# "What do Women Want?" (new book on women and sex)



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

So recently the NY Times book review discussed a new book called "What do Women Want" which researches female sexual desire. (Full article can be found at www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/books/review/what-do-women-want-by-daniel-bergner.html).

In reading the article I found this portion very interesting:



> The theory most often mentioned across disciplines is that women, like men, are inclined to promiscuity. This notion is so far supported by animal studies and long-range surveys of women, *which have found that low levels of sex drive are correlated with the number of years they’ve been in a monogamous relationship; women’s sexual interest in steady partners may plummet even more quickly than men’s.* This view is corroborated in the book by couples therapists who specialize in trying to help women regain sexual interest in their partners through thought experiments and mandatory date nights. They are notably pessimistic about how much heat all this homework can be expected to generate. The crucial point, Bergner writes, is that *flagging sex drive is not just an inevitability for women — it is specifically the result of long-term monogamy.* Even the hormonal decrease of menopause can be entirely overridden by the appearance of a new sexual partner.


So I think the research may in fact bear out what I have suspected when it comes to a lot of "LD" women... it is not an emotional or physical issue in many cases. Long-term monogamy lowers sex drive, for women just as much (if not more) than men. It seems clear-cut to me, and the research bears it out. 

So we end up with men mystified and hurt by their wife's declining interest in sex... they think they can "do" something to turn that around... yet they are fighting against basic biology.

Since women don't understand this either, they also wrongly assume that there is either something wrong with them, or with their husband. When in fact it is the lowering sex drive that is a natural result of long-term monogamy.

Which begs the question whether long-term monogamy is even a good idea. Given the number of unhappy, low-sex/sexless marriages, it makes me wonder...


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Women get bored.

But really in most cases who could blame them? Guys need to keep dating their wives. Kids can become a maginot line in a marriage.

So add that in and things really get rough. If a women married a guy just for stability and less for sex then this is even worse.

Some women who seemingly bait and switch once married I think lose the thrill of the chase. Many women then seek out attention from other men.

Oh and hell yes there is a G-spot. Yes many women are squirters. Maybe these guy should get out of the office once in a while.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

Entropy3000 said:


> Women get bored.
> 
> But really in most cases who could blame them? Guys need to keep dating their wives.


Right but I think the point of the research is that they get bored even IF the husband keeps dating his wife. It is a biological response to long-term monogamy. That is why frustrated husbands can say "but I take her out to dinner, I help around the house, I surprise her with presents... and still she doesn't want to have sex with me!"


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Is long term monogamy a good idea? In my opinion, no. Staying with one person for the rest of your life in marital bliss sounds so romantic but when you hit year 15 and beyond you do wonder. The reason people are convinced it is a good idea is because of religion. 

In my case, I have always had a LD, but the ltr is causing an aversion to sex that I never had before. Not blaming my hubby or the marriage but this article explains some things.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

4thand11 said: "Right but I think the point of the research is that they get bored even IF the husband keeps dating his wife."

Haven't read the book, but I can almost guarantee that they didn't study couples who DID continue to date each other. They just studied average couples and LD women, and in that general population they are going to find that for the most part, couples do not make efforts to keep their romantic love alive. 

Both the men and women in these couples are guilty of this problem.

Now if they made a study by specifically finding HD women and studying all the factors that make them HD...THEN they might actually find some data that could be useful to the rest of the world.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

techmom said:


> Is long term monogamy a good idea? In my opinion, no. Staying with one person for the rest of your life in marital bliss sounds so romantic but when you hit year 15 and beyond you do wonder. The reason people are convinced it is a good idea is because of religion.


True and I suppose also as a social construct to promote stability in families, etc. I agree with you though, long-term monogamy is romanticized in our culture and (just as with marriage itself), give people false expectations that biologically, most people cannot live up to.

I do think this research helps explain why so many marriages end up almost sexless after a number of years. At that point the couple is in a sense stuck... biologically they are bored of sex with the same person, but socially they are expected to stay together because fidelity is promoted as a sign of strength and moral character. 

And not to mention divorce carries so many financial/legal problems that some won't divorce for that reason, even if the marriage is completely sexless.

I do wonder if the concept of "open marriages" would be a much better solution socially. In a case like that I agree with you that religious beliefs would be a big sticking point to social acceptance of something like open marriage as a norm.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

4thand11 said:


> Right but I think the point of the research is that they get bored even IF the husband keeps dating his wife. It is a biological response to long-term monogamy. That is why frustrated husbands can say "but I take her out to dinner, I help around the house, I surprise her with presents... and still she doesn't want to have sex with me!"


