# How do you decide what is acceptable sexual behavior?



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

It fascinates me to watch this play out in the conversations here.

Case 1. A husband wants to do something with his ejaculate, as a recently closed thread discussed. Lots of people say "whatever works for you and your spouse", but the consensus also includes an allowance for the wife to opt out. She should have the right to decide that this is too disgusting or degrading to participate.

Case 2. A husband wants to touch his wife's breasts during foreplay, but she doesn't allow it. Lots of people way "whatever works for your and your spouse", but the consensus also includes statements to the effect that "this is a perfectly normal act and a decent spouse would work to include this in a healthy sex life".

Is the only difference between these two cases social norms? I very purposely chose two options that do not include pain, or third parties, or non-monogamous unsafe practices, or risk of injury, and there are certainly other examples.

So it seems we use some other yardstick above and beyond "only those things to which both partners agree are reasonable". Is that yardstick nothing more than social convention? Is oral sex more expected and acceptable now only because the majority does it? Do we really just rationalize what we personally find acceptable as normal, then construct elaborate arguments to justify our position?

It seems to me we do, more than we might want to admit.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Just as in most other things, we look at situations through the lens of our own experiences and expectations. Some of which are more commonly held than others.

I have no particular desire to give my wife a facial, but fully expect some boob-grabbing and oral sex. I expect I'm in the majority on both counts, thus the concensus on both situations you describe. Concensus counts for something, but probably not a whole lot in the end, particularly in individual cases.


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

I'll just comment on the examples you gave. For example number one, I agree, just whatever feels comfortable for both of you. Example number two however, I think that when it comes to marriage, getting married implies that sex will be available to both spouses. I don't understand how the implication that sex is available can be made if it doesn't also imply free reign to touch your spouse (in a non-painful way as you said) during the act of sex.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Yes, I believe social norms play a big role in our perspectives.

Some societies believe in having multiple wives, whereas that is a big No Way in others. In societies where breasts are not considered sexual objects but are for baby food, breast play isn't considered, like most wouldn't consider ankles and elbows to be sex objects in our society (I said most!). There was a time when a glimpse of ankle was oh, so risque!

Social norms change over time, and what was once unacceptable becomes more the norm and then it becomes expected, leading to "a decent spouse would try this for a healthy sex life."


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

*"Do we really just rationalize what we personally find acceptable as normal, then construct elaborate arguments to justify our position?"*

Yep. We all have built-in bologna generators. We are famously good at creating stories to justify ourselves. 

Good book: The Blank Slate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia discusses some of those ideas.

Pinker is a relentless, and persuasive case-maker, with meticulously referenced, cited, & supported ideas. Highly recommended. He is also a linguist and his work is simply entertaining to consume, which is a bonus. This has nothing to do specifically with the exact sex justification you are questioning, but the concept of justifying our own actions is discussed in great depth.

(for the lazy:  http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html )


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

If my wife one day told me, I want a facial, or lets try anal and here's the lube, etc. I would gladly do that with her.

Only thing that's out of the question, is having a 3 - some. Marriage to me is special between husband and wife, otherwise, why get married in the first place? Be single, date, have 3 - some, party, then get that out of your system and meet the right man or woman and get married.

I like to kiss and nibble my wife's breasts, massage and do her feet, and any position that she can do comfortably.

If she wanted to dress up for role play, sweet. Watch adult movies and use toys, great. Anything between us that adds fun to the sex life.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Cletus said:


> It fascinates me to watch this play out in the conversations here.
> 
> Case 1. A husband wants to do something with his ejaculate, as a recently closed thread discussed. Lots of people say "whatever works for you and your spouse", but the consensus also includes an allowance for the wife to opt out. She should have the right to decide that this is too disgusting or degrading to participate.
> 
> ...



Yes, I think the only difference in the two cases is the yardstick we apply. But that yard stick can be very different depending on who is holding it. Where do fetishes come from, how do we define kink, who the hell thought of doing THAT?

When you look at the sex practices of say Bonobo monkeys, you realize the free play produces creative ways to get and give pleasure. Bu we humans have the Internet along with free play. One persons wacky idea gets publicized and now it's considered normal by most standards. So those standards evolve as information sharing evolves.

Like the bonobo monkey, safe sane and consentual and anything goes.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> When you look at the sex practices of say Bonobo monkeys, you realize the free play produces creative ways to get and give pleasure. Bu we humans have the Internet along with free play. One persons wacky idea gets publicized and now it's considered normal by most standards. So those standards evolve as information sharing evolves.
> 
> Like the bonobo monkey, safe sane and consentual and anything goes.


Right, but not only do we ourselves begin to accept new standards, we also start applying them to others. Those who don't hew to the new norm get labeled as broken.

