to convey anyone was lying. 



Created2Write said:


> I really dislike your word usage. By saying "girls" you're being all-inclusive, and I absolutely was never as you describe. I'm assuming your gf isn't as you describe, either, so clearly not all of us are that way. And I also don't like that you're blaming women for the sufferings of men and their sexuality, when there are men(a lot of them) who _are_ @ss holes when they seek out sex. They aren't doing your gender any favors, yet you don't seem to ever talk about them. Which, frankly, makes you seem like one yourself, bent on laying all responsibility at women's feet.


Not sure how I can explain it differently. My gf and I absolutely have these communication failures where what she says, isn't necessarily what I interpret as her meaning. Everything is so contextual - only I don't have the context of wtf is going on in her head. Strangely, she and every other woman I've met seem to assume I do.



Created2Write said:


> So the @ss holes are @ss holes because of women? Nope. I am absolutely not buying that one.


@ssholes are @ssholes. But every guy who dumps you because you didn't want to have sex isn't an @sshole. He wants what he wants. What I'm pointing out is this sort of malassociation with a guy's sexual motivations and the perception that he's an @sshole for seeking what he will. Its wrong and damaging.



Created2Write said:


> Just because he's a "nice guy" doesn't mean he has an unhealthy approach to his sexuality. Just that is motivation is different.
> 
> I agree and disagree.


You're confusing nice guy with "nice guy". A "nice guy" has an unhealthy approach to sexuality by definition.


----------



## Created2Write

I don't know about any other woman's desire, I only know about my own: the men in my life who have whined and complained about not having sex with me only rooted me further into my decision not to have sex with them. The men who respected that choice, made me laugh, earned my trust, and showed interest in who I was, were the men I wanted to have sex with. There were only two of those I ever dated, only one actually stuck around long enough to have sex with me, and I married him. 

I'm attracted to my husband for a lot of qualities: he's intelligent, he's extremely hard working, he doesn't shout or yell at me when he's angry, I've never been afraid of him, he is very confident in who he is and he doesn't let me walk all over him(not that I try to, just that he wouldn't allow it if I did), he keeps himself healthy and clean, he loves me and he says it often, he wants to understand me in as many ways as he can, he is a very touchy-feely person(and so am I, so I absolutely love that!), he makes me feel wanted and desired, he encourages me and supports me in the things I want to do, he's always been there for me in my darkest times...I could go on, but these are a few of the things that make me attracted to my husband, both emotionally and physically. But speaking strictly to the physical side, God, does he know how to turn me on. He knows exactly how to touch me, and when, what kinds of kisses will make me simply melt into submission(or aggression, depending on the mood). He knows me SO well, it's astonishing. 

And I know him, too. I know he loves it when I initiate. I know he loves it when this good-girl plays dirty(like giving him a BJ when he's playing a video game, and telling him he has to keep playing the video game....hahahahaha.....loved that one. , and I know he loves being dominated sometimes. He's better at resisting than I am, though. Stinky ******.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is some nuance to this I'm trying to get across, apparently unsuccessfully. While I am saying sex is his primary and ultimate motivation, I am not saying that it is ALL he wants. But pursuing a woman is done as a result of sexual attraction. The vast majority of men know whether they want to have sex with you within split seconds of first seeing you. The "grew up together" case of your husband is a difficult case to fit because you're talking about young people still figuring out the change from platonic male/female relations to sexuality period. I think its easier to understand what I'm getting at when restricted to single adults. But still, the notion that a guy in his late teens does not constantly have sex on the brain is utterly foreign to me. I literally cannot imagine your husband was any different. I'm serious. We want it like we want to breath when being held under water. It is downright intense and our primary motivation for even seeking out the company of females. Where the misunderstand beings imo, is that just because we seek you from this place of sexual motivation, does not mean that we are locked into only wanting sex. There may be plenty of other things we end up attracted to you for, or even things about you that we end up losing our sexual attraction because of, but if not for that sexual motivation we wouldn't go seeking you out any more than we seek male companionship; and we all know guys are way more interested in meeting females than males - especially good looking ones. Hint hint, its not because the good looking one's have a magic glow that screams "great personality here". *Sex *is* the motivation*.


 My husband would swear on the life of our children he wasn't thinking about sex when he met me..(he was 18, I was 15)....he did say it was love at 1st site...that I was beautiful...he just REALLY wanted to get to know me... 

Now I tend to believe most guys are JUST LIKE YOU DESCRIBE here.. but I'm not able to call him a LIAR or trying to hide his true feelings at that time... there is no reason to downplay ANYTHING to me..

... In fact, I was surprised to hear that & said to him..."What the heck was wrong with you, wasn't I sexy enough?". ... then asked him when he started to *think* like that about me.. his answer was...when I started putting my hands down his pants"... and I laughed.. 

Maybe this is 2% of men in the population... I don't know....but hey, this is our story.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Whatever that's supposed to mean, um, sure.


Short version: most women are not used to being turned down when they offer sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> My husband would swear on the life of our children he wasn't thinking about sex when he met me..(he was 18, I was 15)....he did say it was love at 1st site...that I was beautiful...he just REALLY wanted to get to know me...
> 
> Now I tend to believe most guys are JUST LIKE YOU DESCRIBE here.. but I'm not able to call him a LIAR or trying to hide his true feelings at that time... there is no reason to downplay ANYTHING to me..
> 
> ... In fact, I was surprised to hear that & said to him..."What the heck was wrong with you, wasn't I sexy enough?". ... then asked him when he started to *think* like that about me.. his answer was...when I started putting my hands down his pants"... and I laughed..
> 
> Maybe this is 2% of men in the population... I don't know....but hey, this is our story.


Mine didn't approach me looking for sex either. Sex is easy. Love is not. He could get sex anywhere, it isn't that special when it is just "whoever". He also complimented me. He did not ever push for sex. He wanted to get to know me. Imagine that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> Short version: most women are not used to being turned down when they offer sex.


I've been turned down plenty of times. When you are highly sexual, you understand that not everyone is going to be into you. You say "no worries" and move on. I'm sorry but your flimsy science doesn't explain much of anything to actual highly sexual people. You all seem to just wonder how to be one or how to get into bed with one. I'd write you a handbook if I thought you'd read it...oh wait...I kind of did.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> I've been turned down plenty of times. When you are highly sexual, you understand that not everyone is going to be into you. You say "no worries" and move on. I'm sorry but your flimsy science doesn't explain much of anything to actual highly sexual people. You all seem to just wonder how to be one or how to get into bed with one. I'd write you a handbook if I thought you'd read it...oh wait...I kind of did.


So, you're suggesting that you've got a higher sex drive than "most" women, which would mean your experiences in chasing sex are going to be different from "most" women.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Mine didn't approach me looking for sex either. Sex is easy. Love is not. He could get sex anywhere, it isn't that special when it is just "whoever". He also complimented me. He did not ever push for sex. He wanted to get to know me. Imagine that?


Same with mine. Not that he's a sex god and could get it anywhere, cuz he's not. But he approached me because he thought we would click, that he knew we'd get along. He too wanted to just be with me, and waited for me to make the first move.

And while I've no doubt that he had sex foremost on his mind in some of his past pursuits, he was never one to go for just whoever happened to be hot. He wanted to actually like and respect the person, as otherwise it would just feel gross (his words).


----------



## ConanHub

Machiavelli said:


> Short version: most women are not used to being turned down when they offer sex.


Do you think that could be cultural? I have shut down far more women than I accepted but probably got more bewilderment and anger than a female counterpart of myself.

One woman was shocked and confessed she had never been turned down before me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> So, you're suggesting that you've got a higher sex drive than "most" women, which would mean your experiences in chasing sex are going to be different from "most" women.


I would not say "most". I am on the higher end but not at the highest so I am likely higher than "many" but not "most".

However according to your evo-crud, all us women are exactly the same with the same punch code, so do you think I am lying, or that I don't know myself and must wait for a man to tell me what I want and need?


----------



## Oldfaithful

Faithful Wife said:


> I've been turned down plenty of times. When you are highly sexual, you understand that not everyone is going to be into you. You say "no worries" and move on. I'm sorry but your flimsy science doesn't explain much of anything to actual highly sexual people. You all seem to just wonder how to be one or how to get into bed with one. I'd write you a handbook if I thought you'd read it...oh wait...I kind of did.



When it comes down to it a lot of men say they want a forward confident woman and they want casual sex. It's a cultural myth that men feel they have to uphold. 
When I was single I got turned down for sex quite a few times, and it wasn't for lack of attraction.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm really grasping to find a way to explain this in a way that women will "get". Here's another go:
> 
> As is known, I love the pickup scene. I love the interpersonal dynamic, the wit, the challenge, the whole "game" of it. The more nuggets of attraction "truth" I find and confirm - the more I like it. It says to me there's reason behind what on the surface appears to be madness. One of the most simple and ridiculously well demonstrated principles in picking up a hot woman is this: Do NOT compliment her. I'm asking you to trust me on this if you doubt - it is 100% true.
> 
> Why would this be? Its totally counter-intuitive right? Well we can really only guess as to why, but part of the thinking goes - beautiful women get compliments all the time. Coming from a relative stranger, they are worthless. They're even a negative in that she thinks "you only want me for my looks". Or phrased another way, "you only want sex." Attractive women do not respond to compliments from an approaching guy unless they have an issue of self-worth. Less attractive women tend not to acknowledge such compliments because they don't believe them to be genuine. Both suspect the man of trying to get something from her.
> 
> *So you have a man approaching a woman with nothing but a compliment because he IS sexually attracted to her, and he's already in the hole because the compliment betrays his sexual motivations. The man's intentions may not be ONLY sex - in fact, I think most guys are totally open to more. But its his sexual attraction that he is acting on. He doesn't know her. He wants her sexually, and thus wants to know her. I would offer that your husband was just like this, the typical guy, except that I know you grew up around him so you were already friendly.*


Aha. THAT I can wholeheartedly agree with. And I think my husband probably did fall into that category.



> A compliment from such a known, "safe" man is more readily accepted as genuine. Same compliment, two different men, one is genuine and the other is perceived to be trying to "get" something. Now multiply such behaviors over a ton of other male/female interactions, combine that with all the anti-sex messages men receive from women and you will produce a ton of men who lose their assertiveness.
> 
> Its more complicated when a man already knows a woman, but when a man approaches a woman he doesn't know, he is doing so purely out of his sexual motivation. Whether that motivation continues to exist after finding out more about her is hit or miss. But make no mistake, it is SEX that drives a man to approach a woman he knows nothing about. This does not mean the man is not interested in everything else she has to offer as a person - only that those things are not his primary motivation. This is the vast majority of approaches imo. From what I understand from others, in decades past, it was more common to meet the opposite sex through mutual friends and community activity like church - as you did your husband, but today, most of such interaction ends with high school. You go off to college and most of the approaches a guy makes are going to be pretty cold approaches.
> 
> This knee-jerk negative reaction that the guy complimenting you is trying to get something from you, that this is all he wants, is one of many clear signs that men are shamed for sexual motivations.


Okay...that is definitely the clearest explanation I've seen on that, and I think I understand more of what you're saying. I really can't say if I agree or not...the only compliments from total strangers I've ever received were more in passing, and not actual approaches, and I didn't feel they were trying to achieve anything at all. In fact, other than cat-calls and whistles or head-nods or eyebrow-wags, the only one I can think of was at a restaraunt by an employee. Oh no! Wait, I take it back. A drunk guy once told me I was gorgeous and asked me to dinner. After telling him "No thank you" he said "But I want to have sex with you". I wasn't flattered at all. 



> There is some nuance to this I'm trying to get across, apparently unsuccessfully. While I am saying sex is his primary and ultimate motivation, I am not saying that it is ALL he wants. But pursuing a woman is done as a result of sexual attraction.


Sexual attraction, yes. But intending to actually pursue a sexual relationship, no(and I'm only talking about my husband...I'm sure there are men who are as you describe.) DH has told me many times that he would never have dated a plain woman, so clearly sexual attraction was important to him, and I think it should be to everyone. I wouldn't have dated him if I wasn't sexually attracted to him. However, neither of us intended to be sexual(beyond making out, anyway) with the other. That part of the relationship "just happened", as silly as that might sound. 



> The vast majority of men know whether they want to have sex with you within split seconds of first seeing you. The "grew up together" case of your husband is a difficult case to fit because you're talking about young people still figuring out the change from platonic male/female relations to sexuality period. I think its easier to understand what I'm getting at when restricted to single adults. *But still, the notion that a guy in his late teens does not constantly have sex on the brain is utterly foreign to me.* I literally cannot imagine your husband was any different. I'm serious.


My husband was and is an incredibly sexual guy. He _always_ has sex on the brain. He once told me that, at fifteen, he remembered being awake in his bed hoping that a naked woman would climb through his window. And, since I wasn't his first sexual partner, I _know_ he had sex on his mind while dating me. Heck, _I_ had sex on my mind too. My only point is that I don't think he asked me out intending to pursue a sexual relationship with me. 



> We want it like we want to breath when being held under water. It is downright intense and our primary motivation for even seeking out the company of females. Where the misunderstand beings imo, is that just because we seek you from this place of sexual motivation, does not mean that we are locked into only wanting sex. There may be plenty of other things we end up attracted to you for, or even things about you that we end up losing our sexual attraction because of, but if not for that sexual motivation we wouldn't go seeking you out any more than we seek male companionship; and we all know guys are way more interested in meeting females than males - especially good looking ones. Hint hint, its not because the good looking one's have a magic glow that screams "great personality here". Sex *is* the motivation.


See, I both agree and disagree with this. I believe that my husband sought out my companionship because he was sexually attracted to me. If I had been ugly, he wouldn't have given me the time of day, even if we never ended up dating. But I don't believe his primary motivation for staying around me was to see if he could have sex with me. He'd been through two horrible breakups before we got together, he'd been disappointed three separate times at college, he was extremely lonely and sad...I came along and we were friends. We hung out, we talked...for probably a couple of months that's all we had. He had many different female friends, none of which he ever tried to sleep with. 

The friendship blossomed from there. The attraction built as we realized our similar interests and personality types, the attraction lead to a relationship, the _relationship_ led to sex. Knowing him as I do, and talking to him about all of this(and yes, I ask my husband about the things you've said to see his own opinion), he's told me many times that sex wasn't why he talked to me and hung out with me and asked me to go out with him. And it's not because I want him to be super special. He knows he can be honest with me about anything. Even if sex _were_ his primary motivation, it wouldn't change our relationship or my view of him. It'd actually make me laugh. But he insists it isn't.



> No one admits to being like this. But men see it in actions ALL THE TIME as they come up.


Then do you believe all women to be this way? Do you think I'm lying through my teeth when I say that I have no issue with my husband's sexuality whatsoever?



> No, these women have the same built in suspicions as the women who negatively perceive compliments from approaching men - "men are out to get something". Mother's convey to son's to be "good men" but there is an implication that "good men" means men not pursuing sex.


I don't think this implication is there all of the time. You make it sound like all men are raised in the exact same background, with the exact same principles. This simply isn't the case. 



> Watch just about any movie or tv show based in high school with a male character who gets the ladies. He's almost always portrayed as a bad guy. Super respected stud, but still a bad guy.
> 
> The messages boys receive are extremely conflicted.


All children receive conflicting messages through television and movies. They're still responsible for their own actions. I think this can be widely countered, though, if parents teach their children about sexuality and what it means, and about how to be who they are while also respecting those around them. 



> You assumed way more than I put into that paragraph. I have no expectation other than that women should not assume that a guy approaching her with a compliment in hopes of getting a date shouldn't be thinking "he's just thinks I'm a POA". Its that sort of perception that causes men to become passive and sneaky. "Damn... all I did was compliment her and she's already got her sex shields up." His next attempt will be coy and "innocent".


What about the men who only give compliments because they really do see the woman as a POA? You talk as if the woman's concerns are entirely invalid, but they're not. Personally, I don't see this as a male issue or a female issue; I see it as a human issue. 



> I understand how you feel, and what I'm about to say is going to come off uncaring when I don't mean it to... but since you weren't interested in sex, and he was, then he did you a favor by dumping you. That's an assertive guy. He didn't trick you into it, play a bunch of head games to get you to do it. Sex was important to him, and he wanted a girl who would have it with him. Your comfort levels with sex differed too greatly and he rightly broke up with you. Flip it around and its still a good breakup - you dump him because he wants sex and you don't.


He absolutely did me a favor. He really was a jerk. I found out later that he was a lying cheat with a massive temper and an insane jealous streak. But forgive me when I disagree...it wasn't assertiveness that lead him to breakup with me. He was cheating on me from the moment he asked me out, and really was only interested in sex. Knowing my upbringing he used the relationship as a pretense to get what he wanted. The bf before DH that I would have slept with, _he_ was assertive. He recognized our differences and very respectfully let me go when he realized that I felt much more strongly for him than he did for me. He and I are still friends. 



> I'm sure he got what he wanted elsewhere, and I know you got what you wanted elsewhere. That doesn't make him a bad guy. That you imply he is and have this negativity/bitterness (I don't have the right word here) toward him ("his loss") is the sort of sexual shaming I'm referring to. Its kinda subtle, but pervasive. The break up was a positive affirmation of both of your wants.


Nope, he was bad. Cheater. Liar. The only game was the relationship, luckily. At least he didn't pretend to be okay with my boundaries and then try to seduce me later. He could have been worse, definitely. But he wasn't innocent. 



> You're not, but consider if you were the one who wanted sex. Why should you hold out waiting for this person who has exceeded the time you're comfortable with having sex? How long should a guy wait? Its all a judgment call. You weren't ready and you made your decision - and that decision meant he's not your guy and you're not his girl.


It wasn't even three weeks. We hadn't even gone on an actual date. We were "dating" in that I was his gf and he was my bf, but we hadn't even gone out yet. (It was long distance) I wouldn't have even had the chance to see him for months. He could have given me that long, at least. I don't think that was too much to ask under the circumstances, but in the end, it was better that things worked out the way they did. 



> That's not a guy seeking nsa sex. That's just a guy who wants to have sex, when you weren't ready to have sex. As for how it panned out, you win some and you lose some. You might have waited another 2 years. Its easy to think he made the wrong decision in hindsight. He acted on what he wanted. That's the right decision whether it pans out or not.


Sorry. Can't agree there. His feelings about sex were only clear in that he wanted it. Or, at least, OS. But he never outlined a time frame, he never told me that it was a deal-breaker to not have sex. He downplayed his desire which lead me to believe that it wasn't final...that he'd be willing to wait a little bit. If he'd been completely honest, it would have saved us both time and stress. 



> I'm not sure where this came from. I didn't mean to convey anyone was lying.


About women saying they want a nice guy, but then the guy is nice and doesn't get laid because she's not attracted to him because he's too nice. Is that not saying that women are lying?



> @ssholes are @ssholes. But every guy who dumps you because you didn't want to have sex isn't an @sshole.


Of course not. The one guy I mentioned before(the cheater) absolutely was. However, the guy I dated before DH also dumped me over sex, and he wasn't an @sshole. At all. I actually considered having sex with him because he never once tried to convince me that my standards were selfish or wrong, he never once tried to convince me to lower them. He had some insecurity issues in that he couldn't imagine someone with my background being at all attracted to a guy with his sexual history, but I was absolutely in love with him. Didn't care about his sexual history. Was never jealous or angry, never made him feel as if he was wrong for having the history he did. In the end, sex(and alcohol) ended the relationship. He said he couldn't be the guy I wanted, and even though I was angry at the time because I really, really fell for him hard, it was best. We're still good friends. He's married with a kid, really happy. He wasn't an @ss at all.



> He wants what he wants. What I'm pointing out is this sort of malassociation with a guy's sexual motivations and the perception that he's an @sshole for seeking what he will. Its wrong and damaging.


I don't disagree with that. However, _how_ that man seeks out what he wants absolutely can be wrong and damaging as well, and it's often very difficult to separate _how_ he's seeking from _what_ he's seeking. The bf I had before DH wasn't wrong for dumping me, he wasn't wrong for having the wants and needs that he did, and he didn't use me in the relationship. He really tried to have a relationship with me, even though his lifestyle was so very opposite from my mine. And looking back, I was _not_ easy on him. I really could have handled things much more maturely and less...strict. But in my 19 year old head, everything was black and white. But even with all of that, he really tried. Gave it what he could. And I did what I could for him, but it wasn't enough. We weren't right for each other, and he saw it before I did. I see him as a great guy. The cheater? Not so much. And even with him, it wasn't _what_ he wanted that was wrong, it was _how_ he behaved to get it. 



> You're confusing nice guy with "nice guy". A "nice guy" has an unhealthy approach to sexuality by definition.


Ugh. So confusing. lol. But I get it now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yeah but your H was highly experienced (been there, done that, no big deal).... mine was totally NON experienced, though he was whacking it up to 5 times a day... it's not that he didn't have sex on the brain.. ya know... so how did he DO that???
> 
> Can it even be explained??
> 
> I think most would assume He is LYING through his teeth, just like he stopped masturbating the day I put my hands down his pants... only did it ONE time our entire marriage...
> 
> .. I would have never known these things had we not opened up the masturbation dialog 5 yrs ago ....he explained it as... he then felt that was "OUR THING"....and he carried that through all of these years...felt doing it to porn was a form of "cheating"... even though he was a little frustrated. Now that is some devotion right there...though I have a feeling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would just say he was severely repressed or something...of course.


I would say you and he both are highly sexual and sexually self-aware. You both had a lot of natural sexual talent.

Something people misunderstand when I say it, is that being highly sexual doesn't mean "will f*ck anything/anyone". Some people are highly sexual but are celibate by choice for various reasons, for short or long periods of time. The more sexual you are, the more understanding you have of your own needs and body and the more you have self-control.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I literally cannot imagine your husband was any different. I'm serious. We want it like we want to breath when being held under water. It is downright intense and our primary motivation for even seeking out the company of females. Where the misunderstand beings imo, is that just because we seek you from this place of sexual motivation, does not mean that we are locked into only wanting sex. There may be plenty of other things we end up attracted to you for, or even things about you that we end up losing our sexual attraction because of, but if not for that sexual motivation we wouldn't go seeking you out any more than we seek male companionship; and we all know guys are way more interested in meeting females than males - especially good looking ones. Hint hint, its not because the good looking one's have a magic glow that screams "great personality here". Sex *is* the motivation.



No doubt sex is a powerful motivator. It is for women too. But what you are describing is exactly what I meant when I said that you don't look beneath the surface and are repeating the same patterns. 

You're so certain that what you describe is universally true for all men and women that you literally can't imagine anyone being different. 

But they are. Not all women are going to give a PUA like yourself a chance. Only certain types will take the risk. Not all men have your approach to sexuality, so focused on the **** in hole that any girl will do so long as she meets the looks criteria.

What you describe is but a slice of life, certainly not the whole pie. That you think someone must be an extraterrestrial because he actually enjoys the company of women and respects them as persons is testament to this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oldfaithful said:


> When it comes down to it a lot of men say they want a forward confident woman and they want casual sex. It's a cultural myth that men feel they have to uphold.
> When I was single I got turned down for sex quite a few times, and it wasn't for lack of attraction.


Yes...I'm sure that having "admitted" to being turned down for sex, some will auto-assume it means I'm a horrible looking uggo. Because "everyone knows" (sarcasm) that "any woman could go into any bar and get sex anytime".

This is something that men who haven't been approached for sex say to each other. These are usually the same men who are not as sexual as they think they are.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Do you feel you are comfortable and at peace with your sexuality and desire, or do you feel it gets tangled up in factoring where your SO, or any man for that matter, is coming from when you are the object of their desire? (I'd love any woman to respond to this, not just AA)
> 
> I mean, I have seen women get pursued by one guy and be utterly skeved out.
> Swap out the guy, and she's game for anything.
> 
> Not a trick question. I'm really interested.


No, I'm not entirely at peace or comfortable with my sexuality. I've had too much trouble with it over the years for that.

But what I can say is that it comes from within me, and is mine. It doesn't depend on how anyone else views me.

That said, if someone if being a prick, I'm not going to have sex with him. Full stop. And if he doesn't do anything for me, or I don't like him, then I'm not going to have sex with him. Full stop.

Why is it surprising that a woman could be full-on sexual with one guy but skeved out by another? Aren't you the one who keeps repeating "we like what we like"? The same is true for women too. 

It sounds to me like you're striving to be the right fit for all women. But no guy can be that. Even those Casanova hero type guys aren't really that. It's mostly myth built from envy and wishful thinking.

Sure, some are better at winning popularity contests than others, but even the sexiest and most awesome face rejection. It's easy to be envious when hanging on the outside looking in and imagining how grand it must be. But life ain't like that.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...I'm sure that having "admitted" to being turned down for sex, some will auto-assume it means I'm a horrible looking uggo. Because "everyone knows" (sarcasm) that "any woman could go into any bar and get sex anytime".


All the women I've known (who I talk to about such things) have been rejected at one point or another. Most of us many times.

I guess we all must be uggos?

No wait, even the most beautiful and amazing women I know say the same thing.

You can't always get what you want.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Okay. Its clear there's a major impasse here that just isn't going to end. Of course, all your men lacked sexual intentions and its even common for men to lack sexual intentions, that totally explains why even something as simple as a compliment on an approach gets a womans suspicious hairs to stand on end. Its really just 3 guys out there thinking sex first, and women's widespread suspicions of men are driven by these 3 @ssholes.

AA, that you still insist that any of what Ive said says men lack respect for women says to me that you absolutely have no grasped what Ive been saying. I'm sorry, I'm out of ways to express it. There is zero reason for a man to enjoy the company of women above the company of men if you remove sexual intentions. With all that zeal for equality, one would assume youd get that.

C2W, while it always sucks to get dumped, its still his perogative to seek sex when he's ready, and your perogative to deny when you're not. Short time frame or not, this doesn't make him a bad man or say all he cared about was sex. You were mismatched and he ended it.

FW, Ive turned down exactly 3 women's sexual advances - women I originally picked up/persued. One let it go, one never spoke to me again, and one later claimed she thought I might be gay to some mutual friends. None of them were ugly. I had other reasons I passed on each of them. I find it funny you express concern that we might attack your looks after having been turned down, and then attack us in the next sentence. Are you sure you're not a man? You sure do like talking about the size of your... sexuality.

Okay ladies, none of your hubbies are actually like this. They all just wanted to get to know you. Mens magazines are full of tips on "how to get to know her", not "how to get laid", and "how to rock her world in bed", because that's what guys are really motivated by - getting to know you. You all have the "different" one.

My feeling is that the mind will believe whatever the heart wants it to, true even for men. The irony is that even this thread shames men for seeking sex - note the outrage and how fiercely you argue "No! He just wanted to get to know me!"

I surrender. Not really, but I'm out of energy and am going out tonight. Hope everyone has a great weekend.


----------



## Red Sonja

Machiavelli said:


> Short version: most women are not used to being turned down when they offer sex.


:scratchhead: I must live in a different universe than you or I am not understanding your statistical definition of "most".


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> I would not say "most". I am on the higher end but not at the highest so I am likely higher than "many" but not "most".
> 
> However according to your evo-crud, all us women are exactly the same with the same punch code, so do you think I am lying, or that I don't know myself and must wait for a man to tell me what I want and need?


You're the only one saying "all" anything. Here's a link for you:

normal distribution


----------



## Lyris

Yay! Bell curves!


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Okay. Its clear there's a major impasse here that just isn't going to end. Of course, all your men lacked sexual intentions and its even common for men to lack sexual intentions, that totally explains why even something as simple as a compliment on an approach gets a womans suspicious hairs to stand on end. Its really just 3 guys out there thinking sex first, and women's widespread suspicions of men are driven by these 3 @ssholes.
> 
> AA, that you still insist that any of what Ive said says men lack respect for women says to me that you absolutely have no grasped what Ive been saying. I'm sorry, I'm out of ways to express it. There is zero reason for a man to enjoy the company of women above the company of men if you remove sexual intentions. With all that zeal for equality, one would assume youd get that.



See, Dvl's, the thing is that you are insisting that sex and looks are always primary for men, and that men have no use for women without sex. And when someone disagrees, you run immediately to the opposite extreme, and assume they're saying that men don't care about sex at all. Can you see how vast the difference is between those extremes, and that maybe, just maybe, there is a middle ground?

I get that what you say is entirely true for you, and that sex and looks is your primary interest and without them you wouldn't bother talking to women at all. Your prerogative. 

But it's not exactly respect, is it? Either for the women, or the men you dismiss as extraterrestrials.

I know when I've brought up your views to my SO, he looks at me with incredulity, facepalms, and says, "where on earth do you get this crap"? 

I rather love him for that.


----------



## Sandfly

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have a GF who is basically attracted to the Alpha Type.. she is a beautiful blonde... but because she was so HURT in her 1st marriage by this man...cheated on her repeatedly... lied...manipulated.... when they divorced she hated him so much she took back her maiden name even...I wasn't in her life at that time - when we reunited , *he was BACK in her life, weaseled his way back into her bedroom, she was so in lust with him*.. me & another friend kept telling her how this was going to go down... anyway... that all ended..
> 
> *And when she would meet a nicer man, she was so mean to him, she didn't trust anything he said,* she accused him of things.. some of the stuff she was telling me after a date, I was like "WHAT - why did you do that??" I mean she was downright rude..
> 
> She just felt they all just wanted to use her .. I have never met anyone that has found it that hard to trust.. her last BF broke up with her umteen times as he couldn't handle it..even called me once about her...telling me how he was done......He felt she needs therapy..... but it's the closest I have seen to some force to be mean to someone who treats you good....
> 
> She'll say she wants a nice man like my H - all those qualities, "why can't someone love me like that" -am I that bad.. she'll ask me... then when someone similar may step into her life....*she can't even explain why she gets mean with them.*...It's a quandary.


You mate can't even explain...

Hence Conrad's comment about not listening to what she _says_, because she doesn't know why she does things either...

At the time she is capable of producing plenty of "reasons", just not the _true _reasons.... i.e. excuses, rationalisations. If a man were to believe in them, and act on them, he'd end up confused at the illogical results.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is zero reason for a man to enjoy the company of women above the company of men if you remove sexual intentions. With all that zeal for equality, one would assume youd get that.


Honestly, this is just sad. It is not a matter of getting, for my part. It is a matter of not agreeing that this is a universal or even common attitude among men. In fact, I just repeated this to DH and he laughed and said "for him". When he goes to the gym, I am the first person he asks to join him. We choose to hang out with each other on purpose when other choices are available. Etcetera.

I think about sitting around the room on our regular team meetings at work. We aren't specifically men and women. We are people. We are smart. Funny. Interested in different things. Skilled in different things.

I think about my friend's upcoming move. They did not just ask my husband to help. They asked both of us.

I think about my gaming friends. They ask me too. I think about when someone wants to do a running race. They ask my husband because he runs. When someone is doing a dance event, they ask me because I dance.

There is a lot to my husband and my relationship, including great sex. But since there is more to me, and more to him than boxing human people into gender boxes, we have a lot more too. He sees me as one of the smartest, most capable people he knows.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...I'm sure that having "admitted" to being turned down for sex, some will auto-assume it means I'm a horrible looking uggo. Because "everyone knows" (sarcasm) that "any woman could go into any bar and get sex anytime".
> 
> *This is something that men who haven't been approached for sex say to each other. These are usually the same men who are not as sexual as they think they are.*



Lol, and we now have " _men who are not as sexual as they think they are_..." hatin' on women who are "_ highly sexual._."

I've always thought that a person is as sexual as they feel they are. Maybe I'm missing something, is there a fixed scale of some sort to measure how " highly sexual " a person is?

Isn't this entire concept of human sexuality a continuum that's supposed to be a fluid one?


And how , pray tell would you be privy to such intimate information about the inner workings in the minds of the opposite gender?
Do you have some sort of evidence , even anecdotal evidence from men to back this up?

" _Curioser and curioser_."

Do you see the irony?

You are doing the exact , same thing you accuse those men of doing.

Making sweeping generalizations about the opposite sex based on nothing but _*your*_ assumptions.


BTW, the above statement which I highlighted in your post,
Is patently false.

Every single man on this thread could tell you that.


----------



## ReformedHubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is zero reason for a man to enjoy the company of women above the company of men if you remove sexual intentions.


Perhaps you were just trying to prove a point but this view point is extreme in my opinion. For starters I had a bunch of female friends when I was single, and I ain't no beta orbiter either. Many of them were attractive but for whatever reason I saw them more like a cousin or something. I liked having female friends because they have a different perspective on things and they can be a lot of fun. It was especially fun to go clubbing with the gals, I'd always meet more women when with them than with the fellas too. But that wasn't my primary motivation for hanging with the gals.

Regarding rather or not I was always seeking sex first in my single days the answer is "it depends". There are many times I would meet someone and say to myself "she seems like a cool chick" and I was actually intrigued by her, was sex in the equation, of course it was but I also wanted to find out more about her too.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Perhaps you were just trying to prove a point but this view point is extreme in my opinion. For starters I had a bunch of female friends when I was single, and I ain't no beta orbiter either. Many of them were attractive but for whatever reason I saw them more like a cousin or something. I liked having female friends because they have a different perspective on things and they can be a lot of fun. It was especially fun to go clubbing with the gals, I'd always meet more women when with them than with the fellas too. But that wasn't my primary motivation for hanging with the gals.
> 
> Regarding rather or not I was always seeking sex first in my single days the answer is "it depends". There are many times I would meet someone and say to myself "she seems like a cool chick" and I was actually intrigued by her, was sex in the equation, of course it was but I also wanted to find out more about her too.


Well I think your point is reinforcing what Dvl's is saying.
Remove sexual attraction / tension from the equation and a man wouldn't value female companionship more than a man's.

I also used to hang out with a group of party girls, all of them sisters , and we'd go clubbing.[ lol, back then we called it disco. ],
Was never interested in having sex with them , but these chicks were damn sexy. Hanging out with them in the clubs meant me meeting other girls without having to " break the ice."

Quite a few times, after clubbing, I'd sleep over at their house , IN THE SAME BED as them , drunk as a fish, and we never did anything sexual.
But trust me, stuff I did with them , I would never do with a man or a group of men.
When we were in the club, I would dance the conga line with them, we would grind on each other , and we would slow dance whenever we got the chance.
Hanging out with them definitely had it's privileges and benefits that I couldn't get from hanging out with men.
Another example I could give is that sometimes we would all pile into one person's car when we were going out to party. Most of those times, one of those girls, the petite one, sat on my lap.

No way in the world would I have a man sitting on my lap!:rofl:

So in a sense ,the reason for men preferring to be around women as opposed to men ,might not be directly sexual , but it is definitely overtly sexual.
If they have the choice to choose a friend between a man and a beautiful woman of equal status, intelligence personality traits and so forth, they'll choose the woman.
They prefer to hang around women,_ because they are the opposite sex_


----------



## ReformedHubby

Sandfly said:


> I can think of two colleagues at one place I worked who were simply _brilliant _at being friends with women. They could be found in the dictionary under 'caring, sensitive and supportive'.
> 
> But they never had a steady girlfriend in the five-odd years I worked with them. That's a long time for a good man to be lonely.
> 
> One kept meeting up with my G/F for lunch (we all worked together, but had different rotas), which I indulged, only because I knew he was too soft to try anything. She'd have had to rape him for him to think he had a chance.
> 
> I was happy that she should waste her 'friending' tendencies on someone who couldn't move to the next level to save his soul.
> 
> These men don't deserve their rubbish treatment.
> 
> We want to help them at least try a different approach. So _maybe _it doesn't work for them. But nice isn't working, and there's no maybe about _that_.
> 
> I agree that the language used in lots of these 'be a man' books is horrible, awkward, immature and misogynistic.
> 
> But a nice man who has been alone for 5 years, is already well on his way to hating women...
> 
> This saddens me. We should help them. But not by carrying on with the lie that nice = attractive. Do you want them to end up frustrated and resentful? That way lies danger.


Your post intrigued me yesterday. I've been trying to figure out why I have such a hard time with the term Nice Guy. I think of myself as a nice guy, I love, love, love women and I'm charming too dammit!!! I never had any problems finding potential partners.

I'm not saying the men based on TAM's definition of "Nice" don't have issues, I just think those issues are rooted in their own fears. They all appear to have varying levels of fear. Some like the ones you mentioned in your post are just afraid of women in general. I too have seen grown men that can't even look a pretty women in the eyes when talking too her. Others are so afraid to be alone or afraid of change that they endure years of poor treatment and lack of intimacy in relationships. Others are afraid to push their spouses boundaries sexually. Etc. etc. 

I can honestly see why the ladies balk at the term nice guy. To me it does imply that if you behave like a jerk you'll be more appealing. That isn't true in my opinion, you can still be a good guy, just stop being so scared.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I think your point is reinforcing what Dvl's is saying.
> Remove sexual attraction / tension from the equation and a man wouldn't value female companionship more than a man's.
> 
> I also used to hang out with a group of party girls, all of them sisters , and we'd go clubbing.[ lol, back then we called it disco. ],
> Was never interested in having sex with them , but these chicks were damn sexy. Hanging out with them in the clubs meant me meeting other girls without having to " break the ice."
> 
> Quite a few times, after clubbing, I'd sleep over at their house , IN THE SAME BED as them , drunk as a fish, and we never did anything sexual.
> But trust me, stuff I did with them , I would never do with a man or a group of men.
> When we were in the club, I would dance the conga line with them, we would grind on each other , and we would slow dance whenever we got the chance.
> Hanging out with them definitely had it's privileges and benefits that I couldn't get from hanging out with men.
> Another example I could give is that sometimes we would all pile into one person's car when we were going out to party. Most of those times, one of those girls, the petite one, sat on my lap.
> 
> No way in the world would I have a man sitting on my lap!:rofl:
> 
> So in a sense ,the reason for men preferring to be around women as opposed to men ,might not be directly sexual , but it is definitely overtly sexual.
> If they have the choice to choose a friend between a man and a beautiful woman of equal status, intelligence personality traits and so forth, they'll choose the woman.
> They prefer to hang around women,_ because they are the opposite sex_


Good times. I can certainly relate to the car example. In some ways the relationship is transactional, they probably thought of me as personal protector in addition to a friend. I used to get a kick out of scaring the crap out of guys who got a little bit too close. They would assume that they could join in on the fun too, but the ladies really were only into hanging with the group.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Good times. I can certainly relate to the car example. In some ways the relationship is transactional, they probably thought of me as personal protector in addition to a friend. I used to get a kick out of scaring the crap out of guys who got a little bit too close. *They would assume that they could join in on the fun too, but the ladies really were only into hanging with the group.*


:iagree:
That too, definitely yes^^^!:rofl:


But back then lots of other guys hated me and didn't trust me.
They thought that I was banging the girls group I hung out with. What those guys didn't understand was if I started banging any one of them , jealousy would occur and the group would disintegrate .

If I wanted I could have had a relationship with any one of them, but that would have caused problems with the group. Funny thing was that I also played matchmaker for two of them in that group and one is married to the guy I set her up with.

In hindsight , I had traded some of my male sexual aggression for acceptance into their group and their loyalty. It was an easy trade off , because I met other women through them. 
Hence the ' friend zone " or " sisters" type of relationship.

The relationship was actually symbiotic.

However I'm not so sure the average guy can do that, because they're not accustomed being around women in that kind of way.

Lol, maybe that's where the whole idea of " _men and women can't be just friends _" is coming from.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...I'm sure that having "admitted" to being turned down for sex, some will auto-assume it means I'm a horrible looking uggo. Because "everyone knows" (sarcasm) that "any woman could go into any bar and get sex anytime".
> 
> This is something that men who haven't been approached for sex say to each other. These are usually the same men who are not as sexual as they think they are.


I have turned down sex FAR more than I have accepted. I am not limiting sex to just PIV when I say that, but sexual activity beyond just kissing. While I have only had PIV with three women, I have done just about everything else with more than just a few others. Very rarely have I been the pursuer, and very rarely have I been turned down.

My experience with women I have turned down, and FW, this may make more sense to you since you know a bit about the type of women I am talking about, but the women I have turned down had a difficult time taking it in stride. They ranged from totally confused, to downright hostile and angry, but t the last one, it was clear that they had simply never heard of a man that would turn down a woman. They had bought the social conditioning about men. These experiences helped me begin to understand that men and women really are not as different in some of these things as we have been led to believe.

The one thing though, each and every one of them thought and assumed their sex was a prize, and I think this is a very big difference between men and women. I am not sure many men feel that same way, and I think that may be part of the sexual imbalance in many relationships we see. That one partner places a higher value on their sex than the other.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> However I'm not so sure the average guy can do that, because they're not accustomed being around women in that kind of way.
> 
> Lol, maybe that's where the whole idea of " _men and women can't be just friends _" is coming from.


How are we defining average here? Because I've always had plenty of male friends throughout my life, and I'm pretty sure they were average guys.

And it was simply because we liked each other and had fun together, not because I could "get them chicks" or make them look studly on the dance floor, or whatever other ulterior motive that ensures our sexual identities aren't threatened.

This idea that men and women can have nothing without sexual tension just boggles my mind. We're people, you know. Why is it so weird that we might just enjoy each other's company sometimes?


----------



## Sandfly

ReformedHubby said:


> Your post intrigued me yesterday. I've been trying to figure out why I have such a hard time with the term Nice Guy. I think of myself as a nice guy, I love, love, love women and I'm charming too dammit!!! I never had any problems finding potential partners.
> 
> I'm not saying the men based on TAM's definition of "Nice" don't have issues, I just think those issues are rooted in their own fears. They all appear to have varying levels of fear. Some like the ones you mentioned in your post are just afraid of women in general. I too have seen grown men that can't even look a pretty women in the eyes when talking too her. Others are so afraid to be alone or afraid of change that they endure years of poor treatment and lack of intimacy in relationships. Others are afraid to push their spouses boundaries sexually. Etc. etc.
> 
> I can honestly see why the ladies balk at the term nice guy. To me it does imply that if you behave like a jerk you'll be more appealing. That isn't true in my opinion, you can still be a good guy, just stop being so scared.


A great post, you have highlighted an aspect of their behaviour, and it resembles what we'd call 'fear'.

Why their fear, which manifests as Shyness, Awkwardness, Non-confrontationalism?

And the clue is in what Always Alone defined as positive attributes:

She said 'caring', 'considerate', 'sensitive'.

Imagine a highly sensitive, highly considerate, highly caring person. 

Sensitive - to _rejection_ and criticism... so he doesn't approach a woman he may be interested in.
Considerate - about personal space, so he never takes steps toward intimacy. He does the 'hover hands' thing, the designated driver thing, etc.
Caring - about everyone indiscriminately and to his own detriment. So he tries to rescue even the girls who are broken and beyond help. He takes on other men's children. He gives money away which he himself needs.

'nice' is self-destructive. Instead of this, he should be _appropriate_. 

As Confucius said (lol):

"If you reward injury with kindness, with what will you then reward kindness?"


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> I have turned down sex FAR more than I have accepted. I am not limiting sex to just PIV when I say that, but sexual activity beyond just kissing. While I have only had PIV with three women, I have done just about everything else with more than just a few others. Very rarely have I been the pursuer, and very rarely have I been turned down.
> 
> *My experience with women I have turned down, and FW, this may make more sense to you since you know a bit about the type of women I am talking about, but the women I have turned down had a difficult time taking it in stride. They ranged from totally confused, to downright hostile and angry, but t the last one, it was clear that they had simply never heard of a man that would turn down a woman. They had bought the social conditioning about men. These experiences helped me begin to understand that men and women really are not as different in some of these things as we have been led to believe.*
> 
> *The one thing though, each and every one of them thought and assumed their sex was a prize, and I think this is a very big difference between men and women. I am not sure many men feel that same way, and I think that may be part of the sexual imbalance in many relationships we see. That one partner places a higher value on their sex than the other.*


:iagree:
Especially with the part where you said that men and women are very similar in how they accept and process rejection.

That was my point in my response to FW's post .

My experience is very similar to yours.

The women I have turned down either for a relationship or sex reaction wasn't " amicable" as some would have us believe on this thread.
No.
They were LIVID all of them.

I'll give three examples.

1] I was seeing this girl, before I was married. Used to go at her place sometimes. She introduced me to her sister . Her sister decided that she wanted sex, although she had a steady boyfriend. I turned her down politely and she insisted. 
Not that she wasn't pretty, but I just thought that it was wrong on every level.
Then I tell her sister about he buggin me. In response , she told her sister that I was the one calling her apartment and bugging her for sex.
Well her sister asked me what was her phone #, and I didn't know it because I've never asked her. Then she asked her what was my phone #, and she rattled it out.
Caught her red handed lying.
Problem solved.

2] During the early years of our marriage , I used to visit this little bistro on the outskirts of town every evening, to have a snack and relax , making notes in my diary, after I met with clients for the day.
There were a few waitresses , and I used to be friendly and chatty all of them. But one in particular always served me. She was the bubbly , chatty type.
Anyway, one day she slipped a piece of paper with her address and phone # on it and told me she's " free " for the weekend , pass by her place, with a seductive smile.
I knew what she wanted . I returned the paper, reminded her that I was married [ which she knew].

Went back to the bistro next afternoon, but said girl stopped serving me or returning my pleasantries.
Had my snack ,got up and headed to the washroom . Returned , packed my stuff back into my mailbag and left.

About half a block away, I herd someone calling out my name , looked around and one of the waitresses, was running coming towards me. She told me to look in my bag , because the girl had slipped a condom into my bag. I opened it and looked and found the condom. Apparent said girl was so pissed that she decided to " get even " by planting a condom.

3] Tendering for a contract , and one of the HR managers, a middle age woman decided to make a move on me , hinting to me that she could make things happen for me if i made things happen for her, meaning sex.
Well I definitely wasn't interested because I felt that I made an excellent presentation and could easily beat my competition ,and she wasn't what i considered to be pretty.
I don't know which one pissed me off more , but I immediately reported her and the note she sent me to upper management. I knew that she would make sure I didn't get the contract because I rejected her offer of sex. So I attacked her before her anger cost me a lucrative contract.
Lol, she was immediately fired . Turned out that the person I reported her to , had a friend he wanted to place in her position.

And I got the contract.

Both men and women hate sexual rejection and their reaction might actually be quite similar.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Sandfly said:


> *Sensitive* - to _rejection_ and criticism... so he doesn't approach a woman he may be interested in.
> *Considerate* - about personal space, so he never makes a move. He does the 'hover hands' thing, the designated driver thing, etc.
> *Caring *- about everyone indiscriminately and to his own detriment. So he tries to rescue even the women who are broken and beyond help. He takes on other men's children. He gives money away which he himself needs.


 I still prize these things... sorry.. you can paint it any way you want, I've read a slew of mocking Nice Guy articles... always truth in there, but to minus these things and render them bad.. I won't agree.....

Depends on how they are *used* or *abused* within a couples's dance with each other....

Maybe where I can deal with it is.. I am sooo damn introspective of my H...that if he was even TRYING TO hide how he *really felt*, I'd uncover it.....and call BS on it... I love to pick a brain..and he's told me he loves the attention...and our talks...it's just what we DO....and he doesn't lie... he may not be as forthcoming as myself (obviously) but he is a straight shooter when asked.. if not, we'd have issues... 

I feel strongly that different temperaments (he is primarily a Phlegmatic...I am Choleric)...can work very well with each other -when * Love and Respect* is going forth, of course... both of us being secondary Melancholy probably helps some too... We "get" each other ....

Very opposite on the surface...yet you dig a little deeper, we are perfectly compatible.. I still prefer these type of men.....the sensitive type ..(not overly -but in LOVE).... The others, in my opinion, are rarely Romantic and that would annoy me a great great deal....just saying.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> How are we defining average here? Because I've always had plenty of male friends throughout my life, and I'm pretty sure they were average guys.
> 
> And it was simply because we liked each other and had fun together, not because I could "get them chicks" or make them look studly on the dance floor, or whatever other ulterior motive that ensures our sexual identities aren't threatened.
> 
> This idea that men and women can have nothing without sexual tension just boggles my mind. We're people, you know. Why is it so weird that we might just enjoy each other's company sometimes?


My use of the term " average ' in this context has to do with guys that aren't accustomed around women.
Which I said in my post.

I was fortunate in that I spent part of my early teen years living with my extended family of female cousins ,and all of them were older than me. When I first started going out , I used to hang out with them , going to the movies , amusement park etc.
I learned from them firsthand ,when I saw how they dealt with their male suitors.

It was actually fun , watching how they did it.
But I learned quite about male female interaction ,sex and dating , from them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> "If you reward injury with kindness, with what will you then reward kindness?"


So true^^^.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> My experience with women I have turned down, and FW, this may make more sense to you since you know a bit about the type of women I am talking about, but the women I have turned down had a difficult time taking it in stride. They ranged from totally confused, to downright hostile and angry, but t the last one, it was clear that they had simply never heard of a man that would turn down a woman. They had bought the social conditioning about men. These experiences helped me begin to understand that men and women really are not as different in some of these things as we have been led to believe.
> 
> The one thing though, each and every one of them thought and assumed their sex was a prize, and I think this is a very big difference between men and women. I am not sure many men feel that same way, and I think that may be part of the sexual imbalance in many relationships we see. That one partner places a higher value on their sex than the other.


Sorry Sam...this isn't the kind of women I'm talking about, and isn't the experience they have related. 

Women who are highly sexual and self-aware take it in stride.

The way you are describing your experiences, I'm going to assume there was more than sex on the table that these women wanted. They wanted to prove something, or they felt they could "win" something (you) by "getting" sex.

What I'm talking about are women who don't want to "get" sex, nor are they trying to stroke their egos, nor are they wanting to prove anything to themselves or their friends. I'm talking about women who are simply behaving sexually, and approaching for sex is part of that.

Here's an example, though I have not been in this situation...in a sex club or swingers resort or at a sex party...the people involved all know they are there for sex, but they do not assume that anyone who is there will want to have sex with them. There is a conversation about it, everyone is polite, and if there is a "no thank you" to sex from anyone to anyone else, it is taken in stride and not taken personally. It is understood that not everyone is into each other, even if by being there it is obvious they are into group sex or other edgy sexual behavior.

So if a woman approaches another person at a sex club for sex or swinging and the other person says "no thank you", if she then threw a fit or acted pissed or like she was owed something...she'd be shunned by the community for not being polite and might even be asked to leave.

Does that make more sense?