I feel this is the case. Biologically speaking a woman is driven to have a diverse gene pool in her offspring in order for the human race to survive. The hubby is fighting against normal biology. Just like when HD males say that biology drives them to have more sex, the same thing also drives women to seek the most desirable partners. But marriage laws and society deters women from actively doing this. 

She will stay in the marriage and make the hubby jump through hoops trying to get sex. Not fair to him, she will need to make all sorts of effort to be attracted to him, but with a new partner it would be effortless. That is the part that hurts, we see it all over TAM. He would had invested his life with this woman, but she will so easily enjoy and desire sex with someone else.

The divorce laws are biased against men, this is true. This is what makes it a raw deal for young men to enter marriage thinking that it is forever. Personally I wouldn't advice my son to do it unless the laws balance out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

4thand11 said:


> Right but I think the point of the research is that they get bored even IF the husband keeps dating his wife. It is a biological response to long-term monogamy. That is why frustrated husbands can say "but I take her out to dinner, I help around the house, I surprise her with presents... and still she doesn't want to have sex with me!"


I think it is a related rates problem. They get less bored if the husband dates them. 

The problem is that most guys do not do what is needed to mitigate this. Lots of factors at play.

Women can deal with this from men by changing things up. They know this. They change their hair or something else. A woman knows how to be a thousand women to her man.

Guys need to get with the program.

I am NOT disagreeing with this reasearch. In no way should this be a surprise.

But way too few husbands really know what to do at all. How few even try to rock their wifes world? 

Now if you are pushing an agenda here, knock yourself out.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

techmom said:


> Is long term monogamy a good idea? In my opinion, no. Staying with one person for the rest of your life in marital bliss sounds so romantic but when you hit year 15 and beyond you do wonder. The reason people are convinced it is a good idea is because of religion.
> 
> In my case, I have always had a LD, but the ltr is causing an aversion to sex that I never had before. Not blaming my hubby or the marriage but this article explains some things.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Negative. Religion has little to do with this. Indeed religion was used to push the agenda. I have been married for 36 years. We are having great sex these days. YMMV.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> 4thand11 said: "Right but I think the point of the research is that they get bored even IF the husband keeps dating his wife."
> 
> Haven't read the book, but I can almost guarantee that they didn't study couples who DID continue to date each other. They just studied average couples and LD women, and in that general population they are going to find that for the most part, couples do not make efforts to keep their romantic love alive.
> 
> ...


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> 4thand11 said: "Right but I think the point of the research is that they get bored even IF the husband keeps dating his wife."
> 
> Haven't read the book, but I can almost guarantee that they didn't study couples who DID continue to date each other. They just studied average couples and LD women, and in that general population they are going to find that for the most part, couples do not make efforts to keep their romantic love alive.


I have not read the whole book either, however in the article they cite couples counselors:

"This view is corroborated in the book by couples therapists who specialize in trying to help women regain sexual interest in their partners through thought experiments and mandatory date nights. *They are notably pessimistic about how much heat all this homework can be expected to generate.*"



> Now if they made a study by specifically finding HD women and studying all the factors that make them HD...THEN they might actually find some data that could be useful to the rest of the world.


Right but again, from the article:
"long-range surveys of women, which have found that low levels of sex drive are correlated with the number of years they’ve been in a monogamous relationship".

This is data based on many studies of many women. So yes there are HD women who have been married to the same man for a long time, but they are the statistical outliers. The overall trend is that the longer the couple stays together, the lower the sexual interest. 

I am not sure I would buy into your premise, that the husbands of HD wives must be doing something right that the majority of other husbands aren't. I agree, it would definitely be an interesting study though!


----------



## FemBot (May 1, 2013)

Women want to be chased. Plain and simple. Whether it's by your husband or a new partner. 

I would say the number of years in a monogamous relationship is positively correlated to lack of pursuit by the man. Most women are in their masculine energy all day long and being pursued and woo'd by a man brings them back to that feminine space where they feel desire for sex. I am learning a lot about this topic and it's fascinating. Too much imbalance going on in most relationships where the woman is the head of the household and the husband is either another child or a roommate. Men are not attracted to masculine women so the cycle continues.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Sounds like an interesting book, but I have to say I don't think much of the Times author...


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

So husbands should take this as good input. 

Indeed some women will use this to justify cheating of course.

Male predators will use this as impetus to go after married women.

And so on.


----------



## keeper63 (Mar 22, 2012)

I have been reading about ways to lower divorce rates, and although I'm not sure that it is possible to do so, I do think the idea of renewing marriage contracts has some merit.

I think if marriages were not "for life", but were instead based on a 5 year contract, I think that would make a lot more sense.

Every 5 years, the contract is "up for renewal". If things are not going well, either partner has the right to not renew the contract, and they go their sperate ways.

