# I heard from a pick up artist that woman wont reject or withhold if.....



## needguidance (Aug 17, 2012)

I use to watch a lot of pick up artist videos a while back. So many great tips. There was one where the guy was talking about he had a friend that was married and his wife was having less sex with him. He would complain about it to his friend. I cant remember what his explanation was but he said a woman would never withhold or reject sex from a man when its good/great. My question is why would a wife still do that if it is good/great/excellent/whatever else positive outcome you can put on it? Think thats the problem I am having these days unless she is totally faking it. I dont think she is from the way her body reacts, you cant fight your body. I know from her past reaction that its accurate. I just dont understand the lack of frequency, may be she still has trust issues, I dont know. I need someone elses opinion on this. Needs are being met, hell they are being exceeded (lately I provide a 2-for-1. She gets off twice before I get off once). So wtf.....? And please dont tell me to read MMSL, done that.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> Turns out sometimes PUAs are full of it.
> 
> If a woman doesn't want to have sex with you, the quality of the sex doesn't really matter. If there are too many resentments/obligations/other people/personality defects that are getting in the way of sex, you can be a pro and it will not matter, and I say this from experience. My husband is the best I've ever had in bed and when we have too many issues in the house, I don't even want to think about sex.


this is very true.at least for me anyway. 
my body might be willing but if my head isn't in the game it won't happen.best way to keep getting laid,try to keep your relationship as peaceful and resentment free as possible.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Funny, I thought the whole PUA thing was about getting them into bed the first time. Repeat business is a whole other thing.


----------



## 45188 (Sep 13, 2012)

You know how to get women to lay you? Be AFFECTIONATE without trying to stick your hands in her pants! Help her do the dishes or something. If you have kids, help with them. We get turned on through CONSIDERATION!

Telling us how hot we are all the time isn't going to win you many points - but appreciating us will win you a medal!


----------



## I'mAllIn (Oct 20, 2011)

I think a common problem with some wives, even if their husbands are amazing lovers, is that they take their husbands (and the sex) for granted. Sure the sex is amazing, but they're tired and the kids need them and the floor needs swept and the dishes washed and the sex will be just as good tomorrow, so they put the husband off for tonight, and the same tomorrow, and the next night. If a wife (or husband for that matter) isn't all that high drive it's all too easy to put "forget" how good it was and put sex off for another time.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

needguidance said:


> My question is why would a wife still do that if it is good/great/excellent/whatever else positive outcome you can put on it? Think thats the problem I am having these days unless she is totally faking it. I dont think she is from the way her body reacts, you cant fight your body. I know from her past reaction that its accurate. I just dont understand the lack of frequency, may be she still has trust issues, I dont know. I need someone elses opinion on this. Needs are being met, hell they are being exceeded (lately I provide a 2-for-1. She gets off twice before I get off once). So wtf.....?


I can only speak for myself... Doing my dishes is not what turns every woman on. I am not an "Acts of service" - I never needed help doing stuff around the house, I was on it. 

I've ALWAYS LOVED SEX, been dreaming about doing it with a guy since I was 11... healthy sex drive....had to masterbate if something brushed up against me at night - always attracted to my Husband, his body type.....I never had any resentments either... happy marriage . 

Pleasing me was EVERYTHING TO HIM.... I was satisfied every single time....I was lost in his kisses , it was so good, it went like a flash... I would think "Damn, I wish this could go on forever" Orgasmed every single time...or I'd make him do it again - I needed mine. 

But here is the thing..... don't ask me why I was this stupid, I have no clue..... even though he satified me to the moon & back...no feeling on heaven & earth could compare....in my silly brain... I felt like ..."Well... I am good for another so many days!" ... I didn't have that RUSH of hormonal NEED until up 5 days to a week later...

So I needed heated up , ya know -women are like a "slow cooker" they say...especially when we are younger. 

Now my husband took this as me having Low desire.. we just never talked about these things :banghead: I was just clueless to realizing this can be REVIVED every day if we wanted and he was so very sensitive to MY DESIRE for him.... which wasn't doing him any favors. 