I'm not saying that being rejected might not hurt, sometimes it might....but usually in the women I'm talking about, it doesn't, because highly sexual people don't think that just because they approach someone sexually that this person OWES them anything.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry Sam...this isn't the kind of women I'm talking about, and isn't the experience they have related.
> 
> Women who are highly sexual and self-aware take it in stride.
> 
> The way you are describing your experiences, I'm going to assume there was more than sex on the table that these women wanted. They wanted to prove something, or they felt they could "win" something (you) by "getting" sex.
> 
> What I'm talking about are women who don't want to "get" sex, nor are they trying to stroke their egos, nor are they wanting to prove anything to themselves or their friends. I'm talking about women who are simply behaving sexually, and approaching for sex is part of that.
> 
> Here's an example, though I have not been in this situation...in a sex club or swingers resort or at a sex party...the people involved all know they are there for sex, but they do not assume that anyone who is there will want to have sex with them. There is a conversation about it, everyone is polite, and if there is a "no thank you" to sex from anyone to anyone else, it is taken in stride and not taken personally. It is understood that not everyone is into each other, even if by being there it is obvious they are into group sex or other edgy sexual behavior.
> 
> So if a woman approaches another person at a sex club for sex or swinging and the other person says "no thank you", if she then threw a fit or acted pissed or like she was owed something...she'd be shunned by the community for not being polite and might even be asked to leave.
> 
> Does that make more sense?
> 
> I'm not saying that being rejected might not hurt, sometimes it might....but usually in the women I'm talking about, it doesn't, because highly sexual people don't think that just because they approach someone sexually that this person OWES them anything.


Geez...my sexually formative years got me soooo screwed up...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not sure what you mean?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure what you mean?


There are positives and negatives to my experiences, but none of them really fit within the norm, and so what is normal fr me is often very different from what is normal for others...


----------



## Faithful Wife

As for any bell curves...until we include men and women of all cultures, including tribal cultures, and consider them as part of normal human sexuality, then any bell curve we can publish right now is, IMO, inaccurate and unusable. The old model of "monogamy is nature" and also the model of "we have sex first and foremost to procreate" are being torn apart by scientists all over the globe. We have sex on average 1,000 per every baby that is made. This is not true in other animals. We are different. We do it for emotional pleasure and physical pleasure and to bond to each other.

Here's a great TED talk about the subject of human sexual omnivores. To understand what this means, try not to make assumptions before watching it. 

Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores? | Video on TED.com

I am also reading the What Do Women Want Book, and I'm loving it precisely because they are mocking evo-psyche outwardly at every opportunity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> There are positives and negatives to my experiences, but none of them really fit within the norm, and so what is normal fr me is often very different from what is normal for others...


You remind me of SA's H. I think if he had ended up single a bit longer, he may have been hit up by a lot of females the way you were, and turned them down the way you did. He is also highly sexual like you, but highly specific in his choosing and reasons for choosing. I think you and he had to see something within the person that you recognized as "this is the one it feels right with" in order to be open to having sex.

So while you might not fit a norm as you said it, I think there are men like you. I have known a few in real life. They are always men who you can tell are Good Men. For me, I can tell if a man is looking at me "that way" and men like you never do. 

There are some men who you can feel their eyes on you (not saying this is good or bad, just that I can tell) and also some men who you know would betray their wives...just in their vibe. But men like you do not vibe that way, and they are the men who wouldn't be sneaking looks at your legs if you just happen to be wearing shorts. Again, that doesn't mean the man isn't a sexual person, it just means he isn't a slave to the image of a woman's shape. 

ALSO...men who ARE somewhat slaves to the image of a woman's shape can ALSO be good men, so I don't want to sound like they cannot. But hopefully you know what I am saying and how I mean it about you and other men like you. I personally am sort of a slave to men and women's shapes...and yet, I am a good person.  I just know how to control myself.

Like my H has a friend with your vibe...he is a sexual person, but I never feel his eyes on me or see him peek at any other female "that way". One time my H told me to go change out of some short shorts when this friend was over, which I did immediately. But then after the friend left I said to my H "you know...I just want you to know my vibe reading of your friend is that he would never be peeking like that." And my H thought about it and said "Yes...you are right I think. But you still need to cover those things up so I will not be distracted and can hang out with my friend".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> *You remind me of SA's H.* I think if he had ended up single a bit longer, he may have been hit up by a lot of females the way you were, and turned them down the way you did.


 we established this a while back on one of my threads...when he identified with much of the way my Husband THINKS/ feels ....& I guess my personality sounds very much like his STBW !...(even if our sexual journey to find love was very different).....that was so Cool !... also *Stonewall* & his wife ...another near copy of us.... 



> So while you might not fit a norm as you said it, I think there are men like you. * I have known a few in real life.* * They are always men who you can tell are Good Men. For me, I can tell if a man is looking at me "that way" and men like you never do*.


 It is FEW isn't it... I've never felt my H was the norm...but the exception.. and you are very right about this.. he does NOT -ever give off this *vibe*.... Didn't feel it when we met...I even told him how different he was, but I saw that as a good thing.

And in all our years together (32)... I never found him looking at another women in a way that bothered me, this explains why it's so EASY for me to talk openly about all of these things...pulling some dirt out of him... is FUN....he is fiercely devoted...how do we not love that! 



> ALSO...men who ARE somewhat slaves to the image of a woman's shape can ALSO be good men, so I don't want to sound like they cannot. But hopefully you know what I am saying and how I mean it about you and other men like you. * I personally am sort of a slave to men and women's shapes...and yet, I am a good person.  I just know how to control myself.*


 Yeah.. me too  ...he doesn't mind it though, just calls me his "dirty old woman" with a ..... he likes to look too... but a woman would never catch it.. likely.


----------



## sidney2718

samyeagar said:


> The one thing though, each and every one of them thought and assumed their sex was a prize, and I think this is a very big difference between men and women. I am not sure many men feel that same way, and I think that may be part of the sexual imbalance in many relationships we see. That one partner places a higher value on their sex than the other.


Oh yes. The extreme example of this is the sexless marriage where one partner has lost all desire.

I just wish that our western society could talk more openly about sexual issues. I think that a lot of problems, even of the sort we have here in TAM, would not have happened in that case.


----------



## Machiavelli

ConanHub said:


> Do you think that could be cultural? I have shut down far more women than I accepted but probably *got more bewilderment and anger than a female counterpart of myself*.


Exactly. You're saying she's not attractive enough or she has cooties or something. Her view is that everyman should go for her honeypot when offered and much hotter and higher ranking men than you have accepted in the past. So, she wants to know what's your major malfunction. 

That's when you get, "You must be gay!"



ConanHub said:


> One woman was shocked and confessed she had never been turned down before me.


That's because a lot of women only are aggressive with men they perceive as "alpha" types and one of the hallmarks of the so-called alpha type is that they do not turn down women for sex. Look at Arnold's housemaid or the hotel cleaning ladies Steve McQueen (and many other celebrities) used to do, or the capitol building cleaning ladies LBJ used to do on his desk, JFK and his interns, etc etc etc.


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> So in a sense ,the reason for men preferring to be around women as opposed to men ,might not be directly sexual , but it is definitely overtly sexual.
> If they have the choice to choose a friend between a man and a beautiful woman of equal status, intelligence personality traits and so forth, they'll choose the woman.
> They prefer to hang around women,_ because they are the opposite sex_


Excellent distillation of the social dynamic.


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> However *I'm not so sure the average guy can do that,* because they're not accustomed being around women in that kind of way.
> 
> Lol, maybe that's where the whole idea of " _men and women can't be just friends _" is coming from.


Only an attractive, frequently laid guy (not counting gays) is going to be able to maintain that social situation very long anyway, because most guys wouldn't be able to keep their fingers out of the pie(s). In fact, that's true of most of the attractive frequently laid guys as well.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> This idea that men and women can have nothing without sexual tension just boggles my mind. We're people, you know. Why is it so weird that we might just enjoy each other's company sometimes?


There was probably sexual tension on their end, they just resolved it later, like good Beta-Orbiters. Even if I'm not going to act on it, I don't hang around women that don't give me some sexual tension.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> My use of the term " average ' in this context has to do with guys that aren't accustomed around women.
> Which I said in my post.


And I'm just questioning whether it's really true that "average" means unable to hang out with women. 

I've always hung out with men. Some of my best friends have been men. It was never any big deal to go skinny dipping or share a bed without sexual undertones. Same as a nude beach. You can be surrounded by naked bodies without it necessarily being sexual. Indeed, in those environments, those that can't keep their eyes under control are looked at with disdain for their lack of maturity. (Except maybe a gay beach, which is more usually about cruising.)

They're just bodies, after all. We all have one.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> There was probably sexual tension on their end, they just resolved it later, like good Beta-Orbiters. Even if I'm not going to act on it, I don't hang around women that don't give me some sexual tension.


That's just BS based on your assumptions, which I know you'll never abandon, but which are in fact false.

I never had a beta-orbiter, I'm sure, and my male friends have often/usually had girlfriends or wives.

You don't like women, except for the ****-in-hole aspect? Your prerogative and your loss.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Her view is that everyman should go for her honeypot when offered and much hotter and higher ranking men than you have accepted in the past. So, she wants to know what's your major malfunction.


That's some might charming women you're hanging out with there. Too bad you've decided that all women must be like them.

Oh wait, that's probably exactly your type. Never mind.


----------



## Lyris

I have male friends. There's a bit of sexual tension at times, but so what. Noones acting on it. And just because they think hey, nice ass, or whatever, doesn't mean they don't also enjoy being friends with me for my brilliant insight and witty repartee. 

Maybe women who are boring and hot get men hanging around them purely for the frisson, but that's not me so that's not my experience.

My life is richer for my male friends because they are brilliant and funny and kind. I pick them for the same reasons I pick my female friends, there's just an extra element. Although I'd also totally do some of my female friends.


----------



## always_alone

It's pretty amazing, though, the amount of shame heaped on men for being friends with women.

Or maybe it's jealousy?


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> It's pretty amazing, though, the amount of shame heaped on men for being friends with women.
> 
> Or maybe it's jealousy?


I don't have an issue with men being friends with women. I have an issue with the men that have feelings for the woman but never act on it. Or even worse they act on it, get rejected, than hang around sometimes for years hoping she'll change her mind. I don't think its healthy for anyone to maintain a friendship where one party has romantic feelings and the other party doesn't.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> It's pretty amazing, though, the amount of shame heaped on men for being friends with women.
> 
> Or maybe it's jealousy?


:rofl:

Yes, we envy the men who orbit an attention-seeking woman for years, and who never gather the courage to take it further. 

I tell you who I'm really jealous of though... 

Spiderman. Think of all the robberies you could do. Even if you got nicked, escaping from gaol would be a doddle.


----------



## Machiavelli

Machiavelli said:


> Her view is that everyman should go for her honeypot when offered and much hotter and higher ranking men than you have accepted in the past. So, she wants to know what's your major malfunction.





always_alone said:


> That's some might charming women you're hanging out with there. Too bad you've decided that all women must be like them.
> 
> Oh wait, that's probably exactly your type. Never mind.


Huh? The subject of my response is about women who get pissed off when one turns down their proposition of sex. If I turn them down, it would seem to be a good indicator that they are not "my type." It's also preposterous to say that I've "decided that all women must be like them," as you put it, since I do say yes to those who measure up to my criteria.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> You don't like women, except for the ****-in-hole aspect? Your prerogative and your loss.


No, I'm in it for the romance and the flowers they bring me.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> Or even worse they act on it, get rejected, than hang around sometimes for years hoping she'll change her mind. I don't think its healthy for anyone to maintain a friendship where one party has romantic feelings and the other party doesn't.


Agreed. But how many people actually do this?

I've seen like one guy ever fall into this trap. He stuck around her for quite a while, then eventually gave up.

But the way some describe it here, any man that's friends with a woman must be some passive aggressive beta-orbiter. 

Because obviously the reason a man would bother with a women is for sex, and a friend is no friend unless she comes with benefits.

(And then in the next breath they wonder where women get this crazy idea that men are only in it for sex --and call *us* confusing )


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> It's also preposterous to say that I've "decided that all women must be like them," as you put it, since I do say yes to those who measure up to my criteria.


So, with these women, the ones that do meet your criteria, suppose you decided to reject one for some reason (married, already had plans, whatever). She, of course, would take your rejection gracefully and with good humor, right?

I wasn't suggesting that the women you turned down were your type: Just speculating on the sources of your views about women.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> Agreed. But how many people actually do this?
> 
> I've seen like one guy ever fall into this trap. He stuck around her for quite a while, then eventually gave up.
> 
> But the way some describe it here, any man that's friends with a woman must be some passive aggressive beta-orbiter.
> 
> Because obviously the reason a man would bother with a women is for sex, and a friend is no friend unless she comes with benefits.
> 
> (And then in the next breath they wonder where women get this crazy idea that men are only in it for sex --and call *us* confusing )


Speaking only for myself of course, it wasn't difficult being friends with females as long as I was actively dating or in a relationship. I think it would have been very problematic for me if I had no one in my life to meet my needs for intimacy.

Regarding the orbiter thing. I wouldn't call it a trap because they do it to themselves. I honestly think most women are oblivious to it. Part of the reason is half the time the orbiter never makes their feelings known. I don't think its behavior that's reserved just for men. I lost a handful of female friends when I told them I was engaged. They said congrats but their body language and eyes said otherwise. I honestly never thought they had any interest beyond just casual friendship.

One thing that's always been a guilty pleasure of mine is to observe orbiters hovering around female family members. Because you know your family member's "type" and you get to watch all the suitors that don't fit that "type" crash and burn. 

I was helping my former sister-in-law move. There were two other men there that I know were interested in her, I also knew she was upfront about it per my wife and told them she only wanted to be friends. Well...turns out her boyfriend surprises her and shows up to help out too. I'd never met him before but I knew he played pro ball in Europe, and he was good looking too (I'm secure enough to admit this). 

I honestly felt bad for those guys in that moment. It was as if both of them realized they'd never be able to compete with him. But, it never should've gotten to that point. She never implied any romantic interest in them. I wish I could say they both took the hint but per my wife one of them still comes around when her boyfriend is traveling. My sister in law is okay with him coming around because they are "friends". They even go to the movies together.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Machiavelli said:


> That's because a lot of women only are aggressive with men they perceive as "alpha" types and one of the hallmarks of the so-called alpha type is that they do not turn down women for sex. Look at Arnold's housemaid or the hotel cleaning ladies Steve McQueen (and many other celebrities) used to do, or the capitol building cleaning ladies LBJ used to do on his desk, JFK and his interns, etc etc etc.


Interesting thoughts. I never used to turn down sex either from anybody but I genuinely attribute it to a personality flaw or defect. My reasoning behind it was always kind of weird. I actually enjoyed being with some of the ones that weren't the most attractive even more, they absolutely loved the attention. For whatever reason really I liked making them happy.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> So, with these women, the ones that do meet your criteria, suppose you decided to reject one for some reason (married, already had plans, whatever). She, of course, would take your rejection gracefully and with good humor, right?


Not much in the grace and humor department, unless its somewhere pretty public without alcohol on their part. Since I'm married monogamously, I've been turning down all offers for the last thirty years. It has been my experience that women you work with or know pretty well socially take rejected propositions the hardest, then to a lesser extent women who are lit, like at a gig (you're never going to see them again, but if you do, they won't remember offering). The drunks are vocal about being offended, but the ones you know or work with will hate you forever. Once you turn down that offer, they'll never be friends with you again. The sober women you don't know and never see again, like on a job out of town or at the grocery store, aren't loud about it because they're sober and you aren't going to have to feel their wrath around the office, so they were the easiest to take and that's when you get a graceful acceptance of rejection. Even under those circumstances, though, you can still get the nasty "you must be gay" comeback, even today, according to my sons.



always_alone said:


> I wasn't suggesting that the women you turned down were your type: Just speculating on the sources of your views about women.


My views primarily arise from my personal experiences and observations since 1965, when I was first invited by an older girl to play with her soon to be breasts. Of course, I wasn't married at age 9, so I took her up on it and she didn't have to feel all rejected and everything.


----------



## Machiavelli

ReformedHubby said:


> Interesting thoughts. I never used to turn down sex either from anybody but I genuinely attribute it to a personality flaw or defect. My reasoning behind it was always kind of weird. I actually enjoyed being with some of the ones that weren't the most attractive even more, they absolutely loved the attention. For whatever reason really I liked making them happy.


Ben Franklin joking alludes to this with regard to older women in "Advice to a Young Man on Choosing a Mistress."

It is an inherent element of the alpha male sexual personality.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Not much in the grace and humor department, unless its somewhere pretty public without alcohol on their part. Since I'm married monogamously, I've been turning down all offers for the last thirty years. It has been my experience that women you work with or know pretty well socially take rejected propositions the hardest, then to a lesser extent women who are lit, like at a gig (you're never going to see them again, but if you do, they won't remember offering). The drunks are vocal about being offended, but the ones you know or work with will hate you forever. Once you turn down that offer, they'll never be friends with you again. The sober women you don't know and never see again, like on a job out of town or at the grocery store, aren't loud about it because they're sober and you aren't going to have to feel their wrath around the office, so they were the easiest to take and that's when you get a graceful acceptance of rejection. Even under those circumstances, though, you can still get the nasty "you must be gay" comeback, even today, according to my sons.


Like I said, some real charmers that you seem to attract. What you describe is totally on par with those guys who, when rejected, start calling her a b*tch or a slvt, or a frigid prude, spread rumors about her having STDs or doing something humiliating, or simply running around lying about how they banged her and she loved it. Guys that think they're god's gift to women, and that she should weak in the knees at the very thought that she might get to see his rod, or that she somehow owes him sex, just because. 

IOW, totally juvenile garbage. No woman I know would act like that, and I do my best to stay clear of such men. 

Your mileage clearly varies, though, as I can see from what you post that this is totally the type that you attract, and that has your full attention.

Whatever turns your crank, I suppose.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> C2W, while it always sucks to get dumped, its still his perogative to seek sex when he's ready, and your perogative to deny when you're not. Short time frame or not, this doesn't make him a bad man or say all he cared about was sex. You were mismatched and he ended it.


You, clearly, didn't read my post at all. Of course it was his perogative to dump me, and for any reason. I have no issue with that. But to then imply that I had no right to feel as I did is wrong. 

And yes, he was a bad guy. He cheated on me and lied to me, and went on to do the same thing to other women, too. 



> Okay ladies, none of your hubbies are actually like this. They all just wanted to get to know you. Mens magazines are full of tips on "how to get to know her", not "how to get laid", and "how to rock her world in bed", because that's what guys are really motivated by - getting to know you. You all have the "different" one.


I thought we were having a civil discussion, where we both were trying to understand the other. If you'd even read my post you'd have seen that I agreed with a lot of what you said. So I don't know why you're being so sarcastic and defensive. 



> My feeling is that the mind will believe whatever the heart wants it to, true even for men. The irony is that even this thread shames men for seeking sex - note the outrage and how fiercely you argue "No! He just wanted to get to know me!"
> 
> I surrender. Not really, but I'm out of energy and am going out tonight. Hope everyone has a great weekend.


That's not what I said at all. Go back and read my post without this consistent bias against me, that always seems to show its head when we start to understand each other better, and hopefully you'll see that you've completely misunderstood and misrepresented me.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> No woman I know would act like that, and I do my best to stay clear of such men.


Always with the caveat 'no woman _*I *know_.

You don't experience this because, well... you're not a man are you.

It's unsurprising that no woman _you know_ has acted this way to you. Do you think they would admit being rejected by a man to you, and then supply you with the details in which their petty grudgy handling of their rejection is laid bare?

In the reasonable amount of times (not as many as Mach, lol, but enough to constitute a statistical sample) where I have politely shown a lack of interest in a woman, they have reacted universally in one of two ways:

1- Turned into bitter psychos (love to hate in 3 seconds flat)
2- Put on a hurt face, stepped back toward 'friendship' and then tried again at a later date.

You don't know _any_? There's no other kind in my experience.

They act just like men, in a way. An unstable way.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> Honestly, this is just sad. It is not a matter of getting, for my part. It is a matter of not agreeing that this is a universal or even common attitude among men. In fact, I just repeated this to DH and he laughed and said "for him". When he goes to the gym, I am the first person he asks to join him. We choose to hang out with each other on purpose when other choices are available. Etcetera.
> 
> I think about sitting around the room on our regular team meetings at work. We aren't specifically men and women. We are people. We are smart. Funny. Interested in different things. Skilled in different things.
> 
> I think about my friend's upcoming move. They did not just ask my husband to help. They asked both of us.
> 
> I think about my gaming friends. They ask me too. I think about when someone wants to do a running race. They ask my husband because he runs. When someone is doing a dance event, they ask me because I dance.
> 
> There is a lot to my husband and my relationship, including great sex. But since there is more to me, and more to him than boxing human people into gender boxes, we have a lot more too. He sees me as one of the smartest, most capable people he knows.


I just asked my husband, "When we first started getting to know each other, why did you continue to seek out my company?"

He said, "Because I liked being around you."

I asked, "Why?"

He said, "You were nice, you listed to me and had good conversational skills, you didn't just talk about yourself...you wanted to know about me too. Our interests were aligned enough that I thought we could have a lot of fun together."

I asked him if ever thought about a future with me, even before we were dating and he said, "A little bit. I didn't have a lot of people in my life at the time, and I didn't want to be desperate, which was why I wanted to make sure there was more than just sexual attraction between us."

I asked, "What was your primary reason for seeking my company, even before we were dating?"

He said, "You were an attractive, great friend. Sex and sexual attraction are great, but that's not the end-all be-all of a relationship or friendship." 

I asked him if he thought about sex at all before we dated, and he said, "Not really. I feel like the answer should be yes, but it isn't. I didn't want desperation to lead me to make a desperate move; perhaps you'd end up just being a great friend, and I didn't want to a friendship by jumping too quickly into a relationship. I was okay if you and I were best as friends, and I wanted to make sure we could be friends if a relationship didn't come from the friendship."

I asked him if, after we started flirting and it was clear there _was_ more than friendship between us, if sex started being on his mind more, and if so, was it just in general or was it specifically with me. He said, "It _was_ on my mind more, and specifically with you. The platonic friendship allowed the chemistry between us to flourish."

I then asked him, was your primary intention of being my friend the chance to have sex with me? He laughed and said, "No." 

I think men are more than capable of having female friends without sex, and I think men absolutely can appreciate a woman's company for more than sex. To think otherwise is to have an extremely low view of women.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> I think men are more than capable of having female friends without sex, and I think men absolutely can appreciate a woman's company for more than sex. To think otherwise is to have an extremely low view of women.


He sounds perfectly normal and decent.

You should ask him one more question before arriving at your conclusion:

"If I met a male friend _now_, and we started hanging out together, in the same way _we _used to, would you be cool with that?"


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> One thing that's always been a guilty pleasure of mine is to observe orbiters hovering around female family members. Because you know your family member's "type" and you get to watch all the suitors that don't fit that "type" crash and burn.


Lol, looks like we had the same pastime!

Whenever a woman is " hot" or highly desired among many men , if she is of high social status , meaning she's very discriminating about what type of male she mates with, or she's a socialite / life of the party ,she _would_ have beta orbiters around her.

Beta orbiter's role is simply to massage her ego and validate her desirability.
They make her feel like a " queen bee" because they do whatever she wants them to do.
Because females are cultured differently to males, she think that they are " just friends " who are witty , smart, intelligent and nice to have around. Their main purpose is to serve her every need, real or imagined except intimate and sexual needs.
They usually fool themselves into thinking they're indispensable. 

But the reality is that they do stuff for her because they hope to be more than " just friends " one day. The don't think that one day she'll just drop her shorts for them, but the think that by doing nice stuff for her , the " friendship " will progress to something more intimate.
That's why they get jealous and begin using underhanded tactics to " lock " any other male when she begins to show interest to them.

A beta orbiter's job is to run errands for her, because she hates waiting in line.
Pick her up at the club when she's too wasted to drive ,or after work , or after a shopping spree , or general transport ,and drop her home or anywhere she wants to go.
Handle unpleasant situations for her. 
Carry her shopping bags after she's finished shopping at the mall.
Listen to her life's delimas and * problems* , and act as if they're extremely important ,no matter how petty they are .

And generally anything she would never ask or expect a man whom she respect , to do for her.

That is why they are called " orbiters."
Without her , they are nothing.
Without them , she's still * hot.*


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> I just asked my husband, "When we first started getting to know each other, why did you continue to seek out my company?"
> 
> He said, "Because I liked being around you."
> 
> I asked, "Why?"
> 
> He said, "You were nice, you listed to me and had good conversational skills, you didn't just talk about yourself...you wanted to know about me too. Our interests were aligned enough that I thought we could have a lot of fun together."
> 
> I asked him if ever thought about a future with me, even before we were dating and he said, "A little bit. I didn't have a lot of people in my life at the time, and I didn't want to be desperate, which was why I wanted to make sure there was more than just sexual attraction between us."
> 
> I asked, "What was your primary reason for seeking my company, even before we were dating?"
> 
> He said, "You were an attractive, great friend. Sex and sexual attraction are great, but that's not the end-all be-all of a relationship or friendship."
> 
> I asked him if he thought about sex at all before we dated, and he said, "Not really. I feel like the answer should be yes, but it isn't. I didn't want desperation to lead me to make a desperate move; perhaps you'd end up just being a great friend, and I didn't want to a friendship by jumping too quickly into a relationship. I was okay if you and I were best as friends, and I wanted to make sure we could be friends if a relationship didn't come from the friendship."
> 
> I asked him if, after we started flirting and it was clear there _was_ more than friendship between us, if sex started being on his mind more, and if so, was it just in general or was it specifically with me. He said, "It _was_ on my mind more, and specifically with you. The platonic friendship allowed the chemistry between us to flourish."
> 
> I then asked him, was your primary intention of being my friend the chance to have sex with me? He laughed and said, "No."
> 
> I think men are more than capable of having female friends without sex, and I think men absolutely can appreciate a woman's company for more than sex. To think otherwise is to have an extremely low view of women.


My wife and I have had almost identical exchanges from time to time when we've reminisced about how we first met and how unlikely the whole situation was.

I can sorta identify with both viewpoints here. It was my wife's personality and intelligence that was attractive. But it wasn't her personality and intelligence that gave me the kick in the rear I needed to get up, go across the room and ask her to dance. That was much more physical.


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> Always with the caveat 'no woman _*I *know_.
> 
> You don't experience this because, well... you're not a man are you.
> 
> It's unsurprising that no woman _you know_ has acted this way to you. Do you think they would admit being rejected by a man to you, and then supply you with the details in which their petty grudgy handling of their rejection is laid bare?


You're forgetting that women talk about such things. So while it's true that I haven't dated any crazy or immature women, I've talked with many about relationships and rejection. The most most typical response seems to be to feel hurt for a while and then move on.

It's true that some guys will also turn into bitter psychos, and a few might hang around and try again later. But my experience is that many can accept rejection gracefully, and simply move on.

It's not like there's a shortage of fish in the sea.

I fail to see why remaining friends after determining there's not to be a sexual future is a sign of anything remotely close to what Machiavelli describes.


----------



## Sandfly

Totally agree, CM.

A memorable example is when I stayed in this backpacking hostel for a few weeks, where the receptionist was friendly and chatty.

I thought she was lovely, nice-looking, a great conversationalist. She made the coffee, and we would sit outside on this kind of balcony into the small hours of the morning, drinking coffee, chatting and smoking.

I didn't realise that she was Cleopatra, Queen of the nile, till I started noticing how other males were behaving in her presence.

They were competing for her attention, making excuses to come down and visit reception at all hours, sitting near reception to use the Wi-Fi when the wifi worked perfectly well in the rooms, talking to her about their fabulous careers and personal life, their hopes and dreams and childhoods... all the while giving me the evils for sitting in the chair next to her throne every night.

I had to laugh, because there is nothing special about me. All these other guys were clearly closer to her age and interests and social class.

I think they made their interest in her too obvious. If it was obvious to me, it must have been as loud as the trumpets at Jericho to her.

It's such a fun thing to watch, the way men just plain suck at hiding their attraction 

How can any woman on TAM pretend they 'are unaware' that many of their male 'friends' (not all) are attracted to them? I think it's because they enjoy the attention, and they wish to keep up appearances by feigning ignorance/innocence.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Beta orbiter's role is simply to massage her ego and validate her desirability.
> They make her feel like a " queen bee" because they do whatever she wants them to do.
> Because females are cultured differently to males, she think that they are " just friends " who are witty , smart, intelligent and nice to have around. Their main purpose is to serve her every need, real or imagined except intimate and sexual needs.


No doubt there are some narcissistic princesses that use men this way, but most of us actually have genuine friendships with people who actually are witty and fun to be around --not errand boys.


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> How can any woman on TAM pretend they 'are unaware' that many of their male 'friends' (not all) are attracted to them? I think it's because they enjoy the attention, and they wish to keep up appearances by feigning ignorance/innocence.


Cuz most of us aren't playing stupid games like this and leading guys on all the time.

I would never turn a guy into a hanger-on or errand boy -- and even if I could, I wouldn't want to be near him.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> No doubt there are some narcissistic princesses that use men this way, but most of us actually have genuine friendships with people who actually are witty and fun to be around --not errand boys.


She is not a " narcissistic princess" neither is she really " using" these men.

They generally keep " buzzing " around her , no matter if she tells the to buzz off.
Many men give her attention all the time, but the beta orbiters are the one who _pretend _to be " eunuchs. " Other men simply make their desires known and move on if she rejects them. Beta orbiters stay even though she might reject them because they feel if they are nice to hwer , she might change her mind .

They do it on their own free will , because they tell themselves the * need * her attention.


Notice that beta orbiters *NEVER* have girlfriends / lovers of their own.
That's why they always have so much time, and emotional energy to invest in the one sided " relationship."


----------



## Lyris

Sandfly said:


> How can any woman on TAM pretend they 'are unaware' that many of their male 'friends' (not all) are attracted to them? I think it's because they enjoy the attention, and they wish to keep up appearances by feigning ignorance/innocence.


I'm not unaware. I just don't think it matters that much. I have some make friends who find me attractive, as I find them. It doesn't mean we want to get married. Or that anyone's pining away. It just means that if our situations were different we might hook up.


----------



## Sandfly

Lyris said:


> I'm not unaware. I just don't think it matters that much. I have some make friends who find me attractive, as I find them. It doesn't mean we want to get married. Or that anyone's pining away. It just means that if our situations were different *we might hook up*.


Nice! 

You should let your husband know that you've got partners on stand-by.


----------



## ocotillo

Sandfly said:


> Nice!
> 
> You should let your husband know that you've got partners on stand-by.


Lyris can speak for herself, but I don't she she meant it that way at all. I've got female friends that, to be honest, we might possibly have hooked up in another life. 

But that's not the way things worked out and we all accept that now. 

Does that make sense? :scratchhead:


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Like I said, some real charmers that you seem to attract. What you describe is totally on par with those guys who, when rejected, start calling her a b*tch or a slvt, or a frigid prude, spread rumors about her having STDs or doing something humiliating, or simply running around lying about how they banged her and she loved it.


So, what's any of that got to do with women who are turned down when they offer sex? Isn't that what we were talking about? Do you want to change the subject?



always_alone said:


> Guys that think they're god's gift to women, and that she should weak in the knees at the very thought that she might get to see his rod, or that she somehow owes him sex, just because.


So, you want to switch from discussing female desire to...what, exactly?



always_alone said:


> IOW, totally juvenile garbage. No woman I know would act like that, and I do my best to stay clear of such men.


Women who act like what? Being surprised or hurt over her sexual advance being rejected? Well, juvenile or not it does happen. You do your best to stay clear of men who reject your sexual advances? 

Interesting.



always_alone said:


> Your mileage clearly varies, though, as I can see from what you post that this is totally the type that you attract, and that has your full attention.
> 
> Whatever turns your crank, I suppose.


Which "type" are you referring to, the ones whose offers I accepted or the ones whose offers I rejected?


----------



## Sandfly

ocotillo said:


> Lyris can speak for herself, but I don't she she meant it that way at all. I've got female friends that, to be honest, we might possibly have hooked up in another life.
> 
> But that's not the way things worked out and we all accept that now.
> 
> Does that make sense? :scratchhead:


Of course you're right...  I just have a good eye for 'freudian slips' and all that.

Instead of saying "It just means that if our situations were different *we might have hooked up*." (past)

She says:

"It just means that if our situations were different *we might hook up*." (future possibility)


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> She is not a " narcissistic princess" neither is she really " using" these men.
> 
> They generally keep " buzzing " around her , no matter if she tells the to buzz off.
> Many men give her attention all the time, but the beta orbiters are the one who _pretend _to be " eunuchs. " Other men simply make their desires known and move on if she rejects them. Beta orbiters stay even though she might reject them because they feel if they are nice to hwer , she might change her mind .
> 
> They do it on their own free will , because they tell themselves the * need * her attention.
> 
> 
> Notice that beta orbiters *NEVER* have girlfriends / lovers of their own.
> That's why they always have so much time, and emotional energy to invest in the one sided " relationship."


Agreed, they literally never have girlfriends. I don't think my former sister-in-law is narcissistic either. Honestly if she knew that the guy was probably hurting inside she would probably stop hanging out with him. But he outwardly appears to be doing just fine and perfectly okay with being friends. So she continues the friendship. I don't think she knows that the poor bastard is caught up in a one way emotional attachment.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I've put some thought into the whole do men think only about sex first when they meet a woman and like everything else "it varies". Are we talking about someone that I'm just meeting for the first time? Or are we talking about someone that I got to know over time via school, church, work etc. That changes things a lot in my opinion. If all I have is the visual, it weighs more towards the sexual side of things.

I already knew my wife before we started dating. Being honest I waited a long time before I even showed any interest because I felt she deserved better than who I was at the time. I had a lot of respect for her and really wanted to make it work if we ever started dating. Had I not gotten to know her through our social circle and just happened to meet her randomly for the first time I can't honestly say that the ratio of getting to know her versus sexual interest would not have been the same. She was like Fort Knox. I probably would have just met her and saw that she was too much of a challenge and moved on. It would have been a shame too.


----------



## Lyris

Well I suppose it is a future possibility for either of us, as he has plenty of opposite sex friends too. I might die. He might die. He might leave me. 

I don't assume anything about the future. But we've got 23 years of pretty blissful monogamy behind us, so I'd say we're in a better position than most.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Beta orbiter's role is simply to massage her ego and validate her desirability.
> They make her feel like a " queen bee" because they do whatever she wants them to do.
> 
> A beta orbiter's job is to run errands for her, because she hates waiting in line.
> Pick her up at the club when she's too wasted to drive ,or after work , or after a shopping spree , or general transport ,and drop her home or anywhere she wants to go.
> Handle unpleasant situations for her.
> Carry her shopping bags after she's finished shopping at the mall.
> Listen to her life's delimas and * problems* , and act as if they're extremely important ,no matter how petty they are .
> 
> And generally anything she would never ask or expect a man whom she respect , to do for her.


Ah, well, the way you describe it here, it sure sounds narcissistic and entitled to me. I can't even imagine using a guy I don't respect as an errand boy so he can do unpleasant things for me, validate my desirability, and make me feel like a queen bee.

And this is just normal girl stuff to you?

Yeesh. Am liking being an extraterrestrial more and more.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Sandfly said:


> How can any woman on TAM pretend they 'are unaware' that many of their male 'friends' (not all) are attracted to them? I think it's because they enjoy the attention, and they wish to keep up appearances by feigning ignorance/innocence.


I don't think anyone is attracted to me.Even if someone tells me they think I'm attractive and sexy I brush it off as them just being polite or sweet.Maybe it's my p.d. coming into play there? 

I don't have male friends of my own.I don't think DH's friends are secretly sweating me when they come over to play videogames and cards w/DH and I happen to be there playing too.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> So, what's any of that got to do with women who are turned down when they offer sex? Isn't that what we were talking about? Do you want to change the subject?


I was using an analogy to help you see that your descriptions of women would benefit from some recognition of the variety of responses.

And since you've clearly stepped back from vicious and name-calling to "surprised and hurt", I can see that it was pretty successful.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> See, Dvl's, the thing is that you are insisting that sex and looks are always primary for men, and that men have no use for women without sex. And when someone disagrees, you run immediately to the opposite extreme, and assume they're saying that men don't care about sex at all.


That's not at all the case I'm making.

This part you have me right on: For men, sex is primary. 

The rest is off. I'm not really making a point about looks. Even if he can't catch his ideal woman on looks, sex is still his primary motivation for the women he can get. Nowhere have I said that men have no use for women without sex. I said that without our sexual motivation, you're just like any guy to us... and we don't generally go try to get to know random guys; certainly not strike a conversation up with a random guy in starbucks to get his number because he might be a great guy to hang out with. We go after women because we want sex. If our primary motivation was to get to know you, 

I'm not interpreting you or other women here as saying the opposite extreme - that men don't care about sex at all - either. Its that I don't perceive that you're really understanding that our very first and overwhelmingly dominant motivation is sex. Sexual thought is first. We see you and near instantaneously decide if we'd want to have sex with you - getting to know you comes a distant second. If we never really knew you would we still have sex with you? For most guys, probably. If sex was way on the backburner of most men's minds, as the women here seem to be stating, we wouldn't likely go after women we know nothing about. Sex is primary.

Arguments on this thread aside, women do actually know/learn this. This is why a woman who really wants more male attention will simply show more skin. Its even probably why you feel sexier in that tight dress that better shows off your curves - its associated with getting more male attention - even if its just the *feeling* that you wanted, and not real male attention.

I believe the order of needs/wants is somewhat reversed in men and women.

For men, its something like: sex -> companionship -> security -> love/intimacy

For women, its usually more like: security -> companionship -> love/intimacy -> sex

I think the order of women's needs/wants expressed this way can vary to look like the man's on occasion - sex taking priority; but when it does, such relationships rarely convert to long term. The majority of the time women are primarily seeking relationships - even when sex is on the backburner of their thought. Men are primarily seeking sex - relationships are on the backburner of their thoughts.

The sort of "shaming" that I was referring to is that women believe "good men" approach all this from the same perspective as women. Note how everyone believes their husband's motivation was supposedly primarily "just to get to know you". The idea that sex was his primary motivation is repugnant - even if he still got to know and fell in love with you.

That's one example of how men get sexually shamed. Its subtle perhaps, but not so subtle that it fails to produce "nice guys" who can't be sexually assertive.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Honestly, this is just sad.


Why on earth would that be sad? Its EQUAL. If you take away our sexual bias toward women, you are "one of the guys". Nothing different or special about you that we seek above men.



ReformedHubby said:


> Perhaps you were just trying to prove a point but this view point is extreme in my opinion.


I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. The key phrase is "ABOVE the company of men". It is not to say he should prefer men over women out of some superiority of men - though absent sexual intent, he has hell of a lot more in common with more men than women. Your example has a subtle highlight of sexual intentions - note that you found it necessary to make the distinction that those women were very attractive and that you're not a beta orbiter. Do you think you'd have been as eager to hang out with a group of ugly women? I strongly suspect not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> This idea that men and women can have nothing without sexual tension just boggles my mind. We're people, you know. Why is it so weird that we might just enjoy each other's company sometimes?


I have some female friends without sexual tension. There are two kinds: 

1) Women I had all kind of tension with. Women I sought out of my own accord - some of whom I dated or slept with - but the sexual relationship just didn't have it or keep well while the friendship did.

2) Women I never found attractive who I connected with on mutual interests by chance or mutual friend. I sought none of them, just as I don't *seek* male friends. My male friends just happen by chance or mutual friends. And when I say I didn't find them attractive, I mean... at all. I have sexual thoughts first toward half the women I know, so we're talking way off my radar here. The thought of having sex with these women platonic/friend women is as physically repugnant as the thought of having sex with one of my male friends.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not saying that being rejected might not hurt, sometimes it might....but usually in the women I'm talking about, it doesn't, because highly sexual people don't think that just because they approach someone sexually that this person OWES them anything.


What you're describing is self-control - control of one's emotions post-rejection, not a state of being "highly sexual" or not. From what I gather rejections in those settings still sting... but you just move on quickly. The more experienced swingers simply have a nice emotional barrier up (practice). Others have quasi-pep talks to keep themselves centered and avoid a host of emotions - rejection pain, but jealousy too. 

Emotional barriers or numbness ought not contribute to a definition of highly sexual. Being hurt by rejection doesn't make someone less sexual imo.


----------



## ReformedHubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. The key phrase is "ABOVE the company of men". It is not to say he should prefer men over women out of some superiority of men - though absent sexual intent, he has hell of a lot more in common with more men than women. Your example has a subtle highlight of sexual intentions - note that you found it necessary to make the distinction that those women were very attractive and that you're not a beta orbiter. _*Do you think you'd have been as eager to hang out with a group of ugly women?*_ I strongly suspect not.


Dang, you got me there. I never looked at it that way but you're right. I always attributed it to the fact that our common interest was clubbing. But....if they weren't attractive I don't think the friendship would have gotten that far. When invited to go clubbing that first time I would have most likely declined. Its a shallow answer, but its the truth.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> (And then in the next breath they wonder where women get this crazy idea that men are only in it for sex --and call *us* confusing )


Its only the black and white thinking that bothers me.

A guy should be able to act on sexual intentions by approaching a woman and saying "You're really beautiful", without her sex shields going way up and thinking something weird about the situation. But because she will think he *only* wants sex (a mistranslation of his interest in sex as primary motivation), she'll say awkwardly "uh... thanks", even if he's a hot guy. Even getting a number in that situation is hard, because she already thinks she's got him pegged - "he's only interested in my body", and her black and white thinking precludes him from ever being interested in anything else. No sh*t he only wants your body right now, he doesn't even know you.

So as a guy, if you're going to compliment (don't), you've got to compliment her shoes or something retarded that you really don't care about. Then she thinks your complimenting her taste rather than her body, the shields don't go up as high, and you still have a chance to get that number. This is all extremely dumb but true.

A comedian I saw once said, "YOU MAKE US LIE TO YOU!" ... and its kinda true. lol

These sort of messages are amplified/internalized by some men for whatever reason, and they become sexually passive overall.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ReformedHubby said:


> Its a shallow answer, but its the truth.


Hey, I'm right there with you.


----------



## Sandfly

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So as a guy, if you're going to compliment (don't), you've got to compliment her shoes or something retarded that you really don't care about.


:rofl:

It's true, it's all true. Nine tenths of the time, I would be genuinely interested in getting to know the person... 

but thanks to unfounded suspicion, sex has to part of the equation _sooner than I'd like_.

Know how weird it is to be suspected of being interested only in someone's body, when, often-times I don't even rate the person as attractive? 

I feel like saying: "Calm down, love. You don't have a chance! Let's just have a nice chat, eh?"


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So as a guy, if you're going to compliment (don't), you've got to compliment her shoes or something retarded that you really don't care about. Then she thinks your complimenting her taste rather than her body, the shields don't go up as high, and you still have a chance to get that number. This is all extremely dumb but true.
> 
> A comedian I saw once said, "YOU MAKE US LIE TO YOU!" ... and its kinda true. lol
> 
> These sort of messages are amplified/internalized by some men for whatever reason, and they become sexually passive overall.


LOL ok those compliments make me feel like the guy was grasping for a way to be nice to me but couldn't find a part of my face or body that he actually liked enough to compliment.Not that I'd believe any of it anyway...but still. 

There's something wrong with me.:scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You, clearly, didn't read my post at all. Of course it was his perogative to dump me, and for any reason. I have no issue with that. But to then imply that I had no right to feel as I did is wrong.
> 
> And yes, he was a bad guy. He cheated on me and lied to me, and went on to do the same thing to other women, too.


It was a big post. Perhaps I missed a line or forgot something, but I didn't see you said he cheated. Are we even talking about the same guy? 3 weeks into the relationship, he sought sex and cheated? I thought he dumped you a couple days after you turned him town?

Dumping a girl who doesn't want to have sex, when a guy wants to have sex, does not make him a bad guy. That's my only point.

You're feeling whatever you feel is entirely valid... but getting dumped by a guy who wanted sex doesn't make him a bad guy. Cheating would make him a bad guy; Trying to guilt you into it would make him a bad guy; Not moving on.



Created2Write said:


> I thought we were having a civil discussion, where we both were trying to understand the other. If you'd even read my post you'd have seen that I agreed with a lot of what you said. So I don't know why you're being so sarcastic and defensive.


My apologies. At the time I was processing the arguments of multiple people and posting in a rush so I could get out the door. I tend to put a sarcastically dismissive cap on things when I'm trying to bail. 



Created2Write said:


> That's not what I said at all.


That little poke at the end wasn't specifically at you. Of the people I was arguing with, your case doesn't really fit because you grew up knowing your husband - you've known each other since you were kids - since before he likely had any sexual thought. But also, you seemed to put more weight into his sexual intentions than others have... but I don't know... when I'm replying to many people I'm reading and posting as quickly as possible so some of what I'm getting from you seems a little waffley and that may be my fault. That last paragraph was just a one-size-fits-all "yeah whatever... I'm going out."


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> :rofl:
> 
> It's true, it's all true. Nine tenths of the time, I would be genuinely interested in getting to know the person...
> 
> but thanks to unfounded suspicion, sex has to part of the equation _sooner than I'd like_.
> 
> Know how weird it is to be suspected of being interested only in someone's body, when, often-times I don't even rate the person as attractive?
> 
> I feel like saying: "Calm down, love. You don't have a chance! Let's just have a nice chat, eh?"


The thing is , sex is always part of the equation from the beginning, and from my personal experience ,it is also the same for women.

I remember when I was dating , one of the questions I would always ask women when things got physical between us was :

" _What thought crossed your mind the first time we met?_" 

All of them would blush deeply and tell me I didn't want to know. But they would ask me the same question and I would say that it was something sexual about either their ass, breasts , general looks , or the way they were dressed.. I would say it in a tactful way of course.

Then they'd tell me that they were thinking of sex too, the first time they saw / met me.

It's not that they were only interested in my body or me theirs. It is just the nature of things when there's some sort of chemistry.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> LOL ok those compliments make me feel like the guy was grasping for a way to be nice to me but couldn't find a part of my face or body that he actually liked enough to compliment.Not that I'd believe any of it anyway...but still.
> 
> There's something wrong with me.:scratchhead:


TBH, well, don't be hard on yourself, none of those compliments are effective. lol

My whole point is that they should be. He's honest when he says you're beautiful, but because such superficiality betrays our sexual intentions, they fail. Black and white thought jumps into your head and says "he ONLY wants my body". He's in a negative hole right off the bat with a connotation that he could never possibly want more as courtship progresses. Return to sender: "Uh... thanks. (I don't know you. You're weird. Go away.)"


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> He sounds perfectly normal and decent.
> 
> You should ask him one more question before arriving at your conclusion:
> 
> "If I met a male friend _now_, and we started hanging out together, in the same way _we _used to, would you be cool with that?"


I already have male friends I hang out with like he and I used to, and he has no issue with it whatsoever. Just the other day I was hanging out with a very good male friend of mine I hadn't seen in over six years, (my first boyfriend, even) we sat and talked for over eight hours, and DH had no issue whatsoever. The ex bf and I didn't stay together because we were just friends, and we agreed that we were better as just friends. But just because there wasn't anything sexual or romantic between us didn't suddenly negate all of his interest in me as a person. He is a very talkative person, he knows I am too, thus a fruitful friendship that's completely platonic. 

I maintain that men are more than capable of appreciating a woman's company for more than just sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't think anyone is attracted to me.Even if someone tells me they think I'm attractive and sexy I brush it off as them just being polite or sweet.Maybe it's my p.d. coming into play there?
> 
> I don't have male friends of my own.*I don't think DH's friends are secretly sweating me when they come over to play videogames and cards w/DH and I happen to be there playing too.*


One can never bee too sure what goes on in a guy's mind when he's playing video games , and a beautiful woman is host.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> My wife and I have had almost identical exchanges from time to time when we've reminisced about how we first met and how unlikely the whole situation was.
> 
> I can sorta identify with both viewpoints here. It was my wife's personality and intelligence that was attractive. But it wasn't her personality and intelligence that gave me the kick in the rear I needed to get up, go across the room and ask her to dance. That was much more physical.


Like I've said before, my husband wouldn't have given me the time of day if he hadn't been attracted to me. It only took one conversation for him to conclude that I was someone he wanted to get to know. If, in that conversation, he'd seen me as a snobbish, arrogant, self-centered drama queen, it wouldn't have mattered how hot I was. That would have been the end of it. 

So, I get that attraction is important. No argument there. But sex is not the only reason a man gets to know a woman.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> One can never bee too sure what goes on in a guy's mind when he's playing video games , and a beautiful woman is host.


One thing is certain... a very low score.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> How can any woman on TAM pretend they 'are unaware' that many of their male 'friends' (not all) are attracted to them? I think it's because they enjoy the attention, and they wish to keep up appearances by feigning ignorance/innocence.


Attraction doesn't mean a man is going to make an advance on a woman, though. And there's a difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to them. So, thank you, but I'm not "pretending" to be unaware of anything. I happen to believe that men and women can have platonic friendships that don't cross boundaries. This isn't "feigned" ignorance or innocence, either. If ever a friend of mine said something inappropriate to me, whether male or female, I would immediately distance myself.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> I already have male friends I hang out with like he and I used to, and he has no issue with it whatsoever. Just the other day I was hanging out with a very good male friend of mine I hadn't seen in over six years, (my first boyfriend, even) we sat and talked for over eight hours, and DH had no issue whatsoever. The ex bf and I didn't stay together because we were just friends, and we agreed that we were better as just friends. But just because there wasn't anything sexual or romantic between us didn't suddenly negate all of his interest in me as a person. He is a very talkative person, he knows I am too, thus a fruitful friendship that's completely platonic.
> 
> I maintain that men are more than capable of appreciating a woman's company for more than just sex.


I believe you (gut feeling ), that you're the good sort. 

Perhaps this is something he has observed, time and again.

I suppose if you've told him who these guys are to you, been very matter of fact, his confidence would be 100%.

I guess it's when a woman doesn't specify who this guy is, what he does, how long she spent out with him, what they did together today ... that men get hackles when the details don't add up.

You did tell him everything there is to know about this visiting Ex, right?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Like I've said before, my husband wouldn't have given me the time of day if he hadn't been attracted to me. It only took one conversation for him to conclude that I was someone he wanted to get to know. If, in that conversation, he'd seen me as a snobbish, arrogant, self-centered drama queen, it wouldn't have mattered how hot I was. That would have been the end of it.
> 
> So, I get that attraction is important. No argument there. But sex is not the only reason a man gets to know a woman.


