# Her Sex Life With Previous Lovers Was More Varied and Enthusiastic



## CraigBesuden

There is an issue that comes up semi-frequently:

The boyfriend / fiance / husband meets an amazing woman. The sex is acceptable (perhaps even great), but there are some things that she refuses to do and claims that she never would do, calling the acts "degrading." They could be anything from performing fellatio and anal sex all the way to things far more risque. He keeps asking her over time to do those things and she always says no. Later, he somehow learns that she used to do those things for previous lovers but not for him. (With fellatio, it may be that she performs it rarely and without joy with hubby, but he learns that she was known as a very talented and enthusiastic performer with past boyfriends.) He confronts her, she admits that it's true and offers to do those things with him. He's unhappy that he was lied to and that she gave better sex to her previous lovers than to him. While she might be willing to grudgingly do those things with him now that she's under duress and afraid of losing him, knowing that she was enthusiastic about doing those things with other guys but not him is a far greater betrayal than the lie itself.

Women respond by saying that she isn't obligated to perform the same acts with one lover as she did with her previous lovers. (True but irrelevant.)

Men respond by saying that she's not really attracted to him. When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. She settled for a man who is stable and a good provider, even though she's not attracted to him - or certainly not as attracted as she is to the other guy(s) she was with. She can control her actions but she cannot choose to be physically attracted to her husband, and her past actions show that she's just not that into him. He's a lesser man in her eyes and he should dump her. (Alternatively, the reason that she did all those acts when she was younger was because she wanted the attention and validation of those men. She cared about attention and validation from those kinds of men because they are handsome and sexy, so she would do whatever they wanted and appear to enjoy it even if she truly didn't enjoy it. The fact that she doesn't care nearly as much about getting validation from her husband shows that she's not nearly as attracted to him.)

My assumption is that this is like a woman immediately jumping into bed with men who she knows are not relationship material, but making a man wait a period of time for sex when she takes him seriously. Women view it as a compliment and men view it as an insult. I'm assuming that the wife doesn't want to do those acts that she considers to be "degrading" because he's more important to her and she cares what her husband thinks of her, and she didn't really care what those other men think of her. The "limited menu" or "bare minimum" sex is better and more along the lines of lovemaking than the exotic things she did with the previous guys. But that's just a guess.

Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

They tried it and didn't like it. So they're under no obligation to do it ever again. 

On top of that there are also differences between men and how pleasant it might or might not be to do something with them that's not that pleasant to begin with such as size smell and taste, duration, and degree of consideration.

Same with women.


----------



## ConanHub

CraigBesuden said:


> There is an issue that comes up semi-frequently:
> 
> The boyfriend / fiance / husband meets an amazing woman. The sex is acceptable (perhaps even great), but there are some things that she refuses to do and claims that she never would do, calling the acts "degrading." They could be anything from performing fellatio and anal sex all the way to things far more risque. He keeps asking her over time to do those things and she always says no. Later, he somehow learns that she used to do those things for previous lovers but not for him. (With fellatio, it may be that she performs it rarely and without joy with hubby, but he learns that she was known as a very talented and enthusiastic performer with past boyfriends.) He confronts her, she admits that it's true and offers to do those things with him. He's unhappy that he was lied to and that she gave better sex to her previous lovers than to him. While she might be willing to grudgingly do those things with him now that she's under duress and afraid of losing him, knowing that she was enthusiastic about doing those things with other guys but not him is a far greater betrayal than the lie itself.
> 
> Women respond by saying that she isn't obligated to perform the same acts with one lover as she did with her previous lovers. (True but irrelevant.)
> 
> Men respond by saying that she's not really attracted to him. When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. She settled for a man who is stable and a good provider, even though she's not attracted to him - or certainly not as attracted as she is to the other guy(s) she was with. She can control her actions but she cannot choose to be physically attracted to her husband, and her past actions show that she's just not that into him. He's a lesser man in her eyes and he should dump her. (Alternatively, the reason that she did all those acts when she was younger was because she wanted the attention and validation of those men. She cared about attention and validation from those kinds of men because they are handsome and sexy, so she would do whatever they wanted and appear to enjoy it even if she truly didn't enjoy it. The fact that she doesn't care nearly as much about getting validation from her husband shows that she's not nearly as attracted to him.)
> 
> My assumption is that this is like a woman immediately jumping into bed with men who she knows are not relationship material, but making a man wait a period of time for sex when she takes him seriously. Women view it as a compliment and men view it as an insult. I'm assuming that the wife doesn't want to do those acts that she considers to be "degrading" because he's more important to her and she cares what her husband thinks of her, and she didn't really care what those other men think of her. The "limited menu" or "bare minimum" sex is better and more along the lines of lovemaking than the exotic things she did with the previous guys. But that's just a guess.
> 
> Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?


I know you're asking the ladies but the women of TAM don't fit the category you are referring to. (At least none that will admit it.)😋😉

I'm actually the guy they did do the wild thing with. Be that guy.😎


----------



## TXTrini

Is it me? Or does this sound like ... "Why does he get the bigger half? No fair! Waaaaaa!"

Either don't ask questions you can't deal with answers for, or like ConanHub said, inspire that desire. I swear it's a certain type of man I see with these complaints, full of entitlement of what they should get like it's candy and cookies being doled out. 

Sometimes once is enough to know you don't like something. Should people eat cilantro if it tastes like soap to them? How about offering up your ass first if you want anal , etc? 

Whining ain't sexy, boyos.


----------



## manfromlamancha

When she admitted to doing it, did she say that she did not like doing it with the other guys? From what I understand if she was "talented" at doing it, then she was probably into it. How did you find out that she was talented with other guys?

And for what it's worth, I do not see this as whining and quite a valid issue. She makes you wait and she did not do with others. She does things for other but will not do it with you. And she lies. All good reasons for concern.


----------



## ConanHub

manfromlamancha said:


> When she admitted to doing it, did she say that she did not like doing it with the other guys? From what I understand if she was "talented" at doing it, then she was probably into it. How did you find out that she was talented with other guys?
> 
> And for what it's worth, I do not see this as whining and quite a valid issue. She makes you wait and she did not do with others. She does things for other but will not do it with you. And she lies. All good reasons for concern.


And you get what you earn gentlemen.


----------



## Julie's Husband

CraigBesuden said:


> When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive.


Submissive? You're kidding, right? I'd never pull that crap on a woman and I would not find a woman who would accept that treatment interesting. I like women who are their own person.


----------



## CharlieParker

My wife has told me she liked butt stuff before we met, now not so much. Should I call a lawyer Monday morning?


----------



## ConanHub

CharlieParker said:


> My wife has told me she liked butt stuff before we met, now not so much. Should I call a lawyer Monday morning?


I'm interested in the monetary compensation for the denial of your wife's pooper.😆


----------



## CraigBesuden

I’ve seen it brought up on TAM. It also comes up regularly on Reddit and other places. I just wonder why this happens.

I was listening to Youtube video about one of these situations. The wife told her husband (a virgin before her) that she doesn’t want to and never did tgese things. Then her jealous ex-BF sent a video to her husband of them doing some of these things.

The wife was crying, apologetic and said she’d do those things with him now, which he refused because it wasn’t genuine. Her explanation for the lying and the refusal? She said she saw their love as wholesome and pure, and that by adding these kinds of sex acts that she worried he’d think less of her. 

The guys all say that’s crap. But I’m not sure that she’s lying. It seems plausible to me that she might think that way. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

Here is one such story:

* My(27M) fiancée’s(28F) ex boyfriend sent me some videos of them together…

Those videos and thumbnails have been stuck in my head. First my fiancée said she would never do that…. I’ve asked her if she’d like to make videos of us together so I have something to get off to that’s not just porn. She said she doesn’t like to make videos or send pictures. But obviously she did with him. The dude was also significantly large

There were also sex acts that she said she doesn’t like doing that she did enthusiastically with him. Like she doesn’t like having her hair pulled or being spanked or held down and she had all of those things done to her, and she seemed to enjoy it. She also said she doesn’t really enjoy giving oral sex that much, but again she did so with him enthusiastically. Some of the thumbnails of videos I didn’t watch had her in handcuffs or tied up or other things like that, which are all things she said she’d never do. The video of her giving him head was filmed in a car in public, something that I’ve expressed to her as a fetish of mine and she said she won’t do.

By fair the biggest thing that made me feel insecure was the sounds and reactions she made in the video. She sounded like a ****ing pornstar. She never makes sounds like that with me. She never screams out my name or grabs on the bed for dear life. She never has finished so intensely that her legs shake. I don’t know what I’m doing that’s so wrong that I’m not making her react that way. The only thing that I could think of was that his penis was significantly larger than mine, and now I was already insecure and depressed about my size and this is making it so much worse. *

I haven’t told my fiancée about about any of this because I know telling her will just make her feel worse about this when she needs to be strong to make sure she can help get her ex punished. I don’t know what to do with these feelings but they’re eating me up inside. I’m literally crying as I right this because this all hurts my heart so much.

What should I do….

* I’m not bothered by the fact that she slept with another guy. I’m bothered that through the last almost 4 years we’ve been together, that she has told me that she will not do certain things that she had done with him, and that I saw how she reacted with him. That’s what’s painful. That this woman I loved and I thought trusted me completely was willing to do things that made her uncomfortable with him, but will not do those things with me. It makes me feel like she trusts me less, and like she desires me less than she desired him. *


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/khgq15

This isn’t the exact story but it’s similar enough.

From one of the comments on that post:

* She sounded like a porn star? Well, porn stars aren't known for having a genuinely good time -- they're actors. It sounds like she was putting on an act for him too, and putting his needs/wants above her own comfort and boundaries. Considering the type of person he's shown himself to be, does it sound surprising that she may have felt pressured to act this way to appease him? The fact that she's comfortable enough in your relationship to have boundaries and refrain from sexual acts she doesn't want to do is a good thing.

Would you rather your fiancée be her authenic self who has enough self-respect to decide what she does and doesn't want to do, or a fake performative version of herself who exists solely to have "porn star sex" with you, regardless of her actual preferences? I sure do hope it's the former.

Anecdotally speaking, if my partner received videos of myself with some of my exes, it would probably look very similar to the ones OP received. And yet, my partner is the only partner I've ever genuinely enjoyed sex with, and didn't feel pressured to put on a show for like I have in the past. This was especially true for the abusive relationships I've been in, where I felt like I had to do anything necessary to prove my worth/value to them after being told over and over that I had none. There are things I refuse to do in bed which I did before, because I feel comfortable saying "no" in this relationship without worrying about consequences. It's entirely possible that your girlfriend is in the same boat. *


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr.Married

What good does this thread actually do? It reminds me of how most social media works these days……divide and trigger the audience.

The bottom line is if you want to be the man getting all the goods….. then be that type of man. It really is that simple despite all the protesting.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:


> There is an issue that comes up semi-frequently:
> 
> The boyfriend / fiance / husband meets an amazing woman. The sex is acceptable (perhaps even great), but there are some things that she refuses to do and claims that she never would do, calling the acts "degrading." They could be anything from performing fellatio and anal sex all the way to things far more risque. He keeps asking her over time to do those things and she always says no. Later, he somehow learns that she used to do those things for previous lovers but not for him. (With fellatio, it may be that she performs it rarely and without joy with hubby, but he learns that she was known as a very talented and enthusiastic performer with past boyfriends.) He confronts her, she admits that it's true and offers to do those things with him. He's unhappy that he was lied to and that she gave better sex to her previous lovers than to him. While she might be willing to grudgingly do those things with him now that she's under duress and afraid of losing him, knowing that she was enthusiastic about doing those things with other guys but not him is a far greater betrayal than the lie itself.
> 
> Women respond by saying that she isn't obligated to perform the same acts with one lover as she did with her previous lovers. (True but irrelevant.)
> 
> Men respond by saying that she's not really attracted to him. When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. She settled for a man who is stable and a good provider, even though she's not attracted to him - or certainly not as attracted as she is to the other guy(s) she was with. She can control her actions but she cannot choose to be physically attracted to her husband, and her past actions show that she's just not that into him. He's a lesser man in her eyes and he should dump her. (Alternatively, the reason that she did all those acts when she was younger was because she wanted the attention and validation of those men. She cared about attention and validation from those kinds of men because they are handsome and sexy, so she would do whatever they wanted and appear to enjoy it even if she truly didn't enjoy it. The fact that she doesn't care nearly as much about getting validation from her husband shows that she's not nearly as attracted to him.)
> 
> My assumption is that this is like a woman immediately jumping into bed with men who she knows are not relationship material, but making a man wait a period of time for sex when she takes him seriously. Women view it as a compliment and men view it as an insult. I'm assuming that the wife doesn't want to do those acts that she considers to be "degrading" because he's more important to her and she cares what her husband thinks of her, and she didn't really care what those other men think of her. The "limited menu" or "bare minimum" sex is better and more along the lines of lovemaking than the exotic things she did with the previous guys. But that's just a guess.
> 
> Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?


This topic comes up on a regular basis on TAM. Almost exact wording, is exact concept and context. I say that not to critique your post but to share that there is an abundance of threads and posts on this, that if you'll look for may give you a jump start on your researching the whys and more background info.


----------



## Bulfrog1987

Just because someone was at one time good at something or even still is, doesn’t mean the receiving party deserves it. As an example. I may have been known for have the best set of a particular skill among the three men I’ve been with.

Only two of them ever really deserved that from me in my opinion and I truly enjoy doing it. But it’s irrelevant my past relationship, what went on, ect. To whether I continue to perform certain ways.. 

On the flip side, being older and wiser, if I know or feel a man if undeserving of my physical affection in said way, then we shouldn’t be together, period. Sounds like these two shouldn’t be either.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:


> There is an issue that comes up semi-frequently:
> 
> The boyfriend / fiance / husband meets an amazing woman. The sex is acceptable (perhaps even great), but there are some things that she refuses to do and claims that she never would do, calling the acts "degrading." They could be anything from performing fellatio and anal sex all the way to things far more risque. He keeps asking her over time to do those things and she always says no. Later, he somehow learns that she used to do those things for previous lovers but not for him. (With fellatio, it may be that she performs it rarely and without joy with hubby, but he learns that she was known as a very talented and enthusiastic performer with past boyfriends.) He confronts her, she admits that it's true and offers to do those things with him. He's unhappy that he was lied to and that she gave better sex to her previous lovers than to him. While she might be willing to grudgingly do those things with him now that she's under duress and afraid of losing him, knowing that she was enthusiastic about doing those things with other guys but not him is a far greater betrayal than the lie itself.
> 
> Women respond by saying that she isn't obligated to perform the same acts with one lover as she did with her previous lovers. (True but irrelevant.)
> 
> Men respond by saying that she's not really attracted to him. When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. She settled for a man who is stable and a good provider, even though she's not attracted to him - or certainly not as attracted as she is to the other guy(s) she was with. She can control her actions but she cannot choose to be physically attracted to her husband, and her past actions show that she's just not that into him. He's a lesser man in her eyes and he should dump her. (Alternatively, the reason that she did all those acts when she was younger was because she wanted the attention and validation of those men. She cared about attention and validation from those kinds of men because they are handsome and sexy, so she would do whatever they wanted and appear to enjoy it even if she truly didn't enjoy it. The fact that she doesn't care nearly as much about getting validation from her husband shows that she's not nearly as attracted to him.)
> 
> My assumption is that this is like a woman immediately jumping into bed with men who she knows are not relationship material, but making a man wait a period of time for sex when she takes him seriously. Women view it as a compliment and men view it as an insult. I'm assuming that the wife doesn't want to do those acts that she considers to be "degrading" because he's more important to her and she cares what her husband thinks of her, and she didn't really care what those other men think of her. The "limited menu" or "bare minimum" sex is better and more along the lines of lovemaking than the exotic things she did with the previous guys. But that's just a guess.
> 
> Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?


How did you "somehow" find out she did these things with previous lovers? The somehow-way is a detail that will impacts your reactions and perhaps forum members responses.


----------



## *Deidre*

So, the sum total of the value of a woman is what she’ll do with you in bed?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Bulfrog1987 said:


> Just because someone was at one time good at something or even still is, doesn’t mean the receiving party deserves it. As an example. I may have been known for have the best set of a particular skill among the three men I’ve been with.
> 
> Only two of them ever really deserved that from me in my opinion and I truly enjoy doing it. But it’s irrelevant my past relationship, what went on, ect. To whether I continue to perform certain ways..
> 
> On the flip side, being older and wiser, if I know or feel a man if undeserving of my physical affection in said way, then we shouldn’t be together, period. Sounds like these two shouldn’t be either.


The may not "*deserve*" same comes out pretty quick! I'm in agreement with you there btw.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:
When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive



Julie's Husband said:


> Submissive? You're kidding, right? I'd never pull that crap on a woman and I would not find a woman who would accept that treatment interesting. I like women who are their own person.


Directly to the submissive statement; there's no...automatically happens....there, what dreamworld did you get that statement from??


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:


> Here is one such story:
> 
> * My(27M) fiancée’s(28F) ex boyfriend sent me some videos of them together…
> 
> Those videos and thumbnails have been stuck in my head. First my fiancée said she would never do that…. I’ve asked her if she’d like to make videos of us together so I have something to get off to that’s not just porn. She said she doesn’t like to make videos or send pictures. But obviously she did with him. The dude was also significantly large
> 
> There were also sex acts that she said she doesn’t like doing that she did enthusiastically with him. Like she doesn’t like having her hair pulled or being spanked or held down and she had all of those things done to her, and she seemed to enjoy it. She also said she doesn’t really enjoy giving oral sex that much, but again she did so with him enthusiastically. Some of the thumbnails of videos I didn’t watch had her in handcuffs or tied up or other things like that, which are all things she said she’d never do. The video of her giving him head was filmed in a car in public, something that I’ve expressed to her as a fetish of mine and she said she won’t do.
> 
> By fair the biggest thing that made me feel insecure was the sounds and reactions she made in the video. She sounded like a ****ing pornstar. She never makes sounds like that with me. She never screams out my name or grabs on the bed for dear life. She never has finished so intensely that her legs shake. I don’t know what I’m doing that’s so wrong that I’m not making her react that way. The only thing that I could think of was that his penis was significantly larger than mine, and now I was already insecure and depressed about my size and this is making it so much worse. *
> 
> I haven’t told my fiancée about about any of this because I know telling her will just make her feel worse about this when she needs to be strong to make sure she can help get her ex punished. I don’t know what to do with these feelings but they’re eating me up inside. I’m literally crying as I right this because this all hurts my heart so much.
> 
> What should I do….
> 
> * I’m not bothered by the fact that she slept with another guy. I’m bothered that through the last almost 4 years we’ve been together, that she has told me that she will not do certain things that she had done with him, and that I saw how she reacted with him. That’s what’s painful. That this woman I loved and I thought trusted me completely was willing to do things that made her uncomfortable with him, but will not do those things with me. It makes me feel like she trusts me less, and like she desires me less than she desired him. *
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/khgq15
> 
> This isn’t the exact story but it’s similar enough.
> 
> From one of the comments on that post:
> 
> * She sounded like a porn star? Well, porn stars aren't known for having a genuinely good time -- they're actors. It sounds like she was putting on an act for him too, and putting his needs/wants above her own comfort and boundaries. Considering the type of person he's shown himself to be, does it sound surprising that she may have felt pressured to act this way to appease him? The fact that she's comfortable enough in your relationship to have boundaries and refrain from sexual acts she doesn't want to do is a good thing.
> 
> Would you rather your fiancée be her authenic self who has enough self-respect to decide what she does and doesn't want to do, or a fake performative version of herself who exists solely to have "porn star sex" with you, regardless of her actual preferences? I sure do hope it's the former.
> 
> Anecdotally speaking, if my partner received videos of myself with some of my exes, it would probably look very similar to the ones OP received. And yet, my partner is the only partner I've ever genuinely enjoyed sex with, and didn't feel pressured to put on a show for like I have in the past. This was especially true for the abusive relationships I've been in, where I felt like I had to do anything necessary to prove my worth/value to them after being told over and over that I had none. There are things I refuse to do in bed which I did before, because I feel comfortable saying "no" in this relationship without worrying about consequences. It's entirely possible that your girlfriend is in the same boat. *
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If you feel the desire to past walls of text and stories to chum the waters - it's better to resist that urge.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Why is this poster posting porn stories for some reason?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

This is all a load of BS. For one I am very skeptical that there are things a woman LOVED to do with a former lover and now hates it too much to even try it with their current lover. Odds are it already wasn't at the top of her favorites list. Once she stopped doing it, she has decided to not try it again. 

And the example about sounding like a porn star in a video with a former lover, well ever consider she was ACTING like a porn star for the camera?

The example about her not liking fellatio now, but was a natural talent at it for a former lover, again, the story doesn't hold water. How would you even find this out with such certainty? What are you doing, going around giving former sex partners a questionnaire? If you are that obsessed with her past lovers, you may want to look inward for what is going on in your head.

In the end it doesn't matter what she did with a former lover. Enjoy what you BOTH want to do together. If you aren't getting what you want then you aren't compatible. Badgering her about acts with past lovers will only dig the hole deeper and she soon won't want to do anything with you. 


As for this: _"When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. " _Nah, I don't buy it. You will have to take my word for it, but my wife is extremely attracted to me. There are often times she can't keep her hands off of me, but there are most definitely things I would like to do, but she isn't willing to try. Even in her most uninhibited moments of extreme passion there are acts she personally finds repulsive and won't do. It isn't always about attraction. 

It is fine to desire more variety and enthusiasm with and from you lover, but if it isn't at a level that satisfies you there is some amount of incompatibility. Beating her over the head with things she did with past lovers will not get you what you are hoping for.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> This topic comes up on a regular basis on TAM. Almost exact wording, is exact concept and context. I say that not to critique your post but to share that there is an abundance of threads and posts on this, that if you'll look for may give you a jump start on your researching the whys and more background info.


Thanks. I’ll do a search. I find the unwillingness to directly answer the question to be strange.

So far, men here are generally implying that they agree with the common response from men (i.e., the sexier the man, the more she will do in bed). They may be right but I’ll search and see how women have responded to similar questions in the past. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gameopoly5

CraigBesuden said:


> I’ve seen it brought up on TAM. It also comes up regularly on Reddit and other places. I just wonder why this happens.
> 
> I was listening to Youtube video about one of these situations. The wife told her husband (a virgin before her) that she doesn’t want to and never did tgese things. Then her jealous ex-BF sent a video to her husband of them doing some of these things.
> 
> The wife was crying, apologetic and said she’d do those things with him now, which he refused because it wasn’t genuine. Her explanation for the lying and the refusal? She said she saw their love as wholesome and pure, and that by adding these kinds of sex acts that she worried he’d think less of her.
> 
> The guys all say that’s crap. But I’m not sure that she’s lying. It seems plausible to me that she might think that way.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I`ve listen to many of those videos on YouTube and reddit, must be hundreds on there and strongly suspect most of them are fake made up stories.
The most popular are wives cheating with their gym trainers and fiancees sucking sausage and having S with male strippers at bachelorette parties.
Many of those stories have been doing the rounds for years. They are simply for entertainment purposes and should not be taken seriously as factual.
Prior to meeting my wife I went with girls that in the bedroom department were very uninhabited and done a lot more with me than my wife has ever done.
Perhaps some of those girls of my single days are the types you mentioned, were a lot more uninhibited with me than they are now with their present husbands.
My wife and I have been married for 34 years and I recently discovered something about my wife`s past which is suspect. I created a thread about this.
But women whatever they do are in a no win situation.
If a girl sleeps with a boy on their first date, it is supposed if she`ll do the deed with him on a first date than she will sleep with anyone. If she doesn`t then guys will say she is frigid.
Promiscuous women are often frowned upon in society and not something most will want to boast about. They know if meeting a guy considered THE ONE, divulging her past could put him off and in most cases it will.
Most of us done wild things when we were young and later as we mature both mentally and physically our wild side begins to tone down.
So what exactly is your point?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:


> Thanks. I’ll do a search. I find the unwillingness to directly answer the question to be strange.
> 
> So far, men here are generally implying that they agree with the common response from men (i.e., the sexier the man, the more she will do in bed). They may be right but I’ll search and see how women have responded to similar questions in the past.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Unwillingness to answer what?


----------



## CraigBesuden

BigDaddyNY said:


> This is all a load of BS. For one I am very skeptical that there are things a woman LOVED to do with a former lover and now hates it too much to even try it with their current lover. Odds are it already wasn't at the top of her favorites list. Once she stopped doing it, she has decided to not try it again.
> 
> * * *
> 
> The example about her not liking fellatio now, but was a natural talent at it for a former lover, again, the story doesn't hold water. How would you even find this out with such certainty? What are you doing, going around giving former sex partners a questionnaire? If you are that obsessed with her past lovers, you may want to look inward for what is going on in your head.


In the situation I was alluding to, the guy went with his wife to a get-together with group of old friends of hers. People were drinking a lot and an ex-BF complimented the husband, saying you are a lucky man, she is the very best at oral. She wouldn’t do that for him and claimed she never did it, but that group all knew differently. From there it ends the same way (he confronts her, she breaks down crying, I’ll do those things with you, husband is hurt and angry, marriage is ruined if not a divorce).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:


> I’ve seen it brought up on TAM. It also comes up regularly on Reddit and other places. I just wonder why this happens.
> 
> I was listening to Youtube video about one of these situations. The wife told her husband (a virgin before her) that she doesn’t want to and never did tgese things. Then her jealous ex-BF sent a video to her husband of them doing some of these things.
> 
> The wife was crying, apologetic and said she’d do those things with him now, which he refused because it wasn’t genuine. Her explanation for the lying and the refusal? She said she saw their love as wholesome and pure, and that by adding these kinds of sex acts that she worried he’d think less of her.
> 
> The guys all say that’s crap. But I’m not sure that she’s lying. It seems plausible to me that she might think that way.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


She says yes, he says no, it's too late now.... Confirming he's a whiny child and manliness is not in him. That's your answer. Had this problem much? There are things you can do different with your next gf.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:


> In the situation I was alluding to, the guy went with his wife to a get-together with group of old friends of hers. People were drinking a lot and an ex-BF complimented the husband, saying you are a lucky man, she is the very best at oral. She wouldn’t do that for him and claimed she never did it, but that group all knew differently. From there it ends the same way (he confronts her, she breaks down crying, I’ll do those things with you, husband is hurt and angry, marriage is ruined if not a divorce).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


So the guy is crushed and the M over by a stupid unsolicited comment from one *outside* the M. 

Not much of a guy, or a M, if any outside person can destroy it with one dumbass comment. 

What a great group of friends that sit around a table accepting it's ok to all talk about the women at the table sucking weiners.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> In the situation I was alluding to, the guy went with his wife to a get-together with group of old friends of hers. People were drinking a lot and an ex-BF complimented the husband, saying you are a lucky man, she is the very best at oral. She wouldn’t do that for him and claimed she never did it, but that group all knew differently. From there it ends the same way (he confronts her, she breaks down crying, I’ll do those things with you, husband is hurt and angry, marriage is ruined if not a divorce).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Again, I don't buy the story. I suppose it is technically possible, but I know if an ex-BF of my wife's came up to me to tell me how good she sucked his **** I would deck him on the spot, not be pissed at her. This is ridiculous and nonsense IMO.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

BigDaddyNY said:


> This is all a load of BS. For one I am very skeptical that there are things a woman LOVED to do with a former lover and now hates it too much to even try it with their current lover. Odds are it already wasn't at the top of her favorites list. Once she stopped doing it, she has decided to not try it again.
> 
> And the example about sounding like a porn star in a video with a former lover, well ever consider she was ACTING like a porn star for the camera?
> 
> The example about her not liking fellatio now, but was a natural talent at it for a former lover, again, the story doesn't hold water. How would you even find this out with such certainty? What are you doing, going around giving former sex partners a questionnaire? If you are that obsessed with her past lovers, you may want to look inward for what is going on in your head.
> 
> In the end it doesn't matter what she did with a former lover. Enjoy what you BOTH want to do together. If you aren't getting what you want then you aren't compatible. Badgering her about acts with past lovers will only dig the hole deeper and she soon won't want to do anything with you.
> 
> 
> As for this: _"When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. " _Nah, I don't buy it. You will have to take my word for it, but my wife is extremely attracted to me. There are often times she can't keep her hands off of me, but there are most definitely things I would like to do, but she isn't willing to try. Even in her most uninhibited moments of extreme passion there are acts she personally finds repulsive and won't do. It isn't always about attraction.
> 
> It is fine to desire more variety and enthusiasm with and from you lover, but if it isn't at a level that satisfies you there is some amount of incompatibility. Beating her over the head with things she did with past lovers will not get you what you are hoping for.


I'm trying to take this thread seriously. You're hurting my efforts with your dang logic.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍


----------



## ElOtro

CharlieParker said:


> My wife has told me she liked butt stuff before we met, now not so much. Should I call a lawyer Monday morning?


No need to rush.
Wait till next month


----------



## *Deidre*

BigDaddyNY said:


> As for this: _"When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. " _Nah, I don't buy it. You will have to take my word for it, but my wife is extremely attracted to me. There are often times she can't keep her hands off of me, but there are most definitely things I would like to do, but she isn't willing to try. Even in her most uninhibited moments of extreme passion there are acts she personally finds repulsive and won't do. It isn't always about attraction.


This. I'm very attracted to my husband, and he is to me, but we both want each other to have mutual pleasure...and there are things that I'm not into. It's not really about attraction.

I guess what doesn't make sense to me, is if a guy is exclusive with his gf, doesn't this come up before marriage? If it comes up before marriage and this is a dealbreaker for a guy, then why marry that person?

What seems to be more of a trend here on TAM with some members complaining about sex in their marriage, is that their spouses were way more sexually open during the dating phase, then when they marry, it all stops...or becomes very vanilla.


----------



## oldshirt

If you watch enough Richard Cooper and Rollo Tamassi videos and podcasts, you will start to think that the only way you will be able to say good morning to a woman and not get pepper sprayed is if you are over an over 6' 2" bodybuilder millionaire that has an exotic car collection and is an MMA competitor. 

Now I'm sure those guys have had some pretty wild monkey sex over the years.... but so I have an I do not have ANY of the traits that most of the talking heads in the manosphere say that you have to have in order to attract a woman. 

Are there women that have married guys they were not all that sexually attracted to because they were good providers and their grandmas approved of them and are there women that couldn't or wouldn't marry the guy they had the most high-octane sex with? Yes, I'm sure that happens all the time. 

But the key here is everyone is going to have their own level of sexual chemistry and compatibility with each individual they have sex with. 

Just because some 21 year old gal went home drunk with some hunky guy after drinking and dancing and partying it up all night and had anal sex when she was full of young and single party girl hormones one drunken night, doesn't mean that she is going to want to do that when she is a sober, 32 year old wife and mother that now has hemorrhoids after her last pregnancy. 

Was the guy she had anal sex with when she was 21 sexier and more "alpha" and now living the life of a porn star while her poor beta simp husband is left begging to penetrate her backdoor? I suppose it's possible, but the reality is that is probably married and spending most of his days dealing with kids running around and his wife hasn't given him a proper blow job in the last 2 years either. 

But here is the real question you need to be asking - why are these poor deprived guys you are talking about with women who are not meeting their sexual desires and needs in the first place???? 

If anal or oral sex or BDSM or whatever so important to them, why are they with these women in the first place???

Why are they with a woman who finds an activity degrading, that is important to them??

The question that needs to be addressed in these situations is why did a drunk 21 take it up the backside with the star quarterback at a frat party 10 years earlier that she won't now as a mature sober adult with adult responsibilities and a stable relationship?

The question that needs to be asked is why if certain sexual activities important to a man, why is he with a woman that finds those acts degrading and disgusting?


----------



## CraigBesuden

gameopoly5 said:


> I`ve listen to many of those videos on YouTube and reddit, must be hundreds on there and strongly suspect most of them are fake made up stories.


The stories might all be fake. I’ve never known of this happening in real life (partner exposed for lying about their past) but I’m sure it happens to some people. Other than lying about body count, which we all know happens.



> So what exactly is your point?


The men often say that most (!) women (especially late 20s and early 30s) marry guys they aren’t attracted to for money and stability. That they are genuinely attracted to the bad boys and give their best to them, and then marry a nice guy to whom they give the bare minimum. These situations are offered as proof.

I know that some women will jump into bed with bad boys but make a guy wait if he’s boyfriend material. Men say that’s because she’s more attracted to the bad boys, and if the stable guy was more physically attractive she’d jump right into bed with him, too. But I know the women’s explanation and I believe it (she wants to take it slow not because he’s unattractive and needs to prove his worth in other ways, but because he’s more important and takes him seriously and doesn’t want to ruin it).

In the same way, I suspect that the men who say that the menu size is directly correlated to how sexy she finds the man in question are wrong. I think there’s a different explanation for why some women offer a more limited menu with a BF/fiance/husband than with a hookup/FB/FWB. I was hoping that a woman could provide the explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> The men often say that *most (!)* women (especially late 20s and early 30s) marry guys they aren’t attracted to for money and stability. That they are genuinely attracted to the bad boys and give their best to them, and then marry a nice guy to whom they give the bare minimum. These situations are offered as proof.
> 
> I know that some women will jump into bed with bad boys but make a guy wait if he’s boyfriend material. Men say that’s because she’s more attracted to the bad boys, and if the stable guy was more physically attractive she’d jump right into bed with him, too. But I know the women’s explanation and I believe it (she wants to take it slow not because he’s unattractive and needs to prove his worth in other ways, but because he’s more important and takes him seriously and doesn’t want to ruin it).
> 
> In the same way, I suspect that the men who say that the menu size is directly correlated to how sexy she finds the man in question are wrong. I think there’s a different explanation for why some women offer a more limited menu with a BF/fiance/husband than with a hookup/FB/FWB. I was hoping that a woman could provide the explanation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Most is a strong word, and I don't think it is at all accurate.


----------



## ElOtro

Bulfrog1987 said:


> On the flip side, being older and wiser, if I know or feel a man if undeserving of my physical affection in said way, then we shouldn’t be together, period. Sounds like these two shouldn’t be either.


Agree



*Deidre* said:


> So, the sum total of the value of a woman is what she’ll do with you in bed?


No, not at all, of course not.
But if what people,* men or women*, haves to give as all of themselves with desire and enthusiasm is out of the "sum total of the value" I wouldn´t replace it with other "gifts".


----------



## oldshirt

CraigBesuden said:


> My assumption is that this is like a woman immediately jumping into bed with men who she knows are not relationship material, but making a man wait a period of time for sex when she takes him seriously. Women view it as a compliment and men view it as an insult.


This is an interesting statement and I do think it happens in the world. 

Women often value commitment and relationships and those things are harder for women to obtain than sex. Sex is a cheap, easy and abundant resource for women but relationships and commitment are much harder to obtain so in their mind, it is a compliment that she wants to have a wholesome and virtuous relationship with him. .....but of course he wants the wild monkey sex and takes it as personal rejection when she says no. 

But again it comes down why is he committing to someone that finds an activity that is important to him degrading and disgusting? 

And if she does in fact find acts degrading and disgusting, why is she committing to a man for whom those acts are important to him?


----------



## Longtime Hubby

My wife was the best French kisser i ever knew. Until the night she told me “the way you kiss makes me gag.” After 15 years of her returning super sexy kisses. this was 16 years ago. She finally allows French again, but only when making love. its nowhere near as great as it was. But fellatio gets better and better. Bottom line: Don’t try to figure out women.


----------



## Mr.Married

Women aren’t coming in here by the dozens to give you an answer because the overall theme of these types of threads ends up becoming “ You women are wrong for doing this.”

Why would they want to enter that minefield?

The answers are very simple. The man accepted what she was offering “to him” and married her. The fact that he would be willing to compromise those “other things” says he is the type of guy that settled also or Is that type that places her too much on a pedestal. The answer really isn’t complicated.


----------



## Livvie

CraigBesuden said:


> The stories might all be fake. I’ve never known of this happening in real life (partner exposed for lying about their past) but I’m sure it happens to some people. Other than lying about body count, which we all know happens.
> 
> 
> 
> The men often say that most (!) women (especially late 20s and early 30s) marry guys they aren’t attracted to for money and stability. That they are genuinely attracted to the bad boys and give their best to them, and then marry a nice guy to whom they give the bare minimum. These situations are offered as proof.
> 
> I know that some women will jump into bed with bad boys but make a guy wait if he’s boyfriend material. Men say that’s because she’s more attracted to the bad boys, and if the stable guy was more physically attractive she’d jump right into bed with him, too. But I know the women’s explanation and I believe it (she wants to take it slow not because he’s unattractive and needs to prove his worth in other ways, but because he’s more important and takes him seriously and doesn’t want to ruin it).
> 
> In the same way, I suspect that the men who say that the menu size is directly correlated to how sexy she finds the man in question are wrong. I think there’s a different explanation for why some women offer a more limited menu with a BF/fiance/husband than with a hookup/FB/FWB. I was hoping that a woman could provide the explanation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The men aren't always wrong about that. 

I'm a female who has had female girlfriends for many decades. There are indeed women who ultimately choose to marry men due their $$ and stability and aren't very sexually attracted to them. And they did things with previous men they were super attracted to they have no interest doing with the man she's not nearly as attracted to. It happens, for sure.


----------



## Married but Happy

IMO, dating is a screening process. If you want to explore and regularly engage in certain sex acts, and she won't, then move on. By the time you decide to marry, you need to be fine with the range and tone of your sex life, and if you aren't, don't get married to that person. If you have been experimental, then should be able to expect that to continue to _some _degree.

It's very possible that she married you as the safe and secure bet for the future and children, not for the wild and irresponsible experiences she may have tried before. If you want more than that, hold out until you find it, or if you married anyway and later feel you've been duped, there's always divorce. Of course, people can change and also be different to some degree with different people while still being true to themselves, but something they greatly enjoyed often in the past isn't likely to become suddenly off the table with someone new unless the new person doesn't inspire those desires. As I said, if you don't like it, move on.

My ex did a bait and switch on me. We had sex all the time before marriage, but after, she rarely wanted to (although, the same sex acts were still on the table), so it became an almost sexless marriage. It appeared to be some dysfunctional remnant of _her_ religious upbringing. I divorced her, and was far more careful before marrying again, finding someone who still loves frequent and varied sex with me after 22 years.


----------



## gameopoly5

CraigBesuden said:


> In the situation I was alluding to, the guy went with his wife to a get-together with group of old friends of hers. People were drinking a lot and an ex-BF complimented the husband, saying you are a lucky man, she is the very best at oral. She wouldn’t do that for him and claimed she never did it, but that group all knew differently. From there it ends the same way (he confronts her, she breaks down crying, I’ll do those things with you, husband is hurt and angry, marriage is ruined if not a divorce).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


.
I`ve watched that story on YouTube, another one doing the rounds.
I have no doubts there are women who partied with the bad boys and married a nice guy for security called settlement, there are also average guys who have settled for women they don`t consider particularly attractive, but married because they can`t find anyone else. Works both ways. 
Those videos are bad for relationships because they make guys like you think too much.
It`s similar to porn movies that is all fake and guys start believing their female partners should be like that. Pure fantasy.
My advice is, why not watch documentaries and wildlife videos instead. So much more beneficial for your mental health.


----------



## CraigBesuden

*Deidre* said:


> What seems to be more of a trend here on TAM with some members complaining about sex in their marriage, is that their spouses were way more sexually open during the dating phase, then when they marry, it all stops...or becomes very vanilla.


That I can understand. The men would fear that it’s a bait and switch, misleading him as to quality and quantity while dating, then showing her real self once it’s too late. I suspect it’s more of becoming busy with kids, work, life. Knowing how to get your partner off quickly, push the right buttons, and check that chore off the list and get to sleep.

Of course, if that happened right after the wedding with no medical or other explanation, I would suspect the worst.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oldshirt

CraigBesuden said:


> The stories might all be fake. I’ve never known of this happening in real life (partner exposed for lying about their past) but I’m sure it happens to some people. Other than lying about body count, which we all know happens.
> 
> 
> 
> The men often say that most (!) women (especially late 20s and early 30s) marry guys they aren’t attracted to for money and stability. That they are genuinely attracted to the bad boys and give their best to them, and then marry a nice guy to whom they give the bare minimum. These situations are offered as proof.
> 
> I know that some women will jump into bed with bad boys but make a guy wait if he’s boyfriend material. Men say that’s because she’s more attracted to the bad boys, and if the stable guy was more physically attractive she’d jump right into bed with him, too. But I know the women’s explanation and I believe it (she wants to take it slow not because he’s unattractive and needs to prove his worth in other ways, but because he’s more important and takes him seriously and doesn’t want to ruin it).
> 
> In the same way, I suspect that the men who say that the menu size is directly correlated to how sexy she finds the man in question are wrong. I think there’s a different explanation for why some women offer a more limited menu with a BF/fiance/husband than with a hookup/FB/FWB. I was hoping that a woman could provide the explanation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Again, be careful following Richard Cooper, Rollo Tomassit et al because their black and white view of the world is way too simplistic for humans which are very complex. Whether chicks have wild, kinky sex or not depends on a lot more moving parts than how tall a guy is and whether he has big biceps and a big bank account or not. 

I think there is some truth to what you are saying here, but it goes both ways and it's not the whole answer. Some people you perceive as relationship material and some you don't. I think that is true for men as well as women and how the man is treating the woman is going to play into it quite a bit as well. 

When young, horny girls first hit the mating market, yes they are dropping their panties for the tall, handsome assertive guys that initially approach them with vigor. And yes they may 

I've been with some women that were very pretty and sexy, but they were in no way shape or form relationship material that I would bring home to Mom or have a home and family with or have her name on a bank account or mortgage etc with me. 

As a man, I could be fine with having sex with pretty much any adult woman under 200lbs that was clean and that takes care of herself. But one that I would marry, intigrate familes with and have a mortgage and raise children with is one out of 3.5 billion. 

That takes more vetting on both sides vs hooking up for night after a drunken frat party. 

Attraction and animal chemistry certainly play a big role. For me, sexual chemistry and compatibility played a huge role. 

But if you are taking commitment and marriage and raising families, there has to be more than just sexual chemistry that people are bringing to the table. That goes for both men and women. 

And again, I think the bigger issue is why is someone thinking that certain sexual activities are degrading and why are people that value those activities getting with someone that finds them degrading? 

The men in question here need to be doing more vetting.


----------



## CraigBesuden

gameopoly5 said:


> .
> I`ve watched that story on YouTube, another one doing the rounds.
> I have no doubts there are women who partied with the bad boys and married a nice guy for security called settlement, there are also average guys who have settled for women they don`t consider particularly attractive, but married because they can`t find anyone else. Works both ways.
> Those videos are bad for relationships because they make guys like you think too much.
> It`s similar to porn movies that is all fake and guys start believing their female partners should be like that. Pure fantasy.
> My advice is, why not watch documentaries and wildlife videos instead. So much more beneficial for your mental health.


You are right. I started watching these videos for inspiration a few months ago. For example, the data showing women find 80% of men unattractive, how they react to men with ripped bodies. I’m hitting the gym regularly now and down nearly 20 pounds. Hoping to have a six pack by summer 2023. But while they are serving the intended purpose, they may be causing other problems. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## BoSlander

That's exactly what happened to me: when I met my wife she immediately put on the hard-to-get act on. I, stupidly, took it to mean that she never gave up the _punani_. We got married and... our sex life became monotonous primarily because she was not interested in spicing things up. I held on thinking that it was only temporary but... 30 years go by. I then find out she cheated on me and, in the process, come to find out she was a beast in the sac... just with other men.

The last guy she cheated on me with got so much fellatio that, when I tried confronting him, boasted about him getting oral creampies every day before she came home to me.

She developed a depression and I decided to visit her because her family were pleading for me to do so. At the end of the visit I decided to ask her why she was so adventurous with other men and not with me and she had the testicular fortitude of telling me that "well, you didn't know how to ask."

🤣


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive
> 
> 
> 
> Directly to the submissive statement; there's no...automatically happens....there, what dreamworld did you get that statement from??


He's just watched too much porn.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

CraigBesuden said:


> Thanks. I’ll do a search. I find the unwillingness to directly answer the question to be strange.
> 
> So far, men here are generally implying that they agree with the common response from men (i.e., the sexier the man, the more she will do in bed). They may be right but I’ll search and see how women have responded to similar questions in the past.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I directly responded to your post right away maybe the first answer after it and I'm a woman. And that was it, Bud.


----------



## Tdbo

Ahhhh...more a**jabber from Reddit.
Frankly, I doubt that 10% of what is posted there is non-fiction.
An ex-boyfriend that sends the current BF pornos with his current GF? Seriously?
The "Dude" that wrote this was probably typing that with one hand, and manually manipulating himself with the other.
However for excrement and laughter, and as an exercise in mental gymnastics, I'll chime in.
My answer is that if I were truly the man in that situation, she'd be done.
It's not even so much about the sex. It is the fact that she is a liar.
Why would I want to be with someone who lacks the integrity to honestly present themselves?
Barring an abusive situation, she did all those things* because she was into him.
If she wasn't into him, she wouldn't have done them.*
However, for whatever reason, she found "Studly" not viable for a long term relationship. He either strayed (or had the potential to do so) or else she could not "Mold" him into her vision of her long term future.
Therefore, he is done. She now has the desire to "Settle Down."
"Settle Down" has a dual meaning here. She wants kids and family. She also wants a safe choice, someone who will be loyal and good family material. Someone she doesn't have to work so hard to keep.
Thus, the second guy. She isn't gonna let him drive the Porsche version, when all he is ever going to is trudge along in Kia mode. Poor slob doesn't stand a chance.
*She will never give him her best because she doesn't want him to have it.*
While it is understandable that people should not be forced to perform sex acts they do not want to, the fact that she doesn't certainly clearly states what she thinks of him.
The fact that she is not willing to give him "Her Best," is troubling, not necessarily because of the physical act itself, but the emotional connection that comes as the result of it.
The second guy shouldn't have to settle for that. *He deserves to have a woman who wants to do those kinds of things with him.* He shouldn't have to settle for cheese whiz.
Relationships are give and take. Even if he is Kia boy, why shouldn't he get to take the Porsche for a spin on occasion? What ever happened to giving of one's self, or even some sort of compromise?
However, she appears unwilling to do that. She is unwilling to open herself up.
My final answer to this "Conundrum" is that she is neither honest, authentic, or even loving. He needs to send her packing.
Then he is free to go out and find a woman who is willing enough to be giving, loving, and emotionally open enough to build that kind of relationship with him.
Why should he settle for someone that makes him feel alone?
If that is his plight in life, best to be alone.


----------



## ConanHub

@CraigBesuden , I'm curious about how this issue has affected you?

Have you had a disappointing girlfriend?


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> I directly responded to your post right away maybe the first answer after it and I'm a woman. And that was it, Bud.


🙄

I think your post was informative but hardly the sum total for all women who have ever discussed this.

It would do him some good to research the vaults of TAM.


----------



## BoSlander

@Tdbo

This is the reason most women past their prime have such a hard time finding a man to commit: Because they spent their better years acting out the hoe in them, and when it comes time to actually deliver with a romantic partner they refuse to do so because they know "acting out the hoe" is socially frowned upon. Hence you get the sanitized version of the hoe.


----------



## FrenchFry

Maybe the reason women aren't responding is because we are tired of the redpill bs. It's wholly uninteresting to be told how you think, act and feel.


----------



## ConanHub

I'm obviously not referring to all women, and certainly not the ladies from TAM, but some women damn sure will be dtf a lot more and in more adventurous wild ways with certain men.

If you find yourself in a situation like this, the question is who is this on?

It could be you or your lady or a combination of both but you are the only one that can control yourself and what you do about it.


----------



## BoSlander

FrenchFry said:


> Maybe the reason women aren't responding is because we are tired of the redpill bs. It's wholly uninteresting to be told how you think, act and feel.


20% of the men (the redpill guys) are getting 95% of the punani so... 

Congrats, you're making even less sense.


----------



## BoSlander

ConanHub said:


> I'm obviously not referring to all women, and certainly not the ladies from TAM, but some women damn sure will be dtf a lot more and in more adventurous wild ways with certain men.


That goes without saying. If anyone takes offense to this isn't because they want to converse about this.


----------



## Tdbo

BoSlander said:


> @Tdbo
> 
> This is the reason most women past their prime have such a hard time finding a man to commit: Because they spent their better years acting out the hoe in them, and when it comes time to actually deliver with a romantic partner they refuse to do so because they know "acting out the hoe" is socially frowned upon. Hence you get the sanitized version of the hoe.


If the scenario outlined was true, why would the second guy even want her.
If you see your GF railing some guy on video giving him top tier, and she won't even give you barely racy, why would anyone in their right mind want anything to do with her after that?
IMO, it is not even so much about the sex. It's more about the emotional dishonesty that goes with it.


----------



## BoSlander

Tdbo said:


> If the scenario outlined was true, why would the second guy even want her.
> If you see your GF railing some guy on video giving him top tier, and she won't even give you barely racy, why would anyone in their right mind want anything to do with her after that?
> IMO, it is not even so much about the sex. It's more about the emotional dishonesty that goes with it.


And that's exactly what I'm underlining too: the dishonesty. In my scenario, they play it out by keeping mute of what is *REALLY* on the menu with others vs. what is on the menu with you.

Honest to God, it's not their fault. We men have to learn to vet women better. We need to learn to communicate with them in a way that we can get what we need to know from them in order for us to make informed decisions better. God knows they *WILL NOT* tell you.


----------



## gameopoly5

CraigBesuden said:


> You are right. I started watching these videos for inspiration a few months ago. For example, the data showing women find 80% of men unattractive, how they react to men with ripped bodies. I’m hitting the gym regularly now and down nearly 20 pounds. Hoping to have a six pack by summer 2023. But while they are serving the intended purpose, they may be causing other problems.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This too works both ways.
Regardless what the holier than thou may think, people in most cases are highly judged on sexual value. Meaning, how attractive other people perceive them.
When men have affairs it`s mostly with younger women and also prominent guys such as rich businessmen and male celebrities will marry much younger attractive women.
For example when men and women use dating sites and apps most women will aim for alpha males and most men will try to bag the hottest looking women.
A young attractive woman can have S no problem. they could go out or on dating sites and hookup with guys within minutes. There are also guys like this, alpha males, my ex-boss was one of them. He could chat up a girl on a train and within a couple of hours she`d be in his bed.
My now second wife and I have been married for 34 years and admit I don`t find her as sexually attractive as when she was young and beautiful when we first met and probably vice-versa. 
There is nothing so marvelous in this world as being young and in love. When I met my first wife at age 21, I couldn`t stop thinking about her day and night. And the first time we had S together I felt if through I was in heaven because it wasn`t a hookup, we were in love.
But relationships can change over time. Once the honeymoon period is over couples become more as companions and that`s a fact of life.
So avoid taking those cheating girlfriend and wife videos too seriously, because all they do is cause frustration and discontentment.
It is what it is, such is life.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

ConanHub said:


> I'm obviously not referring to all women, and certainly not the ladies from TAM, but some women damn sure will be dtf a lot more and in more adventurous wild ways with certain men.
> 
> If you find yourself in a situation like this, the question is who is this on?
> 
> It could be you or your lady or a combination of both but you are the only one that can control yourself and what you do about it.


I think men need to learn how to fill both roles of bad boy and family man. I think that is how my marriage has been successful in the bedroom and in family life. I was definitely a bad boy and big trouble when we met, and I've never 100% grown out of that. I just morphed that and stuck with parts that keep her, and life in general, excited without being disrespectful or self destructive. I credit the Army for giving me discipline to do what is needed to succeed, while still fostering the bad boy/masculine parts of me.


----------



## ConanHub

FrenchFry said:


> Maybe the reason women aren't responding is because we are tired of the redpill bs. It's wholly uninteresting to be told how you think, act and feel.


Having heard enough to finally form an opinion, I've found red pill to have some pretty significant holes in it and I don't appreciate the way "successful" men are portrayed either.

There are just enough truths involved to keep people invested but there are some good voices calling out the weaknesses in the movement.


----------



## *Deidre*

BoSlander said:


> And that's exactly what I'm underlining too: the dishonesty. In my scenario, they play it out by keeping mute of what is *REALLY* on the menu with others vs. what is on the menu with you.
> 
> Honest to God, it's not their fault. We men have to learn to vet women better. We need to learn to communicate with them in a way that we can get what we need to know from them in order for us to make informed decisions better. God knows they *WILL NOT* tell you.


Your wife was a cheater, though. Not all women behave like your wife (I don't and I know many who are not deceptive, and marriage isn't about duping a guy).

Your wife was deceptive all around, and eventually showed that to you.


----------



## DudeInProgress

CraigBesuden said:


> Here is one such story:
> 
> * My(27M) fiancée’s(28F) ex boyfriend sent me some videos of them together…
> 
> Those videos and thumbnails have been stuck in my head. First my fiancée said she would never do that…. I’ve asked her if she’d like to make videos of us together so I have something to get off to that’s not just porn. She said she doesn’t like to make videos or send pictures. But obviously she did with him. The dude was also significantly large
> 
> There were also sex acts that she said she doesn’t like doing that she did enthusiastically with him. Like she doesn’t like having her hair pulled or being spanked or held down and she had all of those things done to her, and she seemed to enjoy it. She also said she doesn’t really enjoy giving oral sex that much, but again she did so with him enthusiastically. Some of the thumbnails of videos I didn’t watch had her in handcuffs or tied up or other things like that, which are all things she said she’d never do. The video of her giving him head was filmed in a car in public, something that I’ve expressed to her as a fetish of mine and she said she won’t do.
> 
> By fair the biggest thing that made me feel insecure was the sounds and reactions she made in the video. She sounded like a ****ing pornstar. She never makes sounds like that with me. She never screams out my name or grabs on the bed for dear life. She never has finished so intensely that her legs shake. I don’t know what I’m doing that’s so wrong that I’m not making her react that way. The only thing that I could think of was that his penis was significantly larger than mine, and now I was already insecure and depressed about my size and this is making it so much worse. *
> 
> I haven’t told my fiancée about about any of this because I know telling her will just make her feel worse about this when she needs to be strong to make sure she can help get her ex punished. I don’t know what to do with these feelings but they’re eating me up inside. I’m literally crying as I right this because this all hurts my heart so much.
> 
> What should I do….
> 
> * I’m not bothered by the fact that she slept with another guy. I’m bothered that through the last almost 4 years we’ve been together, that she has told me that she will not do certain things that she had done with him, and that I saw how she reacted with him. That’s what’s painful. That this woman I loved and I thought trusted me completely was willing to do things that made her uncomfortable with him, but will not do those things with me. It makes me feel like she trusts me less, and like she desires me less than she desired him. *
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/khgq15
> 
> This isn’t the exact story but it’s similar enough.
> 
> From one of the comments on that post:
> 
> * She sounded like a porn star? Well, porn stars aren't known for having a genuinely good time -- they're actors. It sounds like she was putting on an act for him too, and putting his needs/wants above her own comfort and boundaries. Considering the type of person he's shown himself to be, does it sound surprising that she may have felt pressured to act this way to appease him? The fact that she's comfortable enough in your relationship to have boundaries and refrain from sexual acts she doesn't want to do is a good thing.
> 
> Would you rather your fiancée be her authenic self who has enough self-respect to decide what she does and doesn't want to do, or a fake performative version of herself who exists solely to have "porn star sex" with you, regardless of her actual preferences? I sure do hope it's the former.
> 
> Anecdotally speaking, if my partner received videos of myself with some of my exes, it would probably look very similar to the ones OP received. And yet, my partner is the only partner I've ever genuinely enjoyed sex with, and didn't feel pressured to put on a show for like I have in the past. This was especially true for the abusive relationships I've been in, where I felt like I had to do anything necessary to prove my worth/value to them after being told over and over that I had none. There are things I refuse to do in bed which I did before, because I feel comfortable saying "no" in this relationship without worrying about consequences. It's entirely possible that your girlfriend is in the same boat. *
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


1. Never believe everything you read on Reddit.
2. Never marry the first girl you sleep with (unless you are her first as well).