We were just DUMB ...he could have primed me, seduced me more ---revved my engine so I feel....back in the day....I always seemed to have other things on the brain...projects to do, kids, whatever... People need to tease, flirt, seduce , arouse each other & revive the passion daily... If the other is willing to be put in the mood, that is. I believe I would have been - because I always craved physical touch anyway. 



> *I'mAllIn said*: even if their husbands are amazing lovers, is that they take their husbands (and the sex) for granted


 Very true !! 

I DID take my husband and his desire for granted, it was always at my beck & call... and I was NOT getting how he was feeling deep within....he NEVER talked to me about it, he didn't want to "Rock the boat" (his words after opening this topic up a few yrs back).... I have been an initiating wife since the beginning -so he didn't want to push it. I just didn't "get" how men NEED it like that -so often back in the day... till the shoes were on MY FEET. One thing I never was, was too tired..I always had more Pep & energy than he did! Still do. 

Live & learn.


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

needguidance said:


> I use to watch a lot of pick up artist videos a while back. So many great tips....


If you are taking 'relationship advice' from pickup artist videos, you are doing it wrong.

Sex is only partly in a woman pants. Most of it is in her head. It is *certainly* in her head as the relationship gets into long term territory. Get in her head, and she will get in YOUR pants. You simply cannot guage her ongoing desire for you simply by the fact that she got wet and had a big O (maybe) last time you had sex. It doesnt work that way.

_*"...you cant fight your body"*_

Yes, you can.. and it isnt even a fight. So she cums. Big deal. I bet she O's harder with her vibrator. However, she needs a reason to get fired up routinely - and that isnt necessarily physicality.

_*'...maybe she has trust issues...'*_

OK... shrug. Lets go with it. Why would you say that?


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Maybe she picks up on your need for sex vs. intimacy.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

I love chocolate cake, but I damn sure don't want it every single day.

It's absurd to suggest that every woman, or hell every man, will want sex frequently just because they enjoy it. Some people have lower drives, for whatever reason, and their lack of desire for frequent sex has nothing to do with the quality.

Is that the case for some? Sure, of course. Who wants to have a ton of mediocre to bad sex? But don't fall into the delusion that this is the case for every single person.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

I'mAllIn said:


> I think a common problem with some wives, even if their husbands are amazing lovers, is that they take their husbands (and the sex) for granted. Sure the sex is amazing, but they're tired and the kids need them and the floor needs swept and the dishes washed and the sex will be just as good tomorrow, so they put the husband off for tonight, and the same tomorrow, and the next night. If a wife (or husband for that matter) isn't all that high drive it's all too easy to put "forget" how good it was and put sex off for another time.


This in a nutshell is probably one of the biggest problems in a marriage (I know it was in mine) and it goes beyond just sex. Everyone is pulling both you and your spouse everywhich way and demanding your time and effort. Your spouse, because they love you, should understand when you put them last, and they mostly do in the short term. The problems occur when it becomes a habit. You have to work at making your spouse a priority at times.


----------



## indiecat (Sep 24, 2012)

Some people just enjoy it even more if they space it out, it builds the anticipation. It might be as simple as that. 

Like jaquen said, you can love chocolate cake, but to eat it EVERY day, no.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

needguidance said:


> I cant remember what his explanation was but he said a woman would never withhold or reject sex from a man when its good/great. My question is why would a wife still do that if it is good/great/excellent/whatever else positive outcome you can put on it?


The answer is ... lots of reasons. Maybe the wife resents the husband. A wife's resentments can be substantial, or trivial. But they are often present. And when they are, they will inhibit her libido. Maybe she's just bored.



needguidance said:


> I just dont understand the lack of frequency, may be she still has trust issues, I dont know. I need someone elses opinion on this. Needs are being met, hell they are being exceeded (lately I provide a 2-for-1. She gets off twice before I get off once).


OK. You're meeting her needs in the bedroom. Are you meeting her needs outside of it? What is her love language? Do you need to bring in extra money? Do more housework? Fix her car? There's probably something.