People do change and they grow apart. Sure, there are complications with respect to children, and dividing up belongings, but if the contracts specified these terms in advance, people would have a much better understanding of what they are getting into.

I think this marriage model would reduce boredom, and encourage couples to keep things interesting.

This will never happen, though, because the divorce lawyer lobby wouldn't let it come to pass.


----------



## janefw (Jun 26, 2012)

Bear in mind that the writer of this book is a journalist, not any kind of health professional or expert on marriage. It is his version of someone else's research. 

Please use critical thinking. Don't decide that this is some new "truth" about an _entire gender _- that's roughly _50% of the population_ - based upon nothing but a review of a novel written by a journalist.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

4th said: _ "So yes there are HD women who have been married to the same man for a long time, but they are the statistical outliers."_

Yes...and I am saying to study the anomalies here. That hasn't been done. If they do that, they will find that these couples are doing things differently.

Of course they are going to find this problem in the average couple...so studying those couples doesn't really tell us anything, does it? Without studying the anomalies we can't say why they are anomalies. It could be for very good reasons that these women stay HD and those reasons could be emulated by others.

4th said: _"I am not sure I would buy into your premise, that *the husbands of HD wives must be doing something right that the majority of other husbands aren't*. I agree, it would definitely be an interesting study though!"_

Wow...so you yourself are going to stand by that view and even "read" that others are standing by it too, even though that is NOT what I said at all? Very interesting don't you think?


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

keeper63 said:


> I have been reading about ways to lower divorce rates, and although I'm not sure that it is possible to do so, I do think the idea of renewing marriage contracts has some merit.
> 
> I think if marriages were not "for life", but were instead based on a 5 year contract, I think that would make a lot more sense.
> 
> ...


I actually love that contract idea! However you are right it will never happen... not only the divorce lawyer lobby, the entire billion-dollar wedding industry depends on selling the idea of happily ever after.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...and I am saying to study the anomalies here. That hasn't been done. If they do that, they will find that these couples are doing things differently.


Right and I agreed with you that it would be an interesting study. Although you are assuming they will find they are doing something differently, without having any research to back it up. They might, and they might not. Without data it is just anecdote and conjecture. 



> Of course they are going to find this problem in the average couple...so studying those couples doesn't really tell us anything, does it? Without studying the anomalies we can't say why they are anomalies. It could be for very good reasons that these women stay HD and those reasons could be emulated by others.


I don't think scientific research is based on studying the anomalies. This research is looking for basic biological patterns across a population, not for "what works in marriage". Most people fall into the "average couple" category which is why they are the ones most represented in a sampling of subjects. 



> 4th said: _"I am not sure I would buy into your premise, that the husbands of HD wives must be doing something right that the majority of other husbands aren't. I agree, it would definitely be an interesting study though!"_
> 
> Wow...so you yourself are going to stand by that view and even "read" that others are standing by it too, even though that is NOT what I said at all? Very interesting.


I apologize but you lost me here. Was your premise not that long-term married couples, who are still highly sexually attracted to each other, are doing something different than the "average couples" in the study? If I misunderstood I apologize.

I find this research interesting and thought-provoking which is why I posted it, I am not trying to start an argument.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

keeper63 said:


> I have been reading about ways to lower divorce rates, and although I'm not sure that it is possible to do so, I do think the idea of renewing marriage contracts has some merit.
> 
> I think if marriages were not "for life", but were instead based on a 5 year contract, I think that would make a lot more sense.
> 
> ...


I would never ever agree to a renewal. I invest in my marriage as a long term arrangement. To be all in you need to think long term.

I think the concept of renewal is a total FAIL. In fact I think many people live this way anyways. This is really not marriage. The renewal encourages dating other while married.

Some you folks really crack me up. Sorry. Continue on. I think the real is answer is to not bother getting married if you want a five year plan. Just live together and date other people. Make sure any children are taken care of.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

janefw said:


> Bear in mind that the writer of this book is a journalist, not any kind of health professional or expert on marriage. It is his version of someone else's research.
> 
> Please use critical thinking. Don't decide that this is some new "truth" about an _entire gender _- that's roughly _50% of the population_ - based upon nothing but a review of a novel written by a journalist.


Yes. And this was (shamelessly) amplified even further by the Times author, who despite admitting that the findings are tentative and speculative, starts off with a reference to Claudius Galen from the 2nd century and then repeatedly contrasts the ignorance of past ages with Bergner's book. The implication that it has suddenly illuminated and shattered the ignorance of the (apparently) sexist behavioral and physical health communities is blatant sensationalism.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

4th: _"Was your premise not that long-term married couples, who are still highly sexually attracted to each other, are doing something different than the "average couples" in the study? If I misunderstood I apologize."_

Yes I was suggesting that these couples are doing something differently. But above when I bolded what you said before, you implied that I was saying that the *HUSBANDS* of HD women were doing something right that other husbands were not. I never said husbands at all, you injected that. You've changed it now but before, you "read" me as if I said it was something the husbands were doing wrong.