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

*


CraigBesuden said:



When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants.

Click to expand...

*LOL. Now where did you hear that - Geisha magazine? 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## ConanHub

BigDaddyNY said:


> I think men need to learn how to fill both roles of bad boy and family man. I think that is how my marriage has been successful in the bedroom and in family life. I was definitely a bad boy and big trouble when we met, and I've never 100% grown out of that. I just morphed that and stuck with parts that keep her, and life in general, excited without being disrespectful or self destructive. I credit the Army for giving me discipline to do what is needed to succeed, while still fostering the bad boy/masculine parts of me.


My love for Mrs. C and God helped get me shaped up. They were good at kicking my ass where needed.😉


----------



## CraigBesuden

ConanHub said:


> @CraigBesuden , I'm curious about how this issue has affected you?
> 
> Have you had a disappointing girlfriend?


No. It’s not personal. No woman has ever mistreated me. But I probably should stop watching those videos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DudeInProgress said:


> 1. Never believe everything you read on Reddit.
> *2. Never marry the first girl you sleep with (unless you are her first as well).*


Never say never. I did just that and I was not her first. She had 2 sexual partners prior, including a LTR. 35 years of happiness says it can work out just fine.


----------



## Real talk

When you marry a woman you should get the best version of her. If someone else got that, then let him marry her. 

Men need to stop thinking you need to coax a woman to fulfill her duties. If it's not coming naturally, then she simply doesn't value you enough.


----------



## Real talk

BigDaddyNY said:


> Enjoy what you BOTH want to do together. If you aren't getting what you want then you aren't compatible. Badgering her about acts with past lovers will only dig the hole deeper and she soon won't want to do anything with you.


This is easy to say to men as we're expected to be happy with whatever we're given. 

Let a man take his ex wife all over the world but the most he can muster up with his current wife is staycations and Applebee's. You wouldn't be telling her to shut up and be happy with the 2 for 20.


----------



## BoSlander

Real talk said:


> When you marry a woman you should get the best version of her. If someone else got that, then let him marry her.
> 
> Men need to stop thinking you need to coax a woman to fulfill her duties. If it's not coming naturally, then she simply doesn't value you enough.


This sounds very primal but it's very true.

If she doesn't do what she is supposed to, you're doing her a favor by divorcing her.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Real talk said:


> This is easy to say to men as we're expected to be happy with whatever we're given.
> 
> Let a man take his ex wife all over the world but the most he can muster up with his current wife is staycations and Applebee's. You wouldn't be telling her to shut up and be happy with the 2 for 20.


I don't feel that way. No one should settle if it is on something important to them. That is exactly what the snippet you quoted is saying.


----------



## ConanHub

Real talk said:


> When you marry a woman you should get the best version of her. If someone else got that, then let him marry her.
> 
> Men need to stop thinking you need to coax a woman to fulfill her duties. If it's not coming naturally, then she simply doesn't value you enough.


I think there is something to this but you better put up or shut up.

Maybe your woman doesn't value you enough.

Better make damn sure you are valuable though.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> When you marry a woman you should get the best version of her. If someone else got that, then let him marry her.
> 
> Men need to stop thinking you need to coax a woman to fulfill her duties. If it's not coming naturally, then she simply doesn't value you enough.


Duties. Ugh.


----------



## TXTrini

*Deidre* said:


> So, the sum total of the value of a woman is what she’ll do with you in bed?


Well sex dolls are getting pretty realistic lately, they can do anything to them...


----------



## DownByTheRiver

BoSlander said:


> This sounds very primal but it's very true.
> 
> If she doesn't do what she is supposed to, you're doing her a favor by divorcing her.


What she's supposed to do according to WHO? OMG.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Reality check, people. Wives aren't sex slaves and I don't know one single woman who got married thinking being his sex slave was part of the deal! Because it's not. If you feel that way, don't get married.


----------



## ConanHub

TXTrini said:


> Well sex dolls are getting pretty realistic lately, they can do anything to them...


🤮

They need to add this emoji as an option.😉

I think sex dolls are for the deranged...


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> When you marry a woman you should get the best version of her. If someone else got that, then let him marry her.
> 
> Men need to stop thinking you need to coax a woman to fulfill her duties. If it's not coming naturally, then she simply doesn't value you enough.


"Duties." Oh, that's so sexeeeee. Break me off a piece of that. 🤮


----------



## TXTrini

Ho


CraigBesuden said:


> The stories might all be fake. I’ve never known of this happening in real life (partner exposed for lying about their past) but I’m sure it happens to some people. Other than lying about body count, which we all know happens.
> 
> 
> 
> The men often say that most (!) women (especially late 20s and early 30s) marry guys they aren’t attracted to for money and stability. That they are genuinely attracted to the bad boys and give their best to them, and then marry a nice guy to whom they give the bare minimum. These situations are offered as proof.
> 
> I know that some women will jump into bed with bad boys but make a guy wait if he’s boyfriend material. Men say that’s because she’s more attracted to the bad boys, and if the stable guy was more physically attractive she’d jump right into bed with him, too. But I know the women’s explanation and I believe it (she wants to take it slow not because he’s unattractive and needs to prove his worth in other ways, but because he’s more important and takes him seriously and doesn’t want to ruin it).
> 
> In the same way, I suspect that the men who say that the menu size is directly correlated to how sexy she finds the man in question are wrong. I think there’s a different explanation for why some women offer a more limited menu with a BF/fiance/husband than with a hookup/FB/FWB. I was hoping that a woman could provide the explanation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


How could a woman provide "the" explanation for all women who do this with all the poor men who suffer so badly? I imagine there would be a different set of reasons for every instance from no longer interested, to the dude sucks at it.


----------



## TXTrini

ConanHub said:


> 🤮
> 
> They need to add this emoji as an option.😉
> 
> I think sex dolls are for the deranged...


Exactly!


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> Reality check, people. Wives aren't sex slaves and I don't know one single woman who got married thinking being his sex slave was part of the deal! Because it's not. If you feel that way, don't get married.


I think a more accurate statement would be that wives aren't only sex slaves.

Mrs. Conan is absolutely my slave. She's also my best friend, counselor, financial advisor, mother to my children and grandchildren, caretaker and a physical presence of God's love for me on a tortured world.


----------



## BelsBeast66

CraigBesuden said:


> There is an issue that comes up semi-frequently:
> 
> The boyfriend / fiance / husband meets an amazing woman. The sex is acceptable (perhaps even great), but there are some things that she refuses to do and claims that she never would do, calling the acts "degrading." They could be anything from performing fellatio and anal sex all the way to things far more risque. He keeps asking her over time to do those things and she always says no. Later, he somehow learns that she used to do those things for previous lovers but not for him. (With fellatio, it may be that she performs it rarely and without joy with hubby, but he learns that she was known as a very talented and enthusiastic performer with past boyfriends.) He confronts her, she admits that it's true and offers to do those things with him. He's unhappy that he was lied to and that she gave better sex to her previous lovers than to him. While she might be willing to grudgingly do those things with him now that she's under duress and afraid of losing him, knowing that she was enthusiastic about doing those things with other guys but not him is a far greater betrayal than the lie itself.
> 
> Women respond by saying that she isn't obligated to perform the same acts with one lover as she did with her previous lovers. (True but irrelevant.)
> 
> Men respond by saying that she's not really attracted to him. When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive. She settled for a man who is stable and a good provider, even though she's not attracted to him - or certainly not as attracted as she is to the other guy(s) she was with. She can control her actions but she cannot choose to be physically attracted to her husband, and her past actions show that she's just not that into him. He's a lesser man in her eyes and he should dump her. (Alternatively, the reason that she did all those acts when she was younger was because she wanted the attention and validation of those men. She cared about attention and validation from those kinds of men because they are handsome and sexy, so she would do whatever they wanted and appear to enjoy it even if she truly didn't enjoy it. The fact that she doesn't care nearly as much about getting validation from her husband shows that she's not nearly as attracted to him.)
> 
> My assumption is that this is like a woman immediately jumping into bed with men who she knows are not relationship material, but making a man wait a period of time for sex when she takes him seriously. Women view it as a compliment and men view it as an insult. I'm assuming that the wife doesn't want to do those acts that she considers to be "degrading" because he's more important to her and she cares what her husband thinks of her, and she didn't really care what those other men think of her. The "limited menu" or "bare minimum" sex is better and more along the lines of lovemaking than the exotic things she did with the previous guys. But that's just a guess.
> 
> Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?


To me it’s a matter of trust and weather or not there’s real and honest communication, if she or he is refusing to perform select sexual acts it’s absolutely their choice, if it’s something they did in the past it was by choice and it’s obviously something they wanted to do and enjoyed doing even if later they say that they felt pressured to do it or that the partner they were with was the type to expect that sexual act so they couldn’t refuse or wanted to be submissive or accommodating, THEY DID IT..! And enjoyed it..! Otherwise it’s rape.. so why are they hiding it from their now husband/wife..? If it’s because they think the current relationship is so much more valuable than those before? Or do they feel ashamed? I’m sure there’s a thousand reasons to hide past sexual encounters. But.. when you’re married, have a deep love, have a real and passionate sex life, and your asked to venture outside the box by your so-called trusted partner why do partners feel the need to hide/lie or refuse without an explanation other then “I don’t do that”.. there are countless anecdotal accounts where wives confessed their dirtiest acts and their obvious enjoyment of them to the men they were cheating with but to their husbands they were closed books especially during good happy times are the men or even the women in those committed relationships not worthy of even being included or aloud to share in the knowledge that the partner had those experiences?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

TXTrini said:


> Exactly!


Sex dolls are the answer to getting these deluded men off the street so women don't have to intercept them.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> Sex dolls are the answer to getting these deluded men off the street so women don't have to intercept them.


Bad business for hoes?


----------



## TXTrini

ConanHub said:


> Bad business for hoes?


I'd feel sorry for the hoes! Can you imagine the effort needed to get in the mood to screw a whiney baby? They must go through gallons of lube , I wonder if that's tax deductible 🤔


----------



## ConanHub

TXTrini said:


> I'd feel sorry for the hoes! Can you imagine the effort needed to get in the mood to screw a whiney baby? They must go through gallons of lube , I wonder if that's tax deductible 🤔


Hoes do require degenerate and desperate men to do business with unfortunately.

Richard Gere and Julia Roberts had a nice fantasy going though.😉


----------



## TexasMom1216

DownByTheRiver said:


> Duties. Ugh.


Kinda crazy to consider them "duties" and then complain when she acts like it's her job. If this is the attitude, it is in fact her job, and that makes it "work."


----------



## CharlieParker

TexasMom1216 said:


> Kinda crazy to consider them "duties" and then complain when she acts like it's her job. If this is the attitude, it is in fact her job, and that makes it "work."


It is called a blow job.


----------



## Divinely Favored

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> So the guy is crushed and the M over by a stupid unsolicited comment from one *outside* the M.
> 
> Not much of a guy, or a M, if any outside person can destroy it with one dumbass comment.
> 
> What a great group of friends that sit around a table accepting it's ok to all talk about the women at the table sucking weiners.


I saw that story also. The wife had posted that she lied to her hubby for years that she never did BJ. Then one night they had dinner with old friend crew back home, all are drinking and guy finds out that his wife is porn star class at it and proud of her abilities and she had blessed 2-3 of the guys at the table with her prowess. She had refuse to ever give her husband a BJ. 

I would have serious with the lies and deception and fact she stayed friends and had me unknowingly rubbing elbows with several guys she used to suck off.


----------



## Longtime Hubby

Divinely Favored said:


> I saw that story also. The wife had posted that she lied to her hubby for years that she never did BJ. Then one night they had dinner with old friend crew back home, all are drinking and guy finds out that his wife is porn star class at it and proud of her abilities and she had blessed 2-3 of the guys at the table with her prowess. She had refuse to ever give her husband a BJ.
> 
> I would have serious with the lies and deception and fact she stayed friends and had me unknowingly rubbing elbows with several guys she used to suck off.


Yeah, no doubt.


----------



## Divinely Favored

CraigBesuden said:


> I think there’s a different explanation for why some women offer a more limited menu with a BF/fiance/husband than with a hookup/FB/FWB. I was hoping that a woman could provide the explanation.


That takes my wife off the list to answer that, she gave me free reign to do anything I want with her. But I am far above her ex in every way.


----------



## CharlieParker

Audio NSFW.


----------



## Longtime Hubby

CharlieParker said:


> Audio NSFW.


Great scene. And movie.


----------



## RandomDude

DownByTheRiver said:


> So they're under no obligation to do it ever again.


But nooooo... because spouses get jealous


----------



## Sfort

CraigBesuden said:


> Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?


It turns out that I agree with you completely. You have eloquently said several things I've unsuccessfully tried to say, but you haven't gotten any better responses from the ladies than I did. They must have taken an oath or something not to reveal their inner most thoughts on these things. I'm anxious to read more of your future posts.


----------



## Married but Happy

ConanHub said:


> 🤮
> 
> They need to add this emoji as an option.😉
> 
> I think sex dolls are for the deranged...


Or the red pill guys are the primary market.


----------



## Divinely Favored

DownByTheRiver said:


> "Duties." Oh, that's so sexeeeee. Break me off a piece of that. 🤮


"Hey sweet thang, what is your name" 
"KitKat"


----------



## joannacroc

I guess it depends on the act. Every woman has done something with a partner and thought after, "nope, not for me." If you are badgering her for it and she has made it clear she doesn't want to do it, then it doesn't surprise me that you're experiencing a dry spell. Your statements don't really show much understanding of who a woman is as a person. It kind of just seems like you have a checklist for sex and you're checking it against other dudes that came before you. Btw, XBF went through a similar turning off of the faucet even though he was adventurous at first. Turns out he was on viagra when we first met and then later went off it. Certain acts he initially made a big show of liking, like oral, disappeared. So it does go both ways. If you aren't sexually compatible with your partner and they won't try to work on it with you then you are left with 2 choices - tolerate what you have because that person has other qualities, or break up, and find someone compatible with you sexually who may lack other qualities you value.


----------



## Sfort

I still think my idea of marriage licenses having to be renewed every five years has merit!


----------



## ArthurGPym

I think a guy has a choice. A woman has a right to say what he is allowed to do or not do with her body, just as a man has dominion over his body. If his wife or partner says she refuses to do things with him that she did with prior lovers, he has the choice to swallow it and accept it, or walk away. It really is that simple. You don't need a reason to break up with someone or to divorce them anymore. If the guy cannot stomach his wife refusing him something she did with someone else, he should feel free to walk on and she should let him.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ArthurGPym said:


> I think a guy has a choice. A woman has a right to say what he is allowed to do or not do with her body, just as a man has dominion over his body. If his wife or partner says she refuses to do things with him that she did with prior lovers, he has the choice to swallow it and accept it, or walk away. It really is that simple. You don't need a reason to break up with someone or to divorce them anymore. If the guy cannot stomach his wife refusing him something she did with someone else, he should feel free to walk on and she should let him.


He isn't husband material to begin with if his Number 1 priority is sex any way he wants it. You never heard of these things before porn and red pill internet crap.


----------



## ArthurGPym

Sfort said:


> I still think my idea of marriage licenses having to be renewed every five years has merit!


All contracts have an expiration clause, so should marrriage contracts.


----------



## ArthurGPym

CharlieParker said:


> It is called a blow job.


Blow job, knob job, slobbin' the knob, polishing wood, licking the lollipop, yanking the crank, chokin' on the bone, deep throat... what else?


----------



## TXTrini

joannacroc said:


> I guess it depends on the act. Every woman has done something with a partner and thought after, "nope, not for me." If you are badgering her for it and she has made it clear she doesn't want to do it, then it doesn't surprise me that you're experiencing a dry spell. *Your statements don't really show much understanding of who a woman is as a person. *It kind of just seems like you have a checklist for sex and you're checking it against other dudes that came before you. Btw, XBF went through a similar turning off of the faucet even though he was adventurous at first. Turns out he was on viagra when we first met and then later went off it. Certain acts he initially made a big show of liking, like oral, disappeared. So it does go both ways. If you aren't sexually compatible with your partner and they won't try to work on it with you then you are left with 2 choices - tolerate what you have because that person has other qualities, or break up, and find someone compatible with you sexually who may lack other qualities you value.


Bolded^^^That's exactly what rubbed me the wrong way about this, even though I haven't done this. 

I vote people should talk about sex before they even do the deed, so you get an idea of likes/dislikes and boundaries before investing in someone. I was very upfront about that when I was dating because I didn't want to get attached before I thought someone would be compatible. Of course, people lie, so that's not foolproof, but then you'd find out real quick if they're a liar if their words didn't match their actions.


----------



## ElOtro

joannacroc said:


> If you aren't sexually compatible with your partner and they won't try to work on it with you then you are left with 2 choices - tolerate what you have because that person has other qualities, or break up, and find someone compatible with you sexually who may lack other qualities you value.


- "tolerate what you have because that person has other qualities"
With *main* "qualities" happens that no isolated one is enough by solely itself *AND* that no sum of the other "qualities" can / should replace a lacking one.
If sexual compatibility is not one of those (just one but a needed one), relationships are IMO an emotional fraud...for both.

- "find someone compatible with you sexually..."
_*Also*_ sexually compatible may be better.

- "who may lack other qualities you value"
That could be called a false dilemma / dichotomy, a fallacy if didn´t sound more like something worst.

Why not both?
If that is not possible, the 2nd better alternative would be IMO to be single.


----------



## CharlieParker

TXTrini said:


> I vote people should talk about sex before they even do the deed, so you get an idea of likes/dislikes and boundaries before investing in someone.


Agree. I think my wife got burned once or twice before so she/we talked a lot about sex before marriage. How sex is like oxygen (still needed even if we're fighting), she may have had a huge number but she's basically very vanilla. Served us well (even if it was after our first deed.)


----------



## ElOtro

By the way I never had retroactive sexual or other retroactive jealousy.
If I got sometimes angered by and with her ex husband and later bf´s was to the ones that didn´t treated her rightly and deprived her of good love and good sex.
And did my best to do it better.


----------



## Real talk

DownByTheRiver said:


> Duties. Ugh.


Yes, duties.

You think people get married to sit on their ass and neglect their partners all day? It's called responsibility, if you can't associate with that then feel free to limiting your duties in life to cleaning cat litter.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

TXTrini said:


> Bolded^^^That's exactly what rubbed me the wrong way about this, even though I haven't done this.
> 
> I vote people should talk about sex before they even do the deed, so you get an idea of likes/dislikes and boundaries before investing in someone. I was very upfront about that when I was dating because I didn't want to get attached before I thought someone would be compatible. Of course, people lie, so that's not foolproof, but then you'd find out real quick if they're a liar if their words didn't match their actions.


I can't envision a woman answering questions like Do you like anal, though. And again, as I said earlier, especially with anal, one partner might be well suited to it (small) and anyone average or up might be out of the question for a lot of women. BJs, one might be fine with quickie, not completed, no ejaculating on or in the woman like in porn, and one might take way too long and be ridiculously inconsiderate. So that's some pretty intense stuff to talk about and also you wouldn't KNOW if you hadn't gotten acquainted with their junk and their attitude already. 

Women are people, not sex slaves. No matter how convenient you might think that would be. No one has the right to force anyone else with sex of any type. What someone likes changes over time, and that's their right.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> Yes, duties.
> 
> You think people get married to sit on their ass and neglect their partners all day? It's called responsibility, if you can't associate with that then feel free to limiting your duties in life to cleaning cat litter.


I think I will.


----------



## TexasMom1216

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think I will.


Because if you have any limitations on what you will allow someone to do to your body or feel that your body belongs to you and not him, as is your duty and responsibility as the "wife," you will spend your life alone with cats. There is no middle ground, doncha know.


----------



## TXTrini

DownByTheRiver said:


> I can't envision a woman answering questions like Do you like anal, though. And again, as I said earlier, especially with anal, one partner might be well suited to it (small) and anyone average or up might be out of the question for a lot of women. BJs, one might be fine with quickie, not completed, no ejaculating on or in the woman like in porn, and one might take way too long and be ridiculously inconsiderate. So that's some pretty intense stuff to talk about and also you wouldn't KNOW if you hadn't gotten acquainted with their junk and their attitude already.
> 
> Women are people, not sex slaves. No matter how convenient you might think that would be. No one has the right to force anyone else with sex of any type. What someone likes changes over time, and that's their right.


When I said I had a frank conversation, I meant it. Yes, I discussed all of that beforehand. I'm the kind of person who doesn't care to screw around, so I'd rather not waste my time with someone if there's no potential. Anyone who couldn't have a respectful conversation got blocked, yes it meant I met some weirdos, but that goes with the territory. 

After the marriage I had, sex was an extremely important issue for me, it wasn't about being a sex slave. I get that age matters, I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at 20, but I certainly could and did at 40. 

So it might be pretty intense stuff for some people to talk about, but not others. If sex is that important to people, they can deal with uncomfortable, intense conversations. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot. I'm quite surprised you find those conversations intense since you don't come across as an inexperienced miss, judging by the posts of your dating past.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

TXTrini said:


> When I said I had a frank conversation, I meant it. Yes, I discussed all of that beforehand. I'm the kind of person who doesn't care to screw around, so I'd rather not waste my time with someone if there's no potential. Anyone who couldn't have a respectful conversation got blocked, yes it meant I met some weirdos, but that goes with the territory.
> 
> After the marriage I had, sex was an extremely important issue for me, it wasn't about being a sex slave. I get that age matters, I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at 20, but I certainly could and did at 40.
> 
> So it might be pretty intense stuff for some people to talk about, but not others. If sex is that important to people, they can deal with uncomfortable, intense conversations. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot. I'm quite surprised you find those conversations intense since you don't come across as an inexperienced miss, judging by the posts of your dating past.


But there's no way to know what they're like in bed so how can you say if you're going to want them to do this or that?

I have certainly had sexual conversations with guys not on the internet mind you but in real life.


----------



## Real talk

joannacroc said:


> Every woman has done something with a partner and thought after, "nope, not for me."


This will always come up because women simply can't be honest and up front about the dynamics at play here. The issue that men have is the fact that often times women aren't doing it once and saying it's "not for me". 

They're happily doing it consistently with a man then for whatever reason not doing it any more. If women were honest with themselves, they'd admit the only difference is the power dynamic between the relationships. 

The man who they're doing bedroom Simone Biles performances for are men who they're trying to impress, ensure their happiness and their satisfaction. The man who suddenly gets "its not for me" are the men who's satisfaction is low on their priority list. The hard part for men to accept is that as the man fully invested in you, those dynamics should be reversed. 

Imagine a man buying a house for him and his ex to live in, but you have his child and he decides houses aren't for him and wants to live in an apartment.


----------



## TXTrini

DownByTheRiver said:


> But there's no way to know what they're like in bed so how can you say if you're going to want them to do this or that?
> 
> I have certainly had sexual conversations with guys not on the internet mind you but in real life.


The way I handled it was there were definite nos, definite yes and some maybes, to be determined by the vibe. I won't go into detail, but it's worked really well for my bf and I. If anyone's a sex slave in our relationship, it's probably him 😂 

Anyway, my point is, the men who whine about the menu will keep whining until they nut up and have these hard conversations, change their attitude/and actions. In my experience, a lot of whiners never change their situation, but expect to have their desired changes drop into their laps. That's not an attractive attitude, and I see why their "menu" will always be the value menu at McDonalds.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> This will always come up because women simply can't be honest and up front about the dynamics at play here. The issue that men have is the fact that often times women aren't doing it once and saying it's "not for me".
> 
> They're happily doing it consistently with a man then for whatever reason not doing it any more. If women were honest with themselves, they'd admit the only difference is the power dynamic between the relationships.
> 
> The man who they're doing bedroom Simone Biles performances for are men who they're trying to impress, ensure their happiness and their satisfaction. The man who suddenly gets "its not for me" are the men who's satisfaction is low on their priority list. The hard part for men to accept is that as the man fully invested in you, those dynamics should be reversed.
> 
> Imagine a man buying a house for him and his ex to live in, but you have his child and he decides houses aren't for him and wants to live in an apartment.


Sounds like the only thing the man is fully invested in is sex however he wants it..


----------



## TXTrini

DownByTheRiver said:


> But there's no way to know what they're like in bed so how can you say if you're going to want them to do this or that?


True, but being able to have those conversations at all with someone is a good sign. Sometimes you just know.


DownByTheRiver said:


> I have certainly had sexual conversations with guys not on the internet mind you but in real life.


Really? Hmm, no wonder my bf gets red in face sometimes 🤔


----------



## TXTrini

Real talk said:


> This will always come up because women simply can't be honest and up front about the dynamics at play here. The issue that men have is the fact that often times women aren't doing it once and saying it's "not for me".
> 
> They're happily doing it consistently with a man then for whatever reason not doing it any more. If women were honest with themselves, they'd admit the only difference is the power dynamic between the relationships.
> 
> The man who they're doing bedroom Simone Biles performances for are men who they're trying to impress, ensure their happiness and their satisfaction. The man who suddenly gets "its not for me" are the men who's satisfaction is low on their priority list. The hard part for men to accept is that as the man fully invested in you, those dynamics should be reversed.
> 
> Imagine a man buying a house for him and his ex to live in, but you have his child and he decides houses aren't for him and wants to live in an apartment.


And why can't those men be honest and look inward to determine how their actions affect those dynamics, if what you're saying is true? Why point the finger at the women who for whatever reason don't want to do [Whatever Act]? 

After all, the common denominator is the man who is denied wild monkey sex with apparently all these women who bait and switch.


----------



## Real talk

TexasMom1216 said:


> Kinda crazy to consider them "duties" and then complain when she acts like it's her job. If this is the attitude, it is in fact her job, and that makes it "work."


Just because it's a duty doesn't mean you can't do it with enthusiasm. When you deal with customer service they don't give a **** how your day is going. They don't think you're interesting and think you stink. They still do their job with devotion. 

There are too many excuses for why women provide substandard companionship. You husband doesn't get satisfaction listening to you ***** about work and friends. But he does it with enthusiasm because serving your emotions makes him happy. Fact is most women don't find happiness serving their men.


----------



## oldshirt

TXTrini said:


> Bolded^^^That's exactly what rubbed me the wrong way about this, even though I haven't done this.
> 
> I vote people should talk about sex before they even do the deed, so you get an idea of likes/dislikes and boundaries before investing in someone. I was very upfront about that when I was dating because I didn't want to get attached before I thought someone would be compatible. Of course, people lie, so that's not foolproof, but then you'd find out real quick if they're a liar if their words didn't match their actions.


Half of my posts are in regards to communication and/or boundaries to one degree or another so I obviously believe in having these discussions, not only in the opening acts of a relationship but periodically throughout the course of the entire relationship as well because things do change over time.

However these pre-sex discussions do have their limitations.

It’s fact that environment and chemistry and compatibility and the proclivities of the other person all play a significant role in what we like and what we will do and what we will not. 

Everyone will have some hard boundaries that they wouldn’t cross for anyone at any time under any circumstances. 

If Heidi Klum herself begged to give me a Rolling Brownout, I would have to decline. That is just not something in my wheelhouse. 

But if she wanted me to toss her salad that would depend on a wide variety of factors and conditions. 

The answer may still be no, but I’d at least be willing to discuss it and see. 

If Roses O’Donnell asked me to hold her hand, I’d have to decline that. 

So I would consider licking Heidi Klum’s backside, before I would consider holding Rosie O’Donnell’s hand. 

That’s a pretty wide spread that is all dependent on the people involved and the conditions and environments for which things would take place. 

That’s probably too much ground to cover by conversation alone. Much would depend on the actual chemistry and attraction and comfort etc.


----------



## CharlieParker

My wife, referring to before my time, used the term "mercy f**k".


----------



## Real talk

TXTrini said:


> And why can't those men be honest and look inward to determine how their actions affect those dynamics, if what you're saying is true? Why point the finger at the women who for whatever reason don't want to do [Whatever Act]?


There are no actions that a man can take in order to pull out those animalistic traits from a woman. Women provide them based on who a man is, not his actions. 

That athlete you blew in the bathroom on spring break didn't do anything special. He was tall enough, good looking enough, had the energetic personality that gave you validation by earning his attention. Your favorite celebrity wouldn't have to do *anything* to get you to do cirque du soleil in his bedroom. 

The programmer you married is none of those things but provides you the commitment the higher value men didn't want to provide. So women have no desire to do those things unless they appreciate and value him for his dedication and willingness to commit. 

The issue here isn't the man, it's women who marry men they don't value.


----------



## ConanHub

TXTrini said:


> When I said I had a frank conversation, I meant it. Yes, I discussed all of that beforehand. I'm the kind of person who doesn't care to screw around, so I'd rather not waste my time with someone if there's no potential. Anyone who couldn't have a respectful conversation got blocked, yes it meant I met some weirdos, but that goes with the territory.
> 
> After the marriage I had, sex was an extremely important issue for me, it wasn't about being a sex slave. I get that age matters, I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at 20, but I certainly could and did at 40.
> 
> So it might be pretty intense stuff for some people to talk about, but not others. If sex is that important to people, they can deal with uncomfortable, intense conversations. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot. I'm quite surprised you find those conversations intense since you don't come across as an inexperienced miss, judging by the posts of your dating past.


Mrs. C and I had talks along these lines. She was upfront about no anal and I didn't care because I wasn't interested anyway.

I'm all about the V.😋


----------



## TexasMom1216

Real talk said:


> Just because it's a duty doesn't mean you can't do it with enthusiasm. When you deal with customer service they don't give a **** how your day is going. They don't think you're interesting and think you stink. They still do their job with devotion.
> 
> There are too many excuses for why women provide substandard companionship. You husband doesn't get satisfaction listening to you *** about work and friends. But he does it with enthusiasm because serving your emotions makes him happy. Fact is most women don't find happiness serving their men.


Feigned enthusiasm should be enough then, after all why should you care how she really feels? No one enjoys being used like a piece of meat by someone who doesn’t care about them and sees them as a servant, nothing more than disposable human trash. But it hardly matters if she likes it. She is selling her body, and therefore must provide good “customer service.”


----------



## TXTrini

oldshirt said:


> Half of my posts are in regards to communication and/or boundaries to one degree or another so I obviously believe in having these discussions, not only in the opening acts of a relationship but periodically throughout the course of the entire relationship as well because things do change over time.
> 
> However these pre-sex discussions do have their limitations.
> 
> It’s fact that environment and chemistry and compatibility and the proclivities of the other person all play a significant role in what we like and what we will do and what we will not.
> 
> Everyone will have some hard boundaries that they wouldn’t cross for anyone at any time under any circumstances.
> 
> If Heidi Klum herself begged to give me a Rolling Brownout, I would have to decline. That is just not something in my wheelhouse.
> 
> But if she wanted me to toss her salad that would depend on a wide variety of factors and conditions.
> 
> The answer may still be no, but I’d at least be willing to discuss it and see.
> 
> If Roses O’Donnell asked me to hold her hand, I’d have to decline that.
> 
> So I would consider licking Heidi Klum’s backside, before I would consider holding Rosie O’Donnell’s hand.
> 
> That’s a pretty wide spread that is all dependent on the people involved and the conditions and environments for which things would take place.
> 
> That’s probably too much ground to cover by conversation alone. Much would depend on the actual chemistry and attraction and comfort etc.


I don't know if to like, or cry with laughter at this post, I think God himself thinks Rosie O'Donnell is a double bagger 😂 

I agree that it depends on many factors, and too wide to cover in conversation only, but I've got the impression that people are not having these conversations at all, regardless of how detailed. I get that because I don't remember having this conversation when I met my exH, I was young and naive and inexperienced. It was only after maturing in attitudes, interests and experiences I formed opinions and preferences. Some people grow together, some don't. 

The trouble I see with basing it on attraction levels is that no one going to be 100% happy. Considering the premise of this thread is more men have a problem getting wild monkey sex than women, I guess if a man wants wild monkey sex from a woman who's super attracted to him, then he'd best scale the kinds of women he goes after to suit. 

No more mooning after hot women who know they don't have to do a damned thing they don't want to and get plenty of offers. It pretty much comes down to the availability of options one has, doesn't it?


----------



## Real talk

TexasMom1216 said:


> Feigned enthusiasm should be enough then, after all why should you care how she really feels if she downer even matter? No one enjoys being used like a piece of meat by someone who doesn’t care about them and sees them as a servant, nothing more than disposable human trash. But it hardly matters if she likes it. She is selling her body, and therefore must provide good “customer service.”


Why do women pull out this argument when it's time to discuss your expectations? 

There isn't a single person who has said men don't care about women outside of being a servant or being used as meat. Please quote the men who implied that. I need specifics. 

We're talking about the dynamics of sex, so that's what the focus is. That doesn't mean this is the extent of your use or your importance. 

I find it funny when this is the route women go, because 9/10 these are the same women who will say that if a man isn't spending money, paying for dates or providing he has absolutely no use for her. And I never see men whining about that.


----------



## TXTrini

Real talk said:


> There are no actions that a man can take in order to pull out those animalistic traits from a woman. Women provide them based on who a man is, not his actions.
> 
> That athlete you blew in the bathroom on spring break didn't do anything special. He was tall enough, good looking enough, had the energetic personality that gave you validation by earning his attention. Your favorite celebrity wouldn't have to do *anything* to get you to do cirque du soleil in his bedroom.
> 
> The programmer you married is none of those things but provides you the commitment the higher value men didn't want to provide. So women have no desire to do those things unless they appreciate and value him for his dedication and willingness to commit.
> 
> The issue here isn't the man, it's women who marry men they don't value.


You're talking like these men were shackled and married by force; they didn't have a choice in anything at all. This hypothetical programmer made a choice to marry a party girl who presumably made him pop a woodie to have access to sex, marriage and children. 

You lost me if you're describing man-hos are high-value men, high value in their own minds, maybe. They have nothing of real value to offer, since they don't offer commitment, loyalty or the opportunity to build something real. the red pill definition of a high value man to many women is a **** boi. 

If men value sex above all, and want to be secret **** bois, they can feel free to do so and not try to use commitment as a carrot to determine a woman's sex life. But they don't have the temperament or willingness to go that route, do they? They want a sure thing.


----------



## Personal

Real talk said:


> Just because it's a duty doesn't mean you can't do it with enthusiasm. When you deal with customer service they don't give a **** how your day is going. They don't think you're interesting and think you stink. They still do their job with devotion.
> 
> There are too many excuses for why women provide substandard companionship. You husband doesn't get satisfaction listening to you *** about work and friends. But he does it with enthusiasm because serving your emotions makes him happy. Fact is most women don't find happiness serving their men.


Wow!

If I ever want to significantly limit or completely end, the incredibly rich smorgasbord of sexual activities that I have enjoyed with considerable frequency, throughout my sex life. I will endeavour to bring your mindset and attitude to my sexual relationships, since that approach will certainly guarantee that I will drastically limit or end my rich sex life going forward.

So given that I actually enjoy sharing an abundant sex life, that is rich with all the bells and whistles, I thank you for reminding me of what not to do.

Cheers.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?



Each relationship is unique. They are made up of hundreds, if not thousands of different attributes determined by things like life stage, emotional maturity, life goals, mental space, and sexual health to name a few. 

I can't speak for all women, but I am one of those women who won't discuss sexual history with anyone. I didn't do it with my ex husband or with any of the men I've dated since my divorce. I think it creates a no win situation. Divulging that information sets up an expectation for the "repertoire" of sexual acts I will perform, which I don't do. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There were things I did before my husband, that at the time I enjoyed, that I didn't want to try with my husband. There are things I did with my ex husband, and enjoyed a lot at the time, that I won't do with my current boyfriend. In reasons are varied - the activities were fun at that stage of my life but I have no desire to repeat in my current stage, physiques, responsibility to my child, etc. 

I think the key is to communicate sexual needs in the early stages of the relationship. Definitely before getting married.


----------



## TXTrini

Personal said:


> Wow!
> 
> If I ever want to significantly limit or completely end, the incredibly rich smorgasbord of sexual activities that I have enjoyed with considerable frequency, throughout my sex life. I will endeavour to bring your mindset and attitude to my sexual relationships, since that approach will certainly guarantee that I will drastically limit or end my rich sex life going forward.
> 
> So given that I actually enjoy sharing an abundant sex life, that is rich with all the bells and whistles, I thank you for reminding me of what not to do.
> 
> Cheers.


Yeah, that dude probably dehydrates pussies everywhere.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

TXTrini said:


> The way I handled it was there were definite nos, definite yes and some maybes, to be determined by the vibe. I won't go into detail, but it's worked really well for my bf and I. If anyone's a sex slave in our relationship, it's probably him 😂
> 
> Anyway, my point is, the men who whine about the menu will keep whining until they nut up and have these hard conversations, change their attitude/and actions. In my experience, a lot of whiners never change their situation, but expect to have their desired changes drop into their laps. That's not an attractive attitude, and I see why their "menu" will always be the value menu at McDonalds.


Makes sense.


----------



## TexasMom1216

TXTrini said:


> Yeah, that dude probably dehydrates pussies everywhere.


I can’t see what you’re responding to but once again I am stealing another one of your phrases and working it into my vernacular. “Dude, don’t dehydrate my *****.” It’s a thing now. 😂😂🥰


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> Just because it's a duty doesn't mean you can't do it with enthusiasm. When you deal with customer service they don't give a **** how your day is going. They don't think you're interesting and think you stink. They still do their job with devotion.
> 
> There are too many excuses for why women provide substandard companionship. You husband doesn't get satisfaction listening to you *** about work and friends. But he does it with enthusiasm because serving your emotions makes him happy. Fact is most women don't find happiness serving their men.


You need to marry an actress. I think most women want to have sex and be their real self, not pretend to like what some p*** star gets paid to pretend to like.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> There are no actions that a man can take in order to pull out those animalistic traits from a woman. Women provide them based on who a man is, not his actions.
> 
> That athlete you blew in the bathroom on spring break didn't do anything special. He was tall enough, good looking enough, had the energetic personality that gave you validation by earning his attention. Your favorite celebrity wouldn't have to do *anything* to get you to do cirque du soleil in his bedroom.
> 
> The programmer you married is none of those things but provides you the commitment the higher value men didn't want to provide. So women have no desire to do those things unless they appreciate and value him for his dedication and willingness to commit.
> 
> The issue here isn't the man, it's women who marry men they don't value.


That's your story. I don't think that's most women's story at all..


----------



## DownByTheRiver

TexasMom1216 said:


> Feigned enthusiasm should be enough then, after all why should you care how she really feels? No one enjoys being used like a piece of meat by someone who doesn’t care about them and sees them as a servant, nothing more than disposable human trash. But it hardly matters if she likes it. She is selling her body, and therefore must provide good “customer service.”


While ago I was reading a long study on a government website and one of the things that concluded was just what we're talking about there. A lot of men don't care if you fake the enthusiasm. That is pathetic. That's what prostitutes are paid for. I mean what? You can't get anything out of sex unless the woman pretends that you're some sort of super stud? That's how low your self-esteem is? Time for therapy.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

TXTrini said:


> I don't know if to like, or cry with laughter at this post, I think God himself thinks Rosie O'Donnell is a double bagger 😂
> 
> I agree that it depends on many factors, and too wide to cover in conversation only, but I've got the impression that people are not having these conversations at all, regardless of how detailed. I get that because I don't remember having this conversation when I met my exH, I was young and naive and inexperienced. It was only after maturing in attitudes, interests and experiences I formed opinions and preferences. Some people grow together, some don't.
> 
> The trouble I see with basing it on attraction levels is that no one going to be 100% happy. Considering the premise of this thread is more men have a problem getting wild monkey sex than women, I guess if a man wants wild monkey sex from a woman who's super attracted to him, then he'd best scale the kinds of women he goes after to suit.
> 
> No more mooning after hot women who know they don't have to do a damned thing they don't want to and get plenty of offers. It pretty much comes down to the availability of options one has, doesn't it?


Bingo. But see they can't get that same kind of boner unless they can get a hot woman way hotter than them to pretend to think they're I super stud. Because that's what elevates them, because they have bad self-esteem. They have to manufacture their sexual experience.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> Why do women pull out this argument when it's time to discuss your expectations?
> 
> There isn't a single person who has said men don't care about women outside of being a servant or being used as meat. Please quote the men who implied that. I need specifics.
> 
> We're talking about the dynamics of sex, so that's what the focus is. That doesn't mean this is the extent of your use or your importance.
> 
> I find it funny when this is the route women go, because 9/10 these are the same women who will say that if a man isn't spending money, paying for dates or providing he has absolutely no use for her. And I never see men whining about that.


Hang around here a little longer and you'll catch up to the fact that a whole lot of men on this forum plays sex as their number one priority in their marriage.


----------



## Corgi Mum

CraigBesuden said:


> When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive.


Not accurate. From the perspective of an old woman who has been sexually active for over 40 years.

I tried stuff in the past, learned I definitely didn't enjoy it, wasn't willing to repeat it. A different penis wasn't going to make it any more enjoyable.


----------



## Real talk

DownByTheRiver said:


> While ago I was reading a long study on a government website and one of the things that concluded was just what we're talking about there. A lot of men don't care if you fake the enthusiasm. That is pathetic. That's what prostitutes are paid for. I mean what? You can't get anything out of sex unless the woman pretends that you're some sort of super stud? That's how low your self-esteem is? Time for therapy.


I don't see why this is hard to believe. Both men and women love to have their egos stroked or be given release even with no input.

Women like to vent to men about their problems. Men don't care but what would you prefer, he act as if he's engaged and invested in your stories or would you prefer he just sits there playing on his phone?

When you cook for your family would you prefer they tell you how great it is or that it's okay and only eating it for sustenance? When you try on a new pair of jeans would you prefer your husband tell you the truth when you ask if you ass looks fat?

I had an ex who whenever I went down on her I would tell her she tasted like strawberries and she absolutely loved it. You think she actually believed she tasted like fruit?

I find it funny how the knock against men is that they see women as pieces of meat, but whenever a man wants to experience the most basic human emotions like satisfaction or allowing him to have a but of pride and ego , he's denigrated and called names.

How dehumanizing is that?


----------



## RandomDude

> CraigBesuden said:
> When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive.


Huh? 

I found that when a woman is attracted to me, she wants me to submit to whatever she wants. Not that she's submissive to me at all so 🤷‍♂️


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Real talk said:


> I don't see why this is hard to believe. Both men and women love to have their egos stroked or be given release even with no input.
> 
> Women like to vent to men about their problems. Men don't care but what would you prefer, he act as if he's engaged and invested in your stories or would you prefer he just sits there playing on his phone?
> 
> When you cook for your family would you prefer they tell you how great it is or that it's okay and only eating it for sustenance? When you try on a new pair of jeans would you prefer your husband tell you the truth when you ask if you ass looks fat?
> 
> I had an ex who whenever I went down on her I would tell her she tasted like strawberries and she absolutely loved it. You think she actually believed she tasted like fruit?
> 
> I find it funny how the knock against men is that they see women as pieces of meat, but whenever a man wants to experience the most basic human emotions like satisfaction or allowing him to have a but of pride and ego , he's denigrated and called names.
> 
> How dehumanizing is that?


I'm not interested in a man who pretends to be interested. And I met plenty who were interested in my life so I know they're out there.


----------



## TexasMom1216

DownByTheRiver said:


> I'm not interested in a man who pretends to be interested. And I met plenty who were interested in my life so I know they're out there.


It paints a picture of a very shallow, superficial life. It’s not a relationship, it’s a business arrangement. Which tracks, she’s the hooker and he’s the john, there’s no personal attachment. Kinda sad.


----------



## CharlieParker

We've generally been pretty well matched, but over 30+ years not always. I have said "I don't want you to do anything you don't want to do." It's related to we both expect her to never fake an orgasm. 

(I'm certain we've both, on an occasion or two, have not lived up to those standards.)


----------



## Sfort

DownByTheRiver said:


> Sounds like the only thing the man is fully invested in is sex however he wants it..


I don't think about oxygen every day, but I sure do think about it a lot when I'm deprived of it.


----------



## TXTrini

CharlieParker said:


> We've generally been pretty well matched, but over 30+ years not always. I have said "I don't want you to do anything you don't want to do." It's related to we both expect her to never fake an orgasm.
> 
> (I'm certain we've both, on an occasion or two, have not lived up to those standards.)


I really enjoy hearing about realistic success stories like this; too many people look for greener pastures instead of fertilizing their own when **** gets real. 

My bf and I don't agree 100% on sex stuff, but he has told me exactly what you told your wife, and it really made me feel safe. It's little nuggets like this that help me to sort the poop from the crops, thanks man.


----------



## ElOtro

DownByTheRiver said:


> Hang around here a little longer and you'll catch up to the fact that a whole lot of men on this forum plays sex as their number one priority in their marriage.


He will not have to wait for long.
I´ll say it.
I´ve alredy said this, I´ll do it again.
But sorry not in your terms but in mine.

There is no significative thing that deppends in only one factor.
But there are neither infinite nor flat but a set of main intrinsic, inseparable, needed ones.
Such as no one of them is per se enough and no one of them can be excluded.
All of them, each one in the the whole set is /are in the top of priorities.
They are all the "numbre one".
So much the the sum of all others can´t replace nor compensate a lacking one.

Is sex a priority that may make certain others to be in a 2nd place? NO.
Can one or a combination of other important factors put mutual desire as 2nd to those ones? NO.

So yes, here you have it.
A man that says that sex IS one (but not the only one) 1st priority.
So much that I also say that a sexless marriage (more about being in love and mutual desire than about the chufi chufi) IS also and IMO a loveless marriage.

Want it simpler? Here we go.
I would´t get in / stay in a relationship with a woman for whom I don´t admire cos her heart, her intellect, her values, our compatibility.
I certainly have not a few of long long time good women good friends of mine and I admire them all (or would´t be my friends)
But I once loved more than life and sexually desired one and not all of them.

With my confession done I hope the best for you all.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> When a woman is attracted to a man, she will be submissive and willingly do anything he wants. She desires to do those things with men she finds attractive


The people who believe this BS need to stop using submission as the metrics by which they measure attraction. 

True "submission" goes so much further than attraction. For a mentally healthy woman, it's something that naturally happens when she feels safe (physically and emotionally) and trusts her partner to have HER pleasure in mind. 

Men who whine, anger, or feel cheated because his partner won't do something with them that she did with others is doing the opposite of making her feel like he's got HER pleasure in mind. He's only got his personal pleasure or interest in mind. That's not creating a safe environment at all.


----------



## In Absentia

Are you not allowed to change your mind? Seriously.


----------



## joannacroc

I get both points of view I guess. It makes you feel hoodwinked and unappreciated if someone you were with initially liked doing some stuff with you in bed and later decide not to. However, If they have never claimed to like something specific you want though or used to and now really don't like it, it surely is a bit of a death knoll for a relationship trying to badger your partner into something you want that they don't. It's not sexy to hear that you "have" to do something. It takes the excitement out of it (for most people). It's not loving and if it's that important to you, why not just break up and find someone who will do those things with you?

I would rather be single than with a guy who doesn't want regular sex and has no drive, doesn't want to do stuff I want to do together. Surely that applies whether it's traveling the world, or blow jobs? If it's important enough to you, then find someone more compatible with you?


----------



## ArthurGPym

DownByTheRiver said:


> He isn't husband material to begin with if his Number 1 priority is sex any way he wants it. You never heard of these things before porn and red pill internet crap.


I agree. Sex is 1/50th of what makes up a relationship. Yeah it's always fun, but as a guy in his mid-50s I can honestly say that as you get older sex doesn't mean anywhere near as much as it did in your 20s. What I want now is companionship and friendship and an emotional connection. The sex is just the cherry on top. 

I can also attest, that I didn't really become decent at sex until I was in my 30s. Before that it was pump and dump. I didn't start caring about pleasing a woman until I had grown up a bit. So all these women who had lots of partners before 30, probably did not have that many who were really good at pleasing her. I think a man who can make love to a woman's mind before making love to her body is the one she will stay with.


----------



## ArthurGPym

joannacroc said:


> I get both points of view I guess. It makes you feel hoodwinked and unappreciated if someone you were with initially liked doing some stuff with you in bed and later decide not to. However, If they have never claimed to like something specific you want though or used to and now really don't like it, it surely is a bit of a death knoll for a relationship trying to badger your partner into something you want that they don't. It's not sexy to hear that you "have" to do something. It takes the excitement out of it (for most people). It's not loving and if it's that important to you, why not just break up and find someone who will do those things with you?
> 
> I would rather be single than with a guy who doesn't want regular sex and has no drive, doesn't want to do stuff I want to do together. Surely that applies whether it's traveling the world, or blow jobs? If it's important enough to you, then find someone more compatible with you?


I think it hurts a guy when he feels like his woman has misrepresented herself. I would say most women are pretty open about their prior sex lives, but there are some gals who are very insecure and who will only admit to what their man knows or suspects, and that's really not right either. I am a believer in transparency; and yes, a person's sexual past does matter when it comes down to the nitty gritty of deciding wehether or not they are compatible with someone they want to get into any kind of committed relationship with.

And for gawd's sake be honest with yourself and with the guy you are interested with. If you are a size queen or if you prefer a certain ethnicity or body type, do not settle for a guy who doesn't have the physical qualities you are looking for. If you are used to and prefer well-endowed men, don't for a second think that a guy with a normal size johnson is going to please you in the long run. Why would you buy a pickup truck if you prefer a sports car? 

And last of all, but equally as important: never ever, ever compare your man to past lovers --- not to him, not to your girlfriends or your sister, etc. Nothing tears down a man's self-worth than being negatively compared to past boyfriends.


----------



## ConanHub

Real talk said:


> There are no actions that a man can take in order to pull out those animalistic traits from a woman. Women provide them based on who a man is, not his actions.
> 
> That athlete you blew in the bathroom on spring break didn't do anything special. He was tall enough, good looking enough, had the energetic personality that gave you validation by earning his attention. Your favorite celebrity wouldn't have to do *anything* to get you to do cirque du soleil in his bedroom.
> 
> The programmer you married is none of those things but provides you the commitment the higher value men didn't want to provide. So women have no desire to do those things unless they appreciate and value him for his dedication and willingness to commit.
> 
> The issue here isn't the man, it's women who marry men they don't value.


Well, this is true to varying degrees and different mileage between individuals.

There is a percentage of women that this doesn't apply to as well but let's talk about those it does apply to.

Don't you believe that encouraging the "programmers" to establish their own boundaries and requirements would be beneficial?

Shouldn't they be held somewhat accountable for marrying who they are choosing?

Also, eliminating the very few villainous women that are abusers, sexual arousal is often reactive to a certain extent in everyone. Meaning the level of animalistic passion is often impacted by a person's partner regardless of male or female.

The programmers you referenced aren't immune to this either. I'd bet my hat that they might just go a little more crazy in bed , with far less limits, if they had a shot with Scarlett Johansson, Gal Gadot, Samantha Fox or Margot Robbie.

That's also as true as what you are saying about women.

So isn't it partially up to them (the programmers) to impact their partners sexually as well?

Here's an example from this barbarian's life.

I got involved with a belly dancer once, who was physically very hot and straight up nuclear in bed.

She got a performance and reaction out of me that no one ever had or has since.

She was also a vile human being. LoL!

Now I love my wife and I didn't even like the belly dancer but Mrs. C just isn't the sexual creature the belly dancer was and she can't interact with me to enjoy some of the things I did with the dancer.

It would actually diminish our experience to try because my Mrs. is shorter and more petite and it would be more strain than fun to put her through what I did to the dancer, who enjoyed it immensely.


----------



## ConanHub

TXTrini said:


> Yeah, that dude probably dehydrates pussies everywhere.


Oh no!!! DPS! (Dehydrated ***** Syndrome)😂


----------



## ConanHub

Sfort said:


> I don't think about oxygen every day, but I sure do think about it a lot when I'm deprived of it.


This is valid.


----------



## umbluu

---Women like to vent to men about their problems. Men don't care...

Well, if one cannot care for what woman one wants to have sex with has to say, perhaps the solution is to not have sex with her. On a second thought, this not caring is dumb even for somebody completely selfish. Unless the woman is completely self-absorbed and just likes to listen to her own voice, she WILL feel / notice that man does not care / has "customer service" attitude. And as someone has so eloquently put it already, this will diminish her desire to have sex with said man, including all kinds of sex acts, those she tried before and no longer wants to do with this particular man, and all other acts too..

--When you cook for your family would you prefer they tell you how great it is or that it's okay and only eating it for sustenance?

Sure, everyone likes to receive affirmations. But to me this example is applicable if the second half of the equation is also there, so the person cooking is supposed to be trying to cook better, or be more mindful of his/her eaters' preferences. Then the affirmations will actually be sincere.

---When you try on a new pair of jeans would you prefer your husband tell you the truth when you ask if you ass looks fat?

Even assuming that the ass is indeed fat - it is inappropriate to compare a little white lie with unwanted sex acts. One really needs to be a man of exceptional integrity (sarcasm) for telling a little white lie to be as unpleasant as unwanted sexual act...


----------



## CharlieParker

Sfort said:


> I don't think about oxygen every day, but I sure do think about it a lot when I'm deprived of it.


"Sex isn't the only thing I think about, but it's always on my mind" - @Jellybeans


----------



## BoSlander

Lila said:


> Men who whine, anger, or feel cheated because his partner won't do something with them that she did with others is doing the opposite of making her feel[…]


So it’s about her feelings? Not her needs or his feelings/needs, whatever she “feels” at the moment, regardless of what he feels… which is, [sarcasm on]oddly enough[sarcasm off] ALWAYS NOT what he wants.

Sounds to me like using the punani for control.


----------



## Numb26

Plain fact is if this happens the woman didn't marry the men because she was sexually attracted to him. She married him for security not love/sex.


----------



## BoSlander

Numb26 said:


> Plain fact is if this happens the woman didn't marry the men because she was sexually attracted to him. She married him for security not love/sex.


That is the equivalent of buying what is negotiated as a new car and then, once the car is bought, the buyer finds out that the car’s got 245,000 miles on it, that miles-per-gallon are now 65% of what it originally was and that the top speed is 150 MPH instead of the 350 MPH that’s advertised.