Also, I think PUAs have great information for their niche. If you are looking to seduce women you don't know into a short-term, sexual relationship, then bone up on what the PUAs have to say. But a marriage is different. You shouldn't "neg" your wife. You can't bluff a higher income/status to your wife. You can't wear a feather boa and "guyliner" to the dinner table. You have to be authentic.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

kipani said:


> You know how to get women to lay you? Be AFFECTIONATE without trying to stick your hands in her pants! Help her do the dishes or something. If you have kids, help with them. We get turned on through CONSIDERATION!
> 
> Telling us how hot we are all the time isn't going to win you many points - but appreciating us will win you a medal!


I found doing more work or chores to be fools gold. I got all kinds of wonderful comments, but virtually no extra attraction from my wife. She certainly implied that all those chores were what was keeping her libido down, but that was not true (not saying she was lying, as I tend to think she did not really know herself).


----------



## wiigirl (Jun 14, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> Turns out sometimes PUAs are full of it.


Lmao....so true! 








_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CanadianGuy (Jun 17, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I found doing more work or chores to be fools gold. I got all kinds of wonderful comments, but virtually no extra attraction from my wife. She certainly implied that all those chores were what was keeping her libido down, but that was not true (not saying she was lying, as I tend to think she did not really know herself).


"Fools Gold" - yup that's true. "I need you to do more house work so that I can feel more in the mood." said a lot of wives. Then it's "your just doing that to get laid". You can not win that as it seems weak and pathetic on your part. How about "If you have more sex with me I'd be more in the mood for house work" . Why is it always about what you need to do in order for her to feel more in the mood when really isn't it more about what she needs to do? If she was not to include you or your behavior in the equation of what needs to happen in order for her to feel desire I wonder what her answer would be.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

WorkingOnMe said:


> Funny, I thought the whole PUA thing was about getting them into bed the first time. Repeat business is a whole other thing.


:iagree:

PUA's are looking for a short-term conquest and doing it in an environment where the women there are presumably somewhat receptive to being picked up. 

Once you're married, it's not the same scenario at all. You have your wife ALL the time--after long days, fights with kids, worries about bills....not just in a bar on Friday night. Like another poster said, trying to "neg" your wife and bluff your finances is probably not a wise idea in a marriage. Unfortunately, that means that you need to invest some time in what actually floats her boat, not what kind of game you can run on her to get her to put out--


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

Doing chores at home has never gotten me laid, ever. 

I only do 50% of the housework and parenting work, and I raise hell if she fails to meet her half. She wouldn't dare.

Anyways, how much or little sex we have has had nothing to do with any of this.

Sometimes being nice has gotten me laid, sometimes even being a jerk has helped too... I started getting laid more than I even really wanted when I stopped giving a **** at figuring out my wife like a math problem and when I accepted that we are both individuals, each complex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## needguidance (Aug 17, 2012)

We all know a pua's goal is short term. The best thing about learning some of the more positives tips is still being able to flirt or engage your SO. Of course this is one of those things exclusive to men because when do women just pick up men? No need. Its like if you can make yourself attractive to other women then naturally you become more attractive to your partner. Its just value.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

WorkingOnMe said:


> Funny, I thought the whole PUA thing was about getting them into bed the first time. Repeat business is a whole other thing.


Exactly. They will move down the line of women finding one open to their moves for however long - the complete antithesis of an enduring relationship.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> OK. You're meeting her needs in the bedroom. Are you meeting her needs outside of it... _Do you need to bring in extra money?_


Mega fail.

As long as you have a home, a car, and food in the fridge, not having money is maybe the lousiest reason for not having sex.

I mean, think about what you're saying - she won't have sex because her friend has something she can't afford, your house does not have granite and stainless steel in the kitchen, or whatever.

I would never tolerate that as a reason for bad sex.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

DTO said:


> Mega fail.
> 
> As long as you have a home, a car, and food in the fridge, not having money is maybe the lousiest reason for not having sex.
> 
> ...


Do you know many women? Women are attracted to providers. And the more you provide, the better.