I suspect we're speaking past each other. I suspect its because you (women?) are not grasping just how visceral that "attraction" is for us. Its not, "oh, she's attractive... let me go get to know her." Put crudely for emphasis - its, "OMG I WANT TO GET IN THAT RIGHT. NOW. *grunt* Oh wait, let me make sure she's not a bish or retarded." Its very much "Hello, I'm coming to talk to you because I want to have sex with you" ...while looking for reasons he wouldn't/shouldn't want to, and then sometimes makes a discovery that, "hey, she's pretty cool and fun to be around... I really like this girl non-sexually too!" This really is the normal progression for most men - certainly every guy I know.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its only the black and white thinking that bothers me.
> 
> A guy should be able to act on sexual intentions by approaching a woman and saying "You're really beautiful", without her sex shields going way up and thinking something weird about the situation. But because she will think he *only* wants sex (a mistranslation of his interest in sex as primary motivation), she'll say awkwardly "uh... thanks", even if he's a hot guy. Even getting a number in that situation is hard, because she already thinks she's got him pegged - "he's only interested in my body", and her black and white thinking precludes him from ever being interested in anything else. No sh*t he only wants your body right now, he doesn't even know you.


He should be able to act a certain way without her thinking he is only interested in sex despite the fact that he is only interested in sex. 

Sure.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> He should be able to act a certain way without her thinking he is only interested in sex despite the fact that he is only interested in sex.
> 
> Sure.


*sigh* I really am not getting through.

Just because his intention is sex, does not preclude his intentions from growing... appreciating more about her as he gets to know her - whether she has sex yet or not. This is the usual progression.

The big illusion that women sell themselves is that he really just wanted to get to know them - or any other lowing of the value he placed on sex. NO. He wanted sex with you. He got to know you on the way there.


----------



## Deejo

There are just so many moving parts to this ... and it seems there is plenty of criticism to go around no matter which part we are talking about.

There is a thread I just read that sums up this conundrum quite nicely. Girl was dating 2 guys. One she really valued and thought had long term potential. She held off sex. The other, was a known womanizer, who she thought she could tame ... sex right out of the gate.

Now Mr. Longterm, who she is exclusive with, has found out about Ladies Man, and to top it off, he knows him and can't stand him. Mr. Longterm has left the relationship, and the young lady is looking for ways to win him back.

I don't think this woman really has anything to apologize for, other than under the circumstances she describes, these are the consequences of the choices she made. And she couldn't be aware of all of them at the time.

I have just had a woman who I was seeing last year, reach out to me. She just got burned, badly. She doesn't want a real relationship, or ... is afraid of one. Doesn't much matter to me. But, she also said that apparently her biggest gift on her 41st birthday is that her libido went through the roof.
In a nutshell, she wants a FWB relationship. Because in her words, "You make me feel safe." and my words, she is HIGHLY sexual female.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It was a big post. Perhaps I missed a line or forgot something, but I didn't see you said he cheated. Are we even talking about the same guy? 3 weeks into the relationship, he sought sex and cheated? I thought he dumped you a couple days after you turned him town?


It's the same guy. He told me how he felt about sex right up front, which I respected. I told him how I felt, and he said we'd give it time and work through. I wouldn't say he ever "guilted" me, accept for once where he said "real love" was doing more than one was comfortable with in a relationship. A couple days later he dumped me. It was then I found out he'd been with someone he told me was an ex-girlfriend from the moment he'd asked me out. 



> Dumping a girl who doesn't want to have sex, when a guy wants to have sex, does not make him a bad guy. That's my only point.


And I agree. Like I said, I had a bf after the cheater that also dumped me over sex, and he and I are still friends. I look back on our relationship with fondness, and I think he's one of the most honest and honorable guys I ever dated. 



> You're feeling whatever you feel is entirely valid... but getting dumped by a guy who wanted sex doesn't make him a bad guy. Cheating would make him a bad guy; Trying to guilt you into it would make him a bad guy; Not moving on.


I agree with this, and this is exactly what I said in my prior post. 



> That little poke at the end wasn't specifically at you. Of the people I was arguing with, your case doesn't really fit because you grew up knowing your husband - you've known each other since you were kids - since before he likely had any sexual thought. But also, you seemed to put more weight into his sexual intentions than others have... but I don't know... when I'm replying to many people I'm reading and posting as quickly as possible so some of what I'm getting from you seems a little waffley and that may be my fault. That last paragraph was just a one-size-fits-all "yeah whatever... I'm going out."


While DH and I may not have the same beginning to our relationship, he's still a guy. According to you, all men choose a woman's company based on whether they'd have sex with her, and absolutely nothing else at first, so I don't see how my knowing DH since childhood changes that. Outside of playing tag in second grade, we were never close. Until I was nineteen, I don't think we spoke more than ten sentences to each other. 

I don't doubt that what you're saying is true for you and, clearly, many of the men in this thread. But I know my husband well, and I trust what he tells me. He's had numerous OS friends throughout his life, a couple of which he thought about a dating, but most of which he hung out with because he thought they were awesome people. They had similar interests, similar personalities...hence, friendships. Sex wasn't why he got to know them, it wasn't why he stayed friends with them. It's not why he's friends with them still to this day. That's my point.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> I believe you (gut feeling ), that you're the good sort.
> 
> Perhaps this is something he has observed, time and again.
> 
> I suppose if you've told him who these guys are to you, been very matter of fact, his confidence would be 100%.
> 
> I guess it's when a woman doesn't specify who this guy is, what he does, how long she spent out with him, what they did together today ... that men get hackles when the details don't add up.
> 
> You did tell him everything there is to know about this visiting Ex, right?


Oh good Lord. Really? 

Yes, Sandfly. DH knows everything there is to know about my ex. They were friends in high school, as well. He knows that this ex and I never so much as kissed. He knows we dated for only a few months, and only went out on one real date. He knows how he asked me out, he knows what we did and where we went on that one date, he knows how and why we broke up. He knows that this ex and I continued to be good friends after we broke up, he knows that this guy is very trustworthy and that I'm even more so. He knows where we were the entire day that we hung out(in public the whole time), he knows that I have no attraction for the guy. I have less attraction for him now than I did when we broke up; he picked up the nasty habit of smoking, and I can't stand that. He put on weight. 

Sheesh. Is the interrogation over now?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I suspect we're speaking past each other. I suspect its because you (women?) are not grasping just how visceral that "attraction" is for us. Its not, "oh, she's attractive... let me go get to know her." Put crudely for emphasis - its, "OMG I WANT TO GET IN THAT RIGHT. NOW. *grunt* Oh wait, let me make sure she's not a bish or retarded." Its very much "Hello, I'm coming to talk to you because I want to have sex with you" ...while looking for reasons he wouldn't/shouldn't want to, and then sometimes makes a discovery that, "hey, she's pretty cool and fun to be around... I really like this girl non-sexually too!" This really is the normal progression for most men - certainly every guy I know.


Yup.

Not just that, after he meets that girl, he might move on and unexpectedly run into another one , or see notice a real hottie going about her business and the exact , same thoughts fly trough his mind at lightening speed.

By then he's forgotten the first girl.
And the next minute he might snap back into reality and start to worry that his rent is due by weekend...


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I suspect we're speaking past each other. I suspect its because you (women?) are not grasping just how visceral that "attraction" is for us. Its not, "oh, she's attractive... let me go get to know her." Put crudely for emphasis - its, "OMG I WANT TO GET IN THAT RIGHT. NOW. *grunt* Oh wait, let me make sure she's not a bish or retarded." Its very much "Hello, I'm coming to talk to you because I want to have sex with you" ...while looking for reasons he wouldn't/shouldn't want to, and then sometimes makes a discovery that, "hey, she's pretty cool and fun to be around... I really like this girl non-sexually too!" This really is the normal progression for most men - certainly every guy I know.


All I know is what he tells me, and he tells me that this absolutely is NOT why he got to know me, nor was it his thought process in why he even talked to me. In fact, _I_ made the first move when it came to advancing our acquaintance. I trust that he's telling me the truth. I don't doubt that other men are the way you've described, and I don't think that one is better than the other. But I believe my husband when he tells me that this was not his thought.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh* I really am not getting through.
> 
> Just because his intention is sex, does not preclude his intentions from growing... appreciating more about her as he gets to know her - whether she has sex yet or not. This is the usual progression.
> 
> The big illusion that women sell themselves is that he really just wanted to get to know them - or any other lowing of the value he placed on sex. NO. He wanted sex with you. He got to know you on the way there.


So, in your opinion, there's no such thing as a man who values a woman's personality, sense of humor, intelligence, beliefs, etc. _above_ her looks? Or that, at least, those things don't matter to him at all in the beginning...his(and every mans) only interest in a woman in the beginning is sex and absolutely nothing else?

I'm asking, btw. Not mocking, because I am trying to understand.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh* I really am not getting through.
> 
> Just because his intention is sex, does not preclude his intentions from growing... appreciating more about her as he gets to know her - whether she has sex yet or not. This is the usual progression.
> 
> The big illusion that women sell themselves is that he really just wanted to get to know them - or any other lowing of the value he placed on sex. NO. He wanted sex with you. He got to know you on the way there.


This is pure unadulterated bull as a universal statement or even common statement about "men". There are as many things to spawn interest from sex to ANYTHING that 2 people might share passion about.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> So, in your opinion, there's no such thing as a man who values a woman's personality, sense of humor, intelligence, beliefs, etc. _above_ her looks? Or that, at least, those things don't matter to him at all in the beginning...his(and every mans) only interest in a woman in the beginning is sex and absolutely nothing else?
> 
> I'm asking, btw. Not mocking, because I am trying to understand.


Of the folks I know, one couple got together from a shared passion for rock climbing. One got together from a shared passion for environmental activism. Etcetera and so on.

Most men are actually human beings FIRST.


----------



## ocotillo

Caribbean Man said:


> Their main purpose is to serve her every need, real or imagined except intimate and sexual needs. They usually fool themselves into thinking they're indispensable.


Sometimes I wonder to what extent this dynamic is consciously realized by both of the parties involved? 

For example, there was a short comic that was quite popular among the Tumblr, Reddit and Imgur crowd (i.e. Young persons on the internet.) a couple of years ago entitled, The Friendzoner vs. Nice Guy. It depicts the moment of crises and resultant showdown between a female protagonist called, “Friend Zoner” and a male protagonist called, “Really Nice Guy.” 

"Nice Guy" wants a romantic relationship that he can't have and gets all pouty-faced and whiny about it. Tempers flare and a dramatic arc occurs when “Friend-Zoner” shouts out, “Sorry that my friendship is a crappy consolation prize!!!” We understand what the "Sin" of the male protagonist is here and in that respect, I guess the comic accomplishes its purpose. 

However since our young author has chosen to hang the integrity of her moral statement on the concept of friendship, it is extremely important that we the readers be able to actually see friendship. Otherwise we may legitimately wonder what exactly it is that "Nice guy" is failing to appreciate. *Only we can't.* We can go through the comic from start to finish and it's simply not there. What we actually see are a number of the behavioral red flags of an entitled taker who appears to seriously believe that simply allowing the other person to be seen in their presence is a reward unto itself. 

And despite this, the comic is wildly popular. It's even been linked to here on TAM. (And not negatively as I've done either.) So despite how narcissistic it sounds on paper, there seems to be widespread acceptance for this sort of lopsided, unhealthy dynamic between males and females.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> Sometimes I wonder to what extent this dynamic is consciously realized by both of the parties involved?
> 
> For example, there was a short comic that was quite popular among the Tumblr, Reddit and Imgur crowd (i.e. Young persons on the internet.) a couple of years ago entitled, The Friendzoner vs. Nice Guy. It depicts the moment of crises and resultant showdown between a female protagonist called, “Friend Zoner” and a male protagonist called, “Really Nice Guy.”
> 
> "Nice Guy" wants a romantic relationship that he can't have and gets all pouty-faced and whiny about it. Tempers flare and a dramatic arc occurs when “Friend-Zoner” shouts out, “Sorry that my friendship is a crappy consolation prize!!!” We understand what the "Sin" of the male protagonist here and in that respect, I guess the comic accomplishes its purpose.
> 
> However since our young author has chosen to hang the integrity of her moral statement on the concept friendship, it is extremely important that we the readers be able to actually see friendship. Otherwise we may legitimately wonder what exactly it is that "Nice guy" is failing to appreciate. *Only we can't.* We can go through the comic from start to finish and it's simply not there. What we actually see are a number of the behavioral red flags of an entitled taker who appears to seriously believe that simply allowing the other person to be seen in their presence is a reward unto itself.
> 
> And despite this, the comic is wildly popular. It's even been linked to here on TAM. (And not negatively as I've done either.) So despite how narcissistic it sounds on paper, there seems to be widespread acceptance for this sort of lopsided, unhealthy dynamic between males and females.


So...wait. Are you saying that women who have OS friends are arrogant, self-centered b!tches? Are you implying that men _only_ want romantic/sexual relationships with women, and they aren't interested in any platonic kind of friendship? Cause that's what I see you saying, and I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> Of the folks I know, one couple got together from a shared passion for rock climbing. One got together from a shared passion for environmental activism.
> 
> Most men are actually human beings FIRST.


And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex , simply because they're the opposite sex ,
Is an inextricable part of being a human being first.
And it goes both with men and women.

Don't know why people insist on separating human sexuality from the rest of our humanity. We are sexual beings first, everything else is incidental.

Being witty , smart and of high intellect doesn't make babies, only sex does. Our first priority as human beings is survival of our species and sex is at the core of that.

Human being are usually attracted to other human beings based on what they see first because that is the first impression they get from a stranger they've never met.

" _She's a gorgeous woman / he's a handsome man_ " 
or whatever is usually the first thing that passes through our minds, when we see someone for the first time.
Not how smart of witty they are , because we don't know anything about them.

As yet.


----------



## Created2Write

Also, I think I should add that I don't think that the men who _are_ only motivated to approach a woman because of sex are somehow less respectable than those who are motivated by other things. I happen to believe that both men and women will pursue one another's company because of various motivators, and I do believe that sex can be *one* of those motivators.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> Also, I think I should add that I don't think that the men who _are_ only motivated to approach a woman because of sex are somehow less respectable than those who are motivated by other things. I happen to believe that both men and women will pursue one another's company because of various motivators, and I do believe that sex can be *one* of those motivators.


This sums it up.


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> So...wait. Are you saying that women who have OS friends are arrogant, self-centered b!tches? Are you implying that men _only_ want romantic/sexual relationships with women, and they aren't interested in any platonic kind of friendship? Cause that's what I see you saying, and I hope I'm wrong.


Not at all. My best friend growing up was female. I was six and she was five when we first met and we're still friends 50+ years later. So I do understand what a platonic mixed gender friendship is.

I'm just pointing out that people read stuff like this and fail to see the irony. It’s not that unrequited attempts at romantic relationships cannot still work as friendships; it’s that these relationships often weren’t actual friendships to begin with. Friendship is not a lopsided dysfunctional union between either a covert giver or an entitled taker.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> So despite how narcissistic it sounds on paper, there seems to be widespread acceptance for this sort of lopsided, unhealthy dynamic between males and females.


:iagree:

It is cultural.
But I wonder if it might also be a contributor, to the unhealthy, dysfunctional sexual dynamic in a lot of monogamous marriages relationships later on in life.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh* I really am not getting through.
> 
> Just because his intention is sex, does not preclude his intentions from growing... appreciating more about her as he gets to know her - whether she has sex yet or not. This is the usual progression.
> 
> *The big illusion that women sell themselves is that he really just wanted to get to know them - or any other lowing of the value he placed on sex. *NO. He wanted sex with you. He got to know you on the way there.


Wanting to be valued for more than sex isn't "lowering" the value he places on sex. The two aren't mutually exclusive, imo. A man _can_ value a woman's intelligence, sense of humor, beliefs, personality, success in life, etc. without sacrificing sex, or making it less of a priority.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> Not at all. My best friend growing up was female. I was six and she was five when we first met and we're still friends 50+ years later. So I do understand what a platonic mixed gender friendship is.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that people read stuff like this and fail to see the irony. It’s not that unrequited attempts at romantic relationships cannot still work as friendships; it’s that these relationships often weren’t actual friendships to begin with. Friendship is not a lopsided dysfunctional union between either a covert giver or an entitled taker.


....Okay? I've had OS friendships my entire life, and most of them were never anything but friendships first for either side. My first bf is the only one I can think of that started with attraction first, and that attraction was on _my_ side. His attraction grew when I started flirting with him, and then fizzled when we actually dated. But all of my other OS friendships _and_ relationships started as platonic friendships. It was the mutual enjoyment of the other's company that made them something more, if they ever went beyond friendships.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh* I really am not getting through.
> 
> Just because his intention is sex, does not preclude his intentions from growing... appreciating more about her as he gets to know her - whether she has sex yet or not. This is the usual progression.
> 
> The big illusion that women sell themselves is that he really just wanted to get to know them - or any other lowing of the value he placed on sex. NO. He wanted sex with you. He got to know you on the way there.


You are getting through perfectly clearly: According to you men only want sex. At first. Then, maybe, at some later date, he just might be interested in some other aspect of her. Maybe. Or maybe not.

What's surprising to me is that you then find it upsetting that women are dismissive of these come-ons, and judging men for only wanting sex. By what you're saying here, she is absolutely correct. He's approaching her for sex.

So why does it bother you that she's got this figured ojt? Because you have to work harder for the phone number to get that sex you wanted?


----------



## TiggyBlue

ocotillo said:


> Not at all. My best friend growing up was female. I was six and she was five when we first met and we're still friends 50+ years later. So I do understand what a platonic mixed gender friendship is.


Thinking about it pretty much all of my completely platonic male friends from the get go are guys who I grew up with. As teen years and up even if nothing would never happen with the guy there would be sexual thought (if the guy's hot).


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> ....Okay? I've had OS friendships my entire life, and most of them were never anything but friendships first for either side. My first bf is the only one I can think of that started with attraction first, and that attraction was on _my_ side. His attraction grew when I started flirting with him, and then fizzled when we actually dated. But all of my other OS friendships _and_ relationships started as platonic friendships. It was the mutual enjoyment of the other's company that made them something more, if they ever went beyond friendships.


Then you obviously understand the mutuality of friendship and we really don't have a disagreement here. (?)

You can read the little comic from start to finish and there is no mutuality. All you see are singular notions of friendship coming from both sides. We as the readers expect that of "Nice Guy" because he's the villain here, but we don't expect that of the heroine. The author and by extension, much of her readership apparently has a huge blind spot here.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> Then you obviously understand the mutuality of friendship and we really don't have a disagreement here. (?)
> 
> You can read the little comic from start to finish and there is no mutuality. All you see are singular notions of friendship coming from both sides. We as the readers expect that of "Nice Guy" because he's the villain here, but we don't expect that of the heroine. The author and by extension, much of her readership apparently has a huge blind spot here.


No argument from me, then.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have some female friends without sexual tension. There are two kinds:
> 
> 1) Women I had all kind of tension with. Women I sought out of my own accord - some of whom I dated or slept with - but the sexual relationship just didn't have it or keep well while the friendship did.
> 
> 2) Women I never found attractive who I connected with on mutual interests by chance or mutual friend.



You see? It is possible for men and women to be friends without sex being primary. So let me just add one category:

3) Friendships where one or both feel some amount of sexual attraction, but it's not anything that they would choose to act on (for whatever reason), and is not a significant part of their relationship.

You put so much emphasis on random approaches of strangers, as if this is the only way people can meet or relate to each other, but honestly I don't think this is how most of us make friends. This kind of behaviour is pretty clearly about pursuit of sex and nothing else --so again I don't get why you're surprised that women would call it out as such.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> Sheesh. Is the interrogation over now?


Yes, I suppose it is!

Pardon me for the unusual methods


----------



## Created2Write

I'd also like to add that there's a difference between chemistry and sexual tension. There are various levels of chemistry, some of which don't and would never lead to sex, and others that definitely would, and everything in between. There's a difference between finding someone attractive, and actually wanting to have sex with them. I have both female and male friends that I find very attractive, and I have no desire to have sex with them. I'd say there's even a difference between finding someone attractive enough to have sex with, and actually wanting to have sex with them.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> Yes, I suppose it is!
> 
> Pardon me for the unusual methods


Was my answer satisfactory? 

I still don't know why you even asked.


----------



## Sandfly

Mmmm.

I think when he's talking about 'approaching' a woman he's got his mind in the bar. 

I just noticed that AlwaysAlone puts it best thus:


"You put so much emphasis on random approaches of strangers, as if this is the only way people can meet or relate to each other, but honestly I don't think this is how most of us make friends."

Me neither. I've always worked with the Public, and they just come in and we hit it off, or not. No effort.

I feel uncomfortable looking for a stranger with intentions ... you dunno what cooties or mental problems they might have!

(80% of cases, if they're responsive, they defo have mental problems)


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> So...wait. Are you saying that women who have OS friends are arrogant, self-centered b!tches? Are you implying that men _only_ want romantic/sexual relationships with women, and they aren't interested in any platonic kind of friendship? Cause that's what I see you saying, and I hope I'm wrong.


Yes, yes, you're wrong, and that's ok. We've already established a long time ago that women don't actually know what they want. This includes both sexual and non-sexual relationships with the opposite sex.

Thus the comic.

The creep in that little comic is clearly painted as the guy. Our angry ball kicking heroine is quite put out and shockingly surprised and angered by the perception that her OS nice friend has only been nice because he's been passively hoping that he'd do enough 'nice' stuff to get laid. And it doesn't work that way ... and (truthfully) the guys that think it does, well ... I think they deserve to be kicked in the balls ... repeatedly. That way we can more quickly and easily bring them over to the viewpoint that women are quite clearly little emotional tempests who you don't try to 'Nice' your way into their pants. Yet you can't come out and SAY, 'I want to get into your pants.' Because that makes you a sexist creeper.
You can't try to use suggestion and game to get into her pants because that makes you a loser PUA.

Apparently, according to the single quality that virtually EVERY woman lists as numbers 1 through 3 for qualities they look for ... you have to have a sense of humor. 

So there you have it. If you have a sense of humor, women will want to have sex with you, even if you don't want to have sex with them. This has to be true because they make movies about fat guys and geeks getting the really hot girl because they are A. Funny and B. Sincere and Compassionate.

Right?

Doesn't this pretty much sum up female desire? That wasn't hard at all.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> Was my answer satisfactory?
> 
> I still don't know why you even asked.


I'm not at liberty to discuss your results.


----------



## Created2Write

ReformedHubby said:


> I don't have an issue with men being friends with women. I have an issue with the men that have feelings for the woman but never act on it. Or even worse they act on it, get rejected, than hang around sometimes for years hoping she'll change her mind. I don't think its healthy for anyone to maintain a friendship where one party has romantic feelings and the other party doesn't.


Went back and found this. I wholeheartedly agree with this. I have a friend who did this with a girl a couple of years ago, and he still hasn't fully moved on. She lead him on and on and on and on by saying she still wasn't sure what she wanted; he bought her tickets to the CMAs, drove from Texas to Georgia to take her without any help from her with gas(saved up for over six months to surprise her), then after she would call him to vent about her issues with life, and then when he finally came out and told her how he felt, she strung him on for over a year until finally telling him she didn't want a relationship. He still sends her a V-Day card and refuses to listen to me when I tell him the chick used him and doesn't deserve another second of his attention. I don't think he talks to her much anymore, but if she were to come back and show even the slightest interest, he'd jump in headfirst without a thought.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> :rofl:
> 
> Yes, we envy the men who orbit an attention-seeking woman for years, and who never gather the courage to take it further.
> 
> I tell you who I'm really jealous of though...
> 
> Spiderman. Think of all the robberies you could do. Even if you got nicked, escaping from gaol would be a doddle.


So, do you think all women who have OS friends are "attention-seeking", and don't actually care about the men around them?


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> So, do you think all women who have OS friends are "attention-seeking", and don't actually care about the men around them?


Ha ha, my turn is it?


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Yes, yes, you're wrong, and that's ok. We've already established a long time ago that women don't actually know what they want. This includes both sexual and non-sexual relationships with the opposite sex.
> 
> Thus the comic.


I hope that's sarcasm, Deej.



> The creep in that little comic is clearly painted as the guy. Our angry ball kicking heroine is quite put out and shockingly surprised and angered by the perception that her OS nice friend has only been nice because he's been passively hoping that he'd do enough 'nice' stuff to get laid. And it doesn't work that way ... and (truthfully) the guys that think it does, well ... I think they deserve to be kicked in the balls ... repeatedly. That way we can more quickly and easily bring them over to the viewpoint that women are quite clearly little emotional tempests who you don't try to 'Nice' your way into their pants. Yet you can't come out and SAY, 'I want to get into your pants.' Because that makes you a sexist creeper.
> You can't try to use suggestion and game to get into her pants because that makes you a loser PUA.
> 
> Apparently, according to the single quality that virtually EVERY woman lists as numbers 1 through 3 for qualities they look for ... you have to have a sense of humor.
> 
> So there you have it. If you have a sense of humor, women will want to have sex with you, even if you don't want to have sex with them. This has to be true because they make movies about fat guys and geeks getting the really hot girl because they are A. Funny and B. Sincere and Compassionate.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Doesn't this pretty much sum up female desire? That wasn't hard at all.


I hope this entire post was sarcasm, and I'm going to assume it was and move on.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> Ha ha, my turn is it?


I'll take that to mean that, yes, you think all women who have OS friendships have them because they're attention wh0res.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> I'll take that to mean that, yes, you think all women who have OS friendships have them because they're attention wh0res.


You can take it to mean that, but you'd be mistaken


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> So _you're _saying that you _do _know what you want? :scratchhead:


Shocking, I know. But yes, I do and have always known what I wanted in life, and in a potential life partner. I've never, ever, said I wanted one thing and then pursued another. In fact, it's the men in my life who have been the most unreliable in what they've said they wanted versus what they actually went after.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> You can take it to mean that, but you'd be mistaken


Until/if you choose to answer the question, I _will_ take to mean that. You've given me no other conclusion.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> I hope that's sarcasm, Deej.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this entire post was sarcasm, and I'm going to assume it was and move on.


Brilliant sarcasm. Just my opinion.

I had opposite sex friends in high school. They are still friends. While in college I picked up the room mate of one of them. 

I was with the two of them one time hanging out, and they flat out asked me why I never tried to sleep with either of them. I loved'em both, truly, still do ... like sisters. It would have been creepy to me.

I'm very aware of opposite sex friends now. I can size them up very well. 

There are the guys that are and always will be utterly harmless. They want to be part of her life ... but likely also know they are never going to be romantic.

Then there is the friend who used to be a boyfriend. This guy presumes you are temporary, and that he knows stuff about her that you don't and never will. This guy is a consumate D-bag. But he's still harmless because though she may like having him around, she's still going home and having sex me ... and if he becomes very overbearing, I've made a point of talking about our sex life.

Then there are the guys who, as Lyris said fall into the, "If circumstances were different" category. They may be partnered or otherwise somehow unavailable. There IS attraction there. But there are either sufficient boundaries or respect in place.

When there is a crack in those boundaries or circumstances that kept the walls up, these friendships are the most dangerous to a relationship.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Brilliant sarcasm. Just my opinion.
> 
> I had opposite sex friends in high school. They are still friends. While in college I picked up the room mate of one of them.
> 
> I was with the two of them one time hanging out, and they flat out asked me why I never tried to sleep with either of them. I loved'em both, truly, still do ... like sisters. It would have been creepy to me.
> 
> I'm very aware of opposite sex friends now. I can size them up very well.
> 
> There are the guys that are and always will be utterly harmless. They want to be part of her life ... but likely also know they are never going to be romantic.
> 
> Then there is the friend who used to be a boyfriend. This guy presumes you are temporary, and that he knows stuff about her that you don't and never will. This guy is a consumate D-bag. But he's still harmless because though she may like having him around, she's still going home and having sex me ... and if he becomes very overbearing, I've made a point of talking about our sex life.


I'm sure this is me overthinking all of this, so please bear with me. Are you saying that _all_ exbf's who are now just friends are d-bags? I have two OS friends who were once bfs and neither of them are D-bags. So, I'm just looking for clarification here.



> Then there are the guys who, as Lyris said fall into the, "If circumstances were different" category. They may be partnered or otherwise somehow unavailable. There IS attraction there. But there are either sufficient boundaries or respect in place.
> 
> When there is a crack in those boundaries or circumstances that kept the walls up, these friendships are the most dangerous to a relationship.


Agreed.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> Until/if you choose to answer the question, I _will_ take to mean that. You've given me no other conclusion.


That's silly, because that's not what I wrote...

Superset A: all women
Subset B: attention-seeking women.

To reach your conclusion you'd have to think they were the same thing, which is very sexist of you.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> I'm sure this is me overthinking all of this, so please bear with me. Are you saying that _all_ exbf's who are now just friends are d-bags? I have two OS friends who were once bfs and neither of them are D-bags. So, I'm just looking for clarification here.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.


If he PURPOSELY goes out of his way to spend time with you, apart from his partner, and excludes your husband, absolutely. He may never explicitly come out and say it, and you may not be aware of it, but you saying 'Yes' to such a date, in his mind is a covert contract validating to him, that you still have feelings for him as well.

Else, he is in the 3rd category, which means by all appearances he is a respectable and stand up guy. Which he is ... under the current set of circumstances. But ... tweak those circumstances just even a little, and you have rekindled sexual tension, and that becomes catnip for both 'friends'.

I'm not ever going to tell a woman I'm dating, that she can't have OS friends. But ... I do want to be aware of the terrain upon which I am deployed.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> That's silly, because that's not what I wrote...
> 
> Superset A: all women
> Subset B: attention-seeking women.
> 
> To reach your conclusion you'd have to think they were the same thing, which is very sexist of you.


I asked you to clarify if _you_ thought all women with OS friends were attention seeking. You chose not to clarify. My guess is you did this specifically to cause a rouse. You must be bored.

Whether or not a woman has OS friends because she only wants attention is down to the individual, imo. I've known some attention-seekers in my life, and I've known women who were just extremely friendly(like myself) and loved making new friends, regardless of gender. That's not sexist at all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Yes, yes, you're wrong, and that's ok. We've already established a long time ago that women don't actually know what they want. This includes both sexual and non-sexual relationships with the opposite sex.


Repeating it over and over does not established fact make! Some women don't know what they want some of the time. 

Grrrr.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> If he PURPOSELY goes out of his way to spend time with you, apart from his partner, and excludes your husband, absolutely. He may never explicitly come out and say it, and you may not be aware of it, but you saying 'Yes' to such a date, in his mind is a covert contract validating to him, that you still have feelings for him as well.


Thank you for clarifying. This has never happened with me or any of my OS friends, and if it ever did, that person would no longer be considered a close friend, and the appropriate boundaries would be enforced. 



> Else, he is in the 3rd category, which means by all appearances he is a respectable and stand up guy. Which he is ... under the current set of circumstances. But ... tweak those circumstances just even a little, and you have rekindled sexual tension, and that becomes catnip for both 'friends'.
> 
> I'm not ever going to tell a woman I'm dating, that she can't have OS friends. But ... I do want to be aware of the terrain upon which I am deployed.


Understandable. I have absolutely no attraction to any of my OS friends whatsoever. One of them is one of my exes, and he's married and doesn't even live in the same state currently. My other ex, like I said, has developed some habits I despise. One of my other OS friends is a total doormat, he's depressed, he has no confidence in himself, no job, lives with his parents...and my other OS friends aren't what I'd consider to be "close friends", and nearly all of them are married.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I had opposite sex friends in high school. They are still friends. While in college I picked up the room mate of one of them.
> 
> I was with the two of them one time hanging out, and they flat out asked me why I never tried to sleep with either of them. I loved'em both, truly, still do ... like sisters. It would have been creepy to me.
> 
> I'm very aware of opposite sex friends now. I can size them up very well.


You forgot one thing.

Those girls in high school who you viewed as your "sisters" might have had some attraction to yo whivh was sexual, but because of the rules in the friendship, the boundaries you set, they didn't feel safe enough to express it.

I have been in those types of situations too.

After my high school reunion some years ago, we formed a group on facebook.
A few chicks asked me how come i never asked them out and so on when we were in high school.
Funny thing was , I never knew they were interested in me like that, and i though we were all " just friends . " I viewed them as " sisters."

I remember one girl ,who used to hang around us, yep, i liked her as a sister and I actually beat a guy because he was harassing her and she told me. On the last day of school [ before graduation] she's telling me that she had something to tell me.
Then she blurted it all out , almost hyperventilating.
She had a crush.
Ok.
I just smiled and hugged her.
I ran into her at the bank the other day , she blushed and we both just laughed.


When I decided to settle down with my wife, a few of my OS friends got upset for apparently no reason. Much like Reformedhubby said yesterday, they just disappeared.
But by then I was much wiser and knew exactly why.

The mistake some women and men make is that they feel culture and social constructivism neutralizes biological urges.

Of course the answer is no.

Too bad some married couples learn that, albeit, too late.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> I asked you to clarify if _you_ thought all women with OS friends were attention seeking. You chose not to clarify. My guess is you did this specifically to cause a *rouse*. You must be bored.
> 
> Whether or not a woman has OS friends because she only wants attention is down to the individual, imo. I've known some attention-seekers in my life, and I've known women who were just extremely friendly(like myself) and loved making new friends, regardless of gender. That's not sexist at all.


Cool, I learnt a new word.

I simply don't see where you'd gotten your conclusion from what I said. My guess is you did this specifically to cause a row.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Let me just say this.

My wife and I were " just friends" about five years before we started a relationship.
I wasn't attracted to her in that way before , or at least so I thought,
Until something clicked, and I began to look at her differently.

But she was always a pretty woman and sex too, I just didn't look at her in that way, until I began to...


Sometimes that's how attraction works.

But the sexual component is always there whether we want to admit it or not. We are cultured to keep it under wraps / control .


----------



## ReformedHubby

Created2Write said:


> Went back and found this. I wholeheartedly agree with this. I have a friend who did this with a girl a couple of years ago, and he still hasn't fully moved on. She lead him on and on and on and on by saying she still wasn't sure what she wanted; he bought her tickets to the CMAs, drove from Texas to Georgia to take her without any help from her with gas(saved up for over six months to surprise her), then after she would call him to vent about her issues with life, and then when he finally came out and told her how he felt, she strung him on for over a year until finally telling him *she didn't want a relationship*. He still sends her a V-Day card and refuses to listen to me when I tell him the chick used him and doesn't deserve another second of his attention. I don't think he talks to her much anymore, but if she were to come back and show even the slightest interest, he'd jump in headfirst without a thought.


What she should have just told him was I don't want a relationship with *you*. Because that was probably the real truth.

I feel bad for people who get treated this way. For whatever reason people are afraid to be honest or in some cases they just want the attention. It happens to females too though. Plenty have dated a man that swears he will never marry, only to find out he quickly proposed to the next girlfriend.


----------



## Deejo

I absolutely believe this was likely a factor. And of course, I thought the world of these women, but I was not attracted to them sexually. Sex would have mucked up the relationship. And being honest, things came close on several occasions when alcohol had been involved.

If they felt hurt by the fact that I didn't want them sexually, they never expressed _that_ to me.

Nobody likes rejection. And there is only one way to inoculate yourself against it, and that ... is to get rejected, many times, to the point where you no longer tie your self esteem or sense of worth to the outcome of an interaction.

This is why fortune favors the bold when it comes to sex.



Caribbean Man said:


> You forgot one thing.
> 
> Those girls in high school who you viewed as your "sisters" might have had some attraction to yo whivh was sexual, but because of the rules in the friendship, the boundaries you set, they didn't feel safe enough to express it.
> 
> I have been in those types of situations too.
> 
> After my high school reunion some years ago, we formed a group on facebook.
> A few chicks asked me how come i never asked them out and so on when we were in high school.
> Funny thing was , I never knew they were interested in me like that, and i though we were all " just friends . " I viewed them as " sisters."
> 
> I remember one girl ,who used to hang around us, yep, i liked her as a sister and I actually beat a guy because he was harassing her and she told me. On the last day of school [ before graduation] she's telling me that she had something to tell me.
> Then she blurted it all out , almost hyperventilating.
> She had a crush.
> Ok.
> I just smiled and hugged her.
> I ran into her at the bank the other day , she blushed and we both just laughed.
> 
> 
> When I decided to settle down with my wife, a few of my OS friends got upset for apparently no reason. Much like Reformedhubby said yesterday, they just disappeared.
> But by then I was much wiser and knew exactly why.
> 
> The mistake some women and men make is that they feel culture and social constructivism neutralizes biological urges.
> 
> Of course the answer is no.
> 
> Too bad some married couples learn that, albeit, too late.


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> Cool, I learnt a new word.
> 
> I simply don't see where you'd gotten your conclusion from what I said. My guess is you did this specifically to cause a row.


rouse
rouz
verb
1. bring out of sleep; awaken.
*2. cause to feel angry or excited.*


----------



## Created2Write

The sexual component is _not_ there if sexual attraction isn't there, and one doesn't have to be ugly for there to be a lack of sexual attraction.


----------



## Created2Write

I seem to be doing nothing but clarifying myself over and over, but just so we _are_ actually clear, I'm not saying that all OS friendships are entirely without _any_ sexual component. The bf I dated before DH is a guy I can say is attractive enough that I could have sex with him; and by that I mean I wouldn't have to lay back and think of someone else to get through it. But that's as far as the sexual component goes. I don't _want_ to have sex with him, I'm not attracted _to_ him, but I will say that he's an attractive guy. 

My other OS friends? No. One is far too flamboyant, one smokes, one is completely lacking in confidence, one is way too young...and the others aren't close friends.


----------



## Created2Write

CM said:


> Human being are usually attracted to other human beings based on what they see first because that is the first impression they get from a stranger they've never met.
> 
> " She's a gorgeous woman / he's a handsome man "
> or whatever is usually the first thing that passes through our minds, when we see someone for the first time.
> Not how smart of witty they are , because we don't know anything about them.
> 
> As yet.


And this, I can wholeheartedly agree with.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So, in your opinion, there's no such thing as a man who values a woman's personality, sense of humor, intelligence, beliefs, etc. _above_ her looks? Or that, at least, those things don't matter to him at all in the beginning...his(and every mans) only interest in a woman in the beginning is sex and absolutely nothing else?
> 
> I'm asking, btw. Not mocking, because I am trying to understand.


The woman's personality, quirks, humor etc etc... these play a role in his falling in love. They don't play major parts in his originally seeking her out. Whereas you see plenty of hot women choosing guys significantly below their ability (here's where I get into trouble lol) on the basis of his charisma, humor or personality, you don't generally see hot guys choosing women beneath their ability. If they can get a hotter girl, they'll usually go and do it. I suspect some women even sense this and will even choose a guy who isn't "too attractive"... with the feeling they won't be able to keep him. I've heard women often express it as "can't have a man hotter than me, that's just not gonna work." A few have admitted as much on this forum too. In time, a man's non-sexual interest in the right woman will exceed his sexual interest - but when he's asking for your number hoping for a date, that time hasn't arrived - he's chasing the booty.

In the beginning the motivation is overwhelmingly sexual. Evidence: men who can get laid at will tend to take way longer to settle with one woman than men for whom sex is scarce. They're both seeking sex, but the guy in demand has a lot more temptation which will cause him to remain non-committal, not bother to deal with minor annoyances virtually any given woman is going to have, and thus take longer to realize he's found Ms Perfect match. It probably changes with age too - our testosterone levels naturally decline or superficiality begins to lose its luster and we want more depth. I think of this as kind of the male version of how women go after the "bad @ss" guy when they're younger only to figure some things out and choose a more sensible partner not based purely or mostly on lust.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Of the folks I know, one couple got together from a shared passion for rock climbing. One got together from a shared passion for environmental activism. Etcetera and so on.
> 
> Most men are actually human beings FIRST.


So what? That's just a head start on meeting and common interest. These men too chose to pursue because they wanted to have sex with those women. Otherwise she's just one of the guys, and he doesn't dote on guys. He didn't ask her out *because* she's a rock climber. He met her because she's a rock climber. He asked her out because he's pursuing sex with an attractive woman.

Its easier to see the underlying motivation when you remove the extraneous information and focus on a man pursuing a woman he doesn't know. The same guy will make the cold approach if he absolutely had to, and it wouldn't be common interests that motivated him to do so.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Wanting to be valued for more than sex isn't "lowering" the value he places on sex. The two aren't mutually exclusive, imo. A man _can_ value a woman's intelligence, sense of humor, beliefs, personality, success in life, etc. without sacrificing sex, or making it less of a priority.


I'd argue that assuming that ALL he'll ever want is sex and dismissing him merely by the fact that his sexual desire for her is the instigator of his pursuit, is in fact "lowering" him for it.

Ever thought to yourself "why can't he just say how he feels!?" Well, that's one reason.

Valuing a woman's intelligence/humor etc, come later. Desire to have sex with you is immediate - it instigates the pursuit that even puts us on a path to discovering you're intelligent, humorous etc. Ever notice that guys will practically loiter around the pretty girl seemingly regardless of her intelligence/humor/personality etc? Women I know certainly have; most are pretty dismissive toward *that* girl, and others *are* that girl and even revel in it. The guys don't do it because she graduated summa cum laude. They don't care yet. She's just pretty and they want to make the sex.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The woman's personality, quirks, humor etc etc... these play a role in his falling in love.


But not friendship? 



> They don't play major parts in his originally seeking her out. Whereas you see plenty of hot women choosing guys significantly below their ability (here's where I get into trouble lol) on the basis of his charisma, humor or personality, you don't generally see hot guys choosing women beneath their ability. If they can get a hotter girl, they'll usually go and do it. I suspect some women even sense this and will even choose a guy who isn't "too attractive"... with the feeling they won't be able to keep him. I've heard women often express it as "can't have a man hotter than me, that's just not gonna work." A few have admitted as much on this forum too. In time, a man's non-sexual interest in the right woman will exceed his sexual interest - but when he's asking for your number hoping for a date, that time hasn't arrived - he's chasing the booty.


I only have my experience and what I've observed of my friends to go on. Some men have, indeed, contacted me for just sex. That I'm sure of. (Thank you Marine Corps.) I can't tell you how many of the male recruits I knew tried hooking up with me when I came home from Basic. The guy who cheated on me was one, and there were two others. I have no doubt that all three _were_ interested in sex, first. I "dated" the guy who cheated, and after that, kept my distance from most of the other Marines. 

**Edit to add: I don't think the other two were wrong for wanting sex or having that as their primary motivation. 

One guy I was especially good friends with before Basic was also a great friend after. We had good chemistry, he really made me laugh like no other guy ever had, and after six months of texting he did ask me to be his gf. (My bf before DH) I can't say what his primary motivation was for befriending me. I'm pretty sure he was out having ONS the entire time he was getting to know me more, so...I don't know what his motivation was at all. 

As for hot girls choosing guys below them in looks...I'd say the bf before DH was "below" me, although I hate using the term. My mom was quite surprised I even wanted to go out with him, but I came to care for him a lot. Before we were together, he confided in me a lot about mistakes he'd made in relationships. He'd been cheated on more than once, and had cheated on previous gfs more than once, and was tired of the crap and pain all of that had caused. He would text and call me almost daily to talk to me about things, and I really cared about him. So when he did ask me to be his gf, I didn't see a guy who was less attractive than I. I saw a guy I loved in both a platonic and romantic way, a guy who deserved a good, patient, honest, devoted girl who wouldn't jump the next guy who came along. He was in great physical condition, if a little scrawny, but he really did have an amazing sense of humor....and I know you'll probably laugh, but I can't help it because it's the truth...he was really nice. Respectful. 

Don't get me wrong, there was physical attributes I liked too. I'm a shoulder woman, and man oh man, did he have great shoulders. He wasn't ugly or unattractive. In fact, the features others would scowl at, I found really endearing. But, I am a deep romantic at heart, so perhaps I'm just unusual. lol. 



> In the beginning the motivation is overwhelmingly sexual. Evidence: men who can get laid at will tend to take way longer to settle with one woman than men for whom sex is scarce. They're both seeking sex, but the guy in demand has a lot more temptation which will cause him to remain non-committal, not bother to deal with minor annoyances virtually any given woman is going to have, and thus take longer to realize he's found Ms Perfect match. It probably changes with age too - our testosterone levels naturally decline or superficiality begins to lose its luster and we want more depth. I think of this as kind of the male version of how women go after the "bad @ss" guy when they're younger only to figure some things out and choose a more sensible partner not based purely or mostly on lust.


I can see that.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd argue that assuming that ALL he'll ever want is sex and dismissing him merely by the fact that his sexual desire for her is the instigator of his pursuit, is in fact "lowering" him for it.


Okay, I can see that. 



> Valuing a woman's intelligence/humor etc, come later. Desire to have sex with you is immediate - it instigates the pursuit that even puts us on a path to discovering you're intelligent, humorous etc. Ever notice that guys will practically loiter around the pretty girl seemingly regardless of her intelligence/humor/personality etc? Women I know certainly have; most are pretty dismissive toward *that* girl, and others *are* that girl and even revel in it. The guys don't do it because she graduated summa cum laude. They don't care yet. She's just pretty and they want to make the sex.


I'd argue that *some* guys do this. I still don't believe that every man does.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> 3) Friendships where one or both feel some amount of sexual attraction, but it's not anything that they would choose to act on (for whatever reason), and is not a significant part of their relationship.
> 
> You put so much emphasis on random approaches of strangers, as if this is the only way people can meet or relate to each other, but honestly I don't think this is how most of us make friends. This kind of behaviour is pretty clearly about pursuit of sex and nothing else --so again I don't get why you're surprised that women would call it out as such.


My focus wasn't on making friends. I make the distinction of pursuing a romantic relationship. Take away the guy's sexual motivation, and you're just another "guy"... he doesn't even meet unless you share interests. He doesn't pursue you. Include all that extraneous meeting/interest information and he has more reason to connect with you, but his sexual motivation is still king and the driver of the pursuit. Now he just has more reason to think you like him too. Some guys have trouble jumping off the cliff and prefer meeting this way... because it affords more opportunity to perceive interest without rejection before making an overt advance.

Your option #3 is a dangerous friendship if felt by both, and borderline abusive if felt by one... imho.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My focus wasn't on making friends. I make the distinction of pursuing a romantic relationship. Take away the guy's sexual motivation, and you're just another "guy"... he doesn't even meet unless you share interests. He doesn't pursue you. Include all that extraneous meeting/interest information and he has more reason to connect with you, but his sexual motivation is still king and the driver of the pursuit. Now he just has more reason to think you like him too.
> 
> Your option #3 is a dangerous friendship if felt by both, and borderline abusive if felt by one... imho.


Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "sexual attraction"? What's the difference between finding someone attractive and actually _wanting_ to have sex with them?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> But not friendship?


huh? If he's not attracted and she has a bunch of likeable qualities, she's "one of the guys".



Created2Write said:


> I "dated" the guy who cheated, and after that, kept my distance from most of the other Marines.


Haha, yes, Marines are bad bad bad. Don't date them. 



Created2Write said:


> As for hot girls choosing guys below them in looks...I'd say the bf before DH was "below" me, although I hate using the term.


Everyone hates using the term... but you still get what I'm saying right? Its intent isn't to insult anyone.



Created2Write said:


> But, I am a deep romantic at heart, so perhaps I'm just unusual. lol.


I think that would make you par for womanhood. I don't think man has ever lamented that women aren't "romantic" enough.


----------



## Fozzy

I really want in on this conversation, but I'm still 6 pages behind, and have been for several days. I'd appreciate it if you people would let me catch up.

thaaaaanks.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "sexual attraction"? What's the difference between finding someone attractive and actually _wanting_ to have sex with them?


For guys, not a whole lot. lol We see you, want to have sex with you and thereby pursue you. Its one reason I don't understand guys just being friends with women they're sexually attracted to - who wants that unresolved tension except for the "nice guy", for whom unresolved tension is the closest he generally gets to sex?

The only reasons to differentiate the two are circumstances. 

I recognize my exw is still sexually attractive, but I never want to have sex with her again for obvious reasons. Same woman without the context, and I'd be on it.

Childhood friends (aka "sisters"), certain co-workers, whatever... all become non-sexual as a result of circumstances, but we can still tell they're hot. There's not really a whole lot of these.


----------



## Fozzy

Deejo said:


> Yes, yes, you're wrong, and that's ok. We've already established a long time ago that women don't actually know what they want. This includes both sexual and non-sexual relationships with the opposite sex.
> 
> Thus the comic.
> 
> The creep in that little comic is clearly painted as the guy. Our angry ball kicking heroine is quite put out and shockingly surprised and angered by the perception that her OS nice friend has only been nice because he's been passively hoping that he'd do enough 'nice' stuff to get laid. And it doesn't work that way ... and (truthfully) the guys that think it does, well ... I think they deserve to be kicked in the balls ... repeatedly. That way we can more quickly and easily bring them over to the viewpoint that women are quite clearly little emotional tempests who you don't try to 'Nice' your way into their pants. Yet you can't come out and SAY, 'I want to get into your pants.' Because that makes you a sexist creeper.
> You can't try to use suggestion and game to get into her pants because that makes you a loser PUA.
> 
> Apparently, according to the single quality that virtually EVERY woman lists as numbers 1 through 3 for qualities they look for ... you have to have a sense of humor.
> 
> *So there you have it. If you have a sense of humor, women will want to have sex with you, even if you don't want to have sex with them.* This has to be true because they make movies about fat guys and geeks getting the really hot girl because they are A. Funny and B. Sincere and Compassionate.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Doesn't this pretty much sum up female desire? That wasn't hard at all.


Gilbert Gottfried---exhibit A


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> huh? If he's not attracted and she has a bunch of likeable qualities, she's "one of the guys".


Okay, here is where I think our disconnect is.
-Is there a difference, in your opinion, between _being_ attracted to a woman and simply finding her to be attractive? 
-Can a man who finds a woman to be attractive have a platonic friendship with her? 
-Can a man who is attracted _to_ a woman have a platonic friendship with her? 
-Can a woman who starts as "one of the guys" become a woman a man is attracted to?
-Why is it "abuse" if a man and woman are friends, and there's attraction on one side but not on the other? Or it is not _just_ attraction but an actual desire for sex that makes it abuse? Regardless, why is it abuse? 



> Haha, yes, Marines are bad bad bad. Don't date them.


lol. I didn't mean it that way. If I had been better at communication and much less hard on the ex before DH, I think he and I would have had a longer relationship. I only meant that the Marine Corps did expose me to types of men and women I hadn't previously known. 



> Everyone hates using the term... but you still get what I'm saying right? Its intent isn't to insult anyone.


I think so...but I'm not sure. There's a lot of components to the conversation. lol. I think your point was that women were more likely to date a guy "below" their ability than men were to date women "below" their ability....Is that accurate? 



> I think that would make you par for womanhood. I don't think man has ever lamented that women aren't "romantic" enough.


I guess my point was that when it came to him, there was more to our friendship than sex. He was already out having sex with a bunch of different women, I wasn't even in the same state as he was, and yet he was _still_ my friend. A very close one, at that. I don't see how sex would have been his motivation to be my friend.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> For guys, not a whole lot. lol We see you, want to have sex with you and thereby pursue you. Its one reason I don't understand guys just being friends with women they're sexually attracted to - who wants that unresolved tension except for the "nice guy", for whom unresolved tension is the closest he generally gets to sex?