It’s fraud. Plain and simple. Romantic and emotional fraud.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

BoSlander said:


> That is the equivalent of buying what is negotiated as a new car and then, once the car is bought, the buyer finds out that the car’s got 245,000 miles on it, that miles-per-gallon are now 65% of what it originally was and that the top speed is 150 MPH instead of the 350 MPH that’s advertised.
> 
> It’s fraud. Plain and simple. Romantic and emotional fraud.


Surprisingly I gotta go with you on this one.


----------



## Numb26

BoSlander said:


> That is the equivalent of buying what is negotiated as a new car and then, once the car is bought, the buyer finds out that the car’s got 245,000 miles on it, that miles-per-gallon are now 65% of what it originally was and that the top speed is 150 MPH instead of the 350 MPH that’s advertised.
> 
> It’s fraud. Plain and simple. Romantic and emotional fraud.


I agree and sadly it happens a lot


----------



## Lila

BoSlander said:


> So it’s about her feelings? Not her needs or his feelings/needs, whatever she “feels” at the moment, regardless of what he feels… which is, [sarcasm on]oddly enough[sarcasm off] ALWAYS NOT what he wants.
> 
> Sounds to me like using the punani for control.


I think it's more telling that you continue to make women responsible for men's sexual happiness. 

How about you consider that men (just as women) are responsible for their own sexual happiness? If a man "needs" specific sex acts to feel complete, then he needs to take ownership over his life and find a compatible partner who will perform those acts WITH HIM. 

Whining, anger, and complaining is what children do when they don't get what they want. A grown ass man behaving like that is pathetic.


----------



## Lila

Numb26 said:


> Plain fact is if this happens the woman didn't marry the men because she was sexually attracted to him. She married him for security not love/sex.


It's not fact. It's opinion. 

Certainly hasn't been the case for me.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> The people who believe this BS need to stop using submission as the metrics by which they measure attraction.
> 
> True "submission" goes so much further than attraction. For a mentally healthy woman, it's something that naturally happens when she feels safe (physically and emotionally) and trusts her partner to have HER pleasure in mind.
> 
> Men who whine, anger, or feel cheated because his partner won't do something with them that she did with others is doing the opposite of making her feel like he's got HER pleasure in mind. He's only got his personal pleasure or interest in mind. That's not creating a safe environment at all.


Agree.


BoSlander said:


> So it’s about her feelings? Not her needs or his feelings/needs, whatever she “feels” at the moment, regardless of what he feels… which is, [sarcasm on]oddly enough[sarcasm off] ALWAYS NOT what he wants.
> 
> Sounds to me like using the punani for control.


I think the key to her statement was when men display unmasculine behavior like whining, anger (in a way that makes women feel unsafe) and complaining about feeling cheated by her in the bedroom.

I guarantee I've gotten the best mileage out of Mrs. C and far more in the bedroom than she has ever given anyone else and I did not whine or behave angrily or complain.

I encouraged, supported and loved while having expectations and requirements that I let be known but I left them up to her to accomplish in her way.

I also had quite the adventurous sex life as a single man and I believe a large part of the ladies letting themselves loose around me was that they felt very safe to behave that way.

Women feeling safe doesn't come from a lot of "nice guy" traits either.

I was an observably dangerous and fearless young man but women knew they were safe with me.


----------



## Lila

BoSlander said:


> That is the equivalent of buying what is negotiated as a new car and then, once the car is bought, the buyer finds out that the car’s got 245,000 miles on it, that miles-per-gallon are now 65% of what it originally was and that the top speed is 150 MPH instead of the 350 MPH that’s advertised.
> 
> It’s fraud. Plain and simple. Romantic and emotional fraud.


False equivalency

The correct analogy is knowingly buying a car with 245,000 miles, that goes 150 mph, and guzzles gas, then getting upset when he learns the car was previously driven by someone who got it to go 350 mph for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas. The buyer is now upset because he can't get the car to operate the way the previous driver could. He's still got a car that runs exactly as he knowingly purchased.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> False equivalency
> 
> The correct analogy is knowingly buying a car with 245,000 miles, that goes 150 mph, and guzzles gas, then getting upset when he learns the car was previously driven by someone who got it to go 350 mph for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas. The buyer is now upset because he can't get the car to operate the way the previous driver could. He's still got a car that runs exactly as he knowingly purchased.


Hmm. Not bad.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> Women feeling safe doesn't come from a lot of "nice guy" traits either.
> 
> I was an observably dangerous and fearless young man but women knew they were safe with me.


Feeling safe is defined differently by women. 
That's why it's important to talk about sex and relationship values when dating. For me it means he 1) respects my boundaries, 2) does not physically or emotionally hurt me, 3) encourages my vulnerability without judgement, 4) does not make me responsible for his sexual gratification, and 5) is genuinely excited about being with me.


----------



## samyeagar

No doubt for some, it literally is as simple as I expect X, Y, and Z acts because she did them with someone else. However, I think this topic for many is not quite that simple, and is often very clumsily expressed.

For myself, I am well aware that things change with life and age, and for me, it is not so much about any specific acts, rather more about feelings. Knowing her history, do I feel as if I am getting comparatively the best she has? The things she says and does with me, do I feel as if she likes me and desires me the most?


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> Feeling safe is defined differently by women.
> That's why it's important to talk about sex and relationship values when dating. For me it means he 1) respects my boundaries, 2) does not physically or emotionally hurt me, 3) encourages my vulnerability without judgement, 4) does not make me responsible for his sexual gratification, and 5) is genuinely excited about being with me.


This list seems to be pretty good for a lot of ladies.

I don't believe many men in my day (and probably many today) understood/understand just how much a lot of women will give when they feel safe overall.


----------



## sokillme

First thing I would say is, if you want to have a bunch of new sexual experiences with your partner man or women then stay away from people who used hook up culture and their sexuality as a way to gauge their worth. Find someone who believes sexuality is about intimacy but you need to get that too. Problem solved.

I think Men who use sex as a gauge of their worth see enthusiastic and varied sex as a way to judge their partners desire and love for them. To a certain extent this may be true but if she doesn't want to do something that doesn't mean she isn't, and I certainly wouldn't base it on one sex act. It could be any number of things. Women who use sex to gauge their worth usually are willing to push boundaries just for emotional attention, but then don't feel good about it after the fact. And really why would they. This usually leads to problems because of the underlying issues of thinking this way and not just sex. Sex only seen as seen as a commodity loses it's worth in marriage. I am not talking about volume here, though I would say high volume may be an indicator an something to investigate, I am talking about the whole mindset that is the problem from the beginning.

People who have a healthy understanding of sex see it as a way to build intimacy which means they don't see specific sex acts as a judge or their wives lust for them and if she says, I don't like that they are OK and quick to move to something else, meanwhile the wives may not like some things but will be willing to do others because they also want to have fun experiences with someone they love. That is how a healthy relationships works. In time if you are close enough I supect she may even be willing to try and push bounderies but this is because the experance is fun and not something to barter with.

Frankly I think hook up culture is a very immature way of thinking about sex but a common one. First off MEN NEED TO STOP EQUATING SEX AS INTIMACY. I have grown to believe this is kind of a crutch for a lot of guys because it gives a kind of superficial way to experience closeness but I think it ends up being shallow and unsatisfying. I am really disturbed by this idea of involuntary celibacy that seems to be the new buzzword. The idea being that if young men just had more access to sex they would be more emotionally healthy. To me this is just doubling down on the idea that sex = intimacy. If this were the case then sports stars and famous men would be the most emotionally healthy men alive right? I don't know about you but to me that doesn't seem to be the case. To me the most emotionally healthy men I know are the ones who have good marriages or at least good close relationships. Sex doesn't equal intimacy but it can be a path to that and I think with a healthy emotional relationship it is. It's can work like a shared secret that you both value. But it's not a substitute. Young men are suffering not because of lack of sex but because of lack of emotional intimacy. There lack of sex is a symptom of this but not the root problem.

Listen if you get to this point in your marriage you are really doing it wrong and should really think about starting over, maybe not divorce but at least the "come to Jesus" talk. I mean come on guys - "why won't you have anal sex with me! You had it with that guy!" Isn't going to go over. Duh. Do you even understand how most women work? How about you spend a lot of time getting emotionally close, then seducing her and making her want to be with you, giving her pleasure and then maybe it will organically grow into trying other things. Emotionally connect first. Talk about why you want to experience new things, why you want an exciting sex life. Sell the idea as a benefit to both of you, don't just complain. But if you can't then maybe you are not thinking about her benefit and then she isn't going to be very interested in it, in the long run.

And if your wife just sits there with no expression, isn't willing to try anything at all then something is really wrong and I bet it's more then just the bedroom. Talk about it. Get to the bottom of it. There is the chance that you married someone who tricked you and has some serious issues with sex but I suspect it's more likely she is no longer emotionally connected to you, turned on by you, or both. Work on that first.


----------



## Numb26

sokillme said:


> MEN NEED TO STOP EQUATING SEX AS INTIMACY.


I hear ya! For years I have been spreading the word to women that love is love and sex is sex and that the two should never meet! 😉


----------



## sokillme

Numb26 said:


> I hear ya! For years I have been spreading the word to women that love is love and sex is sex and that the two should never meet! 😉


Nice.  Obviously I didn't say that. I said that sex can lead to and enhance intimacy and I also think love, but it's a poor substitute.


----------



## Numb26

sokillme said:


> Nice.  Obviously I didn't say that. I said that sex can lead to and enhance intimacy and I also think love, but it's a poor substitute.


The fact that you think sex is a poor substitute for intimacy makes me honestly sad.


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> Here is one such story:
> 
> * My(27M) fiancée’s(28F) ex boyfriend sent me some videos of them together…
> 
> Those videos and thumbnails have been stuck in my head. First my fiancée said she would never do that…. I’ve asked her if she’d like to make videos of us together so I have something to get off to that’s not just porn. She said she doesn’t like to make videos or send pictures. But obviously she did with him. The dude was also significantly large
> 
> There were also sex acts that she said she doesn’t like doing that she did enthusiastically with him. Like she doesn’t like having her hair pulled or being spanked or held down and she had all of those things done to her, and she seemed to enjoy it. She also said she doesn’t really enjoy giving oral sex that much, but again she did so with him enthusiastically. Some of the thumbnails of videos I didn’t watch had her in handcuffs or tied up or other things like that, which are all things she said she’d never do. The video of her giving him head was filmed in a car in public, something that I’ve expressed to her as a fetish of mine and she said she won’t do.
> 
> By fair the biggest thing that made me feel insecure was the sounds and reactions she made in the video. She sounded like a ****ing pornstar. She never makes sounds like that with me. She never screams out my name or grabs on the bed for dear life. She never has finished so intensely that her legs shake. I don’t know what I’m doing that’s so wrong that I’m not making her react that way. The only thing that I could think of was that his penis was significantly larger than mine, and now I was already insecure and depressed about my size and this is making it so much worse. *
> 
> I haven’t told my fiancée about about any of this because I know telling her will just make her feel worse about this when she needs to be strong to make sure she can help get her ex punished. I don’t know what to do with these feelings but they’re eating me up inside. I’m literally crying as I right this because this all hurts my heart so much.
> 
> What should I do….
> 
> * I’m not bothered by the fact that she slept with another guy. I’m bothered that through the last almost 4 years we’ve been together, that she has told me that she will not do certain things that she had done with him, and that I saw how she reacted with him. That’s what’s painful. That this woman I loved and I thought trusted me completely was willing to do things that made her uncomfortable with him, but will not do those things with me. It makes me feel like she trusts me less, and like she desires me less than she desired him. *
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/khgq15
> 
> This isn’t the exact story but it’s similar enough.
> 
> From one of the comments on that post:
> 
> * She sounded like a porn star? Well, porn stars aren't known for having a genuinely good time -- they're actors. It sounds like she was putting on an act for him too, and putting his needs/wants above her own comfort and boundaries. Considering the type of person he's shown himself to be, does it sound surprising that she may have felt pressured to act this way to appease him? The fact that she's comfortable enough in your relationship to have boundaries and refrain from sexual acts she doesn't want to do is a good thing.
> 
> Would you rather your fiancée be her authenic self who has enough self-respect to decide what she does and doesn't want to do, or a fake performative version of herself who exists solely to have "porn star sex" with you, regardless of her actual preferences? I sure do hope it's the former.
> 
> Anecdotally speaking, if my partner received videos of myself with some of my exes, it would probably look very similar to the ones OP received. And yet, my partner is the only partner I've ever genuinely enjoyed sex with, and didn't feel pressured to put on a show for like I have in the past. This was especially true for the abusive relationships I've been in, where I felt like I had to do anything necessary to prove my worth/value to them after being told over and over that I had none. There are things I refuse to do in bed which I did before, because I feel comfortable saying "no" in this relationship without worrying about consequences. It's entirely possible that your girlfriend is in the same boat. *
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This has a pretty simple answer. Don't marry that women. She either is lying to him, or she isn't sexually healthy. Ether way she is not a good choice and they are not sexually compatible.


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> In the situation I was alluding to, the guy went with his wife to a get-together with group of old friends of hers. People were drinking a lot and an ex-BF complimented the husband, saying you are a lucky man, she is the very best at oral. She wouldn’t do that for him and claimed she never did it, but that group all knew differently. From there it ends the same way (he confronts her, she breaks down crying, I’ll do those things with you, husband is hurt and angry, marriage is ruined if not a divorce).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Again, it was ruined to begin with. Another sexually unhealthy person. Which is why like my long post above better to be discriminating when you marry and make sure you are both on the same page sexually.


----------



## sokillme

Numb26 said:


> The fact that you think sex is a poor substitute for intimacy makes me honestly sad.


You think it's the same thing?


----------



## RandomDude

Numb26 said:


> I agree and sadly it happens a lot


You kidding? It's the norm


----------



## RandomDude

sokillme said:


> Again, it was ruined to begin with. Another sexually unhealthy person. Which is why like my long post above better to be discriminating when you marry and make sure you are both on the same page sexually.


Heh then you have the whole bait and switch.

What can you really trust anyway?


----------



## sokillme

BigDaddyNY said:


> I think men need to learn how to fill both roles of bad boy and family man. I think that is how my marriage has been successful in the bedroom and in family life. I was definitely a bad boy and big trouble when we met, and I've never 100% grown out of that. I just morphed that and stuck with parts that keep her, and life in general, excited without being disrespectful or self destructive. I credit the Army for giving me discipline to do what is needed to succeed, while still fostering the bad boy/masculine parts of me.


The badboy thing is a misdirection. Just be assertive and dress cool. Not that hard.


----------



## BoSlander

Lila said:


> False equivalency
> 
> The correct analogy is knowingly buying a car with 245,000 miles, that goes 150 mph, and guzzles gas, then getting upset when he learns the car was previously driven by someone who got it to go 350 mph for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas. The buyer is now upset because he can't get the car to operate the way the previous driver could. He's still got a car that runs exactly as he knowingly purchased.


Not at all. Nowadays every female out there has been worked up, by a plethora of ego-fluffing shows, to believe they’re a high value female (a Ferrari). So, sucka Joe goes out looking for a Ferrari and as soon as he tests it he realizes he got a Pinto and he can’t return it.

Just so that you know… it’s illegal, not unfair, ILLEGAL to advertise a car with a top speed of 350 MPH if it doesn’t, regardless of whether the buyer has the balls to drive it up to those speeds of not.


----------



## Numb26

sokillme said:


> You think it's the same thing?


Absolutely. If it wasn't why even bother being in a relationship? Get yourself a pet or a couple of good friends that meet your emotional needs and just go out and have sex with strangers. Be less stressful and a hell of a lot cheaper.


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> No. It’s not personal. No woman has ever mistreated me. But I probably should stop watching those videos.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Dude you understand a lot of those videos and stories are basically the relationship equivalent to the "nosleep" subreddit? If it's YouTube it's a good way to get clicks.


----------



## sokillme

Real talk said:


> When you marry a woman you should get the best version of her. If someone else got that, then let him marry her.
> 
> Men need to stop thinking you need to coax a woman to fulfill her duties. If it's not coming naturally, then she simply doesn't value you enough.


Agreed, but I would add it's your responsibility to be the best version of yourself, and YOU should want to do that too.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

sokillme said:


> Nice.  Obviously I didn't say that. I said that sex can lead to and enhance intimacy and I also think love, but it's a poor substitute.


I like that.


----------



## RandomDude

Best version of a woman? Hard call, from what I gathered from several female friends is how many of them are in relationships while they still think of their exs or past lovers in secret.

One friend was quite transparent with her boyfriend and told him that she can never love him as much as her ex, hell he even let's them meet to fix loose ends. 🤦‍♂️

Hahahah and that's the standards that men have to drop to find love?

After being one's first love despite the eventual trainwreck I can't imagine being like my friends boyfriend. Majority of female friends, including my own mother, still pines for a past lover. Just makes me wonder really 🙄


----------



## sokillme

Lila said:


> Feeling safe is defined differently by women.
> That's why it's important to talk about sex and relationship values when dating. For me it means he 1) respects my boundaries, 2) does not physically or emotionally hurt me, 3) encourages my vulnerability without judgement, 4) does not make me responsible for his sexual gratification, and 5) is genuinely excited about being with me.


So in general I am on the same page with you, but I believe if you are in a monogamous marriage there is an implied responsibility for a reasonable level ofsexual gratification of your partner. Granted the other things must be in check but if you require someone to only eat your cooking you have a reasonable responsibility to feed them and also not to just give them chicken soup for every meal. Again assuming this person is willing and also giving effort in other areas of the relationship.


----------



## Numb26

RandomDude said:


> Best version of a woman? Hard call, from what I gathered from several female friends is how many of them are in relationships while they still think of their exs or past lovers in secret.
> 
> One friend was quite transparent with her boyfriend and told him that she can never love him as much as her ex, hell he even let's them meet to fix loose ends. 🤦‍♂️
> 
> Hahahah and that's the standards that men have to drop to find love?
> 
> After being one's first love despite the eventual trainwreck I can't imagine being like my friends boyfriend. Majority of female friends, including my own mother, still pines for a past lover. Just makes me wonder really 🙄


Like I said, if a woman isn't doing the same things for her husband as she did for past lovers it is because she married him for security and doesn't feel true attraction to him.


----------



## Lila

BoSlander said:


> Not at all. Nowadays every female out there has been worked up, by a plethora of ego-fluffing shows, to believe they’re a high value female (a Ferrari). So, sucka Joe goes out looking for a Ferrari and as soon as he tests it he realizes he got a Pinto and he can’t return it.
> 
> Just so that you know… it’s illegal, not unfair, ILLEGAL to advertise a car with a top speed of 350 MPH if it doesn’t, regardless of whether the buyer has the balls to drive it up to those speeds of not.


Stop moving the goal posts. You're trying to turn this into a bait and switch when the original post is not about that.


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> Best version of a woman? Hard call, from what I gathered from several female friends is how many of them are in relationships while they still think of their exs or past lovers in secret.
> 
> One friend was quite transparent with her boyfriend and told him that she can never love him as much as her ex, hell he even let's them meet to fix loose ends. 🤦‍♂️
> 
> Hahahah and that's the standards that men have to drop to find love?
> 
> After being one's first love despite the eventual trainwreck I can't imagine being like my friends boyfriend. Majority of female friends, including my own mother, still pines for a past lover. Just makes me wonder really 🙄


That's ****ed up! Sounds like both sides of the equation (men and women) need therapy badly.


----------



## ConanHub

RandomDude said:


> One friend was quite transparent with her boyfriend and told him that she can never love him as much as her ex, hell he even let's them meet to fix loose ends. 🤦‍♂️


I'm not in favor of transition surgery but for this "boyfriend" I'll make an exception. Good grief!


----------



## RandomDude

Numb26 said:


> Like I said, if a woman isn't doing the same things for her husband as she did for past lovers it is because she married him for security and doesn't feel true attraction to him.


Yes but I also know there are things I tried and don't like to feel obligated to share with new partners, so I understand the other side too. I think this issue has some complexities.


----------



## sokillme

BoSlander said:


> Not at all. Nowadays every female out there has been worked up, by a plethora of ego-fluffing shows, to believe they’re a high value female (a Ferrari). So, sucka Joe goes out looking for a Ferrari and as soon as he tests it he realizes he got a Pinto and he can’t return it.
> 
> Just so that you know… it’s illegal, not unfair, ILLEGAL to advertise a car with a top speed of 350 MPH if it doesn’t, regardless of whether the buyer has the balls to drive it up to those speeds of not.


Listen I am not out there, but I do work with a lot of normal young women. They don't seem anything like this, they are also not social media influencers. They don't seem to look to that as a goal but have reasonable expectations. 

Maybe stop watching Youtube so much. The couture on there is toxic for both men and women, these are basically young people whose streams have provided them a huge amount of influence and money without a lot of the hardship that causes people to mature. It's not real life and these are the last people you should look to for advice. They have no experience with the real world. 

This video is the best illustration of how real EVERYTHING about social media is.

Put the devises down.


----------



## Lila

sokillme said:


> So in general I am on the same page with you, but I believe if you are in a monogamous marriage there is an implied responsibility for a reasonable level ofsexual gratification of your partner. Granted the other things must be in check but if you require someone to only eat your cooking you have a reasonable responsibility to feed them and also not to just give them chicken soup for every meal. Again assuming this person is willing and also giving effort in other areas of the relationship.


I am sure there are plenty of people who agree with you and I may just be an outlier which is why I said feeling safe is different for every woman. It doesn't make me feel safe to take responsibility for my partner's sexual gratification (just an example...I dealt with my ex husband's ED issues and I don't ever want to feel like that again).


----------



## RandomDude

TXTrini said:


> That's ****ed up! Sounds like both sides of the equation (men and women) need therapy badly.


That's reality hahahahaha what do you mean it's messed up? It's the norm, I may be an anti social isolationist but man do people like to tell me their lives hahaha.


----------



## TXTrini

sokillme said:


> First thing I would say is, if you want to have a bunch of new sexual experiences with your partner man or women then stay away from people who used hook up culture and their sexuality as a way to gauge their worth. Find someone who believes sexuality is about intimacy but you need to get that too. Problem solved.
> 
> I think Men who use sex as a gauge of their worth see enthusiastic and varied sex as a way to judge their partners desire and love for them. To a certain extent this may be true but if she doesn't want to do something that doesn't mean she isn't, and I certainly wouldn't base it on one sex act. It could be any number of things. Women who use sex to gauge their worth usually are willing to push boundaries just for emotional attention, but then don't feel good about it after the fact. And really why would they. This usually leads to problems because of the underlying issues of thinking this way and not just sex. Sex only seen as seen as a commodity loses it's worth in marriage. I am not talking about volume here, though I would say high volume may be an indicator an something to investigate, I am talking about the whole mindset that is the problem from the beginning.
> 
> People who have a healthy understanding of sex see it as a way to build intimacy which means they don't see specific sex acts as a judge or their wives lust for them and if she says, I don't like that they are OK and quick to move to something else, meanwhile the wives may not like some things but will be willing to do others because they also want to have fun experiences with someone they love. That is how a healthy relationships works. In time if you are close enough I supect she may even be willing to try and push bounderies but this is because the experance is fun and not something to barter with.
> 
> Frankly I think hook up culture is a very immature way of thinking about sex but a common one. First off MEN NEED TO STOP EQUATING SEX AS INTIMACY. I have grown to believe this is kind of a crutch for a lot of guys because it gives a kind of superficial way to experience closeness but I think it ends up being shallow and unsatisfying. I am really disturbed by this idea of involuntary celibacy that seems to be the new buzzword. The idea being that if young men just had more access to sex they would be more emotionally healthy. To me this is just doubling down on the idea that sex = intimacy. If this were the case then sports stars and famous men would be the most emotionally healthy men alive right? I don't know about you but to me that doesn't seem to be the case. To me the most emotionally healthy men I know are the ones who have good marriages or at least good close relationships. Sex doesn't equal intimacy but it can be a path to that and I think with a healthy emotional relationship it is. It's can work like a shared secret that you both value. But it's not a substitute. Young men are suffering not because of lack of sex but because of lack of emotional intimacy. There lack of sex is a symptom of this but not the root problem.
> 
> Listen if you get to this point in your marriage you are really doing it wrong and should really think about starting over, maybe not divorce but at least the "come to Jesus" talk. I mean come on guys - "why won't you have anal sex with me! You had it with that guy!" Isn't going to go over. Duh. Do you even understand how most women work? How about you spend a lot of time getting emotionally close, then seducing her and making her want to be with you, giving her pleasure and then maybe it will organically grow into trying other things. Emotionally connect first. Talk about why you want to experience new things, why you want an exciting sex life. Sell the idea as a benefit to both of you, don't just complain. But if you can't then maybe you are not thinking about her benefit and then she isn't going to be very interested in it, in the long run.
> 
> And if your wife just sits there with no expression, isn't willing to try anything at all then something is really wrong and I bet it's more then just the bedroom. Talk about it. Get to the bottom of it. There is the chance that you married someone who tricked you and has some serious issues with sex but I suspect it's more likely she is no longer emotionally connected to you, turned on by you, or both. Work on that first.


I have to say, your wife is a very lucky woman, you're one of the few men on here who doesn't come across as an emotional neanderthal. It's wonderful to hear a man say this, typically many discount the emotional part of sex and makes it seems really cheap. 

Feeling safe with a man as @Lila said before has a great basis in this, not the bad boy thing so many men love to whine about (for me). But as another poster mentioned, dress nice and be assertive, don't be a nice guy. We know nice guys aren't really nice; they love their covert contracts. 

I'm not saying people don't mislead others, heck, been there, have the shot glass. Even if they do, some self-examination is necessary to understand why you fell for it and how not to in the future.


----------



## sokillme

Numb26 said:


> Absolutely. If it wasn't why even bother being in a relationship? Get yourself a pet or a couple of good friends that meet your emotional needs and just go out and have sex with strangers. Be less stressful and a hell of a lot cheaper.


You seem to be arguing my point, if sex could substitute for intimacy why not just hire prostitutes?


----------



## RandomDude

ConanHub said:


> I'm not in favor of transition surgery but for this "boyfriend" I'll make an exception. Good grief!


Well, at least she's honest with him 

So many others have no clue and I'm like poor dude but hey, people tell me stuff in confidence, even if I hate what they do I never judge them that's why they tell me crap.

Heck my mum even told me she deliberately calls stepdad darling so she won't name slip 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## sokillme

TXTrini said:


> Feeling safe with a man as @Lila said before has a great basis in this, not the bad boy thing so many men love to whine about (for me). But as *another poster mentioned, dress nice and be assertive*, don't be a nice guy. We know nice guys aren't really nice; they love their covert contracts.


Yeah that was me too. 

Having 3 sisters helped a lot.


----------



## Numb26

RandomDude said:


> Yes but I also know there are things I tried and don't like to feel obligated to share with new partners, so I understand the other side too. I think this issue has some complexities.


I'm not taking about things someone tried once and didn't like. I mean more regular things that were taken off the menu when marriage happened.


----------



## Numb26

sokillme said:


> You seem to be arguing my point, if sex could substitute for intimacy why not just hire prostitutes?


Actually wasn't arguing your point. LOL I was being facetious. Would you want to live that way?


----------



## RandomDude

Numb26 said:


> I'm not taking about things someone tried once and didn't like. I mean more regular things that were taken off the menu when marriage happened.


Fair enough then yeah the poor dude got baited bad 🤣


----------



## BigDaddyNY

BoSlander said:


> Not at all. Nowadays every female out there has been worked up, by a plethora of ego-fluffing shows, to believe they’re a high value female (a Ferrari). So, sucka Joe goes out looking for a Ferrari and as soon as he tests it he realizes he got a Pinto and he can’t return it.
> 
> Just so that you know… it’s illegal, not unfair, ILLEGAL to advertise a car with a top speed of 350 MPH if it doesn’t, regardless of whether the buyer has the balls to drive it up to those speeds of not.


She does go 350MPH, you just aren't man enough to get her there. Is that the car's fault? I think that was her point.


----------



## sokillme

Lila said:


> False equivalency
> 
> The correct analogy is knowingly buying a car with 245,000 miles, that goes 150 mph, and guzzles gas, then getting upset when he learns the car was previously driven by someone who got it to go 350 mph for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas. The buyer is now upset because he can't get the car to operate the way the previous driver could. He's still got a car that runs exactly as he knowingly purchased.


Ha it's not the car it's the driver! I think this is true in a lot of circumstances. I also think a lot of people are just not discriminating enough.


----------



## Numb26

BigDaddyNY said:


> She does go 350MPH, you just aren't man enough to get her there. Is that the car's fault? I think that was her point.


That was my point too. She married him knowing he couldn't drive the car but he had a nice garage to keep it in.


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> That's reality hahahahaha what do you mean it's messed up? It's the norm, I may be an anti social isolationist but man do people like to tell me their lives hahaha.


And people wonder why I don't like most people! That's really ****ed up and setting yourself up for failure, not to mention causing others pain. Once, when I was young, I did that, and after seeing how much I hurt the guy I was dating (he dropped the L-bomb, I knew I wouldn't and dumped him) I vowed then and there never to date anyone again if I was in love with someone else. I might have been emotionally shaky when I met my bf, but I certainly was not in love with my exH.

I can't fathom how anyone would even want to kiss or touch someone else while in love with another. That's utterly disgusting to me.


----------



## TexasMom1216

sokillme said:


> You seem to be arguing my point, if sex could substitute for intimacy why not just hire prostitutes?


This is what I don't understand. These men who believe women are so so horrible, that they're all liars and monsters looking to fleece men. They don't like them as people, they view them as sex toys, and argue that if you want someone to be your friend, get a dog or a male friend, then get a woman to use for sex. Why not just hire hookers? Or buy a sex doll? It's cheaper and everyone gets what they expect. Seems like such a simple answer.


----------



## Numb26

TXTrini said:


> I can't fathom how anyone would even want to kiss or touch someone else while in love with another. That's utterly disgusting to me.


In a word? Money


----------



## sokillme

Lila said:


> I am sure there are plenty of people who agree with you and I may just be an outlier which is why I said feeling safe is different for every woman. It doesn't make me feel safe to take responsibility for my partner's sexual gratification (just an example...I dealt with my ex husband's ED issues and I don't ever want to feel like that again).


Which is why I said reasonable, if it's a medial condition that's different. 

My point is, some people get married and then pretty much go celibate because they are lazy. In my mind this is not unlike marrying someone and then not working and expecting them to support you, or stop talking and trying to emotionally connect. You are not fulfilling your obligation that you made. All three things are the three pillars of marriage in my mind. Emotional, Financial and Sexual and I think you have a responsibility to keep up your end of the bargain.


----------



## TXTrini

sokillme said:


> Yeah that was me too.
> 
> Having 3 sisters helped a lot.


Dressing nice doesn't even have to mean fancy. My bf is as casual as casual comes, but I like being seen with him. I don't think I'll ever have to ask him to change his shirt because it has a hole in it (Yes, my ex did this, ugh) like his grandma. 

Some men feel all they have to do is show up, be employed and they get the golden ticket. Yes, I agree some women have that same entitlement, it's a pity they don't all marry each other! People just seem to want to skate by doing/being the bare minimum while maxing out gains instead of bein the best people they can be for themselves, I think that attitude shows up a lot with those who are chronically dissatisfied with something, whether it's sex or something else.


----------



## RandomDude

TXTrini said:


> And people wonder why I don't like most people! That's really ****ed up and setting yourself up for failure, not to mention causing others pain. Once, when I was young, I did that, and after seeing how much I hurt the guy I was dating (he dropped the L-bomb, I knew I wouldn't and dumped him) I vowed then and there never to date anyone again if I was in love with someone else. I might have been emotionally shaky when I met my bf, but I certainly was not in love with my exH.
> 
> I can't fathom how anyone would even want to kiss or touch someone else while in love with another. That's utterly disgusting to me.


Hahaha yeah also why my faith in humanity is very low as previously noted. Not always because of what people did to me too but what they do to others.


----------



## TXTrini

Numb26 said:


> In a word? Money


🤮🤮🤮🤮
We really need a puke button!

To be fair, some men set themselves up for this. You've seen how red pill men talk about SMV, and how they don't want any woman that's not hot to trot, regardless of what they look like. They have this huge entitlement if they're financially responsible or set, and think that's what makes them a "high value" man, so is it any wonder that they attract the gold diggers?


----------



## RandomDude

Numb26 said:


> In a word? Money


With my mum, yes, stepdad offered her security, however there was also the case of her lover's kids wanting him to get back with their mum and she saw no future there, so she married stepdad. Still, she was in love with another when she got married. Still, she never denied stepdad sex, he denied her, he wanted a trophy so 🤷‍♂️

For others like my friends, they just get involved in new relationships while never really being over their exs. Yet really I do wonder if most women even get over their exs based on what my friends tell me and even the women I've dated.

Why is there always that special one 🙄


----------



## Lila

Numb26 said:


> Like I said, if a woman isn't doing the same things for her husband as she did for past lovers it is because she married him for security and doesn't feel true attraction to him.


Again, this just isn't true. 

I'm going to give you some personal examples to prove this. 

Before I met my ex-husband, I dated someone with whom I used to go to raves and do X. X heightens senses and is known as the "love" drug. Touch, kissing, sex, all of it is exponentially better. It's an amazing experience. 

About 10 years into my marriage, my ex husband asked about doing X together and I said no. It's not that I didn't like it when I tried it but with a young child in toe, I didn't feel comfortable doing that. For the record, my ex was a great provider and I have always (even today) found him incredibly attractive. I was just at a different stage in my life. Simple as that. 

Here's another example. I'm almost 100% sure my first boyfriend in college was bisexual. He liked to be pegged, so I did it, and enjoyed it. Neither my ex husband or my current bf are into that but if they were, I wouldn't do it. But here's the interesting thing. I probably would if I hadn't had deep feelings for them. Go figure. 

I have certain expectations of a long term partner and the sexual dynamic in a loving relationship. If my bf considers pegging a sexual need, I would still find him incredibly attractive, but he wouldn't be my bf for long.


----------



## sokillme

TexasMom1216 said:


> This is what I don't understand. These men who believe women are so so horrible, that they're all liars and monsters looking to fleece men. They don't like them as people, they view them as sex toys, and argue that if you want someone to be your friend, get a dog or a male friend, then get a woman to use for sex. Why not just hire hookers? Or buy a sex doll? It's cheaper and everyone gets what they expect. Seems like such a simple answer.


When you say these men do you mean the men on here or the guys selling these quick solutions which are basically just relational equivalent to get rich quick schemes on the internet? The guys giving advice on the internet are just selling an emotional get fit quick pill. I mean this is life right? They treat health like this, why should relationships be any different. This is a very small but loud outlier in my opinion.

IMO the people on this sub are generally pretty healthy and would make good choices, not because they have all the answers but because they are willing to have questions. Some guys are burned for sure and are bitter, but they have good reason. Remember a lot of folks here are on here because they have been hurt and are at different stages of healing. 

I actually have a lot of empathy for young men today. I think a lot of them are looking in the wrong place, but it's not like our entire culture doesn't push the idea that money and sex are the path to eternal happiness. That hasn't been my experience. Both can bring some good feelings but they don't lead to sustainable happiness.

I also think men have be raised and told what skills will make them valuable for a world that no longer exists and I blame both men and women for that. I think in some ways we have done a good job of preparing girls for this world but not so much boys. That needs to be addressed quick. In a social media world you need social skills to excel. 

There is a tendency for this antiquated idea that boys don't have the skills to be emotionally intelligent and that girls are so intuitively. There is also a false equivalence that the ability to be emotional is the same as emotionally intelligence, this is false. I don't think young men are given the tools to address this, but a certainly think with those tools they are more then capable of doing so. 

I feel bad for women too, it seems to me people are more narcissistic and self focused then ever before and social media celebrates that. Both partners have to be the opposite if you are going to have a good marriage.

I get where you are coming from in the sense that being thought of that way is horrible. Not saying it isn't but the truth is both men and women think this way, about women. It's not a man problem it's an everybody problem. Society doesn't have a healthy take on sex.


----------



## Numb26

Lila said:


> But here's the interesting thing. I probably would if I hadn't had deep feelings for them. Go figure.


This is very normal with women I have found.


----------



## RandomDude

Lila said:


> Again, this just isn't true.
> 
> I'm going to give you some personal examples to prove this.
> 
> Before I met my ex-husband, I dated someone with whom I used to go to raves and do X. X heightens senses and is known as the "love" drug. Touch, kissing, sex, all of it is exponentially better. It's an amazing experience.
> 
> About 10 years into my marriage, my ex husband asked about doing X together and I said no. It's not that I didn't like it when I tried it but with a young child in toe, I didn't feel comfortable doing that. For the record, my ex was a great provider and I have always (even today) found him incredibly attractive. I was just at a different stage in my life. Simple as that.
> 
> Here's another example. I'm almost 100% sure my first boyfriend in college was bisexual. He liked to be pegged, so I did it, and enjoyed it. Neither my ex husband or my current bf are into that but if they were, I wouldn't do it. But here's the interesting thing. I probably would if I hadn't had deep feelings for them. Go figure.
> 
> I have certain expectations of a long term partner and the sexual dynamic in a loving relationship. If my bf considers pegging a sexual need, I would still find him incredibly attractive, but he wouldn't be my bf for long.


I reckon both sides are presenting the truth of things, yes I do believe you, and I understand many things we just grow out of, exhibitionism for instance everytime I even want to try it with a new lover I just hesitate it's like making me play with toys again, like you said, we grow out of it.

At the same time, my experiences and the relationships of my mother, my friends, and all the distasteful realities of real life relationships means that men do need to be cautious with this.


----------



## TexasMom1216

sokillme said:


> When you say these men do you mean the men on here


I mean any man who says terrible things about women and then complains he's not getting all the sex and attention to which he believes he is entitled.


----------



## Lila

Numb26 said:


> This is very normal with women I have found.


It happens with men as well. The Madonna/Wh0re complex is actually a range. Some are more apt to it than others. 

My point is there are various reasons why women don't perform sexual acts with partners that they may have previously performed. Those reasons likely havenothing to do with choosing men for security over true attraction.


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> With my mum, yes, stepdad offered her security, however there was also the case of her lover's kids wanting him to get back with their mum and she saw no future there, so she married stepdad. Still, she was in love with another when she got married. Still, she never denied stepdad sex, he denied her, he wanted a trophy so 🤷‍♂️
> 
> For others like my friends, they just get involved in new relationships while never really being over their exs. Yet really I do wonder if most women even get over their exs based on what my friends tell me and even the women I've dated.
> 
> Why is there always that special one 🙄


I guess I can't understand this mindset because it's nothing I've experienced. I've never had a special one that I regret it not working out with, the only regrets I've had so far mostly had to do with the time and effort I wasted on men who by their actions proved they were unworthy of my love.

That's such a sad way to live, I'd rather be alone than be with someone who couldn't let go and let memories ruin reality.


----------



## Lila

RandomDude said:


> At the same time, my experiences and the relationships of my mother, my friends, and all the distasteful realities of real life relationships means that men do need to be cautious with this.


Which is why if it's important, then make damn well sure that it's on the menu before committing to someone. Base that decision on the person who is standing in front of you today. Yes, there are no guarantees but at least you're (universal you) understanding each other's boundaries and expectations.


----------



## Numb26

Lila said:


> It happens with men as well. The Madonna/Wh0re complex is actually a range. Some are more apt to it than others.
> 
> My point is there are various reasons why women don't perform sexual acts with partners that they may have previously performed. Those reasons likely havenothing to do with choosing men for security over true attraction.


From my own experiences dating and talking to the women I see since the divorce I can say that it's more common then you might realize. I have had women tell me that they didn't do certain things because they weren't sexually attracted to the ones they were married too. Some have actually come out and admitted that they didn't get married because they were attracted to their mates. Makes me feel bad for these poor guys.


----------



## Lila

Numb26 said:


> From my own experiences dating and talking to the women I see since the divorce I can say that it's more common then you might realize. I have had women tell me that they didn't do certain things because they weren't sexually attracted to the ones they were married too. Some have actually come out and admitted that they didn't get married because they were attracted to their mates. Makes me feel bad for these poor guys.


I'll be honest. Since my divorce, I have spent a lot of time observing men and women, especially in dating situations. I don't feel bad for most people. 

In my experience, most of those "poor" guys were seeking the wrong kind of woman. Instead of chasing the quiet mousy ones, or alternatively, the red hot firecrackers with matching no holds barred sexual appetites, they married the hottest woman who would accept them or conversely, the most innocent one mom would approve of. 

Women are similar. They might have chosen a "bad boy" or someone who they didn't find sexually attractive but who would be a good provider and father. 

**** happens but I can't feel bad for people's choices. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## sokillme

TXTrini said:


> Dressing nice doesn't even have to mean fancy. My bf is as casual as casual comes, but I like being seen with him. I don't think I'll ever have to ask him to change his shirt because it has a hole in it (Yes, my ex did this, ugh) like his grandma.
> 
> Some men feel all they have to do is show up, be employed and they get the golden ticket. Yes, I agree some women have that same entitlement, it's a pity they don't all marry each other! People just seem to want to skate by doing/being the bare minimum while maxing out gains instead of bein the best people they can be for themselves, I think that attitude shows up a lot with those who are chronically dissatisfied with something, whether it's sex or something else.


Where was the hole? I mean I have a sweatshirt I love and it's basically falling apart, it's still cool though. I also wear it over something. 

I mean we have to accept that a lot of people are just lazy though right, I mean I think a lot of this is just that. There is no shortage of this of both men and women.

However I also think men are really mislead about women's sexual nature. I know because I was young once too and if thought this way to some extent. The media sells you this. I mean there is a whole troupe that is generational of the Marline Monroe type who is married to the dweeb because he is SO NICE. Tom Ewell (look him up) made a whole career out of playing that guy. It's the Darren Stephens syndrome.


----------



## ConanHub

Numb26 said:


> From my own experiences dating and talking to the women I see since the divorce I can say that it's more common then you might realize. I have had women tell me that they didn't do certain things because they weren't sexually attracted to the ones they were married too. Some have actually come out and admitted that they didn't get married because they were attracted to their mates. Makes me feel bad for these poor guys.


There are absolutely a certain amount of women this is true for.

I've known women to intentionally deny a boyfriend (not husband) something sexual that they would still give to the previous boyfriend she originally did it with.

I don't really get bent out of shape over things like this because 1: I was the boyfriend that got the special treatment and 2: I've actually never cared a bit about what a woman has done before and was too busy enjoying the present.

Even if this was true of all women (it's not) who cares?

Seriously, be "that" guy if you want what "that" guy got.

It's a very basic concept I've seen play out across the professional world as well.

There are men who find out how much I make and get angry with me. Being the barbarian I am, I get in their faces, call them lazy fat asses and to get off their lazy butts and do what I do (they don't duh) or shut the hell up.

P.S. not calling anyone a lazy fat ass here. LoL!


----------



## sokillme

Lila said:


> Again, this just isn't true.


It may not always be true but it certainly can be true and does happen. A good example would be women who are willing to do things with their affair partners that they wouldn't even consider doing with their husbands.

To me it's not about attraction at all. I think it's mindset. I don't think these women equate sex and attraction at all, sex is just a tool, a commodity to use. And the tell is because many of them are more then willing to do these things with their husbands after they are caught. Still not about being attracted just more of the same, it's using the purchasing power of sex to save the marriage. These women are not emotionally or sexually healthy and I would run, myself. But this is not an uncommon way that people think.

Seems to me, even assuming people are healthy I still don't think attraction is the same for men and women in general. My experience is safety, respect and admiration is just as important to women in a long term sexual desire as being all hot in bothered is. For most guys, hot is hot.

While I admit all of this is pure speculation on my part, I have noticed how lots of women see babies and they just have this impulse to pick them up, squeeze it, all that stuff. You hear things like my ovaries are burning. Stuff like that. There seems to be almost a biological reaction. For most guys, the babies cute and it may make you wish you had a kid but it's not as visceral. However women are like that for us. It can be visceral and almost biological reaction and that gets a lot of guys into trouble.


> I'm going to give you some personal examples to prove this.
> 
> Before I met my ex-husband, I dated someone with whom I used to go to raves and do X. X heightens senses and is known as the "love" drug. Touch, kissing, sex, all of it is exponentially better. It's an amazing experience.
> 
> About 10 years into my marriage, my ex husband asked about doing X together and I said no. It's not that I didn't like it when I tried it but with a young child in toe, I didn't feel comfortable doing that. For the record, my ex was a great provider and I have always (even today) found him incredibly attractive. I was just at a different stage in my life. Simple as that.
> 
> Here's another example. I'm almost 100% sure my first boyfriend in college was bisexual. He liked to be pegged, so I did it, and enjoyed it. Neither my ex husband or my current bf are into that but if they were, I wouldn't do it. But here's the interesting thing. I probably would if I hadn't had deep feelings for them. Go figure.
> 
> I have certain expectations of a long term partner and the sexual dynamic in a loving relationship. If my bf considers pegging a sexual need, I would still find him incredibly attractive, but he wouldn't be my bf for long.


It seems like you are saying you don't feel safe to do this anymore not so much because of who you are with but because of the circumstances. That seems reasonable to me if it was effectively communicated. I can't even relate to the pegging thing at all so I am not even going to try.

I think what you describe you have with your boyfriend is a dynamic sex life. I think for most reasonable people really just want that. They are willing to abstain from some acts that they might be interested in as long as it's still dynamic. 

I am not sure that is articulated in the argument though. I agree with you in that it shouldn't be a one to one thing, but if it's stale then that's a problem. That being said everyone has some agency in this too it's a part of the relationship and requires communication and work.


----------



## sokillme

ConanHub said:


> There are absolutely a certain amount of women this is true for.
> 
> I've known women to intentionally deny a boyfriend (not husband) something sexual that they would still give to the previous boyfriend she originally did it with.
> 
> I don't really get bent out of shape over things like this because 1: I was the boyfriend that got the special treatment and 2: I've actually never cared a bit about what a woman has done before and was too busy enjoying the present.
> 
> Even if this was true of all women (it's not) who cares?
> 
> Seriously, be "that" guy if you want what "that" guy got.
> 
> It's a very basic concept I've seen play out across the professional world as well.
> 
> There are men who find out how much I make and get angry with me. Being the barbarian I am, I get in their faces, call them lazy fat asses and to get off their lazy butts and do what I do (they don't duh) or shut the hell up.


I agree with this. Be that guy, nothing is stopping you. I am not sure why these guys or girls were willing to marry these people if they were unhappy with their sex life. And if I found out my wife lied and misled me about something as important as our sex life I wouldn't be trying to make her do the same stuff i would be looking for someone who was more honest. 

I have a very general idea of her past experience and honestly I don't care. What was more important to me is that we shared he same general opinion about sex and how it related to marriage and relationships. I figured if she was telling me the truth, and I had no reason not to believe that she wasn't then we would be a good match. I felt that way about everything we talked about.


----------



## RandomDude

TXTrini said:


> I guess I can't understand this mindset because it's nothing I've experienced. I've never had a special one that I regret it not working out with, the only regrets I've had so far mostly had to do with the time and effort I wasted on men who by their actions proved they were unworthy of my love.
> 
> That's such a sad way to live, I'd rather be alone than be with someone who couldn't let go and let memories ruin reality.


Perhaps, but that isn't the norm. The norm is loneliness gets the better of people. Hell it's already threatening to get the better of me and I WANT to be alone now.

People simply get into relationships before they are ready, conscious or subconscious I know I told myself I was ready to date just because I wasn't thinking about my ex that much this year when someone else decided to rev my sex drive. The friend who told her boyfriend she can never love him as much as her ex, she's never been alone, and she said it proudly. Plenty of men happy to fill in the gap with her. Others simply loved their exs and never stopped loving them.

The thing is, despite what they pull on their current lovers, can I really judge them? It's just how it is.



Lila said:


> Which is why if it's important, then make damn well sure that it's on the menu before committing to someone. Base that decision on the person who is standing in front of you today. Yes, there are no guarantees but at least you're (universal you) understanding each other's boundaries and expectations.


A lot of the threads on this forum is from men complaining about being baited. It is what it is. Also, never overestimate your ability to discern the truth, especially in relationships lovers easily pull the wool over the eyes of those they wish to deceive.


----------



## RandomDude

Numb26 said:


> From my own experiences dating and talking to the women I see since the divorce I can say that it's more common then you might realize. I have had women tell me that they didn't do certain things because they weren't sexually attracted to the ones they were married too. Some have actually come out and admitted that they didn't get married because they were attracted to their mates. Makes me feel bad for these poor guys.


Some guys do I too, I know I did, that's the thing too.

With my ex I was romantically but not completely sexually attracted. I didn't care, her mind was of the same intellectual and imaginative wavelength and that was enough for me to commit to her. She cared though, as is similar with the case of many men who understandably want to be their partner's prime lover. Was it enough for her? No it wasn't. My sexual desire for her was driven by love, rarely from lust.

I've been honest with her about this though, probably another reason we broke up  and why my friends keep it to themselves!

So that's another thing, we have women complaining that men go for the hotties (beauty is relative btw) and then when a man settles sexually when he finds someone who can connect with him mentally and emotionally in such a way what happens? Same crap, different gender. Then earlier this year when I decided to be as shallow as F dating because of what I put my ex through I coped all the hate for it lol


----------



## BoSlander

BigDaddyNY said:


> She does go 350MPH, you just aren't man enough to get her there. Is that the car's fault? I think that was her point.


I know what she said, and it doesn’t make her response any more right. In fact, it shows how little she knows about men.

How many men do you know buy a muddin’ truck and don’t go muddin’? How many men do you know buy a Harley Davidson and then put a silencer on the exhausts? How many men do you know buy a Ferrari and then use it to commute in bumper to bumper traffic? Exactly, NONE.

The men Lila is talking about only exist in her head.


----------



## Lila

RandomDude said:


> Also, never overestimate your ability to discern the truth, especially in relationships lovers easily pull the wool over the eyes of those they wish to deceive.


Trust me. I've been divorced 4 years. I know all about men who wish to deceive. I am not looking for happily ever after, just happy for now.


----------



## Lila

BoSlander said:


> I know what she said, and it doesn’t make her response any more right. In fact, it shows how little she knows about men.
> 
> How many men do you know buy a muddin’ truck and don’t go muddin’? How many men do you know buy a Harley Davidson and then put a silencer on the exhausts? How many men do you know buy a Ferrari and then use it to commute in bumper to bumper traffic? Exactly, NONE.
> 
> The men Lila is talking about only exist in her head.


I know enough about men to know you're losing an argument if you have to start name calling to prove your point. That's NOT what men who know their worth do. BUT if it helps you feel better....Go on bruh. Do yo thing. 😘


----------



## TXTrini

sokillme said:


> Where was the hole? I mean I have a sweatshirt I love and it's basically falling apart, it's still cool though. I also wear it over something.
> 
> I mean we have to accept that a lot of people are just lazy though right, I mean I think a lot of this is just that. There is no shortage of this of both men and women.
> 
> However I also think men are really mislead about women's sexual nature. I know because I was young once too and if thought this way to some extent. The media sells you this. I mean there is a whole troupe that is generational of the Marline Monroe type who is married to the dweeb because he is SO NICE. Tom Ewell (look him up) made a whole career out of playing that guy. It's the Darren Stephens syndrome.


It was at the top someplace, I can't remember exactly. I just remember it was date night, I was dolled up and he was walking out looking like a bum. I had to buy everything for him, and even then he still would pick the most raggedy things to put on. His mother even bought him clothes and then asked me if I was the reason he'd dress like that. I never realized how ridiculous that whole situation was, no wonder he didn't want to bonk me.

It's nice being with a man who carries himself like one buys his own underwear. 

Yes, a lot of men have unrealistic expectations of women, and forget to look at themselves, but women are still visual. Personally, I don't need a super hot dude dressed to the nines, just someone that looks decent and isn't smelly. How hard is that? Character is more important, sure, but I'm not touching a smelly-looking dude with his own pole.


----------



## ConanHub

BoSlander said:


> I know what she said, and it doesn’t make her response any more right. In fact, it shows how little she knows about men.
> 
> How many men do you know buy a muddin’ truck and don’t go muddin’? How many men do you know buy a Harley Davidson and then put a silencer on the exhausts? How many men do you know buy a Ferrari and then use it to commute in bumper to bumper traffic? Exactly, NONE.
> 
> The men Lila is talking about only exist in her head.


The men she was talking about are all over. I've lost track of how many times I've heard men getting mad after finding out about their woman's history after they have been happily married for some time.

You are now talking more about bait and switch which is different.

P.S. I'm a man and do know something about men and I think she has a valid point or two.😉


----------



## BoSlander

Lila said:


> I know enough about men to know you're losing an argument if you have to start name calling to prove your point. That's NOT what men who know their worth do. BUT if it helps you feel better....Go on bruh. Do yo thing. 😘


Sweetheart, I’m not here to win or lose arguments. I’m here to educate myself and educate others. 

Don’t mean to burst your bubble but I don’t lose sleep over what you think of me or my opinion.


----------



## RandomDude

ConanHub said:


> Seriously, be "that" guy if you want what "that" guy got.


I doubt my friend's boyfriend can ever be her ex mate 

Hilarious thing is that he's a better catch, more successful and what not lol
Still pining for her first love


----------



## Lila

sokillme said:


> It may not always be true but it certainly can be true and does happen. A good example would be women who are willing to do things with their affair partners that they wouldn't even consider doing with their husbands.
> 
> To me it's not about attraction at all. I think it's mindset. I don't think these women equate sex and attraction at all, sex is just a tool, a commodity to use. And the tell is because many of them are more then willing to do these things with their husbands after they are caught. Still not about being attracted just more of the same, it's using the purchasing power of sex to save the marriage. These women are not emotionally or sexually healthy and I would run, myself. But this is not an uncommon way that people think.
> 
> Seems to me, even assuming people are healthy I still don't think attraction is the same for men and women in general. My experience is safety, respect and admiration is just as important to women in a long term sexual desire as being all hot in bothered is. For most guys, hot is hot.
> 
> While I admit all of this is pure speculation on my part, I have noticed how lots of women see babies and they just have this impulse to pick them up, squeeze it, all that stuff. You hear things like my ovaries are burning. Stuff like that. There seems to be almost a biological reaction. For most guys, the babies cute and it may make you wish you had a kid but it's not as visceral. However women are like that for us. It can be visceral and almost biological reaction and that gets a lot of guys into trouble.
> 
> 
> It seems like you are saying you don't feel safe to do this anymore not so much because of who you are with but because of the circumstances. That seems reasonable to me if it was effectively communicated. I can't even relate to the pegging thing at all so I am not even going to try.
> 
> I think what you describe you have with your boyfriend is a dynamic sex life. I think for most reasonable people really just want that. They are willing to abstain from some acts that they might be interested in as long as it's still dynamic.
> 
> I am not sure that is articulated in the argument though. I agree with you in that it shouldn't be a one to one thing, but if it's stale then that's a problem. That being said everyone has some agency in this too it's a part of the relationship and requires communication and work.