Sure, a wife should meet her husband's sexual needs as long as he's meeting her material needs (not necessarily material wants). But, there is a significant portion of women who get turned off by a man who can't provide the lifestyle the women envisioned having. That's just an unfortunate fact. Best not to ignore it.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

I doubt he doesn't accept that there are women out there like that. He's just saying that that particular situation wouldn't fly with him... Or with me either that's for sure...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## cloudwithleggs (Oct 13, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Do you know many women? Women are attracted to providers. And the more you provide, the better.
> 
> Sure, a wife should meet her husband's sexual needs as long as he's meeting her material needs (not necessarily material wants). But, there is a significant portion of women who get turned off by a man who can't provide the lifestyle the women envisioned having. That's just an unfortunate fact. Best not to ignore it.


i've never been interested in a provider :scratchhead:


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Do you know many women? Women are attracted to providers. And the more you provide, the better.
> 
> Sure, a wife should meet her husband's sexual needs as long as he's meeting her material needs (not necessarily material wants). But, there is a significant portion of women who get turned off by a man who can't provide the lifestyle the women envisioned having. That's just an unfortunate fact. Best not to ignore it.


really??? lol

That's funny because I walked out on a "provider".He gave me the world and I still didn't want him sexually or otherwise. 

The guy that I loved the most out of anyone was the guy who made less than me and could barely provide for himself.

So no, women don't necessarily NEED a provider to be attracted to someone and to be sexual with someone.Best sex I ever had was from the guy who didn't meet these so called material needs.


----------



## sinnister (Dec 5, 2010)

kipani said:


> You know how to get women to lay you? Be AFFECTIONATE without trying to stick your hands in her pants! Help her do the dishes or something. If you have kids, help with them. We get turned on through CONSIDERATION!
> 
> Telling us how hot we are all the time isn't going to win you many points - but appreciating us will win you a medal!


I use to believe this...I'm living proof it doesn't work. All doing tasks does is make you a fool for doing more than your fair share in hopes of getting some sort of sexual prize...which usually never comes.

A sexless wife is a sexless wife. Doing things to make her life easier while she makes yours harder is counter-productive.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

cloudwithleggs said:


> i've never been interested in a provider :scratchhead:





ScarletBegonias said:


> That's funny because I walked out on a "provider".He gave me the world and I still didn't want him sexually or otherwise.


Surely you're not saying that population distributions fall along a bell curve and what may be true for large segments of the population may not be true for every single member of the population. That would be impossible. No, I think that all women must think exactly alike.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Do you know many women? Women are attracted to providers. And the more you provide, the better.
> 
> Sure, a wife should meet her husband's sexual needs as long as he's meeting her material needs (not necessarily material wants). But, there is a significant portion of women who get turned off by a man who can't provide the lifestyle the women envisioned having. That's just an unfortunate fact. Best not to ignore it.


Oh REALLY? You wanna tell that to the man I have been married to for 12 years? Tell him that I am not attracted to him because he is unable to work. I DARE YOU! That comment is YOUR OWN experience, NOT MINE! Yea, I thought that we would be better off financially than we are now. But guess what? Sh!t happens. He can't work and got turned down for disability. That is in appeals now. But I WILL NOT throw him over for some man who waves thousands of dollars in my face. Way to go making women appear so materialistic. Not ALL of us are that way. Some of us actually care more about the MAN than the THINGS he can buy. Give me a break!


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

ScarletBegonias said:


> really??? lol
> 
> That's funny because I walked out on a "provider".He gave me the world and I still didn't want him sexually or otherwise.
> 
> ...


Attraction is seperate from marriage. There is this huge amorphorus calculation that goes into everyone's head when it comes to marriage, particularly with women (it seems). What is the romance quotient? What is his 'hawtness' scale? How is his car? So a really hot, personable loser can get the girl if he's studly enough. But studly doesn't pay the bills unless he's an exotic dancer.

The question is: did the guy you 'loved the most' get you forever or was he one of the ones who 'got away' (i.e. you DIDN'T choose LTR)?


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Maricha75 said:


> Oh REALLY? You wanna tell that to the man I have been married to for 12 years? Tell him that I am not attracted to him because he is unable to work. I DARE YOU! That comment is YOUR OWN experience, NOT MINE! Yea, I thought that we would be better off financially than we are now. But guess what? Sh!t happens. He can't work and got turned down for disability. That is in appeals now. But I WILL NOT throw him over for some man who waves thousands of dollars in my face. Way to go making women appear so materialistic. Not ALL of us are that way. Some of us actually care more about the MAN than the THINGS he can buy. Give me a break!


