# Revelation and validation



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

I just want to share this video, as it's helped me understand and appreciate the dynamic between emotional and sexual needs. It also confirmed for me why I was so uninterested in sex with my H and it reaffirmed for me why I was right to leave him. 

More importantly, this 9 minutes of info will help me tremendously in the future. If knowledge is power, I feel empowered to start dating again knowing I won't make the same mistakes. I hope you like it as much as I do. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir_emvGwhmU


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

It is true.
I always remember when I used to complain about lack of sex. My wife would always say to me, "just be nice."
To a man, that makes no sense, but I do understand it now.

Now, our sex life is like a huge snowball rolling down an infinite mountain. 
The more and better the sex is, the nicer I am to my wife. The nicer I am to my wife, the better the sex gets. It makes for a massive snowball AND it keeps getting bigger, yes even after 24 years of marriage.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

I don't know, that is pretty messed up if you ask me. He emphasis that a woman's vagina has "monetary" value and should be used in ways as such as "exchanging money" for a respectful and loving relationship. Essentially paints women as a prostitute trying to "buy" a loving husband with her vagina. 

In an age where women have careers on par with men and are capable of so much, I love and respect a woman because she makes something with her life, NOT because she makes me "earn" the rights to touch her vagina. 

Of all the women I have ever been sexually active with, I have consistently been attracted and emotionally invested to the ones that were inherently happy and driven with a career. My first super major crush in high school was a girl that was in the top of the class in science and math. I was fascinated about her drive to be as smart as she could be. She encouraged me to study more and learn more. That element is what attracts me to this day to my wife regardless of the quality of our sex life in the bedroom!

Seriously,
Badsanta


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

badsanta said:


> I don't know, that is pretty messed up if you ask me. He emphasis that a woman's vagina has "monetary" value and should be used in ways as such as "exchanging money" for a respectful and loving relationship. Essentially paints women as a prostitute trying to "buy" a loving husband with her vagina.


No, it is saying that a way to mans heart is through his penis.
In turn, the way to a womans pulsating vagina is through her heart.

In other words, a mans currency is different than a womans currency. If we both pay an equal price in different currencies, we will both be happy all the way to the bank, as it were.

To your point, men and women can be friends and like each other as friends for a million different reasons. Adding sex to the equation kind of complicates things, as we all know.

Having said this, if your way works for you, more power to ya.

When I'm being nice to my wife, in the deepest darkest corner of my brain I'm probably doing it to get in her pants. And in the deepest darkest corner of my wifes brain she is probably giving me pusssy just so I am nice to her.
I really don't care. Why? Because we're both happy. No harm, no foul. I get what I want and she gets what she wants.

In other words, I'll trade a one hour conversation about brides maid dresses for a great BJ any day of the week. Does that make me a "john"? Don't know, don't care. However, that's the way the cookie crumbles in my part of town. I love living here!

Oh, and I almost forgot, I love my wife.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Basic His Needs Her Needs.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Not true in a number of ways - there are older people who may not think they're up to physical intimacy but love each other; and there are FWB's that are jumping each other's bones with little emotional connection.

The basic examples as several posters above mentioned work; but that does not make the theory robust enough for general consumption.I agree that in some cultures women are taught about the 'monetary' value of the V, and are all too eager to cash in, but as Santa mentioned, that's not always the case. 

I did the UMP approach up to seven years ago and I can't say I did not enjoy it. But for us it is not sustainable long term. It's like promising gifts to your kids for good grades. Works up to a point. After this point they have to want to do it.

The speaker is right in the sense of 'two brains' - love is a much higher brain function than simple pleasure sex. Maybe the 'lower pleasures' versus the 'higher pleasures' deal. And for sure they're related, but not to the extent of the feedback loop the speaker is suggesting. Just my opinion.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Hit and Miss. Yes you need to be "nice to the girl" yes you need to approach sex a mutual emotional bond. You need to love and respect your partner's needs, even if that "what-ever" is not high on your priority list at the current time. However he boarders way to close to the "bartering for sex" model, which I abhor. It was only until I quit trying to barter for it, did my frustrations in the sex life cease and the sex improved to a level I was happy with. Bartering expects a return value, if you don't get it you feel cheated and frustrated. Making your partner understand and respect your needs is the game changer.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

He certainly views sex as a transaction and that may work for some but I think more often than not transactional sex fails on one side or the other. Men who will take her shopping, offer a back massage after they've done the laundry in the hopes of getting laid this month are just as sad as women who jump right into bed in the hopes of finding love.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

*Not getting laid tonight!*


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

UMP said:


> In other words, I'll trade a one hour conversation about brides maid dresses for a great BJ any day of the week. Does that make me a "john"? Don't know, don't care. However, that's the way the cookie crumbles in my part of town. I love living here!
> 
> Oh, and I almost forgot, I love my wife.


Personally, I'd sit down and have a one hour conversation about bridesmaid dresses, cause it would obviously include horrendously obscene gossip about all the women involved. 