My comment was in response to @Numb26 absolute statement "_if a woman isn't doing the same things for her husband as she did for past lovers it is because she married him for security and doesn't feel true attraction to him._"

So you and I are in agreement. There are many reasons why a woman might choose not to perform sexual acts she performed with other lovers. It could be lack of attraction or one of the many several others have mentioned.


----------



## Lila

BoSlander said:


> Sweetheart, I’m not here to win or lose arguments. I’m here to educate myself and educate others.
> 
> Don’t mean to burst your bubble but I don’t lose sleep over what you think of me or my opinion.


Maybe try educating yourself first before you try educating others. I know it's difficult, but just try. It might help improve your outlook and overall attitude.


----------



## *Deidre*

It’s really trippy coming into this thread right after reading the thread about feminism. 😌 In this thread, I learn that some men still see women as property, similar to a car.


----------



## Real talk

Lila said:


> False equivalency
> 
> The correct analogy is knowingly buying a car with 245,000 miles, that goes 150 mph, and guzzles gas, then getting upset when he learns the car was previously driven by someone who got it to go 350 mph for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas. The buyer is now upset because he can't get the car to operate the way the previous driver could. He's still got a car that runs exactly as he knowingly purchased.


 Let say you and your friend saved up your money over a year and both ended up with 3k. You went to the Louis Vuitton store, talked to a rep and asked what you could get for that amount of money and you end up walking out with a phone bag. 

Your friend went a few days before you did, talked to the same rep and because she happens to be sexier and more feminine, he gives her a full sized shoulder bag. 

So yes you got what you expected to get at the time of purchase for the amount of money you had, but you can't tell me you won't feel like you got the short end of the stock because someone else got more value and benefit from the same investment.


----------



## BoSlander

ConanHub said:


> The men she was talking about are all over. I've lost track of how many times I've heard men getting mad after finding out about their woman's history after they have been happily married for some time.
> 
> You are now talking more about bait and switch which is different.
> 
> P.S. I'm a man and do know something about men and I think she has a valid point or two.😉


I’m not saying otherwise. BUT, a marriage is a relationship that requires mutual adherence.

What do you think your current wife would say if she found out that, in your first marriage, you used to mow the lawn, go shopping for the week, bbq, chop firewood and paint the house and now, in your second marriage, you don’t do diddly-squat.

What do you think would happen if you were to tell your wife “well honey, you don’t know how to get me going like my first wife” or “you don’t know how to ask”?


----------



## BoSlander

Lila said:


> Maybe try educating yourself first before you try educating others. I know it's difficult, but just try. It might help improve your outlook and overall attitude.


Let it go sweetheart.


----------



## TXTrini

BoSlander said:


> I’m not saying otherwise. BUT, a marriage is a relationship that requires mutual adherence.
> 
> What do you think your current wife would say if she found out that, in your first marriage, you used to mow the lawn, go shopping for the week, bbq, chop firewood and paint the house and now, in your second marriage, you don’t do diddly-squat.
> 
> What do you think would happen if you were to tell your wife “well honey, you don’t know how to get me going like my first wife” or “you don’t know how to ask”?


Good God, equating chores and fulfilling adult responsibilities with sex, which is supposed to be intimate and fun is ridiculous! No wonder some women don't like ****ing their husbands if they exhibit that attitude.


----------



## BoSlander

Real talk said:


> Let say you and your friend saved up your money over a year and both ended up with 3k. You went to the Louis Vuitton store, talked to a rep and asked what you could get for that amount of money and you end up walking out with a phone bag.
> 
> Your friend went a few days before you did, talked to the same rep and because she happens to be sexier and more feminine, he gives her a full sized shoulder bag.
> 
> So yes you got what you expected to get at the time of purchase for the amount of money you had, but you can't tell me you won't feel like you got the short end of the stock because someone else got more value and benefit from the same investment.


She knows EXACTLY what we’re trying to say. She’s just being obtuse about it.

Anyone speak womanese?


----------



## BoSlander

TXTrini said:


> Good God, equating chores and fulfilling adult responsibilities with sex, which is supposed to be intimate and fun is ridiculous! No wonder some women don't like ****ing their husbands if they exhibit that attitude.


Hey, I tried cars, motorcycles, choirs… someone else is now trying Louis Vuitton bags.

Something tells me the later is going to strike a nerve.


----------



## Real talk

ConanHub said:


> I think the key to her statement was when men display unmasculine behavior like whining, anger (in a way that makes women feel unsafe) and complaining about feeling cheated by her in the bedroom.
> 
> I guarantee I've gotten the best mileage out of Mrs. C and far more in the bedroom than she has ever given anyone else and I did not whine or behave angrily or complain.


Can you explain to me why you keep referencing whining when discussing men and their concerns with their sex lives?

If I were to go into any of the threads in this forum of women complaining about their husbands not taking them out, buying flowers, or complimenting them, would I see you telling them they'd get the best mileage out of their husbands by not whining and making them feel safe?

Women and women identified men seem to use blanket terms with anti-masculine narratives in what seems to be a shaming tactic. I wouldn't assume that a man who feels this way is sitting around pouting and whining like a child so why do you and other people?


----------



## Lila

Real talk said:


> Let say you and your friend saved up your money over a year and both ended up with 3k. You went to the Louis Vuitton store, talked to a rep and asked what you could get for that amount of money and you end up walking out with a phone bag.
> 
> Your friend went a few days before you did, talked to the same rep and because she happens to be sexier and more feminine, he gives her a full sized shoulder bag.
> 
> So yes you got what you expected to get at the time of purchase for the amount of money you had, but you can't tell me you won't feel like you got the short end of the stock because someone else got more value and benefit from the same investment.


Your example doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like I went into that store not knowing what I wanted to buy. Just going I there to waste time. 

Why would I go to the store and ask them what they can give me for 3k? I would go into the store knowing what I wanted to purchase and then ask for the price. If it was outside my price range, I would walk out and either look for a better deal somewhere else or save up my money until I could afford it. 

But in a similar vein, beautiful people get everything they want and more. It's called the Halo Effect. Something like what you describe happened to me and my sister in Italy. She's very beautiful and for a great price on some couture clothes. I, on the other hand, was given market price. 🤷‍♀️. It is what it is


----------



## Numb26

ConanHub said:


> There are absolutely a certain amount of women this is true for.
> 
> I've known women to intentionally deny a boyfriend (not husband) something sexual that they would still give to the previous boyfriend she originally did it with.
> 
> I don't really get bent out of shape over things like this because 1: I was the boyfriend that got the special treatment and 2: I've actually never cared a bit about what a woman has done before and was too busy enjoying the present.
> 
> Even if this was true of all women (it's not) who cares?
> 
> Seriously, be "that" guy if you want what "that" guy got.
> 
> It's a very basic concept I've seen play out across the professional world as well.
> 
> There are men who find out how much I make and get angry with me. Being the barbarian I am, I get in their faces, call them lazy fat asses and to get off their lazy butts and do what I do (they don't duh) or shut the hell up.
> 
> P.S. not calling anyone a lazy fat ass here. LoL!


It took what happened with the XW to open my eyes. But they are open now


----------



## Lila

BoSlander said:


> Let it go sweetheart.


I think you're the one that is having problems letting it go. Maybe this gif will help you.


----------



## TXTrini

BoSlander said:


> Hey, I tried cars, motorcycles, choirs… someone else is now trying Louis Vuitton bags.
> 
> Something tells me the later is going to strike a nerve.


Maybe for people who care about that stuff 🤷‍♀️ . I take umbrage to ridiculous comparisons, like comparing people with chores and inanimate objects that don't operate on emotions. If you can't see the false equivalence, and how that reads as tone-deaf, I can't help you.


----------



## RandomDude

Well you guys can always try with a younger lover and be her first love and see what happens


----------



## Real talk

Lila said:


> Your example doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like I went into that store not knowing what I wanted to buy. Just going I there to waste time


People do this all the time. When you go clothes shopping do you have a budget and figure out what you could get for it, or do you go in knowing exactly how many articles of clothing you need and just buy that?

When you buy a house are you pre-approved for a certain amount or do you just look at everything and decide on what you want regardless of the cost?

That's how people operate when dating and marriage. You date a person not necessarily knowing what you get, with other benefits being more implicit than explicit. If women had price tags that detailed the level of sexual service they give to different types of men out in the open, we wouldn't run into this issue would we?


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> Well you guys can always try with a younger lover and be her first love and see what happens


They're most welcome to, then worry about who else she's ****ing, or when the expiration date is. These kinds of conversations make me understand why some people choose to stay single and not bother with relationships.


----------



## ConanHub

BoSlander said:


> I’m not saying otherwise. BUT, a marriage is a relationship that requires mutual adherence.
> 
> What do you think your current wife would say if she found out that, in your first marriage, you used to mow the lawn, go shopping for the week, bbq, chop firewood and paint the house and now, in your second marriage, you don’t do diddly-squat.
> 
> What do you think would happen if you were to tell your wife “well honey, you don’t know how to get me going like my first wife” or “you don’t know how to ask”?


Thing is that I am "that" guy so I'm viewing this issue from " that" perspective.

Just a heads up. There are probably one or two lady posters that the "sweetheart" moniker would probably be applicable but @Lila is a pretty rational poster.


----------



## BoSlander

Lila said:


> I think you're the one that is having problems letting it go. Maybe this gif will help you.


If you look like that… can we talk?


----------



## BoSlander

ConanHub said:


> Thing is that I am "that" guy so I'm viewing this issue from " that" perspective.
> 
> Just a heads up. There are probably one or two lady posters that the "sweetheart" moniker would probably be applicable but @Lila is a pretty rational poster.


I know… we’re just having fun. I’m certainly not going to take it to a point where she feels uncomfortable. I can guarantee you that.


----------



## Real talk

Lila said:


> 4) does not make me responsible for his sexual gratification, and 5) is genuinely excited about being with me.


These are contradictions, and genuinely lead to men being in unfulfilling relationships with women who couldn't care less about their happiness.

You want men to not depend on you for anything, but in the same sense want men to be excited to be with you.

Why would a man be excited to be with you if he can't depend on you for what he wants and don't know if he'll ever get to the point where he can truly enjoy sex with you? This is solipsism at its best.


----------



## ConanHub

Real talk said:


> Can you explain to me why you keep referencing whining when discussing men and their concerns with their sex lives?
> 
> If I were to go into any of the threads in this forum of women complaining about their husbands not taking them out, buying flowers, or complimenting them, would I see you telling them they'd get the best mileage out of their husbands by not whining and making them feel safe?
> 
> Women and women identified men seem to use blanket terms with anti-masculine narratives in what seems to be a shaming tactic. I wouldn't assume that a man who feels this way is sitting around pouting and whining like a child so why do you and other people?


I actually don't go around accusing people of whining, unless they are. I was responding to @Lila 's statement and what she was talking about as opposed to what she wasn't.


----------



## BoSlander

TXTrini said:


> Maybe for people who care about that stuff 🤷‍♀️ . I take umbrage to ridiculous comparisons, like comparing people with chores and inanimate objects that don't operate on emotions. If you can't see the false equivalence, and how that reads as tone-deaf, I can't help you.


You mean like “men are dogs”? I never hear a single female voice when that pearl is let out in public.


----------



## ConanHub

Numb26 said:


> It took what happened with the XW to open my eyes. But they are open now


I'm also not referring to men who unknowingly married a psychopath either. You're a champ in my book.


----------



## RandomDude

TXTrini said:


> They're most welcome to, then worry about who else she's ****ing, or when the expiration date is. These kinds of conversations make me understand why some people choose to stay single and not bother with relationships.


Lol but they want so much to be "that guy"


----------



## Lila

Real talk said:


> People do this all the time. When you go clothes shopping do you have a budget and figure out what you could get for it, or do you go in knowing exactly how many articles of clothing you need and just buy that?
> 
> When you buy a house are you pre-approved for a certain amount or do you just look at everything and decide on what you want regardless of the cost?
> 
> That's how people operate when dating and marriage. You date a person not necessarily knowing what you get, with other benefits being more implicit than explicit. If women had price tags that detailed the level of sexual service they give to different types of men out in the open, we wouldn't run into this issue would we?


Maybe I'm different in that I go shopping with a purpose at reputable stores where everything has a price tag. If pretty people are getting discounts for their looks, then more power to them. I certainly can't do anything about that. 

Single people need to start being more proactive about determining their needs (all of them) and non-negotiables, then making sure not to settle into relationships with others who don't meet those needs. There are no guarantees that what you get today will be there tomorrow but you can understand what is available to you. If the menu isn't to your liking, NEXT. I say this as a woman to other women, and as the mother to a teenage son.


----------



## Lila

BoSlander said:


> If you look like that… can we talk?


Sorry to disappoint but no. Don't look anything like that but she is cute. Keep reaching for the stars.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> Just a heads up. There are probably one or two lady posters that the "sweetheart" moniker would probably be applicable but @Lila is a pretty rational poster.


@ConanHub that's the sweetest thing I've heard today! 😁. I pride myself on logic and don't let back handed comments bother me. I do live in the south after all.


----------



## TXTrini

BoSlander said:


> You mean like “men are dogs”? I never hear a single female voice when that pearl is let out in public.


Well, I love dogs and certainly don't refer to men I disdain as dogs. I prefer them far more than most people, so that's not an insult to me. 

Besides, I rather think some men are quite envious of dogs' ability to lick their own balls, etc...


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> Lol but they want so much to be "that guy"


Exactly. Women have something similar to overcome, seeing how men, in general treat physically more beautiful, desirable women if they aren't. That's life.


----------



## Lila

Real talk said:


> These are contradictions, and genuinely lead to men being in unfulfilling relationships with women who couldn't care less about their happiness.
> 
> You want men to not depend on you for anything, but in the same sense want men to be excited to be with you.
> 
> Why would a man be excited to be with you if he can't depend on you for what he wants and don't know if he'll ever get to the point where he can truly enjoy sex with you? This is solipsism at its best.


It's not a contradiction. 

One pertains to self esteem. I would never want to be with someone who uses sex to validate their worth. That's a recipe for disaster. A good example is the guy that measures his self worth by the number of orgasms he "gives" his partner. Yes, it feels good to be pleased but it doesn't always have to end in orgasms for it to be good. Having to put on a performance in order to protect his ego is not my idea of fun. 

The other pertains to their attraction to me. I don't have sex with men I don't find attractive and I don't want to be with a man who's not physically attracted to me. I want PDA, physical affection, "the looks", "the words".... All of it. Same as I give to them. 

If that's not enough for a man to be excited to be with me, then we're not compatible. He needs someone else.


----------



## ccpowerslave

BoSlander said:


> How many men do you know buy a Ferrari and then use it to commute in bumper to bumper traffic? Exactly, NONE.


I know two guys who bought Ferrari’s (modern ones) and only drove them around town and not at ridiculous speeds. Never tracked them. One guy also had a Maserati, same thing. The other guy had a R8 as well and same deal with that one.


----------



## TexasMom1216

TXTrini said:


> Besides, I rather think some men are quite envious of dogs' ability to lick their own balls, etc...


If they could, we'd never see them. 😂


----------



## CraigBesuden

DownByTheRiver said:


> They tried it and didn't like it. So they're under no obligation to do it ever again. On top of that there are also differences between men and how pleasant it might or might not be to do something with them that's not that pleasant to begin with such as size smell and taste, duration, and degree of consideration.


I think that's a large part of it.

It appears that women start out in their dating lives wanting the validation of their often older and more experienced partner. They mimic porn stars, moaning constantly from the second the penis enters her. She pretends to be enthusiastic about performing those acts when, in reality, she really is just trying to learn how to have sex correctly or doing it enthusiastically for the validation of her partner. (And if it's being recorded, she's playing it up for the camera.) Some women, especially when they are in their teens and early 20s, date guys who are controlling and abusive, and they also are willing to do whatever the guy wants and appear to do it enthusiastically. In some cases the guy intentionally pushes her further and further, to do the most degrading things to get a sadistic thrill.

Later, she meets a nice guy. Often times this guy has less sexual experience than her. She now feels comfortable in this relationship, and perhaps with therapy, finally starts to say no and to put up healthy boundaries. He wants to perform acts that she doesn't enjoy and that she feels are degrading, and she refuses. Maybe she admits that she did it in the past but she won't any longer. Maybe she tells him the white lie that she never did any such thing but he learns the truth from friends or video. Either way, he learns that she did those things and did them enthusiastically.

The guy feels like a fool. Her unwillingness to do those things means that she doesn't find him physically attractive and just picked him because he's a nice guy and a good provider. He feels that she gave her "best sex" to the bad boys who came before him, while the man whom she claims to love the most gets the bare minimum. It appears to him that she's nowhere near as aroused and interested with him - but she's actually being real with him, not putting on a show, and actually enjoying it.

I remember staying up late and watching Dr. Ruth as a kid. There were two recurring questions from callers. One was about the woman not getting wet enough and she would say, "use lubrication." The other was men complaining that his girlfriend says she is enjoying sex but she isn't moaning like it, and Dr. Ruth would say that the woman needs to concentrate on the pleasure and she cannot concentrate on the pleasure if she's putting on a show, and maybe sometimes she could moan like that and other times she can just concentrate on the pleasure.

[This explanation doesn't really account for the situation where the wife refuses to do certain acts with her husband, but then she cheats and does them with AP and more. Anything that the AP wants her to do. That's a huge betrayal and worse than the cheating itself.]


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> I think that's a large part of it.
> 
> It appears that women start out in their dating lives wanting the validation of their often older and more experienced partner. They mimic porn stars, moaning constantly from the second the penis enters her. She pretends to be enthusiastic about performing those acts when, in reality, she really is just trying to learn how to have sex correctly or doing it enthusiastically for the validation of her partner. (And if it's being recorded, she's playing it up for the camera.) Some women, especially when they are in their teens and early 20s, date guys who are controlling and abusive, and they also are willing to do whatever the guy wants and appear to do it enthusiastically. In some cases the guy intentionally pushes her further and further, to do the most degrading things to get a sadistic thrill.
> 
> Later, she meets a nice guy. Often times this guy has less sexual experience than her. She now feels comfortable in this relationship, and perhaps with therapy, finally starts to say no and to put up healthy boundaries. He wants to perform acts that she doesn't enjoy and that she feels are degrading, and she refuses. Maybe she admits that she did it in the past but she won't any longer. Maybe she tells him the white lie that she never did any such thing but he learns the truth from friends or video. Either way, he learns that she did those things and did them enthusiastically.
> 
> The guy feels like a fool. Her unwillingness to do those things means that she doesn't find him physically attractive and just picked him because he's a nice guy and a good provider. He feels that she gave her "best sex" to the bad boys who came before him, while the man whom she claims to love the most gets the bare minimum. It appears to him that she's nowhere near as aroused and interested with him - but she's actually being real with him, not putting on a show, and actually enjoying it.
> 
> I remember staying up late and watching Dr. Ruth as a kid. There were two recurring questions from callers. One was about the woman not getting wet enough and she would say, "use lubrication." The other was men complaining that his girlfriend says she is enjoying sex but she isn't moaning like it, and Dr. Ruth would say that the woman needs to concentrate on the pleasure and she cannot concentrate on the pleasure if she's putting on a show, and maybe sometimes she could moan like that and other times she can just concentrate on the pleasure.
> 
> [This explanation doesn't really account for the situation where the wife refuses to do certain acts with her husband, but then she cheats and does them with AP and more. Anything that the AP wants her to do. That's a huge betrayal and worse than the cheating itself.]


Way to many assumptions and generalizations in this entire post. It is all pretty much crap because it is based on made up scenarios with little basis in truth, just Reddit stories. You might as well be analyzing Penthouse Letters.


----------



## sokillme

TXTrini said:


> It was at the top someplace, I can't remember exactly. I just remember it was date night, I was dolled up and he was walking out looking like a bum. I had to buy everything for him, and even then he still would pick the most raggedy things to put on. His mother even bought him clothes and then asked me if I was the reason he'd dress like that. I never realized how ridiculous that whole situation was, no wonder he didn't want to bonk me.
> 
> It's nice being with a man who carries himself like one buys his own underwear.
> 
> Yes, a lot of men have unrealistic expectations of women, and forget to look at themselves, but women are still visual. Personally, I don't need a super hot dude dressed to the nines, just someone that looks decent and isn't smelly. How hard is that? Character is more important, sure, but I'm not touching a smelly-looking dude with his own pole.


It doesn't seem unreasonable.


----------



## sokillme

BoSlander said:


> Let it go sweetheart.


What's with the sweetheart stuff?


----------



## ConanHub

sokillme said:


> What's with the sweetheart stuff?


@Lila is a southern sweetheart obviously.😉


----------



## ConanHub

I will say kudos to you @CraigBesuden for a good thread with provocative ideas and spirited discussion.


----------



## Real talk

Lila said:


> One pertains to self esteem. I would never want to be with someone who uses sex to validate their worth...
> 
> The other pertains to their attraction to me. I don't have sex with men I don't find attractive and I don't want to be with a man who's not physically attracted to me. I want PDA, physical affection, "the looks", "the words".... All of it. Same as I give to them.


Do you not see how you're proving point to the tee? 

Why is it okay that you get validation from physical affection but it's not okay that he gets validation from sex? With all due respect, see how self-centered that is? It doesn't make sense when you look at it from outside your own purview. 

When you're excited for someone you personally get validation from deep physical affection with him. But in order to be excited for him you have to be able to depend on him for that validation which comes from him fulfilling your wants. 

So if you're feeling affectionate, you need "the looks", "the words" as you put it and if you don't get it you're desire naturally goes down. But here you are expecting a man to grow to that excitement for you even though he can't depend on you the way you want to depend on him. Thats nonsense. 

That same passion and enthusiasm you expect from him regarding affection is the same level he expect from you regarding intimacy. The difference is you think you're entitled to it, and he should provide you with all this validation and hope he "makes you feel safe" eventually so he can get a payoff.


----------



## Real talk

sokillme said:


> Agreed, but I would add it's your responsibility to be the best version of yourself, and YOU should want to do that too.


Absolutely, the difference is that the best version of a regular man will never get you the treatment a regular woman will give that alpha that gets her juices flowing. That's the point of the whole thread, and the same thing can't be said in reverse. 

There is nothing that a man can do to win the animalistic desire from a woman that will make her prioritize your sexual needs the way she did that athlete she did all her sexual exploration with in college. You can buy her whatever she wants, you can be as affectionate and complementary as you can, you can simp as much as you want. At most she's going to reward you with vanilla sex. 

On the flip side if George Clooney walked up to that same woman and told her to grab her knee pads for a marathon session, she'd be on Amazon that minute looking for the most durable ones.


----------



## Real talk

sokillme said:


> You seem to be arguing my point, if sex could substitute for intimacy why not just hire prostitutes?


A lot of men do. 

Use their wives for the vanilla, ordinary substances intimacy she can muster up and get a young sugar baby for the freaky stuff. You don't think prostitution and sugaring isn't thriving for a reason do you?


----------



## sokillme

Lila said:


> Maybe I'm different in that I go shopping with a purpose at reputable stores where everything has a price tag. If pretty people are getting discounts for their looks, then more power to them. I certainly can't do anything about that.
> 
> Single people need to start being more proactive about determining their needs (all of them) and non-negotiables, then making sure not to settle into relationships with others who don't meet those needs. There are no guarantees that what you get today will be there tomorrow but you can understand what is available to you. If the menu isn't to your liking, NEXT. I say this as a woman to other women, and as the mother to a teenage son.


Yeah but a lot of guys who end up in relationships like this already hurt themselves because they see women as "other", and unobtainable. So they are much more wiling to put up with nonsense just to get one to like them. Guys who think like this end up with women who marry them for their money because guys who don't think like this dump women who want to marry them for their money. It's a symbolic relationship because these people are usually the last ones standing.


----------



## RandomDude

ConanHub said:


> *spirited* discussion.






sokillme said:


> Yeah but a lot of guys who end up in relationships like this already hurt themselves because they see women as "other", and unobtainable. So they are much more wiling to put up with nonsense just to get one to like them. Guys who think like this end up with women who marry them for their money because guys who don't think like this dump women who want to marry them for their money. It's a symbolic relationship because these people are usually the last ones standing.


Sure sucks being below a 7 cute 😝


----------



## ConanHub

Real talk said:


> Absolutely, the difference is that the best version of a regular man will never get you the treatment a regular woman will give that alpha that gets her juices flowing. That's the point of the whole thread, and the same thing can't be said in reverse.
> 
> There is nothing that a man can do to win the animalistic desire from a woman that will make her prioritize your sexual needs the way she did that athlete she did all her sexual exploration with in college. You can buy her whatever she wants, you can be as affectionate and complementary as you can, you can simp as much as you want. At most she's going to reward you with vanilla sex.
> 
> On the flip side if George Clooney walked up to that same woman and told her to grab her knee pads for a marathon session, she'd be on Amazon that minute looking for the most durable ones.


You know, athletes and actors actually do put in a hell of a lot of work to obtain their position and I honestly can't begrudge them the female attention they get.

That's reality but your view is fatalistic because you don't think regular men can have their own boundaries, requirements and respect and I think they certainly can and should.

Also, do you really believe that a lot of regular guys wouldn't go wild (far more than for an average Jane) for a shot with a female celebrity or sex symbol?


----------



## Corgi Mum

RandomDude said:


> After being one's first love despite the eventual trainwreck I can't imagine being like my friends boyfriend. Majority of female friends, including my own mother, still pines for a past lover. Just makes me wonder really 🙄


Good lord, what kind of women are you hanging out with? I can't think of any women I know who "pine" for an ex, nor do I. None of them are that memorable. Some of them, the thought of rekindling our relationship makes me shudder. Hell, I can't even remember which one would qualify as my "first love".

Oh, wait. I do know one woman who's hung up on an ex. She's never dated anyone since him though. And, being privy to way too many details about their relationship, I'd characterize it more as codependency than love.


----------



## CharlieParker

Corgi Mum said:


> Good lord, what kind of women are you hanging out with?


OMG, this is the poster child for "if you don't know the answer, don't ask the question". 😂

(Edit for typo)


----------



## Enigma32

I get why a lot of guys obsess over this stuff. They feel like they are getting a lesser version of their partner than some other guy got. This in turn makes you feel less-than the exes she gave all of herself to. It's a bad feeling and one I don't think I'd willingly sign up for.


----------



## sokillme

Real talk said:


> Absolutely, the difference is that the best version of a regular man will never get you the treatment a regular woman will give that alpha that gets her juices flowing. That's the point of the whole thread, and the same thing can't be said in reverse.
> 
> There is nothing that a man can do to win the animalistic desire from a woman that will make her prioritize your sexual needs the way she did that athlete she did all her sexual exploration with in college. You can buy her whatever she wants, you can be as affectionate and complementary as you can, you can simp as much as you want. At most she's going to reward you with vanilla sex.
> 
> On the flip side if George Clooney walked up to that same woman and told her to grab her knee pads for a marathon session, she'd be on Amazon that minute looking for the most durable ones.


I am gonna be honest but try to be nice about this. No one cares, as a man I sure don't. That is the way it is. Some women have large boobs guess what they will get a hell of a lot of attention. You think if you could have sex with say Linda Carter you won't be enthusiastic about it? Why should women be any different? What makes us so special that they shouldn't be enthusiastic about George Clooney. They are just like men in this respect, I mean I get that some of us have to learn this the hard way but accept it. Some cheat, just like men, some lie just like men. Some prioritize beauty or power, just like man. That's life.

When I read stuff like this I think why didn't you learn this lesson in the school yard? When the bully beat you up, you still had to get up right? Life is unfair. News at 11. ****ing compete. We are men, that is what we do.

Women will have enthusiastic sex with rich and powerful men.

I know one thing, my wife isn't, at least right now because she is upstairs sleeping. That's good enough for me. Could she one day? Maybe. If she did you know what would happen? I would be really sad for a time, I would pick myself up and I would enjoy meeting new people and start dating. Maybe I wouldn't meet anyone, but I suspect I would though, you know why? Because I'm not worried about Goorge Clooney, or some Athlete, I'm worried about SoKillMe and if you give me 1 hour on a dinner date some lady would be too in a good way. Now would she be Linda Carter, probably not. 

My value isn't all tied up in what people think about me, it's not even in my marriage, not even in my wife. My value is in me, my character. My own personal honor. That is my strength. 



> There is nothing that a man can do to win the animalistic desire from a woman that will make her prioritize your sexual needs the way she did that athlete she did all her sexual exploration with in college.


Man is that not true. All you need to do is look at some affairs to tell that. Some women literary through themselves at trolls. Most of these women are so starved for intimacy all it takes is just pretending that these guys care and telling them how hot they are and they through away years or marriage, their entire lives. Imagine if there husband suddenly had an epiphany before that and did the same thing. Not all I'm sure but some would love it. This is what I am talking about, compete. By the way that doesn't mean I am saying cheating isn't ****ed up or the fault of the cheater. What I am saying is as far as I can tell lots of women throw themselves at men who call them hot, but only if their is an established emotional connection. And as their husbands we have the best chance to establish that.

I tell you one thing if you you think of her as an orifice to get off with (sorry to people reading, I know that's blunt, but that is how some guys think) you aren't going to have enthusastic sex with anyone. Unless mabye if you are some star athlete. I guess you could say life is unfair because most of us are going to do better then that. Personally I feel bad for the guys who do think this way. Personally I ****ing love women and I don't mean in a sexual sense. I think they are outstanding. I mean just talk to them. In some ways they are not so different but in others they are different enough that they bring a clarifying perspective to a lot of aspects of life. I mean that's the thing, they are the only beings on earth who are different enough that it's unique. I can't know what it is to be a women, but she can tell me. That's cool. 

Seriously man, let it go. We're men. It's not supposed to be fair, in this respect. You have to compete, with other men and more so with yourself. Embrace that.


----------



## TXTrini

ConanHub said:


> @Lila is a southern sweetheart obviously.😉


She is, but naw, he came across as rather patronizing. Then ye olde lame "it's just a joke", so you can't be offended.


----------



## RandomDude

Corgi Mum said:


> Good lord, what kind of women are you hanging out with? I can't think of any women I know who "pine" for an ex, nor do I. None of them are that memorable. Some of them, the thought of rekindling our relationship makes me shudder. Hell, I can't even remember which one would qualify as my "first love".
> 
> Oh, wait. I do know one woman who's hung up on an ex. She's never dated anyone since him though. And, being privy to way too many details about their relationship, I'd characterize it more as codependency than love.


Heh not even always exs, and I know right!
They sure weren't helping with my own damn paranoia when I was actively dating earlier in the year lol , hell even my mum is like them.

I was more concerned about the fact that they could get into new relationships and simply not love them, but hey not like they ever got a break from men.


----------



## TXTrini

sokillme said:


> I am gonna be honest but try to be nice about this. No one cares, as a man I sure don't. That is the way it is. Some women have large boobs guess what they will get a hell of a lot of attention. You think if you could have sex with say Linda Carter you won't be enthusiastic about it? Why should women be any different? What makes us so special that they shouldn't be enthusiastic about George Clooney. They are just like men in this respect, I mean I get that some of us have to learn this the hard way but accept it. Some cheat, just like men, some lie just like men. Some prioritize beauty or power, just like man. That's life.
> 
> When I read stuff like this I think why didn't you learn this lesson in the school yard? When the bully beat you up, you still had to get up right? Life is unfair. News at 11. ****ing compete. We are men, that is what we do.
> 
> Women will have enthusiastic sex with rich and powerful men.
> 
> I know one thing, my wife isn't, at least right now because she is upstairs sleeping. That's good enough for me. Could she one day? Maybe. If she did you know what would happen? I would be really sad for a time, I would pick myself up and I would enjoy meeting new people and start dating. Maybe I wouldn't meet anyone, but I suspect I would though, you know why? Because I'm not worried about Goorge Clooney, or some Athlete, I'm worried about SoKillMe and if you give me 1 hour on a dinner date some lady would be too in a good way. Now would she be Linda Carter, probably not.
> 
> My value isn't all tied up in what people think about me, it's not even in my marriage, not even in my wife. My value is in me, my character. My own personal honor. That is my strength.
> 
> 
> 
> Man is that not true. All you need to do is look at some affairs to tell that. Some women literary through themselves at trolls. Most of these women are so starved for intimacy all it takes is just pretending that these guys care and telling them how hot they are and they through away years or marriage, their entire lives. Imagine if there husband suddenly had an epiphany before that and did the same thing. Not all I'm sure but some would love it. This is what I am talking about, compete. By the way that doesn't mean I am saying cheating isn't ****ed up or the fault of the cheater. What I am saying is as far as I can tell lots of women throw themselves at men who call them hot, but only if their is an established emotional connection. And as their husbands we have the best chance to establish that.
> 
> I tell you one thing if you you think of her as an orifice to get off with (sorry to people reading, I know that's blunt, but that is how some guys think) you aren't going to have enthusastic sex with anyone. Unless mabye if you are some star athlete. I guess you could say life is unfair because most of us are going to do better then that. Personally I feel bad for the guys who do think this way. Personally I ****ing love women and I don't mean in a sexual sense. I think they are outstanding. I mean just talk to them. In some ways they are not so different but in others they are different enough that they bring a clarifying perspective to a lot of aspects of life. I mean that's the thing, they are the only beings on earth who are different enough that it's unique. I can't know what it is to be a women, but she can tell me. That's cool.
> 
> Seriously man, let it go. We're men. It's not supposed to be fair, in this respect. You have to compete, with other men and more so with yourself. Embrace that.


^^^This is what I tried to say, but you said it so much better and nicer. 

If these guys had ANY character and valued themselves instead of depending on external validation (variety of sex, hot women, whatever yanks your crank) they might not be complaining in the first place. But it's always easier to complain about something than find a way to make things work for yourself. 

A practical way of hypothetical sad boi getting wild monkey sex, to use red pill terms, is if he shoots for a much lesser attractive woman and make the system work for him. Instead, it's waaa waa waaa life isn't fair, I deserve to get as much or more than the next man. Don't a lot of men love to tell women their standards are too high, they should lower the bar to be more realistic, b/c men age like wine and women age like milk etc? (btw, you obviously haven't seen a lot of men looking to date, they obviously don't own a mirror YIKES!)


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> False equivalency
> 
> The correct analogy is knowingly buying a car with 245,000 miles, that goes 150 mph, and guzzles gas, then getting upset when he learns the car was previously driven by someone who got it to go 350 mph for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas. The buyer is now upset because he can't get the car to operate the way the previous driver could. He's still got a car that runs exactly as he knowingly purchased.


Should I conclude from this analogy that you agree with ConanHub, and that the unwillingness of some women to perform prior acts with their husband is due to the husband’s failings? That the wife is actually still interested in doing those things, just not with him? If she would eagerly do things with “that guy” in the past, then the husband needs to be “that guy” (as if height and other characteristics can simply be chosen).

If that is the case, regardless of whether the husband could have negotiated certain sexual acts before marriage, if she’s not interested in him sexually and she claims otherwise then I think that’s fraudulent. Presenting yourself as a prude who finds your husband sexually attractive is very different from being a sexually wild person who limits herself with him due to a lack of sexual attraction.

(Unless, of course, she admits that she’s not sexually attracted to him upfront but she agrees to perform her “wifely duties” of starfish sex once a week, and he’s willing to marry her anyway with that knowledge. In that case, he got what he thought he was getting.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> I think that's a large part of it.
> 
> It appears that women start out in their dating lives wanting the validation of their often older and more experienced partner. They mimic porn stars, moaning constantly from the second the penis enters her. She pretends to be enthusiastic about performing those acts when, in reality, she really is just trying to learn how to have sex correctly or doing it enthusiastically for the validation of her partner. (And if it's being recorded, she's playing it up for the camera.) Some women, especially when they are in their teens and early 20s, date guys who are controlling and abusive, and they also are willing to do whatever the guy wants and appear to do it enthusiastically. In some cases the guy intentionally pushes her further and further, to do the most degrading things to get a sadistic thrill.
> 
> Later, she meets a nice guy. Often times this guy has less sexual experience than her. She now feels comfortable in this relationship, and perhaps with therapy, finally starts to say no and to put up healthy boundaries. He wants to perform acts that she doesn't enjoy and that she feels are degrading, and she refuses. Maybe she admits that she did it in the past but she won't any longer. Maybe she tells him the white lie that she never did any such thing but he learns the truth from friends or video. Either way, he learns that she did those things and did them enthusiastically.
> 
> The guy feels like a fool. Her unwillingness to do those things means that she doesn't find him physically attractive and just picked him because he's a nice guy and a good provider. He feels that she gave her "best sex" to the bad boys who came before him, while the man whom she claims to love the most gets the bare minimum. It appears to him that she's nowhere near as aroused and interested with him - but she's actually being real with him, not putting on a show, and actually enjoying it.
> 
> I remember staying up late and watching Dr. Ruth as a kid. There were two recurring questions from callers. One was about the woman not getting wet enough and she would say, "use lubrication." The other was men complaining that his girlfriend says she is enjoying sex but she isn't moaning like it, and Dr. Ruth would say that the woman needs to concentrate on the pleasure and she cannot concentrate on the pleasure if she's putting on a show, and maybe sometimes she could moan like that and other times she can just concentrate on the pleasure.
> 
> [This explanation doesn't really account for the situation where the wife refuses to do certain acts with her husband, but then she cheats and does them with AP and more. Anything that the AP wants her to do. That's a huge betrayal and worse than the cheating itself.]


Since I have already been kind of an asshole on here, which as you all know is my way, so I might as well go all in. This redpill **** always reminds me of the experts on sasquatch hunters.

I personally think the guys who expound that redpill **** know about as much about women as the sasquatch hunters know about sasqutches. That **** ain't real dude. Now maybe some of it is, maybe enough that it kinda sounds real. Like some animals bury their poo, but sasqutches don't because they ain't real, so that makes you an expert on nonsense.

Some women are assholes, true but man you are overthinking this.

Maybe your wife doesn't have enthusiastic sex with you like she did when she was 20 because she's ****ing tired and 40 now. She is worried about real life, not grades like when she lived in the college, where her room and food were paid for by her parents. Sorry to say it but if you didn't have some college girl with no worries **** your brains out when you were there you probably missed your chance. Continuing my theme tonight, that's life.

Even so, If you want some chick to blow your mind figure out how to make her want to blow your mind. Don't ****ing complain about it. I will give the redpill guys that, there is a certain type of women who you can manipulate into doing just that to an extent. Seems like a headache to me but it can be done.

Here is the universal truth - the guy getting mind blowing sex never once complained that he wasn't getting mind blowing sex. They don't post about it online. That guy doesn't think that way. He thinks, I am going to seduce this women and get her to give me mind blowing sex. Then he pays attention and figures out how to do that. But for most of those guys they also want to be the most mind blowing sex she ever had, and that is part of why they pay attention and figure it out. It's just as much about being that guy as getting the sex.

Guys need to stop watching the internet and calm the **** down.


----------



## CallingDrLove

RandomDude said:


> Sure sucks being below a 7 cute 😝
> 
> View attachment 92586


Damn, should have followed my dream of being an Olympic athlete and not gone to medical school. I make too much money, that’s why no woman lets me do anal.


----------



## TXTrini

CallingDrLove said:


> Damn, should have followed my dream of being an Olympic athlete and not gone to medical school. I make too much money, that’s why no woman lets me do anal.


Or maybe you're packing too much, take the win.


----------



## CraigBesuden

ConanHub said:


> That's reality but your view is fatalistic because you don't think regular men can have their own boundaries, requirements and respect and I think they certainly can and should.


What does having boundaries, requirements and respect have to do with it? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CallingDrLove

TXTrini said:


> Or maybe you're packing too much, take the win.


It was just meant to be a joke but there is actually a large element of truth to that. I’ve heard it said the only time a guy will try to convince a woman he has a small **** is when he wants anal.


----------



## sokillme

TXTrini said:


> She is, but naw, he came across as rather patronizing. Then ye olde lame "it's just a joke", so you can't be offended.


Agreed don't be picking on @*Lila*, she's a ****ing bad ass.


----------



## CraigBesuden

I don’t think truly successful men like Sumner Redstone, Bob Kraft or Donald Trump really care a whit about whether their wives enjoy anything at all. Any more than they care what their private jets think of them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## RandomDude

TXTrini said:


> If these guys had ANY character and valued themselves instead of depending on external validation (variety of sex, hot women, whatever yanks your crank) they might not be complaining in the first place. But it's always easier to complain about something than find a way to make things work for yourself.


Well, aside from all this red pill stuff, how about the perspective of a woman then? My ex wasn't exactly happy she didn't get the 'best of me' sexually. Heck, and she was beautiful. People do need validation from their partners it's just the way it goes, jealousy can play a part too, emotions in relationships can be quite silly, but ignored just ends up rotting the core.


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> I don’t think truly successful men like Sumner Redstone, Bob Kraft or Donald Trump really care a whit about whether their wives enjoy anything at all. Any more than they care what their private jets think of them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sumner Redstone? Why even worry about that, what reliance does that have to your life?


----------



## sokillme

CallingDrLove said:


> Damn, should have followed my dream of being an Olympic athlete and not gone to medical school. I make too much money, that’s why no woman lets me do anal.


I read that universally most Olympic athletes actually start to pursue their dream for the anal.

There is the gold medal sure, but then their is the anal. 

And just to get this out of the way, that is not a green light for Caitlin Jenner jokes.


----------



## farsidejunky

TXTrini said:


> It's nice being with a man who carries himself like one buys his own underwear.


Good Lord... Is the bar really THAT low?

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

CallingDrLove said:


> It was just meant to be a joke but there is actually a large element of truth to that. I’ve heard it said the only time a guy will try to convince a woman he has a small **** is when he wants anal.


Or when he's trying to get them to back off. Didn't work though...🙄


----------



## Enigma32

RandomDude said:


> Well, aside from all this red pill stuff, how about the perspective of a woman then? My ex wasn't exactly happy she didn't get the 'best of me' sexually. Heck, and she was beautiful. People do need validation from their partners it's just the way it goes, jealousy can play a part too, emotions in relationships can be quite silly, but ignored just ends up rotting the core.


Years ago, an ex of mine found a video of me having sex with another girl. She was upset by the video because the sex I was having in the video was better than what we had. It wasn't her fault but I wasn't nearly as into her as I was my ex. She was upset for all the same reasons talked about in this thread. I'd say that some ladies here might have trouble giving an honest answer to your question unless they've lived it.


----------



## CraigBesuden

RandomDude said:


> Well, aside from all this red pill stuff, how about the perspective of a woman then? My ex wasn't exactly happy she didn't get the 'best of me' sexually. Heck, and she was beautiful. People do need validation from their partners it's just the way it goes, jealousy can play a part too, emotions in relationships can be quite silly, but ignored just ends up rotting the core.


Were you unwilling to perform certain acts with her that you had in the past? How did she know that others had gotten something “better” from you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## RandomDude

Why some folks obsess over the back door I have no idea. 
Ex-wife a decade ago once offered it to me as she's had it before with other guys and I was like F no, asked her which part she would prefer and she said the V and the V it was.

🤮
If a woman likes it I'll be doing her with a dildo while flaccid sorry. Not turned on at all by the back door. Keep those cheeks squished in and slappity slappity not wide open.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Enigma32 said:


> Years ago, an ex of mine found a video of me having sex with another girl. She was upset by the video because the sex I was having in the video was better than what we had. It wasn't her fault but I wasn't nearly as into her as I was my ex. She was upset for all the same reasons talked about in this thread. I'd say that some ladies here might have trouble giving an honest answer to your question unless they've lived it.


Okay, then. I guess this is common behavior. The hotter the partner, the better the sex. Men and women both do it, apparently. I guess I got my answer.

I agree with ConanHub to an extent. You should want to make yourself as physically attractive as possible. Try to find a partner who is genuinely attracted to you physically and not just what you can provide for them.

But putting in a half-ass effort because you’re not as into her as the other girl… Dang…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Enigma32

CraigBesuden said:


> Okay, then. I guess this is common behavior. The hotter the partner, the better the sex. Men and women both do it, apparently. I guess I got my answer.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It was the answer for us, maybe not the answer for everyone. Probably the most likely scenario though. I do think some ladies feel a bit burned after they do all that for some guy just to get dumped or cheated on. Still sucks for the next guy if he has to settle for less than what she gave others.


----------



## ConanHub

sokillme said:


> I am gonna be honest but try to be nice about this. No one cares, as a man I sure don't. That is the way it is. Some women have large boobs guess what they will get a hell of a lot of attention. You think if you could have sex with say Linda Carter you won't be enthusiastic about it? Why should women be any different? What makes us so special that they shouldn't be enthusiastic about George Clooney. They are just like men in this respect, I mean I get that some of us have to learn this the hard way but accept it. Some cheat, just like men, some lie just like men. Some prioritize beauty or power, just like man. That's life.
> 
> When I read stuff like this I think why didn't you learn this lesson in the school yard? When the bully beat you up, you still had to get up right? Life is unfair. News at 11. ****ing compete. We are men, that is what we do.
> 
> Women will have enthusiastic sex with rich and powerful men.
> 
> I know one thing, my wife isn't, at least right now because she is upstairs sleeping. That's good enough for me. Could she one day?  Maybe. If she did you know what would happen? I would be really sad for a time, I would pick myself up and I would enjoy meeting new people and start dating. Maybe I wouldn't meet anyone, but I suspect I would though, you know why? Because I'm not worried about Goorge Clooney, or some Athlete, I'm worried about SoKillMe and if you give me 1 hour on a dinner date some lady would be too in a good way. Now would she be Linda Carter, probably not.
> 
> My value isn't all tied up in what people think about me, it's not even in my marriage, not even in my wife. My value is in me, my character. My own personal honor. That is my strength.
> 
> 
> 
> Man is that not true. All you need to do is look at some affairs to tell that. Some women literary through themselves at trolls. Most of these women are so starved for intimacy all it takes is just pretending that these guys care and telling them how hot they are and they through away years or marriage, their entire lives. Imagine if there husband suddenly had an epiphany before that and did the same thing. Not all I'm sure but some would love it. This is what I am talking about, compete. By the way that doesn't mean I am saying cheating isn't ****ed up or the fault of the cheater. What I am saying is as far as I can tell lots of women throw themselves at men who call them hot, but only if their is an established emotional connection. And as their husbands we have the best chance to establish that.
> 
> I tell you one thing if you you think of her as an orifice to get off with (sorry to people reading, I know that's blunt, but that is how some guys think) you aren't going to have enthusastic sex with anyone. Unless mabye if you are some star athlete. I guess you could say life is unfair because most of us are going to do better then that. Personally I feel bad for the guys who do think this way. Personally I ****ing love women and I don't mean in a sexual sense. I think they are outstanding. I mean just talk to them. In some ways they are not so different but in others they are different enough that they bring a clarifying perspective to a lot of aspects of life. I mean that's the thing, they are the only beings on earth who are different enough that it's unique. I can't know what it is to be a women, but she can tell me. That's cool.
> 
> Seriously man, let it go. We're men. It's not supposed to be fair, in this respect. You have to compete, with other men and more so with yourself. Embrace that.


Argh! Too.....many....words....

But you are more patient than me to explain elaborately what I condense.

Again, helpful.


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> Well, aside from all this red pill stuff, how about the perspective of a woman then? My ex wasn't exactly happy she didn't get the 'best of me' sexually. Heck, and she was beautiful. People do need validation from their partners it's just the way it goes, jealousy can play a part too, emotions in relationships can be quite silly, but ignored just ends up rotting the core.


No-one's saying that's not a thing; what we are saying is complaining about it but not doing anything to change the situation, whether it's breaking up and finding someone who does it for you, or working on yourself to drive your partner wild will do jack ****. 

Your ex wasn't happy, you broke up. You're now both free to find someone who does it for each of you.



Enigma32 said:


> Years ago, an ex of mine found a video of me having sex with another girl. She was upset by the video because the sex I was having in the video was better than what we had. It wasn't her fault but I wasn't nearly as into her as I was my ex. She was upset for all the same reasons talked about in this thread. I'd say that some ladies here might have trouble giving an honest answer to your question unless they've lived it.


But she's your ex, b/c you married someone else, so presumably, she didn't stick around complaining, or you dumped her for someone you were more attracted to.


----------



## RandomDude

Enigma32 said:


> Years ago, an ex of mine found a video of me having sex with another girl. She was upset by the video because the sex I was having in the video was better than what we had. It wasn't her fault but I wasn't nearly as into her as I was my ex. She was upset for all the same reasons talked about in this thread. I'd say that some ladies here might have trouble giving an honest answer to your question unless they've lived it.


Exactly!



CraigBesuden said:


> Were you unwilling to perform certain acts with her that you had in the past? How did she know that others had gotten something “better” from you?


Yes, two things, one - I grew out of exhibitionism so it's not something I was going to revisit and two - I wasn't as sexually attracted to her body as I was with past exs. I was romantically attracted to her - very deeply, and it was enough for me but it wasn't for her.

As for how did she know? She asked of course and I told her the truth. It was also the truth that the love I had for her I would still have loved her even if she had warts all over her face and ballooned to obesity. But again, that wasn't enough for her, hence why I understand this thread completely and it's definitely valid to expect better.

However, expectation and obligation are two different things. I am not obliged to give her that, and she has every right to leave due to her expectations, and she did.
Also why I become so-called "shallow" in my last dating run.


----------



## ConanHub

CraigBesuden said:


> What does having boundaries, requirements and respect have to do with it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You seriously don't know what I said means?

You need to go back to manhood 101 and start over.


----------



## TXTrini

farsidejunky said:


> Good Lord... Is the bar really THAT low?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


Yes, yes it is. I talked to lots of men while OLD, and most kept complaining about how women like men to dress up (wear half-decent clothes, not even talking about brand names or suits, etc.) 

When I go somewhere, I'm overdressed most of the time and I don't even wear fancy clothes or spend lots of time thinking up the perfect outfit. Most people I see every day carry themselves like slobs, including a lot of single people.


----------



## CallingDrLove

My wife said something was off limits when we were dating.

It came out very early in marriage that she had done it with an ex.

We did said thing many years later and she was quite enthusiastic and even initiated it.

It’s not on the menu anymore.

You need to realize that things change. Woman will enthusiastically do things they said they never would but it can quickly change back.

As guys we get butthurt that our woman did something with an ex and then we assume that if she was with him it would just be sodomy city for decades but the truth is if she had married him she probably already be long divorced and if not he’d have a worse sex life than you do.

Just because she doesn’t want to do something she used to do doesn’t mean she’s not into you. That giant wet spot on my side of the bed I have sleep in is proof of that.


----------



## ConanHub

CraigBesuden said:


> What does having boundaries, requirements and respect have to do with it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Ok. I'm trying to be more patient.

Any man can determine his life. He can establish his own boundaries (what he will allow in his life or not and to what extent) he has control over that.

Requirements? That varies but I require 100% loyalty and being the top priority as a person, in my mate's life. I also require sexual frequency and enthusiastic at that. Any man can have these.

Respect? I also require (see the requirements section) respect. Every man should as well.

I earn every ounce I require BTW and much more.

Lady Conan gives me far more than my boundaries, requirements and respect demands.

She comes close to blasphemy by her worship of me and I'm not embellishing.


----------



## CharlieParker

TXTrini said:


> Yes, yes it is. I talked to lots of men while OLD, and most kept complaining about how women like men to dress up (wear half-decent clothes, not even talking about brand names or suits, etc.)
> 
> When I go somewhere, I'm overdressed most of the time and I don't even wear fancy clothes or spend lots of time thinking up the perfect outfit. Most people I see every day carry themselves like slobs, including a lot of single people.


Looking homeless is not sexy IME. (Getting a subscription at the barbershop has helped.)


----------



## Real talk

I'm going to be honest regardless of how it comes off, because purposely misinterpreting my position is a micro aggression. 


sokillme said:


> I am gonna be honest but try to be nice about this. No one cares, as a man I sure don't.


I'm sure you don't. Thats why men are in the position they're in now, no self worth, high suicide rates, unmotivated in life, hopeless feelings about society, because female identified men like you are dismissive so you can get pats on the back and head rubs like a dog by women who couldn't care less about you. I don't care about your wife, whether she cares about you or whether you or not you seem to care about yourself if you have a good reason to. That doesn't negate men from being able to see self worth and demand more. 


sokillme said:


> When I read stuff like this I think why didn't you learn this lesson in the school yard?


Why didn't I learn what? If I was able to explain the reality and all you did was break it down with a disregard for care, why are you assuming I don't comprehend it. If more men comprehended it themselves then they'd know how the world works, how women work and at earlier ages come to play the dating game to where they get some benefit out of it.


sokillme said:


> Man is that not true. All you need to do is look at some affairs to tell that. Some women literary through themselves at trolls.


That's because women need validation and in long marriages where that validation from their husbands isn't hitting the spot like it once did, they'd take the easiest most convenient validation that throws itself at them. This is am entirely different scenario. 


sokillme said:


> Seriously man, let it go. We're men. It's not supposed to be fair, in this respect. You have to compete, with other men and more so with yourself. Embrace that.


I personally embrace it. I competed and succeeded farily well. And for that I was rewarded with a high paying career, a wife that was literally recruited my Victoria Secret as a teenager, and kids that are on the path to success. The difference is I can empathize with men who don't have my privileges.


----------



## ConanHub

Real men don't use the term " micro aggression" @Real talk .


Sheesh.


----------



## Real talk

ConanHub said:


> You know, athletes and actors actually do put in a hell of a lot of work to obtain their position and I honestly can't begrudge them the female attention they get.
> 
> That's reality but your view is fatalistic because you don't think regular men can have their own boundaries, requirements and respect and I think they certainly can and should.
> 
> Also, do you really believe that a lot of regular guys wouldn't go wild (far more than for an average Jane) for a shot with a female celebrity or sex symbol?


I think men will go wild with *any* woman they deem remotely attractive, which is a large swath of women. Not just a top small percent. 

Also my views aren't fatalistic. I do think regular men can have boundaries and requirements but the problem is they don't, or they don't know they can. That's why they settle for women who don't give them what they want. 

If they recognize the reason they aren't getting the sex the other men got is because his woman doesn't value him the same way, like I said earlier he needs to let her go find that man to get a ring. Women won't look at a man unless her man's enthusiastically giving what she wants. Men need to do the same


----------



## oldtruck

Youtube, reddit, and other sites I will take these stories with a grain of salt.

Youth is where women (and men) explore sex and try many things, With experience,
time, age, the women refine their sexual needs. Just as with maturity causes people
to stop going overboard when drinking alcohol. People learn and change.

So a wife when single before she met her future husband decided anal and giving
BJ's are now off the menu. She does not want to do them any more. If a man has to
have BJ's then she is not the girl for him to marry.

What I have seen on LS, MB, SI, and TAM (infidelity websites) for about 30 years
is BH posters that found out all the things that their WW did with her OM multiple
times that the WW has always refused to do for their BH for their whole marriage.