Let's take case #2. When I mention that this is my situation, I get asked if there is a history of sexual abuse, because many are completely incredulous that a women in 21st century western culture would feel that way without scarring from past transgressions. Some even claim that a partner in such a situation is undergoing a mild form of sexual abuse. The norm becomes not only normal, but deviation from it becomes pathologized.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Do we really just rationalize what we personally find acceptable as normal, then construct elaborate arguments to justify our position?
> 
> It seems to me we do, more than we might want to admit.


Mr. Cletus,

I think you are correct here.

Now, some examples from my own personal experiences..

The reason I don't give my wife the "Facial" is because I cannot ejaculate that much. We did try, she encouraged me to try. But I cannot ejaculate in the volume required to make it a "Facial". At most I could make some dribbles, but no facial.

Since it is physically impossible, that is why we don't do "Facial" anymore. No need to justify it, it just won't work for me. I am not young anymore.

It's just like anal. We did try, she encouraged me to try. But we were unable to make it work because mine just won't get in, too difficult, and repeated failed attempts makes me become less hard. 

So, since it is physically impossible, that is why we don't do anal anymore. 

I don't have to justify my position at all, it's just the fact.

And this goes both ways, for the husband and the wife. Once my wife wanted to experiment in "Reversing the Role", by sucking on my nipples and tickling my perineum. She said "maybe it will help you to get erection faster". I felt a bit weird, because usually it's the woman who gets nipple-sucked, and perineum-tickling is so similar to vulva-fingering.. this whole role-reversing thing was a bit weird to me. But I played along, because I respect her and wanted to explore her creativity. And she asked in a respectful way, so I see no reason not to play along.

Turned out that those acts gave me very pleasant feeling. Didn't really make my erection comes faster, but surely made me more relaxed (usually it is me who does foreplay first). 

And so, since it is physically possible, sometimes she's doing it when we feels like it. 

Now, back to your question..

I see people are making justifications to defend their position. It's all fine to me. Everybody wants to be respected. Everybody wants to avoid being forced to do what they don't want to do. "No anal!" "No oral!" "No facial!" "No nipples sucking!" "No perineum tickling!" etc, they all are psychological barriers that are being set up by individual, to ensure that they are being respected by their partner/spouse. 

The real challenge are to tear down some of the barriers not because of the feeling of being forced, but because we think the barriers are just that, barriers which preventing us to enjoy full intimacy with our partner/spouse.

Not to say that the barriers should all be removed, though. Some things should better be left alone. 

If a marriage is to work, then the feelings of (1) mutual respect (2) mutual love and (3) mutual sexual attraction has to be present. All three. Missing one is a recipe for unhappy marriage.

If 1,2,3 are present and are being constantly reinforced by daily display of love, affection, respect and responsibility, then some sexual barriers (not all) might be neutralized and put to rest.


----------



## TheStranger (Jan 14, 2013)

Cletus said:


> The norm becomes not only normal, but deviation from it becomes pathologized.


Of course. This is not specific to sex. This is true for the entire society, this is true in your own body. 

Society always tried to eliminate those that are different (race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs). Many suffered because of that.

Your own body rejects everything that is different. Your body will fight against the new heart that was transplanted.

Being conservative or sticking to the norm is something that works in nature it seems. Change comes gradually.


----------



## Happyquest (Apr 21, 2009)

For me what is acceptable has to pass this test.

1. does it hurt or offend anyone that knows what is being done or will know what took place? If so then its not acceptable.
2. Are all the ones involved excepting of the sexual behavior?
3. If it involves more than one person then each is in agreement that you both want to explore it.


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

Sexuality is such a complex topic that any yardstick applied to anything is only as consistent as how that person from that culture feels in that moment. That person in a different culture or at a different time in his or her life might give a completely different answer.

Sexuality is a knotted part of the human psyche in which an extraordinary amount of variables are in play at once: Upbringing, exposure to different viewpoints, insecurities, fears, secret desires, just to name a few. Given that, it is unsurprising that so many people, esp on a fairly conservative forum like TAM, tend to project their worldviews on others. Our sexuality is so embedded in our subconscious that when we're confronted by radically different viewpoints, cognitive dissonance sets in and many of us resolve that dissonance by labeling the outside viewpoint "prudish" or "outlandish", depending on our own starting point.

Arguing from our own predetermined viewpoints isn't exclusive to sexuality. As humans, we employ confirmation bias on so many different areas of our lives that we often don't even know we're doing it.

What I tend to doubt in these discussions is that our current point in history is any more depraved than any past point. Oral sex, anal sex, and yes, even facials, are not recent inventions and have been happening for hundres of years, if not far longer.

The argument often thrown about is that porn has made these things more "expected". And I completely agree with that. What I question is whether or not it's such a bad thing. I'm not arguing the merits of porn. I certainly don't want to open that can of worms. But is it so bad that the proliferation of pornography exposed people to, say, oral sex? We would say no, that's probably not too bad. But if we apply that same question to facials, suddenly as a culture we clam up and think about how offensive the act is. But will future generations say that, or will they look back at us and think we were sexually inhibited prudes?