So in your opinion there's no such thing as a man who is attracted to a woman, confident in himself, mentally and emotionally healthy, and chooses to just be friends with her? The only time a man is emotionally and mentally healthy, confident, and just friends with a woman is if there isn't any attraction whatsoever? 



> The only reasons to differentiate the two are circumstances.
> 
> I recognize my exw is still sexually attractive, but I never want to have sex with her again for obvious reasons. Same woman without the context, and I'd be on it.
> 
> Childhood friends (aka "sisters"), certain co-workers, whatever... all become non-sexual as a result of circumstances, but we can still tell they're hot. There's not really a whole lot of these.


Okay, so there _are_ cases when a woman is hot and a man can have a platonic friendship with her?

I really am trying to understand, I swear. I just have such drastically different experiences than this, for the most part.


----------



## Lyris

My husband is hotter than me. It's a good deal for him because it means I try harder.


----------



## Created2Write

I'd say my husband is too. He has always been much more concerned with his physical health than I, but he is my motivation to keep myself in shape.


----------



## Lyris

Yes keeps me running 25 miles a week to keep the ass up high that's for sure. Not to mention all the various services needing to be very high quality.


----------



## Created2Write

Holy crap! 25 miles a week? Now _you're_ my motivation.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My focus wasn't on making friends. I make the distinction of pursuing a romantic relationship. Take away the guy's sexual motivation, and you're just another "guy"... he doesn't even meet unless you share interests. He doesn't pursue you. Include all that extraneous meeting/interest information and he has more reason to connect with you, but his sexual motivation is still king and the driver of the pursuit. Now he just has more reason to think you like him too. Some guys have trouble jumping off the cliff and prefer meeting this way... because it affords more opportunity to perceive interest without rejection before making an overt advance.
> 
> Your option #3 is a dangerous friendship if felt by both, and borderline abusive if felt by one... imho.


Example 1:. A very good friend of mine had some amount of attraction for me. I discovered this one day when we were walking and talking, and he said to me "this is where I would come onto you if I wasn't married." I was a bit startled, as I had never thought of him that way (although I was single at the time). But I just grinned and shrugged, and we carried on as normal. 

I can't imagine that I was abusing him by staying friends. As for dangerous? He did split with his wife, a couple years later, after I'd gotten together with my SO. And found himself someone new, and better suited. Not once did we get any more sexual than that one 10 second conversation.

Another very good friend of mine, I was very attracted to. I absolutely would have dated him given the opportunity, but when I put forward the idea (we were both single in those days), he told me he didn't see me that way. But you see, he did actually pursue me just for friendship. He called me, consistently invited me out, kept in touch when I moved out of town. Was he abusing me for doing this? I think not. We remain good friends, and while I won't deny that I felt some disappointment that he didn't want more at the time, I managed to move on pretty quickly -- and have no regrets. As for dangerous? How could it be? He was never into me, and even if he had a change of heart, that was ancient history now. Lots has changed, including my interest.

One last example is a friend I've know for somewhere around 30 years now. We met as teenagers through mutual friends, and became roommates in a shared house. We have done all manner of things together, been through thick and thin, looked out for each other, talked about everything under the sun, -- you name it, except sex. Now with him, it's possible that if timing and circumstances had been a little different over the years, we may have been gotten together. Maybe. But even then, there's no danger because we absolutely respect each other's relationships and always have.

I have lots more examples, these are but three to illustrate that while you spin a good yarn, your conclusions and assumptions are way off the mark.


----------



## Sandfly

lyris said:


> yes keeps me running 25 miles a week to keep the ass up high that's for sure. Not to mention all the various services needing to be very high quality.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So in your opinion there's no such thing as a man who is attracted to a woman, confident in himself, mentally and emotionally healthy, and chooses to just be friends with her? The only time a man is emotionally and mentally healthy, confident, and just friends with a woman is if there isn't any attraction whatsoever?


Well think about it. Except circumstances like I laid out, why would he just be friends with her? He's sexually attracted AND they get along well enough to be friends... sounds like the making of a romantic relationship, not a friendship.



Created2Write said:


> Okay, so there _are_ cases when a woman is hot and a man can have a platonic friendship with her?


Depends on how you define "platonic". If our wives have a hot sister, we've thought about sex with her. Not pursuing it is a matter of self-control more than interest/motivation.


----------



## naiveonedave

My $0.02. Man meets woman. He thinks she is 'cute' or 'hot'. Then works on friendship. Maybe has multiple girls that he feels the same about at the same time. 1 is Plan A, the rest are Plan B. If he marries or LTRs with A, then the Plan Bs stay that way.

However, he could get too close to a Plan B and this is how affairs can start. Co-workers are automatically plan Bs.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Example 1:. A very good friend of mine had some amount of attraction for me. I discovered this one day when we were walking and talking, and he said to me "this is where I would come onto you if I wasn't married." I was a bit startled, as I had never thought of him that way (although I was single at the time). But I just grinned and shrugged, and we carried on as normal.
> 
> I can't imagine that I was abusing him by staying friends. As for dangerous? He did split with his wife, a couple years later, after I'd gotten together with my SO. And found himself someone new, and better suited. Not once did we get any more sexual than that one 10 second conversation.


Abuse is perhaps the wrong word. Its not that I think you'd be doing anything wrong really, but that his mindset is *very* wrong and he gets a romantic high from your gestures of friendship.

"this is where I would come onto you" is a passive invitation. That 10 second conversation was him asking you to cheat.



always_alone said:


> But you see, he did actually pursue me just for friendship. He called me, consistently invited me out, kept in touch when I moved out of town.


I don't know. Perhaps he had no attraction for you? That's quite a confusing case though, because the degree to which you're indicating he sought you out implies romantic interest. When we don't have sexual attraction for a woman, I'm sorry to say we tend to disregard her. Happy to see her when we see her, enjoy her company and conversation... but we don't generally seek her out. Not enough information to properly fit him.



always_alone said:


> One last example is a friend I've know for somewhere around 30 years now. We met as teenagers through mutual friends, and became roommates in a shared house. We have done all manner of things together, been through thick and thin, looked out for each other, talked about everything under the sun, -- you name it, except sex. Now with him, it's possible that if timing and circumstances had been a little different over the years, we may have been gotten together. Maybe. But even then, there's no danger because we absolutely respect each other's relationships and always have.
> [/quotes]
> 
> That's legit and I've acknowledged it. I have several such "sisters" from growing up as well. We can't visualize them sexually for the same reason we can't visualize our objectively hot sister sexually.
> 
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have lots more examples, these are but three to illustrate that while you spin a good yarn, your conclusions and assumptions are way off the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see these examples as having disproved anything I'm saying. I laid out some of the exceptions as special circumstances that pre-empt our physical interest, as applies in your last example. The middle example sounds like a case of "no attraction" - I have several such friends myself (the oddity is the degree to which he sought you out). Your first example I would call a prototype passive orbiter. It may have only been 10 seconds to you, but it was likely constantly on his mind.
Click to expand...


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Example 1:. A very good friend of mine had some amount of attraction for me. I discovered this one day when we were walking and talking, and he said to me "this is where I would come onto you if I wasn't married." I was a bit startled, as I had never thought of him that way (although I was single at the time). But I just grinned and shrugged, and we carried on as normal.
> 
> I can't imagine that I was abusing him by staying friends. As for dangerous? He did split with his wife, a couple years later, after I'd gotten together with my SO. And found himself someone new, and better suited. Not once did we get any more sexual than that one 10 second conversation.
> 
> Another very good friend of mine, I was very attracted to. I absolutely would have dated him given the opportunity, but when I put forward the idea (we were both single in those days), he told me he didn't see me that way. But you see, he did actually pursue me just for friendship. He called me, consistently invited me out, kept in touch when I moved out of town. Was he abusing me for doing this? I think not. We remain good friends, and while I won't deny that I felt some disappointment that he didn't want more at the time, I managed to move on pretty quickly -- and have no regrets. As for dangerous? How could it be? He was never into me, and even if he had a change of heart, that was ancient history now. Lots has changed, including my interest.
> 
> One last example is a friend I've know for somewhere around 30 years now. We met as teenagers through mutual friends, and became roommates in a shared house. We have done all manner of things together, been through thick and thin, looked out for each other, talked about everything under the sun, -- you name it, except sex. Now with him, it's possible that if timing and circumstances had been a little different over the years, we may have been gotten together. Maybe. But even then, there's no danger because we absolutely respect each other's relationships and always have.
> 
> I have lots more examples, these are but three to illustrate that while you spin a good yarn, your conclusions and assumptions are way off the mark.


Yup. To me abuse isn't just _being_ friends with someone who may or may not be sexually attracted to us, abuse is intentionally doing things to _keep_ them sexually attracted us when we know we have no intention of reciprocating. The two are very different, imo.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know. Perhaps he had no attraction for you? That's quite a confusing case though, because the degree to which you're indicating he sought you out implies romantic interest. When we don't have sexual attraction for a woman, I'm sorry to say we tend to disregard her. Happy to see her when we see her, enjoy her company and conversation... but we don't generally seek her out. Not enough information to properly fit him.


Based on my own actions and discussions with friends over the years, a lot of seemingly random introductions and meetings were in fact engineered, by both sexes. People joined clubs, attended parties or the game, or participated in an activity based on particular members of the opposite sex being their.

I attended a midnight volley ball game because I hoped to get a chance to talk with my now wife despite having to be a work at 5:30 am the next morning. Prior to that, I had only seen her at a different party (she left the game because she thought she looked awful and that would not impress me). She made up for it by coordinating things so that she ended up at my table for a card game at a party a few nights later.

In both cases, it was because of attraction. I don't know that it was quite the blatent "I want sex with her" thought process that Devil makes it to be, but having sex with her was definite in the mix. I liked how she looked and sex with her was a desireable thought, so I wanted to see if her personality matched. My wife's thoughts were similar. I don't think that I ever just wanted her for sex. But the thought of having sex with her definitely drove my decision to find out more about her. There were other girls at these get togethers who did not trigger those thoughts. I made no affirmative attempt to get to know any of them beyond normal talking or mingling.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well think about it. Except circumstances like I laid out, why would he just be friends with her? He's sexually attracted AND they get along well enough to be friends... sounds like the making of a romantic relationship, not a friendship.


Personally, I think this would be true if the man had very little self-control, tbh. I think there are men who aren't emotionally or mentally weak, who realize and accept that woman they're attracted to isn't into them, and is content to be her friend without expecting more. _I've_ had friendships with guys I was extremely attracted to that weren't interested in me, and I'm just glad I was able to be friends with them. They were great guys, really funny, talented...I have great memories with them. It would have been a shame not to have been friends with them just because they didn't return my interest. And no, I didn't stay friends in hopes that we would someday be more. I accepted that I wasn't someone they were into. I think men are more than capable of the same. I don't mean that every man should just accept friendship with every woman he's attracted to that isn't interested in him, because there are cases where that's not a healthy thing to do. But I don't believe that every case is abuse.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Either you get sex from her, or there's no point? Either you get sex and a romantic relationship, or there's no point? 



> Depends on how you define "platonic". If our wives have a hot sister, we've thought about sex with her. Not pursuing it is a matter of self-control more than interest/motivation.


But it's exactly that self-control that I'm talking about, and I don't think that circumstances are the only boundaries in which that self-control is enforced.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm doing a really awful job communicating my thoughts. I just woke up. lol. 

For me, it comes down to this: I do not believe that all of my OS friends over the years only talked to me and became my friends at the chance to have sex with me. If that were the case, they'd have either tried to actually have sex with me, or moved on when they saw it wasn't going to happen. Now, there were those that, I'm sure, did try and pursue me for sex. I can think of...seven off of the top of my head, so I'm absolutely not saying that this never happens. Just that it depends on the guy. Because I can think of...at least ten that never tried to have sex with me, and still pursued my friendship. Now, I didn't see there thoughts. I don't doubt that many of them _thought_ about sex with me, just like I _thought_ about sex with them(quite a lot, actually). But sex wasn't the reason they were my friends. Many were already in relationships when we became friends.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Personally, I think this would be true if the man had very little self-control, tbh. I think there are men who aren't emotionally or mentally weak, who realize and accept that woman they're attracted to isn't into them, and is content to be her friend without expecting more. _I've_ had friendships with guys I was extremely attracted to that weren't interested in me, and I'm just glad I was able to be friends with them. They were great guys, really funny, talented...I have great memories with them. It would have been a shame not to have been friends with them just because they didn't return my interest. And no, I didn't stay friends in hopes that we would someday be more.


A huge number of guys do hope that by remaining friends, she'll change her mind. As far as my thoughts go, if I'm into her and she's not into me, why the hell am I going to torture myself by being her "buddy"? How neutering. Screw that. That's just me though, I don't have a clear impression of how other guys stand on this.



Created2Write said:


> But it's exactly that self-control that I'm talking about, and I don't think that circumstances are the only boundaries in which that self-control is enforced.


I do. There's no reason not to pursue her if attraction is present and you're all buddy buddy - except those circumstances where desire is neutralized (she's like my sister!) or self-control must be enforced (ie your friend's hot wife - and I don't recommend being close friends there honestly).

I don't trust the latter situations personally. I've know far too many women who just needed "a good friend to talk to" who were really interested in me, and I know far too many men who orbit a woman like the best of pals... ever hopeful some p*ssy falls out of her pocket.


----------



## Fozzy

Tall Average Guy said:


> Based on my own actions and discussions with friends over the years, a lot of seemingly random introductions and meetings were in fact engineered, by both sexes. People joined clubs, attended parties or the game, or participated in an activity based on particular members of the opposite sex being their.
> 
> I attended a midnight volley ball game because I hoped to get a chance to talk with my now wife despite having to be a work at 5:30 am the next morning. Prior to that, I had only seen her at a different party (she left the game because she thought she looked awful and that would not impress me). She made up for it by coordinating things so that she ended up at my table for a card game at a party a few nights later.
> 
> In both cases, it was because of attraction. I don't know that it was quite the blatent "I want sex with her" thought process that Devil makes it to be, but having sex with her was definite in the mix. I liked how she looked and sex with her was a desireable thought, so I wanted to see if her personality matched. My wife's thoughts were similar. I don't think that I ever just wanted her for sex. But the thought of having sex with her definitely drove my decision to find out more about her. There were other girls at these get togethers who did not trigger those thoughts. I made no affirmative attempt to get to know any of them beyond normal talking or mingling.


I used to try to schedule my workshifts to coincide with wife before we started dating. She was a cashier, and i worked in the stockroom at a retailer.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I'm doing a really awful job communicating my thoughts. I just woke up. lol.


You're fine. My brain doesn't get up to operating temperature before noon anyway.



Created2Write said:


> For me, it comes down to this: I do not believe that all of my OS friends over the years only talked to me and became my friends at the chance to have sex with me. If that were the case, they'd have either tried to actually have sex with me, or moved on when they saw it wasn't going to happen.


My experience is that some women recognize the orbiters and others don't. One girl I picked up literally right in front of a guy who was always with her. I thought he might be her boyfriend, but she was giving me signals. I learned he was just a friend who hangs out with her. The guy and I shared an interest in cars, had similar taste in music, so I ended up befriending him too - mostly just hanging with him at his house and drinking. The girl was almost ALWAYS the topic of his conversation once we really hit it off. He was clearly sprung. He also admitted to hating me at first, and not liking most of the guy's she dates. I asked him if he'd ever asked her out and he said no, but that he knew she wasn't into him. Turned out, she knew he was interested in her - she said, "he's always texting, he comes by my work for no reason (waitress), he brings me lunch... cigarettes... its obvious. He's a good friend but date him? Uhh... no." She recognized he's an orbiter and just accepted the benefits. That's actually why I quit her (I think I've told this story before) - I have a soft spot for the friend zoned guy because it happened to me in high school (although, imo, I think this guy was shooting too high). I hate the advantage some women take from those circumstances. Cool thing, I'm still friends with him, encouraged him to break orbit... and later set him up with another girl I know. He's now engaged and not even friends with the girl he was orbiting anymore.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Tall Average Guy said:


> Based on my own actions and discussions with friends over the years, a lot of seemingly random introductions and meetings were in fact engineered, by both sexes. People joined clubs, attended parties or the game, or participated in an activity based on particular members of the opposite sex being their.
> 
> I attended a midnight volley ball game because I hoped to get a chance to talk with my now wife despite having to be a work at 5:30 am the next morning. Prior to that, I had only seen her at a different party (she left the game because she thought she looked awful and that would not impress me). She made up for it by coordinating things so that she ended up at my table for a card game at a party a few nights later.
> 
> In both cases, it was because of attraction. I don't know that it was quite the blatent "I want sex with her" thought process that Devil makes it to be, but having sex with her was definite in the mix. I liked how she looked and sex with her was a desireable thought, so I wanted to see if her personality matched. My wife's thoughts were similar. I don't think that I ever just wanted her for sex. But the thought of having sex with her definitely drove my decision to find out more about her. There were other girls at these get togethers who did not trigger those thoughts. I made no affirmative attempt to get to know any of them beyond normal talking or mingling.


:iagree:

Like I said on Sunday, sex is always just below the radar, because we are sexual beings.
It might not be the creepy , leering type of attitude, but just a quick thought , and the pleasant sensual feeling that goes with it, albeit for just a few seconds.

Whether that sex is possible or not is an entirely different thing.
More often than not, it is just a fleeting fantasy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fozzy said:


> I used to try to schedule my workshifts to coincide with wife before we started dating. She was a cashier, and i worked in the stockroom at a retailer.


Lol, Fozzy,

We all did that in some way or another!


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well think about it. Except circumstances like I laid out, why would he just be friends with her? He's sexually attracted AND they get along well enough to be friends... sounds like the making of a romantic relationship, not a friendship.


I think this defines the problem. HE is attracted to her. And her attraction be damned. This is the quintessential NOT "Nice Guy". A person like this should remain a player. A person like this can not weather interrelationship with another whole person.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A huge number of guys do hope that by remaining friends, she'll change her mind. As far as my thoughts go, if I'm into her and she's not into me, why the hell am I going to torture myself by being her "buddy"? How neutering. Screw that. That's just me though, I don't have a clear impression of how other guys stand on this.


I understand why some would feel that way, men and women. I just felt differently. 



> I do. There's no reason not to pursue her if attraction is present and you're all buddy buddy - except those circumstances where desire is neutralized (she's like my sister!) or self-control must be enforced (ie your friend's hot wife - and I don't recommend being close friends there honestly).
> 
> I don't trust the latter situations personally. I've know far too many women who just needed "a good friend to talk to" who were really interested in me, and I know far too many men who orbit a woman like the best of pals... ever hopeful some p*ssy falls out of her pocket.


So you wouldn't be happy to have her company without the chance for sex, unless you _can't_ have sex with her for some reason?

As for the situations you listed, I wouldn't trust all of them, either.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> I think this defines the problem. HE is attracted to her. And her attraction be damned. This is the quintessential NOT "Nice Guy". A person like this should remain a player. A person like this can not weather interrelationship with another whole person.


I don't agree with this, and I think you're reading into what he said. Any guy, whether nice, a player, a doormat...can be attracted to a woman he meets/knows. Some, I think, can separate their attraction from the friendship, but there are some who can't, and neither is better than the other. And just because a man can't separate his desire from the friendship doesn't mean he can't appreciate the woman for who she is as a whole, it just means that his feelings(in this case, romantic feelings, not just sexual, if you read Dvls post) are too strong to allow him to stay her friend. That, to me, is a very honest and respectful decision.

Kinda reminds me of Jim, from The Office.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I don't agree with this, and I think you're reading into what he said. Any guy, whether nice, a player, a doormat...can be attracted to a woman he meets/knows. Some, I think, can separate their attraction from the friendship, but there are some who can't, and neither is better than the other.


Well, I guess I don't agree. I don't think the fact of attraction needs to be this great driving force that would lead you to ditch interpersonal relationships because of its predominance. I think it stems from past hurt that is unresolved. But also a cultural indoctrination to view the opposite sex so primarily (to use his term) as to lose sight of the ability of the opposite sex as a whole person. And I don't attribute this dysfunction solely to men. But it does strike me that this thread, originally about female sexuality, very quickly morphed into a thread on male sexuality based almost entirely on a few zealot gents on the board.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> Well, I guess I don't agree. I don't think the fact of attraction needs to be this great driving force that would lead you to ditch interpersonal relationships because of its predominance. I think it stems from past hurt that is unresolved. But also a cultural indoctrination to view the opposite sex so primarily (to use his term) as to lose sight of the ability of the opposite sex as a whole person. And I don't attribute this dysfunction solely to men. But it does strike me that this thread, originally about female sexuality, very quickly morphed into a thread on male sexuality based almost entirely on a few zealot gents on the board.


Perhaps I'm mistaken, and I apologize if I am, but you seem to me to be implying that _all_ chances to have friendships with someone, even if you're attracted to them and they're not attracted to you, should be appreciated and acted on, regardless of the potential consequences. By letting even one of these chances slip by, it must mean that the person lacks the maturity to interact with people on a level without attraction or physical desire present. Am I wrong? (I'm genuinely asking, too)

As for ditching interpersonal relationships because of attraction, I think you do a great disservice by assuming all people who do that are motivated by unresolved hurts. Some are, I'm sure. Some people like the attention they get when they're the victim, and consistently put themselves into situations to be a victim, or at least seen as one. (I'm not talking about actual assault situation, please note.) I think these are the "nice guys" discussed earlier. But there are varying levels of attraction, and in some cases, it very well can be impossible to be attracted to someone and remain their friend, and that doesn't mean they don't appreciate that person for who they are as a whole. In fact, I'd argue that it's _because_ they appreciate the person and respect them that they keep their distance. Is it ideal? No, of course not. I'd hate it if one of my OS friends decided not to hang out with me anymore because their attraction to me was too extreme, but I'd hate it even more if I knew that they were tortured every time they saw me.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're fine. My brain doesn't get up to operating temperature before noon anyway.
> 
> My experience is that some women recognize the orbiters and others don't. One girl I picked up literally right in front of a guy who was always with her. I thought he might be her boyfriend, but she was giving me signals. I learned he was just a friend who hangs out with her. The guy and I shared an interest in cars, had similar taste in music, so I ended up befriending him too - mostly just hanging with him at his house and drinking. The girl was almost ALWAYS the topic of his conversation once we really hit it off. He was clearly sprung. He also admitted to hating me at first, and not liking most of the guy's she dates. I asked him if he'd ever asked her out and he said no, but that he knew she wasn't into him. Turned out, she knew he was interested in her - she said, "he's always texting, he comes by my work for no reason (waitress), he brings me lunch... cigarettes... its obvious. He's a good friend but date him? Uhh... no." She recognized he's an orbiter and just accepted the benefits. That's actually why I quit her (I think I've told this story before) - I have a soft spot for the friend zoned guy because it happened to me in high school (although, imo, I think this guy was shooting too high). I hate the advantage some women take from those circumstances. Cool thing, I'm still friends with him, encouraged him to break orbit... and later set him up with another girl I know. He's now engaged and not even friends with the girl he was orbiting anymore.


This I can see. My only caveat would be that not all OS friends are orbiters, even if they were once attracted to the girl. But that's really the only thing I have to add. And this kind of fits to what I said before, in that she knew he liked her and just let him do nice things for her because she knew he would. That's taking advantage, and isn't even what I'd call a friendship.


----------



## norajane

Created2Write said:


> This I can see. My only caveat would be that not all OS friends are orbiters, even if they were once attracted to the girl. But that's really the only thing I have to add. And this kind of fits to what I said before, in that she knew he liked her and just let him do nice things for her because she knew he would. That's taking advantage, and isn't even what I'd call a friendship.


If he never asks her out, what is the right way to handle this situation? Should she, out of the blue, tell him she can't be friends with him because she figures he's an "orbiter" and he needs to go away and stop doing anything for her or talking with her or anything? 

If he does ask her out and she says no and he still wants to be friends and "orbit," what is the right way for her to handle it? Tell him she can't be friends and he needs to go away and stop talking with her?

I can see situations where a woman takes advantage, but I think in most cases of "orbiters" that's not what is happening.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> Perhaps I'm mistaken, and I apologize if I am, but you seem to me to be implying that _all_ chances to have friendships with someone, even if you're attracted to them and they're not attracted to you, should be appreciated and acted on, regardless of the potential consequences.


Not at all. I think the word "should" should be stricken from the dictionary.  I am saying that Dvl is speaking as if he is speaking to the very base, universal nature of what it means to be male. I think that there is a TON of social, historical and personal baggage and influence that goes into determining a person's attitudes and reality.

Dvl is entitled to whatever attitudes he likes. But it is difficult to image that a long term relationship will work well for him and those of similar attitude. Eventually his partner will be faced SMACK against the wall of she really just is not that important to him except insofar as sex is concerned. Everything else is gravy. Or ... maybe even a value he has to pretend to care about in light of more PC env. He can claim that is persistent attitude of ownership and entitlement is not true, and that he is being misunderstood. I think he is fooling himself. He would be better served sticking with casual relationships.

(Not intended to be a slam on Dvl. He represents attitudes that you see a LOT on line.)

This historical, social and personal baggage of nonsense has given us a lot of garbage, not this one small attitude, Women who perceive their vagina is their only value in a relationship. People who quid pro quo sex for other gain. The list of obstacles to really healthy and mature, mutually enriching and loving sex life is pretty interesting.

I think that feminism has simply changed the paradigm, causing what looked like it worked because everyone was doing it to be reexamined. It does seem interesting to me that every single conversation about sexuality, regardless of the topic gets morphed by a hand full of aggressive posters who pretty much just drown the airwaves when the opposition gets too bored to discuss. 

But when someone claims that MEN are like so and so and WOMEN are like this and that, that is not only largely balogna, but totally useless. All someone has to do is look at both SA and me. Both of us in very happy, very sexed marriages. And nothing like each other. Viva la difference,


----------



## Caribbean Man

norajane said:


> If he never asks her out, what is the right way to handle this situation? Should she, out of the blue, tell him she can't be friends with him because she figures he's an "orbiter" and he needs to go away and stop doing anything for her or talking with her or anything?
> 
> If he does ask her out and she says no and he still wants to be friends and "orbit," what is the right way for her to handle it? Tell him she can't be friends and he needs to go away and stop talking with her?
> 
> *I can see situations where a woman takes advantage, but I think in most cases of "orbiters" that's not what it is happening.*


Exactly.

Orbiters are themselves dysfunctional.

Their actions has absolutely no bearing on the character of the woman they orbit, because their motives are covert.

In an obtuse , dysfunctional way, she is the object of their lust and desire, but they * pretend * to be " just friends."

Instinctively, she takes their " friendship " at face value , because she has already told them no to the chance of a personal relationship.


----------



## Created2Write

norajane said:


> If he never asks her out, what is the right way to handle this situation? Should she, out of the blue, tell him she can't be friends with him because she figures he's an "orbiter" and he needs to go away and stop doing anything for her or talking with her or anything?
> 
> If he does ask her out and she says no and he still wants to be friends and "orbit," what is the right way for her to handle it? Tell him she can't be friends and he needs to go away and stop talking with her?
> 
> I can see situations where a woman takes advantage, but I think in most cases of "orbiters" that's not what is happening.


Honestly, in my opinion, I think it depends on the individual. I don't think _she_ should end the friendship unless she doesn't feel comfortable being his friend once she's aware of his attraction. Otherwise it's up to him to enforce his own boundaries. As for the right way to handle it, I think she should put a stop to the nice things he does for her, like buying her lunch or bringing her cigarettes. That _is_ taking advantage, imo, whether she means to or not, and could also lead him to expect that she feels more than she lets on. 

I don't think every case of orbiters are where women take advantage, either.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> Dvl is entitled to whatever attitudes he likes. But it is difficult to image that a long term relationship will work well for him and those of similar attitude. Eventually his partner will be faced SMACK against the wall of she really just is not that important to him except insofar as sex is concerned. Everything else is gravy. Or ... maybe even a value he has to pretend to care about in light of more PC env. He can claim that is persistent attitude of ownership and entitlement is not true, and that he is being misunderstood. I think he is fooling himself. He would be better served sticking with casual relationships.
> 
> (Not intended to be a slam on Dvl. He represents attitudes that you see a LOT on line.)


I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I think you're off here. He's not talking about romantic relationships, he's been talking strictly about desire and what _leads_ to romantic relationships. To use his own thinking, while sexual attraction may be what attracted him to his current SO and lead him to pursue her, it's only one of many reasons he's still in a relationship with her. 

And, sorry, but that absolutely did sound like a slam to him. 



> This historical, social and personal baggage of nonsense has given us a lot of garbage, not this one small attitude, Women who perceive their vagina is their only value in a relationship. People who quid pro quo sex for other gain. The list of obstacles to really healthy and mature, mutually enriching and loving sex life is pretty interesting.
> 
> I think that feminism has simply changed the paradigm, causing what looked like it worked because everyone was doing it to be reexamined. It does seem interesting to me that every single conversation about sexuality, regardless of the topic gets morphed by a hand full of aggressive posters who pretty much just drown the airwaves when the opposition gets too bored to discuss.
> 
> But when someone claims that MEN are like so and so and WOMEN are like this and that, that is not only largely balogna, but totally useless. All someone has to do is look at both SA and me. Both of us in very happy, very sexed marriages. And nothing like each other. Viva la difference,


Which is why I don't agree with a lot of what Dvls says, but I can disagree with him without saying that he should steer clear of long term commitments.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I think you're off here. He's not talking about romantic relationships, he's been talking strictly about desire and what _leads_ to romantic relationships.


He is saying that FOR MEN desire leads to relationships. 



> To use his own thinking, while sexual attraction may be what attracted him to his current SO and lead him to pursue her, it's only one of many reasons he's still in a relationship with her.
> 
> And, sorry, but that absolutely did sound like a slam to him.


You know, He has an opinion. And big boy panties. I am sure he is fine. 



> Which is why I don't agree with a lot of what Dvls says, but I can disagree with him without saying that he should steer clear of long term commitments.


Why? If it would get him what he wants, it is a win.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Abuse is perhaps the wrong word. Its not that I think you'd be doing anything wrong really, but that his mindset is *very* wrong and he gets a romantic high from your gestures of friendship.
> 
> "this is where I would come onto you" is a passive invitation. That 10 second conversation was him asking you to cheat.


You are misreading the situation. When he said this to me, *he* was married, and I was single. I wouldn't have been cheating. And it was a very passive "invitation" because he was not about to cheat either. He was just acknowledging an "If things were different, they might be different" situation.

Later, after I hooked up with my SO, this friend proved himself a champion of our relationship. The details are a bit long and boring to explain --but it was clear that he vetted my SO, "approved" him, and *assisted* our beginning relationship. He was certainly not pining for me, or even slightly sad, for that matter.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know. Perhaps he had no attraction for you? That's quite a confusing case though, because the degree to which you're indicating he sought you out implies romantic interest.


Yes, that is what I explicitly said. He had no interest in me sexually. So why did he call, ask me out, look me up? Because he thinks I'm cool and fun to hang out with. He wanted me as a friend. Some people like to have friends.

And the reason these examples disprove your view is because they are all cases where sexuality isn't the primary motivator. Is it there? Yes, often it is, but it isn't always the most important thing. And sometimes it isn't there at all, or one side is more into the idea than the other. It doesn't necessarily make them a "beta orbiter". It could be just that the sex thing isn't that big a deal, and the friendship is.

It's your prerogative to feel you're being neutered by being friends with woman. Your prerogative to think woman's only value lies in her willingness to sex you up. But your views aren't shared by all.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> He is saying that FOR MEN desire leads to relationships.
> 
> Why? If it would get him what he wants, it is a win.


You're assuming too much, imo.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Yes, that is what I explicitly said. He had no interest in me sexually. So why did he call, ask me out, look me up? Because he thinks I'm cool and fun to hang out with. He wanted me as a friend. Some people like to have friends.
> 
> *And the reason these examples disprove your view is because they are all cases where sexuality isn't the primary motivator. Is it there? Yes, often it is, but it isn't always the most important thing. And sometimes it isn't there at all, or one side is more into the idea than the other. It doesn't necessarily make them a "beta orbiter". It could be just that the sex thing isn't that big a deal, and the friendship is.*


:iagree:


----------



## always_alone

norajane said:


> If he never asks her out, what is the right way to handle this situation? Should she, out of the blue, tell him she can't be friends with him because she figures he's an "orbiter" and he needs to go away and stop doing anything for her or talking with her or anything?


I think the planet needs to take stock of the situation. An honestly true assessment. If it's always the satellite who is listening, doing favours, dropping everything to make the planet happy, then the friendship is just one-sided with one giver and one taker.

If the "planet" is willing to be as good a friend, and there is give and take on both sides, with both pursuing outside relationships, then I don't really see why we even need this stupid language about beta orbiters.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Why? If it would get him what he wants, it is a win.


Men pursuing their sexual desire find relationships - it doesn't mean that they don't appreciate those relationships. If you'll note, I specifically mentioned that the non-sexual elements eventually exceed the value of the sexual elements.

You're stuck on this black and white thinking that says that I couldn't ever care for non-sexual factors merely because my pursuit is driven by sexual desire.

You reject or willfully ignore the progression that I describe.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> But also a cultural indoctrination to view the opposite sex so primarily (to use his term) as to lose sight of the ability of the opposite sex as a whole person. And I don't attribute this dysfunction solely to men. But it does strike me that this thread, originally about female sexuality, very quickly morphed into a thread on male sexuality based almost entirely on a few zealot gents on the board.


:iagree:

But I think this is cultural too, this idea that female desire and sexuality *must* be defined in terms of male desire and interests.

For example, re the discussion on beta orbiters: many women make a point of using their sexuality to take advantage of men because it's a way to have power and get stuff. But instead of framing it this way, it's assumed that women (a) have no idea what's going on, and (b) are just hapless in the face of these dysfunctional orbiters who won't go away, no matter how hard she tries. Umm, yeah right.

I have never wanted to use my sexuality to take advantage, and never had a beta orbiter. This girl I used to know, though? Her dream was to have a guy in every port who would do stuff for her and give her things. She was very deliberate in the way she wrapped them around her little finger.

Women do know what we desire, and these desires exist independently from men's. This is not to say we are all fully transparent to ourselves (as humans are rarely thus), but to say that the earlier assumptions about women not knowing themselves or being "random" are failing to distinguish adequately between what men want women to want, and what women want.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Men pursuing their sexual desire find relationships - it doesn't mean that they don't appreciate those relationships. If you'll note, I specifically mentioned that the non-sexual elements eventually exceed the value of the sexual elements.
> 
> You're stuck on this black and white thinking that says that I couldn't ever care for non-sexual factors merely because my pursuit is driven by sexual desire.
> 
> You reject or willfully ignore the progression that I describe.


Well, it's none of my business, but I agree with Nobody Special's analysis. You've said yourself that if a woman wanes in her desire for you, you're off to the next one. 

Which is absolutely your choice, and no reason why you shouldn't given your prioritization of sex. 

But it does rather suggest a predictable pattern.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You are misreading the situation. When he said this to me, *he* was married, and I was single. I wouldn't have been cheating. And it was a very passive "invitation" because he was not about to cheat either. He was just acknowledging an "If things were different, they might be different" situation.


Ah sorry, had the cheating reversed. IMO, this still sounds like a passive dude gauging you for sex. He absolutely would have jumped at you if you'd have expressed desire to proceed regardless of him being married. That's the purpose of a comment like that... its bait you can get away with using.



always_alone said:


> Later, after I hooked up with my SO, this friend proved himself a champion of our relationship. The details are a bit long and boring to explain --but it was clear that he vetted my SO, "approved" him, and *assisted* our beginning relationship. He was certainly not pining for me, or even slightly sad, for that matter.


Doesn't matter. I've done this myself after sexual motivations and all. That you and he didn't get together doesn't mean that he didn't develop any interest or concern for you. I wasn't sad either. This is all unrelated to sex being the instigator or our pursuit of a woman - the kick in the @ss that sends us across the dance floor, and the reason a passive guy makes baiting comments.



always_alone said:


> Yes, that is what I explicitly said. He had no interest in me sexually. So why did he call, ask me out, look me up?


What does that prove? That's exactly one of the circumstances I already mentioned where sex had no bearing. Always seeking you out is unusual, as I noted. Most guys DO NOT seek out women for whom they have no sexual motivation whatsoever. They tend to be more incidental friends, rather than front burner friends. Without knowing more about the guy, I can't provide any analysis... so all I can say is, "odd." Is it beyond possibility that you were just his BFF... no. Not a common scenario though.



always_alone said:


> And the reason these examples disprove your view is because they are all cases where sexuality isn't the primary motivator.


The first one has a sexual motivation. Even while he's giving you advice on your hubby to be, he likely still has that glimmer. This is put away. Controlled by circumstance. 




always_alone said:


> It could be just that the sex thing isn't that big a deal, and the friendship is.


When one has no sexual attraction or circumstances prevent it, sure. I've said as much. Of course sex isn't a big deal in those cases. Those cases are not that common. If he's attracted, doesn't have one of these circumstantial issues, and is seemingly always hanging with you - he's motivated by sexual potential - not friendship and just being passive about it.

Many guys will do this even if the target of their mal-affection faux friendship is married. Its a fairly safe rule of thumb that a guy regularly lingering about you is motivated by sexual desire. We really tend not to dote on women much otherwise. We dote on the pretty one. Everyone wants to be her "friend". 



always_alone said:


> It's your prerogative to feel you're being neutered by being friends with woman. Your prerogative to think woman's only value lies in her willingness to sex you up. But your views aren't shared by all.


Its not neutering to be friends with a woman. Its neutering to pursue a friendship after one's romantic interest is rejected - or to never act on that interest. While I definitely look down on guys who do this, I never feel this way, because if I'm interested in her and she's not interested in me romantically, I don't continue to orbit her with my unrequited interest. I pursue the women I want, I don't befriend them and pretend I wasn't interested, or accept friendship consolation prizes. That seems pretty humiliating to me. I'm surprised there are guys who do it even though I know there are plenty.

Again with the black and white thinking - no where have I said a woman's value lies only in her willingness to sex me up. I said men pursue women with the intent of getting laid, it is the primary motivation and instigator of the pursuit - there are plenty of non-sexual things we find along the way that have value. I'm really getting tired of repeating it. Is it that hard to understand, or are you purposefully selling the distortion?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I think the planet needs to take stock of the situation. An honestly true assessment. If it's always the satellite who is listening, doing favours, dropping everything to make the planet happy, then the friendship is just one-sided with one giver and one taker.
> 
> If the "planet" is willing to be as good a friend, and there is give and take on both sides, with both pursuing outside relationships, then I don't really see why we even need this stupid language about beta orbiters.


:iagree:

“Those who desire to become friends approach each other, and enter into relation with each other, that each may enjoy the society and the character of him whom he has begun to love, and they are equal in love, and on either side are more inclined to bestow obligations than to claim a return, so that in this matter there is an honorable rivalry between them.” 

Cicero - _Laelius de Amicitia _​


----------



## MYM1430

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I hate to say this, but most people get what is being said by this "take her" language. It has a sharper value for you. Its not a removal of her agency or "take her against her will". Its want her bad enough to act directly and unambiguously of his own desire - assertiveness.
> 
> I'm a big fan of agency, and I'm still going to take my gf when I really just have to have her. right. now. ...and she loves how desired it makes her feel when I do. This is because she trusts me, and knows that she can stop me at any time. But I put that on her to say... she's never said it, and if I asked I'm 100% sure she would say "Except if I'm feeling ill, why the hell would I say stop!?"
> 
> I'm just never going to say "hey babe, I want you so bad right now... can I jump you?" With the exception of women who have been raped and have an issue trusting, I can't imagine a guy who wouldn't have better results just DOING rather than ASKING permission. A lot of men and women are sexless because a guy is one of these "nice guys" who won't just do it, and often can't even ask for permission... instead relying on her to initiate or some non-verbal clue that she's interested. He can't act of his own want, and she's so turned off by his lack of assertiveness she doesn't really want anything.
> 
> How passively dispassionate. Unsexy imo, but to each his/her own. Still, I think this is the most common form of sexless relationship.


This is so true. I have always been the one to ask permission and most of the time get turned down.


----------



## Sandfly

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah sorry, had the cheating reversed. IMO, this still sounds like a passive dude gauging you for sex. He absolutely would have jumped at you if you'd have expressed desire to proceed regardless of him being married. That's the purpose of a comment like that... its bait you can get away with using.


Yep, had this experience at 16. There was an older woman who I found out was in a relationship (she never mentioned it, fancy that) when I invited her out... She suggested that her sister was single and I should meet her.

I was in a relationship with her sister for about seven years (seems to be my un/lucky number).

This woman got married... 

whose door did she knock on when I'd parted from her sister, and she was 'having problems' with her husband?

I don't cross the marriage line, that's sacred, so she didn't get what she came for.... that made her think it was a game, and stepped up the baiting. Her husband was wise enough to stamp on her outings eventually.

I now suspect that quite a few were actually married and pretending to work on their marriages apart from Hubby, when they told me they were "separated". Makes me feel bad, the idea that I could have been wronging some fellow unawares.

We keep focussing on 'beta orbiters' - men who hide their jealousies and fantasies unknown to the woman they 'get along with' ... may I introduce to the world the 'Friending female'? It's the equivalent.

There's just as many ! - Isn't this the purpose of facebook?


----------



## Sandfly

ocotillo said:


> :iagree:
> 
> “Those who desire to become friends approach each other, and enter into relation with each other, that each may enjoy the society and the character of him whom he has begun to love, and they are equal in love, and on either side are m*ore inclined to bestow obligations than to claim a return*, so that in this matter there is an honorable rivalry between them.”
> 
> Cicero - _Laelius de Amicitia _​


Best definition of friendship I've come across.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I have never wanted to use my sexuality to take advantage, and never had a beta orbiter. This girl I used to know, though? Her dream was to have a guy in every port who would do stuff for her and give her things. She was very deliberate in the way she wrapped them around her little finger.
> 
> Women do know what we desire, and these desires exist independently from men's. This is not to say we are all fully transparent to ourselves (as humans are rarely thus), but to say that the earlier assumptions about women not knowing themselves or being "random" are failing to distinguish adequately between what men want women to want, and what women want.


Yes! :iagree:


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not neutering to be friends with a woman. Its neutering to pursue a friendship after one's romantic interest is rejected - or to never act on that interest. While I definitely look down on guys who do this, I never feel this way, because if I'm interested in her and she's not interested in me romantically, I don't continue to orbit her with my unrequited interest. I pursue the women I want, I don't befriend them and pretend I wasn't interested, or accept friendship consolation prizes. That seems pretty humiliating to me. I'm surprised there are guys who do it even though I know there are plenty.


While I don't agree with what some have said about you in this thread, I _will_ say that you're a bit...confusing here. You've said before in many conversations in this forum about how you often flirt with your friends, and you don't have friendships where there isn't chemistry. To my mind that does conflict with what you've said here. I'm guessing that you don't have female friends that you have no shared interests with whatsoever, or that aren't physically attractive, so where is the line drawn? In this thread it's been pretty clear: if a man finds a woman attractive and there aren't circumstances preventing a sexual or romantic attachment, and she doesn't reciprocate his interest, he has no business trying to be her friend. However, I find that a bit inconsistent with what you've said before as regards OS friends, flirting, etc. Could you clarify?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> While I don't agree with what some have said about you in this thread, I _will_ say that you're a bit...confusing here. You've said before in many conversations in this forum about how you often flirt with your friends, and you don't have friendships where there isn't chemistry. To my mind that does conflict with what you've said here. I'm guessing that you don't have female friends that you have no shared interests with whatsoever, or that aren't physically attractive, so where is the line drawn? In this thread it's been pretty clear: if a man finds a woman attractive and there aren't circumstances preventing a sexual or romantic attachment, and she doesn't reciprocate his interest, he has no business trying to be her friend. However, I find that a bit inconsistent with what you've said before as regards OS friends, flirting, etc. Could you clarify?


Sure, its cagey for a couple reasons: 

The word "friend" can be used to describe a huge array of non-sexual relationships. The women I'm attracted to that I'm "friends" with aren't friends of any depth (so, superficial sense of the word). They're not people I would depend on or call in a time of need for example. Rather, I know them through a guy I'm friends with (depth sense of the word), or even a girl I have dated where the relationship fizzled and she's now more sisterly.

But also, I flirt with everyone. Even the women I'm not attracted to. Its just part of my personality. I'm known to keep things light, fun and flirty.

You're right in that I don't have female "friends" (in the greater depth sense of the word) with whom I share no interests. The female "friends" (in the superficial sense) I have that I'm attracted to are effectively my known dating pool - women I'm interested in, but for various reasons haven't moved on; generally, we only do things together when I'm single or in groups including mutual friends. If I invite one out for coffee or something, its very much pursuit of sexual interest... rather, attempts to gauge or stoke her interest in me.

I don't know where the line is perfectly. This wasn't really my avenue of discussion so my thoughts are less well-formed here. My focus was on the base reason that a man pursues a woman - his interest in sex; and that women typically have such a negative perception of this as his base motivation, that even a compliment is taken as "he only wants my body". While true on the surface, it disregards that the non-sexual elements are the result of his progression as he gets to know her. But wanting to know her at all, was out of sexual interest. He's pursuing her because he wants sex with her - and everything else he might value, he finds along the way. Hostility to this progression because it starts with sex, and all the negativity surrounding sexual intent, I'm citing as a main cause of many men becoming sexually passive or deceptive. The contradiction - you want us to be sexually assertive, when you want us to be sexually assertive (that may sound rhetorical, but understand that he is what he is... and its actually your frame of mind shifting). For most women (not all, or even always for a given woman... but usually), its "Good. You've reached my safe zone that proves you don't just want sex, now be sexually assertive." It makes for a pretty ridiculous dance when most of us are going to get attached along the way anyway.

This friendship line of discussion is someone else's. I don't see the origin of a friendship (depth sense) with a woman as being much different than that of a same-sex friendship - you don't have sexual attraction for them. If you do I'd bet he'd/you'd try to be around them more than he/you would someone you're not attracted to - which betrays one's actual motivation imo.

This is how I make sense of the often contradicting messages I hear from men and women, and shifting female wants in particular. No one will ever accuse me of under analyzing. 

This base motivation in men is always there. The motivation in women is more variant... sometimes it looks the same as men's (some women act on motivation to get laid too sometimes), but more often it includes a sort of security component - seeing that he wants more than just sex, before changing mindset and wanting him to be sexually assertive. Maybe you can see how this can easily produce a sexually passive guy who always needs a "green light".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Women do know what we desire, and these desires exist independently from men's. This is not to say we are all fully transparent to ourselves (as humans are rarely thus), but to say that the earlier assumptions about women not knowing themselves or being "random" are failing to distinguish adequately between what men want women to want, and what women want.


Quite possibly, but to us men, it certainly has a really bright glow of "no clue what she wants until gets it, subject to continuous change of whim and verbal concealment per social pressures" and "inability to translate emotional thinking into rational sense or accurate wording". Particularly distressing when emotional thinking isn't really the strong suit of most men. The idea that you can't really 100% trust a woman's exact words about what she says she wants is very common among men, and usually learned the hard way.

I still get a puzzled look on my face when someone blames something on "not meeting their emotional needs" - it has such ethereal meaning to me. I need concrete. I suspect most men need something more concrete, and everything wasn't a matter of reading between the lines.


----------



## Lyris

I am just realising that I haven't ever had a male friend who wasn't attracted to me, at least at some point. And I'm pretty ordinary, certainly no goddess.

I think this means that rather than every man on earth being attracted to me, it's more likely that those who aren't, aren't going to bother putting the effort in to be friends with me.


----------



## Sandfly

Lyris said:


> I am just realising that I haven't ever had a male friend who wasn't attracted to me, at least at some point. And I'm pretty ordinary, certainly no goddess.
> 
> I think this means that rather than every man on earth being attracted to me, it's more likely that those who aren't, aren't going to bother putting the effort in to be friends with me.


No, it would mean - if it were true - that those men require the attraction as _compensation _for overlooking the disagreeable aspects about this hypothetical woman.

This is not the case _with you_, however.

No-one here knows what you look like, yet they still enjoy the personality behind your comments.

No snark intended.


----------



## Fozzy

Sandfly said:


> No, it would mean - if it were true - that those men require the attraction as _compensation _for overlooking the disagreeable aspects about this hypothetical woman.
> 
> This is not the case _with you_, however.
> 
> No-one here knows what you look like, yet they still enjoy the personality behind your comments.
> 
> No snark intended.


You make a valid point, though. Plenty of OS friendships on the interwebs and attraction factors zero into it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know what she looks like, she's a babe.


----------



## Conrad

Lyris said:


> I am just realising that I haven't ever had a male friend who wasn't attracted to me, at least at some point. And I'm pretty ordinary, certainly no goddess.
> 
> I think this means that rather than every man on earth being attracted to me, it's more likely that those who aren't, aren't going to bother putting the effort in to be friends with me.


I'd say that's a rather realistic view.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Quite possibly, but to us men, it certainly has a really bright glow of "no clue what she wants until gets it, subject to continuous change of whim and verbal concealment per social pressures" and "inability to translate emotional thinking into rational sense or accurate wording". Particularly distressing when emotional thinking isn't really the strong suit of most men. The idea that you can't really 100% trust a woman's exact words about what she says she wants is very common among men, and usually learned the hard way.
> 
> I still get a puzzled look on my face when someone blames something on "not meeting their emotional needs" - it has such ethereal meaning to me. I need concrete. I suspect most men need something more concrete, and everything wasn't a matter of reading between the lines.


Or that it wouldn't "change" as soon as the prescribed behavior was supplied.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A huge number of guys do hope that by remaining friends, she'll change her mind. As far as my thoughts go, if I'm into her and she's not into me, why the hell am I going to torture myself by being her "buddy"? How neutering. Screw that. That's just me though, I don't have a clear impression of how other guys stand on this.


Recieving her negative or non-attraction over time will strip any attractiveness and confidence you do have in yourself. The only work around is to use most of your time on females who are attracted to you who you can get with. It's OK to be friends with a lady. I just wouldn't put most of my time on a non-reciprocative one.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I do. There's no reason not to pursue her if attraction is present and you're all buddy buddy - except those circumstances where desire is neutralized (she's like my sister!) or self-control must be enforced (ie your friend's hot wife - and I don't recommend being close friends there honestly).