I just found that interesting that you would inject this even though I didn't say it.

Yes, I get that the book was just a report on how things are, not how we can make things better. I hope that someone will do one on how we can make things better, because in fact, I do think that HD women are doing things differently that can be studied. There are small studies about this now, because science is eagerly trying to figure out how to bottle it for the rest of women.

They do have studies that show that couples who continue to do the dating behaviors are happier and more in love, by the way. I believe that probably includes sexual satisfaction.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

janefw said:


> Bear in mind that the writer of this book is a journalist, not any kind of health professional or expert on marriage. It is his version of someone else's research.


Yes but that does not mean the research he is discussing is invalid. I haven't read the whole book yet so I can't vouch for it, I just thought the subject matter was thought-provoking. However a good journalist can certainly objectively report on various medical research, synthesize it into a cohesive whole, and present it for a mass audience. That is what popular health and science writers do. The key is whether the actual research is valid.



> Please use critical thinking. Don't decide that this is some new "truth" about an _entire gender _- that's roughly _50% of the population_ - based upon nothing but a review of a novel written by a journalist.


Yes critical thinking means reading the actual book (and the sources referenced) and forming your own conclusions based on the data and evidence presented. I don't think any scientific study is trying to paint an entire gender as the same... it is examining data based on research, and looking for patterns, that's all. However if the data points to a conclusion (for ex. that women's sex drive does in fact lower in correlation with number of years in a monogamous relationship) - critical thinking would also mean accepting that data (assuming the research was conducted correctly), even if it goes against personal preconceptions.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes I was suggesting that these couples are doing something differently. But above when I bolded what you said before, you implied that I was saying that the *HUSBANDS* of HD women were doing something right that other husbands were not. I never said husbands at all, you injected that. You've changed it now but before, you "read" me as if I said it was something the husbands were doing wrong.
> 
> I just found that interesting that you would inject this even though I didn't say it.



Ah yes I see it, you are correct... that was my bias showing I guess! Apologies. I think I was conflating your response with Entropy's who said "men need to keep dating their wives", which seemed to put the onus on the husband. Sorry for jumping to an unfair conclusion.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

Entropy3000 said:


> I would never ever agree to a renewal. I invest in my marriage as a long term arrangement. To be all in you need to think long term.
> 
> I think the concept of renewal is a total FAIL. In fact I think many people live this way anyways. This is really not marriage. The renewal encourages dating other while married.
> 
> Some you folks really crack me up. Sorry. Continue on. I think the real is answer is to not bother getting married if you want a five year plan. Just live together and date other people. Make sure any children are taken care of.


Well given the divorce statistics - combined with the unhappily married couples who stay together for various reasons anyway - I don't think you can say the current "till death do us part" model is working all that great.

In essence many couples are on the contract plan anyway (hence the countless posts on TAM in the "considering divorce or separation" thread). The only difference is that without a contract divorce lawyers get rich and spouses go broke when they break the "contract".

I think the contract idea makes sense but is far too pragmatic and coldly rational for it ever to take off.


----------



## Hoosier (May 17, 2011)

I don't need to read that book for the answer. I know it already. What do women want? Whatever it is they don't have. Subject to change if you give them what they don't have and want, they simply change to something ELSE they don't have. Pretty simple really. IMO


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

Hoosier said:


> I don't need to read that book for the answer. I know it already. What do women want? Whatever it is they don't have. Subject to change if you give them what they don't have and want, they simply change to something ELSE they don't have. Pretty simple really. IMO


Haha well I think the main point of the research is that women are NOT hard-wired to be more monogamous and want less sexual variety than men, which has long been a commonly-held view.

Women in fact want sex with a new partner, just as men do. At least that seems to be what the research cited by the author claims (based only on this summary of course, need to read the whole thing obv.).

I think - IF true (a big if)- this research certainly leads to some thought-provoking ideas about marriage and sex, and long-term monogamy as a concept.

For example we often see men caught having sex with women who are, by all objective measures, far less attractive than their spouse. We write it off as men just wanting sex with someone new, having no standards... Perhaps women in affairs sometimes do the same - and rather than the stated arguments that "he pays more attention to me, "my husband doesn't appreciate me" etc., it is in fact driven largely by a biological need for sexual variety on the part of women. In other words much the same reason a man cheats.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Entropy3000 said:


> I think it is a related rates problem. They get less bored if the husband dates them.
> 
> The problem is that most guys do not do what is needed to mitigate this. Lots of factors at play.
> 
> ...


Truth! A thousand times true!