Sorry you are going through this difficult time. You are a loyal and good woman and he's lucky to have you. I don't question your love and attraction to him.

But that isn't the question. When you MARRIED him, was he in disability? How many guys already in wheelchairs get the girl?

And you raise a good point. An intelligent girl will look at all the factors and also question: Okay...if he loses his looks, will I still want to be with him? What if he can't work? Can I still stay attracted to him?

What is being suggested isn't that a guy waving money is the ONLY thing a girl wants. That's idiotic. What they are saying is that women have physical needs too and they want the expectation that a certain amount of 'stuff' can be provided for their needs so they can be happy with the other personality traits of their husband.(the amount of 'stuff' varies girl to girl. A roof and a couple hot dogs suffices for some. Weekends inn Cabo are the requirement of others) It's very hard to focus on happiness when you are starving.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

JCD said:


> Sorry you are going through this difficult time. You are a loyal and good woman and he's lucky to have you. I don't question your love and attraction to him.
> 
> But that isn't the question. When you MARRIED him, was he in disability? How many guys already in wheelchairs get the girl?


When I married him, he was 18, and was a month from graduating high school. He was working part time, after school, at McDonald's. It wasn't until we had been married for 6 years already that he chose to go to school to get a better job. By that time, he had been working at Walmart for about 3 years. So, no, he wasn't disabled at the time...I was though. And no, he wasn't what others would call a "provider". He was just a man. It wasn't his ability to provide for a family that attracted and kept me. It was HIM. And he wasn't the "bad boy" type either. No fast cars, not a sharp dresser, none of that. Jeans and t-shirts pretty much everyday, and a gamer.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

JCD said:


> Attraction is seperate from marriage. There is this huge amorphorus calculation that goes into everyone's head when it comes to marriage, particularly with women (it seems). What is the romance quotient? What is his 'hawtness' scale? How is his car? So a really hot, personable loser can get the girl if he's studly enough. But studly doesn't pay the bills unless he's an exotic dancer.
> 
> The question is: did the guy you 'loved the most' get you forever or was he one of the ones who 'got away' (i.e. you DIDN'T choose LTR)?


We separated so he can get counseling for grief issues over losing a close sibling and get himself together emotionally.

Had nothing to do with his finances.I would gladly be with him he left on his own to work on his issues.I didn't make him leave.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Maricha75 said:


> When I married him, he was 18, and was a month from graduating high school. He was working part time, after school, at McDonald's. It wasn't until we had been married for 6 years already that he chose to go to school to get a better job. By that time, he had been working at Walmart for about 3 years. So, no, he wasn't disabled at the time...I was though. And no, he wasn't what others would call a "provider". He was just a man. It wasn't his ability to provide for a family that attracted and kept me. It was HIM. And he wasn't the "bad boy" type either. No fast cars, not a sharp dresser, none of that. Jeans and t-shirts pretty much everyday, and a gamer.


sounds like my exSO..no game whatsoever! no fancy car,no fancy clothes.just sweet,shy,and always himself.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

So there you go. You married men you liked who could give you some stuff.

Or maybe I'm phrasing it wrong. Would you, as a woman, marry a hot, personable, quirky guy who couldn't work at all? One you would have to support?


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

JCD said:


> So there you go. You married men you liked who could give you some stuff.
> 
> Or maybe I'm phrasing it wrong. Would you, as a woman, marry a hot, personable, quirky guy who couldn't work at all? One you would have to support?


when I married my exH,he didn't have jacksh*t.he didn't get that stuff til later and after that I left.he changed after he got educated and starting making tons of money.


As a woman,I have many requirements for a man I'll marry.Money has nothing to do with those requirements.I make a comfortable living and am fine with taking care of someone financially who takes care of me in the ways I need it most.

Would I marry a slug who lays around the house playing videogames while I'm working? No.But that's just bc I dislike lazy people.


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

needguidance said:


> We all know a pua's goal is short term. The best thing about learning some of the more positives tips is still being able to flirt or engage your SO. Of course this is one of those things exclusive to men because when do women just pick up men? No need. _*Its like if you can make yourself attractive to other women then naturally you become more attractive to your partner. Its just value.*_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here we go again. Like. 