D day has come and gone WW willing to recover the marriage but refuses to give
her BH the porn star sex, or full menu sex that she gave her OM.

The BH has according to the WW has to accept getting less sex than what she gave the
OM. The BH has to accept vanilla sex, instead of getting offered the full sex menu that
the OM got served from the BH is expected to accept the WW's limited sex menu.

This is different from what a wife did before she met her husband.


----------



## ConanHub

Real talk said:


> I think men will go wild with *any* woman they deem remotely attractive, which is a large swath of women. Not just a top small percent.


Well, I can't corroborate what you are claiming here because I haven't experienced it.

I think maybe we are getting closer to communicating though.


----------



## farsidejunky

Real talk said:


> I'm going to be honest regardless of how it comes off, because purposely misinterpreting my position is a micro aggression.
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Thats why men are in the position they're in now, no self worth, high suicide rates, unmotivated in life, hopeless feelings about society, because female identified men like you are dismissive so you can get pats on the back and head rubs like a dog by women who couldn't care less about you. I don't care about your wife, whether she cares about you or whether you or not you seem to care about yourself if you have a good reason to. That doesn't negate men from being able to see self worth and demand more.
> 
> Why didn't I learn what? If I was able to explain the reality and all you did was break it down with a disregard for care, why are you assuming I don't comprehend it. If more men comprehended it themselves then they'd know how the world works, how women work and at earlier ages come to play the dating game to where they get some benefit out of it.
> 
> That's because women need validation and in long marriages where that validation from their husbands isn't hitting the spot like it once did, they'd take the easiest most convenient validation that throws itself at them. This is am entirely different scenario.
> 
> I personally embrace it. I competed and succeeded farily well. And for that I was rewarded with a high paying career, a wife that was literally recruited my Victoria Secret as a teenager, and kids that are on the path to success. The difference is I can empathize with men who don't have my privileges.












Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

Hey now. That's better.🙂


farsidejunky said:


> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme

Real talk said:


> I'm going to be honest regardless of how it comes off, because purposely misinterpreting my position is a micro aggression.
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Thats why men are in the position they're in now, no self worth, high suicide rates, unmotivated in life, hopeless feelings about society, because female identified men like you are dismissive so you can get pats on the back and head rubs like a dog by women who couldn't care less about you. I don't care about your wife, whether she cares about you or whether you or not you seem to care about yourself if you have a good reason to. That doesn't negate men from being able to see self worth and demand more.
> 
> Why didn't I learn what? If I was able to explain the reality and all you did was break it down with a disregard for care, why are you assuming I don't comprehend it. If more men comprehended it themselves then they'd know how the world works, how women work and at earlier ages come to play the dating game to where they get some benefit out of it.
> 
> That's because women need validation and in long marriages where that validation from their husbands isn't hitting the spot like it once did, they'd take the easiest most convenient validation that throws itself at them. This is am entirely different scenario.
> 
> I personally embrace it. I competed and succeeded farily well. And for that I was rewarded with a high paying career, a wife that was literally recruited my Victoria Secret as a teenager, and kids that are on the path to success. The difference is I can empathize with men who don't have my privileges.


Female identified men like me? Haha! To quote - "there is no men like me, only me."

You are right, young men need to find self worth, I have great empathy for that but it ain't between any woman's legs. Frankly in this respect forget about women. Young men need to learn how to be emotionally intelligent, not emotion, don't mistake the two. They need to learn how to be social, because we live in the social media age. They can first start with a level of platonic intimacy with each other, in their friendships. Have close enough male friends where they can be vulnerable enough to say, "I'm struggling". Talk to each other about that. It's good practice. They need to find their self worth in their own honor and hard work, it's not to be found in sex count or if women find them attractive or not. They need to understand that not everyone will appreciate that. And they need to accept that they MUST compete. If they do that there is no doubt then the women thing will work itself out.

Now if you want to argue that the general tone of the age is that there nature is bad or that their usefulness has passed, I will agree with you. If you want to argue that characteristics of boys such as aggressive play and things like that have been systematically seen as bad and punished, I will agree. Have we done our boys a disservice growing up, and neglected that they may learn differently then girls, yes. But we have also done them a disservice by telling them there is a gold pot to be found in every women's bed and that there worth as a MAN is in the number of girls they can sleep with. That just compounds the problem.

Let me put it to you this way, Wilt Chamberlain supposedly slept with 10,000 women or something right? The vast majority of them weren't Linda Carter, that's for sure. 

All I know is that don't sound like heaven to me. 

And yes some women suck and cheat. I know first hand, I proposed to a women who then I caught cheating on me about 2 weeks later. Was she monkey branching, who know, who cares, not me. It hurt like hell but I ghosted her and moved on to the next one, who hasn't cheated so far as far as I can tell.

Besides every time I try to make those points defending young men someone starts talking about George Clooney and knee pads and I find myself agreeing with the women. They're not entertainment or food for us to consume. That attitude is the reason why a lot of young men have trouble. To follow the nomenclature "Females" are living breathing people, who if you get the right one will run though fire with you. Who will take care of you and allow you to make it your mission to take care of them. They're our sisters and mothers. They are not trophies or ways to judge our worth. In regards to that, having a lot of them want to have sex with you doesn't make you and alpha, having just one trust you enough to give you responsibility to have children with, or base her emotional health does though, at least in my eyes. They are not some sports car that you point to and say, see what an Alpha I am I got this sports car. Put the internet down, you are hurting yourself.

You want to have intimacy with a women then you need to talk to her, get to know them stop thinking of her as just a way to your own personal pleasure. It's ****ing crazy that I even have to write that, but a hell of a lot of the manosphere thinks in this twisted way. ****ing involuntary celibacy and all that nonsense, like anyone is entitled to sex. WTF? That's that sasquash hunting **** again, it ain't real.

I get the temptation to be bitter after being cheated on, I really do. After I got cheated on what I did was to get way more discriminating, because I was much more aware that some women are duplicitous. I didn't date that much, or pursue many, I just looked for a women of character and when I met her I pounced. My count is low but my gratitude is high. When it comes to women, right now I don't have to worry about how they work anymore, only how my wife does.

I really wish young men could have this experience, but they need to be taught the right things for that to happen.


----------



## Personal

Lila said:


> False equivalency
> 
> The correct analogy is knowingly buying a car with 245,000 miles, that goes 150 mph, and guzzles gas, then getting upset when he learns the car was previously driven by someone who got it to go 350 mph for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas. The buyer is now upset because he can't get the car to operate the way the previous driver could. He's still got a car that runs exactly as he knowingly purchased.


Absofuckinglutely!      



Real talk said:


> Let say you and your friend saved up your money over a year and both ended up with 3k. You went to the Louis Vuitton store, talked to a rep and asked what you could get for that amount of money and you end up walking out with a phone bag.
> 
> Your friend went a few days before you did, talked to the same rep and because she happens to be sexier and more feminine, he gives her a full sized shoulder bag.
> 
> So yes you got what you expected to get at the time of purchase for the amount of money you had, but you can't tell me you won't feel like you got the short end of the stock because someone else got more value and benefit from the same investment.


The world actually isn't a sheltered workshop, in real life not everyone gets a prize, nor should they. For those who can and do get more, good for them. For those who can only settle for less, they ought to be grateful for what they can get.

P.S. I think the swear filter might be broken.


----------



## TXTrini

sokillme said:


> Female identified men like me? Haha! To quote - "there is no men like me, only me."
> 
> You are right, young men need to find self worth, I have great empathy for that but it ain't between any woman's legs. Frankly in this respect forget about women. Young men need to learn how to be emotionally intelligent, not emotion, don't mistake the two. They need to learn how to be social, because we live in the social media age. They can first start with a level of platonic intimacy with each other, in their friendships. Have close enough male friends where they can be vulnerable enough to say, "I'm struggling". Talk to each other about that. It's good practice. They need to find their self worth in their own honor and hard work, it's not to be found in sex count or if women find them attractive or not. They need to understand that not everyone will appreciate that. And they need to accept that they MUST compete. If they do that there is no doubt then the women thing will work itself out.
> 
> Now if you want to argue that the general tone of the age is that there nature is bad or that their usefulness has passed, I will agree with you. If you want to argue that characteristics of boys such as aggressive play and things like that have been systematically seen as bad and punished, I will agree. Have we done our boys a disservice growing up, and neglected that they may learn differently then girls, yes. But we have also done them a disservice by telling them there is a gold pot to be found in every women's bed and that there worth as a MAN is in the number of girls they can sleep with. That just compounds the problem.
> 
> Let me put it to you this way, Wilt Chamberlain supposedly slept with 10,000 women or something right? The vast majority of them weren't Linda Carter, that's for sure.
> 
> All I know is that don't sound like heaven to me.
> 
> And yes some women suck and cheat. I know first hand, I proposed to a women who then I caught cheating on me about 2 weeks later. Was she monkey branching, who know, who cares, not me. It hurt like hell but I ghosted her and moved on to the next one, who hasn't cheated so far as far as I can tell.
> 
> Besides every time I try to make those points defending young men someone starts talking about George Clooney and knee pads and I find myself agreeing with the women. They're not entertainment or food for us to consume. That attitude is the reason why a lot of young men have trouble. To follow the nomenclature "Females" are living breathing people, who if you get the right one will run though fire with you. Who will take care of you and allow you to make it your mission to take care of them. They're our sisters and mothers. They are not trophies or ways to judge our worth. In regards to that, having a lot of them want to have sex with you doesn't make you and alpha, having just one trust you enough to give you responsibility to have children with, or base her emotional health does though, at least in my eyes. They are not some sports car that you point to and say, see what an Alpha I am I got this sports car. Put the internet down, you are hurting yourself.
> 
> You want to have intimacy with a women then you need to talk to her, get to know them stop thinking of her as just a way to your own personal pleasure. It's **ing crazy that I even have to write that, but a hell of a lot of the manosphere thinks in this twisted way. ****ing involuntary celibacy and all that nonsense, like anyone is entitled to sex. WTF? That's that sasquash hunting ** again, it ain't real.
> 
> I get the temptation to be bitter after being cheated on, I really do. After I got cheated on what I did was to get way more discriminating, because I was much more aware that some women are duplicitous. I didn't date that much, or pursue many, I just looked for a women of character and when I met her I pounced. My count is low but my gratitude is high. When it comes to women, right now I don't have to worry about how they work anymore, only how my wife does.
> 
> I really wish young men could have this experience, but they need to be taught the right things for that to happen.


If we were both single, I'd be interested. Just sayin... 

You get it.


----------



## ConanHub

Sokillme... Too many words...... 😵‍💫


----------



## Lila

Real talk said:


> Do you not see how you're proving point to the tee?
> 
> Why is it okay that you get validation from physical affection but it's not okay that he gets validation from sex? With all due respect, see how self-centered that is? It doesn't make sense when you look at it from outside your own purview.
> 
> When you're excited for someone you personally get validation from deep physical affection with him. But in order to be excited for him you have to be able to depend on him for that validation which comes from him fulfilling your wants.
> 
> So if you're feeling affectionate, you need "the looks", "the words" as you put it and if you don't get it you're desire naturally goes down. But here you are expecting a man to grow to that excitement for you even though he can't depend on you the way you want to depend on him. Thats nonsense.
> 
> That same passion and enthusiasm you expect from him regarding affection is the same level he expect from you regarding intimacy. The difference is you think you're entitled to it, and he should provide you with all this validation and hope he "makes you feel safe" eventually so he can get a payoff.


I'm either not explaining myself properly or you are purposefully twisting my words, either way, assuming what you say is true and that I am a selfish person for wanting what I want, someone who believes what you believe would not be compatible with me. I wouldn't be able to meet their needs and they wouldn't be able to meet mine. See, it's that easy. 

There are 6 billion people in this world. The goal should be to find compatible partners.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> Should I conclude from this analogy that you agree with ConanHub, and that the unwillingness of some women to perform prior acts with their husband is due to the husband’s failings? That the wife is actually still interested in doing those things, just not with him? If she would eagerly do things with “that guy” in the past, then the husband needs to be “that guy” (as if height and other characteristics can simply be chosen).


That was just my correction to an incorrect analogy that was delving into the bait and switch territory, which is not what this thread is about.

My position is that there are many, many reasons why women don't perform sexual acts on new partners that they may have done previously with others. It's not just about being more attracted to previous partners like some men would have you believe. That's only 1 possible reason. 



> If that is the case, regardless of whether the husband could have negotiated certain sexual acts before marriage, if she’s not interested in him sexually and she claims otherwise then I think that’s fraudulent. Presenting yourself as a prude who finds your husband sexually attractive is very different from being a sexually wild person who limits herself with him due to a lack of sexual attraction.
> 
> (Unless, of course, she admits that she’s not sexually attracted to him upfront but she agrees to perform her “wifely duties” of starfish sex once a week, and he’s willing to marry her anyway with that knowledge. In that case, he got what he thought he was getting.)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have very little empathy for men when it comes to this scenario. Men need to take ownership over the decisions they make, especially going into a marriage. Really delve into "whys". 

Like it or not, that man in your scenario is getting something from the woman he married to make him want to marry her. He chose to forgo passion and sexual compatibility for her other qualities. Maybe it was her looks, or maybe he could see she'd make a great mother, or one of a hundred different reasons.

So no, I don't agree with you that it's fraudulent. He knowingly purchased the product that was promised to him. If he wanted a woman who was sexually adventurous then he should have found a different person. She's not the one.


----------



## Lila

sokillme said:


> Yeah but a lot of guys who end up in relationships like this already hurt themselves because they see women as "other", and unobtainable. So they are much more wiling to put up with nonsense just to get one to like them. Guys who think like this end up with women who marry them for their money because guys who don't think like this dump women who want to marry them for their money. It's a symbolic relationship because these people are usually the last ones standing.


But @sokillme how is that anyone's fault but their own? Those guys chose their partners poorly. It's a choice. 

Marriage is a trade off. These guys are getting something in exchange for their stability. A beautiful wife? Kids? A stable home life? A woman who presents well to the public? If they weren't getting something out of the deal then they wouldn't have married in the first place. 

Their mistake was in prioritizing the wrong qualities when picking their partner.


----------



## CraigBesuden

TXTrini said:


> If we were both single, I'd be interested. Just sayin...
> 
> You get it.


He’s completely and sadly wrong. especially with respect to the part you bolded.

The misandrists often say, “men are not entitled to sex from women.” (That includes weak, misandrist, self-hating men.) While technically true, it’s irrelevant.

Also true is that women are not entitled to relationships with men. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Women should not complain about men not giving them relationships; they need to self-improve rather than complaining, and resorting to self-delusion, “body positivity,” and shaming men for their preferences. 

Men are entitled to value whatever they want in women. They can value youth, beauty and purity if they so choose and should not be shamed for their desires. Most women want guys who are tall, even if they are of average height or short. They want guys who make incomes far in excess of what they themselves earn. Women value things that they aren’t bringing to the table, and it’s fair and right for men to do likewise. 

The statistics now show that 1/3 of men under 30 are virgins or haven’t had sex within the last 12 months. The number has been rising every year starting around when Tinder came out. That is entirely do to women requiring very high physical, monetary and status standards for men. Blaming the victims of such shallowness is despicable. Blaming people for being involuntarily celibate — or for ANY involuntary condition, for that matter — is morally reprehensible. It’s the intellectual dishonesty, deep ignorance and pure solipsism that is characteristic of NPR listeners and NYT believers.

The manosphere is correct that the power shifts to men by age 30 and it never goes back. In the end, Father Time always puts Mother Nature in her place.

Men who are 28+ are morally entitled (if not obligated) to treat women collectively the same way that women treated them when they were younger. It’s called justice. Those who speak negatively of Red Pill or the manosphere are not expressing their opinion but simply regurgitating the opinions of others who tell them what to think. They lack the mental capacity to interpret information and form opinions, so they believe what they are told to believe and say what they are told to say. To say that their opinions are wrong anf deeply uninformed is to compliment them too highly; they have no opinions, just mindless regurgitation of Misandrist Studies rhetoric. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prou


----------



## Lila

TXTrini said:


> A practical way of hypothetical sad boi getting wild monkey sex, to use red pill terms, *is if he shoots for a much lesser attractive woman and make the system work for him. Instead, it's waaa waa waaa life isn't fair, I deserve to get as much or more than the next man. *Don't a lot of men love to tell women their standards are too high, they should lower the bar to be more realistic, b/c men age like wine and women age like milk etc? (btw, you obviously haven't seen a lot of men looking to date, they obviously don't own a mirror YIKES


I have seen this time and time again. It's not that these guys can't have the relationship of their dreams with a compatible partner. It's that they can't do that with the hottest chick around. Or the other extreme. They have a red hot firecracker in bed but want the "sweet and innocent" girl mom and dad would be proud of. 

And it doesn't get better with age. I am a magnet for the successful late 40s- early 50s guy who had a long marriage, had grown kids, and got divorced, then immediately hooked up with young and hot women who immediately got pregnant. They think it's physical/sexual attraction that brought those ladies to their yard. Yeah, nope. It's your stability and providership they wanted. Now they have the honor or raising a child into their late 60s and 70s. 😱


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> I have seen this time and time again. It's not that these guys can't have the relationship of their dreams with a compatible partner. It's that they can't do that with the hottest chick around. Or the other extreme. They have a red hot firecracker in bed but want the "sweet and innocent" girl mom and dad would be proud of.
> 
> And it doesn't get better with age. I am a magnet for the successful late 40s- early 50s guy who had a long marriage, had grown kids, and got divorced, then immediately hooked up with young and hot women who immediately got pregnant. They think it's physical/sexual attraction that brought those ladies to their yard. Yeah, nope. It's your stability and providership they wanted. Now they have the honor or raising a child into their late 60s and 70s.


That early 50s guy couldn’t hook up with those hot young women when he was in his 20s and not yet established. He can now.

He was a 7 who could only attract 4s and 5s, as the 6-10s were hooking up with guys who are 9s and 10s or guys with lots of money. With few options, this guy who is a 7 got into a relationship with and married a 5.

(Right around the time he was getting married to the 5, the girl 7s have spent their teens and most of their 20s hooking up with hot guys, they’ve “had their fun” and ready to settle for a guy like him, but those guys are already off the market. At least he gets to laugh from the sidelines as they continue getting ground up by the dating market and end up alone.)

Now that he’s back on the market, even rather old and having kids with his ex-wife, he gets far more action than most of those young 20-something guys. What good is a guy who will make good money and have some status 5-10 years from now? Forget that, go for the older guy who has the most resources at this very moment.

(Props to the girl 5 who sees the game, gets into a relationship with and marries the ambitious guy 7. Most first marriages last a lifetime and she played her hand well.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

This thread has run its course and no longer on the original topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## umbluu

---The statistics now show that 1/3 of men under 30 are virgins or haven’t had sex within the last 12 months. The number has been rising every year starting around when Tinder came out. That is entirely due to women requiring very high physical, monetary and status standards for men. 

Assuming this statistics is correct, it still means that 70% are doing from very well to OK. Since 70% of men cannot possibly be more handsome than average, wealthier than average and have higher status than average, this means that something must be wrong with your logic. And perhaps many of the 30% indeed need to grow in some way.

Furthermore, in your list of desirable attributes you did not include emotional maturity and emotional intelligence. I dare say that for many women above 25 the latter means quite a lot. Judging from observing my daughter and her friends...
Rumor also has it that emotional maturity and intelligence translate into better sex skills as well. Not of "insert object A into slot B" variety, but of being connected during sex variety. Just for clarity, I do not mean just some tender lovemaking here. F***ing with abandon also is better with emotional connection.

---Men who are 28+ are morally entitled (if not obligated) to treat women collectively the same way that women treated them when they were younger. I 

This kind of collective responsibility sounds like some very communist idea to me. The opposite of personal responsibility the conservatives used to advocate for. So does revenge based on belonging to a group, not on person's own actions. Guess what, women also do not like to be treated not as individuals, but as representatives of the group "women", just like men do not like to be treated only as representatives of the group "men". Just try putting yourself in a woman's shoes for a moment - why would any woman find a man attractive if he treats her just as item from the group "women"? Now imagine that on top of that he also has some grudges and ideas of revenge based on collective responsibility of all women for somebody who did not want to have sex with him when he was in his 20-ies?...
I would not want to be with a woman who expects me to pay for something other men have done...


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> He’s completely and sadly wrong. especially with respect to the part you bolded.
> 
> The misandrists often say, “men are not entitled to sex from women.” (That includes weak, misandrist, self-hating men.) While technically true, it’s irrelevant.
> 
> Also true is that women are not entitled to relationships with men. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Women should not complain about men not giving them relationships; they need to self-improve rather than complaining, and resorting to self-delusion, “body positivity,” and shaming men for their preferences.
> 
> Men are entitled to value whatever they want in women. They can value youth, beauty and purity if they so choose and should not be shamed for their desires. Most women want guys who are tall, even if they are of average height or short. They want guys who make incomes far in excess of what they themselves earn. Women value things that they aren’t bringing to the table, and it’s fair and right for men to do likewise.
> 
> The statistics now show that 1/3 of men under 30 are virgins or haven’t had sex within the last 12 months. The number has been rising every year starting around when Tinder came out. That is entirely do to women requiring very high physical, monetary and status standards for men. Blaming the victims of such shallowness is despicable. Blaming people for being involuntarily celibate — or for ANY involuntary condition, for that matter — is morally reprehensible. It’s the intellectual dishonesty, deep ignorance and pure solipsism that is characteristic of NPR listeners and NYT believers.
> 
> The manosphere is correct that the power shifts to men by age 30 and it never goes back. In the end, Father Time always puts Mother Nature in her place.
> 
> Men who are 28+ are morally entitled (if not obligated) to treat women collectively the same way that women treated them when they were younger. It’s called justice. Those who speak negatively of Red Pill or the manosphere are not expressing their opinion but simply regurgitating the opinions of others who tell them what to think. They lack the mental capacity to interpret information and form opinions, so they believe what they are told to believe and say what they are told to say. To say that their opinions are wrong anf deeply uninformed is to compliment them too highly; they have no opinions, just mindless regurgitation of Misandrist Studies rhetoric. Period.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prou


You sound very bitter and most of what you said here is just more BS. It is pointless to argue with you. This is just some men playing the victim card. It is not a good look, especially for a "man". 

This is entirely my opinion and I'm not regurgitating someone else's opinions. No one is entitled to anything and some people just can't deal with that. They don't have the mental fortitude to make things happen in their life, including finding a good partner. That is their short coming, not some grand conspiracy by women or society in general. Instead of looking inward they look for someone else to blame. It is a sad existence, but it may be a good thing they can't find a partner. That way their genes are removed from the pool and mankind is better off as a whole.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> That early 50s guy couldn’t hook up with those hot young women when he was in his 20s and not yet established. He can now.
> 
> He was a 7 who could only attract 4s and 5s, as the 6-10s were hooking up with guys who are 9s and 10s or guys with lots of money. With few options, this guy who is a 7 got into a relationship with and married a 5.
> 
> (Right around the time he was getting married to the 5, the girl 7s have spent their teens and most of their 20s hooking up with hot guys, they’ve “had their fun” and ready to settle for a guy like him, but those guys are already off the market. At least he gets to laugh from the sidelines as they continue getting ground up by the dating market and end up alone.)
> 
> Now that he’s back on the market, even rather old and having kids with his ex-wife, he gets far more action than most of those young 20-something guys. What good is a guy who will make good money and have some status 5-10 years from now? Go for the guy who the most at this very moment.
> 
> (Props to the girl 5 who sees the game, gets into a relationship with and marries the ambitious guy 7. Most first marriages last a lifetime and she played her hand well.)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Omg! Please just stop with this nonsense. 

No, none of those guys were 7s in their 20s nor are they 7s in their 50s, especially not with toddlers in tow. 

I find it interesting that these types of scenario always involves an average looking guy who is rated a 7+. Self awareness is the first problem to tackle. 

Let me explain it in statistical terms. Assuming a normal statistical distribution, 2/3 of the population (women and men) are "normal" or average (4-6), 1/3 are above ( <1/8 are considered 9+) and 1/3 are below average (<1/8 are considered 1-). Your so called "7" who could only attract 4-6 is more than likely really a 4-6 who could only attract 4-6. He chose to ignore those 4-6 and whine about the 1/3 of the 7+ who were dating within their 7+ pool. 

As to these 50 year olds seeking action with 20 year olds. It proves my point that relationships are an exchange of commodities. The 50 year old chooses the 20 year old because of her youth and beauty. And to bring it back to the OP, her sexual repertoire menu (whatever that happens to be) is provided on a beautiful, youthful body. The 20 year old chooses the 50 year old for money and stability. Sexual attractiveness, companionship, as well as many of the other compatibility markers don't even play a role. 

They both need to understand they are choosing based on what is being presented, and not everything else they assume should be part of the deal. That's not how this works and it's what gets people into trouble.


----------



## CallingDrLove

I’ve read some things in the manosphere that genuinely helped my relationship with my wife. I also went down some dark paths and adopted attitudes that nearly ended my marriage.

What’s always seemed odd to me is that the PUA, Red Pill, MGTOW communities are obsessed with what they seemingly hate. They absolutely hate women at their core and yet are obsessed with getting sex from women. Women pick up on that and it drives them away. That type of attitude also attracts a certain type of low self esteem broken woman who eventually does you wrong and this just gives you further evidence of the evil of women.

I wish some of these manosphere types actually lived in the real world like I do. What I see here in the American South is that absolutely gorgeous women marry young and their husbands are usually average looking and have some sort of trade or manual labor career. They screw a lot and have lots of kids. That’s the world I see.


----------



## CallingDrLove

Lila said:


> Omg! Please just stop with this nonsense.
> 
> No, none of those guys were 7s in their 20s nor are they 7s in their 50s, especially not with toddlers in tow.
> 
> I find it interesting that these types of scenario always involves an average looking guy who is rated a 7+. Self awareness is the first problem to tackle.
> 
> Let me explain it in statistical terms. Assuming a normal statistical distribution, 2/3 of the population (women and men) are "normal" or average (4-6), 1/3 are above ( <1/8 are considered 9+) and 1/3 are below average (<1/8 are considered 1-). Your so called "7" who could only attract 4-6 is more than likely really a 4-6 who could only attract 4-6. He chose to ignore those 4-6 and whine about the 1/3 of the 7+ who were dating within their 7+ pool.
> 
> As to these 50 year olds seeking action with 20 year olds. It proves my point that relationships are an exchange of commodities. The 50 year old chooses the 20 year old because of her youth and beauty. And to bring it back to the OP, her sexual repertoire menu (whatever that happens to be) is provided on a beautiful, youthful body. The 20 year old chooses the 50 year old for money and stability. Sexual attractiveness, companionship, as well as many of the other compatibility markers don't even play a role.
> 
> They both need to understand they are choosing based on what is being presented, and not everything else they assume should be part of the deal. That's not how this works and it's what gets people into trouble.


Assuming a Bell Curve distribution the average woman is a 5. I’ve always thought the average woman was pretty cute.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> That early 50s guy couldn’t hook up with those hot young women when he was in his 20s and not yet established. He can now.
> 
> He was a 7 who could only attract 4s and 5s, as the 6-10s were hooking up with guys who are 9s and 10s or guys with lots of money. With few options, this guy who is a 7 got into a relationship with and married a 5.
> 
> (Right around the time he was getting married to the 5, the girl 7s have spent their teens and most of their 20s hooking up with hot guys, they’ve “had their fun” and ready to settle for a guy like him, but those guys are already off the market. At least he gets to laugh from the sidelines as they continue getting ground up by the dating market and end up alone.)
> 
> Now that he’s back on the market, even rather old and having kids with his ex-wife, he gets far more action than most of those young 20-something guys. What good is a guy who will make good money and have some status 5-10 years from now? Forget that, go for the older guy who has the most resources at this very moment.
> 
> (Props to the girl 5 who sees the game, gets into a relationship with and marries the ambitious guy 7. Most first marriages last a lifetime and she played her hand well.)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This is complete made up nonsense. @Lila made an attempt to explain, but I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand it. One easy to understand aspect is, you are over estimating your SMV. Men who are whining about not being able to find a woman and claim to be a "7" are not a 7, plain and simple. Here's a tip. If you are complaining because you can't find a woman at your perceived SMV, subtract 3 points from what you think you are and you will have your real SMV.


----------



## ConanHub

CraigBesuden said:


> He’s completely and sadly wrong. especially with respect to the part you bolded.
> 
> The misandrists often say, “men are not entitled to sex from women.” (That includes weak, misandrist, self-hating men.) While technically true, it’s irrelevant.
> 
> Also true is that women are not entitled to relationships with men. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Women should not complain about men not giving them relationships; they need to self-improve rather than complaining, and resorting to self-delusion, “body positivity,” and shaming men for their preferences.
> 
> Men are entitled to value whatever they want in women. They can value youth, beauty and purity if they so choose and should not be shamed for their desires. Most women want guys who are tall, even if they are of average height or short. They want guys who make incomes far in excess of what they themselves earn. Women value things that they aren’t bringing to the table, and it’s fair and right for men to do likewise.
> 
> The statistics now show that 1/3 of men under 30 are virgins or haven’t had sex within the last 12 months. The number has been rising every year starting around when Tinder came out. That is entirely do to women requiring very high physical, monetary and status standards for men. Blaming the victims of such shallowness is despicable. Blaming people for being involuntarily celibate — or for ANY involuntary condition, for that matter — is morally reprehensible. It’s the intellectual dishonesty, deep ignorance and pure solipsism that is characteristic of NPR listeners and NYT believers.
> 
> The manosphere is correct that the power shifts to men by age 30 and it never goes back. In the end, Father Time always puts Mother Nature in her place.
> 
> Men who are 28+ are morally entitled (if not obligated) to treat women collectively the same way that women treated them when they were younger. It’s called justice. Those who speak negatively of Red Pill or the manosphere are not expressing their opinion but simply regurgitating the opinions of others who tell them what to think. They lack the mental capacity to interpret information and form opinions, so they believe what they are told to believe and say what they are told to say. To say that their opinions are wrong anf deeply uninformed is to compliment them too highly; they have no opinions, just mindless regurgitation of Misandrist Studies rhetoric. Period.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prou


Very concrete in thought, no room for fluidity and bitter in tone.

Somillme did express empathy as well as disgust.

Incels obviously have a problem and could use advice. The advice Sokillme gave wasn't bad.

You keep alluding to attributes that can't be changed like height and basically having that be your argument ender. That combined with the artificial world of Tinder.

Sokillme is giving real world advice. So am I.

If a man is wanting a woman that does extra for a certain kind of guy, he really does need to be more like the certain kind. Height is a cop out. Yes it can't be changed but it's not the barrier you are making it out to be.

I'm not tall. There is another man posting on this thread that would be considered short and he's a "that" guy as well. I'm average btw 5'10" and the other guy is quite a bit shorter than me.

Now there are a great many women who don't fit this description as well and have any number of reasons why they might not do extra with one guy over another.

There is something in most of humanity though, that lends to a greater willingness to have sex and with more enthusiasm if they find themselves very attracted to someone. That's just academic and no one should be getting upset about it.

Incels need advice and productive conversation and instruction.

Some elements in the manosphere and red pill do have good information while other elements are garbage.

Jordan Peterson talks on this subject and he says women are absolutely right to be as selective as they are. He also isn't afraid to talk to disenfranchised and/or disaffected groups like incels or any other upset and angry men.

I'll tell you that promoting a bitter outlook to these guys will not help in the long run.


----------



## umbluu

Another way to reconcile these rankings is to include emotional maturity / intelligence in these rankings, with some decent weight. So the person (man or woman) who would be, let's say, a "7" based on looks, wealth and status, may actually be a 4 (and be perceived as 4 by anyone who got to know them better) due to lack of emotional intelligence.


----------



## Lila

CallingDrLove said:


> Assuming a Bell Curve distribution the average woman is a 5. I’ve always thought the average woman was pretty cute.


Yep. The vast majority of us are 5s. 

T/J :. I belonged to a FB singles group where they asked to rate yourself. Every man and woman who answered rated themselves as 7+. I'm still scratching my head over that one.


----------



## CraigBesuden

BigDaddyNY said:


> This is complete made up nonsense. @Lila made an attempt to explain, but I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand it. One easy to understand aspect is, you are over estimating your SMV. Men who are whining about not being able to find a woman and claim to be a "7" are not a 7, plain and simple. Here's a tip. If you are complaining because you can't find a woman at your perceived SMV, subtract 3 points from what you think you are and you will have your real SMV.


You have had facts explained to you but your commitment to your prior beliefs overrides your ability to analyze facts. For that reason, there is no point trying to talk sense to you. I cannot help but note that all of your arguments are ad hominem attacks, which is an admission that your views are intellectually indefensible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CallingDrLove

I’m 6-4, state champion in track and field in high school, full ride academic scholarship to college, and a walk on but Conference Champion college athlete but I didn’t have a lot of success with women growing up. In my case I had lots of women of various attractiveness levels throw themselves at me but I either just wasn’t interested or didn’t know what to do next and they eventually lost interest. A lot of this was due to not having any guidance with women growing up. My dad was set up with my mom by a mutual friend and was his first and only dating relationship. They were virgins when they got married and are still married 46 years later. That type of guy is a great father but doesn’t know anything about dating.


----------



## umbluu

Returning closer to original topic, I have a question mostly to female participants (but everyone may answer, of course):

To what extent does man coming across as rigid and not very open-minded across the board, in non-sexual areas, actually affect women's willingness to try something new / to try something again with a new partner?


----------



## CraigBesuden

ConanHub said:


> Very concrete in thought, no room for fluidity and bitter in tone.
> 
> Somillme did express empathy as well as disgust.
> 
> Incels obviously have a problem and could use advice. The advice Sokillme gave wasn't bad.
> 
> You keep alluding to attributes that can't be changed like height and basically having that be your argument ender. That combined with the artificial world of Tinder.
> 
> Sokillme is giving real world advice. So am I.
> 
> If a man is wanting a woman that does extra for a certain kind of guy, he really does need to be more like the certain kind. Height is a cop out. Yes it can't be changed but it's not the barrier you are making it out to be.
> 
> I'm not tall. There is another man posting on this thread that would be considered short and he's a "that" guy as well. I'm average btw 5'10" and the other guy is quite a bit shorter than me.
> 
> Now there are a great many women who don't fit this description as well and have any number of reasons why they might not do extra with one guy over another.
> 
> There is something in most of humanity though, that lends to a greater willingness to have sex and with more enthusiasm if they find themselves very attracted to someone. That's just academic and no one should be getting upset about it.
> 
> Incels need advice and productive conversation and instruction.
> 
> Some elements in the manosphere and red pill do have good information while other elements are garbage.
> 
> Jordan Peterson talks on this subject and he says women are absolutely right to be as selective as they are. He also isn't afraid to talk to disenfranchised and/or disaffected groups like incels or any other upset and angry men.
> 
> I'll tell you that promoting a bitter outlook to these guys will not help in the long run.


I don’t think the dating world today has much resemblance to what it was 20 years ago. 

I don’t disagree that men need to up their game when it comes to their physical appearance and the way they dress. If the primary way that people meet today is on dating apps, and women are swiping right on only the top 20% of men (Bumble) or top 5% of men (Tinder) based solely on pictures, then men definitely need to improve their looks to compete. But that only works on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. If every guy were to do it, there is no advantage. (If men select 52% of the women and women select 5% of the men based on looks, the men’s collective strategy of having low physical standards doesn’t work because every guy is doing it.)

It’s like an NFL coach after a controversial loss, saying that if his team had been up by 2 touchdowns it wouldn’t matter what the referees did in the last two minutes. It sounds manly and accepting responsibility, but in reality it’s allowing the referees to avoid accountability for their actions.

It’s like an old school wrestling match. The heel spends most of the match beating up on the babyface. The heel cheats, brings in a steel chair and keeps bashing the babyface over the head until he’s bleeding. But the face (now around 28-30) makes his comeback. He gets in some good punches, rises to his feet, and he takes that steel chair out of the hands of the heel. The bad guy now drops to his knees, his hands up, head shaking “no,” begging the babyface not to treat the heel the way he treated the face. The crowd is roaring now, cheering for justice. Although the face is the good guy who follows the rules, the crowd knows that “turnabout is fair play” - while it’s against the rules to use the foreign object, it is morally justified in retaliation. (In God’s words, an eye for an eye.) The babyface hits him with the chair, cheered on by the crowd and the babyface announcer, while the heel announcer (Jesse Ventura) denounces him for using the chair.

Perhaps the best response is for beta men to stop worrying about going to college or building a career, and instead just spend time in the gym, smoking weed and playing Xbox. Have your fun now, as all that matters is looks and there is no short-term reward for being ambitious. Then, when women hit that age where they need to get married and have children, and they backwash to the nice guys expecting that those guys will be there for them, foolish enough to give her his future when she refused to give him the time of day during his come up… there will be hardly any marriage material men to be found. Guess what? That’s exactly what’s happening.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> Yep. The vast majority of us are 5s.
> 
> T/J :. I belonged to a FB singles group where they asked to rate yourself. Every man and woman who answered rated themselves as 7+. I'm still scratching my head over that one.


That's a hell of a pretty group you have there.😋


----------



## samyeagar

One thing I have not seen touched on that I think plays a part in all of this is along the lines of the 5 Love Languages, in that people feel attractive and desired in different ways. Like the love languages, people also show desire in different ways. Those signs are generally how we gauge how our partners feel about us. Also like the love languages, it is a lot easier if one's natural way of feeling desired is also the natural way their partner shows desire.

With my wife, early on getting to know her, it seemed pretty clear that for her there was no real connection between how attractive and desirable she found someone and what was on the sexual menu in terms of acts, frequency, or enthusiasm. On the one hand, this suggested a pretty good and stable sex life, but on the other hand, there was no validation to be had, and for me, no feelings of it being inherently special.

In sum total, I don't really feel desired by my wife in a way that would set me apart really from anyone else. We have universe exploding sexual chemistry, and I decided to reframe what I needed as far as validation goes and figured that her five minute post orgasm whole body tremors would have to be good enough.


----------



## Numb26

While you guys are over here arguing....I'm going to go have sex! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> You have had facts explained to you but your commitment to your prior beliefs overrides your ability to analyze facts. For that reason, there is no point trying to talk sense to you. I cannot help but note that all of your arguments are ad hominem attacks, which is an admission that your views are intellectually indefensible.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I haven't seen you present any facts, just opinion.


----------



## ConanHub

As to the assertion that things have changed in the last 20-30 years? Sure they have but I'm not talking about what I don't know.

There are a lot of women shooting their shot IRL and Tinder is only as powerful as you let it be.

I'm arguably an oldish man and women still shoot their shot in real life.

A younger man that has some confidence, a smile and knows how to have an easy conversation is going to be doing pretty good without Tinder.


----------



## ConanHub

Numb26 said:


> While you guys are over here arguing....I'm going to go have sex! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


Show off.


----------



## CraigBesuden

ConanHub said:


> As to the assertion that things have changed in the last 20-30 years? Sure they have but I'm not talking about what I don't know.
> 
> There are a lot of women shooting their shot IRL and Tinder is only as powerful as you let it be.
> 
> I'm arguably an oldish man and women still shoot their shot in real life.
> 
> A younger man that has some confidence, a smile and knows how to have an easy conversation is going to be doing pretty good without Tinder.


Agreed. At least in the short-term, meeting people in person is the way out of the matrix. And just ignore the people who say that women don’t want to be approached.

The hookup culture is making life terrible for most men and most women. Even if “only” 20% of people are doing it, it damages the whole population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> That's a hell of a pretty group you have there.😋


I think it's too much self-confidence or too little self-awareness. I'm leaning towards the latter. _Bless their hearts_. 😁


----------



## ConanHub

CraigBesuden said:


> Agreed. At least in the short-term, meeting people in person is the way out of the matrix. And just ignore the people who say that women don’t want to be approached.
> 
> The hookup culture is making life terrible for most men and most women. Even if “only” 20% of people are doing it, it damages the whole population.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I like the Matrix comparison. Just unplug.👍😎


----------



## ElOtro

Lila said:


> There are 6 billion people in this world. The goal should be to find compatible partners.


"There are 6 billion people in this world" 8 billion seems to be closer to world population by now.

"The goal should be to find compatible partners" Agree


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> I don’t think the dating world today has much resemblance to what it was 20 years ago.
> 
> I don’t disagree that men need to up their game when it comes to their physical appearance and the way they dress. If the primary way that people meet today is on dating apps, and women are swiping right on only the top 20% of men (Bumble) or top 5% of men (Tinder) based solely on pictures, then men definitely need to improve their looks to compete. But that only works on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. If every guy were to do it, there is no advantage. (If men select 52% of the women and women select 5% of the men based on looks, the men’s collective strategy of having low physical standards doesn’t work because every guy is doing it.)
> 
> It’s like an NFL coach after a controversial loss, saying that if his team had been up by 2 touchdowns it wouldn’t matter what the referees did in the last two minutes. It sounds manly and accepting responsibility, but in reality it’s allowing the referees to avoid accountability for their actions.
> 
> It’s like an old school wrestling match. The heel spends most of the match beating up on the babyface. The heel cheats, brings in a steel chair and keeps bashing the babyface over the head until he’s bleeding. But the face (now around 28-30) makes his comeback. He gets in some good punches, rises to his feet, and he takes that steel chair out of the hands of the heel. The bad guy now drops to his knees, his hands up, head shaking “no,” begging the babyface not to treat the heel the way he treated the face. The crowd is roaring now, cheering for justice. Although the face is the good guy who follows the rules, the crowd knows that “turnabout is fair play” - while it’s against the rules to use the foreign object, it is morally justified in retaliation. (In God’s words, an eye for an eye.) The babyface hits him with the chair, cheered on by the crowd and the babyface announcer, while the heel announcer (Jesse Ventura) denounces him for using the chair.
> 
> Perhaps the best response is for beta men to stop worrying about going to college or building a career, and instead just spend time in the gym, smoking weed and playing Xbox. Have your fun now, as all that matters is looks and there is no short-term reward for being ambitious. Then, when women hit that age where they need to get married and have children, and they backwash to the nice guys expecting that those guys will be there for them, foolish enough to give her his future when she refused to give him the time of day during his come up… there will be hardly any marriage material men to be found. Guess what? That’s exactly what’s happening.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You are making the assumption that if more men stepped up their game and got on par with the current 5% the women are swiping right on they will then only select the top 5% from the new larger pool of men. What makes you think it is so linear? It makes much more sense that many more men would be getting selected since many more are no longer substandard.

I'm skeptical of using OLD as a representation of what happens day to day in real life. I have a 22 year old son and a 24 year old daughter. I know dozens of their friends. None of them are with partners found through OLD. They all connected through work, school or social networking.

Again, you have to throw in a little nonsense. You are using acted out entertainment as a way to explain the realities of life?! What you described is just a scripted live action story of the underdog/good guy winning. I've got news for you, the incels may be the underdog, but they are not the good guy.


----------



## CharlieParker

Lila said:


> Yep. The vast majority of us are 5s.
> 
> T/J :. I belonged to a FB singles group where they asked to rate yourself. Every man and woman who answered rated themselves as 7+. I'm still scratching my head over that one.


----------



## ConanHub

CharlieParker said:


>


Measuring cattle?😋


----------



## TXTrini

CraigBesuden said:


> This thread has run its course and no longer on the original topic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Because you finally revealed your true purpose in your last few posts. I guess you got butthurt because people aren't swallowing your red pill ********. 

Have you had fun stirring the pot?


----------



## ConanHub

Some foul language here but seriously, who wants to play this game if you're a man. This is stupid.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> Some foul language here but seriously, who wants to play this game if you're a man. This is stupid.


I can go down the rabbit hole of online dating and all of the things that are messed up about this video that it would be a ginormous thread jack. Suffice it to say, I believe online dating has destroyed dating. Period.


----------



## CallingDrLove

Again people need to step back into reality. I get the feeling that most of these MGTOW losers only reality is big city and online. Come out to small town Texas and you will see lots of average to homely guys that drive a pickup and not a Ferrari in their 20s married to absolute beauties also in their 20s.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> Yep. The vast majority of us are 5s.
> 
> T/J :. I belonged to a FB singles group where they asked to rate yourself. Every man and woman who answered rated themselves as 7+. I'm still scratching my head over that one.


Fair enough. Many of us think that 90% is an A, 80% is a B, 70% is a C, etc. So, a C would be a 7. But true, on a scale of 1-10, a 5 is average. 

But according to oh kay kewpid’s data, women rate 80% of men as being below average in attractiveness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> I can go down the rabbit hole of online dating and all of the things that are messed up about this video that it would be a ginormous thread jack. Suffice it to say, I believe online dating has destroyed dating. Period.


The OP referenced Tinder more than once as evidence for his arguments so I don't believe this is jacking.

I'm sure there are more nuances but this Tinder experiment is pretty damning of both women on the platform (who are provably so delusional as to warrant professional help) and the men (who are obviously so ridiculously desperate that they need professional help as well).


----------



## TXTrini

CraigBesuden said:


> He’s completely and sadly wrong. especially with respect to the part you bolded.
> 
> The misandrists often say, “men are not entitled to sex from women.” (That includes weak, misandrist, self-hating men.) While technically true, it’s irrelevant.
> 
> Also true is that women are not entitled to relationships with men. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Women should not complain about men not giving them relationships; they need to self-improve rather than complaining, and resorting to self-delusion, “body positivity,” and shaming men for their preferences.


No one is entitled to anything, men or women. 



CraigBesuden said:


> Men are entitled to value whatever they want in women. They can value youth, beauty and purity if they so choose and should not be shamed for their desires. Most women want guys who are tall, even if they are of average height or short. They want guys who make incomes far in excess of what they themselves earn. Women value things that they aren’t bringing to the table, and it’s fair and right for men to do likewise.


Stupid is as stupid does. If people want to focus on shallow things, they deserve the crap they roll in to get it. For men, no wild monkey sex. For women, crap treatment. There's a saying, if you marry for money, you earn every penny. You think those men who marry golddiggers don't know exactly why those women married them, or are paragons of virtue and treat them well?



CraigBesuden said:


> The statistics now show that 1/3 of men under 30 are virgins or haven’t had sex within the last 12 months. The number has been rising every year starting around when Tinder came out. That is entirely do to women requiring very high physical, monetary and status standards for men. Blaming the victims of such shallowness is despicable. Blaming people for being involuntarily celibate — or for ANY involuntary condition, for that matter — is morally reprehensible. It’s the intellectual dishonesty, deep ignorance and pure solipsism that is characteristic of NPR listeners and NYT believers.


If those men want to hold out for the women they're entitled to, as in your previous paragraph stating men are entitled to have whatever standard they want, that's entirely their choice and right. So tough titties if they end up becoming incels, that's the price of their wet dreams. 



CraigBesuden said:


> The manosphere is correct that the power shifts to men by age 30 and it never goes back. In the end, Father Time always puts Mother Nature in her place.


Then where are these victim men? They should be falling over themselves drowning in women. You've contradicted yourself so many times in this one post.



CraigBesuden said:


> Men who are 28+ are morally entitled (if not obligated) to treat women collectively the same way that women treated them when they were younger. It’s called justice. Those who speak negatively of Red Pill or the manosphere are not expressing their opinion but simply regurgitating the opinions of others who tell them what to think. They lack the mental capacity to interpret information and form opinions, so they believe what they are told to believe and say what they are told to say. To say that their opinions are wrong anf deeply uninformed is to compliment them too highly; they have no opinions, just mindless regurgitation of Misandrist Studies rhetoric. Period.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prou


If those men thinking they're getting revenge by withholding relationships from women, wonderful for them! I don't think anyone's missing them, or there wouldn't be incels. You're the one coming across as lacking the mental capacity to have your own opinion, because you'd vomited up a bunch of mismatched crap in the manosphere. And yes, I've read quite a few blogs, including RooshV, wondering what the heck these dudes were smoking, because it seems they're self-sabotaging. 

I


----------



## CallingDrLove

TXTrini said:


> No one is entitled to anything, men or women.
> 
> 
> Stupid is as stupid does. If people want to focus on shallow things, they deserve the crap they roll in to get it. For men, no wild monkey sex. For women, crap treatment. There's a saying, if you marry for money, you earn every penny. You think those men who marry golddiggers don't know exactly why those women married them, or are paragons of virtue and treat them well?
> 
> 
> If those men want to hold out for the women they're entitled to, as in your previous paragraph stating men are entitled to have whatever standard they want, that's entirely their choice and right. So tough titties if they end up becoming incels, that's the price of their wet dreams.
> 
> 
> Then where are these victim men? They should be falling over themselves drowning in women. You've contradicted yourself so many times in this one post.
> 
> 
> If those men thinking they're getting revenge by withholding relationships from women, wonderful for them! I don't think anyone's missing them, or there wouldn't be incels. You're the one coming across as lacking the mental capacity to have your own opinion, because you'd vomited up a bunch of mismatched crap in the manosphere. And yes, I've read quite a few blogs, including RooshV, wondering what the heck these dudes were smoking, because it seems they're self-sabotaging.
> 
> I


I think it’s shut down now but that Return of Kings blog was some of the biggest nonsense ever. Mostly just losers criticizing women and then self congratulating themselves on how awesome they were.


----------



## ConanHub

I also have no real experience with OLD so I only have what people talk about to go on. I'm sure you do know far more of the ins and outs than I'm aware of @Lila .


----------



## TXTrini

CraigBesuden said:


> You have had facts explained to you but your commitment to your prior beliefs overrides your ability to analyze facts. For that reason, there is no point trying to talk sense to you. I cannot help but note that all of your arguments are ad hominem attacks, which is an admission that your views are intellectually indefensible.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Are you AI? For realz?

Btw, I was suspicious of that douchy pic on your profile. No man worth his man card would present himself like that and expect to be knee deep in *****, just sayin'.


----------



## ConanHub

CraigBesuden said:


> According to oh kay kewpid’s data, women rate 80% of men as being below average in attractiveness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Which is obviously a ridiculous delusion and a good reason to stay away wouldn't you say?


----------



## samyeagar

TXTrini said:


> Are you AI? For realz?
> 
> Btw, I was suspicious of that douchy pic on your profile. *No man worth his man card would present himself like that and expect to be knee deep in *, just sayin'.*


Put a guitar or football in his hand and he sure would


----------



## TXTrini

CallingDrLove said:


> I think it’s shut down now but that Return of Kings blog was some of the biggest nonsense ever. Mostly just losers criticizing women and then self congratulating themselves on how awesome they were.


Oh, I read it all. If I remember right, RooshV is single, living with his mom now. He got too ugly to buy his 9's and 10.


----------



## TXTrini

samyeagar said:


> Put a guitar or football in his hand and he sure would


Well there are dumbasses everywhere, male and female.


----------



## TXTrini

CallingDrLove said:


> I’m 6-4, state champion in track and field in high school, full ride academic scholarship to college, and a walk on but Conference Champion college athlete but I didn’t have a lot of success with women growing up. In my case I had lots of women of various attractiveness levels throw themselves at me but I either just wasn’t interested or didn’t know what to do next and they eventually lost interest. A lot of this was due to not having any guidance with women growing up. My dad was set up with my mom by a mutual friend and was his first and only dating relationship. They were virgins when they got married and are still married 46 years later. That type of guy is a great father but doesn’t know anything about dating.


Women don't get a manual growing up either, on how to be a woman, or how to navigate relationships with men. I don't know why some men feel that women are this mysterious thing to learn, we're people too, just like you. Women like men who treat them like people and not an object to be handled, it's not that hard. I've tried to treat men the way I've wanted to be treated and haven't gone wrong with that, except to be taken advantage of at times. It's just as scary for women to go out there and sift the men who will love and respect them from the men like the ones CraigBesuden is championing.


----------



## Numb26

"Pokes head in room"

Geez, still fighting???? 

Here is something that we can all agree on.....the after coital sammie is the best!!!!


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> Fair enough. Many of us think that 90% is an A, 80% is a B, 70% is a C, etc. So, a C would be a 7. But true, on a scale of 1-10, a 5 is average.
> 
> But according to oh kay kewpid’s data, women rate 80% of men as being below average in attractiveness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Please reference the study from which these numbers originate.


----------



## samyeagar

TXTrini said:


> Well there are dumbasses everywhere, male and female.


That's kind of it though. As far as the red pill and manosphere stuff goes, it is actually pretty effective in a select set of circumstances, but like most other stuff in the Self Help genre, it is widely mis applied. Red pill won't help in finding and keeping a long term happy healthy relationship with an healthy woman. If the end goal is to simply get women into bed, it works like a charm.  That is not to say that it will work on a specific individual woman, not saying it will get a man the woman of his dreams, but if it is just to get sex from women in general, and nothing more, then yeah, it works.


----------



## CharlieParker

Numb26 said:


> Here is something that we can all agree on.....the after coital sammie is the best!!!!


No. She made sammies for Chad, but I have to make my own 😡


----------



## QuietRiot

umbluu said:


> Returning closer to original topic, I have a question mostly to female participants (but everyone may answer, of course):
> 
> To what extent does man coming across as rigid and not very open-minded across the board, in non-sexual areas, actually affect women's willingness to try something new / to try something again with a new partner?


Do you mean the type of dude who throws a tantrum because they want their anal and they want it now? There is nothing more unattractive than this “I deserve to put my peen wherever I want” attitude and it’s OBVIOUSLY not just relegated to the bedroom. They talk like this, and wonder why women don’t want to kinky **** them… well, I’m not surprised why they ain’t gettin it and crying for their ba-ba. 

Oh I guess one is married to a Victoria Secret model, makes a billion dollars and has all the back door action he can handle (but still has enough time and desire to ***** about women on TAM). If it were true that these guys are such alpha male studs who have nothing but hot young coochie being thrown at them left and right… WHY are you here *****ing exactly??? The equations don’t add up. Either you have so much poon you have to wear galoshes and have no time to ***** here, or you are full of ****.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> Please reference the study from which these numbers originate.


https://blog.*******.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/*******-inbox-attractive/amp/
It appears that TAM blocks the word okay kyewpid, which ruins the links. But simply Google that word and “women 80% men unattractive.” You’ll find countless articles discussing this.

You’ll find similar data from the other dating apps, and the dating apps are how most singles meet today.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ConanHub

QuietRiot said:


> you have so much poon you have to wear galoshes


😋😂😂😂😂😂😂😎👍


----------



## TXTrini

samyeagar said:


> That's kind of it though. As far as the red pill and manosphere stuff goes, it is actually pretty effective in a select set of circumstances, but like most other stuff in the Self Help genre, it is widely mis applied. Red pill won't help in finding and keeping a long term happy healthy relationship with an healthy woman. If the end goal is to simply get women into bed, it works like a charm. That is not to say that it will work on a specific individual woman, not saying it will get a man the woman of his dreams, but if it is just to get sex from women in general, and nothing more, then yeah, it works.


My evaluation of red pill from the forums I've read is defective men preying on broken women. Each is getting something, the men get sex, the women get money, entertainment or whatever. It always seems to be a temporary situation, as they aim is to score as many women as they feel entitled to, to measure up to other men. Basically, a **** measuring competition, when it comes down to it.