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Humans have been trained by society to stay in monogamous marriages, however it is not our natural state. Some of us do have happy marriages, but 50% of us are miserable. My aunt and uncle were never married but they raised 5 children together happily and they are still together. My parents married, they stayed for the kids and were miserable. Made me and my brothers miserable too. Everyone places marriage on a pedestal, I did too a long time ago before I got married and experienced how it is.

I'm not against marriage, but there is a concentrated effort to uphold this failing model by religion, lawyers or bridal companies, etc. Kids who are raised by 2 unhappy parents in an unhappy household are still miserable. So sometimes the "staying for the kids" only makes the parents feel like they are fulfilling their obligation but they fail in the long run.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TCSRedhead (Oct 17, 2012)

I don't believe that anyone is 'hard-wired' to be monogamous. It wouldn't be a commitment if it came without effort, right?

That said, I don't think men or women are more prone to infidelity. 

If you truly believe that summing up what any one sex 'wants' can be done so simply, I have some real estate for sale. It's got a great view of the beach, it has a bridge and it's located in Arizona.


----------



## salamander (Apr 2, 2013)

4thand11 said:


> I don't think scientific research is based on studying the anomalies. This research is looking for basic biological patterns across a population, not for "what works in marriage". Most people fall into the "average couple" category which is why they are the ones most represented in a sampling of subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Watch this TED talk and see why science is "doing it wrong" by NOT studying outliers.

TEDxBloomington - Shawn Achor - "The Happiness Advantage: Linking Positive Brains to Performance" - YouTube

The results of this study have already been well-known in animals, it's called "The Coolidge Effect" and it's a major point in the anti-porn-for-men's-health squad.
Coolidge Effect & Habituation | Your Brain On Porn

The Coolidge Effect is dopamine-driven, and it can be balanced with the bonding system of the brain which runs on endorphins and oxytocin (date nights). Mix up the bonding sex with the freaky stuff.

There are ways to incorporate other people's interest and get a jolt of "New Relationship Energy" without actually going there and opening up the marriage. For example, H and I play a fun game where I wear overtly sexy outfits and lose myself dancing with my eyes closed right up by the speakers. Guys check me out and sometimes even hit on me. Just when it looks like it might get awkward, H swoops in and I introduce him to my new friend, who excuses himself quickly. LMAO!!!! :rofl: Fantasy is awesome, too, just learn from my errors and KEEP it fantasy.

Communication is absolutely necessary as the layers of jealousy give way to trust.

Why do people have to be so black and white about it?

I agree with the people that suggested spouses keep it fresh. I was joking with H the other day about being so changeable/bipolar, and we both agreed that he's constantly "getting some strange" from me. ;-)


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

TCSRedhead said:


> If you truly believe that summing up what any one sex 'wants' can be done so simply, I have some real estate for sale. It's got a great view of the beach, it has a bridge and it's located in Arizona.


Again, research is not meant to sum up an entire sex I don't know why so many people keep saying that.

There is a lot of published research, for example, that boys do worse in the standard school setting than girls. Does that mean every boy is the same - or that no girls might have trouble in a traditional classroom? No of course not. It is data based on large sample sizes, it is not meant to describe every individual. 

This is simply a book which summarizes some recent research on female sexuality, with (I thought) some potentially very interesting findings that relate to some of the issues of LD and infidelity especially that come up often in these threads. The speed with which many seem to want to dismiss it without reading it, is interesting to me. It is not an attack on women to say they may be biologically programmed to prefer multiple sex partners, any more than it would be if you stated the same about men.


----------



## TCSRedhead (Oct 17, 2012)

4thand11 said:


> Again, research is not meant to sum up an entire sex I don't know why so many people keep saying that.
> 
> There is a lot of published research, for example, that boys do worse in the standard school setting than girls. Does that mean every boy is the same - or that no girls might have trouble in a traditional classroom? No of course not. It is data based on large sample sizes, it is not meant to describe every individual.
> 
> This is simply a book which summarizes some recent research on female sexuality, with (I thought) some potentially very interesting findings that relate to some of the issues of LD and infidelity especially that come up often in these threads. The speed with which many seem to want to dismiss it without reading it, is interesting to me. It is not an attack on women to say they may be biologically programmed to prefer multiple sex partners, any more than it would be if you stated the same about men.


If you talk to a number of the admittedly LD women who post here - they're not interested in sex with ANYONE so I'm just not buying the program that it's due to being married. 

I still stand by my original statement which is NEITHER sex is hardwired to be monogamous. (See, not saying it's an attack, not sure where that came from. Perhaps it's projection).