It's not healthy and reduces your c0ck strength. Man, I wish I didn't know. Once again you can be friends with this lady, but you shouldn't spend most of your time and resources on her. Nor should you "try" to get her. Live your life.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't trust the latter situations personally. I've know far too many women who just needed "a good friend to talk to" who were really interested in me, and I know far too many men who orbit a woman like the best of pals... ever hopeful some p*ssy falls out of her pocket.


My original system prevents it. A natural ingrained system, where I'm not using most of my time on ones I "can't" get it with. I use most of my time on ones I "can" get it with, and the funny thing is that sex magic makes some of the others interested in you, especially if you don't pay them any attention.

Can you comment on a period where a girl did trash you out and your confidence took a hit and you had to do several dates or a good girlfriend to get past it and most of it back?


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Quite possibly, but to us men, it certainly has a really bright glow of "no clue what she wants until gets it, subject to continuous change of whim and verbal concealment per social pressures" and "inability to translate emotional thinking into rational sense or accurate wording". Particularly distressing when emotional thinking isn't really the strong suit of most men. The idea that you can't really 100% trust a woman's exact words about what she says she wants is very common among men, and usually learned the hard way.


Sweet and kind words and actions that don't match. It's easier to monitor the actions. Over time you will know if she is reliable. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I still get a puzzled look on my face when someone blames something on "not meeting their emotional needs" - it has such ethereal meaning to me. I need concrete. I suspect most men need something more concrete, and everything wasn't a matter of reading between the lines.


"What would you propose that I can better meet your 'emotional' needs?"


----------



## Sandfly

I discovered something a few years back about men.

There are some women who are so classically beautiful, expensively dressed, intelligent and well mannered that other men find themselves completely unable to approach them without choking up and _saying stupid things_.

The men in the room hover and stalk on the sides of the room... trying to think of how to sell themselves in a buyer's market.

They do this thing where they are talking _to someone else_, but saying things a bit louder in they hope she overhears, and takes an interest... you hear about the following:

-His successes, his top-flight career, how much he made in bonuses last year, his next trip to scale everest...

The most attractive woman I have ever met, as graceful as a swan, was an aristocrat from the Ukraine. She was so obviously un-unsed to conversation about her interests (instead of about her) that she took _me _out to lunch and paid for it, on the day we first met.

The most attractive women are desperate for intelligent conversation. The best pick-up line is 'Hello'.

Or an even better one, as Russell Brand said, is:

"Get in the van!!"


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> The most attractive women are desperate for intelligent conversation.
> 
> *The best pick-up line is 'Hello'.*


So true!

I have a story about myself and local top model, a former Ms World .

But I'll post it tomorrow. 
Heading off to bed now..


----------



## Red Sonja

I have resisted (mostly) posting on this thread because it seems to be a huge effort toward fitting all or most women (and men) into definitive behaviors and thought patterns. And, I hate that because it denies the uniqueness and variability of human beings. 

That said here is my experience of female desire (my own):

1. I love sex and was raised with sex-positive values; I have never been raped or molested. I have known what I wanted in LTR’s since my late teenage years, at the same time I also knew that I did not want to marry until I graduated college and was established in my profession, if ever (because marriage IMO is for fostering children and I knew I did not want any). I don’t know if I am “highly sexual” (as FW puts it), but I do know that like FF, in a LTR I am always ready for sex unless I am ill or my man is being a major bvtthole on a particular day. Oh and, I have sexual thoughts on a daily basis and always have.

2. Even though I knew about sexual pleasure early on (via masturbation) I remained a virgin until age 19 because boys my age did not interest me sexually (see #3). Never had a ONS because, well, how could I know there would be any pleasure in it for me? I have experienced immediate and visceral sexual responses toward men (at first sight) multiple times in my lifetime … they are pleasant for sure, but stupid to act upon IMO.

3. I have had many male friends in my life. I played male sports (baseball) continuously from elementary school through college, and then minor-leagues until age 27 … so I “hung out” with a lot of guys. All more or less good-looking, all very physically fit. Did I ever date or have sex with any of them? No, not once. For me, their sexual/romantic attractiveness was more than negated by their antics and (very crude) practical jokes off the playing field. Did some try to date or bed me? Sure, and of course I was a “*****” for not complying . It was comical to say the least, but I loved playing baseball and knew this was going to be part of it.

4. I have had one or two “orbiters” in my life but mostly I have experienced what I call “aggressive stalkers”. Those men who wanted me and were not taking a polite but clear “no” for an answer. It was my impression that they either thought they were “irresistible” or thought that I “didn’t know what I wanted”. These were men who would “appear” wherever I was in social situations and pursue me for weeks or months. Some would call these men “alpha”; I call them a$$holes.

5. In college and in my young working professional years, I was approached regularly by the opposite sex in social situations. I know that it was because the man found me sexually/physically attractive (normal), however (after conversing for a few minutes) when they eventually asked what I did for work (electrical engineering) they would quickly excuse themselves from my presence. I would say this happened 90% of the time. I THINK I know the answer as to why this happened, but could the men here explain this to me?

6. I worked in male dominated professions and my rule was always “don’t sh!t where you eat”. I have seen many workplace romances result in bad consequences when the couple eventually broke up.

I know I am an “outlier” on the Bell Curve, as I am very feminine in appearance but have some “masculine” personality traits (or so I am told). Just wanted you to know that women are not all alike in our thoughts or behaviors. I has not been my experience that men are "all alike" either.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Sandfly said:


> -His successes, his top-flight career, how much he made in bonuses last year, his next trip to scale everest...


Sigh...I knew a guy who was pretty low on the corporate totem pole that had multiple fake ATM receipts that he would leave lying around. It was part of his "game". He even admitted as much. Not sure if it worked or not.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Red Sonja said:


> 5. In college and in my young working professional years, I was approached regularly by the opposite sex in social situations. I know that it was because the man found me sexually/physically attractive (normal), however (after conversing for a few minutes) when they eventually asked what I did for work (electrical engineering) they would quickly excuse themselves from my presence. _*I would say this happened 90% of the time. I THINK I know the answer as to why this happened, but could the men here explain this to me?*_


Well....I can only give you my opinion on number five because I'm not turned off by intelligent accomplished women. Perhaps I can even somewhat relate. There is a saying that pretty women and athletes have one thing in common. Nobody gives a crap what they have to say (translation: they are objects). I've used it to my advantage though, because I've always found that my peers and competitors in the corporate world have always underestimated me.

I think those men were turned off because they were perhaps intimidated by your occupation. Especially if they were in a field that they felt was inferior or not as lucrative as yours. There are some men that complain their wives aren't chipping in enough financially, yet they'd be upset if she made more than them. Men can't have it both ways in my opinion. A truly confident man is so focused on his own goals that he has no need to be jealous of his lady's accomplishments.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Red Sonja said:


> 5. In college and in my young working professional years, I was approached regularly by the opposite sex in social situations. I know that it was because the man found me sexually/physically attractive (normal), however (after conversing for a few minutes) when they eventually asked what I did for work (electrical engineering) they would quickly excuse themselves from my presence. I would say this happened 90% of the time. I THINK I know the answer as to why this happened, but could the men here explain this to me?



First of all , let me say that I absolutely love your post, and I don't think you're an " outlier." You are in a different group of women . The women I know in this group are usually high achievers ,captains of their industries, upper level management , extremely self confident , decision makers , usually own businesses and handle their stuff like their male contemporaries,but yet are very feminine.

I have worked for and with those type of women , and they always get my respect and admiration. 

Basically , you are the type of woman I used as my terms of reference in this thread when I made my post.

I studied Mechanical Engineering.
[ Although I no longer practice in that field.]

In our class of twenty students, there were only two women. One a Chinese girl , and the other a black. By the end of the first year , the Chinese, who was very brilliant, but shy at first , cut her hair like a man , stopped wearing dresses and only wore dirty cut up jeans & tees like the rest of us and basically became one of us. The black girl was always had a " tomboy" type of attitude.
Those girls used to hang out with us in bars , do exactly the same things we did. At a certain point, it was like we forgot they were _female_.
During those three years of Mech. Eng , I know for sure no male from our class ever approached them for a relationship. If they did , they were obviously unsuccessful , because they didn't have boyfriends. 
Ironically , quite a few of us guys in the class , had relationships with different girls from on campus from different classes. [The chicks across at Humanities just loved the boys from Mechanical. lol.]
Apparently, most of the guys on campus , and even in our class , looked at these girls as if the y were men.

Not that they weren't feminine and sexually attractive, they were. They bright ,self confident and witty, but in a masculine way.
Talking to them, you felt as if you were speaking with " one of the guys." They were even thinking like men.

Lots of men get intimidated by that sort of characteristic in a woman [ not me ] because he has a certain idea of how to approach women that doesn't work with that type of woman. He is intimidated when he realizes that his " script" can't work.

Like you said in the beginning of your post, people tend to lump male and female into certain categories and when they are confronted with one that doesn't fit into either category, they simply move on, refusing to reset their terms of reference.

There's a word for that in Engineering terms.

It's called " _inertia._"


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> Lots of men get intimidated by that sort of characteristic in a woman because he has a certain idea of how to approach women that doesn't work with that type of woman. He is intimidated when he realizes that his " script" can't work.


I took the viewpoint that the primary motive had a tinge of jealousy. However, I've seen what you're talking about play out in real life too. There are a lot of guys whose whole game or script is based on their economic position. They like playing Mr. Big time to women in a lower economic bracket. These types would definitely not continue the conversation with a successful women that is their equal.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Again with the black and white thinking - no where have I said a woman's value lies only in her willingness to sex me up. I said men pursue women with the intent of getting laid, it is the primary motivation and instigator of the pursuit - there are plenty of non-sexual things we find along the way that have value. I'm really getting tired of repeating it. Is it that hard to understand, or are you purposefully selling the distortion?


If your POV were true, then the consequence you outlined earlier would also be true: Men would go after sex not relationships. And while I know there are many who do think this way, and have had the misfortune of dating some myself, lots or guys were pursuing relationships with people they liked, not just sex with random hot bodies that they were surprised to find out sometimes had something else to offer. 

Indeed right from my formative dating years, plenty of guys pursued LTRs. Not just those who were hard done by or unpopular either, but those who could've had anyone. One of my old roommates was the Ken doll come to life (except anatomically correct), and lots of women loved him, but he stuck to one woman. Now granted, a lot of these relationships weren't as LT or committed as a marriage, but they weren't just flash in he pan sex romps either.

But, since you're determined to rewrite my experience to fit your theories, I'm sure you won't believe me or find another way as to how all these guys are just trained to passively cater to women.


----------



## always_alone

Red Sonja said:


> 5. In college and in my young working professional years, I was approached regularly by the opposite sex in social situations. I know that it was because the man found me sexually/physically attractive (normal), however (after conversing for a few minutes) when they eventually asked what I did for work (electrical engineering) they would quickly excuse themselves from my presence. I would say this happened 90% of the time.


This is how I know that "whole person" factors into male sexual pursuit very early on. There's nothing quite like having a guy come up to you all flirty and nice, ask what you do for a living, then soon as he hears, take a step backwards, stammer something like "oh, wow, wouldn't want to get into an argument with you", and scuttle back into the shadows.

I find that many are also put off by sexual aggression and a woman who knows her own mind. Perhaps this why we keep hearing that women have no clue --


----------



## always_alone

It's too bad that unattractive women get no voice or consideration on a thread about women's desire ...

Even people like me, monstrous in both looks and personality, sometimes burn with desires, desires that can never be fulfilled and will leave us perpetually alone and lonely.

But no one cares. More important to get the dudes laid.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> This is how I know that "whole person" factors into male sexual pursuit very early on. There's nothing quite like having a guy come up to you all flirty and nice, ask what you do for a living, then soon as he hears, take a step backwards, stammer something like "oh, wow, wouldn't want to get into an argument with you", and scuttle back into the shadows.


I agree that there are a quite few that would scuttle back into the shadows, but I don't necessarily think its for the same reason. I honestly think that both men and women seek out different attributes in a long term partner vs. a short term partner. For many men that are trying to run "game" an intellectual woman could be viewed as too much of a challenge. Rightfully or wrongfully.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It's too bad that unattractive women get no voice or consideration on a thread about women's desire ...
> 
> Even people like me, monstrous in both looks and personality, sometimes burn with desires, desires that can never be fulfilled and will leave us perpetually alone and lonely.
> 
> But no one cares. More important to get the dudes laid.


What makes woman unattractive?
What makes a woman attractive?

Both are very subjective areas in the minds of every single man.

In fact , I think women judge themselves much more harshly than men do them.

What one man or group of men might consider an unattractive woman , another group of men would consider attractive.

Everybody wants to get laid , both the dudes and gals.
Hence this thread.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> It's too bad that unattractive women get no voice or consideration on a thread about women's desire ...
> 
> Even people like me, monstrous in both looks and personality, sometimes burn with desires, desires that can never be fulfilled and will leave us perpetually alone and lonely.
> 
> But no one cares. More important to get the dudes laid.


Not everyone wins the genetic lottery. In another thread, I found out that this makes us "creepers".

Edit: wait, was it another thread? Maybe it was THIS one, but you know--like 2 months ago.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> It's too bad that unattractive women get no voice or consideration on a thread about women's desire ...
> 
> Even people like me, monstrous in both looks and personality, sometimes burn with desires, desires that can never be fulfilled and will leave us perpetually alone and lonely.
> 
> But no one cares. More important to get the dudes laid.


Some days you sound so much like one of my sisters, it's uncanny. 

What is attractive? I was surprised (And a little disgusted) at how many people thought the skater, Meryl Davis was unattractive just because she has an unusual face. 

It's so subjective.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> It's too bad that unattractive women get no voice or consideration on a thread about women's desire ...
> 
> Even people like me, monstrous in both looks and personality, sometimes burn with desires, desires that can never be fulfilled and will leave us perpetually alone and lonely.
> 
> But no one cares. More important to get the dudes laid.


You're being silly now, aren't you. 

I am now transmitting to you my positive mental energy, to exorcise your sillyness. 

Bzzzzzzzz!


----------



## Created2Write

For me, it really is very simple. A few men on this thread seem to have very similar experiences with specific types of women. Many of the women in this thread either aren't like those women mentioned, or have had very different experiences throughout their lives. That says more than enough about female desire, and male pursuits; because there are so many different types of women, there are, then, many different kinds of female desire, and not every woman is going to respond to their sexual appetites the way other women will. There are many different kinds of men, and not every man is out to pursue the same things. Some men may pursue a woman because of sex first, but I think this thread sufficiently proves that "most" men don't do this. There are men who pursue women for conversation, friendship, information, mutual interests. That's not to say sex isn't important to them, but that they don't have to want every woman they see to be "real men". This thread seems to highlight the unfounded stereotype that sex is more important to men than women, and that is a belief I always have, and always will, entirely reject.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> For me, it really is very simple. A few men on this thread seem to have very similar experiences with specific types of women. Many of the women in this thread either aren't like those women mentioned, or have had very different experiences throughout their lives. That says more than enough about female desire, and male pursuits; because there are so many different types of women, there are, then, many different kinds of female desire, and not every woman is going to respond to their sexual appetites the way other women will. There are many different kinds of men, and not every man is out to pursue the same things. Some men may pursue a woman because of sex first, but I think this thread sufficiently proves that "most" men don't do this. There are men who pursue women for conversation, friendship, information, mutual interests. That's not to say sex isn't important to them, but that they don't have to want every woman they see to be "real men". *This thread seems to highlight the unfounded stereotype that sex is more important to men than women, and that is a belief I always have, and always will, entirely reject*.


As do I.


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> This thread seems to highlight the unfounded stereotype that sex is more important to men than women, and that is a belief I always have, and always will, entirely reject.


Maybe  studies in the past have been flawed at some fundamental level? If so, it wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened. 

One of the reasons I was interested in this book is because of the sheer volume of attention this subject has received and the conclusions that were drawn from it


----------



## ReformedHubby

Saw this on CNN just now and thought of this thread. Apparently the ladies in this nursing home were treated to some unique "entertainment". I'll say this. If I were that age I doubt my heart could even take it.

Stripper goes to nursing home, elderly resident's son goes to court - CNN.com


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> Maybe  studies in the past have been flawed at some fundamental level? If so, it wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened.
> 
> One of the reasons I was interested in this book is because of the sheer volume of attention this subject has received and the conclusions that were drawn from it


I have to admit that stuff I've read or heard has confirmed that studies show men have higher sex drives than women.

Sex Drive: How Do Men and Women Compare?

I haven't read the book that was discussed in the Salon article that was linked in the first page of this thread, but I have read other articles about it, and I don't think the book actually refutes that men have higher sex drives. 

I think it validates that women's sex drives are more fluid and varied - women get turned on by more types of sex than men do, like f/f sex scenes while men wouldn't necessarily be turned on by m/m sex scenes. To me, that means, to use a food analogy, women can enjoy a wider variety on the menu, but that still doesn't mean they want to eat as often as men as a general rule.

How Strong Is the Female Sex Drive After All? - Emily Esfahani Smith - The Atlantic

I guess I'm not yet convinced that men don't have a higher sex drive than women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Fozzy said:


> You make a valid point, though. Plenty of OS friendships on the interwebs and attraction factors zero into it.


While true, I'd bet big money that the hotties who post pics get noticeably more attention, agreeableness, or polite behavior, even from guys who think they're just being "friendly". Its just one of those quirks of being human I think. When someone is attractive, we're all more inclined to want to know more about them... we check out their profile details, we seek to engage them more, we're more likely to want to agree with them, or mitigate our disagreements.

Its one of the reasons used to explain the correlation between attractiveness and success. People have an immediate positive disposition toward you and are more inclined to want to help you. Not very fair, but I think its true and I think we all do it to a degree.


----------



## Fozzy

I always heard that the internet was the place where men are men, women are men, and kids are feds.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> While true, I'd bet big money that the hotties who post pics get noticeably more attention, agreeableness, or polite behavior, even from guys who think they're just being "friendly". Its just one of those quirks of being human I think. When someone is attractive, we're all more inclined to want to know more about them... we check out their profile details, we seek to engage them more, we're more likely to want to agree with them, or mitigate our disagreements.
> 
> Its one of the reasons used to explain the correlation between attractiveness and success. People have an immediate positive disposition toward you and are more inclined to want to help you. Not very fair, but I think its true and I think we all do it to a degree.


Just look at the online gaming culture with regards to "women" gamers...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

norajane said:


> I have to admit that stuff I've read or heard has confirmed that studies show men have higher sex drives than women.
> 
> Sex Drive: How Do Men and Women Compare?
> 
> I haven't read the book that was discussed in the Salon article that was linked in the first page of this thread, but I have read other articles about it, and I don't think the book actually refutes that men have higher sex drives.
> 
> I think it validates that women's sex drives are more fluid and varied - women get turned on by more types of sex than men do, like f/f sex scenes while men wouldn't necessarily be turned on by m/m sex scenes. To me, that means, to use a food analogy, women can enjoy a wider variety on the menu, but that still doesn't mean they want to eat as often as men as a general rule.
> 
> How Strong Is the Female Sex Drive After All? - Emily Esfahani Smith - The Atlantic
> 
> I guess I'm not yet convinced that men don't have a higher sex drive than women.


I feel the same as you Norajane...absolutely...I didn't click on the articles but I will... statistically speaking it is out of the ballpark.. I've been around PLENTY of women who start moaning and whining that is all their husband's want...and we all know men have sex on the brain so much it takes a toll on their emotional health if they feel their wives aren't into them...or desire them.. They are more creative, more aggressive, having read a couple books on Testosterone, this is our Lust/ aggressive / fantasy Hormone..... man have 10-50 times more over us women if they are healthy in their youth ...also the lust centers of the brain are MORE active in men...



> Love, sex and the male brain - CNN.com
> 
> Perhaps the biggest difference between the male and female brain is that men have a sexual pursuit area that is 2.5 times larger than the one in the female brain. Not only that, but beginning in their teens, they produce 20 to 25-fold more testosterone than they did during pre-adolescence.
> 
> If testosterone were beer, a 9-year-old boy would be getting the equivalent of a cup a day. But a 15-year-old would be getting the equivalent of nearly two gallons a day. This fuels their sexual engines and makes it impossible for them to stop thinking about female body parts and sex.
> And so begins the 'Man Trance'
> 
> All that testosterone drives the "Man Trance"-- that glazed-eye look a man gets when he sees breasts. As a woman who was among the ranks of the early feminists, I wish I could say that men can stop themselves from entering this trance. But the truth is, they can't. Their visual brain circuits are always on the lookout for fertile mates. Whether or not they intend to pursue a visual enticement, they have to check out the goods.
> 
> To a man, this is the most natural response in the world, so he's dismayed by how betrayed his wife or girlfriend feels when she sees him eyeing another woman. Men look at attractive women the way we look at pretty butterflies. They catch the male brain's attention for a second, but then they flit out of his mind. Five minutes later, while we're still fuming, he's deciding whether he wants ribs or chicken for dinner. He asks us, "What's wrong?" We say, "Nothing." He shrugs and turns on the TV. We smolder and fear that he'll leave us for another woman.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the different objectives that men and women have in mating games put us on opposing teams -- at least at first. The female brain is driven to seek security and reliability in a potential mate before she has sex. But a male brain is fueled to mate and mate again. Until, that is, he mates for life.
> 
> Despite stereotypes to the contrary, the male brain can fall in love just as hard and fast as the female brain, and maybe more so. When he meets and sets his sights on capturing "the one," mating with her becomes his prime directive. And when he succeeds, his brain makes an indelible imprint of her. Lust and love collide and he's hooked.


Personally I think the dance between the sexes is amazingly fascinating ... to keep each other entertained, and wanting it.

Of course there are exceptions... a woman who has Bi-polar / Hypersexuality issues could out bang some younger men...and then as us women get older, our Testosterone is rising while the man's is slowly declining...and we find ourselves pressuring our men!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> If your POV were true, then the consequence you outlined earlier would also be true: Men would go after sex not relationships. And while I know there are many who do think this way, and have had the misfortune of dating some myself, lots or guys were pursuing relationships with people they liked, not just sex with random hot bodies that they were surprised to find out sometimes had something else to offer.
> 
> But, since you're determined to rewrite my experience to fit your theories, I'm sure you won't believe me or find another way as to how all these guys are just trained to passively cater to women.


No man I have ever met pursued a woman for the relationship itself. He may have wanted a relationship secondarily, he may even condition actually having sex on being in a relationship (I often wonder how much of this is about his base interest as opposed to cultural expectation), but make no mistake he's pursuing sex. Surely you've experienced or seen the pretty girl all the guys seem to be really friendly toward. As often as not, she thinks they're all innocent and truly just being friendly. They're not. They're suitors for sex. Otherwise, the less attractive women would get just as much "friendly" behavior.

That's the difference between pursuing a woman, and her being like any other potential male friend. Surely you can see this difference is real.

I don't need to rewrite your experience. You don't have any experience as a man, and the experience shared with you by men, is likely to be HIGHLY filtered to what you want to hear - particularly if the more passive sort of guy appeals to you most.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No man I have ever met pursued a woman for the relationship itself. He may have wanted a relationship secondarily, he may even condition actually having sex on being in a relationship (I often wonder how much of this is about his base interest as opposed to cultural expectation), but make no mistake he's pursuing sex. Surely you've experienced or seen the pretty girl all the guys seem to be really friendly toward. As often as not, she thinks they're all innocent and truly just being friendly. They're not. They're suitors for sex. Otherwise, the less attractive women would get just as much "friendly" behavior.
> 
> That's the difference between pursuing a woman, and her being like any other potential male friend. Surely you can see this difference is real.
> 
> I don't need to rewrite your experience. You don't have any experience as a man, and the experience shared with you by men, is likely to be HIGHLY filtered to what you want to hear - particularly if the more passive sort of guy appeals to you most.


Why less physically attractive women need the mantra regarding having a great personality. The thing is, this seems to go both ways. The good looking guys have the flocks while the less attractive guys fall back on the nice guy mantra.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel the same as you Norajane...absolutely...I didn't click on the articles but I will... statistically speaking it is out of the ballpark.. I've been around PLENTY of women who start moaning and whining that is all their husband's want...and we all know men have sex on the brain so much it takes a toll on their emotional health if they feel their wives aren't into them...or desire them.. They are more creative, more aggressive, having read a couple books on Testosterone, this is our Lust/ aggressive / fantasy Hormone..... man have 10-50 times more over us women if they are healthy in their youth ...also the lust centers of the brain are MORE active in men...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think the dance between the sexes is amazingly fascinating ... to keep each other entertained, and wanting it.
> 
> Of course there are exceptions... a woman who has Bi-polar / Hypersexuality issues could out bang some younger men...and then as us women get older, our Testosterone is rising while the man's is slowly declining...and we find ourselves pressuring our men!


Interesting you'd mention the nymphomaniac. Having fallen for a girl with borderline personality disorder, I've read a lot about the disorder. They're still not sure why it happens - in some cases there is clear abuse or dysfunction homes, in others there is not. Its tightly coupled with bi-polar disorder, which is believed to have a genetic link, but even this is uncertain. An article I read recently was about an investigation into testosterone exposure in utero. One strong correlation to promiscuity in women is higher that average testosterone levels. Its something they're actively looking into. Most likely, its a sort of perfect storm of multiple contributing factors. Have them all, and maybe you get this hypersexuality need.

Its all very fascinating and something I still read into.


----------



## TiggyBlue

ocotillo said:


> Maybe  studies in the past have been flawed at some fundamental level? If so, it wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened.


IMO they are very flawed for a number of reasons.


----------



## Fozzy

TiggyBlue said:


> IMO they are very flawed for a number of reasons.


Please share?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> That's not to say sex isn't important to them, but that they don't have to want every woman they see to be "real men". This thread seems to highlight the unfounded stereotype that sex is more important to men than women, and that is a belief I always have, and always will, entirely reject.


Its not about what a man wants to be or being a "real man". I've said MANY times on this forum that I wish I could "turn off" my sexual desire for women. Its honestly distractingly bothersome at times. If it makes you feel better to think its just me, I'm fine with that, but ask yourself... is that what the unbiased evidence leads you to believe, or is it just a more comforting thing you want to believe? Ask yourself, would any of these male friends of yours own up to it if they really did have sex on the brain? Should we really be surprised that so few women here can acknowledge what most of the men do? Heck, TAG is probably as well-adjusted and level headed a guy I've met on this forum... when I first arrived here, I got a ton of flak from him - be even he acknowledges the high place that sex has in our pursuit of a woman. Its not the end all be all, but it is in fact the reason we cross the dance floor and start the conversation.

Take it away, and you take away what I think is a critical element of masculinity - initiation. Spontaneous desire. Assertiveness. Its no wonder many women want to know why their husband's never initiate sex. Often its because you set up courtship such that you'd likely get a more indirect sexually passive guy.

Just my thoughts, take it or leave it. I'm just sharing them, you don't have to agree.

If sex is as important to women as men, then certainly the conditions of having it are very often quite different. But then, wouldn't that argue that women hold something else as more important? As in your case... love? Commitment? etc?

I guess I just never hear guys complaining that a woman won't commit.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> This is how I know that "whole person" factors into male sexual pursuit very early on. There's nothing quite like having a guy come up to you all flirty and nice, ask what you do for a living, then soon as he hears, take a step backwards, stammer something like "oh, wow, wouldn't want to get into an argument with you", and scuttle back into the shadows.


This boggles me. All physical things being equal, I'd be more interested in a woman who is an electrical engineer. I could talk about work without feeling like I'm speaking ancient greek.

I still think you're misunderstanding me. Sexual desire is the instigating factor that sent men who are turned off by the electrical engineer and myself to make ourselves go talk to her in the first place. Entirely consistent with what I've said before: everything that he discovers about her after may continue that desire or kill it. I guess being an electrical engineer kills it for some men. Maybe its the result of what they associate with a woman engineer... maybe they're intimidated, I don't know. If I pursue a woman and discover she wants to be a SAHM, say goodbye to my sex drive. Or rather, I could still be interested in sex, but I know I'm not interested in a relationship with her - so from there I'm either gauging her interest in NSA or moving on. Most often moving on.

Sex was the primary motivator. Now, if that SAHM had been an electrical engineer... my interest would likely grow beyond just my sexual motivation. Not because of her status or money, but because I'm likely to be better able to relate. That's how the progression works for most men I think. Want sex -> incidentally find other nice stuff -> want relationship.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Take it away, and you take away what I think is a critical element of masculinity - initiation. Spontaneous desire. Assertiveness. Its no wonder many women want to know why their husband's never initiate sex. Often its because you set up courtship such that you'd likely get a more indirect sexually passive guy.


There is nothing wrong with courtship...the joys of discovering each other ...allowing for some anticipation.....with someone you have built a solid emotional bond with 1st... 

I also don't care for your thinking that everyone is somehow ...what's the word...Repressed... for holding cultural expectations....so a global orgy is your flavor for society then...somehow this is superior for you? 

..That we all, men and women (do you have age where this is appropriate) should just lean to our primal urges and F*** away...

But NO...women...we are the ones holding you back.... it's our fault! ...Hey, someone needs to hold you all back the way you have painted all men on here...since this is your prime motivation...and we don't want rover just getting off on our leg.. 

In my world...some healthy self restraint ... sexual ethics ....weighing the possible consequences should surely be thrown in with the man's incessant LUST to spread his seed.....
It's not like anyone has his hands tied behind his back, he still has the ability to have his release X times a day.. if he wishes, he won't get blue balls this way..


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

norajane said:


> I think it validates that women's sex drives are more fluid and varied - women get turned on by more types of sex than men do, like f/f sex scenes while men wouldn't necessarily be turned on by m/m sex scenes. To me, that means, to use a food analogy, women can enjoy a wider variety on the menu, but that still doesn't mean they want to eat as often as men as a general rule.


I fully agree with this once you get past a woman's inhibitions related to what others might think of her for it... which can be a pretty tall order.

Guys can get kinky, but there are a host of things that don't even spark interest - they're just gross.

I think women are the kinkier sex. ha... kinda ironic.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Fozzy said:


> Please share?


Well the majority of studies are theories and use evidence that shows why this theory could be true;
e.g lot of emphasis is put on testosterone but the problem with comparing testosterone level in men and women's to equate the 'difference' in libido's is that men and women hormone's aren't set up the same.
Where we don't have the same organs and hormonal set up comparing levels of one hormone is pretty much pointless.
Testosterone is *A* lust hormone but not the *THE* lust hormone (well it is primarily in men). 
Testosterone is one hormone (Estrogen is a group of hormones (Estrone, Estroil and Estradinol) and it is primally Estradiol (another lust hormone) that dictates how strong a woman's sex drive is.
Much like Testosterone does for men Estradiol plays a huge role in how competitive/aggressive/attractive a woman is also. 
Just as Testosterone is a Androgen Estradiol is a Estrogen, but a lot of the time Estrogen get's talked about as if it's a hormone rather than a group of hormone's. 
Androngen don't play nearly as big of a role in the female sex drive (just as Estrogen doesn't in in male's as Androgen).
How can hormone level's in gender's compared when they have different functions?

That's probably what confuses me a lot about hormone studies, if they're trying to show men and women are different why are the comparing hormone level's like men and women are biologically identical?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> There is nothing wrong with courtship.


I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Its when there is a built-in negativity toward sexual interest that I think courtship can go wrong. Should you really be surprised when you get a sexually passive guy when you set the bar such that only a sexually passive guy could get past it?



SimplyAmorous said:


> I also don't care for your thinking that everyone is somehow ...what's the word...Repressed... for holding cultural expectations....so a global orgy is your flavor for society then...somehow this is superior for you?


Odd, I wasn't arguing repression. I don't favor a global orgy either. But how would you characterize a woman's negative perception that guy who approaches her telling her she's beautiful only wants her for sex? No, you want him to be coy about his sexual attraction. You want him to be more passive. Then, once your comfortable, you want him to tell you you're beautiful and be more sexually assertive. I wouldn't characterize it as repressed, but I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense either. There's an inconsistency in the qualities wanted. "Be this way, then be that way." -because that's how the game plays out for women. That's not how it works for men. Sex is at the forefront of our mind, or its pushed back as far as we can push it... out of shame for having it, and the notion that if she gets wind of our intention, she'll rabbit. The lesson to many men is, don't be sexually assertive - don't put your cards down. Be coy, conceal. Be "nice".



SimplyAmorous said:


> But NO...women...we are the ones holding you back.... it's our fault! ...Hey, someone needs to hold you all back the way you have been painting all men on here...since this is your prime motivation...and we don't want rover just getting off on our leg..


You're going off the deep end here. This is exactly the sort of shame for sexual intent I was talking about. I've been monogamous with my gf for 7 months now. Many women I would have sexual motivations for have come and gone - obviously there is restraint and I'm not arguing for otherwise. Just because sex is the instigator of our pursuit does not mean we don't show restraint or come to appreciate and desire other things along the way. I keep repeating this. Why doesn't this sink in?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not about what a man wants to be or being a "real man". I've said MANY times on this forum that I wish I could "turn off" my sexual desire for women. Its honestly distractingly bothersome at times. If it makes you feel better to think its just me, I'm fine with that, but ask yourself... is that what the unbiased evidence leads you to believe, or is it just a more comforting thing you want to believe?


Honestly, I couldn't care less either way. And I don't think it's "just you", so please don't put words in my mouth. I just happen to believe that people are individuals, and that they pursue friendships, relationships, and sexual attachments for many different reasons. My experience had lead me to believe this. I can absolutely accept that there is a large number of people(men and women) who pursue OS acquaintances for sex first, but I don't believe that everyone can be put under the same umbrella. 



> Ask yourself, would any of these male friends of yours own up to it if they really did have sex on the brain?


Of course they would. They're not scared, frail boys. 



> Should we really be surprised that so few women here can acknowledge what most of the men do? Heck, TAG is probably as well-adjusted and level headed a guy I've met on this forum... when I first arrived here, I got a ton of flak from him - be even he acknowledges the high place that sex has in our pursuit of a woman. Its not the end all be all, but it is in fact the reason we cross the dance floor and start the conversation.


Again, putting words in my mouth. I think sex _is_ important for most of, if not all, of the OS friends in my life. But I don't believe that they are my friends now, or became my friends in the beginning, because of sex. I know them better than you do, despite your insistence to the contrary. I know how the friendships started, I know what has gone on in each one, and your experiences in life doesn't suddenly jump in and change any of that. 



> Take it away, and you take away what I think is a critical element of masculinity - initiation. Spontaneous desire. Assertiveness. Its no wonder many women want to know why their husband's never initiate sex. Often its because you set up courtship such that you'd likely get a more indirect sexually passive guy.
> 
> Just my thoughts, take it or leave it. I'm just sharing them, you don't have to agree.


I disagree with some of it, I agree with some of it. I think the primary motivation for a man getting to know a woman depends greatly on the individual guy. I don't believe that one motivation can be universally applied to an entire gender. 



> If sex is as important to women as men, then certainly the conditions of having it are very often quite different. But then, wouldn't that argue that women hold something else as more important? As in your case... love? Commitment? etc?


It depends on the woman. Sex is extremely important to me, but there are other things just as important, and some that are more important. For some women sex may be the most important, for others it may not be important at all. It depends on the woman. 



> I guess I just never hear guys complaining that a woman won't commit.


Just because you don't hear of something doesn't mean it never happens somewhere else.


----------



## Created2Write

By "sink in", I think you mean "Why don't you accept it as truth?" One can understand what you're saying and still disagree, so please don't imply like we(the female posters) are stupid just because we disagree.


----------



## Fozzy

TiggyBlue said:


> Well the majority of studies are theories and use evidence that shows why this theory could be true;
> e.g lot of emphasis is put on testosterone but the problem with comparing testosterone level in men and women's to equate the 'difference' in libido's is that men and women hormone's aren't set up the same.
> Where we don't have the same organs and hormonal set up comparing levels of one hormone is pretty much pointless.
> Testosterone is *A* lust hormone but not the *THE* lust hormone (well it is primarily in men).
> Testosterone is one hormone (Estrogen is a group of hormones (Estrone, Estroil and Estradinol) and it is primally Estradiol (another lust hormone) that dictates how strong a woman's sex drive is.
> Much like Testosterone does for men Estradiol plays a huge role in how competitive/aggressive/attractive a woman is also.
> Just as Testosterone is a Androgen Estradiol is a Estrogen, but a lot of the time Estrogen get's talked about as if it's a hormone rather than a group of hormone's.
> Androngen don't play nearly as big of a role in the female sex drive (just as Estrogen doesn't in in male's as Androgen).
> How can hormone level's in gender's compared when they have different functions?
> 
> That's probably what confuses me a lot about hormone studies, if they're trying to show men and women are different why are the comparing hormone level's like men and women are biologically identical?


Fair points on the hormonal front. What about the rest of the study Ocotillo linked to however? Many behavioral criteria were examined, all seemed to indicate a higher sex drive in men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy, check this out:

Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores? | Video on TED.com


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> Fozzy, check this out:
> 
> Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores? | Video on TED.com


OOO i love Ted Talks. I'll check it out at home. Can't stream video here at work


----------



## ocotillo

TiggyBlue said:


> That's probably what confuses me a lot about hormone studies, if they're trying to show men and women are different why are the comparing hormone level's like men and women are biologically identical?


I can see why that would be irritating. Using a theory as proof of the phenomenon the theory was intended to explain is a form of backwards induction. 

What I linked to was not a study in and of itself. It was a survey by three psychologists of many other studies. They tried to be fair, but I'm not sure that's ever truly possible.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Of course they would. They're not scared, frail boys.


lmao... ok. "I'm always hanging out with you because I really like your @ss."

Not sure about your friendship dynamics, but I have doubts that friendship would continue to fly so well. Also, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was answering to what you and other women imply at ever turn. "Not mine", "he's different", "its only some men (implied minority)" etc etc.

Sex really is our base motivation for seeking out women when you strip out all the extraneous details of circumstance. When it comes down to basics, the reason a man crosses the dance floor to talk to that woman he doesn't know, is sex. The same is true for all the more complex scenarios too, but the water gets a lot muddier so intent is less easily discernible. Hidden in all the mud its still the key motivation though.

Just tangent, but I find it ironic that in a thread about how intense female desire really is, women show a lot of hostility to the idea of sex as the instigator of male pursuit. With that intense female desire, shouldn't women be saying "yay men! Sex"? The real difference then, is the importance of non-sexual conditions to each sex. Would you agree that men tend to have fewer conditions than women for having sex?

If you have fewer conditions required to do something, wouldn't that argue that whatever that something is, its more important to you than the person with more conditions? Just some random logical thoughts here. I heard one woman say getting married was the most important thing she wanted in life, but she didn't want to do it until she had her degree. But see, that means that getting her degree is more important to her than getting married. So much so its required to get married. Make sense?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> By "sink in", I think you mean "Why don't you accept it as truth?" One can understand what you're saying and still disagree, so please don't imply like we(the female posters) are stupid just because we disagree.


If I thought you were stupid I'd say you're stupid - that's how I am. When one of my ideas that has been repeatedly laid out in a simple sentence or two is still misstated, it either hasn't sunk in yet, or its purposefully mischaracterized in such a way as to present a straw man. "This notion upsets me, so I'm going to restate it in a more vile way so its easier to attack."

I've repeatedly said several simple sentences to the effect of: " Just because sex is the instigator of our pursuit does not mean we don't show restraint or come to appreciate and desire other things along the way."

And what I've repeatedly gotten back are hostile mischaracterizations: "we don't want rover just getting off on our leg."

Case in point: intent to sexually shame.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lmao... ok. "I'm always hanging out with you because I really like your @ss."
> 
> Not sure about your friendship dynamics, but I have doubts that friendship would continue to fly so well. Also, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was answering to what you and other women imply at ever turn. "Not mine", "he's different", "its only some men (implied minority)" etc etc.


I wouldn't care if my friends say that. I have a cute @ss. My female friends have said the same thing, and our friendships don't change. My OS friendships wouldn't, either, unless boundaries were crossed. 



> Sex really is our base motivation for seeking out women when you strip out all the extraneous details of circumstance. When it comes down to basics, the reason a man crosses the dance floor to talk to that woman he doesn't know, is sex. The same is true for all the more complex scenarios too, but the water gets a lot muddier so intent is less easily discernible. Hidden in all the mud its still the key motivation though.


You can repeat this over and over and over, it won't change the OS friendships that I have, or how they started. Your words don't change my experiences. 



> Just tangent, but I find it ironic that in a thread about how intense female desire really is, women show a lot of hostility to the idea of sex as the instigator of male pursuit. With that intense female desire, shouldn't women be saying "yay men! Sex"? The real difference then, is the importance of non-sexual conditions to each sex. Would you agree that men tend to have fewer conditions than women for having sex?


If we're talking about a man who is interested in sexual or romantic attachment, then don't disagree. But for the men who are looking for friendship, I don't agree that sex is always the reason he becomes friends with her. 

As for the question, again, I say it's down to the individual. My husband, for instance, would have a lot more conditions for having sex than you would. I don't believe it's a gender thing, but an individual one.



> If you have fewer conditions required to do something, wouldn't that argue that whatever that something is, its more important to you than the person with more conditions?


Absolutely not, and this is precisely the thinking about female sexuality that I despise. All this means is that the person with fewer conditions would be willing to sleep with a higher number of people, or sooner in the relationship. It does NOT signify a higher importance at all. 



> Just some random logical thoughts here. I heard one woman say getting married was the most important thing she wanted in life, but she didn't want to do it until she had her degree. But see, that means that getting her degree is more important to her than getting married. So much so its required to get married. Make sense?


Just because she wants her degree before marriage doesn't mean it's _more_ important than marriage. It's extremely difficult to be in school _and_ married. It causes so much stress, so having the degree first means not having that extra stress. Having the degree could mean that she has a stable career before marriage, negating a lot of financial stress that newly married couples face. So, really, it could be argued that her having the degree first is proof of marriage being the more important, since she isn't just jumping at it the first chance she has. She's looking ahead at what will help it last long-term.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If I thought you were stupid I'd say you're stupid - that's how I am. When one of my ideas that has been repeatedly laid out in a simple sentence or two is still misstated, it either hasn't sunk in yet, or its purposefully mischaracterized in such a way as to present a straw man. "This notion upsets me, so I'm going to restate it in a more vile way so its easier to attack."
> 
> I've repeatedly said several simple sentences to the effect of: " Just because sex is the instigator of our pursuit does not mean we don't show restraint or come to appreciate and desire other things along the way."
> 
> And what I've repeatedly gotten back are hostile mischaracterizations: "we don't want rover just getting off on our leg."
> 
> Case in point: intent to sexually shame.


As for the statement you made in this post about sex being the instigator, I have no issue with that at all. I agree.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> Fozzy, check this out:
> 
> Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores? | Video on TED.com


Very interesting talk. He seems to skirt just around arguing against monogamy, without quite getting there.

I like his argument that sex is primarily for pair-bonding, but in the next breath he seems to take the direction that pair-bonding is secondary to sexual autonomy.


----------



## Red Sonja

Caribbean Man said:


> First of all , let me say that I absolutely love your post, and I don't think you're an " outlier." You are in a different group of women . The women I know in this group are usually high achievers ,captains of their industries, upper level management , extremely self confident , decision makers , usually own businesses and handle their stuff like their male contemporaries,but yet are very feminine.


Thank you for the compliment. And, are you clairvoyant?  Your last sentence is me, or was as I am retired now and in a second (different) career although I still am a board member at my own companies and a few others, so I am still involved in the industry.



Caribbean Man said:


> I studied Mechanical Engineering.
> [Although I no longer practice in that field.]
> In our class of twenty students, there were only two women.


Yup, class of ’83 here. At a large USA University, class of 800 engineers and I was one of 4 women and, the only “white girl”. My fellow (male) classmates were only interested in looking at my classwork or what my grades did to the test curves. I was also on a partial baseball scholarship, so they automatically saw me as a “tom boy” however, I always had dates and boyfriends … just not with baseball players or my classmates.

Off topic and a note to the feminists here: This is why women are "under-represented" in technology fields ... because they do not choose the education for the field and not because of any discrimination in the hiring process.



Caribbean Man said:


> He is intimidated when he realizes that his "script" can't work. Like you said in the beginning of your post, people tend to lump male and female into certain categories and when they are confronted with one that doesn't fit into either category, they simply move on, refusing to reset their terms of reference.


Thank you for answering my question. And, what you stated is what I always thought was the reason. They assumed that their “usual script” would not work on me and so, it would require a larger effort on their part to get me into bed. So they moved on to another woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> Very interesting talk. He seems to skirt just around arguing against monogamy, without quite getting there.
> 
> I like his argument that sex is primarily for pair-bonding, but in the next breath he seems to take the direction that pair-bonding is secondary to sexual autonomy.


I like that he actually looks at other cultures who do things entirely different than Americans do, and considers them to be part of normal human sexuality. Tribal people know how to get it on.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Its when there is a built-in negativity toward sexual interest that I think courtship can go wrong. *


 Me personally, I don't shame men for speaking about sex ..heck I think it's a great subject, I'd verbally tear into it on a 1st date even, have fun with it ... and I'd fully it's going to lead there...but he has a vital role in his getting it.. not to be taken lightly or too fast....their timetable may not be in sync with mine, however...so in response I then have the right to "gate keep" if I feel I will be just another notch on his belt ... this is part of that dance ...and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it... 

I speak purely from a perspective that I want true romance, and Marriage... just as the man has his vision - I have mine...(that's my right) -just as it is HIS to say... "I'm out of here"... so he can find a ONS or take someone else for a test drive (we already know this is your 1st aim with any woman)..... if a man is not willing to put some TIME & some heart into getting to know a woman...she did herself a favor by not going there... 

He wants something.. she wants something ... how a couple works that out can be a enriching experience.... far too often it goes very wrong though because instant gratification is given in to....the emotional may barely get off the ground... and it's over...on to someone new... 



> *Should you really be surprised when you get a sexually passive guy when you set the bar such that only a sexually passive guy could get past it?*


 and do you think I have any regrets to the type of man I married?? Oh my No!!.... if TAM has done anything for me.. it has opened my eyes to just how perfect this man IS for who I am/always have been ... I have learned so much here/ eye opening -to how the majority of men are geared...to my dismay ...may I add. 

In this my appreciation has grown..... just because we missed each other in the past on some things, does not mean I feel there is something wrong with the way my husband is .. learning about Libido types & lover styles...we were the a perfect match even.

These more assertive / aggressive types..carry other characteristics that would very likely get under my skin...especially outside of the bedroom...(just as I would theirs!)....I pay close attention to what they say... I've mentioned this a # of times ...generally speaking...the more dominate types prefer women to be sexually "subtle" ....something about a little Chase...even in marriage....this feeds their masculinity I am sure..... 

A woman too EASY , too eager is a turn off to many of them....but not my MAN... that's *his* fantasy...it always has been, even though I wasn't getting it.

If I had to play some Subtle dance with him to keep his attraction & turn him on....when I really wanted to shake him up, unzip his jeans & rattle his chain...this would seriously tick me off...it would slice into my enthusiasm & prowess. ..it's not something that ever bores him or he thinks is too much. 



> Odd, I wasn't arguing repression. I don't favor a global orgy either.* But how would you characterize a woman's negative perception that guy who approaches her telling her she's beautiful only wants her for sex? No, you want him to be coy about his sexual attraction. You want him to be more passive.* Then, once your comfortable, you want him to tell you you're beautiful and be more sexually assertive. I wouldn't characterize it as repressed, but I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense either. There's an inconsistency in the qualities wanted.


 Actually I think it would be great if he talked like that ...nothing wrong with beautiful, sexy - expressing how he feels if it's balanced with interest in getting to know the woman.. bring it on!... both should express their true feelings.. You would not catch me suggesting a man shouldn't speak like that. I'm not the face slapping type....I understand Boys will be Boys.. 



> "*Be this way, then be that way." -because that's how the game plays out for women. That's not how it works for men. Sex is at the forefront of our mind, or its pushed back as far as we can push it... out of shame for having it, and the notion that if she gets wind of our intention, she'll rabbit. The lesson to many men is, don't be sexually assertive - don't put your cards down. Be coy, conceal. Be "nice".*


 what you are calling shame I see as honorability.. a man who has right intentions to marry a woman and do right by her.. Rare as it may be today.....I don't see why a woman would rabbit unless she felt he was going to dump her .. which he very well might!.. If their sexual views /values are not in sync, better to learn quickly. 

Do you really think my H was a complete A-hole for respecting me more for wanting to wait ? I realize a woman's virginity means as much to you as eating a can of worms.... I guess I don't like how you judge those who are on the other end of the spectrum, my H would never want your lifestyle either....it would not bring him fulfillment....and he wanted children -his family is his everything.. 



> *You're going off the deep end here. This is exactly the sort of shame for sexual intent I was talking about. I've been monogamous with my gf for 7 months now. Many women I would have sexual motivations for have come and gone - obviously there is restraint and I'm not arguing for otherwise. Just because sex is the instigator of our pursuit does not mean we don't show restraint or come to appreciate and desire other things along the way. I keep repeating this. Why doesn't this sink in?*


It doesn't sink in with me because all I gleam in your posts is you feel that any man who waits to have sex IS a bonafide "Nice guy passive fool"... he has caved to cultural expectations, allowing the woman to put him on a leash... 

Am I really misreading you?? 

And why wouldn't you have restraint around other women... you have your GF in bed.... I am talking about restraint while dating & getting to know someone...I bet with you & her, you had her the 1st night, am I wrong?

I think your shaming is just as perverse as you see mine...are you not shaming the men who you ASSUME felt the same as you back in high school... you wanted to BE like all the guys who were getting laid like tile...it was never about a real relationship...(even though you have suggested this in the past)... but the stroked EGO / this makes you a MAN after all......how can you relate.. I'm telling you ...you can't .....all you see is a sad pu$$y pandering to the vagina... My H may be on the rare side (as am I ) ...but he would have rejected anyone he was not in love with... where someone like you would jump... it's not about passivity but how he views Life and Love...


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> I like that he actually looks at other cultures who do things entirely different than Americans do, and considers them to be part of normal human sexuality. Tribal people know how to get it on.


:iagree:
That's why imo it's impossible to determine female desire, different upbringings/experiences/individual hormone levels/diet/medication (which in the western world is atrocious, full of synthetic hormones) have a impact. Plus also health factors too, psychological to adrenal/cortisol problems ect have a huge impact on some peoples sex drive. There are many cases that low sex drive is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself.


----------



## Fozzy

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> That's why imo it's impossible to determine female desire, different upbringings/experiences/individual hormone levels/diet/medication (which in the western world is atrocious, full of synthetic hormones) have a impact. Plus also health factors too, psychological to adrenal/cortisol problems ect have a huge impact on some peoples sex drive. There are many cases that low sex drive is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself.