This is why I don't particularly care what good things you can glean from it, the whole premise is predatory and sleazy. After all, sh1t serves as fertilizer, while it stinks.


----------



## TXTrini

CharlieParker said:


> No. She made sammies for Chad, but I have to make my own 😡


We all know you'd make a better sandwich anyway!!


----------



## umbluu

--- Do you mean the type of dude who throws a tantrum because 

Not exactly... I actually wanted to extricate myself from the debate about entitlement for sex and collective responsibility. So I meant man's willingness to try new things in non-sexual areas, getting outside of one's comfort zone. And not in a transactional way - "I listen to you with interest and get BJ in return" - but in a more organic, perhaps subconscious way.


----------



## QuietRiot

umbluu said:


> --- Do you mean the type of dude who throws a tantrum because
> 
> Not exactly... I actually wanted to extricate myself from the debate about entitlement for sex and collective responsibility. So I meant man's willingness to try new things in non-sexual areas, getting outside of one's comfort zone. And not in a transactional way - "I listen to you with interest and get BJ in return" - but in a more organic, perhaps subconscious way.


I can’t speak for all women, because I am one of billions. But, if you consider trying to understand and connect with a woman’s heart and mind in whatever way that particular woman values, yes. I think that would go a long way in building sexual intimacy as well.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> The OP referenced Tinder more than once as evidence for his arguments so I don't believe this is jacking.
> 
> I'm sure there are more nuances but this Tinder experiment is pretty damning of both women on the platform (who are provably so delusional as to warrant professional help) and the men (who are obviously so ridiculously desperate that they need professional help as well).


It is less about women being delusional and men being desperate. 

Online dating is a glorified online shopping experience based entirely on physical appearance; specifically how well people market themselves in pictures. Women are much better at this than men, which automatically puts men at a disadvantage. 

Here's some interesting facts backed up my research

Users take an average 3 seconds to decide yes or no on a profile based solely on the one main picture. Nothing else. 
Women and men like profiles that are on average 25% more attractive than theirs.
Approximately half the people who use online dating have no intentions of dating. They use it as a distraction or for validation purposes. 
About 25-40% of users are already in committed relationships. 
1 in 10 profiles is of a convicted sexual offender.
1 in 10 profiles (I think it's more than that) are scammers.
And people wonder why they can't find someone to date.


----------



## sokillme

Lila said:


> But @sokillme how is that anyone's fault but their own? Those guys chose their partners poorly. It's a choice.
> 
> Marriage is a trade off. These guys are getting something in exchange for their stability. A beautiful wife? Kids? A stable home life? A woman who presents well to the public? If they weren't getting something out of the deal then they wouldn't have married in the first place.
> 
> Their mistake was in prioritizing the wrong qualities when picking their partner.


To an extent yeah. I am not a big proponent of if you did it with him you should have to do it with me. However if your wife presents herself as someone who never liked some act because it's gross or whatever and you find out they she did it all the time before she met you, then the obvious truth is she just doesn't like that with you, I could see that being a problem. 

It's the false presentation that is the problem, not even the act. He might not even care about the act, it's the implication that she isn't into him. 

I have a problem with lack of effort. It's one thing if you find it gross but it's another if you are just lazy.


----------



## QuietRiot

ConanHub said:


> 😋😂😂😂😂😂😂😎👍


Probably need a raincoat too?


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> He’s completely and sadly wrong. especially with respect to the part you bolded.
> 
> The misandrists often say, “men are not entitled to sex from women.” (That includes weak, misandrist, self-hating men.) While technically true, it’s irrelevant.
> 
> Also true is that women are not entitled to relationships with men. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Women should not complain about men not giving them relationships; they need to self-improve rather than complaining, and resorting to self-delusion, “body positivity,” and shaming men for their preferences.
> 
> Men are entitled to value whatever they want in women. They can value youth, beauty and purity if they so choose and should not be shamed for their desires. Most women want guys who are tall, even if they are of average height or short. They want guys who make incomes far in excess of what they themselves earn. Women value things that they aren’t bringing to the table, and it’s fair and right for men to do likewise.
> 
> The statistics now show that 1/3 of men under 30 are virgins or haven’t had sex within the last 12 months. The number has been rising every year starting around when Tinder came out. That is entirely do to women requiring very high physical, monetary and status standards for men. Blaming the victims of such shallowness is despicable. Blaming people for being involuntarily celibate — or for ANY involuntary condition, for that matter — is morally reprehensible. It’s the intellectual dishonesty, deep ignorance and pure solipsism that is characteristic of NPR listeners and NYT believers.
> 
> The manosphere is correct that the power shifts to men by age 30 and it never goes back. In the end, Father Time always puts Mother Nature in her place.
> 
> Men who are 28+ are morally entitled (if not obligated) to treat women collectively the same way that women treated them when they were younger. It’s called justice. Those who speak negatively of Red Pill or the manosphere are not expressing their opinion but simply regurgitating the opinions of others who tell them what to think. They lack the mental capacity to interpret information and form opinions, so they believe what they are told to believe and say what they are told to say. To say that their opinions are wrong anf deeply uninformed is to compliment them too highly; they have no opinions, just mindless regurgitation of Misandrist Studies rhetoric. Period.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prou


Again your whole motivation, priority and reward is your orgasm. Sorry dude. That's not going to solve all your problem, or mens.


----------



## sokillme

ConanHub said:


> Some foul language here but seriously, who wants to play this game if you're a man. This is stupid.


I like the dudes shades.


----------



## sokillme

samyeagar said:


> That's kind of it though. As far as the red pill and manosphere stuff goes, it is actually pretty effective in a select set of circumstances, but like most other stuff in the Self Help genre, it is widely mis applied. Red pill won't help in finding and keeping a long term happy healthy relationship with an healthy woman. If the end goal is to simply get women into bed, it works like a charm. That is not to say that it will work on a specific individual woman, not saying it will get a man the woman of his dreams, but if it is just to get sex from women in general, and nothing more, then yeah, it works.


And at least it's honest in the sense that that is the goal and the weight in which it gauges itself. I would argue that it's cynical approach will actually prevent a lot of these guys from finding a long term mate or just happiness, and in that way it actually hurts them over time. Once they use the tools to hook up then what? Still not long term intimacy, still no introspection and work to help correct that, just bitter loneliness.


----------



## Livvie

Lila said:


> It happens with men as well. The Madonna/Wh0re complex is actually a range. Some are more apt to it than others.
> 
> My point is there are various reasons why women don't perform sexual acts with partners that they may have previously performed. Those reasons likely havenothing to do with choosing men for security over true attraction.


We've had many female posters over the years come here and start discussions about how they married their husband fot the stability he would provide even though they weren't sexually attracted to him, and over time, just can't stand it anymore (they want to be with someone they want sexually).


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> https://blog.*******.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
> https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/*******-inbox-attractive/amp/
> It appears that TAM blocks the word okay kyewpid, which ruins the links. But simply Google that word and “women 80% men unattractive.” You’ll find countless articles discussing this.
> 
> You’ll find similar data from the other dating apps, and the dating apps are how most singles meet today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Ahhh....lol. 

Those numbers were produced using online dating, which is based on judging a photograph. One 2D image that is supposed to determine the multiple qualities that make people attractive to each other. 

No, women do not find 80% of men unattractive. The only thing those studies (I use the term loosely) showed was that women didn't find 80% of the photographs shown attractive. 

There are hundreds of human sexuality studies that show that women, in fact, do find at least 50% of the male population attractive when presented IN REAL LIFE.

Drop online dating and get out into the real world. Have fun doing what you like. Mingle with other singles.


----------



## Tdbo

sokillme said:


> To an extent yeah. I am not a big proponent of if you did it with him you should have to do it with me. However if your wife presents herself as someone who never liked some act because it's gross or whatever and you find out they she did it all the time before she met you, then the obvious truth is she just doesn't like that with you, I could see that being a problem.
> 
> It's the false presentation that is the problem, not even the act. He might not even care about the act, it's the implication that she isn't into him.
> 
> I have a problem with lack of effort. It's one thing if you find it gross but it's another if you are just lazy.


This is my point exactly.
It's not even necessarily about the sex.
It's about the lie.
This is potentially the type of person that when she decides she misses the sex, she'll go out and get it on the side.
If the original RP that started this was legit, sucks to be that guy.


----------



## Lila

Livvie said:


> We've had many female posters over the years come here and start discussions about how they married their husband fot the stability he would provide even though they weren't sexually attracted to him, and over time, just can't stand it anymore (they want to be with someone they want sexually).


I'm not denying this is the reason in some cases. What I am denying is that it's the ONLY reason. From what I've learned over the years, the reasons why are varied, and have less to do about sexual attraction and more about other influencing factors.


----------



## Lila

sokillme said:


> To an extent yeah. I am not a big proponent of if you did it with him you should have to do it with me. However if your wife presents herself as someone who never liked some act because it's gross or whatever and you find out they she did it all the time before she met you, then the obvious truth is she just doesn't like that with you, I could see that being a problem.
> 
> It's the false presentation that is the problem, not even the act. He might not even care about the act, it's the implication that she isn't into him.
> 
> I have a problem with lack of effort. It's one thing if you find it gross but it's another if you are just lazy.



I can understand that. This is why I encourage people to not judge sexual activities as gross when they are brought up by a partner. A simple "I'm not interested in doing that" suffices.


----------



## sokillme

Tdbo said:


> This is my point exactly.
> It's not even necessarily about the sex.
> It's about the lie.
> This is potentially the type of person that when she decides she misses the sex, she'll go out and get it on the side.
> If the original RP that started this was legit, sucks to be that guy.


I agree but the answer is to move on. 

To be honest the Redpill guys are just the most extreme endgame of the nice guy, or the guy who is the knight and shining armor. The guys whose wife cheats on him but is too passive to brake it off and blames her cheating on being naive or tricked. No offense to my women friends on here but they all overvalue that person and redpill women in general. I would say the same for women who think about men the same way. No relationship for a man or women should be worth your soul. 

Redpill chooses sex as the end goal and in that way basically hands over all their personal power, their agency over their own happiness over to the women they pursue. It's a terrible strategy but it explains why they are bitter. Everyone hates their boss or their jailer. Drug addicts simultaneously hate their drug while they crave it. 

They need to put down the internet and stop caring so much about hooking up or relationships. Work on being an honorable man and the women will show up, and the right kind. She may not be a 10 as they judge it now, but their priorities will have probably changed since then.

Honestly I have much more respect for the guys who go their own way or whatever they call themselves, or the ones who basically say sex is overrated. Those guys just look at the current playing field and choose not to play. I think it's sad and they are probably missing possible potential, but at least they are standing on their own and not desperately craving what they hate.


----------



## Tdbo

sokillme said:


> I agree but the answer is to move on.
> 
> To be honest the Redpill guys are just the most extreme endgame of the nice guy, or the guy who is the knight and shining armor. The guys whose wife cheats on him but is too passive to brake it off and blames her cheating on being naive or tricked. No offense to my women friends on here but they all overvalue women. I would say the same for women thinking the same way about men. No relationship for a man or women should be worth your soul.
> 
> Redpill chooses sex as the end goal and in that way basically hands over all their personal power, their agency over their own happiness over to the women they pursue. It's a terrible strategy but it explains why they are bitter. Everyone hates their boss or their jailer.
> 
> They need to put down the internet and stop caring so much about hooking up or relationships. Work on being an honorable man and the women will show up, and the right kind. She may not be a 10 as they judge it now, but their priorities will have probably changed since then.


That is the point that I made earlier.
Again, if that post was legit, the guy would be best served discarding the manipulative refuse and find a quality individual that truly cares about them, wants to be with them, and wants to have a fulfilling life in all facets with them.
In other words, get out before you are discarded.


----------



## Evinrude58

Julie's Husband said:


> Submissive? You're kidding, right? I'd never pull that crap on a woman and I would not find a woman who would accept that treatment interesting. I like women who are their own person.


Lmao


----------



## samyeagar

sokillme said:


> To an extent yeah. I am not a big proponent of if you did it with him you should have to do it with me. However if your wife presents herself as someone who never liked some act because it's gross or whatever and you find out they she did it all the time before she met you, *then the obvious truth is she just doesn't like that with you*, I could see that being a problem.
> 
> It's the false presentation that is the problem, not even the act. He might not even care about the act, it's the implication that she isn't into him.
> 
> I have a problem with lack of effort. It's one thing if you find it gross but it's another if you are just lazy.


And that right there is what some people struggle with accepting. The idea that what a woman does or doesn't do sexually gives any indication at all of how much she is into her partner. There are many who make the claim that one has nothing to do with the other. And sure, that may be true for some people, but going back to my point about how different people feel desired in different ways. I think an awful lot of people do gauge their partners desire and interest on exactly that. It is not unreasonable to think that the more comparatively uninhibited a person is the more they are into it. Again, excluding things that a person can no longer physically do, has a visceral eversion to, reasonable reasons why not, I do think it is a reasonable metric to gauge desire.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> Fair enough. Many of us think that 90% is an A, 80% is a B, 70% is a C, etc. So, a C would be a 7. But true, on a scale of 1-10, a 5 is average.
> 
> But according to oh kay kewpid’s data, women rate 80% of men as being below average in attractiveness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


All that chart tells me is men aren't as picky as women.

My wife has always preferred tall blonde/light brown haired men. In the US 2% are blonde and 11% are some shade of brown. That right there means only 13% are her type, so she is highly likely to find the other 87% less attractive. So why would a chart like this surprise anyone? Throw in some more characteristics and the list keeps getting smaller. Tall I'll call 6' or taller, that is only 15% of US men. Assuming hair color is normally distributed among them, my wife's type is now down to <2% of the population. This is just the way it works IMO. Lucky for me I'm 6'2" and blonde.


----------



## samyeagar

Tdbo said:


> That is the point that I made earlier.
> Again, if that post was legit, *the guy would be best served discarding the manipulative refuse and find a quality individual that truly cares about them, wants to be with them, and wants to have a fulfilling life in all facets with them.*
> In other words, get out before you are discarded.


But that is the lie of Red Pill. Or at least the truth of it that is buried. Red Pill is the antithesis of that. It's sole true metric is bedding women, and in that regard, it works pretty well. The problem is, it is often sold as, or interpreted as relationship advice, when it absolutely is nothing of the sort. It will help you bed women, while simultaneously it will drive the good, healthy women away.


----------



## Tdbo

samyeagar said:


> But that is the lie of Red Pill. Or at least the truth of it that is buried. Red Pill is the antithesis of that. It's sole true metric is bedding women, and in that regard, it works pretty well. The problem is, it is often sold as, or interpreted as relationship advice, when it absolutely is nothing of the sort. It will help you bed women, while simultaneously it will drive the good, healthy women away.


My point is to go for good healthy women initially, and allow nature to take care of itself.


----------



## umbluu

QuietRiot said:


> I can’t speak for all women, because I am one of billions. But, if you consider trying to understand and connect with a woman’s heart and mind in whatever way that particular woman values, yes. I think that would go a long way in building sexual intimacy as well.


Thank you... Maybe we are talking the same thing and maybe not. Maybe my example "listen to her with interest..." tilted the response in certain particular direction... What about slightly different things, such as trying new things that do not imply understanding, at least not explicitly in the sense of talking / listening. Do not know - try yoga, or some other activity the man did not try before and that is out of his comfort zone for some reason. Wear a kilt. Expose oneself to broader range of political ideas without rejecting them outright.


----------



## TexasMom1216

BigDaddyNY said:


> I've got news for you, the incels may be the underdog, but they are not the good guy.


There's an old movie with Heath Ledger called "The Knight's Tale." It's a silly, fun romantic comedy.

There's three key characters:
William Thatcher: A poor boy who pretends to be a knight
Jocelyn: The heroine
Count Ademar: the bad guy

William and Jocelyn meet and fall in love. Ademar keeps losing jousts to William and gets mad. He sabotages William and tells him that he's negotiating with Jocelyn's father to marry her. "I will break her." Of course in the end William triumphs, beats Ademar at jousting and ends up with Jocelyn.

The men of the red pill manosphere all believe that they are William and that Ademar is the "Chad." But the truth is that the red pill men, who see women as objects to acquire, are Ademar. They believe they are entitled to women through power and money, and have zero interest in their feelings or minds at all. They want to conquer and destroy the woman, to force her to submit to them. They want what they want and don't care about the woman at all. William is the "Chad," the strong, moral, loving and decent man who wants a real relationship.

The red pill men think they're the hero, but in truth, they are the villains of their own movie.

And...go.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

TXTrini said:


> We all know you'd make a better sandwich anyway!!


Caught!......time to time after after a long and yes I'll say it, gold medal olympic session 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I trot out that old joke.....now I need a sandwich..🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣🤣😘

I'm almost 60 now, so I'm only half kidding anymore !!! I 🤣🤣


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

TexasMom1216 said:


> There's an old movie with Heath Ledger called "The Knight's Tale." It's a silly, fun romantic comedy.
> 
> There's three key characters:
> William Thatcher: A poor boy who pretends to be a knight
> Jocelyn: The heroine
> Count Ademar: the bad guy
> 
> William and Jocelyn meet and fall in love. Ademar keeps losing jousts to William and gets mad. He sabotages William and tells him that he's negotiating with Jocelyn's father to marry her. "I will break her." Of course in the end William triumphs, beats Ademar at jousting and ends up with Jocelyn.
> 
> The men of the red pill manosphere all believe that they are William and that Ademar is the "Chad." But the truth is that the red pill men, who see women as objects to acquire, are Ademar. They believe they are entitled to women through power and money, and have zero interest in their feelings or minds at all. They want to conquer and destroy the woman, to force her to submit to them. They want what they want and don't care about the woman at all. William is the "Chad," the strong, moral, loving and decent man who wants a real relationship.
> 
> The red pill men think they're the hero, but in truth, they are the villains of their own movie.
> 
> And...go.


Jocelyn is indeed very hot! Just being fair DW thinks Heath is, now was, hot.
That was a tragic death, he was too young to have died.

Eta: that is one if my favorite of all time movies too.


----------



## TexasMom1216

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Jocelyn is indeed very hot! Just being fair DW thinks Heath is, now was, hot.
> That was a tragic death, he was too young to have died.


His Joker was by far one of the best movie villains ever. Jocelyn was indeed quite hot (she still is), but she was also kind, smart and funny. Those qualities mattered to William, but not to Ademar.

ETA: I too enjoy a sandwich after... after. Sorry, TMI.


----------



## QuietRiot

umbluu said:


> Thank you... Maybe we are talking the same thing and maybe not. Maybe my example "listen to her with interest..." tilted the response in certain particular direction... What about slightly different things, such as trying new things that do not imply understanding, at least not explicitly in the sense of talking / listening. Do not know - try yoga, or some other activity the man did not try before and that is out of his comfort zone for some reason. Wear a kilt. Expose oneself to broader range of political ideas without rejecting them outright.


So kind of like, I’ll try acrobatic yoga, maybe then she’ll try anal? 🤣


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

TexasMom1216 said:


> There's an old movie with Heath Ledger called "The Knight's Tale." It's a silly, fun romantic comedy.
> 
> There's three key characters:
> William Thatcher: A poor boy who pretends to be a knight
> Jocelyn: The heroine
> Count Ademar: the bad guy
> 
> William and Jocelyn meet and fall in love. Ademar keeps losing jousts to William and gets mad. He sabotages William and tells him that he's negotiating with Jocelyn's father to marry her. "I will break her." Of course in the end William triumphs, beats Ademar at jousting and ends up with Jocelyn.
> 
> The men of the red pill manosphere all believe that they are William and that Ademar is the "Chad." But the truth is that the red pill men, who see women as objects to acquire, are Ademar. They believe they are entitled to women through power and money, and have zero interest in their feelings or minds at all. They want to conquer and destroy the woman, to force her to submit to them. They want what they want and don't care about the woman at all. William is the "Chad," the strong, moral, loving and decent man who wants a real relationship.
> 
> The red pill men think they're the hero, but in truth, they are the villains of their own movie.
> 
> And...go.


Thank goodness William had what's his name and team to help write that poem....William was getting of to a rocky start! 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## umbluu

QuietRiot said:


> So kind of like, I’ll try acrobatic yoga, maybe then she’ll try anal? 🤣


No, not really. This sounds too transactional. What I mean - does general open-mindedness of one partner (man) provoke more general open-mindedness in another partner (woman)? I am NOT talking about some real or imaginary deal to get any particular sexual act. I guess I do include sexual open-mindedness into general open-mindedness though.


----------



## Numb26

QuietRiot said:


> So kind of like, I’ll try acrobatic yoga, maybe then she’ll try anal? 🤣


I find tequila usually works better


----------



## QuietRiot

Numb26 said:


> I find tequila usually works better


Cuz tequila makes her clothes fall off 🎶


----------



## TexasMom1216

QuietRiot said:


> Cuz tequila makes her clothes fall off 🎶


Wine does that too. Just sayin'.


----------



## TXTrini

ConanHub said:


> Some foul language here but seriously, who wants to play this game if you're a man. This is stupid.


Isn't it ironic that the guy making fun of women looks like a douche? Why wear sunglasses on a video? 😂 He looks like a PUA! It's extremely hard to take him seriously because he doesn't present himself as someone who cares about relationships, just butthurt that he can't score because these hoity-toity women think they're too good to slum it and are ruining it for everybody!

He has some points, but at the end of the day, it's other men responsible for the inflated egos of these women. If they didn't swipe on every warm body, it might be more balanced.


----------



## sokillme

samyeagar said:


> I think an awful lot of people do gauge their partners desire and interest on exactly that. It is not unreasonable to think that the more comparatively uninhibited a person is the more they are into it. Again, excluding things that a person can no longer physically do, has a visceral eversion to, reasonable reasons why not, I do think it is a reasonable metric to gauge desire.


I agree, but this is why safety and trust particularly for women is important, it provides an emotional place for her to be uninhibited. A lot of guys miss this. Women deal with a whole bunch of cultural **** and insecurities about being uninhibited so for some of them it's a risk. Also I think a better strategy is to stop wanting specific sex acts and strive for a dynamic sexual relationship. But I think to have that you have to have a culture in your marriage of good communication, partnership and trust outside of the bedroom. If you don't you are not going to suddenly have it in the bedroom.

One thing that is evident about a lot of the advice from the manosphere is the profound lack of understanding of how women's sexual nature works. I mean not saying I am an expert, if you are trying to bed Nikki Manage then maybe Red Pill has it figured out, but even then I suspect even entertainers that have lyrics like that that have men who write or encourage them. I would avoid women who think like that for long term relationships, and not to worry that I am missing out. Those women are lost.

Again I don't claim to be an expert and would hope that the women here would correct me if I'm wrong but my observation is that women's attraction to us is a lot less visually then a man's is. I think it much more emotion based in the sense that she is looking for qualities like safety, internal and to a certain extent external strength, good communication, the ability to empathize and emotional intelligence. I find the most excited I have had women feel about me is when we bond and share what seems to me is an emotional secret. It's hard to explain but it's more about little things that we both know and make eye contact about. Little jokes and uniqueness. Now I am not saying if you look like Golumn but have all the other qualities you don't have a chance. But no one has to look like Golumn in today's day and age.

What I am saying is if you have the other qualities and are maybe slightly above average if you find a normal pretty women you can certainly become extremely attractive to her. Create a foundation of trust together in your life together and your sex life can be an extension of that. So even in the most extreme stories like the ones highlighted, yes your wife might be more attracted to the other guy but I suspect it has more to do with the non-visual qualities that I mentioned.

And no one is attracted to someone whining about not getting anal, nor should they be.

I say this a lot and I know it's painful but it's also quite obvious and important thing to understand. It's always clear that a women's affair partner understand her nature better then her husband does. Now when it's an affair most of the time that is because she is broken in some why, some were never good candidates to marry in the first place. But when it comes to the enthusiastic sex without an affair, just a faithful wife. Yes, she probably is more attracted to the other guy, but I suspect it has a lot less to do with how much money he makes or if he has his hair, it's probably the way he makes her feel excited to have sex with him, because of how much he cherishes her and treats her, how he loves her. It damn sure ain't about frame.

ConanHub - Yes.. long, I'm sorry.


----------



## sokillme

TexasMom1216 said:


> There's an old movie with Heath Ledger called "The Knight's Tale." It's a silly, fun romantic comedy.
> 
> There's three key characters:
> William Thatcher: A poor boy who pretends to be a knight
> Jocelyn: The heroine
> Count Ademar: the bad guy
> 
> William and Jocelyn meet and fall in love. Ademar keeps losing jousts to William and gets mad. He sabotages William and tells him that he's negotiating with Jocelyn's father to marry her. "I will break her." Of course in the end William triumphs, beats Ademar at jousting and ends up with Jocelyn.
> 
> The men of the red pill manosphere all believe that they are William and that Ademar is the "Chad." But the truth is that the red pill men, who see women as objects to acquire, are Ademar. They believe they are entitled to women through power and money, and have zero interest in their feelings or minds at all. They want to conquer and destroy the woman, to force her to submit to them. They want what they want and don't care about the woman at all. William is the "Chad," the strong, moral, loving and decent man who wants a real relationship.
> 
> The red pill men think they're the hero, but in truth, they are the villains of their own movie.
> 
> And...go.


It's even in our language though, the idea that you need to "get" a mate or "win" a mate. It makes it an accomplishment, transactional instead of relational. 

This thinking hurts men as much as women because it's the thing that causes a certain segment of man to stay with a women who is a jerk, because he if not he "losses" her. Instead of thinking this an asshole who should be discarded. Relationships shouldn't be thought of as transactional or accomplishments, that way of thinking is a trap.


----------



## TexasMom1216

sokillme said:


> This thinking hurts men as much as women because it's the thing that causes a certain segment of man to stay with a women who is a jerk, because he if not he "losses" her. Instead of thinking this an asshole who should be discarded. Relationships shouldn't be thought of as transactional or accomplishments, that way of thinking is a trap.


This is a really good point. Like it's a game, instead of actual real life.

Do you guys remember that book called "The Rules"? I remember my college roommate had it (ugh, that *****). It was all about how women should pretend to be something they're not to trick a man into being attracted to them. Some of it was ok, don't be desperate, don't chase, blah blah. But mostly, it was "How To Trap You A Man" and it was just... ugly. Social media and dating apps work that same way, they take "fake it til you make it" and turn it into a lifestyle. Bottom line, instead of actually BEING an interesting, well-rounded woman with a full life, take the shortcut and do these activities that make it seem like you are. Shortcuts and lies are not my idea of a good recipe for a happy life.

That to me is what the manosphere does too. Pretend to be this cartoon version of what they say an "alpha male" is, this "Chad" character they've concocted in their heads, lie to women to trick them into bed, then call them a ***** as you laugh and walk away, because all women deserve to be treated that way after that ***** head cheerleader turned you down for prom and then her football player boyfriend pantsed you at the pep rally. It's all that same level of discourse. I keep hearing it's a small minority, and I really hope it is, because it's pretty pathetic.


----------



## farsidejunky

Lila said:


> It is less about women being delusional and men being desperate.
> 
> Online dating is a glorified online shopping experience based entirely on physical appearance; specifically how well people market themselves in pictures. Women are much better at this than men, which automatically puts men at a disadvantage.
> 
> Here's some interesting facts backed up my research
> 
> Users take an average 3 seconds to decide yes or no on a profile based solely on the one main picture. Nothing else.
> Women and men like profiles that are on average 25% more attractive than theirs.
> Approximately half the people who use online dating have no intentions of dating. They use it as a distraction or for validation purposes.
> About 25-40% of users are already in committed relationships.
> 1 in 10 profiles is of a convicted sexual offender.
> 1 in 10 profiles (I think it's more than that) are scammers.
> And people wonder why they can't find someone to date.


In reference to number 3, do you have any figures broken down by sex? I have my suspicions, but would like to know facts.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme

TexasMom1216 said:


> This is a really good point. Like it's a game, instead of actual real life.
> 
> Do you guys remember that book called "The Rules"? I remember my college roommate had it (ugh, that ***). It was all about how women should pretend to be something they're not to trick a man into being attracted to them. Some of it was ok, don't be desperate, don't chase, blah blah. But mostly, it was a "How To Trap You A Man" and it was just... ugly. Social media and dating apps work that same way, they take "fake it til you make it" and turn it into a lifestyle. Bottom line, instead of actually BEING an interesting, well-rounded woman with a full life, take the shortcut and do these activities that make it seem like you are. Shortcuts and lies are not my idea of a good recipe for a happy life.
> 
> That to me is what the manosphere does too. Pretend to be this cartoon version of what they say an "alpha male" is, this "Chad" character they've concocted in their heads, lie to women to trick them into bed, then call them a _ as you laugh and walk away, because all women deserve to be treated that way after that _ head cheerleader turned you down for prom and then her football player boyfriend pantsed you at the pep rally. It's all that same level of discourse. I keep hearing it's a small minority, and I really hope it is, because it's pretty pathetic.


I think the entitlement is, but I do think there is a large majority of men who are lonely and suffering. I don't think they are violent or hate women. I think they have been told it's easier then ever to meet people, social media, dating apps, all that. But those things are not real and they are toxic, and like Lila pointed out, are gamed against them. They are also hearing things like toxic masculinity about actions that I never associated with masculinity to begin with. Where the worst men's traits (of who saddens me to admit are more then a little) are associated with all men.

The men and women they follow online who are role models have very little life experience and basically became famous for playing games or makeup tutorial and yet these are folks making profound deceleration about dating, gender and life lessons. So the advice is very shallow and often just childish.

We as men are also not taught to communicate, but to suppress our feelings. Because like everything else in today's age there is no nuance so instead of teaching both boys to control there emotions and use them in a healthy way, we teach them to suppress them. Basically for fear of them being emotional. Worse there is a segment of the population that assumes men are not even capable of being emotionally intelligent, and lots of times it's these boys mothers. And now feel in a backlash some boys have mistaken emotionalism as of being emotional intelligent, and that is a normal turnoff to a lot of guys and girls. So even if they try that it's a turn off.

Fathers and the role of the father has been scoffed at for years, Homer Simpson being the archetype. Many of them have advocated their role. And the last few generations of men have had to negotiate a changing world where what was once valued "hard work, provider" is valued a lot less. This is becasue there wasn't the opportunity for women to provide for herself before. Men need to learn how to also be emotional providers for their wives. That is something a lot of men have not being given the tools to do.

All of these things have conspired to have good but naive and innocent young men suffer. I know and relate because I was that guy too when I was very young, but because there was no social media I think it was easier for me.

In have a profound sympathy for these guys, but I damn sure know that RedPill is just more exploitation of them. They need interpersonal skills most of all, and a path to a different way of thinking. Those men are important to all of us.


----------



## TexasMom1216

sokillme said:


> Where the worst men's traits (of who saddens me to admit are more then a little) are associated with all men.


And even positive male traits are twisted and turned into a negative. 


sokillme said:


> Because like everything else in today's age there is no nuance so instead of teaching both boys to control there emotions and use them in a healthy way, we teach them to suppress them.


I never thought of this, but you are so right. We (H and I) have always prioritized a healthy outlet for boy energy for our son, but now that I think about it, there really isn't what there used to be. I mean, Texas, so the boys play football. Not mine, he's a writer and artist, but most of the other boys are outside ramming into each other in football pads, working out all that teenaged testosterone. The bubble-wrap/snowplow parent movement has taken healthy physical outlets away from boys. 


sokillme said:


> Fathers and the role of the father has been scoffed at for years


Truth. And I can tell you from experience, fathers are VITAL. Not just for boys, but for girls too. 


sokillme said:


> what was once valued "hard work, provider" mostly because there wasn't the opportunity for women to provide for herself, now no longer has as much value


I don't agree with you there. While being a provider is not exclusively the domain of men any more, it isn't that it isn't important. Just because it's a shared burden doesn't lessen it's value. I would counter that being a husband and father is SO much more than just providing financial support, and while I know this is a "bad" opinion I'll get flamed for, I think not having that be the only thing fathers are good for is better for men on the whole. So many men I know really enjoy their children. They're involved and integrated into their kids' lives. That is more important than the traditional, "father as detached boss" parenting model of the past.


sokillme said:


> I damn sure know that RedPill is just more exploration of them


I think you mean "exploitation."  I agree. It's a grift that capitalizes on their emotional struggles. It sells them snake-oil promises of rivers of ***** "if you just follow these simple steps!" It's not new, but the internet has amplified it.


----------



## sokillme

TexasMom1216 said:


> I never thought of this, but you are so right. We (H and I) have always prioritized a healthy outlet for boy energy for our son, but now that I think about it, there really isn't what there used to be. I mean, Texas, so the boys play football. Not mine, he's a writer and artist, but most of the other boys are outside ramming into each other in football pads, working out all that teenaged testosterone. The bubble-wrap/snowplow parent movement has taken healthy physical outlets away from boys.


Emotional intelligence is the most valuable skillset in our social age. It's a superpower that can unfortunately be used for good or evil. But I think there is a nuance to teahing this to boys. I think focus needs to be addressed in an analytical way and less in the discussions of feelings. How do you feel, yes, but more why do you feel, what do you think that effects, how can you address that. Honestly both boys and girls need to be taught this.



TexasMom1216 said:


> Truth. And I can tell you from experience, fathers are VITAL. Not just for boys, but for girls too.


Amen.



TexasMom1216 said:


> I don't agree with you there. While being a provider is not exclusively the domain of men any more, it isn't that it isn't important. Just because it's a shared burden doesn't lessen it's value. I would counter that being a husband and father is SO much more than just providing financial support, and while I know this is a "bad" opinion I'll get flamed for, I think not having that be the only thing fathers are good for is better for men on the whole. So many men I know really enjoy their children. They're involved and integrated into their kids' lives. That is more important than the traditional, "father as detached boss" parenting model of the past.


I was speaking in the sense of a lot of men prioritize providing financially and forget or don't even realized that their wives don't prioritize this as much anymore and there are other aspects of relationships that are forgotten about. The guy who is working long hours whose wife is lonely and then is shocked when she is a walk away wife, because in his mind he was doing what he was taught made him a good husband. And it worked for his Dad. There has been a shift in the culture over the past two generations that a lot of guys were not raised to anticipate. I think societal norms are correcting this at this point and this isn't as much of a problem. But it shows itself in older couples still. 



TexasMom1216 said:


> I think you mean "exploitation."  I agree. It's a grift that capitalizes on their emotional struggles. It sells them snake-oil promises of rivers of *** "if you just follow these simple steps!" It's not new, but the internet has amplified it.


Yes I meant exploited.


----------



## Lila

farsidejunky said:


> In reference to number 3, do you have any figures broken down by sex? I have my suspicions, but would like to know facts.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


From what I recall, the numbers weren't split by sex but if I were to guess, more women use it for validation purposes while more men use it as a distraction (liking profile pictures of attractive women) or moreso window shopping ("see what's out there"). 

What are your suspicions?


----------



## farsidejunky

Lila said:


> From what I recall, the numbers weren't split by sex but if I were to guess, more women use it for validation purposes while more men use it as a distraction (liking profile pictures of attractive women) or moreso window shopping ("see what's out there").
> 
> What are your suspicions?


My suspicion (pure WAG, nothing to substantiate it) is that it is 80+% female that are in that segment. 

As we see with affairs, the currency for the female is attention. Factor in the impact of social media (of which online dating is an extension), and that the majority of social media consumers are female, and you have a perfect solution for the attention-needy female: all the attention they could possibly want from thirsty men, without having to give sex to get it.

I admit this is a rather cynical view, but it fits with patterns I have observed. 

Understand that as I say this, I don't believe this represents a vast (or even simple) majority of females over say 40 or so. But those under 30? I have little doubt. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## TexasMom1216

sokillme said:


> Emotional intelligence is the most valuable skillset in our social age.


It really is. Empathy makes relationships so much easier, and a lot of people don't have it. My H struggles with it, but my son is more like me. 


sokillme said:


> I was speaking in the sense of a lot of men prioritize providing financially and forget or don't even realized that their wives don't prioritize this as much anymore and there are other aspects of relationships that are forgotten about. The guy who is working long hours whose wife is lonely and then is shocked when she is a walk away wife, because in his mind he was doing what he was taught made him a good husband. And it worked for his Dad. There has been a shift in the culture over the past two generations that a lot of guys were not raised to anticipate. I think societal norms are correcting this at this point and this isn't as much of a problem. But it shows itself in older couples still.


Honestly, I think this has always been an issue, I don't think this is new. Most men would never have thought their wife was lonely or bored, it just never occurred to them. No malice, it was never introduced as a possibility. Not too long ago, a "good husband" was a guy who could mostly hold down a job and didn't put his wife in the hospital too often. Demands are a LOT higher now that women have so much independence, they are asking a lot more of men than to just pay the bills. (IN GENERAL, OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, no red pills were harmed in the typing of this post) I don't think those marriages were happier, or really even happy, so much as expectations were low. Everyone had their specific roles, there was no sharing or overlap in those roles, and no one expected any more than what was exactly prescribed for both the husband and the wife. Now everything is more equal and people are trying to work it out. It's hard for me to say it's a bad thing, I don't think it is. Marriage is more a partnership now, IMO, than it was in the past. (Acknowledging for transparency that my childhood was not ideal and my father was a red pill before it was cool, he hates women with a passion. So that colors my impressions of the past. I know that fact offends those who want to believe things were perfect before, and it's nice their parents made them think it was so they would have happy memories.)


----------



## Corgi Mum

sokillme said:


> Maybe your wife doesn't have enthusiastic sex with you like she did when she was 20 because she's **ing tired and 40 now. She is worried about real life, not grades like when she lived in the college, where her room and food were paid for by her parents. Sorry to say it but if you didn't have some college girl with no worries ** your brains out when you were there you probably missed your chance. Continuing my theme tonight, that's life..


Exactly. I didn't expect to get the same sexual performance (for lack of a better word) out of the men I dated when we're in our 40s and 50s as when we were in our 20s. The older guys, now we're starting to run into transient episodes of ED, more aches and pains that preclude sexual activity, lower frequency. Do I get bent out of shape that I;m not getting it 8 times a day like the woman he dated at 22 got? Nope. I accept that things change with age and experience, that's just how life works.


----------



## CharlieParker

Corgi Mum said:


> I accept that things change with age and experience, that's just how life works.


I don't "compare" myself with those who came before me (and there were many) but rather I tend to compare me now (54) to me when we got together (24). 

Purely physical between the sheets, then wins. All around, now. The learning curve to get there, and acceptance, was huge.


----------



## Real talk

sokillme said:


> Female identified men like me? Haha! To quote - "there is no men like me, only me."
> 
> You are right, young men need to find self worth, I have great empathy for that but it ain't between any woman's legs. Frankly in this respect forget about women. Young men need to learn how to be emotionally intelligent, not emotion, don't mistake the two. They need to learn how to be social, because we live in the social media age. They can first start with a level of platonic intimacy with each other, in their friendships. Have close enough male friends where they can be vulnerable enough to say, "I'm struggling". Talk to each other about that. It's good practice. They need to find their self worth in their own honor and hard work, it's not to be found in sex count or if women find them attractive or not. They need to understand that not everyone will appreciate that. And they need to accept that they MUST compete. If they do that there is no doubt then the women thing will work itself out.
> 
> Now if you want to argue that the general tone of the age is that there nature is bad or that their usefulness has passed, I will agree with you. If you want to argue that characteristics of boys such as aggressive play and things like that have been systematically seen as bad and punished, I will agree. Have we done our boys a disservice growing up, and neglected that they may learn differently then girls, yes. But we have also done them a disservice by telling them there is a gold pot to be found in every women's bed and that there worth as a MAN is in the number of girls they can sleep with. That just compounds the problem.
> 
> Let me put it to you this way, Wilt Chamberlain supposedly slept with 10,000 women or something right? The vast majority of them weren't Linda Carter, that's for sure.
> 
> All I know is that don't sound like heaven to me.
> 
> And yes some women suck and cheat. I know first hand, I proposed to a women who then I caught cheating on me about 2 weeks later. Was she monkey branching, who know, who cares, not me. It hurt like hell but I ghosted her and moved on to the next one, who hasn't cheated so far as far as I can tell.
> 
> Besides every time I try to make those points defending young men someone starts talking about George Clooney and knee pads and I find myself agreeing with the women. They're not entertainment or food for us to consume. That attitude is the reason why a lot of young men have trouble. To follow the nomenclature "Females" are living breathing people, who if you get the right one will run though fire with you. Who will take care of you and allow you to make it your mission to take care of them. They're our sisters and mothers. They are not trophies or ways to judge our worth. In regards to that, having a lot of them want to have sex with you doesn't make you and alpha, having just one trust you enough to give you responsibility to have children with, or base her emotional health does though, at least in my eyes. They are not some sports car that you point to and say, see what an Alpha I am I got this sports car. Put the internet down, you are hurting yourself.
> 
> You want to have intimacy with a women then you need to talk to her, get to know them stop thinking of her as just a way to your own personal pleasure. It's **ing crazy that I even have to write that, but a hell of a lot of the manosphere thinks in this twisted way. ****ing involuntary celibacy and all that nonsense, like anyone is entitled to sex. WTF? That's that sasquash hunting ** again, it ain't real.
> 
> I get the temptation to be bitter after being cheated on, I really do. After I got cheated on what I did was to get way more discriminating, because I was much more aware that some women are duplicitous. I didn't date that much, or pursue many, I just looked for a women of character and when I met her I pounced. My count is low but my gratitude is high. When it comes to women, right now I don't have to worry about how they work anymore, only how my wife does.
> 
> I really wish young men could have this experience, but they need to be taught the right things for that to happen.


I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point? 

This thread is about men getting sex who aren't getting the same sex previous partners got. From skimming this you're ranting about men getting a woman to have sex with you and cheating. It sounds like your fishing for cosigns? Mj
en are entitled to get whatever out of life they deem appropriate. Whether it's abundant sex or fruitful relationships. As long as they understand the concept of earning it.


----------



## Real talk

CallingDrLove said:


> What’s always seemed odd to me is that the PUA, Red Pill, MGTOW communities are obsessed with what they seemingly hate.


These are three completely different communities with different objectives and thought processes. 


CallingDrLove said:


> They absolutely hate women at their core and yet are obsessed with getting sex from women. Women pick up on that and it drives them away.


None of them hate women, they hate societal hypocricies and gynocentrism. The only group that hates women are incels, but they hate everyone. Men who are red pilled are very successful with women actually. 


CallingDrLove said:


> They screw a lot and have lots of kids. That’s the world I see.


You don't know what's going on in their bedrooms.


----------



## samyeagar

Another variant of this that is often times difficult to reconcile is that many times, she will be doing all kinds of things in an attempt to keep or appease a partner that she knows is bad, abusive, using her, but won't with someone who is good.

On the one hand, it is good to know that she feels safe enough in the new relationship that she doesn't feel like she has to things in order to keep it. On the other hand, if she'll put in all that effort to keep a bad relationship, one would naturally think she'd put in even more to keep the good one.

Objectively, one can understand the fight or flight and unhealthy, unsafe dynamic pushing her to do things, but that is directly contradictory to the idea that she needs to feel safe in order to do things. Which circles back around to she did all these things with someone who objectively treated her like crap, but won't with someone who treats her well.


----------



## Real talk

samyeagar said:


> But that is the lie of Red Pill. Or at least the truth of it that is buried. Red Pill is the antithesis of that. It's sole true metric is bedding women, and in that regard, it works pretty well. The problem is, it is often sold as, or interpreted as relationship advice, when it absolutely is nothing of the sort. It will help you bed women, while simultaneously it will drive the good, healthy women away.


So you're saying the women who are out here having sex aren't good healthy women?

Which is probably right. But what makes you think the goal of red pill is to bed women?

There is a lot of misinformation spread about it from people who don't know anything about it in order to castigate it because it's self serving which isn't acceptable for men.


----------



## Lila

farsidejunky said:


> My suspicion (pure WAG, nothing to substantiate it) is that it is 80+% female that are in that segment.
> 
> As we see with affairs, the currency for the female is attention. Factor in the impact of social media (of which online dating is an extension), and that the majority of social media consumers are female, and you have a perfect solution for the attention-needy female: all the attention they could possibly want from thirsty men, without having to give sex to get it.
> 
> I admit this is a rather cynical view, but it fits with patterns I have observed.
> 
> Understand that as I say this, I don't believe this represents a vast (or even simple) majority of females over say 40 or so. But those under 30? I have little doubt.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


I know this is all a guess but I'll tell you why I don't think it's 80% female. 

The studies also showed 25-40% were profiles for people in already committed relationships. There is overlap on #3 and #4. 

When I was online dating, about 1:3 profiles were for married guys looking to cheat. These were profiles that were not hiding the fact. They were looking for "discrete" relationships and photos were headless or from weird angles making it impossible to identify the person. I'm not sure if men see the same thing from women but the sheer volume on my end was eye opening. 

It's tougher to pinpoint the guys with girlfriends looking to do the same only because they have plausible excuses. "I never deactivated my account" or "I was on there deleting my messages", etc. I can see women doing the same in a dating situation. Again, would love to hear if guys see this on their end. 

Honestly, I think Instagram is a better source for validation than any online dating platform. A young woman just needs to post a 5 second video of herself modeling an outfit and will have thousands of followers within a day.


----------



## QuietRiot

Real talk said:


> Don't be a ***, @ me when referencing me.
> 
> How much time do you think it takes to write a post every couple of days? You've managed to balance trolling with bagging groceries with scanning Craigslist personals for husbands quite successfully, I assure you it's not that hard to write a few paragraphs white taking a ****.


Wait…. I can get a husband on Craigslist? How much are they? 😍


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Real talk said:


> Don't be a ***, @ me when referencing me.
> 
> How much time do you think it takes to write a post every couple of days? You've managed to balance trolling with bagging groceries with scanning Craigslist personals for husbands quite successfully, I assure you it's not that hard to write a few paragraphs white taking a ****.


Wtf?


----------



## Numb26

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Wtf?


Yeah, someone got triggered


----------



## CallingDrLove

Guys, let’s respect the alpha male who has graced us with his presence.


----------



## TXTrini

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Wtf?


I think he poo pooed his panties and needs a time out.


----------



## Lila

CallingDrLove said:


> Guys, let’s respect the alpha male who has graced us with his presence.


----------



## Twodecades

QuietRiot said:


> Wait…. I can get a husband on Craigslist? How much are they? 😍


No, no, NO! Everyone uses FB Marketplace for that now. Jeez. 🙄


----------



## CallingDrLove

The key is shopping for used wedding dresses on Facebook marketplace you can even filter by size.


----------



## ConanHub

TXTrini said:


> Isn't it ironic that the guy making fun of women looks like a douche? Why wear sunglasses on a video? 😂 He looks like a PUA! It's extremely hard to take him seriously because he doesn't present himself as someone who cares about relationships, just butthurt that he can't score because these hoity-toity women think they're too good to slum it and are ruining it for everybody!
> 
> He has some points, but at the end of the day, it's other men responsible for the inflated egos of these women. If they didn't swipe on every warm body, it might be more balanced.


LoL. He wears the glasses because of some kind of light exposure from the studio. He has a show he does with a lady co host and she wears them too.

He doesn't have problems interacting with women but is a male advocate (especially young men just starting out) similar to some lady male advocates.

I'm under the impression he might have lost a friend or two to the hopelessness and loneliness that is impacting a lot of young men. He's covered a wide range of topics that are effecting young men today.

He did one show where a misandrist group (I refuse to call them feminists) targeted a seminar on male suicide and were extremely hostile. I'll never forget one interaction between a young man and a heartless misandrist.

He was explaining that his best friend killed himself and he just wanted to get past the protesters to get in and maybe learn what was going on with his friend and maybe be able to help other friends to not kill themselves.

The misandrist never stopped screaming in his face about rape, the patriarchy and how the men's mental health seminar was really just oppressing her and she didn't give a shyt about his friend or why he was there.

Now, I don't see everything like this young content creator does. I've had the time to work through a lot of things he hasn't. I do believe his motivations are benign though and he is dealing with the mess, that is young people today, with the tools he has.

He also does not give lazy, ridiculous, pathetic men a pass. He is always advising men to work on themselves and improve themselves.

He's advised a lot of young men to actually put off the pursuit of women for years until they have actually made something of themselves.

They focal point of the video, for me, was the crazy results of the Tinder experiment.

It did show that a ripped and attractive man will try and match with an objectively iffy at best looking woman. (I'm referring to the man who did a terrible computer makeover into a woman that did not look well) LoL!

@Lila 's research puts some of it in perspective but there is certainly a massive slant to Tinder regardless.


----------



## Livvie

samyeagar said:


> Another variant of this that is often times difficult to reconcile is that many times, she will be doing all kinds of things in an attempt to keep or appease a partner that she knows is bad, abusive, using her, but won't with someone who is good.
> 
> On the one hand, it is good to know that she feels safe enough in the new relationship that she doesn't feel like she has to things in order to keep it. On the other hand, if she'll put in all that effort to keep a bad relationship, one would naturally think she'd put in even more to keep the good one.
> 
> Objectively, one can understand the fight or flight and unhealthy, unsafe dynamic pushing her to do things, but that is directly contradictory to the idea that she needs to feel safe in order to do things. Which circles back around to she did all these things with someone who objectively treated her like crap, but won't with someone who treats her well.


It's because she doesn't think the nice polite giving guy she married for stability and $$ is going anywhere, he won't divorce her and he won't even lower his level of service in meeting her needs, no matter how crappy the relationship she provides him.

It blows my mind every time.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

KindBuddha said:


> So the trope "I tried it before, I didn't like it, no one can MAKE ME do THAT!" is pretty much nonsense, as proved by how wives typically behave in the throes of a lusty love affair. They will do any seedy, depraved, whorish act that they think will please their lover, typically.


So the small percentage of women that cheat on their husbands AND do sex acts with their AP they didn't do with their husbands condem all the other women that exclude certain sex acts to being liars?

ETA: Actually I think you are including those that didn't cheat as liars too.


----------



## CallingDrLove

As someone with a wife who did something with a past boyfriend that she wouldn’t do with me who eventually initiated it enthusiastically with me I see many sides to this.

Of course a husband is entitled to his feelings and these situations suck for the husband and make you feel like less of a man. I get all that. I’m also a pragmatist though and I know that no man has ever sulked his way into a woman’s ass before. It just doesn’t work like that. It’s not even about how physically attractive you are it’s about how you make a woman feel emotionally. Sulking and whining does not get her there. Yeah, maybe they SHOULD just force themselves to do it out of the kindness of their heart and it’s the just thing to do but that’s not happening so guys need to stop sulking for what’s right and fair. 

Edit: I’m not actually arguing that women should force themselves to do anything, that was more of a Devil’s Advocate argument.


----------



## TXTrini

BigDaddyNY said:


> So the small percentage of women that cheat on their husbands AND do sex acts with their AP they didn't do with their husbands condem all the other women that exclude certain sex acts to being liars?
> 
> ETA: Actually I think you are including those that didn't cheat as liars too.


Don't worry; many of us are aware of how hostile he is to women and aren't taking anything he says seriously.


----------



## DudeInProgress

Real talk said:


> There are no actions that a man can take in order to pull out those animalistic traits from a woman. Women provide them based on who a man is, not his actions.
> 
> That athlete you blew in the bathroom on spring break didn't do anything special. He was tall enough, good looking enough, had the energetic personality that gave you validation by earning his attention. Your favorite celebrity wouldn't have to do *anything* to get you to do cirque du soleil in his bedroom.
> 
> The programmer you married is none of those things but provides you the commitment the higher value men didn't want to provide. So women have no desire to do those things unless they appreciate and value him for his dedication and willingness to commit.
> 
> The issue here isn't the man, it's women who marry men they don't value.


You are correct in your assessment, but completely wrong about your conclusions.
And you’re focused in the entirety wrong direction.

The short answer is that you need to BE that guy.

There IS a lot you can do to build yourself into the kind of man that is respected and desired by women, so that they will want to do those things with you.

And there’s nothing stopping the programmer that she married from hitting the gym, picking up some interesting hobbies, learning how to flirt and be charming and becoming a very sexually desirable man.

Everything else is a ******** excuse. It may not be fair, but it’s the way things are. So stop whining about reality, and take ownership for becoming a man who is able to thrive in that reality.


----------



## farsidejunky

Livvie said:


> It's because she doesn't think the nice polite giving guy she married for stability and $$ is going anywhere, he won't divorce her and he won't even lower his level of service in meeting her needs, no matter how crappy the relationship she provides him.
> 
> It blows my mind every time.


This is why I am a huge proponent of upsetting the apple cart. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila

Some of the responses on this thread are fascinating. They seem to indicate that only a husband's sexual desires are important in a marriage. Anything short of complete acquiescence makes a husband feel less than fully desired. 

Let me explain. If the woman hasn't tried a specific sex act, then the expectation is for her to experiment with her spouse because then the argument is "how else will she know she doesn't like it if she doesn't try it." But if the woman has tried a specific sex act with a previous lover, then the expectation is that she must perform it with her spouse regardless of her desire to do so or not. Unless.....it is something the husband's not into in which case, he's not doing it regardless of whether she wants to or not. 

Have I got this straight?


----------



## TXTrini

ConanHub said:


> LoL. He wears the glasses because of some kind of light exposure from the studio. He has a show he does with a lady co host and she wears them too.
> 
> He doesn't have problems interacting with women but is a male advocate (especially young men just starting out) similar to some lady male advocates.
> 
> I'm under the impression he might have lost a friend or two to the hopelessness and loneliness that is impacting a lot of young men. He's covered a wide range of topics that are effecting young men today.
> 
> He did one show where a misandrist group (I refuse to call them feminists) targeted a seminar on male suicide and were extremely hostile. I'll never forget one interaction between a young man and a heartless misandrist.
> 
> He was explaining that his best friend killed himself and he just wanted to get past the protesters to get in and maybe learn what was going on with his friend and maybe be able to help other friends to not kill themselves.
> 
> The misandrist never stopped screaming in his face about rape, the patriarchy and how the men's mental health seminar was really just oppressing her and she didn't give a shyt about his friend or why he was there.
> 
> Now, I don't see everything like this young content creator does. I've had the time to work through a lot of things he hasn't. I do believe his motivations are benign though and he is dealing with the mess, that is young people today, with the tools he has.
> 
> He also does not give lazy, ridiculous, pathetic men a pass. He is always advising men to work on themselves and improve themselves.
> 
> He's advised a lot of young men to actually put off the pursuit of women for years until they have actually made something of themselves.


Ok, I'll take your word on it. I understand how his personal experiences would slant his view and am happy to hear he's being reasonable about it and trying to genuinely help men in that position instead of take advantage of them when they're down. There are so many bottomfeeders on the internet looking to make a quick buck and don't care how it affects people's lives.

If self-improvement is his advice, it's great advice. Unfortunately, some people would rather whine about their situation than changes themselves to change their situation.

Maybe that's happening on Tinder, but Tinder started out as a hookup app, even if it has evolved to become more, so it follows that it would have a more seedy clientele to fit its reputation. It would be interesting to see if this phenomenon repeated itself across more reputable OLD apps.