It's a commitment which requires effort from both parties to be successful.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

> For example, H and I play a fun game where I wear overtly sexy outfits and lose myself dancing with my eyes closed right up by the speakers. Guys check me out and sometimes even hit on me. Just when it looks like it might get awkward, H swoops in and I introduce him to my new friend, who excuses himself quickly. LMAO!!!!


Yes I agree salamander that role-play, changing it up, etc. can help keep the sexual spark. But... it is NOT the same as sex with a new person. (Nor should it be, after all you already know your partner intimately.) The things you are discussing are in effect ways to try and counteract the biological urge to have sex with new partners. And I think they are important, if you are of the mindset that monogamy and sexual exclusivity are worthwhile goals.

I must say that your posted example seems a little mean-spirited to the "other man", though! Just saying!


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

> If you talk to a number of the admittedly LD women who post here - they're not interested in sex with ANYONE so I'm just not buying the program that it's due to being married.


True and I am not denying that true LD people exist.

However a lot of husbands describe their wives as LD, when in fact they may very well just be "LD for him". Which makes perfect sense based on the research discussed in this book.

It is no secret the spark often goes out of marriages after a long time... the question is how much of that is due to behavior on the part of the spouses, and how much is simple biology. If biology plays a large role, it helps to explain why all the marriage counseling techniques ("date nights", role play, etc.) often don't solve the problem.


----------



## salamander (Apr 2, 2013)

[true, but i never lead them on, they approach me just because I am dancing alone. I like to dance alone with my eyes closed and get lost in the music. Hubby likes to watch me. It's not our fault guys take that opportunity of a woman dancing alone to practice their line. We're always nice. When H is not around, I just start issuing friendly back-off body language.]

Yes, indeed, they are ways to try and counteract the biological urge to have sex with new partners. Just as I use ways to try and counteract the biological urge to binge on dopamine-bumping foods and why I've never done cocaine.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

4thand11 said:


> Well given the divorce statistics - combined with the unhappily married couples who stay together for various reasons anyway - I don't think you can say the current "till death do us part" model is working all that great.
> 
> In essence many couples are on the contract plan anyway (hence the countless posts on TAM in the "considering divorce or separation" thread). The only difference is that without a contract divorce lawyers get rich and spouses go broke when they break the "contract".
> 
> I think the contract idea makes sense but is far too pragmatic and coldly rational for it ever to take off.


I am at a disadvantage. As part of my job I am used to looking at statistics and analyzing what they mean. Mining data to prove one agenda or another is dangerous.

You have a view you wish to push forward. You are welcome to it.

Lawyers have nothing to do with this fundamentally. 

So continue on. Who gives a flip about the lawyers. I am talking about people. The lawyer perspective is a peripheral issue.

Nothing ground breaking here. Women and men get bored over time. Your conclusion is only one view. If one has a problem with marriage or monogamy they will interpret this for their own purposes.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

4thand11: _"If biology plays a large role, it helps to explain why all the marriage counseling techniques ("date nights", role play, etc.) often don't solve the problem."_

Actually there is evidence that these techniques DO solve the problem, but there is also evidence that couples do not REGULARLY do this on average.

Both the Marriage Builders program and the John Gottman work show clear evidence that couples who work to maintain their romantic love (and there are ways to do this clearly lined out) will have less divorce and more sex.

http://www.gottman.com/research/research-faqs/


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

TCSRedhead said:


> I don't believe that anyone is 'hard-wired' to be monogamous. It wouldn't be a commitment if it came without effort, right?
> 
> That said, I don't think men or women are more prone to infidelity.
> 
> If you truly believe that summing up what any one sex 'wants' can be done so simply, I have some real estate for sale. It's got a great view of the beach, it has a bridge and it's located in Arizona.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

Yes. I never had the view that monogamy was something that women were hard wired for.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> 4thand11: _"If biology plays a large role, it helps to explain why all the marriage counseling techniques ("date nights", role play, etc.) often don't solve the problem."_
> 
> Actually there is evidence that these techniques DO solve the problem, but there is also evidence that couples do not REGULARLY do this on average.
> 
> ...


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

Entropy3000 said:


> You have a view you wish to push forward. You are welcome to it.


My only view is that I thought the research was food for thought. I am not sure why you are convinced I am trying to push forward an agenda.



> So continue on. Who gives a flip about the lawyers. I am talking about people.


Yes and so am I. The issue is that many marriages fail and that the "contract" idea is really just an easy/clean way for a couple to split if that is what one side wants. Your original reply implied that such an arrangement would be for people not serious about marriage in the first place. I disagree with that, and I'd say that is your own bias showing. You have no evidence to back it up.

I for one think the contract idea would never work in practice because both men and women are invested in the romantic aspects of marriage which assume till death do us part. Very few people get married expecting to divorce, even though they know the statistics going in. Marriage is a very optimistic act when lifelong commitment and monogamy are assumed. To sign a contract would be viewed by many as "cheapening" marriage, and a sign of pessimism before the marriage even starts.