> Did you know that Jane Doolittle vacuums her boyfriend before they go out on dates because she is very allergic to his cat, and then makes him change into freshly laundered cloths. ...NO WAY!... I bet she wants to have an excuse to see his six pack! OMG, let's have the rehearsal over at Betty Jenkins house because she has six cats and see if Jane explodes. I bet she does just fine.


Women always tell us to listen, and once you do your jaw will drop at how vindictive and conniving women are towards one another. While men are the same way, we are just open about it and haze the crap out of each other publicly to each other's face, and it is all good fun. 

Cheers,
Badsanta


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

I think he's being more honest than anyone I've heard or read. No man will stay in love with a woman who won't have sex with him, and few women will have ongoing sex with a man who feels nothing for her.

What part is wrong, to me, is that his examples of what he will do are off. A man doing things he hates just to get sex is wrong to me, but if that touches his woman's heart, then there you have it. I'd like a man who WANTS to do things that touch my heart. There's the difference.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

just to clarify, you mean you want him to want to do it because it makes you happy, right? 

I want my H to come shopping with me, even though I know he hates it. It would be foolish of me to want him or expect him to want to shop with me. He's only doing it because it makes me happy, and I'm okay with that. Conversely, he doesn't care that I get sick and tired of making dinner as long as I make dinner. 

If he refuses to shop with me does that mean it's okay for me to cut him off?

If he fails to meet my needs and make me feel loved is it okay to cut him off!

Do I NEED him to want to do the laundry or do I need him to help around the house?


----------



## wistful_thinking (Jan 21, 2016)

I think FWB and friend zone are 2 sides of the coin. A woman who has been FWB is hoping to be promoted to girlfriend, and a man who has been friend zoned is hoping to move up to boyfriend.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> I'd like a man who WANTS to do things that touch my heart. There's the difference.


...well then!











If I were to offer constructive criticism, (A) men that just want sex will probably not stick around for the long term. (B) Men that know how to have a genuine relationship and have a genuine attraction will stick around regardless of sex. 

So what test can a woman that is a "nitwit of astronomical proportions" (the words of the speaker not mine) can devise in the event that they can NOT distinguish between between types (A) and (B).










My advice to genuinely nice men that do not want to get involved with a female "nitwit of astronomical proportions" is to just take care of your sexual needs on your own until you meet a women that you share a genuine friendship with and respect her as a person. So in other words men need to:










Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

I think we've got plenty of posters on TAM who are genuinely attracted to their wives and love them who are on the verge of not sticking around due to lack of sex. And it's not a virtue to stay and have a sexless marriage! My H was willing to go another decade with no sex and pretend things were normal. How is that noble? Staying aboard a sinking ship is stupid.

Again, I'm not 100% on board with his statements, but he explains the sex and heart connection in simple terms that men and women can understand. If people weren't so ready to pick it all apart and find flaws and instead find what's good and helpful, perhaps we'd all move forward a lot faster. I know that only listening to what I already agree with will only take me so far, especially when I am stuck.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Amplexor said:


> Hit and Miss. Yes you need to be "nice to the girl" yes you need to approach sex a mutual emotional bond. You need to love and respect your partner's needs, even if that "what-ever" is not high on your priority list at the current time. However he boarders way to close to the "bartering for sex" model, which I abhor. It was only until I quit trying to barter for it, did my frustrations in the sex life cease and the sex improved to a level I was happy with. Bartering expects a return value, if you don't get it you feel cheated and frustrated. Making your partner understand and respect your needs is the game changer.


It's not really bartering for sex. So, a man hates shopping but does it to make his wife happy. How is that different than, say, a woman getting a Brazilian wax? She certainly doesn't do it because it feels good or is fun for her! She does it for him! 

If your wife came home and surprised you with a V as clean as a whistle just for you, would that not be a turn on? Would you not think she loved you so much that she would do that for you? Better yet, would you endure having all the hair around your penis and anus yanked out just to make her happy? That shopping excursion is sounding pretty painless. 

So, maybe there's merit to his arguments after all....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

SurpriseMyself said:


> It's not really bartering for sex. So, a man hates shopping but does it to make his wife happy. How is that different than, say, a woman getting a Brazilian wax? She certainly doesn't do it because it feels good or is fun for her! She does it for him!
> 
> If your wife came home and surprised you with a V as clean as a whistle just for you, would that not be a turn on? Would you not think she loved you so much that she would do that for you? Better yet, would you endure having all the hair around your penis and anus yanked out just to make her happy? That shopping excursion is sounding pretty painless.
> 
> ...


Yes, spouses should do things for each other out of love, respect and empathy. My problem with the way he presents it is that the end game is to get to the "most happy place", therefore it is a transaction. If I do things for my wife that make her feel happy and secure, it increases her love for me and her emotional connection. Everything in marriage runs more smoothly, not just the sex life. It is a long term change we made in the marriage, not the short game. If my wife elects to have sex with me, even though it's not at the top of her to-do list at the time, it's because she loves me, respects my needs in the marriage and wants me to be happy in it. Not because I vacuumed the house. It works in reverse also. I would not "compensate" her for a roll in the hay with a dinner out or jeweler. 