----------



## Kaboom (Feb 6, 2013)

My take is simply that sexual compatibility is even more complex than romantic compatibility-

And when both are expected to co-exist in the same relationship? Certainly explains why we have a 71% divorce rate in the USA!

Davelli really nailed it on so many levels- it is all about how we project our values onto others. The problem with sex is that we have to adhere to both parties' values at the same time. It's mindbending sometimes.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Kaboom said:


> My take is simply that sexual compatibility is even more complex than romantic compatibility-
> 
> And when both are expected to co-exist in the same relationship? Certainly explains why we have a 71% divorce rate in the USA!
> 
> Davelli really nailed it on so many levels- it is all about how we project our values onto others. The problem with sex is that we have to adhere to both parties' values at the same time. It's mindbending sometimes.


71% where did you get that number?


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Right, but not only do we ourselves begin to accept new standards, we also start applying them to others. Those who don't hew to the new norm get labeled as broken.
> 
> Let's take case #2. When I mention that this is my situation, I get asked if there is a history of sexual abuse, because many are completely incredulous that a women in 21st century western culture would feel that way without scarring from past transgressions. Some even claim that a partner in such a situation is undergoing a mild form of sexual abuse. The norm becomes not only normal, but deviation from it becomes pathologized.


I don't know Cletus. Putting sex practices into historical context will suggest that there really isn't a whole lot new under the sun. Ancient Romans soldiers sometimes got paid in brothel coins upon which were stamped the sex act they were entitled to. From what I know, which admittedly isn't very much, they pretty much covered all the bases. 

The role of the breast in sex play is important because it not only brings comfort and pleasure it gives comfort and pleasure. It's like imagining sex victorian style. So, I'm sorry to admit that I agree with all those people who don't think it's normal for a woman to gain no pleasure and in fact hate having her breasts touched during sex play.


----------



## happysnappy (Jan 8, 2013)

I think what is acceptable depends totally on the people involved and the sum of their life experiences. What was acceptable to me even a year ago is very different than what is acceptable now. My experiences in that time with someone in whom I trust completely, have changed my views on a lot of things. I think it's all subjective.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

So, we've established that sexual norms are fluid and that there is no measuring stick to use in deciding expectations other than basic guidelines around monogamy and inflicting unwanted pain.

This leaves me puzzled. Just about every time I bring up a discussion about the practices my conservative spouse finds acceptable, I get a flood of responses to the effect "I can't imagine how anyone could be that way. It's unnatural. It's abusive. Nobody should feel that way about sex". 

Perhaps it isn't you folks responding directly here, but it sure seems that a bunch of (the collective) you do think that there is a certain base level of sexual behavior that is expected. For instance, Dan Savage has a paraphrase for this belief - "Oral comes standard". It's not a separate upgrade. Anyone not willing to give and receive oral sex is not fulfilling the modern contract of sexuality. They're not GGG - they are being a bad lover.


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

Cletus said:


> So, we've established that sexual norms are fluid and that there is no measuring stick to use in deciding expectations other than basic guidelines around monogamy and inflicting unwanted pain.
> 
> This leaves me puzzled. Just about every time I bring up a discussion about the practices my conservative spouse finds acceptable, I get a flood of responses to the effect "I can't imagine how anyone could be that way. It's unnatural. It's abusive. Nobody should feel that way about sex".
> 
> Perhaps it isn't you folks responding directly here, but it sure seems that a bunch of (the collective) you do think that there is a certain base level of sexual behavior that is expected. For instance, Dan Savage has a paraphrase for this belief - "Oral comes standard". It's not a separate upgrade. Anyone not willing to give and receive oral sex is not fulfilling the modern contract of sexuality. They're not GGG - they are being a bad lover.


Anything you read on TAM has to be taken with a huuuuuuuge grain of salt. There are a lot of blowhards on this forum and a whole lot of people with agendas and axes to grind. These are the primary ones that can't comment on something without being incredibly judgmental and pushing their worldviews on everyone else.

The trick on TAM is to figure out who those people are and just skip past their posts. I could name my top 5 right now.

There's also a handy little block feature, too.

ETA: And not every comment that everyone makes to something you say is really relevant to your marriage. No one but you knows your full situation.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

by flipping a coin....heads or tails.....LOL


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

kingsfan said:


> I'll just comment on the examples you gave. For example number one, I agree, just whatever feels comfortable for both of you. Example number two however, I think that when it comes to marriage, getting married implies that sex will be available to both spouses. I don't understand how the implication that sex is available can be made if it doesn't also imply free reign to touch your spouse (in a non-painful way as you said) during the act of sex.


Two children later I'm here to tell you that it sure can. 

But your incredulity makes an excellent case in point. At the most fundamental level, sex involves PIV. Everything else is optional, isn't it?


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Two children later I'm here to tell you that it sure can.
> 
> But your incredulity makes an excellent case in point. At the most fundamental level, sex involves PIV. Everything else is optional, isn't it?


Procreative sex, yes. But intimate romantic sex includes all sorts of touch. I think you are attempting to justify as another degree of normal or within accepted bounds the restrictions you wife places on you during sex.