I don't think it's possible to get an accurate system of measurement, for many of the reasons you stated. It certainly can't be applied on an individual level. However I do still think you can get a "ballpark" of male vs female desire on a broad general level. Of course there are going to be cultural influences that will impact it, but absent cultural influence,... that physical drive...i think you could still get a general idea.


----------



## Created2Write

I talked with my DH last night about his OS friends, and what motivated him to pursue their company. He said the first thing was, almost always, mutual interests. In a few circumstances, he found them physically attractive, but it wasn't sex that he was after. In most of the cases, though, it was mutual interests and great personalities that lead him to pursue their company. 

It's not that sex is unimportant to him, because sex is immensely important to him in life. But he said that finding a woman attractive didn't mean that he wanted to have sex with her, because even with those attractive female friends, he never once pursued a relationship or sexual attachment. It's not what he was looking for. *His words*.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Me personally, I don't shame men for speaking about sex


This is something that drives me crazy. I bring up a damn near universal phenomenon - that a woman will view an approach that includes a compliment of her beauty as a negative indicator that the man just wants sex and thus rejected it - and the chorus I get back is "not me", "I don't do that" or otherwise focused on the individual. Do you have any idea how many pickup attempts I've made? lol I know something about them. Even if there's a guy whose top priority is to find a relationship, and sex isn't his primary motivation, I'd still advise him to avoid complimenting as such. When sexual intent is read and automatically viewed negatively - as though he couldn't possibly end up liking you for more than sex merely because sex was his spark of motivation - this IS sexual shaming imo. We have that intent, but its viewed as undesireable intent - as if its something we're not supposed to have or show.... and women are so sensitive to it, so damning of this intent, that you can't even take a compliment. I have a billion other examples of this, but this one really stands out to make my point.

Its not about ONS or just getting laid. Its about being real. So what that we approached you because we have sex on the brain? That doesn't mean you just give it up. The normal courtship routine still applies or doesn't... depending on what she does and whether he stays interested.

Just as men typically accept that most women demand a level of security/commitment, and pursue relationships with them anyway without feeling obligated to commit until they're ready - I think it would be healthier overall for women to accept that sex is the driver for men without feeling obligated to have sex until they're ready. If the intersection of those desires doesn't eventually meet, then the relationship isn't meant to be. But having a negative perception of a guy simply because he complimented you?? That's just insane to me. It would be like me refusing to date any woman who said "I'm looking for a relationship" - as if that meant she couldn't possibly come to want sex.



SimplyAmorous said:


> the more dominate types prefer women to be sexually "subtle" ....something about a little Chase...even in marriage....this feeds their masculinity I am sure.....


I don't share this association. The chase is great, but having a freak in the sheets is great too. While I'm sure they're out there, I don't personally know any guys who want a helpless bunny to chase all the time. I'd suspect a guy who does is weak, and having an extremely submissive partner makes him feel stronger. This isn't a healthy guy imo.



SimplyAmorous said:


> A woman too EASY , too eager is a turn off to many of them....but not my MAN... that's *his* fantasy...it always has been, even though I wasn't getting it.


I associate the appeal of having a woman do all the initiating sexual pursuit work with being fearful of acting of his own desire due to the internalized perception that she might not want him or his desires have lesser value and it would be pressing or asking too much to assert them. Its this kind of guy that I think is created by the sort of sexual shame I refer to. Whether he's patient in courtship is really beside the point, you can assert yourself and be patient. Those who can't assert themselves are always patient though - they perceive their sexual desire as having less value, or being otherwise bad/negative/shameful. Her initiation frees him of the shame of its pursuit. From my conversations, you see this sexual timidity a LOT in the more respectful, religious, sheltered type guys. I don't really know older guys of this type - I only know/know of the young guys like this, but they're practically afraid to pursue sex and are always waiting for HER to do something that says its "okay" for them to want what they want. The line I hear from women I've known is that its safe early on, even makes him seem endearing and gentlemanly, but eventually it wears on you and you wish he'd stop being lazy (as some describe it, inaccurately imo) or that he'd show some assertiveness instead of being so passive. Such complaints are always prefaced with "He's such a wonderful, nice man... but..."



SimplyAmorous said:


> Actually I think it would be great if he talked like that ...nothing wrong with beautiful, sexy - expressing how he feels if it's balanced with interest in getting to know the woman.. bring it on!... both should express their true feelings.. You would not catch me suggesting a man shouldn't speak like that. I'm not the face slapping type....I understand Boys will be Boys..


You like it when you already like the guy. On a cold approach, such a compliment is the equivalent of him having really bad breath. And nobody slaps you, even for more crude/raw "compliments". They just say "Ok", or give a weirded out "thanks" that says "I don't want to talk to you" and become avoidant/distant... or they don't reply at all. They pretend they didn't hear you or blatantly ignore you. Its amazing how negative giving someone a compliment is!



SimplyAmorous said:


> what you are calling shame I see as honorability.. a man who has right intentions to marry a woman and do right by her..


Its honorable for a man to keep any hint of sexual intent hidden, to keep himself hidden from her, because she'll likely reject him for "just wanting sex"? It shouldn't be a dirty little secret. To my thinking, there's no honor in being coy or concealing or holding back. This is me, this is who I am and what drew me to you; damn right I want things you're not comfortable with right now. You want things I'm not comfortable with right now. Let's hang out and see what plays out. But dismiss me because I complimented you and revealed sexual intent? That just doesn't make sense to me.



SimplyAmorous said:


> It doesn't sink in with me because all I gleam in your posts is you feel that any man who waits to have sex IS a bonafide "Nice guy passive fool"... he has caved to cultural expectations, allowing the woman to put him on a leash...
> 
> Am I really misreading you??


Yep.



SimplyAmorous said:


> And why wouldn't you have restraint around other women... you have your GF in bed.... I am talking about restraint while dating & getting to know someone...I bet with you & her, you had her the 1st night, am I wrong?


What is it with you and the timing? Is there an arbitrary standard time that says "now its kosher"? Timing is irrelevant to me. It took a couple weeks and several dates.



SimplyAmorous said:


> you wanted to BE like all the guys who were getting laid like tile...it was never about a real relationship...(even though you have suggested this in the past)... but the stroked EGO / this makes you a MAN after all......how can you relate.. I'm telling you ...you can't .....all you see is a sad pu$$y pandering to the vagina... My H may be on the rare side (as am I ) ...but he would have rejected anyone he was not in love with... where someone like you would jump... it's not about passivity but how he views Life and Love...


This is completely false. For me, its about rational consistency. The reason I struggled to get a girlfriend in high school was that I was *listening* to what girls said they wanted. That what they said turned out to be a load of crap drove me to go and find out the truth. And its just amazing how far the truth was from what was claimed.

The number of women I've been with, or my success rate picking up women is completely irrelevant to my value or ego. That's not where I get ego boosts. Beyond the superficial feel good we all have when someone likes us (nice, but not wowing), my greatest ego reward is having gotten the consistent, reliable answers I wanted. My security comes from understanding something to my satisfaction. My greatest insecurity is not knowing... so I go find out.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The cultural differences are interesting, sometimes insightful and sometimes not, but I live in this culture... so this is the culture I ultimately care about. How desire plays out for some tribe in the amazon is irrelevant to me if it doesn't provide insight into desire here.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is something that drives me crazy. I bring up a damn near universal phenomenon - that a woman will view an approach that includes a compliment of her beauty as a negative indicator that the man just wants sex and thus rejected it - and the chorus I get back is "not me", "I don't do that" or otherwise focused on the individual. Do you have any idea how many pickup attempts I've made? lol I know something about them. Even if there's a guy whose top priority is to find a relationship, and sex isn't his primary motivation, I'd still advise him to avoid complimenting as such. When sexual intent is read and automatically viewed negatively - as though he couldn't possibly end up liking you for more than sex merely because sex was his spark of motivation - this IS sexual shaming imo.


I can see why you'd see it and sexual shaming, and I don't doubt that it can come across that way, but just as women seeing sexual desire negatively when a man compliments her can feel like shaming, it can also feel like shaming when a woman doesn't want to be pursued for sex alone. That, somehow, she's wrong for wanting what she does, and that, I think, helps to contribute to the sexual confusion women face. I don't think a man is wrong for approaching a woman for sex first/having sex as his primary motivation. But nor do I think a woman is wrong for feeling undervalued when he does so. 

The solution, imo, isn't to change either the man's desires or the woman's feelings, but rather changing the _actions_ of both. A man can be motivated by sex when he approaches a woman, and a woman can feel like all he wants is sex, and the two don't _have_ to equate to an empty acquaintance. If the man is willing to recognize that the woman's feelings could, very likely, be valid, and if the woman were to recognize that wanting sex doesn't mean that's _always_ going to be all he wants, they might be able to find a middle ground to get a conversation going. 



> We have that intent, but its viewed as undesireable intent - as if its something we're not supposed to have or show.... and women are so sensitive to it, so damning of this intent, that you can't even take a compliment. I have a billion other examples of this, but this one really stands out to make my point.


I can only speak for myself. I don't see a man's desire for sex as something undesirable. But there are men who really _don't_ care about anything but sex with a woman, and it's difficult to identify a man who wants nothing but sex, and a man who is motivated by sex, but is open to/wants a long term commitment. Assuming that every man is open to a long term commitment is setting oneself up to be taken advantage of. But assuming that every man is a jerk who is only after one thing sets oneself up to be bitter and unhappy. 

It's a difficult situation for us as well. 



> Its not about ONS or just getting laid. Its about being real. So what that we approached you because we have sex on the brain? That doesn't mean you just give it up. The normal courtship routine still applies or doesn't... depending on what she does and whether he stays interested.


It may be "so what" to you, but it's not necessarily for us. Dismissing our concerns is exactly what makes us feel like the men who are motivated by sex couldn't care less about us, and I don't mean love and romance. I mean empathy. 



> Just as men typically accept that most women demand a level of security/commitment, and pursue relationships with them anyway without feeling obligated to commit until they're ready - I think it would be healthier overall for women to accept that sex is the driver for men without feeling obligated to have sex until they're ready. If the intersection of those desires doesn't eventually meet, then the relationship isn't meant to be. But having a negative perception of a guy simply because he complimented you?? That's just insane to me. It would be like me refusing to date any woman who said "I'm looking for a relationship" - as if that meant she couldn't possibly come to want sex.


I don't think it's the male sexual desire that some have an issue with, I think it's the way some men use those desires...the way they act on them. For me, that's my issue. I couldn't care less if a man was motivated by sex to approach me/pursue me. And I couldn't care less if sex was why he dumped me. I _do_ care if he uses me, manipulates me, and lies to me just so he can brag and say he "got" the virgin, all while sleeping with another girl behind my back. 



> You like it when you already like the guy. On a cold approach, such a compliment is the equivalent of him having really bad breath. And nobody slaps you, even for more crude/raw "compliments". They just say "Ok", or give a weirded out "thanks" that says "I don't want to talk to you" and become avoidant/distant... or they don't reply at all. They pretend they didn't hear you or blatantly ignore you. Its amazing how negative giving someone a compliment is!


I don't know the women who've made you think this way, but I've never responded that way to a compliment. It's sad that some do. Really, very sad. 



> Its honorable for a man to keep any hint of sexual intent hidden, to keep himself hidden from her, because she'll likely reject him for "just wanting sex"? It shouldn't be a dirty little secret. To my thinking, there's no honor in being coy or concealing or holding back. This is me, this is who I am and what drew me to you; damn right I want things you're not comfortable with right now. You want things I'm not comfortable with right now. Let's hang out and see what plays out. But dismiss me because I complimented you and revealed sexual intent? That just doesn't make sense to me.


You're stuck on the compliment, and SA is talking about much, much more. And she didn't say the guy has to can any and all sexual intent hidden. Dating my DH, I knew that he wanted sex. I knew he thought about it. A lot. I knew _I_ wanted it. _I_ thought about it. I didn't want him to keep his desires/intentions hidden, but I wanted to know what his long term intentions were before opening that door. 

You act like it's all or nothing, and in so doing you massively misunderstand. It's honorable to recognize the woman's boundaries, and honor them. It doesn't mean you have to stay with her, or that you're dishonorable if you don't stay with her. One of my exes honored my boundaries and my lifestyle. As a nonsexual example, he was coming home on leave before deployment, and was going to be partying a lot with his friends. He wanted me with him, but he knew I didn't party or drink, and he straight up told me "You're not allowed to drink alcohol. You get chocolate milk. And when we go to sleep, you and I are going to be in our own room so I can make sure no one tries any funny business. You're sheltered, and I want to keep you that way toots." I loved him for that. He deserved a BJ for that, at the least. 

He did break up with me over our boundary differences, and I respect him for that. I was mad, but even back then I respected his honesty. He never once tried to change me, and yet was willing to try and change for me. I was hard on him, and he gave it his damndest. And, as you said, it really just wasn't meant to be. 

I'm sure in your current relationship there are things you've changed, former behaviors you've altered because you respect her boundaries. That's all SA is saying. 



> This is completely false. For me, its about rational consistency. The reason I struggled to get a girlfriend in high school was that I was *listening* to what girls said they wanted. That what they said turned out to be a load of crap drove me to go and find out the truth. And its just amazing how far the truth was from what was claimed.


Really? You're comparing the desires and wants of _high school girls_ who, at the oldest, are eighteen, to actual adult females? Your credibility just went all the way down the drain.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I can see why you'd see it and sexual shaming, and I don't doubt that it can come across that way, but just as women seeing sexual desire negatively when a man compliments her can feel like shaming, it can also feel like shaming when a woman doesn't want to be pursued for sex alone. That, somehow, she's wrong for wanting what she does, and that, I think, helps to contribute to the sexual confusion women face. I don't think a man is wrong for approaching a woman for sex first/having sex as his primary motivation. But nor do I think a woman is wrong for feeling undervalued when he does so.


Most men assume there's going to be a follow-on process that achieves her security level before they ever have sex. Why do women not think this way? Why cut off sexual pursuit when you're still the one in charge of your own body? How can you be valued for more when he doesn't even know you yet? This presumption of how he will value you bothers me. All he's done is say "physically, I'm totally down with you... let's start negotiating."

And of course, its not just this simple complimenting example. Its a pervasive anti-sex attitude. Its no wonder so many men think women don't even want sex, and so many more hide their sexual intentions or are unable to be sexually assertive.





Created2Write said:


> it's difficult to identify a man who wants nothing but sex, and a man who is motivated by sex, but is open to/wants a long term commitment.
> 
> It's a difficult situation for us as well.


This I can relate to. Given my married experience, I was obviously highly concerned with finding a sexually vigorous woman. If I had eliminated all the women who didn't jump into bed on day one because they wanted more connection, then I'd have eliminated the majority of the female population I think lol. How to tell the difference between someone who is very sexual if conditions are right from someone who isn't very sexual is tricky. The woman who is very sexual if conditions are right, is EXACTLY the same as the man who seeks sex but becomes committed if conditions are right. I'd have been extremely counter productive if I had done the male equivalent of a woman negatively perceiving compliments. If I had said, "Oh, well, since she didn't jump in the sack with me day one she's a sexual dud and that's all she'll ever be", that's going to narrow my pool quite a bit.



Created2Write said:


> You're stuck on the compliment, and SA is talking about much, much more. And she didn't say the guy has to can any and all sexual intent hidden.


The compliment example is simply the most innocuous and simple example I can come up with that demonstrates hostility to his sexual motivation - as if that's all he'll ever have.



Created2Write said:


> You act like it's all or nothing, and in so doing you massively misunderstand. It's honorable to recognize the woman's boundaries, and honor them. It doesn't mean you have to stay with her, or that you're dishonorable if you don't stay with her. One of my exes honored my boundaries and my lifestyle. As a nonsexual example, he was coming home on leave before deployment, and was going to be partying a lot with his friends. He wanted me with him, but he knew I didn't party or drink, and he straight up told me "You're not allowed to drink alcohol. You get chocolate milk. And when we go to sleep, you and I are going to be in our own room so I can make sure no one tries any funny business. You're sheltered, and I want to keep you that way toots." I loved him for that. He deserved a BJ for that, at the least.


I'm clearly misunderstanding something lol. I read the above as treating a woman like a child (no offense whatsoever intended).



Created2Write said:


> Really? You're comparing the desires and wants of _high school girls_ who, at the oldest, are eighteen, to actual adult females? Your credibility just went all the way down the drain.


No, that's a leap into right field. I was addressing SA's characterization that I went sl*tting around for my ego. I got around because I was seeking answers to extreme frustration.

But even while it was frustration with teen girls that put me in investigative trial and error mode, most of the lessons learned have since applied to sub 30 yo women as well. Either words and actions don't match, or I have a very different idea of what "nice" means than women do.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Most men assume there's going to be a follow-on process that achieves her security level before they ever have sex. Why do women not think this way?


You continue to ignore the facts: *some men* really don't care about the woman's security level. These men, unfortunately, do the rest of your gender a disservice because initially they look exactly like every other man. Both are, first, motivated by sex, so it's unfair to expect us to know the difference right away. 

Some women, I'm sure, couldn't care less about a man's sexual desire. Just like some men couldn't care less about a woman's need for security. But not all men are that way, and neither are all women. Don't assume we are. 



> Why cut off sexual pursuit when you're still the one in charge of your own body?


When it feels like men _only_ want a woman for sex, it kind of leaves us with little choice. (And by "us" I mean the women who aren't interested in NSA sex. There are plenty of women who have very different boundaries and wouldn't cut off sexual pursuit at all.) 



> How can you be valued for more when he doesn't even know you yet? This presumption of how he will value you bothers me. All he's done is say "physically, I'm totally down with you... let's start negotiating."


There's a difference between valuing the woman specifically for her individual attributes(which would require him getting to know her), and recognizing that she is _more_ than a walking vagina. The latter is what I mean by "value". He doesn't have to know her intimately to understand and recognize that she _is_ more than a sexual outlet. Personally, I don't think that being motivated by sex means that the man only sees a walking vagina. I absolutely think that a man can be motivated by sex _and_ value her as a human being. To me, the important distinction is that he _show_ that value. Otherwise it is impossible to determine between a man who only sees pu$$y and a man who is motivated by sex. 



> And of course, its not just this simple complimenting example. Its a pervasive anti-sex attitude. Its no wonder so many men think women don't even want sex, and so many more hide their sexual intentions or are unable to be sexually assertive.


Now _you_ are shaming women, dismissing our concerns. That only reiterates the idea that men don't care about the woman's security levels. 



> This I can relate to. Given my married experience, I was obviously highly concerned with finding a sexually vigorous woman. If I had eliminated all the women who didn't jump into bed on day one because they wanted more connection, then I'd have eliminated the majority of the female population I think lol. How to tell the difference between someone who is very sexual if conditions are right from someone who isn't very sexual is tricky. The woman who is very sexual if conditions are right, is EXACTLY the same as the man who seeks sex but becomes committed if conditions are right. I'd have been extremely counter productive if I had done the male equivalent of a woman negatively perceiving compliments. If I had said, "Oh, well, since she didn't jump in the sack with me day one she's a sexual dud and that's all she'll ever be", that's going to narrow my pool quite a bit.


To be clear, I don't think women should respond so negatively to compliments. It's a harmless compliment. Be polite, thank him. Even if she's not looking for sex or a relationship, she doesn't have to act disgusted. She can be polite, nice, and not lead him on. So, I'm with you there. But I think men should do a better job at helping us differentiate between the jerks and the men who are motivated by sex. Both genders need to give the other more to work with. But blaming women, and making this entirely our issue, makes you sound like one of the jerks. 



> The compliment example is simply the most innocuous and simple example I can come up with that demonstrates hostility to his sexual motivation - as if that's all he'll ever have.
> 
> I'm clearly misunderstanding something lol. I read the above as treating a woman like a child (no offense whatsoever intended).


 Yes, you're entirely misunderstanding because there's nothing about that situation that made me feel like I was being treated like a child. I felt respected, understood. Like he really got me for who I was. And you missed the entire point. Again. 

The point is that it's not emasculating for a man to recognize and individual woman's boundaries, and honor them. 



> No, that's a leap into right field. I was addressing SA's characterization that I went sl*tting around for my ego. I got around because I was seeking answers to extreme frustration.
> 
> But even while it was frustration with teen girls that put me in investigative trial and error mode, most of the lessons learned have since applied to sub 30 yo women as well. Either words and actions don't match, or I have a very different idea of what "nice" means than women do.


I think you're determined to have all women pegged and that's why you insist that women don't know what they want.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> The point is that it's not emasculating for a man to recognize and individual woman's boundaries, and honor them.


Hrrm? I don't see how or why it would be emasculating. Quite the contrary... he's being "daddy".

Am I now sexist for thinking that a woman can make her own decisions and handle her own business without my caretaking?

No wonder I'm confused, these rules are really complicated! 

Not going to be able to reply for awhile, but enjoy the conversation as always C2W.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hrrm? I don't see how or why it would be emasculating. Quite the contrary... he's being "daddy".
> 
> Am I now sexist for thinking that a woman can make her own decisions and handle her own business without my caretaking?
> 
> No wonder I'm confused, these rules are really complicated!
> 
> Not going to be able to reply for awhile, but enjoy the conversation as always C2W.


You're not sexist, but you are trying to put the worst possible spin on what I'm saying, and you're avoiding my primary point. I'm not saying that the man is responsible for her actions and choices. I _am_ saying that if men don't want a woman to respond negatively to their sexual desires, they need to *recognize* their concerns, rather than mock and belittle them. You don't want to be seen as a jerk only out for some @ss? Don't act like the men who are jerks and only want some @ss. If you're not willing to differentiate yourself from the jerks, don't be surprised if we assume you are one.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is something that drives me crazy. I bring up a damn near universal phenomenon - that a woman will view an approach that includes a compliment of her beauty as a negative indicator that the man just wants sex and thus rejected it - and the chorus I get back is "not me", "I don't do that" or otherwise focused on the individual. Do you have any idea how many pickup attempts I've made? lol I know something about them. Even if there's a guy whose top priority is to find a relationship, and sex isn't his primary motivation, I'd still advise him to avoid complimenting as such. When sexual intent is read and automatically viewed negatively - as though he couldn't possibly end up liking you for more than sex merely because sex was his spark of motivation - this IS sexual shaming imo. We have that intent, but its viewed as undesireable intent - as if its something we're not supposed to have or show.... and women are so sensitive to it, so damning of this intent, that you can't even take a compliment. I have a billion other examples of this, but this one really stands out to make my point.
> 
> Its not about ONS or just getting laid. Its about being real. So what that we approached you because we have sex on the brain? That doesn't mean you just give it up. The normal courtship routine still applies or doesn't... depending on what she does and whether he stays interested.
> 
> Just as men typically accept that most women demand a level of security/commitment, and pursue relationships with them anyway without feeling obligated to commit until they're ready - I think it would be healthier overall for women to accept that sex is the driver for men without feeling obligated to have sex until they're ready. If the intersection of those desires doesn't eventually meet, then the relationship isn't meant to be. But having a negative perception of a guy simply because he complimented you?? That's just insane to me. It would be like me refusing to date any woman who said "I'm looking for a relationship" - as if that meant she couldn't possibly come to want sex.


 I have nothing to argue with this what so ever :iagree::iagree::iagree: 



> *DvlsAdvc8 said:*
> *I don't share this association. The chase is great, but having a freak in the sheets is great too. While I'm sure they're out there, I don't personally know any guys who want a helpless bunny to chase all the time. I'd suspect a guy who does is weak, and having an extremely submissive partner makes him feel stronger. This isn't a healthy guy imo*.


 I'm just going by some of the things MEN here have said....and many of those seem to have an ALPHA streak to them.... I did a thread asking and the majority of answers were ...men prefer "subtle" sexual cues (but receptive)-this is not at all a helpless bunny -it just has a little game with it... over a woman being OVERT..and on the aggressive side ...this is surely a statistical probability... just as less women are aggressive / sexually dominate over their partners...

When I took this Lover style test....I came out the Don Juan between us... .


> "You prefer your romance and love to be traditional rather than daring or out-of-the-ordinary, you would rather pursue than be pursued and, when it comes to physical love, you concentrate more on enjoying the experience rather than worrying about your performance.
> 
> This places you in the Lover Style of: The Suave Lover.
> 
> The Suave Lover is a wonderful Lover Style, and is reminiscent of some of the most classic lover figures of all time, such as Casanova or Don Juan, or more recently James Bond (several of the "Bond girls" fit this type, too). This shouldn't be confused with a "player" or someone who is solely interested in physical love, but someone who is looking for an incredibly elusive thing: a worthy partner. The Suave Lover is a treasure to find, but can be incredibly difficult to hold on to, once found.
> 
> In terms of physical love, the Suave Lover can sometimes be surprisingly tender. Given the right setting, and the right lover, the Suave Lover can be a delight in bed.
> 
> Best Compatibility can probably be found with: The Devoted Lover (most of all) or the Romantic Lover, or the Liberated Lover.


What do you think he was....the Devoted Lover! 



> You prefer your romance and love to be traditional rather than daring or out-of-the-ordinary, you would rather be pursued than do the pursuing and, when it comes to physical love, your satisfaction comes more from providing a wonderful time to your partner than simply seeking your own.
> 
> This places you in the Lover Style of: The Devoted Lover.
> 
> Best Compatibility can probably be found with: The Suave Lover (most of all) or the Classic Lover, or the Carnal Lover.





> Take The Lover Style Profile Test
> 
> 
> 1. the Classic Lover
> 2. the Exotic Lover
> 3. the Suave Lover
> 4. the Carnal Lover
> 5. the Devoted Lover
> 6. the Surprising Lover
> 7. the Romantic Lover
> 8. the Liberated Lover


Does all men have to fit in the same box...or all women?? I'm guessing you'd be the Carnal or Liberated Lover..and Traditional anything would never work for you. 



> *DvlsAdvc8 said:*
> *I associate the appeal of having a woman do all the initiating sexual pursuit work with being fearful of acting of his own desire due to the internalized perception that she might not want him or his desires have lesser value and it would be pressing or asking too much to assert them*.


 he's always initiated...what I've seen though is ...MY DESIRE has a profound effect on him......he is the type that gets off more on My Pleasure than his own...... is there something wrong with that? 
I mean if he never initiated me at all ..I'd be pi$$ed off.. and take it really personally... 

Yet I can hang with his mindset (which he's tried to explain to me -with pulling this understanding out of him...he is the type...if he even felt a hint of pity sex -he'd spit on that....if he questioned if I wanted to BE there...this is not satisfactory either for him, so he may try but with the slightest cue of me not showing interest, he'd give up.......why.... because he'd feel it was hollow ...he'd choose to wait till I was showing mutual interest...Yes he *needed *that... 

I didn't always give it in the past, he failed to understand we can be like a slow cooker...he pressed on sometimes, other times he just waited for me to come to him... so the change in being all over him & I can't get enough, it's his utopia. He's told me if he could get it up 3 times a day, he'd happily do it.. it never grows old or boring for him.. so I can't complain, ya know.. 

There is most definitely NO FEAR today for his coming on to me , in fact the only fear he should have is, I might cause a fight because I do want sex! Yet none of his overall motivations or how he feels has changed at all.. If tihis even makes sense...neither me or him is at all repressed today ...this is just what remains and we are very sexual for 5 yrs straight, not gotten bored yet with each other..this is the best I can explain it.. 



> *Its this kind of guy that I think is created by the sort of sexual shame I refer to. Whether he's patient in courtship is really beside the point, you can assert yourself and be patient. Those who can't assert themselves are always patient though - they perceive their sexual desire as having less value, or being otherwise bad/negative/shameful.* Her initiation frees him of the shame of its pursuit. From my conversations, you see this sexual timidity a LOT in the more respectful, religious, sheltered type guys. I don't really know older guys of this type - I only know/know of the young guys like this, but they're practically afraid to pursue sex and are always waiting for HER to do something that says its "okay" for them to want what they want. The line I hear from women I've known is that its safe early on, even makes him seem endearing and gentlemanly, but eventually it wears on you and you wish he'd stop being lazy (as some describe it, inaccurately imo) or that he'd show some assertiveness instead of being so passive. Such complaints are always prefaced with "He's such a wonderful, nice man... but..."


 and I'll explain why this happens...those men are with a more receptive woman.. or she does not feel loved/ desired by him.... I know my H desires me..
I'm very HOT in his world.. .. in this way, I don't mind coming on to him to get him started.. if I questioned this, however... it would all fall to the ground... I wouldn't like that at all, I guess I don't take rejection well ...a penis doesn't lie. 



> *You like it when you already like the guy. On a cold approach, such a compliment is the equivalent of him having really bad breath. And nobody slaps you, even for more crude/raw "compliments". They just say "Ok", or give a weirded out "thanks" that says "I don't want to talk to you" and become avoidant/distant... or they don't reply at all. They pretend they didn't hear you or blatantly ignore you. Its amazing how negative giving someone a compliment is*!


 I don't get out of house much & probably been in a bar less than 15 times in my life with H... so I don't have the experiences of men being too overtly sexual to me..with many pick up lines...

In that scene tough... It's hard for a woman to know how to act...because if she is not interested... yet she doesn't take the road to ignore him...but shows a friendliness back...MEN often see this as "she must be interested"... irregardless of what she says...after all this is where GAMING comes in...so probably best to not play the game.. I don't know! I've listened to both men & women's sides in this...



> Its honorable for a man to keep any hint of sexual intent hidden, to keep himself hidden from her, because she'll likely reject him for "just wanting sex"? It shouldn't be a dirty little secret. To my thinking, there's no honor in being coy or concealing or holding back. *This is me, this is who I am and what drew me to you; damn right I want things you're not comfortable with right now. You want things I'm not comfortable with right now. Let's hang out and see what plays out. But dismiss me because I complimented you and revealed sexual intent? That just doesn't make sense to me*.


 I especially appreciate a very open personality....I feel most at home with those sort of people...who don't hide & conceal things... I wouldn't deter it...when you say sexual intent.. (meaning: the state of mind with which an act is done).. it sounds so purposeful -like it is the end all..basically YOU EXPECT and relatively soon..... which could allow the woman to feel a pressure that you will walk way, because this is your primary motivation... Like I say -other parts of the relationship would also have to be explored ..along with that "intent" verbally expressed...



> *What is it with you and the timing? Is there an arbitrary standard time that says "now its kosher"? Timing is irrelevant to me. It took a couple weeks and several dates*.


 Because the man's timing sometimes is as little as 3 dates or she gets dumped, that is his rule.. I would not even meet a man like that.. I find that utterly obnoxious.



> *This is completely false. For me, its about rational consistency. The reason I struggled to get a girlfriend in high school was that I was *listening* to what girls said they wanted. That what they said turned out to be a load of crap drove me to go and find out the truth. And its just amazing how far the truth was from what was claimed.*


 I was never one of those type of girls, I prayed for a good family man, I have been faithful & true for the last 32 yrs ....everything I wanted then is what I still would want today...my words did line up with my actions.. in how I handled myself with the opposite sex.. I can only speak for myself on this . 

I just want to represent that some of us , despite previously coming into the best sexual selves we've ever been, did not loose everything we held dear all these years... to what motivates us in the sexual.. even if we are in the smaller minority today....whoever has read all my ramblings on this.. I thank you.


----------



## Sandfly

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The cultural differences are interesting, sometimes insightful and sometimes not, but *I live in this culture... so this is the culture I ultimately care about.* How desire plays out for some tribe in the amazon is irrelevant to me if it doesn't provide insight into desire here.


I agree, there is no universal truth for all time, however there is particular truth for 'at this time' and 'in this place', 'for this culture'.

On earth even the boiling point of water is not fixed, nor is gravity a constant thoughout the universe.

It's useful to know what 'women in general' desire, in a _statistical _sense that you'll be _on average more successful_ at giving them what they want. 

But for a _specific _woman such things as PUA are nonsense. 

They damage your ability to relate well to a woman you want to be with in the long term.

Anyway, the truth about female desire is....

((at this moment a feminist elite assassin enters the room, and the secret is safe for another day.))


----------



## Created2Write

> I just want to represent that some of us , despite previously coming into the best sexual selves we've ever been, did not loose everything we held dear all these years... to what motivates us in the sexual.. even if we are on the smaller minority today....whoever has read all my ramblings on this.. I thank you


BEAUTIFUL, SA. Yes, yes, yes and yes!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Sandfly said:


> So, the truth about female desire is....


That you dudes don't have a freakin clue. And the harder you try, the less attractive you are.


----------



## Sandfly

NobodySpecial said:


> That you dudes don't have a freakin clue. And the harder you try, the less attractive you are.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> That you dudes don't have a freakin clue. And the harder you try, the less attractive you are.


Yeah...pretty much. 

This thread has reiterated how lucky I am to have my husband. I need to jump him later. He's been married to me for nearly five years, known me since second grade, and has never once tried to act like he knows all about my sexuality. Unlike some of the men here. I really love him for that.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> Yeah...pretty much.
> 
> This thread has reiterated how lucky I am to have my husband. I need to jump him later. He's been married to me for nearly five years, known me since second grade, *and has never once tried to act like he knows all about my sexuality.* Unlike some of the men here. I really love him for that.


Love this.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> the harder you try, the less attractive you are.


This is accurate, and hence my most commonly given advice in its shortest form is "stop caring about so much". PUA version: dgaf.

It doesn't mean be an @sshole. For most guys it takes the edge off their desire to be excessively nice to her.

People are still weirded out when I first tell them to stop being so nice... women are the most turned off upon hearing I give such advice. "What!? Of course I want him to be nice!"

No. You really don't. Or perhaps "nice" means something entirely different to men than it does women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is accurate, and hence my most commonly given advice in its shortest form is "stop caring about so much". PUA version: dgaf.
> 
> It doesn't mean be an @sshole. For most guys it takes the edge off their desire to be excessively nice to her.
> 
> People are still weirded out when I first tell them to stop being so nice... women are the most turned off upon hearing I give such advice. "What!? Of course I want him to be nice!"
> 
> No. You really don't. Or perhaps "nice" means something entirely different to men than it does women.


"Nice" is such a stupid word. It has come to mean so much that it means nothing.


----------



## Fozzy

Created2Write said:


> The solution, imo, isn't to change either the man's desires or the woman's feelings, but rather changing the _actions_ of both. A man can be motivated by sex when he approaches a woman, and a woman can feel like all he wants is sex, and the two don't _have_ to equate to an empty acquaintance. If the man is willing to recognize that the woman's feelings could, very likely, be valid, and if the woman were to recognize that wanting sex doesn't mean that's _always_ going to be all he wants, they might be able to find a middle ground to get a conversation going.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Middle ground? MIDDLE GROUND???



Heresy!


----------



## Faithful Wife

OR.....everyone could just be honest about their feelings and motivations, and that way you weed each other out based on TRUTH instead of hiding your real self.

guy: hey baby, wanna get naked?

girl: get lost.

(not a match)

guy: hey baby, wanna get naked?

girl: maybe? whatcha packin?

(possible match)

guy: hey, you seem like a cool chick, wanna be friends?

girl: not really, I have enough friends, was kinda lookin' for a hookup.

(not a good match)

guy: I'm genuinely interested in getting to know you, for possible date/relationship, are you available?

girl: yes, but not to you.

(not a good match)

guy: can I get your number?

girl: for dating or hookup?

guy: dating, I'm genuinely interested in you.

girl: sure!

(possible good match)


These are convos that actually do happen in the wild, contrary to the idea that we all have to hide our real motivations.


----------



## Lyris

You know, sometimes less is way way more. Are you people being paid by the word?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Lyris said:


> You know, sometimes less is way way more. Are you people being paid by the word?


:lol:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> has never once tried to act like he knows all about my sexuality. Unlike some of the men here. I really love him for that.


I'm not sure what way of acting says a man thinks he knows all about your sexuality anyway. Do you think I lay out my ideas on attraction on dates?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> These are convos that actually do happen in the wild, contrary to the idea that we all have to hide our real motivations.


Yep, they do happen, but applied over the whole of dating, that is WAY to simplistic.

You're assuming someone knows everything they will ever want from another person that they don't necessarily even know - and this is by far the lesser occurrence imo. Its clear cut if all I care about is sex and I know there's no way in h*ll I wanna date this girl. Being forward and her rejecting me wastes less of my time. But more often, its wanting sex and going with the flow... discovery. How long I'll wait depends on how much I come to value what I discover. But duh, I was still after sex when I found that relationship.

If it was actually as simple as you say, we wouldn't have so many discussions about attraction, desire and motivations. We'd all wear name tags with intentions on them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Only a person who doesn't want to reveal their true motivations has a problem with it, Dvls.

But I understand why you would still want to be sneaky about your real motivations, since the girls you date are always under 30 and aren't that self-aware yet. So yes, keep tricking them, Dvls. They don't know what they really want anyway. (sarcasm, but also kind of true in that age group)


----------



## Lyris

Hey maybe that's the disconnect. Dvls is only interested in girls under 30 and most of them are kind of shallow idiots.


----------



## Lyris

Oh I don't include C2W in there btw. Just remembered she's a young 'un.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If it was actually as simple as you say, we wouldn't have so many discussions about attraction, desire and motivations. We'd all wear name tags with intentions on them.


Well she _did_ say that those are convos that actually happen in the _wild_...

In all ,my years of dating , I've never had such a convo.

And I've had consensual hook up sex with women who I just met who couldn't even speak English.

And I've had sex with women who said they wanted a meaningful relationship, and changed their mind soon after when another guy caught their attention.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lyris said:


> Hey maybe that's the disconnect. Dvls is only interested in girls under 30 and most of them are kind of shallow idiots.


Not sure if they are idiots or just don't know any better yet.

But he absolutely cannot date women his own age because apparently they do know better?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure if they are idiots or just don't know any better yet.
> 
> But he absolutely cannot date women his own age because apparently they do know better?


Uhm, Ive dated some women in their 30s. The pool of women in their 30s that Im attracted to and who dont have kids is pretty damn small. I date women in their 20s because they don't generally have kids... and because I can.

How exactly am I sneaky?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> Yeah...pretty much.
> 
> *This thread has reiterated how lucky I am to have my husband.* *I need to jump him later*. He's been married to me for nearly five years, known me since second grade, and has never once tried to act like he knows all about my sexuality. Unlike some of the men here. I really love him for that.


Wishin' I could squeeze mine tonight... he's been gone for 4 days...tomorrow night is... "Tonight's the night"...we've been chatting on FB... out of town all last week ... this week... next week...getting Welding certifications for his job... we're not used to being apart this much. 

I had to laugh at a message he sent me days ago... he had this perfect Test plate... on his very last weld, and it was 1/32 too high & had to be scrapped..he wanted to take a hammer to it... 

His instructor told him he could start another one......I guess my husband said ..."I will end up in divorce court If I stay here to long"...He said "just explain to her..."... and he says back to the man...."you don't understand.. she's a nympho "...and he told him I'll need to stock up on batteries.... Eh ...Not the [email protected]#.... I wait. 

These weekends will be banging when I get ahold of him.


----------



## Sandfly

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> We'd all wear name tags with intentions on them.


Some people wear little round tags made of gold or silver on their fingers, 

and yet even then, they do not signal their intentions clearly enough.


----------



## Sandfly

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How exactly am I sneaky?


She's just baiting you, pay no heed 

You carry on being sneaky.


----------



## Faithful Wife

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How exactly am I sneaky?


You are the one who said we can't just be honest and forthright about our intentions because "a bunch of reasons".

Yet none of those reasons are a real reason not to be honest and forthright.

Therefore I conclude that you simply want to be sneaky about your own intentions instead of just lay it out there the way I suggested.

I'm guessing you think you'd be shot down if you just said "hey I'm DTF, how about you?" or "hey I'd like to date you with the intention of getting to know you and I'm available for a relationship right now", which ever one was true in the moment, you'd get shot down so much better to go with some form of "game" instead, right?


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> "hey I'd like to date you with the intention of getting to know you and I'm available for a relationship right now",


This would scare the crap out of any woman, even a woman who was looking for a relationship.
It has creepy written all over it.

Who talks like that to someone they just met?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tacoma...have a little imagination. It doesn't have to be those words literally. They are just an example. The point would be to pursue based on your truth and make your intention known, versus if you say, were actually just looking to get laid but you were making noises as if you wanted a relationship.

Also, in online dating, something to the effect of "I'm looking for a relationship" versus "just looking for friends" versus "just looking to hookup" are normal things available to pick as a choice to show why you're here. Picking the one that truly reflects your intentions instead of picking the one you think will get you the most "whatever" would be being forthright.

I am using the one line examples only to avoid typing out a lengthy conversation a couple who just met might have.

My husband asked for my number. I got his, too. I called him the next day. We discussed what we are each looking for in general terms. We went on a date. We discussed it more. I said I didn't want a relationship, just a boyfriend, and a lot of sex. He said he could accommodate that, no problem. A few dates later, he told me he liked me so much he might like to pursue me for more than boyfriend status. I explained my position. We eventually went past boyfriend and got married.

These forthright conversations were awesome.

That's what I meant.

I know a girl whose now husband told her on their first date that he was going to marry her. She thought it was romantic. He was right. He "just knew" and she was happy he told her what his intentions were, even though on that date she didn't commit to marrying him...but she loved hearing it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

The point is , a person who is interested in a relationship doesn't go to bed with a person they just met in a bar.

The person who's interested in hook up sex doesn't waste time around people who are looking for a relationship.

Any type of sex outside of consensual sex between two adults is rape.

People have sex because they _want_ to have sex. Not because a stranger they just met in a bar promised to marry them and make them " _happy ever after _" over a couple of Martinis or flaming shots.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> You are the one who said we can't just be honest and forthright about our intentions because "a bunch of reasons".
> 
> Yet none of those reasons are a real reason not to be honest and forthright.
> 
> Therefore I conclude that you simply want to be sneaky about your own intentions instead of just lay it out there the way I suggested.


Your first premise is faulty and your conclusion is wrong. I said if women accepted that men's primary motivation was sex, and understood how his progression works instead of thinking it an ill motivation, a regular guy wouldn't get rejected for giving something as stupid simple as a compliment. Men generally seem to get that, for the most part, a woman's path to sex is a similar progression from security/value.



> I'm guessing you think you'd be shot down if you just said "hey I'm DTF, how about you?"


Been there done that. Sometimes I'm shot down sometimes I'm not. But this only applies when Ive not been open to a relationship. Immediately after my divorce for example. I sure as hell wasn't going to be in a relationship then.

The majority of the time, I dont know if I'll want to date her or not yet. I know I want to have sex, so I'm pursuing. It may stay sex or it may become more. If it stays sex and she wants more I'm out. Even if it becomes more there's only so long I'm going to hold out, depending on just how much I like everything else about her. The one constant is sexual motivation.



> or "hey I'd like to date you with the intention of getting to know you and I'm available for a relationship right now", which ever one was true in the moment, you'd get shot down so much better to go with some form of "game" instead, right?


How do I know if I want to date her? I dont know her. I'm talking to her because I'm sexually interested. Express that even by something as innocuous as a compliment, and yeah, relationships I might have been interested in had they evolved evaporate as a result of her faulty presumptions. Even *not* giving that compliment that triggers all her faulty presumptions that keep us from ever knowing each other, is game.

Just as a side note, a cold approach asking for a date has a low success rate period. I know this from experience. Add any amount of meaningless witty playful chit chat and odds of getting that date to way up. Its really quite stupid imo, since a date is about getting to know someone. If someone is attractive enough, why not just accept without the chit chat? That you don't is why game exists.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> .
> 
> I know a girl whose now husband told her on their first date that he was going to marry her. She thought it was romantic. He was right. He "just knew" and she was happy he told her what his intentions were, even though on that date she didn't commit to marrying him...but she loved hearing it.


Would you give THAT as dating advice even if it was his true intent? The only thing I'm aware of that says RUN louder than that is flashing his penis at her. Thats totally creepy.


----------



## Lyris

Faithful Wife said:


> I know a girl whose now husband told her on their first date that he was going to marry her. She thought it was romantic. He was right. He "just knew" and she was happy he told her what his intentions were, even though on that date she didn't commit to marrying him...but she loved hearing it.


My first thought on reading this was. Ew, crazy stalker weirdo. But then I thought about the fact that my husband first brought up marriage when we'd been together for about six weeks and frankly it was a total knicker dropper (tm Dollystanford). 

And the fact that my dad proposed to my mother on their second date and they are still happily married 44 years later.

And then if I imagine that line coming from certain very attractive men, it's swoony. From others - nope, sorry. 

Maybe you have to be a Sex God to pull that one off, so to speak.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How do I know if I want to date her? I dont know her. I'm talking to her because I'm sexually interested. Express that even by something as innocuous as a compliment, and yeah, relationships I might have been interested in had they evolved evaporate as a result of her faulty presumptions. Even *not* giving that compliment that triggers all her faulty presumptions that keep us from ever knowing each other, is game.
> 
> Just as a side note, a cold approach asking for a date has a low success rate period. I know this from experience.


Again, her presumptions are not faulty. You yourself are saying that you're going up to random strangers to play PUA because you want sex. Her presumptions are entirely accurate. You just wish she'd react differently.

But why should she? Why should she care a whit that one day you may get around to deciding you see more value in her than a nice a$$? 

She probably alredy has plenty of people that know she's awesome both inside and out.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Lyris said:


> =
> 
> And then if I imagine that line coming from certain very attractive men, it's swoony. From others - nope, sorry.


:iagree:
I think it really depends on the man who's saying it.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> That's why imo it's impossible to determine female desire, different upbringings/experiences/individual hormone levels/diet/medication (which in the western world is atrocious, full of synthetic hormones) have a impact. Plus also health factors too, psychological to adrenal/cortisol problems ect have a huge impact on some peoples sex drive. There are many cases that low sex drive is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself.


QFT!

Cultures are different, individuals are different, and there are a host of variables both psychological and psychological that will affect a person's desire.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> Well the majority of studies are theories and use evidence that shows why this theory could be true;


Also, re-examination of data on psychological differences between the genders in sexuality (and other dimensions) shows that the differences are not in fact categorical, and gender is not predictive of sexuality, frequency of sexual thoughts, openness to casual sex, and a whole host of other sexual attitudes and behaviours:

Men and Women Both from Earth After All | Gender Differences | LiveScience


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Lyris said:


> You know, sometimes less is way way more. Are you people being paid by the word?


God yes. The more I read these posts, the less I learn about "female desire". Instead, I end up with a lot of posters projecting their own fantasies out there onto the female of the species.


----------



## tacoma

PreRaphaelite said:


> God yes. The more I read these posts, the less I learn about "female desire". Instead, I end up with a lot of posters projecting their own fantasies out there onto the female of the species.


The odd part is most of them are female posters.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Again, her presumptions are not faulty. You yourself are saying that you're going up to random strangers to play PUA because you want sex. Her presumptions are entirely accurate. You just wish she'd react differently.
> 
> But why should she? Why should she care a whit that one day you may get around to deciding you see more value in her than a nice a$$?
> 
> She probably alredy has plenty of people that know she's awesome both inside and out.


Yup.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Where's my gif of cute dog chasing his tail when I need it.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Truth about female desire it is completely different from male desire
hence this entire series of forums

Females seem to need a reason, a certain situation and sex done a certain way only when they really are willing to accept the mans advances and much less typically than the male desire level on average.

Men don't need anything other than sex without all the drama and nearly all men find times the female is not willing at times...most wives never experience their husbands turning down sex ever.

Neither is right or wrong...but this is the PRIMARY cause of many of the issues here especially in established longer term marriages


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> I know a girl whose now husband told her on their first date that he was going to marry her. She thought it was romantic. He was right. He "just knew" and she was happy he told her what his intentions were, even though on that date she didn't commit to marrying him...but she loved hearing it.


I am envious of people like that. On my first job I accompanied an older female exec on a trip to Europe. When the plane landed she was beaming with excitement. Apparently the man next to her proposed to her. He was a complete stranger before the flight. The funny thing is she told him yes. Her corporate peers were very concerned. They even flew someone over to talk some sense into her. They thought it was some kind of break down. Boy were we all wrong. That was well over a decade ago. Today they are happily married with two children. Sometimes you just know right away I guess.


----------



## samyeagar

Trying2figureitout said:


> Truth about female desire it is completely different from male desire
> hence this entire series of forums
> 
> Females seem to need a reason, a certain situation and sex done a certain way only when they really are willing to accept the mans advances and much less typically than the male desire level on average.
> 
> Men don't need anything other than sex without all the drama and nearly all men find times the female is not willing at times...most wives never experience their husbands turning down sex ever.
> 
> Neither is right or wrong...but this is the PRIMARY cause of many of the issues here especially in established longer term marriages


I disagree with this assessment.


----------



## samyeagar

Lyris said:


> My first thought on reading this was. Ew, crazy stalker weirdo. But then I thought about the fact that my husband first brought up marriage when we'd been together for about six weeks and frankly it was a total knicker dropper (tm Dollystanford).
> 
> And the fact that my dad proposed to my mother on their second date and they are still happily married 44 years later.
> 
> And then if I imagine that line coming from certain very attractive men, it's swoony. From others - nope, sorry.
> 
> Maybe you have to be a Sex God to pull that one off, so to speak.


Sort of along these lines...after my ex and I separated, a buddy of mine and I played a lot of golf after work, and we talked about a lot of things. One of the things we talked about was the women I was dating. The very first time I mentioned my STBW, before she and I had even gone out on our first date, just talking through email, he said "Dude, you're going to marry her." He knew.

We've talked about that, and how he just seemed to know, and come to find out, his brother had done the same thing to him the first time he mentioned his now wife of 14 years.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Trying2figureitout said:


> Females seem to need a reason, a certain situation and sex done a certain way only when they really are willing to accept the mans advances and much less typically than the male desire level on average.
> 
> Men don't need anything other than sex without all the drama and nearly all men find times the female is not willing at times...most wives never experience their husbands turning down sex ever.


Your post summarizes the problem with this thread. Everyone wants to place each gender into a one size fits all pigeonhole. We're way more complicated than that, and what an individual may or may not want from a perspective mate depends on many variables.


----------



## Jellybeans

samyeagar said:


> Sort of along these lines...after my ex and I separated, a buddy of mine and I played a lot of golf after work, and we talked about a lot of things. One of the things we talked about was the women I was dating. The very first time I mentioned my STBW, before she and I had even gone out on our first date, just talking through email, he said "Dude, you're going to marry her." He knew.
> 
> We've talked about that, and how he just seemed to know, and come to find out, his brother had done the same thing to him the first time he mentioned his now wife of 14 years.


Funny you say that. Mr. ExJelly told me that the first time he saw me, he told his cousin, "If I meet that girl, I am going to marry her." He did. 

My dad also told my mother when they met that he was going to marry her and she thought he was nuts. They're still together, some several decades later. LOL. 