ConanHub said:


> They focal point of the video, for me, was the crazy results of the Tinder experiment.
> 
> It did show that a ripped and attractive man will try and match with an objectively iffy at best looking woman. (I'm referring to the man who did a terrible computer makeover into a woman that did not look well) LoL!
> 
> @Lila 's research puts some of it in perspective but there is certainly a massive slant to Tinder regardless.


I had very different experiences on different apps in my very short stint OLD, which reflected "you get what you pay for". The free apps provided a different kind of vibe, compared to the paid ones, even if many of the same people populated them. I found that men behaved better on the paid apps, and I didn't get many sleazy to downright disgusting approaches on the "better quality" apps. Some OLD TAMmers experiences reflected what I observed, I have no idea of course what men experience on the other side, maybe something similar? 

As for the super fit men matching with iffy women, that's something men should be pissed at other men for, not women. It's human nature to try to get the best they can get, don't we see time and again how men excuse the ****ty behavior of some women if they're "hot enough". I mean, if anything, that "study" showed me how little self-respect some men have to be that thirsty.


----------



## TXTrini

DudeInProgress said:


> You are correct in your assessment, but completely wrong about your conclusions.
> And you’re focused in the entirety wrong direction.
> 
> The short answer is that you need to BE that guy.
> 
> There IS a lot you can do to build yourself into the kind of man that is respected and desired by women, so that they will want to do those things with you.
> 
> *And there’s nothing stopping the programmer that she married from hitting the gym, picking up some interesting hobbies, learning how to flirt and be charming and becoming a very sexually desirable man.
> 
> Everything else is a **** excuse. It may not be fair, but it’s the way things are. So stop whining about reality, and take ownership for becoming a man who is able to thrive in that reality.*


It's easier to ***** and moan than to do something constructive that'll actually produce results. This isn't a male vs. female thing either, lazy, whiny people do this.


----------



## TXTrini

Lila said:


> Some of the responses on this thread are fascinating. They seem to indicate that only a husband's sexual desires are important in a marriage. Anything short of complete acquiescence makes a husband feel less than fully desired.
> 
> Let me explain. If the woman hasn't tried a specific sex act, then the expectation is for her to experiment with her spouse because then the argument is "how else will she know she doesn't like it if she doesn't try it." But if the woman has tried a specific sex act with a previous lover, then the expectation is that she must perform it with her spouse regardless of her desire to do so or not. Unless.....it is something the husband's not into in which case, he's not doing it regardless of whether she wants to or not.
> 
> Have I got this straight?


Yup. You just can't win there. Luckily not everyone is so myopic and selfish, so it's best to leave people with that attitude alone. Then they can play with themselves.


----------



## Lila

TXTrini said:


> It's human nature to try to get the best they can get, don't we see time and again how men excuse the ****ty behavior of some women if they're "hot enough". I mean, if anything, that "study" showed me how little self-respect some men have to be that thirsty


I saw this video on FB today. Imagine this on a dating app scale. How many hundreds of women did those guys pass up for the beautiful girl?


----------



## TXTrini

Lila said:


> I saw this video on FB today. Imagine this on a dating app scale. How many hundreds of women did those guys pass up for the beautiful girl?


Yeah, they forget some of them do that... How many shows have we seen about the nerd drooling over the cheerleader ignoring girls who are interested in him? That's why I don't understand why some whine that life isn't fair and legitimately expect other people to change their behavior to accommodate them. The world doesn't work that way; this topic is another aspect of that.


----------



## RandomDude

Lila said:


> I saw this video on FB today. Imagine this on a dating app scale. How many hundreds of women did those guys pass up for the beautiful girl?





TXTrini said:


> Yeah, they forget some of them do that... How many shows have we seen about the nerd drooling over the cheerleader ignoring girls who are interested in him? That's why I don't understand why some whine that life isn't fair and legitimately expect other people to change their behavior to accommodate them. The world doesn't work that way; this topic is another aspect of that.


Oh come on  

You ladies do it too, why you think these guys even made all this alpha/beta pseudo shat to begin with!


----------



## RandomDude

KindBuddha said:


> The nerd can drool over who ever he wants. Just like the cheerleader can drool over whoever she wants. However, if the cheerleader marries the nerd and denies him the same sexual acts she gave to the football captain, telling the nerd lies to justify it, then she is abusing her husband. Not a "nerd."


But if she tells the nerd the truth, and she just doesn't want to do it, whether with him or just the act itself, she has every right to say no.

Sex can be an expectation but should never be an obligation.


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> Oh come on
> 
> You ladies do it too, why you think these guys even made all this alpha/beta pseudo shat to begin with!


And?

You know very well it's not acceptable either, and people rightly blame them for getting screwed over when they overlook decent men for showy ones of little character and substance.


----------



## TXTrini

RandomDude said:


> But if she tells the nerd the truth, and she just doesn't want to do it, whether with him or just the act itself, she has every right to say no.
> 
> *Sex can be an expectation but should never be an obligation.*


Which is what those guys don't want to understand. I honestly DGAF, I don't have any skin in the game. However, it just seems like a huge waste of time to complain about things beyond your power instead of doing what is.


----------



## Lila

KindBuddha said:


> O.K. Who in this thread stated "that only a husband's sexual desires are important in a marriage"? I didn't see that posted anywhere, by anyone.



It doesn't have to be implicitly stated to be understood. So yes, I stand by all of my statements. 



> I agree with "anything short of complete acquiescence makes a husband feel less than fully desired" because that is a tautological statement. If acquiesence to the husband's sexual desires is "incomplete," then clearly, he is "less than fully desired." Tautology accepted.


Unfortunately, marriage doesn't entitle a spouse to everything he/she wants especially if it's at the cost of their partner's mental, physical, or emotional health. That's childish thinking. 



> No one stated your reasoning as to your next statement, "how else is she to know she doesn't like it if she doesn't try it." But how does the fact that a woman tried a specific sex act with a previous lover, indicative of how she will feel about trying that same act with her current husband? That's like saying you will never kiss another man, including your husband, because your first boyfriend was a bad kisser. Does that really make sense to you?


This is a standard TAM belief. You may have not been here long enough to have seen it yet. Give it time. 

I know I'm wasting my time responding to you but there are sex acts that women AND men don't want to repeat regardless of the partner. They don't care to try it again. Period. Why is that so difficult to respect?





> No one ever said a husband isn't held to the same standards of at the least trying stuff with his wife, even if he might have done it with a prior girlfriend and didn't like it. You just made that up, entirely. But yes--if for example a guy had oral with a prior girlfriend (him giving it to her), and it was terrible because she had bad hygeine, it would be equally wrong for him to refuse it to his wife. But then no one ever absolved the husband from exactly the same standard in terms of sexual exploration with his wife, then the wife is being held to. Again, that was something you just made up.


Let's try a different example. Husband was pegged by a previous lover. For whatever reason, he doesn't want to have it done to him again. His wife wants to try it. Is he wrong to refuse her?


----------



## Lila

KindBuddha said:


> What you are attempting to invalidate by inappropriate shaming--husbands who are dissatisifed with their marital sex lives--and essentially shaming them into silence, are real feelings, desires and emotions.


Pot meet kettle. The OP is shaming women into performing sex acts they don't want to perform. If you don't like men being shamed for their desires, don't shame women for theirs.


----------



## CharlieParker

I've done X in the past and don't want to do it again, because I really didn't like X. Or, I've never done Y, because if I had the slightest interest in it I would have already tried Y.

Let X = butt stuff and Y = bungie jumping, is there really a difference? (And why does Jimmy have 47 watermelons in his car? Sorry, channeling HS math word problems.)


----------



## Lila

RandomDude said:


> Oh come on
> 
> You ladies do it too, why you think these guys even made all this alpha/beta pseudo shat to begin with!


Yes they do but the difference is we're not making ourselves victims.

The title of the video was "men will be men" and most women will laugh at it because it is truth. Do you think a similar video with genders reversed will get the same laughs from men? I'm going to guess there will be a lot of anger directed towards it.


----------



## RandomDude

Lila said:


> Yes they do but the difference is we're not making ourselves victims.
> 
> The title of the video was "men will be men" and most women will laugh at it because it is truth. Do you think a similar video with genders reversed will get the same laughs from men? I'm going to guess there will be a lot of anger directed towards it.


Hahahahaha if there was a video like that, it wouldn't be the men angry about it


----------



## DudeInProgress

Lila said:


> I know I'm wasting my time responding to you but there are sex acts that women AND men don't want to repeat regardless of the partner. They don't care to try it again. Period. Why is that so difficult to respect?
> 
> Let's try a different example. Husband was pegged by a previous lover. For whatever reason, he doesn't want to have it done to him again. His wife wants to try it. Is he wrong to refuse her?


You’re focusing on scenarios where an act was tried and hated, and hence never repeated for anyone.
I don’t think that’s what’s driving most of the controversy. I think most folks are referencing scenarios where she used to do an act regularly for other(s) but refuses for her husband, not that she tried it once and hated it.


----------



## TXTrini

DudeInProgress said:


> You’re focusing on scenarios where an act was tried and hated, and hence never repeated for anyone.
> I don’t think that’s what’s driving most of the controversy. I think most folks are referencing scenarios where she used to do an act regularly for other(s) but refuses for her husband, not that she tried it once and hated it.


So she can't change her mind?

Sex is incredibly personal, I think expecting someone to do x, y and z to get your jollies off when they don't want to for whatever reason is incredibly selfish, and childish to whine about it. 

If performing those acts are that important, then it's time to divorce and part ways. Women are quite used to some men having mid-life crises and running off with other secretaries, so they'll survive.


----------



## RandomDude

I reckon it's legitimate concerns but I also agree the parties involved need to just decide to accept it or leave.


----------



## Lila

DudeInProgress said:


> You’re focusing on scenarios where an act was tried and hated, and hence never repeated for anyone.
> I don’t think that’s what’s driving most of the controversy. I think most folks are referencing scenarios where she used to do an act regularly for other(s) but refuses for her husband, not that she tried it once and hated it.


I'm not just focusing on scenarios a woman tried something and didn't like it. I posted examples from my own life.



Lila said:


> Before I met my ex-husband, I dated someone with whom I used to go to raves and do X. X heightens senses and is known as the "love" drug. Touch, kissing, sex, all of it is exponentially better. It's an amazing experience.
> 
> About 10 years into my marriage, my ex husband asked about doing X together and I said no. It's not that I didn't like it when I tried it but with a young child in toe, I didn't feel comfortable doing that. For the record, my ex was a great provider and I have always (even today) found him incredibly attractive. I was just at a different stage in my life. Simple as that.
> 
> Here's another example. I'm almost 100% sure my first boyfriend in college was bisexual. He liked to be pegged, so I did it, and enjoyed it. Neither my ex husband or my current bf are into that but if they were, I wouldn't do it. But here's the interesting thing. I probably would if I hadn't had deep feelings for them. Go figure.
> 
> I have certain expectations of a long term partner and the sexual dynamic in a loving relationship. If my bf considers pegging a sexual need, I would still find him incredibly attractive, but he wouldn't be my bf for long


And I posted the reasons why a woman would not want to do sex acts with their current partner that were done previously.



Lila said:


> Each relationship is unique. They are made up of hundreds, if not thousands of different attributes determined by things like life stage, emotional maturity, life goals, mental space, and sexual health to name a few.
> 
> I can't speak for all women, but I am one of those women who won't discuss sexual history with anyone. I didn't do it with my ex husband or with any of the men I've dated since my divorce. I think it creates a no win situation. Divulging that information sets up an expectation for the "repertoire" of sexual acts I will perform, which I don't do.


----------



## DudeInProgress

TXTrini said:


> So she can't change her mind?
> 
> Sex is incredibly personal, I think expecting someone to do x, y and z to get your jollies off when they don't want to for whatever reason is incredibly selfish, and childish to whine about it.
> 
> If performing those acts are that important, then it's time to divorce and part ways. Women are quite used to some men having mid-life crises and running off with other secretaries, so they'll survive.


She CAN do whatever she wants. That doesn’t mean her husband has to accept or tolerate it.

And if a wife used to do an act regularly for others, but refuses for her husband, it absolutely does speak volumes about how she views him. And it’s not the way he wants his wife to view him.

And as I’ve already said, it then becomes his responsibility to either be the man she’ll do it with, leave and find someone else who actually desires him enough to do it, or shut up. 

I don’t like impotent whiners either, but it doesn’t mean their grievance isn’t valid. It just means they’re not taking ownership of their situation, and as a result will probably remain stuck in their substandard situation.


----------



## TXTrini

DudeInProgress said:


> She CAN do whatever she wants. That doesn’t mean her husband has to accept or tolerate it.
> 
> And if a wife used to do an act regularly for others, but refuses for her husband, it absolutely does speak volumes about how she views him. And it’s not the way he wants his wife to view him.
> 
> And as I’ve already said, it then becomes his responsibility to either be the man she’ll do it with, leave and find someone else who actually desires him enough to do it, or shut up.
> 
> I don’t like impotent whiners either, but it doesn’t mean their grievance isn’t valid. It just means they’re not taking ownership of their situation, and as a result will probably remain stuck in their substandard situation.


Exactly.

Hence the saying, "put up or shut up".


----------



## BigDaddyNY

KindBuddha said:


> No one "condemned" anyone. "Condemned" means "sentenced to a punishment, especially death" and an alternative definition is "officially declared unfit for use."


Okay, you called them all liars. Is that better?


----------



## RandomDude

It is sad though, because sometimes you really want your partner to be happy, but you just can't give them that. It's not all about malicious neglect.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Ive been married a really long time and I've personally witnessed that preferences just change. There were certain sex acts my wife told me she would never do while we were dating. Years later she did it regularly. Then there will be stretches of time, months or maybe even years where she just isn't thrilled about doing it, then she goes back to loving it. This isn't rocket science. People's preference change. It isnt always because of some evil intention.


----------



## TXTrini

BigDaddyNY said:


> Ive been married a really long time and I've personally witnessed that preferences just change. There were certain sex acts my wife told me she would never do while we were dating. Years later she did it regularly. Then there will be stretches of time, months or maybe even years where she just isn't thrilled about doing it, then she goes back to loving it. This isn't rocket science. People's preference change. It isnt always because of some evil intention.


The way you talk about your wife shows that you genuinely care about her as a person, and respect her boundaries. That's very attractive, I'm not surprised she had a change of heart.


----------



## Corgi Mum

sokillme said:


> Again I don't claim to be an expert and would hope that the women here would correct me if I'm wrong but my observation is that women's attraction to us is a lot less visually then a man's is.


You are definitely not wrong. Spot on, in fact.


----------



## RandomDude

KindBuddha said:


> Now you're throwing out what at one time (and maybe still) used to be a cliche--"a woman has the right to change her mind" in the context of condescendingly describing stereotypical female fickleness from a misogynistic viewpoint.
> 
> Sure "a woman has the right to change her mind", or be as fickle, as she wants to be. That doesn't make it any the less arbitrary.
> 
> And besides, the whole issue is also combined with her lack of honesty early in the relationship. Did she tell her soon to be husband that she had done all kinds of kinky sex with prior boyfriends, enjoyed it, but now "changed her mind" about those acts, and would refuse to ever do those previously-enjoyed acts with her husband?
> 
> Or did she conceal her sexual history, and her sexual agenda for the marriage, knowing that disclosure would cast her in a possibly very negative light with her fiancee?
> 
> If she was completely open and honest about her prior sexual history AND that she was not going to share the prior kinkiness with her future husband, i.e. deny him what she freely gave supposedly less valued males (non-husbands), then he has a fair opportunity to bail out of the relationship if he feels that it is important to him.
> 
> It is the combination of the overt or covert dishonesty about her sexual history, PLUS the dishonesty with her husband, PLUS the denial of sexual acts she shared freely with prior, less important partners, that causes the entire issue.
> 
> Now, tell me again that a woman's prior sexual history doesn't matter and is none of her spouse's business.


If there is dishonesty forget the sex, a relationship is a 3 legged stool and with one of its legs shaky, sooner or later it's going to tip.


----------



## Corgi Mum

KindBuddha said:


> But how does the fact that a woman tried a specific sex act with a previous lover, indicative of how she will feel about trying that same act with her current husband? That's like saying you will never kiss another man, including your husband, because your first boyfriend was a bad kisser. Does that really make sense to you?


Simple. Sometimes it's the act itself that is unpleasant and not the partner's role in it. There's nothing a different person could do to make it remotely enjoyable.


----------



## ConanHub

TXTrini said:


> Ok, I'll take your word on it. I understand how his personal experiences would slant his view and am happy to hear he's being reasonable about it and trying to genuinely help men in that position instead of take advantage of them when they're down. There are so many bottomfeeders on the internet looking to make a quick buck and don't care how it affects people's lives.
> 
> If self-improvement is his advice, it's great advice. Unfortunately, some people would rather whine about their situation than changes themselves to change their situation.
> 
> Maybe that's happening on Tinder, but Tinder started out as a hookup app, even if it has evolved to become more, so it follows that it would have a more seedy clientele to fit its reputation. It would be interesting to see if this phenomenon repeated itself across more reputable OLD apps.
> 
> 
> I had very different experiences on different apps in my very short stint OLD, which reflected "you get what you pay for". The free apps provided a different kind of vibe, compared to the paid ones, even if many of the same people populated them. I found that men behaved better on the paid apps, and I didn't get many sleazy to downright disgusting approaches on the "better quality" apps. Some OLD TAMmers experiences reflected what I observed, I have no idea of course what men experience on the other side, maybe something similar?
> 
> As for the super fit men matching with iffy women, that's something men should be pissed at other men for, not women. It's human nature to try to get the best they can get, don't we see time and again how men excuse the ****ty behavior of some women if they're "hot enough". I mean, if anything, that "study" showed me how little self-respect some men have to be that thirsty.


The content creator was bagging on men. He is absolutely against simps behaving like weirdos. LoL!


----------



## RandomDude

Corgi Mum said:


> Simple. Sometimes it's the act itself that is unpleasant and not the partner's role in it. There's nothing a different person could do to make it remotely enjoyable.


Sometimes, but sometimes things are also just sacred. Also some things should really just stay in the past, it's all valid reasons.

Also @ thread, if your partner refuses a sex act but is passionately into you in other ways is it really that important? I understand the need to feel desired and all but 😑


----------



## RandomDude

KindBuddha said:


> But wouldn't honesty require the woman to tell her future husband exactly what you just said, but in a manner which accurately conveys her prior sexual history, in context?
> 
> So: "Honey if we get married I will NEVER give you a BJ because I tried it with one of my prior boyfriends and it was so disgusting to me that just the thought of trying it with you is disgusting to me?"
> 
> That's not the situation the thread-starter was talking about. Please re-read the thread starter's first couple of posts in this thread. The situation involved a woman who had repeatedly performed bjs on multiple prior boyfriends with relish and enjoyment and skill; but lied to her husband about all that as her explanation for refusing to ever perform the act on him.
> 
> *In other words just be honest about who you really are if you want to marry someone, and tell the damn truth, both about your past, and your future intentions. Then there won't be any surprises.
> 
> Tell the truth. That's all. People seem to have a lot of trouble doing that with the person they should be the most honest with, their own spouse.*


In strictly OP's scenario, yes. I think we get carried away with all the other scenarios because this is one of the most popular and recurring debates we have here on TAM. 

"She did it with him and not with me!" version etc etc


----------



## DudeInProgress

RandomDude said:


> Also @ thread, if your partner refuses a sex act but is passionately into you in other ways is it really that important? I understand the need to feel desired and all but 😑


Depends what the act is. 
Sometimes we hear about situations where the “off-limits” act is something most would consider quite basic and expected. In those cases, yeah, I’d consider it pretty important.


----------



## RandomDude

Fair enough I'm not sure I would settle with a woman who won't give BJs either so lol

But if it's stuff like swallowing, anal, positions, wild MFFFFF reverse gangbangs, photos together, public bangings, or the other kinky crap meh.


----------



## QuietRiot

This whole thing is ridiculous. People are not the same throughout life, we evolve. In our mind, body, emotion, and yes sexually. There are a lot of things that people do, especially when they are young, that push boundaries that they didn’t even know should have been there. 

Maybe they appeared to enjoy it, maybe they did enjoy it, maybe they just had curiosity and it’s done. I don’t know why, but it doesn’t matter why. You can’t watch a video like that and assume you know what’s going on in her head or what she’s feeling, maybe felt the need to perform because she used to be horribly insecure or fake orgasms with that guy too. It could have been hysterically bonding and an abuse cycle. Or maybe she just doesn’t like it anymore because she’s changed as a person and so has her body and maybe so has her butt. Yes. Bodies change. A lot. It has nothing to do with females, men could do the same thing, have different preferences, like something kinky and then not like it a decade later. Who cares! If you like and love the person you’re with and you have a good sex life and do other things that you probably never did with other people… what.does.it.matter. 

If you don’t want a whiff of ****, stay out of peoples dirty laundry. Another word to the wise about video in the bedroom. It’s all fun and games until it haunts you for life. 

I swear some people just have to go LOOKING for reasons to be pissed off or victimized.


----------



## Lila

KindBuddha said:


> Now you're throwing out what at one time (and maybe still) used to be a cliche--"a woman has the right to change her mind" in the context of condescendingly describing stereotypical female fickleness from a misogynistic viewpoint.
> 
> Sure "a woman has the right to change her mind", or be as fickle, as she wants to be. That doesn't make it any the less arbitrary.
> 
> And besides, the whole issue is also combined with her lack of honesty early in the relationship. Did she tell her soon to be husband that she had done all kinds of kinky sex with prior boyfriends, enjoyed it, but now "changed her mind" about those acts, and would refuse to ever do those previously-enjoyed acts with her husband?
> 
> Or did she conceal her sexual history, and her sexual agenda for the marriage, knowing that disclosure would cast her in a possibly very negative light with her fiancee?
> 
> If she was completely open and honest about her prior sexual history AND that she was not going to share the prior kinkiness with her future husband, i.e. deny him what she freely gave supposedly less valued males (non-husbands), then he has a fair opportunity to bail out of the relationship if he feels that it is important to him.
> 
> It is the combination of the overt or covert dishonesty about her sexual history, PLUS the dishonesty with her husband, PLUS the denial of sexual acts she shared freely with prior, less important partners, that causes the entire issue.
> 
> Now, tell me again that a woman's prior sexual history doesn't matter and is none of her spouse's business.


You keep talking about women having to disclose sexual histories. Should men also be discussing their sexual histories? 

You also never answered my question. 

" Husband was pegged by a previous lover. For whatever reason, he doesn't want to have it done to him again. His wife wants to try it. Is he wrong to refuse her?"


----------



## Numb26

Livvie said:


> It's because she doesn't think the nice polite giving guy she married for stability and $$ is going anywhere, he won't divorce her and he won't even lower his level of service in meeting her needs, no matter how crappy the relationship she provides him.
> 
> It blows my mind every time.


Shows the sorry state of men and "manhood" that we have now.


----------



## Lila

DudeInProgress said:


> Depends what the act is.
> Sometimes we hear about situations where the “off-limits” act is something most would consider quite basic and expected. In those cases, yeah, I’d consider it pretty important.


The problem with this is "basic acts" is subjective. One person's basic act is another person's taboo. 

Here's an act that I consider "basic". Phallic or vaginal penetrative sex toys. There are men who at one point in their lives enjoyed using them with previous partners but now find them a turn off. For whatever reason, they don't want to have sex toys be a part of their sexual repertoire. And before you say "Lila you made that up", I personally know of several in real life. One is in his 50s and has ED. Sex toys makes him feel "less than". The other had a super adventurous sex life with his ex wife but she was a cheater. All I can guess is he's got some form of PTSD and gets turned off by a lot of things he used to do with his cheating ex wife. Should these guys have to incorporate sex toys into their activities with their new partners?

No one gets to define a person's feelings around a sex act. 

The true issue with this topic is not the particular act, is that the husband (or wife) settled. They knew their spouse would not do x, y, and z but because spouse had a, b, c great qualities, they accepted them. It's called Price of Admission. 

If someone really needs to have x, y, z, then don't settle even if the person is an amazing individual otherwise. And if they do settle, focus on the great qualities that were settled for rather than the things that are missing. My 2 cents.


----------



## Lila

BigDaddyNY said:


> Ive been married a really long time and I've personally witnessed that preferences just change. There were certain sex acts my wife told me she would never do while we were dating. Years later she did it regularly. Then there will be stretches of time, months or maybe even years where she just isn't thrilled about doing it, then she goes back to loving it. This isn't rocket science. People's preference change. It isnt always because of some evil intention.


I've read quite a few of your posts and have to say that I admire your relationship with your wife. Have you read a lot of Gottman? You sound like what he describes as a highly emotionally intelligent husband.


----------



## Numb26

Lila said:


> The true issue with this topic is not the particular act, is that the husband (or wife) settled.


This!!! This is what it comes too.

Everybody is busy debating the why's and the how's but this is the bottom line. You get what you allow and shouldn't complain.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> I saw this video on FB today. Imagine this on a dating app scale. How many hundreds of women did those guys pass up for the beautiful girl?


That was funny! I would have just said "hi" and smiled while everyone else was tackling each other.😋


----------



## BigDaddyNY

KindBuddha said:


> No, because you're not correct either. Who all did I call "liars"? And please quote me verbatim from wherever you think you saw me say that. I don't think you'll be able to.
> 
> If you mean I called all people who lie to their spouses either overtly or by omission about their sexual history (or anything else for that matter), well yes....if "all" of a specific category of people have to lie in order to be included in that specific category, then admittedly, "they" are "all" liars.
> 
> Or are you trying to imply I called "all women" liars? Obviously, if that's what you want to believe, it's not based on anything I actually posted here.


You said this...



KindBuddha said:


> So the trope "I tried it before, I didn't like it, no one can MAKE ME do THAT!" is pretty much nonsense, as proved by how wives typically behave in the throes of a lusty love affair. They will do any seedy, depraved, whorish act that they think will please their lover, typically.


You said, "I tried it and don't like it anymore" is nonsense. A very broad statement about all women that have said this. You are saying that the statement is a lie. So you are at least calling all women that have said this a liar.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Lila said:


> I've read quite a few of your posts and have to say that I admire your relationship with your wife. Have you read a lot of Gottman? You sound like what he describes as a highly emotionally intelligent husband.


Thank you for the kind words. I've done a lot of reading, but not Gottman. I think it may be a combination of just happening naturally and enough training over the years to hone my business skills. 

Whatever the source, I'm thankful. It has helped make me be successful in marriage and my career.

The other factor is I just absolutely love my wife and have done everything I can to figure out what makes her tick so I can be the best man for her. And I get that in return from her.


----------



## farsidejunky

DudeInProgress said:


> She CAN do whatever she wants. That doesn’t mean her husband has to accept or tolerate it.
> 
> And if a wife used to do an act regularly for others, but refuses for her husband, it absolutely does speak volumes about how she views him. And it’s not the way he wants his wife to view him.
> 
> And as I’ve already said, it then becomes his responsibility to either be the man she’ll do it with, leave and find someone else who actually desires him enough to do it, or shut up.
> 
> I don’t like impotent whiners either, but it doesn’t mean their grievance isn’t valid. It just means they’re not taking ownership of their situation, and as a result will probably remain stuck in their substandard situation.


I wish I could like this twice. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## In Absentia

farsidejunky said:


> I wish I could like this twice.


You can... quote it twice...


----------



## samyeagar

KindBuddha said:


> "I don't know why but it doesn't matter why." Well, of course it matters why, to the frustrated spouse of the person who "evolves" in the bedroom by becoming less open sexually, less explorative, less willing to try different things, even if they are only very mildly beyond plain vanilla. If a husband asks a wife why she willingly gave bjs to prior bfs, but has never been willing to do so with her husband, and her answer is "I don't know why and it doesn't matter why," that's just a stone wall and demonstrates her utter lack of respect for her husband as a human being.


The simplest and often correct answer as to Why? Is that she just isn't into him the way she was the others. It sucks, but it happens, and it's up to him to decide if he wants to be someones less than best.

If its not true, and she really is into him, really does find him more desireable, she'll find a way to show it that fits wherever she is sexually in her life.


----------



## TinyTbone

Ok, so we all have a past. So maybe we all tried sexually different things in our past. It's one of the ways we figure out what we do or don't like. I don't think it comes down to if the other "deserves" a specific sex act with the SO. Each relationship is different, as such we have individual degrees of emotional attachment to each other that may or may not allow us to perform sexually in different ways.
Yes, I know at least one specific instance where a nephew of mine dated and married a woman who he and his best friend had slept with. His friend married the woman the nephew was bedding at the time. The nephew started dating the woman he eventually married, but she withheld sex till after they married.
Yet he loved her. He suffered through waiting. They married and had a tumultuous relationship and had a daughter.
Throughout the marriage, his wife was for a confirmed fact, the town bicycle! Yet she made him wait as she felt premarital sex was not right for two intended on marrying? She was sighted by family and close friends coming out of houses, hotels and riding around with other men. Not even job related as a SAHM. His friend and the wife he'd dated before they married, would constantly take him in their home when she kicked him out after huge fights. They finally divorced, ugly.
He never got over this. He died last December 21st, do to striking another vehicle in excess of 100 mph in a residential neighborhood. He was constantly angry bitter and drank excessively afterwards. 
Why this example? To show that then past of a lover can destroy the other. It can and does become obsessive and consuming to some.
I am my wife third actual sexual partner. She was very naive, as she said...had piv 5 times before me.
I didn't care to know her past. That's her past not mine. We are together now. For some reason she felt determined to tell me her past. She then asked me about mine. I didn't want to discuss it, but after an inordinate amount of pestering me, I told her..she immediately called me a male *****!! Lol as I told her I was single and in the military, no attachments to anyone. Yeah I got busy on all my deployments. I had hundreds (fact not bragging) of sexual partners prior to her. I settled her sometimes snappy comments about this finally by saying to her, hey you got off first time with me and the only time with a man period! Didn't hear you complaining! So how do think I got that good?
Argument ended and it's back where it belongs in the past.
The reason for this all is that, she never had to perform based on my past and neither has she. She's not the adventurous type sexually. I am the first man she's had oral sex with, giving and getting. I am interested in many aspects of sexual expression that's she's not. But she knows after all these years that if I have a "perverted" suggestion as she calls them, it's my own. It's something that I'd like to do with her. Also nope, no back door to this day after over 30+ years, not her thing. I'm good with that. Better that than she be a town bicycle!


----------



## umbluu

something related to the topic at hand...




__





Loading…






open.spotify.com


----------



## QuietRiot

KindBuddha said:


> Belittling the issue, and in effect shaming people for having feelings about this--basically in order to silence them--by declaring "This whole thing is ridiculous," or similar dismissive comments that occur from time to time, is an unhealthy approach to this or any sensitive issue. And sexuality between partners is both sensitive and a core issue between a husband and wife or any LTR couple.
> 
> Clearly, if the whole thing is ridiculous, then you don't need to spend several paragraphs talking about it?
> 
> When you assert that someone else's concerns are "ridiculous," you are literally "ridiculing" them for having their feelings or concerns. Ridiculing others for expressing their feelings, or having those feelings, about the way they express their sexuality, is not constructive.
> 
> People do evolve sexually and in other ways throughout their lives. On that we should be able to generally agree. However, most people would assume that "evolution" as a human being in or out of a relationship involves a reaching out, a greater openness to trying new things, a greater tolerance for possible discomfort in that process. Not becoming more close-minded and less willing to try new things. That's why this stuff seems like a bait and switch. Guys marry women who seem plain vanilla in the bedroom because they are hoping as the marriage grows and they become more secure and comfortable with each other in the bedroom, she will be less self conscious and more willing to "evolve" by exploring new aspects of their sexuality with each other. But when that never happens, when she becomes more closed off, more restricted sexually, and THEN after years the husband found his wife actually did all this kinky stuff (even the mildly kinky stuff) with others long before they got married and deceived him about it--and is STILL unwilling to even try it with her many-years husband--well, most people wouldn't consider that to be "evolution." It's more like "regression."
> 
> "I don't know why but it doesn't matter why." Well, of course it matters why, to the frustrated spouse of the person who "evolves" in the bedroom by becoming less open sexually, less explorative, less willing to try different things, even if they are only very mildly beyond plain vanilla. If a husband asks a wife why she willingly gave bjs to prior bfs, but has never been willing to do so with her husband, and her answer is "I don't know why and it doesn't matter why," that's just a stone wall and demonstrates her utter lack of respect for her husband as a human being.
> 
> "Who cares?" you ask. Obviously, you don't--or do care, and are in strong denial about it--and that's fine. Others are allowed to care. Stop projecting your shame over these topics on those who care, and admit it.
> 
> If you actually don't care about something, do what I do--don't waste your time in an internet discussion about it. I care about this topic, so I will continue to participate, hopefully in a constructive manner.


Oh, this guy. You seem to like to read up on Psychology Today to throw around terms, but it’s boring. Armchair diagnosis feel a bit… limp ****ed. Forgive me for failing to be offended. At least the other dude called me a 5 letter word. Now that’s spirit!


----------



## farsidejunky

QuietRiot said:


> Oh, this guy. You seem to like to read up on Psychology Today to throw around terms, but it’s boring. Armchair diagnosis feel a bit… limp ****ed. Forgive me for failing to be offended. At least the other dude called me a 5 letter word. Now that’s spirit!


I don't necessarily agree with much of the poster you quoted has said in this thread. In fact, I do see this discussion as living in a victim mentality. 

That said, much of what he wrote in the last post to you is true. Not entirely true, but enough truth that it should give you some sort of pause...rather than more shaming and outright dismissal. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## QuietRiot

farsidejunky said:


> I don't necessarily agree with much of the poster you quoted has said in this thread. In fact, I do see this discussion as living in a victim mentality.
> 
> That said, much of what he wrote in the last post to you is true. Not entirely true, but enough truth that it should give you some sort of pause...rather than more shaming and outright dismissal.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


I can’t read anything he says anymore as valid, he’s already diagnosed me as several other things from before his last time out. I had forgotten about him. No worries though he’s on ignore from me now. 🙂


----------



## Lila

KindBuddha said:


> Guys marry women who seem plain vanilla in the bedroom because they are hoping as the marriage grows and they become more secure and comfortable with each other in the bedroom, she will be less self conscious and more willing to "evolve" by exploring new aspects of their sexuality with each other.


This may be the problem with the men that find themselves in these situations. Just as women should never marry a man expecting them to change, men should never marry a woman expecting them to change. 

The assumption should be that what you see in front of you is the best you'll ever get out of that person.


----------



## TinyTbone

oldshirt said:


> Again, be careful following Richard Cooper, Rollo Tomassit et al because their black and white view of the world is way too simplistic for humans which are very complex. Whether chicks have wild, kinky sex or not depends on a lot more moving parts than how tall a guy is and whether he has big biceps and a big bank account or not.
> 
> I think there is some truth to what you are saying here, but it goes both ways and it's not the whole answer. Some people you perceive as relationship material and some you don't. I think that is true for men as well as women and how the man is treating the woman is going to play into it quite a bit as well.
> 
> When young, horny girls first hit the mating market, yes they are dropping their panties for the tall, handsome assertive guys that initially approach them with vigor. And yes they may
> 
> I've been with some women that were very pretty and sexy, but they were in no way shape or form relationship material that I would bring home to Mom or have a home and family with or have her name on a bank account or mortgage etc with me.
> 
> As a man, I could be fine with having sex with pretty much any adult woman under 200lbs that was clean and that takes care of herself. But one that I would marry, intigrate familes with and have a mortgage and raise children with is one out of 3.5 billion.
> 
> That takes more vetting on both sides vs hooking up for night after a drunken frat party.
> 
> Attraction and animal chemistry certainly play a big role. For me, sexual chemistry and compatibility played a huge role.
> 
> But if you are taking commitment and marriage and raising families, there has to be more than just sexual chemistry that people are bringing to the table. That goes for both men and women.
> 
> And again, I think the bigger issue is why is someone thinking that certain sexual activities are degrading and why are people that value those activities getting with someone that finds them degrading?
> 
> The men in question here need to be doing more vetting.


It really shows that we all, man or woman, need to know ourselves way better. Know what it is we like or don't like, approve of or don't. Doesn't matter so much about the average person's history. We each bring our own morals, values and ethics to the relationship. This is what normally makes us attracted to another person, similar qualities, common ground to start a relationship from.
I'm very open minded , yet also conservative in many ways. It's a pick and choose as how it fits me. I don't try and shove what feel on my wife. She feels her way and I feel my way, especially in the intimacy department. I knew from the beginning of our marriage she was a bit vanilla, yet as the years have gone by, she has become much more than that. Yet, there are things I know are off limits and non negotiable. I'm good with that. Not a deal breaker. More important fish to fry than a particular sex act.


----------



## ConanHub

I'm kind of curious if this happens in the other direction?

Outside, looking in, it appears this pretty much exclusively happens with sexually disgruntled husbands towards formerly wanton wives who weren't wanton with them.

It does seem that at least in some of these cases, the husband might have a legitimate gripe but has anyone ever heard of it happening with a disgruntled wife? Is this exclusively a male problem or are men the only ones giving voice to it?


----------



## QuietRiot

ConanHub said:


> I'm kind of curious if this happens in the other direction?
> 
> Outside, looking in, it appears this pretty much exclusively happens with sexually disgruntled husbands towards formerly wanton wives who weren't wanton with them.
> 
> It does seem that at least in some of these cases, the husband might have a legitimate gripe but has anyone ever heard of it happening with a disgruntled wife? Is this exclusively a male problem or are men the only ones giving voice to it?


Yes, I have a friend whose H would rather smoke weed than have sex. And one who refuses to do oral. He doesn’t like it. He did in the beginning and said he’s just not into it anymore. She wishes it wasn’t so but she loves him for everything else he does and doesn’t consider it a deal breaker.


----------



## ConanHub

QuietRiot said:


> Yes, I have a friend whose H would rather smoke weed than have sex. And one who refuses to do oral. He doesn’t like it. He did in the beginning and said he’s just not into it anymore. She wishes it wasn’t so but she loves him for everything else he does and doesn’t consider it a deal breaker.


I've definitely heard about wives not getting enough sex and husbands dropping the ball in many cases sexually.

Have you heard about any women that found out their husbands use to do something like oral with others but never with them?

I'm kinda looking for discovery here as I really haven't heard about this specific situation with roles reversed.


----------



## ConanHub

KindBuddha said:


> Being haughty and disdainful, putting down others by claiming "it's boring" (rather than addressing the content of another's post in some substantive manner) is a form of grandiosity. Attempting to verbally emasculate someone ("limp ---ed") is a form of verbal violence hence abusive. It's a way of saying "I am better than you." It doesn't indicate the speaker has a very secure personality.


Damn micro aggressions.😁


----------



## QuietRiot

ConanHub said:


> I've definitely heard about wives not getting enough sex and husbands dropping the ball in many cases sexually.
> 
> Have you heard about any women that found out their husbands use to do something like oral with others but never with them?
> 
> I'm kinda looking for discovery here as I really haven't heard about this specific situation with roles reversed.


Oh yes, I guess that’s more of an after the fact. So I do have one friend that started as college friends with her husband, she knew him and his ex girlfriend and knew enough about what they did. She asked him to do like a “let’s pretend we are strangers meeting at the bar” role play type thing, and he didn’t want to do it. He said he felt too embarrassed. They both know he did similar things with his old girlfriend. But I don’t know if that’s the same, because she didn’t really care that much, she just wanted to try it. They have a super open communication type, they can talk about anything and everything and not get pissed… so that probably doesn’t count either. 🤣 sorry that’s all I got!


----------



## ConanHub

QuietRiot said:


> Oh yes, I guess that’s more of an after the fact. So I do have one friend that started as college friends with her husband, she knew him and his ex girlfriend and knew enough about what they did. She asked him to do like a “let’s pretend we are strangers meeting at the bar” role play type thing, and he didn’t want to do it. He said he felt too embarrassed. They both know he did similar things with his old girlfriend. But I don’t know if that’s the same, because she didn’t really care that much, she just wanted to try it. They have a super open communication type, they can talk about anything and everything and not get pissed… so that probably doesn’t count either. 🤣 sorry that’s all I got!


That's a real case at least even though the lady wasn't upset about it.

I'm wondering how much this issue is tied up in the differences in how men and women (generally) perceive how their mates value them?

This really could be an almost exclusively male problem.

I've tried to really put myself in the shoes of men experiencing this and I would have a fundamental problem if Mrs. Conan had enthusiastically performed oral, on an ex, to completion weather she swallowed or not. If she had tried it and hated it, I wouldn't have any issues but if she had really loved doing it for someone else, I would be in a spot.

The thing is, I am convinced that we wouldn't have connected like we did if she had been like that.

It isn't simply the specific act, I guarantee there would be other areas equally important that would be impacted.

Mrs. C has done more with me and much more often and enthusiastically than any other partner so it has never been a problem BTW.


----------



## QuietRiot

ConanHub said:


> That's a real case at least even though the lady wasn't upset about it.
> 
> I'm wondering how much this issue is tied up in the differences in how men and women (generally) perceive how their mates value them?
> 
> This really could be an almost exclusively male problem.
> 
> I've tried to really put myself in the shoes of men experiencing this and I would have a fundamental problem if Mrs. Conan had enthusiastically performed oral, on an ex, to completion weather she swallowed or not. If she had tried it and hated it, I wouldn't have any issues but if she had really loved doing it for someone else, I would be in a spot.
> 
> The thing is, I am convinced that we wouldn't have connected like we did if she had been like that.
> 
> It isn't simply the specific act, I guarantee there would be other areas equally important that would be impacted.
> 
> Mrs. C has done more with me and much more often and enthusiastically than any other partner so it has never been a problem BTW.


But that was kind of my point before, how can you possibly know what was enthusiastic and voracious enjoyment when you weren’t there in her mind? Even a video gives you a snapshot of something but it doesn’t prove what is happening. Some younger women are known to do things they don’t like to impress their boyfriend, and fake orgasms as well. I have known a lot of girls that would talk about it openly… they were afraid of being dumped if they didn’t do things. As time goes on, they are older, wiser, more secure in their wants and needs and maybe aren’t afraid of the same things, like being single. Maybe they aren’t as apt to try to please someone at the cost of what they actually desire. But simply hearing “she did this for someone else, and won’t for me makes her a liar and deceiver” I don’t think is rational. For many reasons. 

I don’t think it’s so simple as, “It must be because of attraction”. Maybe for some women it is, but not everyone. I can easily think of many reasons why that have nothing to do with attraction to their husbands or using him for a meal ticket.


----------



## farsidejunky

KindBuddha said:


> If referring to my prior post(s), I do not expect everyone else or necessarily anyone else to agree with me as everyone has different viewpoints.
> 
> As far as "living in a victim mentality," I do not feel that way personally. It may come across that way in some of my responses because I am trying to have empathy for the guys who find themselves in this situation, since the thread topic is about what can guys in that situation do. So, for me to be able to try to answer that, I have to try to put my self in those shoes, which requires me to empathize with how they must be feeling. Of course I am speculating, I don't know how they actually feel about it other than descriptions. And if you read those descriptions, the guys do feel victimized. I think it is a perfectly valid feeling for them to have. Does that mean it is objectively "accurate", or the best way for them to get past it?
> Not necessarily. But these guys have been denied so much by the person closest to them, I don't think they should be denied the right to feel the way they want to feel about it. And frankly, if someone has been lied to about a fundamental aspect of their partner, by their partner--involving sexual intimacy issues--and it impacts the other person negatively, I think it's accurate for them to feel that they have actually been victimized.
> 
> If someone is raped and expresses that they feel victimized by it, we don't try to diminish those valid feelings by claiming they have a "victim mentality," do we--i.e. it's just their mentality that casts them as victim, not what actually happened to them? Similarly, if someone is subjected to emotional abuse--and lying to one's partner in an intimate relationship about sexual matters can certainly constitute emotional abuse--then the lied-to partner has in fact been victimized.


For clarity, I meant the subject is a victim mentality, not you in particular. 

Do I feel they are victims? Yes...at first. 

Look, dude. A sexless marriage brought me to TAM in 2014. Three long years later, the main thing that led to the reformation of my marriage was understanding the victim chair, and more importantly, how to remove my fourth point of contact from it, followed by boundaries and consequences. Trust me that I understand both sides of this coin. 

So in short, that they became a victim is outside of their control. That they remain a victim is completely within their control. 

But the latter sentence is normally what burns their asses. Because that means they can't sit back and complain in perpetuity about the situation as they demand that only their spouse change to correct the situation...which is more victim chair mentality. 

Instead, they need to focus on that which they can control...themselves, their growth, their boundaries and consequences, and any number of other things. Their spouses will either come around...or they won't.

The problem is that most guys who complain about their situations lack the self awareness, or the stones, to seek their own self improvement. We see it on this site over and over again. Most just eventually drift into a defeated acceptance, unwilling to do anything about their situation. 

I feel sorry for them, but not because of their situation, but because they are missing out on the opportunity to actually emerge from their challenges as a better person. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila

KindBuddha said:


> My post to which you responded missed the point, since that post by me was a response to another poster's claim that a woman's constriction of her sexuality after marriage represented "evolution," and isn't "evolution" a good thing in terms of personal growth?
> 
> If you're the type of person who doesn't expect their life partner to want to experience personal growth in the relationship, presumably you don't expect to do any personal growth yourself, either. Doesn't sound like either one is very good relationship material, which is the point isn't it? People who are incapable of being truthful, incapable of evolving over the years via personal growth, people who don't have high expectations for themselves and their partners, which includes personal growth and evolution--you're saying that's who you are, that's what you're looking for in a partner, and that's all you have to offer to any partner you have?
> 
> Yeesh.


🤣🤣🤣

You keep living in the idealistic land of wishful thinking. I'm going to keep living in the real world.

According to your definition, I may be a liar, I may be a fraud, and I absolutely know I'm a viper in heels. The one thing I'm not (and never have been) is stuck in a sexual relationship where anyone is under mistaken assumptions about my sexual needs or the needs I am willing to satisfy.


----------



## ConanHub

QuietRiot said:


> But that was kind of my point before, how can you possibly know what was enthusiastic and voracious enjoyment when you weren’t there in her mind? Even a video gives you a snapshot of something but it doesn’t prove what is happening. Some younger women are known to do things they don’t like to impress their boyfriend, and fake orgasms as well. I have known a lot of girls that would talk about it openly… they were afraid of being dumped if they didn’t do things. As time goes on, they are older, wiser, more secure in their wants and needs and maybe aren’t afraid of the same things, like being single. Maybe they aren’t as apt to try to please someone at the cost of what they actually desire. But simply hearing “she did this for someone else, and won’t for me makes her a liar and deceiver” I don’t think is rational. For many reasons.
> 
> I don’t think it’s so simple as, “It must be because of attraction”. Maybe for some women it is, but not everyone. I can easily think of many reasons why that have nothing to do with attraction to their husbands or using him for a meal ticket.


Yeah. It would have to be some pretty strange circumstances to have accurate knowledge of it and I honestly can't imagine a situation where it would actually happen to me.


----------



## RandomDude

> Maybe what you mean to convey is "viper" is a *bad* person, but "in heels" means *sexy*, and somehow you think the sexy part counterbalances the bad person part?


Oh come on don't pretend and try to be a smartass, you know what she meant, anyone can put *bad* and *sexy* together


----------



## RandomDude

KindBuddha said:


> I think an association of "sexy" with "bad" is archaic and misogynistic. It dovetails with why women can be wild with prior partners but then when they settle down with their husbands, believe that have to be a so-called "good girl" sexually.
> 
> I'm not the one who linked "viper" ("badness") with sexuality ("heels"). Why does a woman think being "sexy" is "bad"?


Is it? Well I get slapped with labels all the time, last few months it's all about me being "shallow" so archaic and misogynistic can add to my eventual epitaph lol

As for why being sexy is bad? It's good to be bad  Duh!


----------



## Corgi Mum

ConanHub said:


> It does seem that at least in some of these cases, the husband might have a legitimate gripe but has anyone ever heard of it happening with a disgruntled wife? Is this exclusively a male problem or are men the only ones giving voice to it?


I've never experienced this past-sex-disgruntlement thing personally, but then I've never grilled any partner on their sexual past so ignorance is bliss? If any of them have ever captured their wild escapades on film, no one has ever sent me the evidence. Nor have I ever had any friends express anything like that and, believe me, we've talked about sex candidly and in glowing detail.

I should really stay out of these threads, they give me anxiety about a possible future partner demanding that I regurgitate every last detail about my sexual past _and I can no longer remember most of it_. The vast majority of it wasn't exotic enough to be noteworthy or memorable and it's all sort of blended together at this point. Other than a few oddballs


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> Pot meet kettle. The OP is shaming women into performing sex acts they don't want to perform. If you don't like men being shamed for their desires, don't shame women for theirs.


I’m the OP and I don’t believe I stated or implied that women should be shamed into performing acts that they don’t want to perform. I was just asking the true reason(s) that some women performed acts in the past that they won’t perform for their current partner.

(Unless you by “OP” you mean the original post by KindBuddha.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

Corgi Mum said:


> I've never experienced this past-sex-disgruntlement thing personally, but then I've never grilled any partner on their sexual past so ignorance is bliss? If any of them have ever captured their wild escapades on film, no one has ever sent me the evidence. Nor have I ever had any friends express anything like that and, believe me, we've talked about sex candidly and in glowing detail.
> 
> I should really stay out of these threads, they give me anxiety about a possible future partner demanding that I regurgitate every last detail about my sexual past _and I can no longer remember most of it_. The vast majority of it wasn't exotic enough to be noteworthy or memorable and it's all sort of blended together at this point. Other than a few oddballs


The situation in the OP is very rare. It’s a situation where the W tells the H that she won’t perform certain acts because she never did and never would do those acts because they are disgusting, degrading, etc. The H isn’t happy about it, but accepts it because that’s just who she is. Then later, evidence comes forward contradicting the W’s claims (e.g., comments by an ex-BF to H, H overheard conversation of wife with a close friend, H sees videos of the W performing these acts enthusiastically). There is a confrontation. Often W now offers to perform those acts on H, but H is unsatisfied because she clearly has no desire to perform these acts. It sometimes resulting in divorce.

The question is WHY did the W enthusiastically perform these acts in the past — or at least appear to have enjoyed performing those acts — but then tell H that she won’t and would never do such acts?

Many of the responses have been about different scenarios or concerns, such as:

- Should H have negotiated that W perform these acts before marriage as a condition of marriage - or as a condition of being in any kind of relationship with him?

- If the H knew that his future W wouldn’t perform those acts when he married her, then he accepted that deal and got what he bargained for so he has no room to complain.

- Is W obligated to perform acts on future partners that she performed for past partners?

- The H is focused on what acts the W will perform instead of focusing on her pleasure.

- The scenario never actually happens in real life, and all such stories on the internet are fiction.

- Ad hominem attacks on the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

RandomDude said:


> In strictly OP's scenario, yes. I think we get carried away with all the other scenarios because this is one of the most popular and recurring debates we have here on TAM.
> 
> "She did it with him and not with me!" version etc etc


Thank you for explaining this. It was frustrating with all of the off-topic statements. People are addressing previous similar but different topics.

Obviously, W isn’t required to perform on H every act she performed in the past with previously lovers. If H cared so much about those acts, he could have insisted on them (regardless of whether she’d ever done them before) and dumped her if she refused. If H really wanted those acts and she refused, then he settled for what she was offering and has no room to complain.

I maintain, though, that refusing to do those acts because they are disgusting and degrading, and that she’d never do such a thing, is fraudulent and H has every tight to feel hurt upon learning the truth.

Imagine if W wanted H to be classically romantic, buy her flowers, leave her little love notes, etc. He tells her that he’s not romantic like that, considers that to be corny and unmanly, and he’s never done and would never do such a thing. Later, W learns that H did all of those things for his 3 previous girlfriends and much more - he even wrote them poetry and serenaded them. Would she feel hurt? Should she feel hurt? Why would H be required to buy W flowers simply because he did it for previous GFs? Shouldn’t W be focused on making H happy instead of her own desires? Given that H said all along that he wasn’t going to perform those romantic acts for her, doesn’t that mean that W settled and has no room to complain after learning this new information?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Lila

[


CraigBesuden said:


> I’m the OP and I don’t believe I stated or implied that women should be shamed into performing acts that they don’t want to perform. I was just asking the true reason(s) that some women performed acts in the past that they won’t perform for their current partner.
> 
> (Unless you by “OP” you mean the original post by KindBuddha.)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It's not the original post that comes off as shaming. It's that you asked for "true reasons" why a woman would do something like this but have repeatedly ignored the reasons that do not align with your belief (women don't find the current partner as sexually attractive as previous lovers). 

You didn't actually want "true reasons". You wanted to validate your position. So yes, it comes off as shaming.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> Given that H said all along that he wasn’t going to perform those romantic acts for her, doesn’t that mean that W settled and has no room to complain after learning this new information?


A resounding YES! she settled. And no, she's got no room to complain. 

I have zero empathy for these women.


----------



## Rus47

When this subject comes up, I always wonder how it could be any other way. 

If a couple each had very many prior experiences before marriage, how likely is it that they just happened to find that their spouse is the best ever? Especially people who are divorced, or have been single for a few years. Let's imagine that a woman's first husband was outstanding in attributes and abilities. He rocks her world twice a night for 5 years. Then she finds out he has been doing one or more others on the side. So divorces him. She meets and decides to marry a man who isn't nearly as outstanding, but who she sees as "safe", faithful, hardworking, a lot of positive attributes. No matter what, she will never have with him what her first husband provided. So she has memories. And, when those memories are inevitably revealed to her new husband, he is stuck with those thoughts in his head. 

And as far as the repertoire, it seems to me that is highly dependent on the current relationship's time, place, and individuals. People change their likes and dislikes over time and as situations change. I used to love a salami sandwich, can't stand the smell of the stuff today. So, what a SO did with a previous lover is just in the past. No point in even bringing it up. And, if the subject comes up, just have to ignore it. Difficult to do, but the only possible path.

Unfortunately, seems to me anyone getting into an LTR with anyone older than say 20 is going to have to realize they are not and can never be the best their SO has experienced, and that their SO did stuff with their best ever that they will never do with them. (Unless the anyone is @ConanHub or @Personal ).


----------



## FrenchFry

Rus47 said:


> older than say 20 is going to have to realize they are not and can never be the best their SO has experienced -


I... don't think that is true! Especially for women who don't usually experience great sex young. It takes time to learn your body and confidence to say what does and does not feel good. It also legitimately takes practice to get good in bed, it's not a magical ability one is granted with.


----------



## Rus47

FrenchFry said:


> I... don't think that is true! Especially for women who don't usually experience great sex young. It takes time to learn your body and confidence to say what does and does not feel good. It also legitimately takes practice to get good in bed, it's not a magical ability one is granted with.