I'm not being judgmental, or if I am I apologize because that's not my intent at all. But if someone said they didn't like to be held or hugged, one wold wonder what went wrong with them. Being held and touched is a fundamental expressive form of care, concern and comfort. A person who doesn't like it, freezes up and keeps people from touching them, is not a well adjusted person. They are cut off from forming bonds, their brains are not releasing oxytocin at a touch but something else. Oxytocin is experienced as loving pleasure and if its experienced differently, there is something not working right. But that is an extreme and rather simplistic example. 

Your wife's restrictions, essentially say that a most obvious erogenous zone for her and a source of sexual comfort for you is off limits. You attribute this restriction to her conservative back ground. She's been taught to close herself off to experiencing pleasure on the grounds of a conservative upbringing, but most conservatives emphatically claim the joys of a full and diverse sex life between a husband and wife. So, don't touch it until you are married but once married, go for it! But your wife didn't get the go for it message.

The only thing that matters, Cletus, is your happiness. If you are happy, no one else's thoughts or opinions matter. If your unhappiness hinges on you wondering if her restrictions are reasonable, then you are inviting people to judge your sex life. If you're unhappy because you desire something she refuses and you wish to know what others think is reasonable, then you already have your answer.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> Procreative sex, yes. But intimate romantic sex includes all sorts of touch. I think you are attempting to justify as another degree of normal or within accepted bounds the restrictions you wife places on you during sex.


I'm not trying to justify anything. I've made what passes for peace with my situation with full knowledge that it is way out of the norm and not a model for anyone else going forward. Pulling out the latest Masters and Johnson survey, waving it in your spouses face, and saying "See!" isn't a way to move forward.




> Your wife's restrictions, essentially say that a most obvious erogenous zone for her and a source of sexual comfort for you is off limits.


This is, I think, fundamentally wrong.

These are NOT erogenous zones for her. That's the point. She doesn't touch herself there, hardly ever has, doesn't masturbate, and has never in the history of the universe ever liked being touched there by someone else. 

This is not a rationalization. This is a fact. Doesn't like in this context means does not like the physical sensation. The times we have tried over the years have never given her any pleasure or satisfaction. Put a penis inside, and Bob's yer uncle. Fingers apparently feel very different from penises. Why fix what isn't broken is the motto. 



> You attribute this restriction to her conservative back ground.


No I don't. I attribute it to her tastes. Tastes which I fully realize are 3 sigma away from the mean, but which are her tastes nonetheless. Tastes which other women here have agreed to as well. 

I have a full beard and mustache. I can't stand to have my mustache touched - drives me red-flag-in-front-of-a-bull crazy (kissing is OK, just no hands). I don't need a complete psychological workup to explain why. I DON'T LIKE IT.

What I'm more interested in hearing is why you say what you say here. You claim, as if it were divinely revealed, that her tastes are unhealthy and, if I can put words into your mouth, borderline pathological. _Why_ you feel justified in saying this is what this thread is about. You've made several statements of fact that are hard to validate - why is breast or genital touching considered a basic, undeniable, required tenet of a healthy sex life and cumming on your face is not? 

Because you think so, I'm guessing.

That's the question I'm trying to explore here. The answer, I believe, is nothing more complex than "everyone does it", but I'm willing to hear other arguments. My interest was raised the more I noticed that certain practices which seemed on the surface not very different drew very different responses from the audience.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Cletus said:


> What I'm more interested in hearing is why you say what you say here. You claim, as if it were divinely revealed, that her tastes are unhealthy and, if I can put words into your mouth, borderline pathological. _Why_ you feel justified in saying this is what this thread is about. *You've made several statements of fact that are hard to validate - why is breast or genital touching considered a basic, undeniable, required tenet of a healthy sex life* and cumming on your face is not?
> 
> Because you think so, I'm guessing.
> 
> That's the question I'm trying to explore here. *The answer, I believe, is nothing more complex than "everyone does it", *but I'm willing to hear other arguments. My interest was raised the more I noticed that certain practices which seemed on the surface not very different drew very different responses from the audience.


I think it's expected because _most _people really, really like how it feels to touch and be touched there in some way. I'd say someone feeling neutral about breast and nipple play (like many men for whom it's not an erogenous zone) is also more likely than an aversion to being touched there. 

That's why questions come up about abuse or psychological hang-ups, because it's a rare woman who doesn't like it at all to the point of _aversion_. "Yes! Yes! Yes!" and "It doesn't really do anything for me" is more understandable to us than "Don't touch me there!" when it comes to breasts.

So it's not just because everyone does it; it's because (most) everyone _likes _it.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Cletus, please accept my apologies. I have over stepped the boundaries here. As I said it was not my intent to be judgemental but I can see now that I have made you feel judged. I equated her tastes to those that shun touch altogether as a means of supporting my thoughts. Touch is good and necessary for bonding. No, not divinely revealed at all, but is supported by numerous scientific and psychological studies and experiments.