I guess when you see someone who is important to you, you just know? Maybe it just feels different.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Again, her presumptions are not faulty. You yourself are saying that you're going up to random strangers to play PUA because you want sex. Her presumptions are entirely accurate. You just wish she'd react differently.


Its faulty because she doesn't know whether he'll progress from sexual interest or not. Assuming he wants sex is correct, assuming that's all he'll ever want is incorrect. That's what dating is meant to determine.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Would you give THAT as dating advice even if it was his true intent? The only thing I'm aware of that says RUN louder than that is flashing his penis at her. Thats totally creepy.


I ran into this guy the other day, he's about ten years older than I.

When I was about thirteen years old, my older female cousins would laugh at him whenever they saw him because rumor had it that he walked around with an engagement ring in his pocket and usually showed it to whichever girl caught his attention , whom he was trying to impress.

His aim was to let then know that he was the serious type of man that wasn't into games, and wanted to get married.

So I decided to have a chat with him when I saw him the other day.

He was still single and couldn't understand why no woman ever took him seriously.
He couldn't understand the other guys he knew as players back then were now happily married , with kids who themselves were married.

His conclusion?

Women don't know what they want.

I felt really sorry for him.


----------



## Jellybeans

I had a friend that fell in love with every girl that even looked at him. Every relationship was always 
"THE MOST SERIOUS ONE" and it was like that with each and every girl. SO I never put much weight into what he was saying.

I saw on FB that he's married now with a kid. Which is great for him because it seemed like his only dream in life.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> I ran into this guy the other day, he's about ten years older than I.
> 
> When I was about thirteen years old, my older female cousins would laugh at him whenever they saw him because rumor had it that he walked around with an engagement ring in his pocket and usually showed it to whichever girl caught his attention , whom he was trying to impress.
> 
> His aim was to let then know that he was the serious type of man that wasn't into games, and wanted to get married.
> 
> So I decided to have a chat with him when I saw him the other day.
> 
> He was still single and couldn't understand why no woman ever took him seriously.
> He couldn't understand the other guys he knew as players back then were now happily married , with kids who themselves were married.
> 
> His conclusion?
> 
> Women don't know what they want.
> 
> I felt really sorry for him.


Sad story. You really can't help a guy like that. I've tried to help a good friend of mine for years and nothing I have tried has worked. For starters he was a nice guy that married a girl that previously bedded half of his groomsmen (we all tried to talk him out of it). 

They got divorced and he became obsessed with PUA books (kind of my fault since I recommended MMSL to him when he was having relationship problems). He seemed normal for a while and dated some nice women. Now he is in a serious relationship and honestly i think he's setting himself up for the same thing. I noticed she was nit picky with him when I had them over for dinner, and a few days later he contacted me asking me for advice on going into business. I asked why and he said its because she thinks he should make more money. Sigh....rinse wash repeat. Nothing I can do. He will always desire the same type of woman.


----------



## norajane

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its faulty because she doesn't know whether he'll progress from sexual interest or not. Assuming he wants sex is correct, assuming that's all he'll ever want is incorrect. That's what dating is meant to determine.


It's my experience that some men, when they approach women in bar situations, are not in the least bit open to a relationship and really are only there to find someone to hook up with. There's no chance of progressing to anything, because they are just looking to pick someone up that night, and have no desire or intention of a relationship.

Some men also select certain women and put them in the "hook-up" category, and other women go into the "bring home to mom" category, and they approach and treat these women differently.

So, while I understand your point and have no problem with it - yes, I expect a man's initial sexual interest is what brings them over to meet a woman, and you certainly need that sexual attraction as a starter to developing a relationship - I don't believe all men who approach women are open to relationships. I believe some are not interested in meeting someone for a long term relationship, and really are just looking for a hook-up. So when a women turns a guy away because his interest is just sexual, that's what she's responding to. She doesn't want a player, so she turns him down.


----------



## samyeagar

And sometimes the woman turns him away because she put him in the hookup category and all she wants is sex and he's putting out the get to know her vibe...


----------



## ocotillo

Jellybeans said:


> I had a friend that fell in love with every girl that even looked at him. Every relationship was always
> "THE MOST SERIOUS ONE" and it was like that with each and every girl. SO I never put much weight into what he was saying.


That's funny (And sad) no matter what gender it comes from. There's a young lady in Texas who's been entertaining the internet with that meme for years:

Overly Attached Girlfriend


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

norajane said:


> It's my experience that some men, when they approach women in bar situations, are not in the least bit open to a relationship and really are only there to find someone to hook up with.


Everyone always thinks I'm talking about bars and clubs. What do you people take me for, an alcoholic? ;P 

Most of the same guidelines apply whether you're picking her up at the bar or picking her up in line at starbucks.

I've met a lot of women at Starbucks and Barnes & Noble. It turns out most women who sit alone on the patio with coffee tooling around on their phone would love a good conversation. She's in public because she wants to be around people. All I know is I'm sexually interested and nothing ever happens if I don't talk to her. What happens next depends on which way the winds are blowing more than my intentions. Being dead set on only finding a hookup is pretty rare relative to my overall pursuit of women. But still... that motivation for sex is why I struck up the conversation, even if I end up liking her for other reasons, date her and end up waiting 3 months for sex.



norajane said:


> I don't believe all men who approach women are open to relationships.


I'm sure there are plenty who aren't open, but I think the vast majority ARE. Just because we didn't get there with a given woman doesn't mean we weren't open to it. It just didn't happen. Seems a bit cagey, I know, but generally speaking - we're not sitting back going "Oh if only I could just find a relationship!" We're going "Man, I want to get laid". In pursuit of that we start talking to some girl who ends up lighting us up with everything not sex and boom - we want the LTR. I've never known men to go seeking LTRs. The sexual intent is always first - even if we never revealed it to be.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It turns out most women who sit alone on the patio with coffee tooling around on their phone would love a good conversation. She's in public because she wants to be around people.


I wish those women would stop doing that! They're making it very difficult for us non social ladies who just enjoy sitting quietly observing the world. 

LOL I hate it when random people strike up a conversation with me just bc I happen to be sitting alone 

darn social people.


----------



## norajane

ScarletBegonias said:


> I wish those women would stop doing that! They're making it very difficult for us non social ladies who just enjoy sitting quietly observing the world.
> 
> LOL I hate it when random people strike up a conversation with me just bc I happen to be sitting alone
> 
> darn social people.


Ipod, Scarlett. Just put the earbuds in even if you aren't listening to anything! I do this on airplanes and it works really well.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

norajane said:


> Ipod, Scarlett. Just put the earbuds in even if you aren't listening to anything!


:smthumbup: excellent suggestion!


----------



## keeper63

I don't want to get too far off target here, but my wife and one of her good friends are what I refer to as "freak magnets".

When they are out in public either alone or together, if there is a strange or freaky person nearby, they will attract said weirdo to them every time.

It's the damnedest thing. Not too long ago, we were in a large Goodwill store looking around. A strange older gentleman walked up to my wife (she was at the opposite end of the store from me) and asked her if she could hold a couple of clothing items for him, which she did. He proceeded to strip naked in front of her and started trying on clothes. Needless to say, she put his stuff down, walked away, and reported him to the store manager.

Stuff like that happens to her ALL THE TIME!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> I wish those women would stop doing that! They're making it very difficult for us non social ladies who just enjoy sitting quietly observing the world.
> 
> LOL I hate it when random people strike up a conversation with me just bc I happen to be sitting alone
> 
> darn social people.


They're almost always introverts, but seriously, most everyone generally lights up... especially if you can find something about them to key on and get them to talk about. My experience is that even introverts love to talk about themselves when I take a specific interest and comes across in a disarming way. As for people watchers, well, you get the people watcher by people watching with them and making playful or insightful observations. Get a laugh and its introduction time. Easy peazy. ;P

Headphones are a good defense. DC chicks used to do that all the time on the metro and God help a man who wants to get her attention. You've got the "eyes" game, which isn't a good game for dudes, and then you've got interrupting her and asking for something innocuous/helpful. I've asked for directions before (this was before everyone had maps on their phone though). Sometimes you can parlay that into an actual conversation.

You'd talk to me Scarlet.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not sure what way of acting says a man thinks he knows all about your sexuality anyway. Do you think I lay out my ideas on attraction on dates?


I mean that he's never told me, "It doesn't matter what you _say_ you want, _I_ know what you really want, despite your insistence otherwise." He's always taken what I say to be what I actually mean, because I don't say things I don't mean. 

You keep acting like no woman on earth could ever actually want a guy who was nice and respectful, and yet, that has always been what I wanted, it's always been what I've pursued, and it _is_ what I got. And I love him. And _want_ him. And the kind of attitude you insist is the only one that will actually get a guy laid, is exactly the attitude/guy I would roll my eyes at and not even give a second thought.


----------



## Created2Write

Lyris said:


> Oh I don't include C2W in there btw. Just remembered she's a young 'un.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Tacoma...have a little imagination. It doesn't have to be those words literally. They are just an example. The point would be to pursue based on your truth and make your intention known, versus if you say, were actually just looking to get laid but you were making noises as if you wanted a relationship.
> 
> Also, in online dating, something to the effect of "I'm looking for a relationship" versus "just looking for friends" versus "just looking to hookup" are normal things available to pick as a choice to show why you're here. Picking the one that truly reflects your intentions instead of picking the one you think will get you the most "whatever" would be being forthright.
> 
> I am using the one line examples only to avoid typing out a lengthy conversation a couple who just met might have.
> 
> My husband asked for my number. I got his, too. I called him the next day. We discussed what we are each looking for in general terms. We went on a date. We discussed it more. I said I didn't want a relationship, just a boyfriend, and a lot of sex. He said he could accommodate that, no problem. A few dates later, he told me he liked me so much he might like to pursue me for more than boyfriend status. I explained my position. We eventually went past boyfriend and got married.
> 
> These forthright conversations were awesome.
> 
> That's what I meant.
> 
> I know a girl whose now husband told her on their first date that he was going to marry her. She thought it was romantic. He was right. He "just knew" and she was happy he told her what his intentions were, even though on that date she didn't commit to marrying him...but she loved hearing it.


This. Yes, and yes. 

When DH and I decided we were ready for an actual relationship, we had a couple of very serious talks. I told him what I was looking for, that I didn't date just to date or have fun, and I was looking for a potential life partner. I knew very well that my honesty could scare him off if he wasn't looking for the same thing, and being only twenty years old it was more than likely that he wasn't looking for that. But, lo and behold, he like me _a lot_ and already say more potential between us than any of his prior relationships. 

He proposed to me three weeks later, and made it official seven months after that, and we were married two months after that. When you know what you want in a partner, and you're honest about it, it takes away the hassle and the stress.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Would you give THAT as dating advice even if it was his true intent? The only thing I'm aware of that says RUN louder than that is flashing his penis at her. Thats totally creepy.


Depends on the girl. I knew I was going to marry DH before he and I were even dating. It took one conversation that was, maybe, two hours long. And I knew that I knew that I knew. So did a friend of mine that saw us talking. He could have looked at me and said that he'd marry me, and I'd have nodded and said "Yeah, I know."


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScarletBegonias said:


> I wish those women would stop doing that! They're making it very difficult for us non social ladies who just enjoy sitting quietly observing the world.
> 
> LOL I hate it when random people strike up a conversation with me just bc I happen to be sitting alone
> 
> darn social people.


I am the opposite of this (I've said this on here before)...and I might add...this is WHY I will don't open up conversations around strangers (unless asking the time maybe)....as I very much realize others may find a friendly person as intruding / they don't want bothered... So I leave people alone.... even though I don't enjoy doing things alone.... for example...If I was going to Mcdonalds, I would rather sit in my car than go in alone ...I just don't like it......I'd prefer to have someone to shoot the breeze with - makes time go faster....I like nice people.... I like friendly people.. the only thing I don't like is ...an obsessive talker where you can't get away, that is very annoying... but pleasant people who stop us, say something about the kids, smile.. I LIKE it, I invite it! 

Not long ago..our family was in Big Lots.. (a Dept Store)...and this random Man comes up to us and asks our permission if he could do his "Donald Duck imitation" for our kids...5 if them standing there...we said "SURE....our youngest gave him the STRANGEST LOOK -didn't know what to think...not really used to seeing Donald Duck but the older ones knew... He was DARN GOOD.. he was very friendly to us....and we enjoyed his stopping up & sharing that...

It was better than this and he was talking in Kid language... just to give an idea....

Imitation Of Donald Duck. - YouTube Our teens were laughing...:rofl:

Now when we walked out of there... we had a conversation about that... because MOST PEOPLE would have found this grown man really FREAKY...he has his teen son with him...going up to random strangers and talking like that.. but ya know..he did alright with us.. we're pretty friendly...and it made the night -rather amusing !


----------



## Created2Write

norajane said:


> It's my experience that some men, when they approach women in bar situations, are not in the least bit open to a relationship and really are only there to find someone to hook up with. There's no chance of progressing to anything, because they are just looking to pick someone up that night, and have no desire or intention of a relationship.
> 
> Some men also select certain women and put them in the "hook-up" category, and other women go into the "bring home to mom" category, and they approach and treat these women differently.
> 
> So, while I understand your point and have no problem with it - yes, I expect a man's initial sexual interest is what brings them over to meet a woman, and you certainly need that sexual attraction as a starter to developing a relationship - I don't believe all men who approach women are open to relationships. I believe some are not interested in meeting someone for a long term relationship, and really are just looking for a hook-up. So when a women turns a guy away because his interest is just sexual, that's what she's responding to. She doesn't want a player, so she turns him down.


:iagree:


----------



## ScarletBegonias

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am the opposite of this (I've said this on here before)...and I might add...this is WHY I will don't open up conversations around strangers (unless asking the time maybe)....as I very much realize others may find a friendly person as intruding / they don't want bothered... So I leave people alone.... even though I don't enjoy doing things alone.... for example...If I was going to Mcdonalds, I would rather sit in my car than go in alone ...I just don't like it......I'd prefer to have someone to shoot the breeze with - makes time go faster....I like nice people.... I like friendly people.. the only thing I don't like is ...an obsessive talker where you can't get away, that is very annoying... but pleasant people who stop us, say something about the kids, smile.. I LIKE it, I invite it!
> 
> Not long ago..our family was in Big Lots.. (a Dept Store)...and this random Man comes up to us and asks our permission if he could do his "Donald Duck imitation" for our kids...5 if them standing there...we said "SURE....our youngest gave him the STRANGEST LOOK -didn't know what to think...not really used to seeing Donald Duck but the older ones knew... He was DARN GOOD.. he was very friendly to us....and we enjoyed his stopping up & sharing that...
> 
> It was better than this and he was talking in Kid language... just to give an idea....
> 
> Imitation Of Donald Duck. - YouTube Our teens were laughing...:rofl:
> 
> Now when we walked out of there... we had a conversation about that... because MOST PEOPLE would have found this grown man really FREAKY...he has his teen son with him...going up to random strangers and talking like that.. but ya know..he did alright with us.. we're pretty friendly...and it made the night -rather amusing !



:smthumbup: My ex husband was incredible in stranger/social situations just like that.

To make sure folks understand,not being social doesn't make a person any less friendly than those who enjoy the company of strangers. using myself as an example,I'm a very friendly person when a stranger approaches me.I smile and humor them and speak kindly to them. I just cannot wait to get the hell away from them but I am friendly enough to keep that hidden


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its faulty because she doesn't know whether he'll progress from sexual interest or not. Assuming he wants sex is correct, assuming that's all he'll ever want is incorrect. That's what dating is meant to determine.


You missed the point of my post. She's not assuming he'll never want anything else; she knows that's all he wants right now, and couldn't care less if he decides to change his mind later on.

Why should she? Guys with hard-ons are a dime a dozen. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a guy with a hard on. And a goodly proportion of them will decide that in fact they don't want anything else,making them pretty much just a waste of time --unless all you want is a guy with a hard on.

On top of that, she's probably more focused on what turns *her* crank, and so his is irrelevant --until she has decided that he's worth the time and attention.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

always_alone said:


> Why should she? Guys with hard-ons are a dime a dozen. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a guy with a hard on.


:rofl::rofl: omg :rofl:


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Why should she? Guys with hard-ons are a dime a dozen. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a guy with a hard on.


Although I can say being hit with a dead animal when aroused is pretty much a desire killer. They won't have that hard on for long.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> *The point is , a person who is interested in a relationship doesn't go to bed with a person they just met in a bar.
> 
> The person who's interested in hook up sex doesn't waste time around people who are looking for a relationship.*


 There needs to be 2 completely different rule books for these... if someone is seeking a lasting relationship....I really don't care if this is unpopular, I think the best thing we can do is just *Be ourselves*...Of course when I say this, I assume we have something to offer, putting our best selves forward..(honest in who we are...our intentions and allow the back & forth to carry us to WHERE EVER!)... ...hopefully some self awareness is there...with some social skills or we need some help before we go on a date or try talking to people.. 

The whole "Pick up Artist" thing...so it appears to me... is just learning to be SAVVY enough ...to score & get laid....(sure some use it to learn effective ice breakers & have more honorable intentions...I'll give them a pass)...
Much of it , I feel , is wrapped up in the power view of sexuality...explained here .....if you are







enough, the less GAME needed...to reel them in....



> *5. **Power View* ~ Sexuality is a potent instrument for controlling others/ sex wields power". ... Sexual desire is the desire to possess another, while wanting to avoid being objectified by the other. One must be savvy to the potential for sexual exploitation, manipulation and violence (in it's rawest forms).
> 
> Sexuality is seen as "energy", as a force, Sexual interaction lays us bare & can strip us of control as we surrender to desire. Knowing oneself as a being who commands another’s sexual attention is invigorating / experiencing oneself as sexually attractive is enlivening. Yet this power is fragile & leaves you at the mercy of another's way of seeing - when I become a “sex object,” someone else decides whether I am valued, set aside, desired or dismissed.
> 
> In order to seize control & not be controlled, I need to objectify my sexual “partner” (in thought or by actions) before my sexual “partner” can objectify me... “Partner” becomes a misnomer because the mutuality of such encounters is mutual rivalry in a contest over power.
> 
> Self-Protection is vital here...one must enter into sexual relationships with one’s eyes wide open, savvy about the potential for exploitation & manipulation, taking care to preserve one’s own dignity by not being the victim of another’s conscious or unconscious exertions of power.


 I don't feel enough younger women understand these power dynamics at play..



Faithful Wife said:


> Tacoma...have a little imagination. It doesn't have to be those words literally. They are just an example. The point would be to pursue based on your truth and make your intention known, versus if you say, were actually just looking to get laid but you were making noises as if you wanted a relationship.
> 
> Also, in online dating, something to the effect of "I'm looking for a relationship" versus "just looking for friends" versus "just looking to hookup" are normal things available to pick as a choice to show why you're here. Picking the one that truly reflects your intentions instead of picking the one you think will get you the most "whatever" would be being forthright.
> 
> I am using the one line examples only to avoid typing out a lengthy conversation a couple who just met might have.
> 
> My husband asked for my number. I got his, too. I called him the next day. We discussed what we are each looking for in general terms. We went on a date. We discussed it more. I said I didn't want a relationship, just a boyfriend, and a lot of sex. He said he could accommodate that, no problem. A few dates later, he told me he liked me so much he might like to pursue me for more than boyfriend status. I explained my position. We eventually went past boyfriend and got married.
> 
> These forthright conversations were awesome.
> 
> That's what I meant.
> 
> *I know a girl whose now husband told her on their first date that he was going to marry her. She thought it was romantic. He was right. He "just knew" and she was happy he told her what his intentions were, even though on that date she didn't commit to marrying him...but she loved hearing it*.


This reminds me of JLD and husband... married 20 + yrs, 5 kids later...

I want to say something about this.. you've taken some flack for this post FW..... I LIKED IT..... yeah the bottom part ..is a bit much... but .. without being there ... feeling the laughter or how GREAT this couple hit it off ...obviously immediately ....who are we to say....and I think it's great they can look back & have that awesome story! It's just like a lady I know ... her & her husband waited till their wedding day for their 1st kiss ! They are lovely people, have a nice family.. but others would think "OMG!"... 

Not that I would know, but 1st dates have to be awfully awkward..people may get nervous, say too much, clam up...and when the night ends, think they Fvcked it all up.. they didn't represent who they really were -basically.. even this guy might have been hitting himself in the head thinking "WHY DID I SAY [email protected]$- AM I CRAZY-she is going to think I am a NUT JOB" (about marrying her)...if he talks to himself like this afterwards, he is probably pretty normal [email protected]#

So maybe on the 2nd date...he smoothed that over a bit...who knows. I guess I wouldn't be one to automatically judge someone for their words, (unless they swore like a Truck driver, was out right rude or I was really offended by something)..and if so, I would open that up too. 

Getting back to telling a woman she is sexy on a 1st date...not a big deal !..I'd play with that.. and try to gauge from it how often he talks like that to women..(am I special or he is just a flirt ??)... This is how I feel...no matter what anyone says, outrageous, premature, strange......there is always something to bounce back off of it... and learn.. 

And nothing wrong with saying..."Hey now, you want me to think you are just a player?" so what.. be ourselves! It's all good. 

What I would not care for is someone too full of stupid jokes...I like to :rofl: as much as anyone else but that can be done with telling *real stories* about ourselves...experiences... so we can learn something.....or someone being evasive (avoiding self-revelation or responding indirectly)... I'd see such a person as closed.... a turn off for me.

..I would have my feelers out on other things.. like assessing their mental health







....a little about their family life... what are their hobbies...what are their friends like....what they do... their passions.. what brings them to where they are now.. 

My husband's always told me -it was "Love at 1st site" when I sat across the lunch table from him the 1st time"... of course he didn't reveal this to me... but his actions spoke... he made me feel so special, so accepted...for just being my crazy unabashed self -the good, the bad & the ugly.....and it wasn't long after.. he told me He loved me... His wonderful treatment of me is WHY he ultimately won my heart .. I'm happy he just gave me "himself"- not trying to impress me.. and I did the same... we're basically game-less.. but we had chemistry !


----------



## Faithful Wife

The point was to be authentic and honest with your intentions and where you are at and what you are looking for. In the case of my friend whose now husband told her that at dinner...I'm not saying EVERY guy in that position should say that, but he really meant it. It was not something he "just said".

I have actually had guys I was dating mention marriage or say something bold like "because you'll me be married to me by then, right?" or similar way early in the game....in those cases, it was always just a guy saying things he thought all women wanted to hear. He knows that just saying the word "marriage" is going to be tossed away by the girl as he is obviously joking because it is too soon. But he's also dangling it like a carrot, knowing that girls want to be married...he leaves it on the table as a sort of bait. YET he really has no intention of marriage with her/me or anytime soon at all.

That is an example of just flapping your gums for some sort of self-interest that has nothing to do with being authentic. I can see this a mile away on guys at this point.

But my friend's now husband...that isn't why or how he was saying it. He saw her, talked a bit, asked her out, they talked on the phone a few times, and he felt like "I think she might be the one", coming from a self-aware place. So when he said it on their date, he really felt it.

They of course both knew that much more time had to pass before they would really be exclusive, then committed, then engaged...but he still said it because it was real and he felt it and he WAS NOT just saying it to get her to like him more for some selfish reason like hoping it would lead them to the bedroom sooner.

So no, I'm not saying any/every guy should do this. I'm saying be authentic.

And sure, if your authentic desire is actually just to get laid, then say that upfront. The gals who are also looking to get laid won't be insulted. The gals who are looking for a relationship (or who wouldn't lay you specifically) will tell you so. No harm done in the truth.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> The point was to be authentic and honest with your intentions and where you are at and what you are looking for. In the case of my friend whose now husband told her that at dinner...I'm not saying EVERY guy in that position should say that, but he really meant it. It was not something he "just said".
> 
> I have actually had guys I was dating mention marriage or say something bold like "because you'll me be married to me by then, right?" or similar way early in the game....in those cases, it was always just a guy saying things he thought all women wanted to hear. He knows that just saying the word "marriage" is going to be tossed away by the girl as he is obviously joking because it is too soon. But he's also dangling it like a carrot, knowing that girls want to be married...he leaves it on the table as a sort of bait. YET he really has no intention of marriage with her/me or anytime soon at all.
> 
> That is an example of just flapping your gums for some sort of self-interest that has nothing to do with being authentic. I can see this a mile away on guys at this point.
> 
> But my friend's now husband...that isn't why or how he was saying it. He saw her, talked a bit, asked her out, they talked on the phone a few times, and he felt like "I think she might be the one", coming from a self-aware place. So when he said it on their date, he really felt it.
> 
> They of course both knew that much more time had to pass before they would really be exclusive, then committed, then engaged...but he still said it because it was real and he felt it and he WAS NOT just saying it to get her to like him more for some selfish reason like hoping it would lead them to the bedroom sooner.
> 
> So no, I'm not saying any/every guy should do this. I'm saying be authentic.
> 
> *And sure, if your authentic desire is actually just to get laid, then say that upfront. The gals who are also looking to get laid won't be insulted. The gals who are looking for a relationship (or who wouldn't lay you specifically) will tell you so. No harm done in the truth.*


This is extremely important to realize and accept. It's not that one truth is better or worse than any other, or that someone is better or worse than someone else because they are or aren't motivated by commitment, it's that it helps people approach each potential relationship/sexual tryst with their best foot forward. While I may never be the kind of girl who is open to casual sex, I'm also not the kind of girl to pretend/act like I am/convince myself I _might_ be with hopes that, after getting to know me, the guy will suddenly want to commit. Because, even if he does suddenly want to commit, he wouldn't actually be committing to _me_, he'd be committing to the girl I was pretending to be. 

I wouldn't reject a guy just because he was motivated by sex, so long as he told me whether or not he had other motivators too, and if so, what they were. If he was also looking for a long term commitment, then we could at least talk. But saying, "Most guys are open to a relationships down the road" doesn't give me anything to wait around for. He might commit to me, he might not. So I'd be honest about what I was looking for so that he doesn't waste his time on someone who wouldn't fulfill his desires.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> So no, I'm not saying any/every guy should do this. I'm saying be authentic.


99 times out of 100, if a guy says anything about marrying her on a first date, he's not getting a second date... whether he's authentic or not. If he keeps his mouth shut, maybe everything proceeds and they go off and have the best relationship ever and live happily ever after. That perfect authenticity you advocate would prevent many, if not most, relationships from ever getting off the ground.

That's my point. There are many perfectly good relationships to be had, that will never be, because someone put their cards down to early, or triggered some sort of defenses - and the other person pulls away on a faulty basis. What could have progressed, never has a chance to progress. That's why there is this idea of a game to it.


----------



## Created2Write

So you don't believe women want authenticity? Transparency?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lyris said:


> My first thought on reading this was. Ew, crazy stalker weirdo. But then I thought about the fact that my husband first brought up marriage when we'd been together for about six weeks and frankly it was a total knicker dropper (tm Dollystanford).
> 
> And the fact that my dad proposed to my mother on their second date and they are still happily married 44 years later.
> 
> And then if I imagine that line coming from certain very attractive men, it's swoony. From others - nope, sorry.
> 
> Maybe you have to be a Sex God to pull that one off, so to speak.


My husband did gently bring up marriage a few months into things...he knew I wasn't ready to even talk about it, but he was testing the waters.

I can tell the difference between genuine water testing and the guys who "just say it" because they think it will make you like them or something.

The couple in my story about saying it on the first date isn't me. And in their case, it was genuine and she loved it.

I was actually there the day they met. I worked with her in an office, and the fire department came in to do an unscheduled inspection. There was a crew of three of them, and one of them was her future husband. After the crew left, she was like "one of those firemen was HOT". I hadn't really seen his face but saw his back and concurred that he looked hot from the back.

The fireman came back in to our office three days later in plain clothes to ask for her number.

So she "saw" something there, too. He isn't really even that hot...she just knew she saw her future hubby in his face and he knew it, too...that's why he came back for her number. Swoon!


----------



## Faithful Wife

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> 99 times out of 100, if a guy says anything about marrying her on a first date, he's not getting a second date... whether he's authentic or not. If he keeps his mouth shut, maybe everything proceeds and they go off and have the best relationship ever and live happily ever after. That perfect authenticity you advocate would prevent many, if not most, relationships from ever getting off the ground.
> 
> That's my point. There are many perfectly good relationships to be had, that will never be, because someone put their cards down to early, or triggered some sort of defenses - and the other person pulls away on a faulty basis. What could have progressed, never has a chance to progress. That's why there is this idea of a game to it.


I wonder why you think you are the only one who has an opinion that is valid? Did you not see where I said "NO, NOT EVERY GUY SHOULD DO THIS"? Ignore that and just ramble on and go along with your games, dear.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You missed the point of my post. *HE's* not assuming *she'll* never want anything else; *HE* knows that's all *she *wants right now, and couldn't care less if *she* decides to change *her* mind later on.
> 
> Why should *HE*? *Gals* with *wet panties* are a dime a dozen. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting *a girl only wants sex*. And a goodly proportion of them will decide that in fact they don't want anything else,making them pretty much just a waste of time --unless all you want is a *girl who's only into sex.*
> 
> On top of that, *HE's* probably more focused on *what *floats* his boat*, and so* hers* is irrelevant --until *HE *has decided that *she's* worth the time and attention.


Ok.

I fixed it for you.

I just switched the genders to see if it would come across a little more gender equitable .

Now how does that look?








Thought so.


----------



## Created2Write

Dvls, I know you're only posting your _opinions_, but it really does come across as if you think your experiences are the only kinds of experiences anyone can, and will, ever have. Your experiences really aren't the end all, be all. The women you've known, dated and been with aren't the only kinds of women there are. It is tiresome treading through your posts when you act like you're the final word on male to female interactions and sexual desire.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> Dvls, I know you're only posting your _opinions_, but it really does come across as if you think your experiences are the only kinds of experiences anyone can, and will, ever have. Your experiences really aren't the end all, be all. The women you've known, dated and been with aren't the only kinds of women there are. It is tiresome treading through your posts when you act like you're the final word on male to female interactions and sexual desire.


I can see how much of what he posts doesn't apply to the majority 45+ crowd on TAM. He's talking about younger, more easily influenced people.

The things you guys say about you husbands don't apply to most men in the real world... it is just your opinion of what you think they think, based on a false assumption. 

Chance are they tell you 'whatever you want to hear' for a quiet life. i.e.

"Yes, Dear." "That's nice, dear."


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> I can see how much of what he posts doesn't apply to the majority 45+ crowd on TAM. He's talking about younger, more easily influenced people.
> 
> The things you guys say about you husbands don't apply to most men in the real world... it is just your opinion of what you think they think, based on a false assumption.
> 
> Chance are they tell you 'whatever you want to hear' for a quiet life. i.e.
> 
> "Yes, Dear." "That's nice, dear."


What I find fascinating in all of these convos with Dvls, is that he's YOUNGER and actually DATING while they're married some as long as 20+ years.

Dvls dates younger women and they're all upset. Dvls get women in bed and they're all upset..


lol,

Kinda sounds like a few people are having a mid life crisis to me...


----------



## Created2Write

Sandfly said:


> I can see how much of what he posts doesn't apply to the majority 45+ crowd on TAM. He's talking about younger, more easily influenced people.
> 
> The things you guys say about you husbands don't apply to most men in the real world... it is just your opinion of what you think they think, based on a false assumption.
> 
> Chance are they tell you 'whatever you want to hear' for a quiet life. i.e.
> 
> "Yes, Dear."


Chances are, you don't know our husbands. Not every man is a gutless wimp, but I'm sure it's comforting to think they are.


----------



## Created2Write

I find it fascinating that nearly every man in this thread thinks they know all there is to know about every woman's sexual desire, and how it relates to every man on this planet. I think it's wishful thinking...they really know very little about female sexuality and how it relates to men, so they have to compensate by acting like they do. Like the short man syndrome. 

Because God forbid there are any individuals in this world.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Ummmm,

I think that almost 16 pages ago, all the men on the thread concluded that female sexuality was a mystery to men and it would also remain so...


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> What I find fascinating in all of these convos with Dvls, is that he's YOUNGER and actually DATING while they're married some as long as 20+ years.
> 
> Dvls dates younger women and they're all upset. Dvls get women in bed and they're all upset..
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> Kinda sounds like a few people are having a mid life crisis to me...


Yes indeed,

Some of the posts, a small minority, directed at Dvls reek of ill manners and spite. 

Here's some examples:

"Not every man is a gutless wimp, but I'm sure it's comforting to think they are."

"Just ramble on and go along with your games, dear."

"It is tiresome treading through your posts when you act like you're the final word on male to female interactions."

No wonder charm schools are going out of business.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I wonder why you think you are the only one who has an opinion that is valid? Did you not see where I said "NO, NOT EVERY GUY SHOULD DO THIS"? Ignore that and just ramble on and go along with your games, dear.


Why is it any discussion of your opinion is invalidating you? Are we not allowed to discuss the merits of your opinion?

You said it should be said if its authentic did you not? Am I mistaking you? I'm saying that even if it is authentic, if it is said it will likely mean everything ends there... even though if had he just kept his mouth shut everything might have proceeded along nicely and they eventually get married. It seems an awfully large gamble on her being the 1 out of 100 that finds saying such a thing on the first date endearing.

Not saying you want to marry someone on the first date, even if that's what you're feeling, is not inauthentic. Its a prudent recognition of just how creepy a woman is likely to think that is. Not saying it is GAME. He wants to marry her, and he knows saying this right now is very likely to send her running for the hills where it wouldn't perhaps even 6 months from now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So one more time, Dvls...I did NOT say that all men should always do this or always do that. There are varying circumstances, there are varying people in play, there are different times that one thing will work and another will not. So your "not saying you want to marry someone on the first date" is just your refusal to see past what I'm really saying and try instead to claim that I said that all cases are the same, I guess? I did not and I don't think that. You can't seem to see in anything except black and white, so I'm not surprised.

In almost every case, I still say being authentic is best. Whether or not that includes mentioning marriage on a first date or not is neither here nor there...but of course, you'll com back to that one thing and pick it apart more because you'll still be hung up on that one thing...black and white.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Sandfly said:


> I can see how much of what he posts doesn't apply to the majority 45+ crowd on TAM. He's talking about younger, more easily influenced people.
> 
> The things you guys say about you husbands don't apply to most men in the real world... *it is just your opinion of what you think they think, based on a false assumption.
> 
> Chance are they tell you 'whatever you want to hear' for a quiet life. i.e.
> 
> "Yes, Dear." "That's nice, dear."*


I hope you are not talking about me here ????... I wish the heck my H liked to post more himself .......he just doesn't get into forums... or care much for writing....but he could speak for himself...we talk very deeply about many many issues... Some of the questions I find on TAM ...we bounce back & forth....keeps us entertained....and we learn about ourselves too.

It's not a "yes dear" scenario by any means.. I would even like him to be MORE DIRTY & HOUND DOGGISH to be honest!... and he knows THIS...so I surely don't think he is downplaying anything ...or my not "getting him" for the way he is...


----------



## Trying2figureitout

ReformedHubby said:


> Your post summarizes the problem with this thread. Everyone wants to place each gender into a one size fits all pigeonhole. We're way more complicated than that, and what an individual may or may not want from a perspective mate depends on many variables.


"I have a headache tonight" is ONLY attributed to the female of our species.

I can certainly generalize on this issue and be 100% correct...sure there are exceptions but AS A WHOLE I am correct and many of us are married to an AS A WHOLE female group member...hence these non-stop forums of sex issues... I will go so far to say that this difference in desire is responsible for most of the sexless marriages regardless which spouse is holding out on the other.

Quit pretending it isn't gender specific and just maybe we can find real solutions to the HUGE difference in "desire" between genders as a whole.
Again I am not looking down on females but I will point out the disparity...its as blue as the sky.
Perhaps men are the issue being oversexed

Anyhow there is typically a move to meet the female desire level and that is plain wrong when there are two involved and the wheels come off at years 15,16,17,18

Don't pigeon hole me into being the same desire as an average female over time...I have history on my side and testosterone

Its not complicated the genders ARE different..newsflash


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I hope you are not talking about me here ????... I wish the heck my H liked to post more himself .......he just doesn't get into forums... or care much for writing....but he could speak for himself...we talk very deeply about many many issues... Some of the questions I find on TAM ...we bounce back & forth....keeps us entertained....and we learn about ourselves too.
> 
> It's not a "yes dear" scenario by any means.. I would even like him to be MORE DIRTY & HOUND DOGGISH to be honest... and he knows THIS...so I surely don't think he is downplaying anything ...or my not "getting him" for the way he is...


He's jabbing at me and FW, trying to get us riled up and upset.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So you don't believe women want authenticity? Transparency?


I would love it if life actually reliably played out that way... it doesn't. A man who says he wants to marry a woman on the first date, isn't very likely to get a second date. It raises all kinds of red flags for most women.

His not *OVERSHARING* this information is not inauthentic. Its a recognition of just how creepy it is likely to be to her. If he actually wants to marry her, he will hold on to that for a more appropriate time.

While he is saying he wants to marry her, most women will hear "I'm a desperate, needy guy who will either tell a woman anything (carrot) or will marry the first person who shows me some attention". While a man approaching a woman he doesn't know for a date may say "you're beautiful", she is likely to hear "I only want your body".

Either way, he is rejected for reasons that weren't even HIM, but by her associations.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have no idea why the marriages of the women on this thread would be called into question?

Just because some of you guys like to debate, willingly, on an open forum, with women who willingly like to debate, and typically we are not agreeing with each other...how does this then become "your husband probably doesn't even really say that, you have made false assumptions".

I mean, really?

I don't really like some of the guys around here but I have no feelings of ill will toward their wives, nor do I think the men who I disagree with here are somehow lying about their own marriages or ignorant about how their wives really are.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I would love it if life actually reliably played out that way... it doesn't.


So.....no, you don't think women want authenticity. 

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Faithful Wife

See, there he is again...stuck on the "marriage on the first date thing". 

Black and white.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Guys with hard-ons are a dime a dozen. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a guy with a hard on.


lol, where was this when we were discussing whether men or women have the greater desire?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> What I find fascinating in all of these convos with Dvls, is that he's YOUNGER and actually DATING while they're married some as long as 20+ years.
> 
> Dvls dates younger women and they're all upset. Dvls get women in bed and they're all upset..
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> Kinda sounds like a few people are having a mid life crisis to me...


CM, perhaps you didn't see my post to you, so I will copy it again to you here:

Post # 72 from the locked “multidating” thread:

What is REALLY interesting CM, is that when I was new here, you were all over me...PM'ing me....hanging up lots of "I AGREE!!!" signs after all of my posts. 

You were reading my blog, told me you enjoyed it and agreed with it...

But then suddenly, all of that changed.

When was that?

After a bout of posts where I disagreed with some of the things you were saying.

Suddenly, you no longer agreed with anything I say, and you started going out of your way to chase me around the board just to disagree with me. You and your friend Sandfly appear to be waiting around just to try to mock me (although to give him credit, at least he never tried to pretend like he liked me first)

I can't help but think that you suddenly disliked me and can't wait to mock me BECAUSE I disagreed with you. I'm super sorry you can't handle disagreement but I don't see why you have to chase me around anymore...I never even talk to you or respond to your posts or threads, EVEN when you mock me over and over.

I decided to finally say something because I just felt it was so odd that you, again, had to rush in to try to mock me and especially since you ended your post with "interesting"....

Yes, it sure is interesting.

(end quote)

And to this I will add...gee, suggesting that we are having a mid-life crisis, just because you for some reason disagree with things I'm saying here?

Why? How is that even relevant to broadly insult us for no reason?

It sure doesn't make you look like you have integrity, that's for sure.


----------



## Sandfly

None of my critical comments are directed at you, SA. 

I think you're a consistently positive and interesting poster.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So.....no, you don't think women want authenticity.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.


If the difference between eventually marrying a guy and not marrying a guy hinges on whether he says he wants to marry her on date one... I'd say no, women don't want THAT kind of authenticity - because you read so much more into it than what was said.


----------



## Created2Write

You're focused on what was meant as an example, rather than the actual point of that example. And, just so you know, women _do_ want authenticity. Some women wouldn't want to think about marriage on a first date, or even a thirteenth date. Others, like me, would have no issue with it whatsoever. 

You sound very ignorant when you make such grand assumptions about such a wide variety of people.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I find it fascinating that nearly every man in this thread thinks they know all there is to know about every woman's sexual desire, and how it relates to every man on this planet. I think it's wishful thinking...they really know very little about female sexuality and how it relates to men, so they have to compensate by acting like they do. Like the short man syndrome.
> 
> Because God forbid there are any individuals in this world.


I've said this before, I don't know jack about what you desire. I'm intuiting explanations of WHY something I know WORKS or doesn't work. The explanations are pure entertainment. All I really care about is what works.

What's hilarious is how often I see women advocate behavior that I've repeatedly proven does NOT work, and I've seen them adamantly oppose behavior that I know DOES work.

Then we have the "nice guys", who are the poster children for trying to do what women claim to want, and they can't figure out why they're sexless.

And any time you draw a couple lines together that show some coherences and reliability, women trot out "individuals!!!!" If it was all individuality, what works would be a total crap shoot! Its not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You're focused on what was meant as an example, rather than the actual point of that example. And, just so you know, women _do_ want authenticity. Some women wouldn't want to think about marriage on a first date, or even a thirteenth date. Others, like me, would have no issue with it whatsoever.
> 
> You sound very ignorant when you make such grand assumptions about such a wide variety of people.


I'm not worried about the 1 out of the 100. I have 99 reasons not to.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Although I can say being hit with a dead animal when aroused is pretty much a desire killer. They won't have that hard on for long.


Can't fathom why. You boys, so sensitive. 

Every little thing and your desire just evaporates.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> In almost every case, I still say being authentic is best. Whether or not that includes mentioning marriage on a first date or not is neither here nor there.


What is that? Authentic is best. Maybe?

If you don't like the marriage example now, how about my compliment example. Why doesn't that work? (and trust me, it doesn't)

It doesn't work because she reads far more into it than is actually there. She assumes all he'll ever want is her body... which is pretty retarded, given that all he knows at that point is her body.


----------



## Created2Write

"What works" for _you_, and on the women _you_ pursue. You're operating under the assumption that every woman is basically the same, and want basically the same things at any given time. _That_ is why I mention that we're individuals. Cause, "what works" for you and on the women you pursue would _never_ work with me. I don't think it would work with FW, either. Or AA. Or SA. And we are as about as different as different can get.

That doesn't mean that what you're saying would never work. I'm sure it has worked for you many times over. It just means that there are women in this world who would be turned off by "what works" for you. So they wouldn't be women for you.


----------



## Created2Write

You're fooling yourself if you think most women don't want an authentic man.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls, I'm sure you are successful at dating. I have no issues with what you do or think. How's that?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol, where was this when we were discussing whether men or women have the greater desire?


Caribbean Man already posted the gender flipped version for you.

And the links to the research supporting the conclusions hat female desire and sexual fantasy are on par with men's have already been posted.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

I think all women are attracted to a certain type of guy... I will use my wife as an example she is considered HOT LOOKING and is tone as can be going to the gym everyday and was attracted to me the poster nice guy... she has had many options to leave me and hasn't..this takes her off the market of Alpha Males even her EA partner was a NICE GUY.

Sure I am in a sexless marriage still but the reality is my wife IS attracted to me and the nice guy type OTHERWISE she would be attracted to other alpha males and she isn't..she has EVERY opportunity with my encouragement to leave and makes enough to do so yet she stays with me drama and everything.

So the moral is nice guys do get the women and I will put my wife up against any alpha male wife for a comparison nice guys do get the HOT chicks... in the end its up to the woman what type of guy she marries...they are all different.


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> What I find fascinating in all of these convos with Dvls, is that he's YOUNGER and actually DATING while they're married some as long as 20+ years.
> 
> Dvls dates younger women and they're all upset. Dvls get women in bed and they're all upset..
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> Kinda sounds like a few people are having a mid life crisis to me...


I agree with Dvls pretty often I think. I've even done it in this thread.

I think that he has tunnel vision though and takes his experience with a pretty narrow subset and extrapolates it incorrectly to every woman everywhere. It's annoying. And he also needs to learn to edit and get his point across in fewer words.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> He's jabbing at me and FW, trying to get us riled up and upset.


I think many men here would assume that if the wife is a very assertive one (myself, C2W and FW I am so sure)... that our H's may DOWNPLAY how they feel at times.....I am not even going to disagree with that in many cases, it keeps them out of the dog house...let's get real... most people are not perfectly honest..

Even my own husband downplayed how he felt in the past, wanting more sex... so he's guilty too!! .. though today I don't feel any of that is going on....we've talked about the past & our mistakes awfully thoroughly. 

I believe FW is for *Radical Honesty* (taken from Marriage Builders).....the fact her & H's have volatile fights (on my conflict thread)... in my opinion, shows they are communicating it ALL, being laid out there...even the bad in the moment...

Me & mine are another radical honesty couple.. Love it, wouldn't change it... I tend to take more of what they say to heart.. We just don't BS people... Some of us really thrive on transparency...all we can do is offer our perspectives as best we can.. 

Hey C2W...your Husband has posted here before, get him on here...let him speak for himself...



> *Sandfly said* : None of my critical comments are directed at you, SA.
> 
> I think you're a consistently positive *and interesting poster*.


 I like the interesting part... I try to offer different perspectives ...











> *Created2write said: *"What works" for you, and on the women you pursue. You're operating under the assumption that every woman is basically the same, and want basically the same things at any given time. That is why I mention that we're individuals. Cause, "what works" for you and on the women you pursue would never work with me. I don't think it would work with FW, either. Or AA. Or SA. And we are as about as different as different can get.
> 
> That doesn't mean that what you're saying would never work. I'm sure it has worked for you many times over. It just means that there are women in this world who would be turned off by "what works" for you. So they wouldn't be women for you.


 Everything about the







and his lifestyle bothers me... I could sit here and give an outline of disgust...from being Unemotional - to as romantic as a stone...c0ck full of pick up lines and he argues a time line for being authentic... we need to hold THAT back.. but not our body parts.. 

You just gotta appreciate that somehow.. as if the dude who is a little anxious & gets carried away with his mouth -is somehow worse than the one who gets carried away with his C0ck then dumps the chick.. 

Uh huh...... In comparison...I'd lean more towards the Romantic sap who can't contain his Oneitis who is looking to marry ...and thinks I'm "the one"... if he's cute , we had a great time, we connected....his saying that would not deter me from another date (unless I thought he was crazy or a stalker)... Sure I would think he's getting way ahead of himself -he CAN'T know that..but I'd speak that too...right then & there... though I wouldn't NOT have another date over it...it would take more than that...

If he was into casual sex, he wouldn't get another date, however.


----------



## Dollystanford

Mentioning marriage on the first date? Yeah I'll leave it thanks


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dolly...that was one example of *one person* I know...and no one here advocates that anyone should do this on some kind of regular basis.

But if you want to go by Dvls many posts about it...it would seem that someone here is saying all men should do this.

However, no one has said that.

Just trying to make this clear.


----------



## Created2Write

It seems to me like many of the men here are operating under the impression that women have a natural aversion to sex, and that, somehow, a man's desire for sex makes them feel disgusted? I've known a couple girls in my life who would have jumped at the chance to have NSA sex with men who approached them. The guy could have said, "You're hot...let's f---" and they'd have grinned and taken him to the bathroom. 

It's _not_ the man's sexual desire or motivation that bothers _me_. It's the idea that a man has no other reason or purpose for getting to know a woman. Sure, in the singles scene a man approaching a complete stranger, the chances of him seeking friendship first is probably low. But there are many other "scenes" where men and women mingle and get to know each other, and in those I absolutely think a man can get to know a woman for friendship first. 

As for female desire, it depends on the woman. Some women never have much of an interest in sex, some are insatiable. Some women are open to threesomes and orges, others prefer hot sex with a guy they're committed to. Some women like having sex in very public places, some prefer privacy. Some women grow into their sexuality very quickly, some never fully understand it in its entirety. Some women can have NSA sex, some wouldn't even consider it. Some women use sex to get a commitment, some would never manipulate a man with sex. And there are more. This doesn't mean female desire is at all unreliable, it means there all many different kinds of sexual desire, and many different levels of sexual desire. It's not something to fear or try to change or try to deny, but rather something everyone should seek to understand.


----------



## Created2Write

I've tried to get DH to post more often. He works 12+ hour days now, and has been for months so he doesn't get on the computer at all. Not even to change his FB status. Besides, if he came on here now and posted his opinion, Sandfly would accuse him of "just trying to make me happy".


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> It seems to me like many of the men here are operating under the impression that women have a natural aversion to sex, and that, somehow, a man's desire for sex makes them feel disgusted? I've known a couple girls in my life who would have jumped at the chance to have NSA sex with men who approached them. The guy could have said, "You're hot...let's f---" and they'd have grinned and taken him to the bathroom.
> 
> It's _not_ the man's sexual desire or motivation that bothers _me_. It's the idea that a man has no other reason or purpose for getting to know a woman. Sure, in the singles scene a man approaching a complete stranger, the chances of him seeking friendship first is probably low. But there are many other "scenes" where men and women mingle and get to know each other, and in those I absolutely think a man can get to know a woman for friendship first.
> 
> As for female desire, it depends on the woman. Some women never have much of an interest in sex, some are insatiable. Some women are open to threesomes and orges, others prefer hot sex with a guy they're committed to. Some women like having sex in very public places, some prefer privacy. Some women grow into their sexuality very quickly, some never fully understand it in its entirety. Some women can have NSA sex, some wouldn't even consider it. Some women use sex to get a commitment, some would never manipulate a man with sex. And there are more. This doesn't mean female desire is at all unreliable, it means there all many different kinds of sexual desire, and many different levels of sexual desire. It's not something to fear or try to change or try to deny, but rather something everyone should seek to understand.


And male sexual desire is SIMPLE easy to understand.

Take any male on the planet and ask why they want sex and you will get a VERY consistent answer

I think the reason woman's desire is so multifaceted is you are trying to rationalize why it is *less* to make it more mysterious when in reality its JUST LESS

Lets face it women's desire on average <<<< any mans

Thats it end of story

Its like the scientists trying to explain the universe with 37 dimensions..

We all know the real answer is simpler we just haven't found it.

Sort of like Copernicus and his view of the universe until Einstein came along then we all look at the simpler model and go yup that's the way gravity works


----------



## Created2Write

Lyris said:


> I agree with Dvls pretty often I think. I've even done it in this thread.
> 
> I think that he has tunnel vision though and takes his experience with a pretty narrow subset and extrapolates it incorrectly to every woman everywhere. It's annoying. *And he also needs to learn to edit and get his point across in fewer words.*


Yep. This. And I'm guilty of the bold as well. lol. But at least my username gives you fair warning.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> That doesn't mean that what you're saying would never work. I'm sure it has worked for you many times over. It just means that there are women in this world who would be turned off by "what works" for you. So they wouldn't be women for you.