Dont accept this as a maxim, or even useful. You want to be more attractive to your partner, get more attractive to your partner.. and stop flexing your bicep for your neighbor and her girl friends.

gads - this thinking makes me crazy.

And yeah.. women pick up men too. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is not 'exclusive to men'.

Shrug.

good luck with it.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

JCD said:


> So there you go. *You married men you liked who could give you some stuff.*
> 
> Or maybe I'm phrasing it wrong. Would you, as a woman, marry a hot, personable, quirky guy who couldn't work at all? One you would have to support?


What "stuff"? When I was paying the rent with my disability? I was paying for groceries and half the bills as well. So, tell me, what "stuff" did he give me other than loving me... a woman disabled from a car accident? BTW, disabled doesn't always mean wheelchair bound.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Maricha75 said:


> That comment is YOUR OWN experience, NOT MINE! ... Way to go making women appear so materialistic. Not ALL of us are that way. Some of us actually care more about the MAN than the THINGS he can buy. Give me a break!


<sigh>
Did I say ALL women were that way? If I say that men are taller than women, does that mean that every single man in the world is taller than every single woman? Or could there possibly be exceptions to the rule? How much bandwidth would hysterical women devote to posting that they know an exceptionally short man, or an exceptionally tall woman? Based on my experiences on this forum, I would guess quite a lot.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> <sigh>
> Did I say ALL women were that way? If I say that men are taller than women, does that mean that every single man in the world is taller than every single woman? Or could there possibly be exceptions to the rule? How much bandwidth would hysterical women devote to posting that they know an exceptionally short man, or an exceptionally tall woman? Based on my experiences on this forum, I would guess quite a lot.


*sigh*
And is it really THAT difficult to say "many women..." or other such comments rather than the comment "Women are attracted to providers"? You implied that a woman isn't happy unless there is more money brought in, so she would withhold sex. If I misunderstood your posts in this thread, then I sincerely do apologize. I just hate reading when generalizations are made about "all men" or "all women".


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Maricha75 said:


> *sigh*
> And is it really THAT difficult to say "many women..." or other such comments rather than the comment "Women are attracted to providers"?


It wouldn't be particularly difficult, but it would be cumbersome. If I write that women are attracted to men with wealth, most people don't require that I expand that out to state that most women are attracted to wealth, unless there are other factors, such as abuse, that can completely overcome the positive trait of wealth, and that a few women have no preference at all for wealth, and a very few women actually prefer poor men to rich men. At that point, it becomes a nonsensical exercise. I love the specificity of language, but it is possible to become so pedantic that language loses the ability to communicate altogether.

However, all this is moot. In the second paragraph of my post, which you objected to, I wrote, "But, there is a *significant portion* of women who get turned off by a man who can't provide the lifestyle the women envisioned having." I didn't write that every single woman on Earth is attracted to wealth. I wrote that a significant portion are. If you dispute that, I contend that you don't know women.



Maricha75 said:


> You implied that a woman isn't happy unless there is more money brought in, so she would withhold sex. If I misunderstood your posts in this thread, then I sincerely do apologize. I just hate reading when generalizations are made about "all men" or "all women".


I stated that it is a possibility. The OP's wife is withholding sex. The question is, why? Very often, it is a matter of resentment. If the OP is abusive, then there is an obvious fix. Otherwise, we must theorize. Resentment over a small income is not some ridiculous hypothesis that can't possibly apply to any women. It is an unfortunately real possibility for a significant portion of women. It is certainly worth considering as a possibility.


----------



## 40isthenew20 (Jul 12, 2012)

For many women, they get into it once it begins. But they have to get passed that first hurdle that is non-existent in men.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

I do believe a man that can rock his womans world sexually has less problems with his wife neglecting him sexually than a man that isn't very good under the sheets.

but its not the end all to beat all.


----------



## donny64 (Apr 21, 2012)

I see it like this...I'm a good guy (reformed "nice guy"). I treat my woman good (great actually) as long as she does the same for me. That hasn't changed a lot over the years. 