And yes, you did say it was because of her conservative upbringing. I didn't make that up myself.

Touching, in any and or all erogenous zones raises arousal levels. Without it, climax cannot happen. Squirting ejaculate doesn't raise arousal directly, like touching does. The idea of it raises arousal for some. That is the essential difference.

As I said, if you two are happy, then what is the point of gathering opinions from others? I don't think it wise at this point to continue because I am not getting the point and I absolutely do not want to make you, or anyone, feel judged.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> Cletus, please accept my apologies. I have over stepped the boundaries here.


No you haven't, not in my opinion, and I would be saddened if you bowed out unnecessarily. I have a thicker skin than most, and I brought the topic up. I'm not sure we're fully understanding each other here, but I'm not aware of any boundary being crossed.



> Touch is good and necessary for bonding. No, not divinely revealed at all, but is supported by numerous scientific and psychological studies and experiments.


Understood, and I agree. There is ample touching in our relationship. 



> As I said, if you two are happy, then what is the point of gathering opinions from others? I don't think it wise at this point to continue because I am not getting the point and I absolutely do not want to make you, or anyone, feel judged.


This is just a philosophical discussion. It was never even meant to be about me, but of course I took an example from that which I know best - my own life. 

People look upon me with pity when they learn that I have a partner with a certain set of boundaries. They look upon the guy into facials as asking too much of his spouse. 

I don't feel much different from facial guy if I'm asking my partner for things which she doesn't like. I should be getting the same reaction from the forum, but I'm not. I find that interesting.


----------



## RClawson (Sep 19, 2011)

I still come to this forum to see if I will ever discover the answer to my question which is: Why would anyone want their spouse to participate in something that they did not enjoy or felt degraded them? 

Oh wait a minute it is because the individual is selfish and self centered.


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

Cletus said:


> No you haven't, not in my opinion, and I would be saddened if you bowed out unnecessarily. I have a thicker skin than most, and I brought the topic up. I'm not sure we're fully understanding each other here, but I'm not aware of any boundary being crossed.
> 
> Understood, and I agree. There is ample touching in our relationship.
> 
> ...


I think the key difference here is that certain couples may not consider an act taboo (or outside a boundary, if you like) while the rest of society does.

If my wife and I participate in a sex act considered taboo by society, and we do so from a consensual, loving perspective in order to express our sexuality, then that act obviously isn't taboo for us. However, if I posted about it on these forums, I would still get hammered for it because some people cannot accept that others have differing opinions.

Much of it goes back to projection. We project out worldviews on everyone else and hold them to the same standards that we hold ourselves. Sometimes this is appropriate, but with sexuality more often than not I think it's the wrong way to think about things.

ETA: That's not a very satisfying answer, but I think it's probably the best you can get. What is considered "normal" sexually is based on social norms, what are social norms but the opinion of the majority?

I do agree it's a fascinating topic, and I think it really illustrates just how muddled and convoluted human sexuality truly is.


----------



## Kaboom (Feb 6, 2013)

chillymorn said:


> 71% where did you get that number?


Can't even remember where I read that, but divorcerate.org more or less confirms it in a roundabout way. The problem with divorce statistics is that nobody is tracking total marriages vs. total divorces annually over a 10-20 year period. Everyone who does these statistics work on following specific couples, and/or people and then fail to factor in 2nd and 3rd marriages. 

From the site:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

There's no real way to factor in the 2nd and 3rd, but we all know that those statistics for 2nd and 3rd ADD to the total percentage of the first. I'm going to try though-

say we have 100 people in first marriages. 41% divorce, so that's 41 failed marriages. Then assume 90% of them remarry. that's 37. of those 37 people, 22 will be divorced. Being conservative, let's say only half of them bother to remarry. Of those 11 people, 8 will additionally divorce again. So 41+22+8 total divorces between 100 people equals 71 total divorces.

Funny thing is that I just did that math, and never actually thought it would come out to the same percentage. Like I said, I read it somewhere and couldn't remember where, but I noticed that every site out there just makes up their own numbers, much like I have above, and while I admit those numbers are hypothetical, they are based on logic and are more likely close to actual reality than not.


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

Kaboom said:


> Can't even remember where I read that, but divorcerate.org more or less confirms it in a roundabout way. The problem with divorce statistics is that nobody is tracking total marriages vs. total divorces annually over a 10-20 year period. Everyone who does these statistics work on following specific couples, and/or people and then fail to factor in 2nd and 3rd marriages.
> 
> From the site:
> The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
> ...


The only problem I have with your math is the assumption that 90% of people whose first marriages failed would remarry. I would think that figure is kind of high, and since it's the primary driver for the later figures, it would have a large impact on the overall percentage.

Regardless, I agree with you that most of these kinds of studies are flawed and don't take into consideration outlier data. For example, take two marriages that failed because two of the people in those marriages had an affair with each other. Then the APs married and that marriage failed. Now, out of four people, you have three failed marriages. It's a contrived example, but you can see how they can have a large statistical impact.