> Nothing ground breaking here. Women and men get bored over time. Your conclusion is only one view. If one has a problem with marriage or monogamy they will interpret this for their own purposes.


I didn't really draw a conclusion. I said that the research can make one think in different ways about monogamy and our assumptions about why people grow apart sexually (as in perhaps it is more an ingrained part of our biology, rather than simple neglect etc. on the part of one of both partners).

My sense is that anything that challenges marital fidelity and monogamy as the ideal, will meet with resistance no matter if the research is valid or not.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

You know this is NOT new research, right 4thand11?


You said: _"My sense is that anything that challenges marital fidelity and monogamy as the ideal, will meet with resistance no matter if the research is valid or not."_

Met with resistance by WHOM?

There are already many researchers and writers out there saying the same thing. 

It isn't that people reject this data, it is that regular married people don't READ it, absorb it, and apply it to their marriages.

Similar to how many people don't read and absorb good financial practices information and apply it to their lives. All the info we need to be financially solvent at retirement is available to everyone...yet most will not read it or implement it. The marriage material is the same way.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Everything you need to know: Marriage Reports, Articles, ResearchAR


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

Given my race and my gender I could care less about what science or statistics say. Neither will ever influence who I am or what I believe. If science and studies tell me 99.9 of women do or don't do something I can be that .01 percent if it's who I am and what I believe. Science/studies can go to hel!.


----------



## 4thand11 (May 20, 2013)

> It isn't that people reject this data, it is that regular married people don't READ it, absorb it, and apply it to their marriages.


True and I think that is the point of "popular science" books like this one... they take a sampling of the heavy-duty research, give it a sensationalistic title and enough controversial talking points to get it mentioned on the Today show, and drum up interest in the research that way.

I was not saying the research was ground-breaking, only that it was thought-provoking in that it could make people think about sexless marriages, LD, infidelity, etc., in a different way.

Most spouses who complain that their partner no longer seems to want them sexually, for example, tend to assume that it has to do either with their spouse (he doesn't try anymore, she has no sex drive, etc.), or with themselves (I don't do enough things for him/her, I've gained weight, etc.). This could potentially be looking at it completely wrong - if in fact, we are biologically programmed to lose sexual desire for the same partner over time.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

And so once again, a book is published that confirms the obvious that women can lose their drive just like men.

So what's this thread about?


----------



## eyuop (Apr 7, 2013)

I think it is human nature to want to experience newness and excitement. It is more difficult in a monogamous relationship to continue to feel that excitement -- it takes some effort from both sides to do this (but I would say it takes more effort on the husband's side). 

That is why so many wives and husbands talk about feeling the bait and switch. Guys say she was really seductive and into him when they first got together -- couldn't keep her hands off of him. Then, after marriage, she cools down and he longs for more of that. Girl says he was in hot pursuit of her -- did all sorts of crazy and romantic things that showed her how much he desired her and was simply "crazy" about her -- which made her feel like the most amazing, beautiful, and attractive girl in the world! Then, he pretty much quit doing all of those things and just expects all of the seductive desire to continue... hmmm.

I'm learning a lot here on TAM. I've not pursued my wife like she needs pursued. She is an amazing and beautiful woman. I've felt resentment because of her increasing LD. That resentment makes me NOT feel like pursuing her. But sometimes the very thing we feel like NOT doing is what we really need to be doing if we want to break the crazy cycle. I'm going to write her a letter right now. I'm also going to do something really stupid crazy for her. Something...


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

techmom said:


> I feel this is the case. Biologically speaking a woman is driven to have a diverse gene pool in her offspring in order for the human race to survive. The hubby is fighting against normal biology. Just like when HD males say that biology drives them to have more sex, the same thing also drives women to seek the most desirable partners. But marriage laws and society deters women from actively doing this.
> 
> She will stay in the marriage and make the hubby jump through hoops trying to get sex. Not fair to him, she will need to make all sorts of effort to be attracted to him, but with a new partner it would be effortless. That is the part that hurts, we see it all over TAM. He would had invested his life with this woman, but she will so easily enjoy and desire sex with someone else.
> 
> ...


4 to 5 years ago I will say "you are crazy". But after joining TAM and learning more about differences in culture between my country and Western countries, now I will say "you are wise". Your son will thank you.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

4thand11 said:


> I actually love that contract idea! However you are right it will never happen... not only the divorce lawyer lobby, the entire billion-dollar wedding industry depends on selling the idea of happily ever after.


eh, no.. if I have a Wedding Organizer business, I'll be thrilled to have the prospects of having the same couple used my services regularly for every 3 to 5 years or so.. imagine.. a 15 years marriage equals at least 3 Wedding-ReWedding-Contract Extension parties.. yeay! Shekels, Rupees and Denaro, come my way!