What has changed is a confidence as a result of my transformation, and that confidence carried over into the bedroom. I can rock my woman's world, and make it my mission to do so when the clothes come off. 

And the difference I see now is this...the confidence gains, the fact I stand up for myself now (no more mr. Azz kissing nice guy manuevering for sex crumbs), and some learned mad skills in bed leaves me with a woman that wants it all the time. And I'm quite certain it helped her fall madly in love with me much sooner. All these things seem to feed off and compliment one another which results in a situation where I'm a "good guy" that knows how to treat a woman right and love doing so, not the "bad boy", yet I won't take crap, and I can please her and do things to her like nobody before me in bed. But, just having "skills" is not enough. There has to be a genuine desire to please her for the sake of doing so (because I love her and love to make her feel good) in order for the great sex to continue. 

Having said that, all else being equal, and you have two guys with the same traits, confidence, manners, etc., and one guy can really rock a woman's world in bed, then yes, I believe that guy will get boat loads more sex from the same woman, and a woman will have a much harder time with the "grass may be greener over there" thing. And it makes for a happier partner in general. Other than stopping being a "nice guy doormat" the best thing I've ever done for my relationships was learn...really learn, how to rock a woman's world in the sack. Hey, maybe she could wonder about "different", but I will likely never have to worry about her peeking over the fence for "better". And I love to make her that satisfied.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I found doing more work or chores to be fools gold. I got all kinds of wonderful comments, but virtually no extra attraction from my wife. She certainly implied that all those chores were what was keeping her libido down, but that was not true (not saying she was lying, as I tend to think she did not really know herself).


I don't believe this to be true.

Women are turned on by many things, and no the sight of you doing chores will not make us horny. But a man who is fair and does what needs to be done, without being nagged or complaining is attractive. It shows that you are a man who takes care of what needs to be done and not another child who needs to be looked after.

This coupled with not being a doormat works well. So the balance has to be right.

A pushover isn't good nor is a man child nor an azz hole.

A good man, who has good morals and will stand up for his wife and family and who can be trusted to do what needs to be done, can be trusted to be faithful, who does not get pushed around by his wife but tries to be very fair, and one who does not allow his wife to withhold sex, (unless she is unwell etc) is attractive. A man who is not afraid to stand up for himself, but not an angry unreasonable man.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

Most if not all PUAs lack what is needed to keep long term relationships. So what do they know about what it takes to keep a woman happy in a long term relationship?

If you want to know what it takes to keep a woman going in sex in a long term relationship ask one of those old geezers who keeps a happy wife with him. He will know more than the most successful PUA.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> I don't believe this to be true.
> 
> Women are turned on by many things, and no the sight of you doing chores will not make us horny. But a man who is fair and does what needs to be done, without being nagged or complaining is attractive. It shows that you are a man who takes care of what needs to be done and not another child who needs to be looked after.
> 
> ...


And I can tell you that I did all of that and our sex life stayed the same. Even with her being a stay at home mom, I would take late night feedings to help her get sleep. Our sex life did not change at all. My wife openly stated that me helping out more would change the equation, and it would once, but then we were right back to where we were. 

It was not until I started doing other things that the situation improved. My point is that just because she says it will help does not mean it will. It may with some, but based on these boards, I suspect it won't with a large number. I honestly believe my wife honestly believed it would help. I don't think she entirely realized what she needed from me to get that attraction. It was through a lot of trial and error that I realized that she needed me to do certain things to keep that attraction alive.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Do you know many women? Women are attracted to providers. And the more you provide, the better.
> 
> Sure, a wife should meet her husband's sexual needs as long as he's meeting her material needs (not necessarily material wants). But, there is a significant portion of women who get turned off by a man who can't provide the lifestyle the women envisioned having. That's just an unfortunate fact. Best not to ignore it.


Sure, I know lots of women. And, up to a few years ago I had a great job: really good money, excellent benefits, and paid for my ability and not because I travelled or worked long hours. As a result, I saw how many women (not just my now-ex) perceive and admire the lifestyle I was able to provide.