----------



## Kaboom (Feb 6, 2013)

Nah- most people don't want to be alone, and also most first marriages end early on.. when people are young. I would think that nearly all of them try to remarry. I don't know many people who ended first marriages who didn't eventually remarry within a few years. In fact, I can't think of anyone (in my family or friends) who didn't.

Regardless, change it to 80% or even 70%.. the final number won't drop all that much, and will still easily top 60% of all .


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

It's just me projecting my bias, really. I sure as hell wouldn't remarry.

ETA: See how I pointed out my own bias? That's what I'm talking about with all the sexuality stuff. People take their bias, apply it to the majority, then pass that off as a norm.

Go me!


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

Cletus said:


> Right, but not only do we ourselves begin to accept new standards, we also start applying them to others. Those who don't hew to the new norm get labeled as broken.


Hm. I am not quite so eager to adopt blanket judgementalism as an accepted standard of behavior. This is pure speculation, armchair phychobabble, isnt it? Not to be offensive, just saying.


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Two children later I'm here to tell you that it sure can.
> 
> But your incredulity makes an excellent case in point. At the most fundamental level, sex involves PIV. Everything else is optional, isn't it?


I am not unwilling to believe your point of view, I just don't share it. Big different.

My ex-wife had three children (all mine), and she could barely be bothered to touch me, or be touched by me either. Claimed it tickled. Took a half hour workup to even get to touch her breasts at times. 

My fiancee has had two children, and she's encouraging me to feel her up. Says I don't do it enough (I don't sometimes because I know she's not in the mood to go further, whereas I am). 

Can children affect this? Sure, likely. But from my own experience, I'd wager it has much more to do with the feelings the woman has towards the man. For the record, my ex is now living with someone else and doesn't seem to have any problem being flirty with him like she did with me. Now yes, this could be a show to piss me off (which it doesn't) but from what I observe, she's much more touchy feely with him than she ever was with me.

So don't clam I have incredulity towards your position, you need not blanket judge us based on your own experiences. We have our own experiences too.

Additionally, when you say "At the most fundamental level, sex involves PIV. Everything else is optional, isn't it", I ask you to define what 'everything else' is. I assume you are referring to breast touching? If so, does that mean all touching, aside from genital touching, is optional? How about talking? Kissing? Making any requests whatsoever?

There is a limit on what is 'optional' and what isn't. It is a moving target, depending on many factors, most of which have been explained in this thread. What is optional for you is not optional for me. Additionally, what is optional for you in your current situation may not be optional for you in a different situation, or even the same situation but with a different wife. To many variables to define what is optional.



RClawson said:


> I still come to this forum to see if I will ever discover the answer to my question which is: Why would anyone want their spouse to participate in something that they did not enjoy or felt degraded them?
> 
> Oh wait a minute it is because the individual is selfish and self centered.


What a load of horse****. It's selfcentred to want a sexlife, and therefore request (not demand or force) sex from the only person on the planet you are morally allowed to have sex with? 

Just because you can go for however long you wish without sex from someone you love greatly does not mean we can, and to request sex from your spouse to fulfill a need is neither selfcentred or selfish. rather it's more a matter of selfpreservation.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

"acceptable" is a judgment term on its face.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

kingsfan said:


> ... It's selfcentred to want a sexlife, and therefore request (not demand or force) sex from the only person on the planet you are morally allowed to have sex with?
> 
> Just because you can go for however long you wish without sex from someone you love greatly does not mean we can, and to request sex from your spouse to fulfill a need is neither selfcentred or selfish. rather it's more a matter of selfpreservation.


:smthumbup::iagree:

Mr. Kingsfan, I agree with your point here. 

I understand that Mr. Lawson might have meant that no spouse should be forced to do what they think are degrading to them.

But the other spouse have every right to request, as they could only get sex legally from her/his spouse, NOT from any other person in the face of the Earth.

For example...Mr. Cletus's wife has every rights not to allow her being kissed, touched or groped by him.

But Mr. Cletus has every rights to REQUEST whatever sex act(s) he could think of from her spouse.

Rights to Request...not rights to force..

If request not granted, it's his wife's rights NOT to grant the request. It is his wife's right to say "NO CLETUS I don't want to do it, and NO CLETUS I don't think I owe you an explanation. It's my Body, My Rights".

And off course, Mr. Cletus has every rights in the universe to feel disappointed to have his request denied. It is his feelings, after all. He has every rights to express disappointment in a non-destructive way. He has every rights to let his wife knows that he was disappointed. That's called "Communication".

He has every rights to say: "I am disappointed to have my request rejected. I don't think I owe you an explanation why I feel disappointed. It's My Heart, My Rights"..

He is NOT expected to just whimper "Yes ma'am" and go back to sleep.

To get back to Mr. Kingsfan's point,

YES I think it is any spouse's rights to have a fulfilling sex life. That's what marriage are for.