This is true, but don't forget that such women are of no interest whatsoever to Dvl's. If it weren't for TAM, we'd be utterly and completely invisible to him, as we're not what he's after. 

What works for him in the pool he's playing in is all he cares about. 

The only sad part is that he (and others) are then passing this "info" off to others as the gospel truth --and manage to systematically ignore any and all examples to the contrary with a bunch of made up stats --even those put forward *by* men from a *male* perspective (where the "you're a stupid girl and he's just lying to you to tell you what you want to hear" argument no longer holds) .


----------



## Dollystanford

Oh I don't usually manage to get through his posts, I have the attention span of a fruit fly. No offence darling


----------



## Created2Write

Trying2, I'm not going around that circle with you again. Male sexual is different than female desire, caused by different sexual hormones, but when it comes to sexual drive and whose is higher, that is dependent on the individual. Period.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> This is true, but don't forget that such women are of no interest whatsoever to Dvl's. If it weren't for TAM, we'd be utterly and completely invisible to him, as we're not what he's after.
> 
> What works for him in the pool he's playing in is all he cares about.
> 
> The only sad part is that he (and others) are then passing this "info" off to others as the gospel truth --and manage to systematically ignore any and all examples to the contrary with a bunch of made up stats --even those put forward *by* men from a *male* perspective (where the "you're a stupid girl and he's just lying to you to tell you what you want to hear" argument no longer holds) .


Yep. I know. That's why I mentioned that there are many different scenes where men and women mingle, and they aren't all focused on sex. But for someone who is only interested in the sex they can get and from whom, those scenes wouldn't be of use. Nothing wrong that, until you deny they exist at all.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> Trying2, I'm not going around that circle with you again. Male sexual is different than female desire, caused by different sexual hormones, but when it comes to sexual drive and whose is higher, that is dependent on the individual. Period.


sure it is and has NOTHING to do with gender at all...not sure how you can type it with a straight face


----------



## Created2Write

I don't believe it has anything to do with gender. And when you find a woman who _is_ sexual, you'll realize that too. I hope.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> I don't believe it has anything to do with gender. And when you find a woman who _is_ sexual, you'll realize that too. I hope.


"I have a headache tonight" and I rest my case

IT IS GENDER!
You are being obtuse in thinking it has no effect...and you claim to be a good writer.

Open your eyes


----------



## Created2Write

Your wife's stupid excuses does not a case make. There are women who don't make excuses for not wanting to sleep with their husbands. There are even women who actually LOVE sex. Some of us can't wait to rip off our husband's clothes and take him. I have never turned my husband down for sex.


----------



## always_alone

Trying2figureitout said:


> And male sexual desire is SIMPLE easy to understand.
> 
> Take any male on the planet and ask why they want sex and you will get a VERY consistent answer
> 
> I think the reason woman's desire is so multifaceted is you are trying to rationalize why it is *less* to make it more mysterious when in reality its JUST LESS
> 
> Lets face it women's desire on average <<<< any mans
> 
> Thats it end of story


Actually, I think you're the one caught in "the world is flat" thinking.

Many men have low and inconsistent drives, and there's plenty of evidence of that right here on TAM. 

And research shows that when it comes to sexual attitudes and behaviours, there are no differences in kind between men and women. Variation is individual, not gendered.


----------



## Created2Write

ROFL. I don't believe that sexual drive is determined by gender, and that makes me a bad writer? I guess I missed that class in college...


----------



## Trying2figureitout

always_alone said:


> Actually, I think you're the one caught in "the world is flat" thinking.
> 
> Many men have low and inconsistent drives, and there's plenty of evidence of that right here on TAM.
> 
> And research shows that when it comes to sexual attitudes and behaviours, there are no differences in kind between men and women. Variation is individual, not gendered.


WEB MD

Sex Drive: How Do Men and Women Compare?

"*Study after study* shows that men's sex drives are not only stronger than women's, but much more straightforward. The sources of women's libidos, by contrast, are much harder to pin down."

As in where is the female drive hard to even find it
I discount your research claim


----------



## Faithful Wife

Those same figures and articles have been on that page at webmd since 2009 or so, trying...and since then, many OTHER articles and studies have been published that call into question the methods used on those old ones.

Webmd has been known to not update their articles on some important changes before, too.

They are not the one absolute authority on female sex drive, sorry.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Love how all the women gather to claim its not gender..sure I believe you... 

LOL


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Faithful Wife said:


> Those same figures and articles have been on that page at webmd since 2009 or so, trying...and since then, many OTHER articles and studies have been published that call into question the methods used on those old ones.
> 
> Webmd has been known to not update their articles on some important changes before, too.
> 
> They are not the one absolute authority on female sex drive, sorry.


Um yea you have to find the right study...sort of like finding the right lawyer to keep you out of jail


----------



## Created2Write

And out of all of us "women", _you're_ the one in a sexless marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well trying...you live in your misery then, kay? I honestly am sorry for whatever has happened to you that makes you so miserable. Honestly. Sorry. That. You. Are. Soooooo. Miserable.

Kay? Honestly.

Sorry.

YOU.

Live.

In.

Misery.

Honest.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> And out of all of us "women", _you're_ the one in a sexless marriage.


Sure am so what?..that does not change female versus male desire differences if anything it supports it


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Faithful Wife said:


> Well trying...you live in your misery then, kay? I honestly am sorry for whatever has happened to you that makes you so miserable. Honestly. Sorry. That. You. Are. Soooooo. Miserable.
> 
> Kay? Honestly.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> YOU.
> 
> Live.
> 
> In.
> 
> Misery.
> 
> Honest.


I'm anything but miserable... I just find it hilarious you all claim its not gender..it is!!!!


----------



## Fozzy

Created2Write said:


> So you don't believe women want authenticity? Transparency?


Transparency is important, but the trust necessary for complete openness must be earned. Some guy who spills all of his innermost feelings and secrets on the first date is setting himself up for trouble (a woman, same thing). What has the object of his attention done to deserve such trust at that point? I'm not saying be deceitful, i'm just saying guard your heart until you've established trust.

Besides, what would you talk about on the 2nd date?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy, no one has said that a guy should "spill all his innermost feelings and secrets on the first date".


----------



## Fozzy

Letting a person know that you have them in your crosshairs for marriage comes pretty close, imo.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy...one more time.

I gave ONE EXAMPLE of someone I know personally where that happened.

And neither me nor anyone else here has said that "men should do this".

Some of the women commented on whether or not they would like that or not...but no one is suggesting men do this nor suggesting that they "spill all their innermost feelings and secrets on the first date".


----------



## Created2Write

In case you didn't read the article this thread was based on:

The truth about female desire: It’s base, animalistic and ravenous - Salon.com

And here's another: What Do Women Really Want? | Psychology Today

"...more recent studies show that gender differences in reported number of sexual partners are reduced or disappear altogether if women are told that they are connected to a lie detector and that the information they provide will remain confidential. In other words, when women feel safe enough or otherwise compelled to tell the truth about their sexual behavior, the story they tell more closely resembles the male story.

Moreover, if women believe that they will not be harmed and that the sex will be good, their willingness to engage in casual sex equals that of men."

And if you were to do a search about women liking sex, you'd find a million more examples, including dozens upon dozens where wives want sex more than their husbands.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trying2figureitout said:


> I'm anything but miserable... I just find it hilarious you all claim its not gender..it is!!!!


I totally believe you that you're not miserable.


----------



## Fozzy

I'm totally miserable and I don't believe it!


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sorry you are miserable, too, Fozzy.

For realz.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> In case you didn't read the article this thread was based on:
> 
> The truth about female desire: It’s base, animalistic and ravenous - Salon.com
> 
> And here's another: What Do Women Really Want? | Psychology Today
> 
> "...more recent studies show that gender differences in reported number of sexual partners are reduced or disappear altogether if women are told that they are connected to a lie detector and that the information they provide will remain confidential. In other words, when women feel safe enough or otherwise compelled to tell the truth about their sexual behavior, the story they tell more closely resembles the male story.
> 
> Moreover, if women believe that they will not be harmed and that the sex will be good, their willingness to engage in casual sex equals that of men."
> 
> And if you were to do a search about women liking sex, you'd find a million more examples, including dozens upon dozens where wives want sex more than their husbands.


dozens upon dozens out of millions got it...seriously stop you are proving my point


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry you are miserable, too, Fozzy.
> 
> For realz.


Do you believe me?


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Faithful Wife said:


> I totally believe you that you're not miserable.


How can I be miserable when proving this whole thread wrong..the truth is females have much less desire for sex on average...end of discussion.

Study after study say so

A thread on female desire is almost ludicrous..of course there are those dozens exceptions


----------



## Created2Write

Trying, your wife, who is _*one woman*_ out of millions and millions of other women just in this country alone, does not prove that sexual drive is a gender issue. I pity you. I really do. Because not only are you completely celibate in a marriage where your wife is taking advantage of you, you also refuse to accept that life can be and _is_ better than that for many, many people. Until you can recognize that you don't have to live a celibate life, you will be stuck where you have been for....what is it going on, six years now? 

I have never turned my husband down for sex. Ever.


----------



## samyeagar

Anecdotaly, every woman I have ever been with has had a very consistant drive on par with what is stereotypically associated with men, and my STBW's is off the charts. Beyond the intellectual curiosity of finding common threads, making generalizations is of no benefit in my relationship because ultimately it's all and only about us.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

therosenberg said:


> Yeah, I know.
> 
> You sound so happy and bubbly.


:rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

Trying2figureitout said:


> dozens upon dozens out of millions got it...seriously stop you are proving my point


Millions of women _who love sex_, *"including"* dozens and dozens who are in marriages where they want sex more than their husbands.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> Trying, your wife, who is _*one woman*_ out of millions and millions of other women just in this country alone, does not prove that sexual drive is a gender issue. I pity you. I really do. Because not only are you completely celibate in a marriage where your wife is taking advantage of you, you also refuse to accept that life can be and _is_ better than that for many, many people. Until you can recognize that you don't have to live a celibate life, you will be stuck where you have been for....what is it going on, six years now?
> 
> I have never turned my husband down for sex. Ever.


Ok she is one and LOOK AROUND read all these threads its so darn common its every new thread basically.

Oh look another no sex in a marriage thread gee who would have guessed?

No sex threads...

1. Either a woman withholding sex like mine

OR 

2. A Guy who gave up on sex with the woman who was not meeting his sexual need and went for porn or cheated


Did I hit 90% of them?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trying2figureitout said:


> How can I be miserable when proving this whole thread wrong..the truth is females have much less desire for sex on average...end of discussion.
> 
> Study after study say so
> 
> A thread on female desire is almost ludicrous..of course there are those dozens exceptions


No matter what is true for any other woman in the world, YOUR WIFE has no desire or at least isn't having sex with you for whatever reason.

I have no reason to debate with you what it is like for the rest of the world. Go on and think whatever you want.

I'm still sorry for YOUR sitch.


----------



## Created2Write

And what about the many threads where the women have the higher sexual drive? What about the threads where the husband and wife are equally paired sexually? Or do those posts not count since your marriage doesn't fit those descriptions?


----------



## Created2Write

Fozzy said:


> Transparency is important, but the trust necessary for complete openness must be earned. Some guy who spills all of his innermost feelings and secrets on the first date is setting himself up for trouble (a woman, same thing). What has the object of his attention done to deserve such trust at that point? I'm not saying be deceitful, i'm just saying guard your heart until you've established trust.
> 
> Besides, what would you talk about on the 2nd date?


I don't disagree with this. But trust isn't earned at the same rate for everyone.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> And what about the many threads where the women have the higher sexual drive? What about the threads where the husband and wife are equally paired sexually? Or do those posts not count since your marriage doesn't fit those descriptions?


Yes the other 10%


----------



## samyeagar

Trying2figureitout said:


> Ok she is one and LOOK AROUND read all these threads its so darn common its every new thread basically.
> 
> Oh look another no sex in a marriage thread gee who would have guessed?
> 
> 1. Either a woman withholding sex like mine
> 
> OR
> 
> 2. A Guy who gave up on sex with the woman who was not meeting his sexual need and went for porn or cheated
> 
> 
> Did I hit 90% of them?


Of course you will see a lot of those...that is the entire point of that board, and threads about having great sex aren't allowed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

T2, would you rather prove us wrong, or have awesome, fulfilling sex for the rest of your life?


----------



## Trying2figureitout

created2write said:


> t2, would you rather prove us wrong, or have awesome, fulfilling sex for the rest of your life?



both


----------



## Trying2figureitout

therosenberg said:


> Hah. You're just being childish now.


No I'm not


----------



## Faithful Wife

We here at TAM are used to trying2firgureit...he is a special case. He will not budge from his position. He has a plan. It is what it is.


----------



## Created2Write

This is one forum. Out of thousands about marriage, dating, and sexual hookups. Besides the fact that your situation is awful, you aren't proving anything.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> We here at TAM are used to trying2firgureit...he is a special case. He will not budge from his position. He has a plan. It is what it is.


A four year plan that hasn't resolved anything in nearly six years. 

But yes, he knows all there is to know about female sexual desire.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Faithful Wife said:


> We here at TAM are used to trying2firgureit...he is a special case. He will not budge from his position. He has a plan. It is what it is.


Very common situation I am just one of the vocal ones exposing it for what it is and trying to blow up la la land advice...that get us nowhere..lets start with the premise female desire <<<< male desire and go from there.


----------



## Lyris

Faithful Wife said:


> CM, perhaps you didn't see my post to you, so I will copy it again to you here:
> 
> Post # 72 from the locked “multidating” thread:
> 
> What is REALLY interesting CM, is that when I was new here, you were all over me...PM'ing me....hanging up lots of "I AGREE!!!" signs after all of my posts.
> 
> You were reading my blog, told me you enjoyed it and agreed with it...
> 
> But then suddenly, all of that changed.
> 
> When was that?
> 
> After a bout of posts where I disagreed with some of the things you were saying.
> 
> Suddenly, you no longer agreed with anything I say, and you started going out of your way to chase me around the board just to disagree with me. You and your friend Sandfly appear to be waiting around just to try to mock me (although to give him credit, at least he never tried to pretend like he liked me first)
> 
> I can't help but think that you suddenly disliked me and can't wait to mock me BECAUSE I disagreed with you. I'm super sorry you can't handle disagreement but I don't see why you have to chase me around anymore...I never even talk to you or respond to your posts or threads, EVEN when you mock me over and over.
> 
> I decided to finally say something because I just felt it was so odd that you, again, had to rush in to try to mock me and especially since you ended your post with "interesting"....
> 
> Yes, it sure is interesting.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> And to this I will add...gee, suggesting that we are having a mid-life crisis, just because you for some reason disagree with things I'm saying here?
> 
> Why? How is that even relevant to broadly insult us for no reason?
> 
> It sure doesn't make you look like you have integrity, that's for sure.


:iagree:

I've noticed that to, but only with women.



And I haven't forgotten that particularly bullsh*t move where you accused me of having said in a past thread that a scientific study 'proved' something, basically calling me a hypocrite and a liar, and then refused to provide the post as proof. 

So not only did you call my integrity into dispute, you also refused me the opportunity to correct myself if what you were saying was true. And you hid behind a pseudo-noble 'not wanting to make the thread personal'. 

I lost all respect for you and your opinions at that moment.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Of course you will see a lot of those...that is the entire point of that board, and threads about having great sex aren't allowed.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is true. I once started a thread on the perfect female orgasm and it was deleted right away for violating the rules.


----------



## always_alone

Lyris, this is so off topic, but I just wanted to say that I love your sig, and have a very strong desire to plagiarize it.

(oh goody, it was about female desire after all).


----------



## Trying2figureitout

always_alone said:


> Lyris, this is so off topic, but I just wanted to say that I love your sig, and have a very strong desire to plagiarize it.
> 
> (oh goody, it was about female desire after all).


"offering nothing of substance since _December_ 2012"

There no plagerism


----------



## Created2Write

T2, you're right. You're absolutely right. I guess I should tell my husband that I can't initiate sex any more, since women don't desire sex as much as men do; I'll have to tell him that we can only do the Missionary position from now on, since women don't think about sex as much as men do; I'll have to tell him that I can't send him dirty pics and text messages anymore, since women don't want the same sexual things as men; I'll have to explain that I can't strip for him anymore, and that we can't make anymore videos, and that we can't actually install the pole in our bedroom, and that we have to keep the lights off from now on, and that anal is off the list from now on, and that he shouldn't expect anymore BJ's, and that lingerie and handcuffs and roleplay are all over with, since women just don't enjoy sex as much. 

I'll let him know. Thank you for setting me straight. I'm sure this will improve our sex life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Acutally Lyris....a guy PM'd me and said he did it to him, too...so not just women. Just people who disagree with him.


----------



## Lyris

It's even better if you know where it came from. See the Dollyris thread in Social.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> T2, you're right. You're absolutely right. I guess I should tell my husband that I can't initiate sex any more, since women don't desire sex as much as men do; I'll have to tell him that we can only do the Missionary position from now on, since women don't think about sex as much as men do; I'll have to tell him that I can't send him dirty pics and text messages anymore, since women don't want the same sexual things as men; I'll have to explain that I can't strip for him anymore, and that we can't make anymore videos, and that we can't actually install the pole in our bedroom, and that we have to keep the lights off from now on, and that anal is off the list from now on, and that he shouldn't expect anymore BJ's, and that lingerie and handcuffs and roleplay are all over with, since women just don't enjoy sex as much.
> 
> I'll let him know. Thank you for setting me straight. I'm sure this will improve our sex life.



Yup.. you are an exception better conform I'm sure you have some other quirk to make up for the "good sex partner" part of you

Plus people tend to embellish online or in surveys


----------



## Created2Write

Trying2figureitout said:


> Yup.. you are an exception better conform I'm sure you have some other quirk to make up for the "good sex partner" part of you
> 
> Plus people tend to embellish online or in surveys


:lol::rofl::lol:

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because I love sex with my husband, there _must_ be something else about me that makes me insufferable? 

Guess I'll let my husband now that he has to choose between great sex, or a respectful woman. I didn't know it had to be one or the other. rofl.


----------



## FrenchFry

therosenberg said:


> Really?
> 
> I didn't know that!
> 
> How come?
> 
> Shouldn't we able to share our good experiences just as we share the bad ones?


I believe the reasoning is that good stories tend to be both titillating and ripe for Dear Penhouse-ing.

There was ways to not have that, the one that has been chosen is to make it a board for problems instead of high-fives.

It stops a lot of the stories, but it absolutely creates a sub-forum that looks like all marriages are sexless and miserable. When...it's obviously not the case.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes it is a conspiracy all of us women have with each other, to lie about our sex lives online....just to....um what would be the reason? Oh right! Just to give you some fuel, trying. That's it. We are lying about our lives just so you can go "you're lying, I don't believe you, women don't like sex".

Aren't you glad you have us liars around to make your point?


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Created2Write said:


> :lol::rofl::lol:
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because I love sex with my husband, there _must_ be something else about me that makes me insufferable?
> 
> Guess I'll let my husband now that he has to choose between great sex, or a respectful woman. I didn't know it had to be one or the other. rofl.


Obviously you are obtuse to reality so there is something weird already and you seem to go on and on...

and you fib you said you wouldn't go round and round with me

Bet that isn't your picture either and not even close


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it is a conspiracy all of us women have with each other, to lie about our sex lives online....just to....um what would be the reason? Oh right! Just to give you some fuel, trying. That's it. We are lying about our lives just so you can go "you're lying, I don't believe you, women don't like sex".
> 
> Aren't you glad you have us liars around to make your point?


Faithful don't blow our cover :gun:


----------



## Created2Write

We haven't gone the whole circle, yet T2. So, no fibbing.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

therosenberg said:


> Damn. That was uncalled for.
> 
> Ok, look. I'm sorry you are miserable, but blaming all women and claiming they all have some unsavory side just because you're in a bad marriage, that's pretty low.


So you have no quirks?


----------



## Trying2figureitout

therosenberg said:


> Wow.
> 
> Just wow.
> 
> I'm starting to understand your wife's headaches, all of a sudden.


She has NEVER used that line that is OTHER females


----------



## Lyris

That certainly is C2W in her avatar. She's always been totally open.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

therosenberg said:


> Damn. That was uncalled for.
> 
> Ok, look. I'm sorry you are miserable, but blaming all women and claiming they all have some unsavory side just because you're in a bad marriage, that's pretty low.


My marriage is far from bad and yes you all have some weird thing about you


----------



## Trying2figureitout

Lyris said:


> That certainly is C2W in her avatar. She's always been totally open.


Photoshopped?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it is a conspiracy all of us women have with each other, to lie about our sex lives online....just to....um what would be the reason? Oh right! Just to give you some fuel, trying. That's it. We are lying about our lives just so you can go "you're lying, I don't believe you, women don't like sex".
> 
> Aren't you glad you have us liars around to make your point?


Nah it is to make him feel better. If there are women out there who like sex, then the problem with sexless men... might... just... be... Can't say that though.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

look ladies its been fun just agree with me so I can go get my family pizza


----------



## TiggyBlue

Trying2figureitout said:


> Obviously you are obtuse to reality so there is something weird already and you seem to go on and on...
> 
> and you fib you said you wouldn't go round and round with me
> 
> *Bet that isn't your picture either and not even close*





Trying2figureitout said:


> Photoshopped?


Why go on the attack with people who don't agree with you?


----------



## Trying2figureitout

NobodySpecial said:


> Nah it is to make him feel better. If there are women out there who like sex, then the problem with sexless men... might... just... be... Can't say that though.


Dozens upon dozens


----------



## Trying2figureitout

TiggyBlue said:


> Why go on the attack on people who don't agree with you?


Stating reality with avatar pics


----------



## FrenchFry

Oh, I just let him go get his pizza.


----------



## Created2Write

I have four photo albums in my profile, if you want to keep me accountable T2.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, that was interesting. But I've been down that road with trying2 before...it always goes the same way.


----------



## Created2Write

Why would I photoshop, any way? I think I'm damn sexy.


----------



## Created2Write

Coffee!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sexy and horny, like wimmins should be!


----------



## FrenchFry

The thing is I do feel for him on a level--his situation is pretty crappy.

But he lashes out here instead of at home. It doesn't work, we aren't his wife and taking it out on the people here is not going to do anything.


----------



## Created2Write

Yes ma'am!  Gonna get some drinks tonight with DH after his relay race, and then go home, turn on all of the lights, and embarrass our cat and dog.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I feel bad for him, too. I hope one day things change for him and he comes here and gives us a happy update.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM, perhaps you didn't see my post to you, so I will copy it again to you here:
> 
> Post # 72 from the locked “multidating” thread:
> 
> *What is REALLY interesting CM, is that when I was new here, you were all over me...PM'ing me....hanging up lots of "I AGREE!!!" signs after all of my posts. *
> 
> You were reading my blog, told me you enjoyed it and agreed with it...
> 
> But then suddenly, all of that changed.
> 
> When was that?
> 
> After a bout of posts where I disagreed with some of the things you were saying.
> 
> Suddenly, you no longer agreed with anything I say, and you started going out of your way to chase me around the board just to disagree with me. You and your friend Sandfly appear to be waiting around just to try to mock me (although to give him credit, at least he never tried to pretend like he liked me first)
> 
> I can't help but think that you suddenly disliked me and can't wait to mock me BECAUSE I disagreed with you. I'm super sorry you can't handle disagreement but I don't see why you have to chase me around anymore...I never even talk to you or respond to your posts or threads, EVEN when you mock me over and over.
> 
> I decided to finally say something because I just felt it was so odd that you, again, had to rush in to try to mock me and especially since you ended your post with "interesting"....
> 
> Yes, it sure is interesting.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> And to this I will add...gee, suggesting that we are having a mid-life crisis, just because you for some reason disagree with things I'm saying here?
> 
> Why? How is that even relevant to broadly insult us for no reason?
> 
> It sure doesn't make you look like you have integrity, that's for sure.


LOl, 

" Faithful Wife ",

Lets just say that I still have some of the PM's you sent me when YOU FIRST contacted me [ They were entitled " conch."]

I still have some of the pics stream you sent me of your wedding in Hawaii, I have never asked you for pics. 
And I can give people here details of your former marriage, present marriage and your family that I NEVER asked you for.

But I won't.

_That's_ called integrity.

PS, I id see your initial post filled with lies but I chose to ignore it.
Since you brought it up here again, I had to respond.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wow...this sure snowballed... I guess I don't get the drama going on here.... :scratchhead:

Me personally.. I agreed with the Web MD study, I don't care that it's out of date... it is most evident by what I have observed in my lifetime ...just because I have a insatiable sex drive doesn't mean I think the majority do... it's not what I see at all... some of this may be the circles we run in too. 

But as in anything dealing with the human race...and gender....it's all a measurement of statistics.....just as statistics do not line up with the dynamics of me & my H... but that doesn't make something wrong with us.. I really feel my sex drive at age 42 was higher than his at age 20... 

Back to that squabble about a man who would mention marriage on a 1st date...
For the fun of it.. I asked Husband what he thought ....(Hey's home







)..... He looked at me kinda funny... and says in a staggered way ...."That is NOT Normal ...he is speaking out of his a$$.... to get in her pants"..


----------



## Created2Write

**Edit: I feel bad for him. The guy really just needs to get laid. I can't imagine feeling completely unwanted from my husband. That must do something to ones confidence. I think that's part of why he comes here, and part of why he's so determined to be right; give himself something feel good about.


----------



## Created2Write

rofl. So much for integrity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> LOl,
> 
> " Faithful Wife ",
> 
> Lets just say that I still have some of the PM's you sent me when YOU FIRST contacted me [ They were entitled " conch."]
> 
> I still have some of the pics stream you sent me, I have never asked you for pics.
> And I can give people here details of your former marriage, present marriage and your family that I NEVER asked you for.
> 
> But I won't.
> 
> _That's_ called integrity.
> 
> PS, I id see your initial post filled with lies but I chose to ignore it.
> Since you brought it up here again, I had to respond.


So I just spilled in PM's to you things you NEVER asked you for, for no reason?

It wasn't because we were being friendly and both PM'ing back and forth?

Sure.

That's it.

I was just barging into your PM box, you never wrote back to me, shared anything with me?

I do also have your PM's, like where you said you liked my blog, agreed with it, etc.

But now?

You want to paint it like I was just "bothering you". I'm just "lying" that you were friendly to me in PM's and we went back and forth. 

Uh huh, sure I'm just lying.

Strange that several other people have told me you did the same to them...were they all "bothering you", too?

Very interesting.

Again, for the record....you suddenly started following me around to disagree with me on all of my posts AFTER I dared to disagree with you a few times. THAT was when it all changed. Before that, you were pretending to me by friend apparently. I have no idea why you did that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> LOl,
> 
> " Faithful Wife ",
> 
> Lets just say that I still have some of the PM's you sent me when YOU FIRST contacted me [ They were entitled " conch."]
> 
> I still have some of the pics stream you sent me, I have never asked you for pics.
> And I can give people here details of your former marriage, present marriage and your family that I NEVER asked you for.
> 
> But I won't.
> 
> _That's_ called integrity.
> 
> PS, I id see your initial post filled with lies but I chose to ignore it.
> Since you brought it up here again, I had to respond.


Integrity would have been not posting that regardless of provocation.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> Integrity would have been not posting that regardless of provocation.


Precisely.


----------



## Faithful Wife

He's got nothing on me.

I have nothing to fear or hide.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> He's got nothing on me.
> 
> I have nothing to fear or hide.


Damn. I wanted tit shots.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And actually, although CM may have never "asked" me for pics...we were sending pics back and forth, CM was telling me where to find pics of him down in the social section. He had posted a question about people's weddings, I described my wedding where the Hawaiian guy blew a conch shell...then CM rushed in to tell me how beautiful my story was. So I PM'd him with "conch" and sent a few pics of my wedding which were on a flickr account...*which I have shared with SEVERAL other posters here*, by the way...it isn't like a big secret.

But now?

Somehow he wants to play it like I just barged in on his privacy and he didn't even want to see the pics?

Wow, CM.

Why? Why on earth would you try to paint it like this? I'm just trying to understand.

You became cold to me out of the blue after I disagreed with you on something...and now you want to try to paint me as if I had some weird motive to PM you other than the simple fact that we were friends at the time?


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> Damn. I wanted tit shots.


Hahaha! Almost made me choke on my water.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> And actually, although CM may have never "asked" me for pics...we were sending pics back and forth, CM was telling me where to find pics of him down in the social section. He had posted a question about people's weddings, I described my wedding where the Hawaiian guy blew a conch shell...then CM rushed in to tell me how beautiful my story was. So I PM'd him with "conch" and sent a few pics of my wedding which were on a flickr account...*which I have shared with SEVERAL other posters here*, by the way...it isn't like a big secret.
> 
> But now?
> 
> Somehow he wants to play it like I just barged in on his privacy and he didn't even want to see the pics?


Tip for you, naive lady. I wants to paint it like you were hitting on him hard. Thus the emphasized poke on your handle.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> So I just spilled in PM's to you things you NEVER asked you for, for no reason?
> 
> It wasn't because we were being friendly and both PM'ing back and forth?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> I was just barging into your PM box, you never wrote back to me, shared anything with me?
> 
> I do also have your PM's, like where you said you liked my blog, agreed with it, etc.
> 
> But now?
> 
> You want to paint it like I was just "bothering you". I'm just "lying" that you were friendly to me in PM's and we went back and forth.
> 
> Uh huh, sure I'm just lying.
> 
> Strange that several other people have told me you did the same to them...were they all "bothering you", too?


My God, is there no end to your deception?

YOU PMed me and asked me to review your blog because you wanted to post it on TAm.

YOU told me that you also PMed French Fry and sent her a link to your blog to get a review.

I told you that it was a good idea even though I only read the first page, back then , there were only about six pages and I was too busy to read the entire thing.
However , I still encouraged you to post.

There is absolutely NO PM you can show anybody here where I asked you for personal information, pics or anything else like that.

Sorry. Fail.

There are many women here on TAM I have conversed and they've shared lots with me. they always come and go.

But I will NEVER come her and expose them, because they were private conversations.

Again, Fail.


----------



## Sandfly

I've never seen CM attack FW, but I've seen about enough of that insinuating and spiteful post which FW keeps tweeting.

How about not doing that anymore.


----------



## Created2Write

therosenberg said:


> And I was telling her that my coffee came out of my nose.


OUCH! lol! That sounds painful. Hopefully it was iced...


----------



## Created2Write

So, saying that she must be going through a midlife crisis isn't insulting? 

lol. Okay.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM seems to think I have things to hide, but I don't. He was a friend to me. We were sharing details of many things. Nothing that I'm ashamed of. He also a couple of times tried to warn me when it looked like people were trying to get me banned, and he told me there was some other website somewhere that people were making fun of me (and others) on. I thanked him for that.

But then when I dared disagree with him on a topic of discussion he just went totally sideways on me.

Whatever his reasons are for doing that, all I know is, I have heard from several other people saying he did the same thing to them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> My God, is there no end to your deception?
> 
> YOU PMed me and asked me to review your blog because you wanted to post it on TAm.
> 
> YOU told me that you also PMed French Fry and sent her a link to your blog to get a review.
> 
> I told you that it was a good idea even though I only read the first page, back then , there were only about six pages and I was too busy to read the entire thing.
> However , I still encouraged you to post.
> 
> There is absolutely NO PM you can show anybody here where I asked you for personal information, pics or anything else like that.
> 
> Sorry. Fail.
> 
> There are many women here on TAM I have conversed and they've shared lots with me. they always come and go.
> 
> But I will NEVER come her and expose them, because they were private conversations.
> 
> Again, Fail.


What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. That is why they call it a PRIVATE message.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> My God, is there no end to your deception?
> 
> YOU PMed me and asked me to review your blog because you wanted to post it on TAm.
> 
> YOU told me that you also PMed French Fry and sent her a link to your blog to get a review.
> 
> I told you that it was a good idea even though I only read the first page, back then , there were only about six pages and I was too busy to read the entire thing.
> However , I still encouraged you to post.
> 
> There is absolutely NO PM you can show anybody here where I asked you for personal information, pics or anything else like that.
> 
> Sorry. Fail.
> 
> There are many women here on TAM I have conversed and they've shared lots with me. they always come and go.
> 
> But I will NEVER come her and expose them, because they were private conversations.
> 
> Again, Fail.


CM, I never said you ASKED me for personal information. I said we were friends.

Yes I asked you to read my blog - and I asked others - you were my FRIEND. Why wouldn't I have asked you to read it? You said you were happy to. 

Trying to make it sound like I was just bothering you, you didn't even know me?

Why? Why would you paint it like we weren't friends that the time? We most certainly were.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm one of the other posters CM suddenly had a problem with when I disagreed with him, I think even in the same thread that FW disagreed with him. Even after trying to explain that the bulk of our disagreement was a misunderstanding, he didn't listen. He's been unwilling to work it out, or talk about it since then, even though I tried to smooth things over. I don't know why a misunderstanding would carry so much weight, but it is unfortunate. I respected him a lot before all of this. Like FW considered him a friend and had many pleasant conversations before.


----------



## NobodySpecial

therosenberg said:


> Petty, tiny people always _have_ to win, no matter what they have to do.


That was a win? I must be stupid.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> That was a win? I must be stupid.


I need to stop drinking my water. You're gonna make me ruin my computer. lol.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM, I never said you ASKED me for personal information. I said we were friends.
> 
> Yes I asked you to read my blog - and I asked others - you were my FRIEND. Why wouldn't I have asked you to read it? You said you were happy to.
> 
> Trying to make it sound like I was just bothering you, you didn't even know me?
> 
> Why? Why would you paint it like we weren't friends that the time? We most certainly were.



Well it sure looks like your story is changing now...


The answer is simple.

I stopped defending you because I could no longer do so publicly when you started attacking me and other people.
You started doing the same thing others were doing to you which I publicly defended you from.

That's why I stopped responding to your PM's .

Sorry, I don't roll like that.


----------



## Created2Write

I've never seen FW "attack" anyone. Ever. Get snarky? Sure. Sarcasm? Definitely. Mockery, even? Yes. But never "attack".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> Well it sure looks like your story is changing now...
> 
> 
> The answer is simple.
> 
> I stopped defending you because I could no longer do so publicly when you started attacking me and other people.
> You started doing the same thing others were doing to you which I publicly defended you from.
> 
> That's why I stopped responding to your PM's .
> 
> Sorry, I don't roll like that.



I started "attacking" you?

Ok, that's what you call disagreeing with you. I get it. And it is exactly what I thought.

I have no idea what you think I'm changing my story on but I have said the same thing in all of these posts:

When I was new, you reached out to me MANY times on posts...you were kind and always hanging your "I AGREE" signs all over my posts...we became friends, we PM'd several times, you *acted* like you were my friend anyway...I guess now you are saying you were just being totally bothered by me (even though we shared dozens of PM's I guess you were just pretending not to be bothered by me and making those PM's out of the kindness of your heart? Instead of just, like, not answering me?)

Then one day I DISAGREED with you on some posts, and POOF! You didn't like me after that and started following me around the board just to disagree with things I posted.

But according to you I "attacked" you and that's why you started following me around to disagree with me?

I am sorry you feel "attacked" when someone disagrees.

But I still have no idea why you'd try to deny that we were actually friends and pretend like you were just doing me some huge favor by answering my PM's and seeing my horrible, unasked for pictures. Riiiight.

I'm actually glad I got my answers on this. It wasn't my imagination.

don't agree with CM = attack

Right.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I'm one of the other posters CM suddenly had a problem with when I disagreed with him, I think even in the same thread that FW disagreed with him. Even after trying to explain that the bulk of our disagreement was a misunderstanding, he didn't listen. He's been unwilling to work it out, or talk about it since then, even though I tried to smooth things over. I don't know why a misunderstanding would carry so much weight, but it is unfortunate. I respected him a lot before all of this. Like FW considered him a friend and had many pleasant conversations before.


Well I am going to expose myself and likely get banned. I was on here a while back. Got banned for disagreeing with their therapist dude who I have not seen on here this go round. I did not say anything rude, mean or in any way an attack, vulgar or ... whatever. Just disagreed with the counselor. Banned. Holy useful discourse, batman!

New router and a bunch of month at a job that was not yet ready for me later...

My observation now is as it was then. There are a number of great individuals of either gender who are interesting to engage with. Then there is a group of women whose main purpose is happy everyone, who don't want to discuss the meaning or thinking behind things because someone's feelings might be hurt. Club 1. Not my thing. But not terribly offensive.

There is a small group of men who consider themselves recovered Nice Guys. There is a lot of useful advice to be had by them to people of like circumstance. But it sometimes seems to me that their recovered nice guy scene has left them as would be alpha douche bags. Women are seen, by nature and thus the attitude is beyond ethical reproach, as a group incapable of thinking, don't know what they want, can't be talked to, needs to be managed (read manipulated) into doing what super macho deems right - read what they want. The assumption being that the male language is the *right* language and any other language is nonsensical. And then they get their feelings hurt like middle school aged girls when someone that they thought was on their side registers some disagreement with them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I started "attacking" you?
> 
> Ok, that's what you call disagreeing with you. I get it. And it is exactly what I thought.
> 
> I have no idea what you think I'm changing my story on but I have said the same thing in all of these posts:
> 
> When I was new, you reached out to me MANY times on posts...you were kind and always hanging your "I AGREE" signs all over my posts...we became friends, we PM'd several times, you *acted* like you were my friend anyway...I guess now you are saying you were just being totally bothered by me (even though we shared dozens of PM's I guess you were just pretending not to be bothered by me and making those PM's out of the kindness of your heart? Instead of just, like, not answering me?)
> 
> Then one day I DISAGREED with you on some posts, and POOF! You didn't like me after that and started following me around the board just to disagree with things I posted.


While I am not a big one for PMs and CM and I never shared them that I recall, this was my experience with him as well.

It would be more fair if I could remember my handle from back then. But I just can't.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I started "attacking" you?
> 
> Ok, that's what you call disagreeing with you. I get it. And it is exactly what I thought.
> 
> I have no idea what you think I'm changing my story on but I have said the same thing in all of these posts:
> 
> When I was new, you reached out to me MANY times on posts...you were kind and always hanging your "I AGREE" signs all over my posts...we became friends, we PM'd several times, you *acted* like you were my friend anyway...I guess now you are saying you were just being totally bothered by me (even though we shared dozens of PM's I guess you were just pretending not to be bothered by me and making those PM's out of the kindness of your heart? Instead of just, like, not answering me?)
> 
> Then one day I DISAGREED with you on some posts, and POOF! You didn't like me after that and started following me around the board just to disagree with things I posted.
> 
> But according to you I "attacked" you and that's why you started following me around to disagree with me?
> 
> I am sorry you feel "attacked" when someone disagrees.
> 
> But I still have no idea why you'd try to deny that we were actually friends and pretend like you were just doing me some huge favor by answering my PM's and seeing my horrible, unasked for pictures. Riiiight.
> 
> I'm actually glad I got my answers on this. It wasn't my imagination.
> 
> don't agree with CM = attack
> 
> Right.


It's not your imagination. Most people would be willing to work through a misunderstanding, I think, if there was one, instead of just shutting the person out entirely. Even Dvls and I have been able to sort through misunderstandings and find middle ground, and I disagree with him far more often than I agree. So, I don't know why it's so important to CM to shut people out just because they don't agree with everything he's ever said, and I really don't get why that would be seen as an "attack".


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I'm one of the other posters CM suddenly had a problem with when I disagreed with him, I think even in the same thread that FW disagreed with him. Even after trying to explain that the bulk of our disagreement was a misunderstanding, he didn't listen. He's been unwilling to work it out, or talk about it since then, even though I tried to smooth things over. I don't know why a misunderstanding would carry so much weight, but it is unfortunate. I respected him a lot before all of this. Like FW considered him a friend and had many pleasant conversations before.


I really don't think you respected me because you told me publicly to leave the thread and that I had no right being on the thread.
I told you publicly that it would be better if we didn't comment on each other's post.
You then PMed me to apologize, but insisted that you did nothing wrong.
I simply said ok, but I think it's best we just be civil to each other and not comment on each other's post.

I have never been hostile towards you before or after.

I simply requested that we refrain from debating with each other, and just be civil , which I have done, and which I assumed you accepted , up until you made this post.

Why is that so hard for you to accept?


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> Well I am going to expose myself and likely get banned. I was on here a while back. Got banned for disagreeing with their therapist dude who I have not seen on here this go round. I did not say anything rude, mean or in any way an attack, vulgar or ... whatever. Just disagreed with the counselor. Banned. Holy useful discourse, batman!
> 
> New router and a bunch of month at a job that was not yet ready for me later...
> 
> My observation now is as it was then. There are a number of great individuals of either gender who are interesting to engage with. Then there is a group of women whose main purpose is happy everyone, who don't want to discuss the meaning or thinking behind things because someone's feelings might be hurt. Club 1. Not my thing. But not terribly offensive.
> 
> There is a small group of men who consider themselves recovered Nice Guys. There is a lot of useful advice to be had by them to people of like circumstance. But it sometimes seems to me that their recovered nice guy scene has left them as would be alpha douche bags. Women are seen, by nature and thus the attitude is beyond ethical reproach, as a group incapable of thinking, don't know what they want, can't be talked to, needs to be managed (read manipulated) into doing what super macho deems right - read what they want. The assumption being that the male language is the *right* language and any other language is nonsensical. And then they get their feelings hurt like middle school aged girls when someone that they thought was on their side registers some disagreement with them.


I think your spot on, and it's ridiculous that you were banned for such a petty reason. Some people take a disagreement way too seriously, as if it means the person disagreeing is questioning everything about them(character, credentials, experience, etc) It's not that at all, for me at least. I can disagree with someone and still find them to be a great individual that I like talking to.


----------



## Sandfly

Faithful Wife said:


> I started "attacking" you?
> 
> Ok, that's what you call disagreeing with you. I get it. And it is exactly what I thought.
> 
> I have no idea what you think I'm changing my story on but I have said the same thing in all of these posts:
> 
> When I was new, you reached out to me MANY times on posts...you were kind and always *hanging your "I AGREE" signs all over my posts*...we became friends, we PM'd several times, you *acted* like you were my friend anyway...I guess now you are saying you were just being totally bothered by me (even though we shared dozens of PM's I guess you were just pretending not to be bothered by me and making those PM's out of the kindness of your heart? Instead of just, like, not answering me?)
> 
> Then one day I DISAGREED with you on some posts, and POOF! You didn't like me after that and started following me around the board just to disagree with things I posted.
> 
> But according to you I "attacked" you and that's why you started following me around to disagree with me?
> 
> I am sorry you feel "attacked" when someone disagrees.
> 
> But I still have no idea why you'd try to deny that we were actually friends and pretend like you were just doing me some huge favor by answering my PM's and *seeing my horrible, unasked for pictures*. *Riiiight*.
> 
> I'm actually glad I got my answers on this. It wasn't my imagination.
> 
> don't agree with CM = attack
> 
> Right.


This sounds paranoid and a wee bit delusional. You keep saying he's following you around. From what I see, you are both interested in the same threads.

Also, I see behind the sarcasm, that you do in fact confirm the examples offered.

Strange.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I think your spot on, and it's ridiculous that you were banned for such a petty reason.


To be fair, I have aged and grown some. I like a fiesty argument. And I did not understand the rules of engagement of the board. So I was more vigorous from time to time than was generally considered acceptable. So yah, I AM stupid. But I really had no idea that disagreement with the counselor would get you banned. Period.



> Some people take a disagreement way too seriously, as if it means the person disagreeing is questioning everything about them(character, credentials, experience, etc) It's not that at all, for me at least. I can disagree with someone and still find them to be a great individual that I like talking to.


I thought you and I did pretty well. I am Irish. I didn't punch you.  That is to say I agree with you completely.


----------



## FrenchFry

Straight up, I haven't been following this thread too closely. 

I really wish there was a place where we could air out all of our beef and differences on here but I don't think this is it.

Has this thread run its course? Should I just close it?


----------



## NobodySpecial

FrenchFry said:


> Straight up, I haven't been following this thread too closely.
> 
> I really wish there was a place where we could air out all of our beef and differences on here but I don't think this is it.
> 
> Has this thread run its course? Should I just close it?


It certainly is not about female desire anymore! Hasn't been in a while. Of course, the decision is yours.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> I really don't think you respected me because you told me publicly to leave the thread and that I had no right being on the thread.


1. It was a thread I started. 2. You were twisting absolutely everything I said to mean something I didn't actually mean, you were being very sarcastic and dismissive, and weren't offering anything productive to the thread. So yes, I asked you to leave because it was hijacking _my_ thread. I absolutely think you forfeited your right to post in my thread at that point.



> I told you publicly that it would be better if we didn't comment on each other's post.
> You then PMed me to apologize, but insisted that you did nothing wrong.


I PMed you because I valued the friendship we'd had up to that point, and didn't want to lose it over a silly disagreement. I apologized because I didn't know what I had said that upset you so much, and you wouldn't tell me what it was. I don't believe I did anything wrong by disagreeing with you, but I was *and still am* sorry for whatever it was I said that made you dislike me so much. 



> I simply said ok, but I think it's best we just be civil to each other and not comment on each other's post.


You said you didn't want me commenting on any thread you created, ever, and you didn't want me to comment on anything you said, ever. Civility wasn't mentioned.



> I have never been hostile towards you before or after.


Hostile, no. You haven't. But passive-aggressive? Absolutely. Making side comments directed at me in a roundabout way? Yup. Painting my opinions to be seen in the worst possible way? Affirmative. 



> I simply requested that we refrain from debating with each other, and just be civil , which I have done, and which I assumed you accepted , up until you made this post.
> 
> Why is that so hard for you to accept?


I hate losing friends. I always do what I can to fight for them, which is why I sent you the PM and asked you why you were so angry with me, which you refused to answer. Up to this point you haven't been "civil", you just haven't been outright mean. Big difference. The thing that is most difficult is that you haven't given me the chance to fix whatever it was I did wrong because you refuse to tell me why all of this started in the first place. Because it didn't start with me asking you to leave my thread.


----------



## coffee4me

From the outside looking in it sure looks like CM is being ganged up on. Or might I say "attacked". 

Since all these posts attempt to paint CM in a negative way. I'd like to say that I've disagreed with CM and he's not shut me out. I've exchanged PM's with him and he helped me with a very difficult situation with compassion and integrity.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> 1. It was a thread I started. 2. You were twisting absolutely everything I said to mean something I didn't actually mean, you were being very sarcastic and dismissive, and weren't offering anything productive to the thread. *So yes, I asked you to leave* because it was hijacking _my_ thread. I absolutely think you forfeited your right to post in my thread at that point.


Wow, more confirmation that he wasn't kidding. 

Ask people to leave a thread? That's not normal debating behaviour.

I second the closing of this thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

coffee4me said:


> From the outside looking in it sure looks like CM is being ganged up on. Or might I say "attacked".
> 
> Since all these posts attempt to paint CM in a negative way. I'd like to say that I've disagreed with CM and he's not shut me out. I've exchanged PM's with him and he helped me with a very difficult situation with compassion and integrity.


Thanks you very much.

And you're not the only one.

There many , many more women here I have done the same with , whom I've also disagreed with.


----------



## Created2Write

I asked him to leave after he *hijacked my thread* Sandfly.


----------



## Created2Write

Personally, I would like to wait until there's some kind of closure to these issues before closing the thread. I don't want there to be this issue between myself and CM, and would prefer to know what I did that made him dislike me. Since he has disagreed with others and not shut them out, I would like a chance to actually make things right, if possible.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> 1. It was a thread I started. 2. You were twisting absolutely everything I said to mean something I didn't actually mean, you were being very sarcastic and dismissive, and weren't offering anything productive to the thread. So yes, I asked you to leave because it was hijacking _my_ thread. I absolutely think you forfeited your right to post in my thread at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> I PMed you because I valued the friendship we'd had up to that point, and didn't want to lose it over a silly disagreement. I apologized because I didn't know what I had said that upset you so much, and you wouldn't tell me what it was. I don't believe I did anything wrong by disagreeing with you, but I was *and still am* sorry for whatever it was I said that made you dislike me so much.
> 
> 
> 
> You said you didn't want me commenting on any thread you created, ever, and you didn't want me to comment on anything you said, ever. Civility wasn't mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> Hostile, no. You haven't. But passive-aggressive? Absolutely. Making side comments directed at me in a roundabout way? Yup. Painting my opinions to be seen in the worst possible way? Affirmative.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate losing friends. I always do what I can to fight for them, which is why I sent you the PM and asked you why you were so angry with me, which you refused to answer. Up to this point you haven't been "civil", you just haven't been outright mean. Big difference. The thing that is most difficult is that you haven't given me the chance to fix whatever it was I did wrong because you refuse to tell me why all of this started in the first place. Because it didn't start with me asking you to leave my thread.


No C2W,

It wasn't your thread.

It was Novellabiers PUA thread and she was banned.

And I don't get this whole " CM dislikes me " thing.

I respectfully asked that we don't engage each other.


----------



## Created2Write

I wouldn't have asked you to leave someone elses thread, CM. And, once more, I would appreciate the chance to make things right. I really do want to know what I did that made you dislike me. I still believe it was a misunderstanding, and I'd like the chance to correct it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I asked him to leave after he *hijacked my thread* Sandfly.



lol,

And which thread was that?

You've NEVER had a controversial thread , and I have always supported you on your threads. Even when it was that issue with your husband when others were flaming you 

I've always supported you.

Ironically, Faithful Wife tried to hijack THREE of my threads and I never even paid her any attention.
I ignored her.


----------



## Created2Write

So that's a no on trying to _fix_ the situation? Unfortunate.


----------



## Sandfly

Created2Write said:


> Personally, I would like to wait until there's some kind of closure to these issues before closing the thread. I don't want there to be this issue between myself and CM, and would prefer to know what I did that made him dislike me. Since he has disagreed with others and not shut them out, I would like a chance to actually make things right, if possible.


Interesting to see how that turns out. 

I am already 98% of the way to having 'closure' on what I think of these increasingly frequent ganging up tactics.

They're fine on the Politics threads, IMO, but not elsewhere.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Interesting to see how that turns out.
> 
> I am already 98% of the way to having 'closure' on what I think of these increasingly frequent ganging up tactics.
> 
> They're fine on the Politics threads, IMO, but not here.


Lol,

I love the ganging up in the politics section.
Makes for some heated , controversial discussions!

And interestingly enough, I have some very civil discussions up here with guys from down in politics who usually gang up on me.

We have _that_ amount of respect.


----------



## FrenchFry

As always, we'll try again later.


----------