Ok, how about older than 25? 30? Suppose a woman has a dIfferent encounter 4 times a year. In 5 years, isnt it likely she will have had a life-changing encounter with a man skilled in rocking her world? That isnt at all interested in wifing her up? Or alternatively he marries her and then cheats until she divorces him.

Maybe 20 is too young, so pick an older age.


----------



## ElOtro

Lila said:


> [
> It's not the original post that comes off as shaming. It's that you asked for "true reasons" why a woman would do something like this but have repeatedly ignored the reasons that do not align with your belief (women don't find the current partner as sexually attractive as previous lovers).
> 
> You didn't actually want "true reasons". You wanted to validate your position. So yes, it comes off as shaming.


I frequently agree with some of your posts.
And some of those "true reasons" are, in my experience, true ones.
But...if you allow me to say it, being them true are not all the true ones.
Some of them would collide with your believes as much as the true ones you posted collide with some other poster´s worries.
And sad to say, those are not rare / extreme cases.

The above said by a man who do not have personal worries on the past sexual life of the women that were my partners.
Except, as I´ve also said elsewhere, with some anger with the men that did not treat her right.


----------



## Lila

ElOtro said:


> I frequently agree with some of your posts.
> And some of those "true reasons" are, in my experience, true ones.
> But...if you allow me to say it, being them true are not all the true ones.
> Some of them would collide with your believes as much as the true ones you posted collide with some other poster´s worries.
> And sad to say, those are not rare / extreme cases.
> 
> The above said by a man who do not have personal worries on the past sexual life of the women that were my partners.
> Except, as I´ve also said elsewhere, with some anger with the men that did not treat her right.


I may not have explained myself properly. Let me say it a different way. 

The OP is welcome to believe whatever they want. What I'm saying is his question was disingenious. 

He asked for reasons but only acknowledges those that back up his beliefs. If he wasn't open to other reasons then why even ask the question? Just state your position and let people agree or disagree with you as they please. At least then, everyone is aware of the agenda.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> [
> 
> 
> It's not the original post that comes off as shaming. It's that you asked for "true reasons" why a woman would do something like this but have repeatedly ignored the reasons that do not align with your belief (women don't find the current partner as sexually attractive as previous lovers).
> 
> You didn't actually want "true reasons". You wanted to validate your position. So yes, it comes off as shaming.


I disagree. I didn’t ignore the other views. But the idea that women fraudulently marry men to whom they aren’t attracted in order to secure money or stability is usually said to be untrue and misogynistic.

And according to the stories, the common response when the man finds out about her true past is not to shame her into performing those acts with him, but to rightfully divorce her. In fact, the W offers to perform those acts with H and he declines, now knowing that the problem isn’t that she doesn’t like the acts but that she doesn’t like HIM. Performing the acts out of fear and desperation does nothing to fix the problem. You can control your actions but not your desires. If she claimed to be attracted to him but was not (and is not), he was defrauded and the “marriage” is a nullity. If she lied about her attraction to him, she likely lied about whether she loves him, too. The only solution is divorce (annulment). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> I disagree. I didn’t ignore the other views. But the idea that women fraudulently marry men to whom they aren’t attracted in order to secure money or stability is usually said to be untrue and misogynistic.
> 
> And according to the stories, the common response when the man finds out about her true past isn’t to shame her into performing those acts with him, but to rightfully divorce her. Performing the acts does nothing to fix the problem. You can control your actions but not your desires. If she claimed to be attracted to him but was not, the solution is divorce.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


O-K. Thank you for proving my point. 

You should just remove the question in the OP and state the above. 

Let everyone know the true intentions of this post. It's not to ask for reasons but to validate your beliefs. You just tried to disguise it as an open discussion when it was nothing of the sort. Own it.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> [
> 
> 
> It's not the original post that comes off as shaming. It's that you asked for "true reasons" why a woman would do something like this but have repeatedly ignored the reasons that do not align with your belief (women don't find the current partner as sexually attractive as previous lovers).
> 
> You didn't actually want "true reasons". You wanted to validate your position. So yes, it comes off as shaming.


I think that actually the opposite of what happened. You claim that my belief was that the reason women refuse to perform these acts is that “women don’t find the current partner as sexually attractive as previous lovers.” In fact, I said I don’t believe that is the reason this happens, and that the men are wrong in making that assumption. Only when a couple of men here stated that they performed fewer acts with a partner than in the past, and they did it because they weren’t as attracted to the new partner, did I conclude that women (and men) do such things.

The “Red Pill” agrees with your view, that women are lying about their lack of attraction and tricking men into marriage in this way. I was hoping that they were wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> O-K. Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> You should just remove the question in the OP and state the above.
> 
> Let everyone know the true intentions of this post. It's not to ask for reasons but to validate your beliefs. You just tried to disguise it as an open discussion when it was nothing of the sort. Own it.


My intentions were clear and plainly stated. It was intended to be an open discussion.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> A resounding YES! she settled. And no, she's got no room to complain.
> 
> I have zero empathy for these women.


She settled on false pretenses. She settled for what she thought was a man who wasn’t romantic, but that’s not who he is at all. He’s a man who lied about who and what he is to secure an agreement.

Elin Nordegren agreed with Tiger Woods in a prenup on what she would get in the event of a divorce. She agreed to (“settled” for) the terms as presented. But then her legal team discovered that Tiger had hidden assets from her during the prenup negotiations, so there was no meeting of the minds and the prenup was therefore invalid. A contract obtained through fraud is no contract at all.

There are two questions here:

1) Why does this phenomenon happen?

2) What to do about it.

Your answers appear to be:

1) It happens because she’s not attracted to H.

2) There is nothing to be done about it. It’s perfectly fine. Her intentions and motivations don’t matter. She said I won’t do A, B and C and he accepted that. End of discussion.

I was only asking the first question. And it was a genuine question. I’m still not 100% convinced on any answer to that question. I suspect that there are different reasons depending on the people involved.

One of the common explanations given is that she enjoyed those things but she doesn’t want those acts as part of her marriage because she cares what H thinks of her and doesn’t want him thinking of her that way. That sounds plausible to me and I think that it’s true in some cases.

Another view, that she never liked those things and did it for validation and now feels comfortable in her current relationship to say no and set up boundaries, also seems plausible to me.

But if you are correct in your view about 1, then we will have to agree to disagree on 2.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> The “Red Pill” agrees with your view, that *women are lying about their lack of attraction and tricking men into marriage in this way. I was hoping that they were wrong.*


Awww. Your comment is very telling. I was hoping you would prove otherwise but you are just perpetuating my original opinion of you. You sir have an agenda and are disgusing it as "I was hoping the Red Pill was wrong about women's nefarious intentions but nope, women are liars". 🙄

Keep moving along folks. Ain't nothing remotely interesting to see here.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> You sir have an agenda and are disgusing it as "I was hoping the Red Pill was wrong about women's nefarious intentions but nope, women are liars".


Aren’t you the one pushing the view that women who don’t want to perform acts with H that they performed in the past have acted nefariously, and misled H into marrying her under false pretenses? And then criticizing me for not wholeheartedly accepting your view?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> She settled on false pretenses. She settled for what she thought was a man who wasn’t romantic, but that’s not who he is at all. He’s a man who lied about who and what he is to secure an agreement.


She absolutely did not settle on false pretenses. She settled for what was offered. If she needed someone who was going to romance her to heaven and back then she should have gone after that kind of man. Of course the man she settled for may have 1,000 great qualities that she wanted in a partner, that she not ever find in another again. So for her, settling for a lack of romance was the price for getting all of those 1,000 of qualities. 

He didn't lie to secure an agreement. He told her the truth - I WILL NOT be the romantic you want or need. Is that good enough for you? She accepted him understanding this. That's it. 

If you can't understand why that's not false pretenses then that's on you. 





> There are two questions here:
> 
> 1) Why does this phenomenon happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) What to do about it.
> 
> Your answers appear to be:
> 
> 1) It happens because she’s not attracted to H.
> 
> 2) There is nothing to be done about it. It’s perfectly fine. Her intentions and motivations don’t matter. She said I won’t do A, B and C and he accepted that. End of discussion.


You must have me confused with someone else. My answer to #1 is




Lila said:


> *Each relationship is unique. They are made up of hundreds, if not thousands of different attributes determined by things like life stage, emotional maturity, life goals, mental space, and sexual health to name a few.*


As to what's to be done about it....beyond being wiser about the choice one makes in a partner, there is nothing to be done about it. I tell people to make lists of their key needs and deal breakers. If the person you are interested in can't meet you needs or has a deal breaker, regardless how wonderful that person may be otherwise, Let. Them. Go!!!!! They are not your person.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> Aren’t you the one pushing the view that women who don’t want to perform acts with H that they performed in the past have acted nefariously, misleading H into marrying her under false pretenses? And then criticizing me for not wholeheartedly accepting your view?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You've got the wrong person. I'm saying quite the opposite.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> You've got the wrong person. I'm saying quite the opposite.


Okay, it sounds like we are only disagreeing on a fairly small thing - what constitutes false pretenses.

If a man says he’s physically attracted to his partner but he cannot get it up because he has ED, and she accepts that and agrees to enter into a sexless marriage… then later finds out that the reason H can’t get it up is that he’s gay and not physically attracted to her, I would have empathy for her.

If you and your friends agreed to spend all day helping a friend or relative somebody move furniture into her new home, and your sister says she cannot help because she’s sitting with her MIL in the hospital, and everyone cheerfully goes forward with the move… then you find out that she was actually just sitting at home watching TV and just doesn’t enjoy moving furniture and unpacking boxes… I think you’d be pissed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> If a man says he’s physically attracted to his partner but he cannot get it up because he has ED, and she accepts that and agrees to enter into a sexless marriage… then later finds out that the reason H can’t get it up is that he’s gay and not physically attracted to her, I would have empathy for her.


It depends. ED doesn't stop people from having sexual relationships? Oral sex, use of sex toys, finger play, sensate focus, passionate kissing, fondling....all are part of an intimately sexual relationship. If this woman accepted marriage to a man where there was NO sexual intimacy whatsoever, then I'd tell you she got exactly what she bargained for, a good friend, roommate maybe provider. If she cares he's gay now, it's only in her head because that wasn't a heterosexual marriage by any definition. 



CraigBesuden said:


> If you and your friends agreed to spend all day helping a friend or relative somebody move furniture into her new home, and your sister says she cannot help because she’s sitting with her MIL in the hospital, and everyone cheerfully goes forward with the move… then you find out that she was actually just sitting at home watching TV and just doesn’t enjoy moving furniture and unpacking boxes… I think you’d be pissed.


Again, wrong analogy. It's more like a friend has helped people move furniture previously for others but won't help me move now because of {enter reason here}. It's a NO regardless. Would I stop being her friend if I found out she helped move others in the past? Depends on whether or not I'm friends with her because I'm looking for people to help me move.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> She absolutely did not settle on false pretenses. She settled for what was offered. If she needed someone who was going to romance her to heaven and back then she should have gone after that kind of man. Of course the man she settled for may have 1,000 great qualities that she wanted in a partner, that she not ever find in another again. So for her, settling for a lack of romance was the price for getting all of those 1,000 of qualities.
> 
> He didn't lie to secure an agreement. He told her the truth - I WILL NOT be the romantic you want or need. Is that good enough for you? She accepted him understanding this. That's it.
> 
> If you can't understand why that's not false pretenses then that's on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have me confused with someone else. My answer to #1 is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to what's to be done about it....beyond being wiser about the choice one makes in a partner, there is nothing to be done about it. I tell people to make lists of their key needs and deal breakers. If the person you are interested in can't meet you needs or has a deal breaker, regardless how wonderful that person may be otherwise, Let. Them. Go!!!!! They are not your person.


I think this is where I disagree with you and Conan. And why I didn’t understand what he was talking about when he mentioned boundaries and requirements. To me, the acts themselves are almost beside the point.

Let’s say my W said that she never has and never would never perform acts A, B and C because they are disgusting and degrading. I agree to marry her knowing this — and I couldn’t care less because I have zero interest in doing those things. Then I learn that she did those things (and enthusiastically) with every past lover. I would be angry, hurt, etc. Trust would be seriously destroyed. I would wonder what else she’d been lying about, and who this person I’m married to truly is. Agreeing to perform the acts under duress once the truth comes out wouldn’t fix things, even if I wanted to do those things. (I’d compare it to a cheating spouse offering a hall pass to fix what the cheater did.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> It depends. ED doesn't stop people from having sexual relationships? Oral sex, use of sex toys, finger play, sensate focus, passionate kissing, fondling....all are part of an intimately sexual relationship. If this woman accepted marriage to a man where there was NO sexual intimacy whatsoever, then I'd tell you she got exactly what she bargained for, a good friend, roommate maybe provider. If she cares he's gay now, it's only in her head because that wasn't a heterosexual marriage by any definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, wrong analogy. It's more like a friend has helped people move furniture previously for others but won't help me move now because of {enter reason here}. It's a NO regardless. Would I stop being her friend if I found out she helped move others in the past? Depends on whether or not I'm friends with her because I'm looking for people to help me move.


If all the W said is “no” to certain acts and refused to give reasons why and refused to say whether she did them in the past, then I’d have no problem with it. He agreed to her terms. I would only have a problem if she lied or misrepresented herself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## samyeagar

Lila said:


> It depends. ED doesn't stop people from having sexual relationships? Oral sex, use of sex toys, finger play, sensate focus, passionate kissing, fondling....all are part of an intimately sexual relationship. If this woman accepted marriage to a man where there was NO sexual intimacy whatsoever, then I'd tell you she got exactly what she bargained for, a good friend, roommate maybe provider. If she cares he's gay now, it's only in her head because that wasn't a heterosexual marriage by any definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, wrong analogy. It's more like a friend has helped people move furniture previously for others but won't help me move now because of {enter reason here}. It's a NO regardless. Would I stop being her friend if I found out she helped move others in the past? Depends on whether or not I'm friends with her because I'm looking for people to help me move.


Oh come on. I think you know the general question the analogies are poorly trying to convey.

A different more general take on the ED one...He has never been able to get it up with her, suggests it's always been a problem for him, but she later learns that's not the case. That he's always gotten it up for other women, right up until they started dating, and even now, he can get it up, just not with her. She is entirely reasonable to conclude he has just never been terribly attracted to her, regardless of what he said.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> I'd tell you she got exactly what she bargained for, a good friend, roommate maybe provider. If she cares he's gay now, it's only in her head….


If you think it’s okay for a gay man to date and marry a woman while representing himself to her as straight, then we will never agree on this topic. And that’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Lila

samyeagar said:


> Oh come on. I think you know the general question the analogies are poorly trying to convey.
> 
> A different more general take on the ED one...He has never been able to get it up with her, suggests it's always been a problem for him, but she later learns that's not the case. That he's always gotten it up for other women, right up until they started dating, and even now, he can get it up, just not with her. She is entirely reasonable to conclude he has just never been terribly attracted to her, regardless of what he said.


Analogies comparing anything to relationships, and especially sex, are all stupid. I understand what he's trying to convey but at least try to keep it apples to pomegranates and not avocados. 

As far as the ED question goes, I am not saying she shouldn't assume he's not attracted to her. I'm saying she holds full responsibility for marrying someone who can't or won't meet her needs, _regardless_ of his reasons. The end result is the same.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> If you think it’s okay for a gay man to date and marry a woman while representing himself as straight, then we will never agree on this topic. And that’s fine.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I think if a woman enters a relationship with someone who doesn't meet her sexual needs, then it doesn't matter whether he's gay or not, that's on her.


----------



## QuietRiot

Let’s just get to the heart of it. What do you want @Lila to admit on behalf of all females? 

I think she has done a very good job explaining. Do you really not understand what she has said?


----------



## samyeagar

Lila said:


> Analogies comparing anything to relationships, and especially sex, are all stupid. I understand what he's trying to convey but at least try to keep it apples to pomegranates and not avocados.
> 
> As far as the ED question goes, I am not saying she shouldn't assume he's not attracted to her. I'm saying she holds full responsibility for marrying someone who can't or won't meet her needs, _regardless_ of his reasons. The end result is the same.


Chances are though, if he had told her he never had this problem before, including the chick he'd been banging the week before they got together, she'd make a different choice.


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> If all the W said is “no” to certain acts and refused to give reasons why and refused to say whether she did them in the past, then I’d have no problem with it. He agreed to her terms. I would only have a problem if she lied or misrepresented herself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I posted this earlier in this thread



Lila said:


> I can't speak for all women, but I am one of those women who won't discuss sexual history with anyone. I didn't do it with my ex husband or with any of the men I've dated since my divorce. I think it creates a no win situation. Divulging that information sets up an expectation for the "repertoire" of sexual acts I will perform, which I don't do.


There are people who need to have justification for the decisions others make. There are others who don't. It's been my experience that the ones who do and the ones who don't rarely mesh well, whether in romantic, platonic, or professional relationships. 

Communication styles and relationship values are two of the most overlooked compatibility markers by couples. But they cause a tremendous amount of problems if not similar..


----------



## FrenchFry

Rus47 said:


> Ok, how about older than 25? 30? Suppose a woman has a dIfferent encounter 4 times a year. In 5 years, isnt it likely she will have had a life-changing encounter with a man skilled in rocking her world? That isnt at all interested in wifing her up? Or alternatively he marries her and then cheats until she divorces him.
> 
> Maybe 20 is too young, so pick an older age.


There are those out there. The point I'm getting at is that life-changing encounters happen more often when you know what it is you are after. It seems to be much more rare to be great at something without practice and communication.

The rest is all personality and morals based. Those who cheat seem to not need a reason but a lack of brakes to stop it and pursuit of great sex is a lacking, not an excuse.


----------



## Lila

samyeagar said:


> Chances are though, if he had told her he never had this problem before, including the chick he'd been banging the week before they got together, she'd make a different choice.


We can all make guesses as to what she would or would not have accepted if she'd been given historical information. The problem is that it's all guesswork. 

Based on the scenario laid out, I hold her responsible for making her choice with the facts presented to her - he wasn't going to meet her sexual needs. She accepted him willingly.


----------



## CraigBesuden

QuietRiot said:


> Let’s just get to the heart of it. What do you want @Lila to admit on behalf of all females?
> 
> I think she has done a very good job explaining. Do you really not understand what she has said?


She cannot speak for all females.

I’ve used examples that switch the genders, sexual orientations, etc. She is consistent. We don’t agree on what is acceptable and never will. That’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ConanHub

QuietRiot said:


> Let’s just get to the heart of it. What do you want @Lila to admit on behalf of all females?
> 
> I think she has done a very good job explaining. Do you really not understand what she has said?


It looks like anyone, denying that certain tenets of red pill doctrine are always true, will not be accepted as being genuine.

Especially if they have the dreaded XX chromosome combination!😉


----------



## CraigBesuden

samyeagar said:


> Chances are though, if he had told her he never had this problem before, including the chick he'd been banging the week before they got together, she'd make a different choice.


Women will often say, “I don’t have a problem if a guy just wants sex and not a relationship. Good for you for knowing what you want! But just don’t lie about your intentions.”

Those guys lie or mislead about their intentions because if they were honest, few women would have sex with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ElOtro

Lila said:


> I may not have explained myself properly. Let me say it a different way.
> The OP is welcome to believe whatever they want. What I'm saying is his question was disingenious.
> He asked for reasons but only acknowledges those that back up his beliefs. If he wasn't open to other reasons then why even ask the question? Just state your position and let people agree or disagree with you as they please. At least then, everyone is aware of the agenda.


I agree with most of what you say above.
I also appologize for my poor understanding of the previous.

In line with this I dare to say that most of posts, probably mine includded, have some "blind spots".
As you say, the OP ones seem to discard (if not reject) other alternative explanations.
But almost each one of said other alternatives (as explanations or as objections to another) also seem to put a kind of "what if..." (THEIR what if) in the same level as a default view of things.
Like you, let me say it a different way.

Is the OP´s one the only reason why that behaviour happens (with enough frequency to be a thing and not an individual exception)? 
No. 
Other reasons were well exposed here.

Does the goodness (as fit to facts) of those other alternatives refute that some people behave like the OP says?
No.
It only shows that the OP explanation is not the only case and shoudn´t be naturalized as such.

Are each one of the posted counterfactuals to it a solely and by itelf enough explanation?
IMO, they are not.

I have my own view of what a significative propotion of this may have in common.
Can´t say even so that exclude others.

So yes, "Just state your position and let people agree or disagree with you as they please", agree.
It´s a not bad pragmatics and a fair one.


----------



## ElOtro

By the way and just in case......

As a man and IMO the "red pill" thing is cheap bs.


----------



## CraigBesuden

ElOtro said:


> As you say, the OP ones seem to discard (if not reject) other alternative explanations.


What is the one explanation that I believe explains why it happens?

What are the other alternative explanations that have been offered that I have discarded or rejected?



> But almost each one of said other alternatives [present] the same level as a default view of things.
> 
> Like you, let me say it a different way.
> 
> Is the OP’s one the only reason why that behaviour happens (with enough frequency to be a thing and not an individual exception)?
> 
> No.
> 
> Other reasons were well exposed here.


Again, what is my one explanation for why that behavior happens?



> OP explanation is not the only case and shoudn’t be naturalized as such.
> 
> Are each one of the posted counterfactuals to it a solely and by itelf enough explanation? IMO, they are not. I have my own view of what a significative propotion of this may have in common. Can’t say even so that exclude others.


I think we can all agree that there isn’t one explanation that would apply 100% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

CraigBesuden said:


> There is an issue that comes up semi-frequently:
> 
> The boyfriend / fiance / husband meets an amazing woman. The sex is acceptable (perhaps even great), but there are some things that she refuses to do and claims that she never would do, calling the acts "degrading." They could be anything from performing fellatio and anal sex all the way to things far more risque. He keeps asking her over time to do those things and she always says no. Later, he somehow learns that she used to do those things for previous lovers but not for him…
> 
> Women respond by saying that she isn't obligated to perform the same acts with one lover as she did with her previous lovers….
> 
> Men respond by saying that she's not really attracted to him….
> 
> My assumption… I'm assuming that the wife doesn't want to do those acts [because] she cares what her husband thinks of her, and she didn't really care what those other men think of her…. But that's just a guess.
> 
> Ladies, what is the real reason that some women do this?


In the OP, I presented:

1) The scenario

2) The typical online women’s response to these stories that I’ve seen (which doesn’t explain why she did it and simply evades the issue).

3) The typical online men’s explanation (manosphere) that I’ve seen: she’s shown her true colors, she’s not attracted to him and never was, and he should divorce her.

4) I offered that I believed the typical RP men’s answer is incorrect and the explanation is probably something far more benign — and so automatically advising men to divorce upon learning of her history is wrong. 

5) I asked the women to provide some insight on why this happens.

Then everything went crazy. Very little in the way of explanations. Mostly just ad hominem attacks, claims that the scenario never happens in real life (just Penthouse Letters type fiction), attacks on Red Pill beliefs, women aren’t required to perform acts they don’t want to perform, women provide more to men than what they do in bed, etc.

In post 33, I wrote:



> I suspect that the men who say that the menu size is directly correlated to how sexy she finds the man in question are wrong. I think there’s a different explanation for why some women offer a more limited menu with a BF/fiance/husband than with a hookup/FB/FWB. I was hoping that a woman could provide the explanation.


DownByTheRiver offered an explanation:



> They tried it and didn't like it. So they're under no obligation to do it ever again.
> 
> On top of that there are also differences between men and how pleasant it might or might not be to do something with them that's not that pleasant to begin with such as size smell and taste, duration, and degree of consideration.
> 
> Same with women.


I agreed that it explains some of those scenarios, but not all:



Later in the thread, two men here admitted that they were involved in these situations but with the sexes reversed, that they had provided “better sex” (more varied and enthusiastic) to prior partners because they were more attracted to them and when the current GF found out about it she was hurt. I responded by saying I guess people (of both sexes) really do that sort of thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigBesuden

Mr.Married said:


> Women aren’t coming in here by the dozens to give you an answer because the overall theme of these types of threads ends up becoming “ You women are wrong for doing this.”
> 
> Why would they want to enter that minefield?


Fair enough. I’m hoping this is one of only a small number of topics that shouldn’t be brought up on TAM. I notice your post got 8 likes.



> The answers are very simple. The man accepted what she was offering “to him” and married her. The fact that he would be willing to compromise those “other things” says he is the type of guy that settled also or Is that type that places her too much on a pedestal. The answer really isn’t complicated.


There is nothing wrong with settling. Everybody settles. It’s totally fine to make a mutually agreeable deal in a life partnership. It’s totally fine to trade some positive characteristics that you find important for some negative ones that are less important.

I notice that you are saying that the H “settled also.” I’m inferring from those words that you believe W settled for him _sexually_; she’s not really attracted to him. That means you agree with the RP explanation — even if you disagree with the idea that he should divorce over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Lila

CraigBesuden said:


> In the OP, I presented:
> 
> 1) The scenario
> 
> 2) The typical online women’s response to these stories that I’ve seen (which doesn’t explain why she did it and simply evades the issue).
> 
> 3) The typical online men’s explanation (manosphere) that I’ve seen: she’s shown her true colors, she’s not attracted to him and never was, and he should divorce her.
> 
> 4) I offered that I believed the typical RP men’s answer is incorrect and the explanation is probably something far more benign — and so automatically advising men to divorce upon learning of her history is wrong.
> 
> 5) I asked the women to provide some insight on why this happens.
> 
> Then everything went crazy. Very little in the way of explanations. Mostly just ad hominem attacks, claims that the scenario never happens in real life (just Penthouse Letters type fiction), attacks on Red Pill beliefs, women aren’t required to perform acts they don’t want to perform, women provide more to men than what they do in bed, etc.
> 
> In post 33, I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> DownByTheRiver offered an explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed that it explains some of those scenarios, but not all:
> 
> 
> 
> Later in the thread, two men here admitted that they were involved in these situations but with the sexes reversed, that they had provided “better sex” (more varied and enthusiastic) to prior partners because they were more attracted to them and when the current GF found out about it she was hurt. I responded by saying I guess people (of both sexes) really do that sort of thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I will remind.you that I provided reasons as well, ones that that didn't involve doing something in the past and not liking the activity. I even provided examples in my own life to show that there were a activities I enjoyed previously but wouldn't try with my ex husband or my current bf. The reasons were the life stage (risk was not worth the reward), relationship dynamic, *and e*motional maturity.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Sfort said:


> It turns out that I agree with you completely. You have eloquently said several things I've unsuccessfully tried to say, but you haven't gotten any better responses from the ladies than I did. They must have taken an oath or something not to reveal their inner most thoughts on these things. I'm anxious to read more of your future posts.


I don’t like it when people repeatedly evade questions. I suspect, in this case, that it’s out of a desire to not hurt men’s feelings.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that some people here believe that women often marry men who aren’t as sexually attractive to them because the guy is otherwise a great guy.

While it’s fine and wise (IMO) for a person to settle, if a woman tells a guy that he’s physically unattractive and/or bad in bed but he’s so great in so many other ways that more than make up for it… her relationship is probably over. So, the answer cannot be openly stated. 

If that’s the case, then the manosphere guys are often (not always) right about why this happens.


----------



## CallingDrLove

This thread reminded me of a message I received when I was online dating. I just put up a post about it. I wonder if the girl who wrote that message would have held out on me sexually and just saw me as a nice safe guy.


----------



## Numb26

"peaks in"

Still?


----------



## Enigma32

Also, I can't speak for the ladies but as a man, sometimes I can be attracted to different women in different ways, so my expression of that attractiveness is also different. If you don't enjoy a certain act with one person, it might not be that you find them unattractive, just that you are attracted to them differently and thus enjoy different acts with that person.


----------



## Corgi Mum

I've been pondering this within the context of my own history and the closest I can come is that there were sexual behaviours I engaged in when much younger and quite new to sex that I _pretended_ to enjoy because I was inexperienced, wanted to appear more sophisticated than I was, and thought that I was _supposed_ to be enjoying them. It had nothing to do with my degree of attraction to the guy and everything to do with my own lack of sexual knowledge.

And I sincerely apologize to all the women who these guys had sex with after me for giving them the impression that women actually liked some of that stuff because I'm sure they inflicted it on others too.

As I got older and gained experience and learned my own tastes I also gained the confidence to say, "please don't slurp in my ear, it's not a turn-on".


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> "peaks in"
> 
> Still?


I'm surprised YOU don't have anything to contribute to this topic....


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> I'm surprised YOU don't have anything to contribute to this topic....


I'm keeping my thoughts to myself. 🤫


----------



## CallingDrLove

Here is a personal example of not doing something currently having nothing to do with attraction. Early in our marriage my wife and I had sex in public places on more than one occasion. Sex on the beach in Hawaii, in the call room at the hospital, Dollar store bathroom, Sam’s Club bathroom, in the back of my truck parked in a gravel pit, road head, road handjobs, etc. It was exciting and fun but she’s not really keen on that anymore and the reason is she’s now an elected official and we are both prominent figures in our community. If we got caught it would be a huge embarrassment and we could potentially lose what’s close to a half million a year household income. If we were absolutely guaranteed not to get caught I think she still might go for it, but then again the potential of getting caught is part of the fun.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

CraigBesuden said:


> In the OP, I presented:
> 
> 1) The scenario
> 
> 2) The typical online women’s response to these stories that I’ve seen (which doesn’t explain why she did it and simply evades the issue).
> 
> 3) The typical online men’s explanation (manosphere) that I’ve seen: she’s shown her true colors, she’s not attracted to him and never was, and he should divorce her.
> 
> 4) I offered that I believed the typical RP men’s answer is incorrect and the explanation is probably something far more benign — and so automatically advising men to divorce upon learning of her history is wrong.
> 
> 5) I asked the women to provide some insight on why this happens.
> 
> Then everything went crazy. Very little in the way of explanations. Mostly just ad hominem attacks, claims that the scenario never happens in real life (just Penthouse Letters type fiction), attacks on Red Pill beliefs, women aren’t required to perform acts they don’t want to perform, women provide more to men than what they do in bed, etc.
> 
> In post 33, I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> DownByTheRiver offered an explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed that it explains some of those scenarios, but not all:
> 
> 
> 
> Later in the thread, two men here admitted that they were involved in these situations but with the sexes reversed, that they had provided “better sex” (more varied and enthusiastic) to prior partners because they were more attracted to them and when the current GF found out about it she was hurt. I responded by saying I guess people (of both sexes) really do that sort of thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I don't understand why you don't believe a person can just change their mind about what they like or don't like. There were times my wife simply had zero interest in giving oral, maybe for months or years. Then there were times when she was gung ho for a period of time. Then back to little or no interest, then into it again. We've been through that cycle many times over the course of our 35 year relationship. Same with receiving oral. Her desire for it has been all over the map in 35 years. I find it hard to believe that it is because her attraction for me changed. I never sensed a lack of interest in sex in general. No loss of love or affection. Just changing tastes for what was on our sexual menu. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable explanation for your scenario?

As for telling the new guy she doesn't like something, would never do it, etc., then finding out she did it with a previous lover. Yeah, she lied if she said she never did it, but actually had done it, either reluctantly or enthusiastically. My bet is she said what she said, because she didn't want to deal with the new guy begging, arguing and sulking over not getting what the other guy got before him. Even in your scenario you have the guy repeatedly asking for something he already knows she doesn't want to do. I can guarantee you that doing that is the worst possible strategy for getting it. It is exactly what she was trying to avoid by telling him she didn't like it or didn't do it in the past. She was disingenuous and she shouldn't have lied. At the same time her new guy probably shouldn't be asking for such details about past lovers. A better answer to his question could have been her telling him she doesn't want to talk about past lovers, lets talk about us and what we do and don't like. 

When my wife and I were first dating and became sexual I know I did some of the unattractive begging/sulking for certain sexual acts. It was because I was immature and inexperienced. However, I learned. I learned it didn't get me what I was asking for and diminished what I had. Think about it, she just ****ed your brains out, but that isn't enough, you want something else. It sends a bad message loud and clear. Since then, my strategy has been, go with the flow. Enthusiastically enjoy what you are doing, not getting hung up on what you could be doing. And, wow, sure enough our sexual menu expanded over the years. Something would go off of it for a while, but they would always make a come back at some point. And the bottom line was that I was getting good sex on a regular basis. Why complain?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

CraigBesuden said:


> In the OP, I presented:
> 
> 1) The scenario
> 
> 2) The typical online women’s response to these stories that I’ve seen (which doesn’t explain why she did it and simply evades the issue).
> 
> 3) The typical online men’s explanation (manosphere) that I’ve seen: she’s shown her true colors, she’s not attracted to him and never was, and he should divorce her.
> 
> 4) I offered that I believed the typical RP men’s answer is incorrect and the explanation is probably something far more benign — and so automatically advising men to divorce upon learning of her history is wrong.
> 
> 5) I asked the women to provide some insight on why this happens.
> 
> Then everything went crazy. Very little in the way of explanations. Mostly just ad hominem attacks, claims that the scenario never happens in real life (just Penthouse Letters type fiction), attacks on Red Pill beliefs, women aren’t required to perform acts they don’t want to perform, women provide more to men than what they do in bed, etc.
> 
> In post 33, I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> DownByTheRiver offered an explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed that it explains some of those scenarios, but not all:
> 
> 
> 
> Later in the thread, two men here admitted that they were involved in these situations but with the sexes reversed, that they had provided “better sex” (more varied and enthusiastic) to prior partners because they were more attracted to them and when the current GF found out about it she was hurt. I responded by saying I guess people (of both sexes) really do that sort of thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


What's the reason for this particular post? Seems just a recap.


----------



## CallingDrLove

When we first got married my wife told me she had a fantasy of surreptitiously having sex in a movie theater. She even planned out the specifics of how this would happen. It never has happened but you better believe when we finally build our dream house it’s going to have the most amazing home cinema ever.


----------



## CallingDrLove

BigDaddyNY said:


> I don't understand why you don't believe a person can just change their mind about what they like or don't like. There were times my wife simply had zero interest in giving oral, maybe for months or years. Then there were times when she was gung ho for a period of time. Then back to little or no interest, then into it again. We've been through that cycle many times over the course of our 35 year relationship. Same with receiving oral. Her desire for it has been all over the map in 35 years. I find it hard to believe that it is because her attraction for me changed. I never sensed a lack of interest in sex in general. No loss of love or affection. Just changing tastes for what was on our sexual menu. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable explanation for your scenario?
> 
> As for telling the new guy she doesn't like something, would never do it, etc., then finding out she did it with a previous lover. Yeah, she lied if she said she never did it, but actually had done it, either reluctantly or enthusiastically. My bet is she said what she said, because she didn't want to deal with the new guy begging, arguing and sulking over not getting what the other guy got before him. Even in your scenario you have the guy repeatedly asking for something he already knows she doesn't want to do. I can guarantee you that doing that is the worst possible strategy for getting it. It is exactly what she was trying to avoid by telling him she didn't like it or didn't do it in the past. She was disingenuous and she shouldn't have lied. At the same time her new guy probably shouldn't be asking for such details about past lovers. A better answer to his question could have been her telling him she doesn't want to talk about past lovers, lets talk about us and what we do and don't like.
> 
> When my wife and I were first dating and became sexual I know I did some of the unattractive begging/sulking for certain sexual acts. It was because I was immature and inexperienced. However, I learned. I learned it didn't get me what I was asking for and diminished what I had. Think about it, she just ****ed your brains out, but that isn't enough, you want something else. It sends a bad message loud and clear. Since then, my strategy has been, go with the flow. Enthusiastically enjoy what you are doing, not getting hung up on what you could be doing. And, wow, sure enough our sexual menu expanded over the years. Something would go off of it for a while, but they would always make a come back at some point. And the bottom line was that I was getting good sex on a regular basis. Why complain?


That’s the thing that I wish I understood a long time ago and many men need to learn. We can complain all we want about something not being just, fair, or right. We can watch videos on YouTube about men’s issues and commiserate with all the other men about how women are evil who will let any “bad boy” pound their ass but if you are a decent human all you get is missionary star fish with the lights out. Doing those things may be satisfying to our sense of right and wrong but you will never shame a woman in a blowjob, sulk your way into anal, or logically talk your way into her swallowing.


----------



## Enigma32

Another thought I think worth mentioning. I think some people just want to have some more pride in their partner. Imagine you are in your 30s+ and in a relationship with someone. You somehow get a glimpse into your partner's past relationship and you find out they were far better looking, maybe they had more money, less baggage, and were a lot more fun in the bedroom? Does that information make you feel better or worse about your relationship?


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> Another thought I think worth mentioning. I think some people just want to have some more pride in their partner. Imagine you are in your 30s+ and in a relationship with someone. You somehow get a glimpse into your partner's past relationship and you find out they were far better looking, maybe they had more money, less baggage, and were a lot more fun in the bedroom? Does that information make you feel better or worse about your relationship?


This is a great point too!!

I think for men who are bothered by this, it's not always just about whining and wanting as much as the other guys she's been with.

I think men who love their partners want to feel like her BEST choice and they want to feel like she is so happy and satisfied to be with him that she wants to give him ALL of herself. They want her sexual exclusivity.

WHY is this a bad thing that men are being ridiculed for...?? Because I know as a woman, that is exactly how I would feel about the man who I would love and want as my partner!! I want him to feel like he's so in love with me and so happy with me and has so much desire for me that he isn't settling at all and he wants to give me ALL of himself too, in every way!!! And especially sexually, because that's the one thing that we share that is intimate and special and isn't shared with anyone else!!

And I'm sure most other women feel the same way as me, just not about sexual acts. 

So it's ego, sure...but it's not just MALE ego. And it's not just men who feel that way and who value their partner's sexual feelings, and want to feel like those sexual feelings are being exclusively given to THEM.


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> And I'm sure most other women feel the same way as me, just not about sexual acts.
> 
> So it's ego, sure...but it's not just MALE ego. And it's not just men who feel that way and who value their partner's sexual feelings, and want to feel like those sexual feelings are being exclusively given to THEM.


I agree 100%, which is why I did not mention gender in my post. It could be about anything. If you found out your ex used to take their exes on vacations all the time but never took you anywhere...same thing. You might feel some kinda way about your relationship or how your partner feels about you.


----------



## samyeagar

LisaDiane said:


> This is a great point too!!
> 
> I think for men who are bothered by this, it's not always just about whining and wanting as much as the other guys she's been with.
> 
> I think men who love their partners want to feel like her BEST choice and they want to feel like she is so happy and satisfied to be with him that she wants to give him ALL of herself. They want her sexual exclusivity.
> 
> WHY is this a bad thing that men are being ridiculed for...?? Because I know as a woman, that is exactly how I would feel about the man who I would love and want as my partner!! I want him to feel like he's so in love with me and so happy with me and has so much desire for me that he isn't settling at all and he wants to give me ALL of himself too, in every way!!! And especially sexually, because that's the one thing that we share that is intimate and special and isn't shared with anyone else!!
> 
> And I'm sure most other women feel the same way as me, just not about sexual acts.
> 
> So it's ego, sure...but it's not just MALE ego. And it's not just men who feel that way and who value their partner's sexual feelings, and want to feel like those sexual feelings are being exclusively given to THEM.


I have tried saying this exact same thing in many different ways, and it always gets sidestepped with the focus turning back to forcing women to do things she didn't like to prove her desire. The actual acts, be they sexual or otherwise, are largely immaterial in and of themselves.

People want to feel and believe that they are their partners best, that their partner likes, loves, wants them more than anyone else before them. They want their partners best effort, which is entirely reasonable. If I claim to love and desire my wife more than anyone else, it is entirely reasonable for her to expect my best effort.

This typically becomes an issue when, like so many other situations, the words and actions don't match.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Enigma32 said:


> Another thought I think worth mentioning. I think some people just want to have some more pride in their partner. Imagine you are in your 30s+ and in a relationship with someone. You somehow get a glimpse into your partner's past relationship and you find out they were far better looking, maybe they had more money, less baggage, and were a lot more fun in the bedroom? Does that information make you feel better or worse about your relationship?


Another pitfall of social media. 

Then it seems EVERYBODY BELIEVES what someone said, showed a likeness, etc etc. Nuts


----------



## Enigma32

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Another pitfall of social media.
> 
> Then it seems EVERYBODY BELIEVES what someone said, showed a likeness, etc etc. Nuts


It could be based on something other than social media. Heck, one of my exes I dated when we were 19 was beautiful back then, a 6 foot blonde with a killer body that was turning down modeling contracts. Now she's maybe 80 pounds overweight with 3 kids and walks with a limp. I feel kinda bad for the guy that married her.


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> It could be based on something other than social media. Heck, one of my exes I dated when we were 19 was beautiful back then, a 6 foot blonde with a killer body that was turning down modeling contracts. Now she's maybe 80 pounds overweight with 3 kids and walks with a limp. I feel kinda bad for the guy that married her.


Maybe she's loving to him and makes him happy...?


----------



## ElOtro

LisaDiane said:


> This is a great point too!!
> 
> I think for men who are bothered by this, it's not always just about whining and wanting as much as the other guys she's been with.
> 
> I think men who love their partners want to feel like her BEST choice and they want to feel like she is so happy and satisfied to be with him that she wants to give him ALL of herself. They want her sexual exclusivity.
> 
> WHY is this a bad thing that men are being ridiculed for...?? Because I know as a woman, that is exactly how I would feel about the man who I would love and want as my partner!! I want him to feel like he's so in love with me and so happy with me and has so much desire for me that he isn't settling at all and he wants to give me ALL of himself too, in every way!!! And especially sexually, because that's the one thing that we share that is intimate and special and isn't shared with anyone else!!
> 
> And I'm sure most other women feel the same way as me, just not about sexual acts.
> 
> So it's ego, sure...but it's not just MALE ego. And it's not just men who feel that way and who value their partner's sexual feelings, and want to feel like those sexual feelings are being exclusively given to THEM.


Bravo!


----------



## QuietRiot

LisaDiane said:


> This is a great point too!!
> 
> I think for men who are bothered by this, it's not always just about whining and wanting as much as the other guys she's been with.
> 
> I think men who love their partners want to feel like her BEST choice and they want to feel like she is so happy and satisfied to be with him that she wants to give him ALL of herself. They want her sexual exclusivity.
> 
> WHY is this a bad thing that men are being ridiculed for...?? Because I know as a woman, that is exactly how I would feel about the man who I would love and want as my partner!! I want him to feel like he's so in love with me and so happy with me and has so much desire for me that he isn't settling at all and he wants to give me ALL of himself too, in every way!!! And especially sexually, because that's the one thing that we share that is intimate and special and isn't shared with anyone else!!
> 
> And I'm sure most other women feel the same way as me, just not about sexual acts.
> 
> So it's ego, sure...but it's not just MALE ego. And it's not just men who feel that way and who value their partner's sexual feelings, and want to feel like those sexual feelings are being exclusively given to THEM.


I don’t think anyone disagrees that being wanted and feeling like you have that connection in your marriage is important. I think where this gets hairy, is that there is comparison and pain shopping happening. When you look into a persons past relationships, and pick and choose things that are missing from your present relationship… I think it’s just a recipe for resentment. Instead of viewing a whole picture of what that relationship was and why it didn’t work, someone is essentially looking for something they aren’t getting, and therefore assuming there is deceit and lies. 

Anyone has a right to be upset about whatever they want and feel they aren’t getting, I think the point many people here were making is that if you can’t tolerate it, it’s up to you to do something about it rather than complaining and begging for the “thing”. (Not “you” specifically) And it was asked what reasons women might have for doing something with an ex, and not doing it in the present. Many reasons were gone over, but I don’t think some people believe any of them. Which is fine too. 

I don’t think you can pick and choose the things you might see as positive and wonderful in any area of a persons prior relationships and expect them all to be juxtaposed into your present relationship. You build a relationship based on the two of you, your experiences yes, but who you are now not who you were individually 20 years ago. And also who you want to be together. I don’t think there is a whole lot of value in backwards comparison shopping. I actually don’t want to know specific sexual history and everything they did…I just want to assess how I am treated and how well we work together, currently.

(Again, I used a lot of “you” but I don’t mean you personally LisaDiane)


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> Maybe she's loving to him and makes him happy...?


Doubtful. I listed off all of her best features, and why I dated her back in the day. She definitely wasn't sweet and loving, she was just hot. Heck of a stretch to think she's suddenly better than before. Besides, in my experience, people tend to get worse, not better.


----------



## samyeagar

QuietRiot said:


> I don’t think anyone disagrees that being wanted and feeling like you have that connection in your marriage is important. I think where this gets hairy, is that there is comparison and pain shopping happening. When you look into a persons past relationships, and pick and choose things that are missing from your present relationship… I think it’s just a recipe for resentment. Instead of viewing a whole picture of what that relationship was and why it didn’t work, someone is essentially looking for something they aren’t getting, and therefore assuming there is deceit and lies.
> 
> Anyone has a right to be upset about whatever they want and feel they aren’t getting, I think the point many people here were making is that if you can’t tolerate it, it’s up to you to do something about it rather than complaining and begging for the “thing”. (Not “you” specifically) And it was asked what reasons women might have for doing something with an ex, and not doing it in the present. Many reasons were gone over, but I don’t think some people believe any of them. Which is fine too.
> 
> I don’t think you can pick and choose the things you might see as positive and wonderful in any area of a persons prior relationships and expect them all to be juxtaposed into your present relationship. You build a relationship based on the two of you, your experiences yes, but who you are now not who you were individually 20 years ago. And also who you want to be together. I don’t think there is a whole lot of value in backwards comparison shopping. I actually don’t want to know specific sexual history and everything they did…I just want to assess how I am treated and how well we work together, currently.
> 
> (Again, I used a lot of “you” but I don’t mean you personally LisaDiane)


Again, I think this is kind of missing the point @LisaDiane was making, and circling back around to specific things, specific acts. Perhaps a more personal example may help clarify things.

When my wife and I started dating, I learned a whole lot more than I ever cared to about her previous relationships, in particular her sexual relationships. I never asked about the past, but from her sharing and me listening to conversations she and her friends had, I got a pretty clear picture of what her best efforts were in relationships. I didn't care so much about specific acts, rather the totality of effort. Sure, a lot of the specific things she did came from an unhealthy desperate place. Yes, they were unhealthy abusive relationships that I can't wrap my mind around wanting to keep them, but that is almost beside the point. The important thing was that she was willing to put in significant effort to keep those relationships with abusive cheating assholes. It is not unreasonable at all to expect her best effort to keep a good healthy relationship. Again, it is not at all about specifics, but rather the feeling that we all know in whether or not our partner is giving the best that they have.

There was one specific situation though that we did have to go into to sort some things out, but she said one thing that really jumped out at me... She stated, "I didn't want him to think I was bad in bed." At that point, you're damned right I expected her to put in the effort to make sure I didn't think she was bad in bed. I didn't care about replicating the specifics of her relationships, but I did expect at least, if not a higher level of enthusiasm, engagement, and effort.


----------



## QuietRiot

samyeagar said:


> Again, I think this is kind of missing the point @LisaDiane was making, and circling back around to specific things, specific acts. Perhaps a more personal example may help clarify things.
> 
> When my wife and I started dating, I learned a whole lot more than I ever cared to about her previous relationships, in particular her sexual relationships. I never asked about the past, but from her sharing and me listening to conversations she and her friends had, I got a pretty clear picture of what her best efforts were in relationships. I didn't care so much about specific acts, rather the totality of effort. Sure, a lot of the specific things she did came from an unhealthy desperate place. Yes, they were unhealthy abusive relationships that I can't wrap my mind around wanting to keep them, but that is almost beside the point. The important thing was that she was willing to put in significant effort to keep those relationships with abusive cheating assholes. It is not unreasonable at all to expect her best effort to keep a good healthy relationship. Again, it is not at all about specifics, but rather the feeling that we all know in whether or not our partner is giving the best that they have.
> 
> There was one specific situation though that we did have to go into to sort some things out, but she said one thing that really jumped out at me... She stated, "I didn't want him to think I was bad in bed." At that point, you're damned right I expected her to put in the effort to make sure I didn't think she was bad in bed. I didn't care about replicating the specifics of her relationships, but I did expect at least, if not a higher level of enthusiasm, engagement, and effort.


I don’t think my ideas are in contrast to yours, is it fair to say you felt unloved in many ways not just one sexual act or one “thing”? Also did you feel she was one way when you married her and then “fell off” the cliff after marriage or did you find out later she put in less effort with you after you married her? 

I think it kind of gives my arguments more credit if nothing else… there simply different dynamics between different people and the relationship itself is different. That just makes sense to me. Yes you absolutely deserve to be respected and treated well, but not held to the standard of “how did you treat your ex”, held to a standard instead of, “this is what I am worth and this is what I need and will tolerate.” Apropos of nothing…


----------



## samyeagar

QuietRiot said:


> I don’t think my ideas are in contrast to yours, is it fair to say you felt unloved in many ways not just one sexual act or one “thing”? Also did you feel she was one way when you married her and then “fell off” the cliff after marriage or did you find out later she put in less effort with you after you married her?
> 
> I think it kind of gives my arguments more credit if nothing else… there simply different dynamics between different people and the relationship itself is different. That just makes sense to me. Yes you absolutely deserve to be respected and treated well, but not held to the standard of “how did you treat your ex”, held to a standard instead of, “this is what I am worth and this is what I need and will tolerate.” Apropos of nothing…


There was really only one major point of contention with my wife and I have long since let that one go.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it works that way for most people in real life. People have standards and requirements, but there is always a base line, a bare minimum they will accept, which is what “this is what I am worth and this is what I need and will tolerate.” is...that is the base line. At the same time, people are generally happy to be treated better than their baseline minimum, especially in a healthy loving relationship. And it is not unreasonable to expect a spouse to want to do better than the bare minimum they are capable of.

Also, one persons 100% effort in specific acts and such may appear less than another persons 50% effort, but give me the 100% effort person every single day, even if it means less or different specifics. For me, that is where the question of “how did you treat your ex” becomes important. It gives some insight into what she is and isn't capable of doing. That said, we've been together ten years now, and so much came out in our first few years that this type of thing won't really be any kind of issue for us in the future, and I have no doubt in my mind that my wife is 100% in and enthusiastically engaged in our relationship.


----------



## Lila

LisaDiane said:


> I think men who love their partners want to feel like her BEST choice and they want to feel like she is so happy and satisfied to be with him that she wants to give him ALL of herself. They want her sexual exclusivity.





LisaDiane said:


> Because I know as a woman, that is exactly how I would feel about the man who I would love and want as my partner!! I want him to feel like he's so in love with me and so happy with me and has so much desire for me that he isn't settling at all and he wants to give me ALL of himself too, in every way!!! And especially sexually, because that's the one thing that we share that is intimate and special and isn't shared with anyone else


You spoke to feelings which is great however, "feelings" are manufactured inside of ourselves. _I think, therefore I feel. _Depending in which direction one takes these thoughts, feelings can be positive or negative. This is the basis for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. 

"I feel like I'm not getting the best from my partner" is guaranteed to result in negative feelings. 

"My partner is giving me the best they have to offer" has a 50/50 chance at positive feelings. 

It's possible I'm viewing this through the lens of a middle aged, single woman dating in the modern era but at this age, good enough is the new best.


----------



## ConanHub

I think there is something to the


Enigma32 said:


> Also, I can't speak for the ladies but as a man, sometimes I can be attracted to different women in different ways, so my expression of that attractiveness is also different. If you don't enjoy a certain act with one person, it might not be that you find them unattractive, just that you are attracted to them differently and thus enjoy different acts with that person.


I know there is truth here.

People have so many differences and ways that you really are a bit of a different person when in bed with different people. I don't even think it can be helped to a certain degree nor should it. It's similar to partnered tennis. Each couple is simply a different dynamic.

There are other, less positive reasons, why someone isn't as free with the extras as they were with others but this explanation fits many.


I knew one lady that did all sorts of crazy stuff with a previous boyfriend and thoroughly enjoyed all of it.

She had to be different with her husband for a number of reasons but one was the ex had a fairly small unit and her husband was a bit on the monstrous scale.


----------



## ElOtro

Lila said:


> You spoke to feelings which is great however, "feelings" are manufactured inside of ourselves. _I think, therefore I feel. _Depending in which direction one takes these thoughts, feelings can be positive or negative. This is the basis for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
> 
> "I feel like I'm not getting the best from my partner" is guaranteed to result in negative feelings.
> 
> "My partner is giving me the best they have to offer" has a 50/50 chance at positive feelings.
> 
> It's possible I'm viewing this through the lens of a middle aged, single woman dating in the modern era but at this age, good enough is the new best.


Of course to each one their right to feel, think and do what they choose to.
The point is that such right applies (or should) to one direction, the opposite and whatever may be in the middle of both.
So in absence of other reality check, that right is "validated" and "validates" ....the right in itself ...and nothing else.

Is it enough for the ones that believe so? Good. It´s within their right, THAT one.
Is it enough for me? Holly Cow, NO.

For my own life (and only) I can´t imagine a worst worldview than to redefine thought according to what would make me feel.
So much that if the good enough as the new best is a necessary attitude that would save me from a sudden death in my way to the next street corner, I would stand up and walk there, not happy but with what I found needed for my personal dignity.


----------



## Lila

ElOtro said:


> Of course to each one their right to feel, think and do what they choose to.
> The point is that such right applies (or should) to one direction, the opposite and whatever may be in the middle of both.
> So in absence of other reality check, that right is "validated" and "validates" ....the right in itself ...and nothing else.
> 
> Is it enough for the ones that believe so? Good. It´s within their right, THAT one.
> Is it enough for me? Holly Cow, NO.
> 
> For my own life (and only) I can´t imagine a worst worldview than to redefine thought according to what would make me feel.
> So much that if the good enough as the new best is a necessary attitude that would save me from a sudden death in my way to the next street corner, I would stand up and walk there, not happy but with what I found needed for my personal dignity.


I think what you are trying to say is that people are entitled to their feelings. If so, then I completely agree, however also recognize that feelings do not equal truth or even right. They can also be misleading depending upon mindset at the time. 

I personally have no issues with using feelings to navigate relationships as long as the one doing so owns their decisions.


----------



## ElOtro

Lila said:


> I think what you are trying to say is that people are entitled to their feelings. If so, then I completely agree, however also recognize that feelings do not equal truth or even right. They can also be misleading depending upon mindset at the time.
> 
> I personally have no issues with using feelings to navigate relationships as long as the one doing so owns their decisions.


No, that´s not at all the core of what I intented to say.
Allow me to try again.

"...however also recognize that feelings do not equal truth or even right" 
I agree. 
And same can be said about thoughts and any other mental mechanism.

"They can also be misleading depending upon mindset at the time".
They, feelings and / or ideas may mislead people.
But IMO it deppends on their fit to aproximately describe reality outside the minds or their falilure to do it instead of solely their mindset.

In other words, I wouldn´t choose a particular view of stuff cos it may make me feel better or worse.

" ...as long as the one doing so owns their decisions"
And just IMO to see things as they are (regardless they are "positive" or not) is a good fundation for such decisions.

To enjoy and improve the good things and to materially change the bad ones.


----------



## EleGirl

Thread closed at OP's request.


----------