My sincerest apology for using you as a hypothesis, Mr. Cletus


----------



## RClawson (Sep 19, 2011)

No it is self centered to continue to be perturbed that a wife will not acquiesce to the requests for anal, swallowing, facials and anything else a spouse would believe to be demeaning. 

I do wish there was greater frequency in my relationship but our sex life has evolved in some pretty exciting ways over the years. There is not much we have not done. There were some things my wife did not like doing or being done to her when we first married but those things came back on the table over time not because I asked or demanded but because they evolved in the "heat of the moment".


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

RClawson said:


> No it is self centered to continue to be perturbed that a wife will not acquiesce to the requests for anal, swallowing, facials and anything else a spouse would believe to be demeaning..


Well, husbands have feelings too. It's perfectly fine to be disappointed at the rejection of such request. Which means the request should be made only once. To continue asking for something with no possibility of success, is pure stupidity. 

On the other hand, if either the husband or wife feels that their sex life are unfulfilling and/or unsatisfying, it should be made clear that divorce _is_ an option. Everybody has the right to happiness, rights to be fulfilled. If a wife dislike his husband's terrible foreplaying skills, or his inability to arouse her or make her want to have sex with him, and she felt unfulfilled, it sounds fair to me if she wants a divorce. And vice versa. If a husband dislike the fact that his wife keep on refusing his requests, it sounds fair to me if he wants a divorce.

Off course, there are other option, which is to discuss things over and to find a mutually satisfactory solution. But this option would only work if both parties (1) have mutual respect (2) really love each other and (3) are both sexually attracted to each other. If 1,2,3 exist, usually there will be the 4th factor: (4) they will always try their best to give sexual pleasure for their spouse. 

If a marriage is lacking in 1,2,3, then 4 are totally unlikely. 

In fact, I think such marriage should be terminated, for the benefit of all parties involved.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

RClawson said:


> No it is self centered to continue to be perturbed that a wife will not acquiesce to the requests for anal, swallowing, facials and anything else a spouse would believe to be demeaning.
> 
> I do wish there was greater frequency in my relationship but our sex life has evolved in some pretty exciting ways over the years. There is not much we have not done. There were some things my wife did not like doing or being done to her when we first married but those things came back on the table over time not because I asked or demanded but because they evolved in the "heat of the moment".



On the face of your first statement above, I agree. But, over the years my thoughts and opinions on what is degrading and what isn't have evolved. Some sexual practices do, on the face of it, appear to be degrading. I think, taking the case of Cletus's first example, that a searching discussion be held about why that idea is appealing in the first place. Sex practices really haven't changed over the course of time. There are no new locations of nerve bundles, no new swelling spots to pay attention to. 

So what has changed? The ability to quickly and easily share ideas and that includes images. Images of what one person finds exciting, another person sees and also feels excitement. So now we the quest to try that neat little trick. 

If my husband asked me to do something that, on the face of it, I found degrading I'd need to probe for background from HIM in particular. Knowing him as I do, degrading me, his wife and the mother of his children, would not be his intent. And it is HIS intent that is the only thing important when making sex practice decisions. "I dunno, saw it in a porno and thought it looked exciting." Okay, good enough for me. :smthumbup:

I think the battle of the sexes has to stay out of the bedroom. In the marriage bed anything is open to discussion and due consideration without feminist values or male supremacy insecurities coloring the view. Sexuality and sex practices have been driven underground by the church and now by feminism. <- That is simply my opinion based only on my own evolving view of sexuality. I think it's time both men and women found the confidence to explore the final frontier, their own dirty minds!!!


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> On the face of your first statement above, I agree. But, over the years my thoughts and opinions on what is degrading and what isn't have evolved. Some sexual practices do, on the face of it, appear to be degrading. I think, taking the case of Cletus's first example, that a searching discussion be held about why that idea is appealing in the first place. Sex practices really haven't changed over the course of time. There are no new locations of nerve bundles, no new swelling spots to pay attention to.
> 
> So what has changed? The ability to quickly and easily share ideas and that includes images. Images of what one person finds exciting, another person sees and also feels excitement. So now we the quest to try that neat little trick.
> 
> ...


:smthumbup::iagree::smthumbup:

Mrs. AnonPink,

Thank you for expressing so eloquently your ideas, it is very enlightening to me. I agree with everything. Except with the church thing. Not all religious people hates sex. But it's just a minor point, and I agree some religious people takes their hatred towards sex to the extreme.

Again, Thank you !


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

C,
Do you really care what the mean, median or mode for frequency of bj's given, inches of sword swallowed, willingness to perform the big gulp. 

My experience can be simplified down to: if she is really into you, and she doesn't have odd 'sexual,fluid,etc.' aversions , while you connect she makes you feel like you are the most important person in the world. 

As for what everyone else thinks is good, bad, gross, boring: let them eat cake and post about the experience on FB

I only care about what happens when I say 'this is important to ME' to my life partner....