----------



## Created2Write (Aug 25, 2011)

Entropy3000 said:


> I would never ever agree to a renewal. I invest in my marriage as a long term arrangement. To be all in you need to think long term.
> 
> I think the concept of renewal is a total FAIL. In fact I think many people live this way anyways. This is really not marriage. The renewal encourages dating other while married.
> 
> Some you folks really crack me up. Sorry. Continue on. I think the real is answer is to not bother getting married if you want a five year plan. Just live together and date other people. Make sure any children are taken care of.


:iagree:

Thank you. I was just thinking this.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Environment dictates how prevelant and needed monogamy is. This is the new age of both genders being able to support themselves and having access to many of the opposite sex and that's great but it's pretty new too. My oppinion is that survival of the fittest favors monogamy but it's a slow process but it takes a couple of generations to catch up.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

I think a large number of women want a wedding, and not necessarily a man that goes with it.


----------



## HopelessGuy (Jun 19, 2013)

"For some reason — maybe for many reasons — the story of the libidinous male and sexually indifferent female doesn’t make sense to us anymore.

We shouldn’t mourn its passing. *As long as we continue to think (in the back of our minds, to some degree) that men are hard-wired for sex and women for intimacy and babies, then we are stuck with the logic that only men really want to have sex; women want to trade it for something else.* This makes straight couples into hagglers: self-interested, ungenerous, wary of being played. Better for men and women to approach each other as more or less equal partners in lust, and work out the rest in the morning."

I think I'm gonna get this book.

I studied a bit of Anthropology in a past life, and I've never liked the sound of "men/women are wired to" blah blah blah.

The truth is you can't separate culture from human behavior.

Baby boys get blue blankets, and baby girls get pink ones, and it goes on from there.

The truth is that between the agricultural revolution and now there has been a transition whereby 99.9% of cultures are pretty similar. People in the west, and people in the east might be considered very different, but in reality two aboriginal tribes will have more distinctions from each other and from us by a lot.

In most (or nearly all?) aboriginal cultures breasts are not considered sexual parts of the body, and males are not aroused by them. This is unthinkable in most developed societies.

There's also the notion that "men have more testosterone, so that explains everything".

People who know about anabolic/androgenic steroids know that in women a little androgen goes a very long way.

We did not evolve to work 9-5 in a cubicle and be monogamous. This explains all sorts of pathologies. It also explains where we get these warped constructs of how men and women are supposed to be, when really we have no idea. Try telling the HD wife with the LD husband that sex doesn't matter to her.


----------



## Eöl (Feb 13, 2013)

4thand11 said:


> That is why frustrated husbands can say "but I take her out to dinner, I help around the house, I surprise her with presents... and still she doesn't want to have sex with me!"


That is a HUGE mistake men do. Do you really think that taking her out for a steak, or even offering flowers will make her screw you ???? NO WAY, it just doesn't work that way. Women like mystery, challenge, even frustration. Their mind drives them. I don't see how outings could actually arouse them sexually. I mean they will obviously appreciate those moments and love you for them, but desire doesn't work that way !


----------



## Eöl (Feb 13, 2013)

Weird though, in my personal case, we have been together for 4 years. I still madly desire her, although her desire waned long ago... She says she loves me utterly and thinks I am the most attractive man there is ! although she is prone to have these urges to have sex with other men. She didn't follow the urges, but was honest and told me she has them... It is really hard to handle. You know that chemicals are at work and you feel so helpless. I have tried many things to stimulate her attention. It works but SLOWLY. I have been working out a lot, I get attention from other women. Although I don't care for them... don't even want to have sex with any other. I believe I am a monogamous animal amidst my opposites. Lame.


----------



## eyuop (Apr 7, 2013)

HopelessGuy said:


> The truth is you can't separate culture from human behavior.


Culture is the expression of human beliefs and values, so this is true.



HopelessGuy said:


> The truth is that between the agricultural revolution and now there has been a transition whereby 99.9% of cultures are pretty similar.


As a world traveler and linguist/anthropologist who has lived for years in developing countries, your number is way off. Cultures are still vastly different. Globalization is making some things similar, but certainly not almost 100%.



HopelessGuy said:


> In most (or nearly all?) aboriginal cultures breasts are not considered sexual parts of the body, and males are not aroused by them. This is unthinkable in most developed societies.


This is true to some degree. In the villages I've worked in, women often go topless, especially after they are married. Breasts are not a sex symbol in the same way as in the USA (we have a huge boob fetish), but they also are not considered "just like every other body part", either.


----------