Definitely women are pleased by financial success. But, that does not mean I should bust my butt because that's what it might take to keep a particular woman around. There are women who simply want assurance that a guy is industrious and a hard worker and are fine with just being comfortable. And, there are women for intend to support themselves and just want to make sure the guy won't bleed them dry.

OTOH, if your lady is looking for a specific level of support rather than just stability or innate characteristics that you possess, you have three serious potential problems:

1) You get laid off or have your pay cut and then what? Note that these are things beyond one's control. You can be a good sex partner or helpful around the home all by yourself. But, you need someone to agree to pay you.

2) What happens when someone wealthier than you comes along, or she decides that she can provide well enough for herself?

3) Consistent with your comment "and the more you provide, the better", you can get expectations creep. IOW, there is a disconnect between what she wants and the effort it takes to provide it. So, she expects her lifestyle or your wealth to increase every year without recognizing that life has ups and downs beyond your control. Or, she sees that her friend across the street has a remodel going on, etc. and wonders why you can't provide the same.

FWIW, I learned this lesson the hard way. I am very generous with what I have. But, this level of success is attributable to many years of hard work (an MBA and years of working up from crappy jobs) so I won't just hand over everything I make and I don't make enough to support someone else with substantial sacrifice of my own lifestyle.

Bottom line: if a lady comes to me with a demand / entitlement mindset, she's probably going to be "nexted" quickly. There are too many good women willing to partner with a man to put up with it. I don't want to live staring a productivity target in the face 24 hours a day. That's reality for the work world but I expect my home life to be a respite from that.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This is the basis for deciding whether or not you can have a happy marriage with a particular woman. 

It is the basis for some brutally honest up front communication in both directions. 

I do believe that most men are willing to forgo savings to try to provide what their wives want and that is a long term train wreck ina cyclical economy.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Do you know many women? Women are attracted to providers. And the more you provide, the better.
> 
> Sure, a wife should meet her husband's sexual needs as long as he's meeting her material needs (not necessarily material wants). But, there is a significant portion of women who get turned off by a man who can't provide the lifestyle the women envisioned having. That's just an unfortunate fact. Best not to ignore it.


Oh the joys of falling in love with your best friend, during your youth, before things like money and "status" came into the picture.

Yes what PHTlump said is "normal", but thank God it's not universal. Money has never factored into my relationship, before marriage, and during marriage, and God knows I've spent plenty of years without. With us it just comes down to this; what's mine is yours. If somebody has it, both have it.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

jaquen said:


> Oh the joys of falling in love with your best friend, during your youth, before things like money and "status" came into the picture.
> 
> Yes what PHTlump said is "normal", but thank God it's not universal. Money has never factored into my relationship, before marriage, and during marriage, and God knows I've spent plenty of years without. With us it just comes down to this; what's mine is yours. If somebody has it, both have it.


Yeah, most 18 year olds aren't great 'providers' as a rule, which was when I fell irrevocably in love with my husband. 

And PHTlump, I'm a woman. I know lots of women, especially as I'm not one of those types who claims to get along better with men and not understand other women. I don't know any who have picked their partners according to financial considerations, sometimes to their detriment frankly. 

So I don't think it's even normal. It's shameful. Marriage is, or should be, a partnership in every sense.


----------



## Zzyzx (Aug 24, 2011)

Lyris said:


> So I don't think it's even normal. It's shameful. Marriage is, or should be, a partnership in every sense.


Hate to break it to you, but in my experience, it's normal. Not universal, just normal. In other words, far more often than not in my own life and I have dated often in the 10 years since I separated from my ex. You are truly exceptional and that's to be praised near and far, but your exceptional does not equal my normal.

Also can tell everyone that chores, housework and redecoration projects were not the way to sex with my ex. How long before I realized the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Scary thoughts when I look back on that time. I've since learned more about standing up for myself, about how to be a good guy without being nice, etc., so I might do better next time.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Well, in my experience, it's not normal. Not for me, my sister, my aunts, my friends, my sister-in-law.

In my social and familial group, women expect to work and contribute equally, unless they are the primary caregivers of young children. And by young, I mean under school age. 

And while I think most women would prefer to be partnered with a man who worked steadily, that has more to do with the personal characteristics of commitment, drive and responsibility than being bought stuff.


----------