QUOTE=Cletus;1468036]Right, but not only do we ourselves begin to accept new standards, we also start applying them to others. Those who don't hew to the new norm get labeled as broken.

Let's take case #2. When I mention that this is my situation, I get asked if there is a history of sexual abuse, because many are completely incredulous that a women in 21st century western culture would feel that way without scarring from past transgressions. Some even claim that a partner in such a situation is undergoing a mild form of sexual abuse. The norm becomes not only normal, but deviation from it becomes pathologized.[/QUOTE]


----------



## diwali123 (Feb 17, 2012)

I think the difference is that fondling breasts should not have painful or unpleasant side effects. It also doesn't have an element of aggression to it and isn't the last scene in a porno that a guy gets off to. 
A facial can involve unpleasant consequences, like getting it in her eyes, up her nose. There can be an odor. There's an aggressive side to it and it is an exchange of body fluids which is more intimate IMO. So no I don't think that it has to do with social conditioning. 
I do see much Puritanical talk on this site but this is different.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

As I recall my college socialology class used a book called "Society By Agreement".

This class plus my own experiences has led me to believe that while I tend to follow societal rules that I ultimately choose what is right and wrong and understand the consequences of my actions.

So yeah. But when someone comes onto this forum they know they are getting opinions.

That said while there are all sorts of gray areas some situations are easier than others.

I have no tolerance for a husband for example beating his wife. Yet in some societies this is accptable. Even in the US there are people who say that it is not abnormal. But I will vehemently argue against it.


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

Here's a really interesting thread that I think complements this discussion quite well.

The OP is a woman that wants her H to tie her up, spank her, along with some other light domination type stuff. Her H is not into it.

Most of the replies on that thread are of the mind that the H is completely in the wrong, needs to see a counselor, has low testosterone, and just isnt' a real man bc he doesn't want to engage in more fringe sex acts. All that even though the OP has made it very clear that the H doesn't seem to be interested in being the dominant one in their sex life.

Now replace the W in that thread with a guy coming on here wanting anal sex, facials, or some other fringe sex act against the W's will. The OP would be annihilated for being a misogynist, abusive pig who has no respect for women and wants to degrade his W for his own porn-fueled fantasies.

Cletus, I see the point you were trying to make very clearly, though my example may not be exactly what you were talking about.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

Davelli0331 said:


> Here's a really interesting thread that I think complements this discussion quite well.
> 
> The OP is a woman that wants her H to tie her up, spank her, along with some other light domination type stuff. Her H is not into it.
> 
> ...


Good Point Mr. Daveli,

Makes us wonder about the amount of covert or overt double standards, or maybe even misandry..


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

At risk of being tiresome. 

If you are the HD partner you have a rather stark choice:
- Make an effort to give your partner reasons to make an effort to bridge the gap or
- Accept frequency fully on their terms

At times my W wanted a darker, semi-violent style of sex. She is a great partner and made a lot of accommodation on frequency - so I sucked it up on those nights where I had to compartmentalize. 

It's also true that many LD wives aren't low 'sexual' desire. They are low 'desire to please'. That is a whole different issue. And it feeds a very screwed up dynamic In and out of bed. 




Davelli0331 said:


> Here's a really interesting thread that I think complements this discussion quite well.
> 
> The OP is a woman that wants her H to tie her up, spank her, along with some other light domination type stuff. Her H is not into it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> At risk of being tiresome.
> 
> If you are the HD partner you have a rather stark choice:
> - Make an effort to give your partner reasons to make an effort to bridge the gap or
> ...


I agree with everything you say. I think I was making a bit of a different point than what you're addressing. I was simply pointing out the double standard applied to men vs women on this forum when each wants fringe/extreme sex acts.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> It's also true that many LD wives aren't low 'sexual' desire. They are low 'desire to please'. That is a whole different issue. And it feeds a very screwed up dynamic In and out of bed.


yeah, and they are giving a bad name to naturally LD people whom are eager to please.. we got tarred with the same brush


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Dave,
That is a fair point. 

Cletus,
You made the same fair point earlier. 



QUOTE=Davelli0331;1483441]I agree with everything you say. I think I was making a bit of a different point than what you're addressing. I was simply pointing out the double standard applied to men vs women on this forum when each wants fringe/extreme sex acts.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Davelli0331 said:


> I agree with everything you say. I think I was making a bit of a different point than what you're addressing. I was simply pointing out the double standard applied to men vs women on this forum when each wants fringe/extreme sex acts.


I was actually making more the point that the difference between some fringe and mainstream acts is apparently like pornography - impossible to define, but I know it when I see it. 

I expressly avoided the men vs. women consideration because I didn't want to go down that road and veer off course. I don't disagree with your point, but I don't see it as being too overblown here except by a few select posters.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,
Agreed - huge difference



QUOTE=john_lord_b3;1483463]yeah, and they are giving a bad name to naturally LD people whom are eager to please.. we got tarred with the same brush [/QUOTE]


----------