As far as the Brazilian analogy, meh. If she did it it would be for herself. Not a turn on at all for me.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> Again, I'm not 100% on board with his statements, but he explains the sex and heart connection in simple terms that men and women can understand. If people weren't so ready to pick it all apart and find flaws and instead find what's good and helpful, perhaps we'd all move forward a lot faster. I know that only listening to what I already agree with will only take me so far, especially when I am stuck.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think you lack confidence and perhaps only think a man would only ever be interested in loving you because he is primarily just interested in having sex with you. If this is true, then you are very vulnerable.

If this speaker knows women are vulnerable and just see themselves as objects of sexual desire, so he panders to this and tells women what they fear about themselves is true. Then he asks you embrace it as a way of life. Why is he motivated to do that? I don't know, it disgusts me. Perhaps he enjoys the attention and making people laugh or he is trying to sell something and this is part of his sales pitch. Just like diet companies fat shame perfectly healthy women into questioning their beauty.

Just so you can see how this looks, I'll show you how it is done to men:










How do you feel about a man that buys this product only because he feels his worst fears of being weak and out of shape have been confirmed by the photo of what he should strive to be? Would you feel that man lacks confidence about himself and that the photo was chosen to take advantage of that?

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> I did the UMP approach up to seven years ago and I can't say I did not enjoy it. But for us it is not sustainable long term. It's like promising gifts to your kids for good grades. Works up to a point. After this point they have to want to do it.


It is done subconsciously most of the time. I do it consciously because it seems I'm getting my doctorate in "sex in marriage." It's a topic I have been studying daily for around 4 years. That is to my advantage because I can tell my wife is simply along for the ride, which is fine by me. Like anything in life, we are creatures of habit. 

My wife and I have been having sex on average twice a week. However, within the last 3 or 4 months it has been EVERY Tuesday and EVERY Friday. Why? Habit. She is actually aroused on those days because we did it on Tues and Thursday for a couple weeks by accident and now it's my wifes subconscious habit. She IS aroused on Tues and Fri. It's almost as if she can't help it.

I say it is sustainable long term because humans are creatures of habit. Hell, I even watch lifetime movies with my wife and actually LIKE them. This fact would have been completely foreign to me just a couple years ago. People can change and they CAN change for the better. Better sex, that is!


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

badsanta said:


> Women always tell us to listen, and once you do your jaw will drop at how vindictive and conniving women are towards one another.
> 
> While men are the same way, we are just open about it and haze the crap out of each other publicly to each other's face, and it is all good fun.
> 
> ...


Interestingly enough you just proved by these two sentences that men and women are indeed from different planets, hence different sex currencies. IMO. Using this knowledge in a positive way can produce some awesome sex and a happy household.

Another difference I see is that two men can physically beat the crap out of each other and then be friends. Women, not so much.:grin2:


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

badsanta said:


> I think you lack confidence and perhaps only think a man would only ever be interested in loving you because he is primarily just interested in having sex with you. If this is true, then you are very vulnerable.
> 
> If this speaker knows women are vulnerable and just see themselves as objects of sexual desire, so he panders to this and tells women what they fear about themselves is true. Then he asks you embrace it as a way of life. Why is he motivated to do that? I don't know, it disgusts me. Perhaps he enjoys the attention and making people laugh or he is trying to sell something and this is part of his sales pitch. Just like diet companies fat shame perfectly healthy women into questioning their beauty.
> 
> ...


Badsanta - I don't lack confidence. I think you don't live in reality. How many men would want to stay with a woman if the sex was gone? They might not leave, but they won't be happy. I think you are deluding yourself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> Badsanta - I don't lack confidence. I think you don't live in reality. *How many men would want to stay with a woman if the sex was gone?* They might not leave, but they won't be happy. I think you are deluding yourself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Leading academic research defines a passionate hug and kiss as an act of sex. I would say that actually is the minimum I would require to stay in a relationship where traditional intercourse becomes for whatever reason unavailable. You are correct, I am a man and I do require acts of "sex" in order to stay happy in a relationship. 

You got me!


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

In our marriage.... I've never felt my husband *was giving - TO GET*..... there is none of this "transaction" thing going on... although I don't mind the video.. I'm not one going to jump to how sexist it is... 

I asked him one day WHY, in the past, he didn't PUSH for more sex (as he wanted more -but I was off in la la land -brain on other things, just wasn't getting it) ... 

His reply >> he NEVER wanted me to think it was "just about sex"---because it never was for him... he never stopped being affectionate or halted his listening to me, being a caring husband.... I always felt very close to him.. didn't even realize he was suffering here.... He is one who speaks of the bonding.. he gets nothing from masturbation, feels it's hollow...

Do I think my husband is the norm... probably not...


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

OliviaG said:


> His message resonates with me, but I interpret it as a recognition that if you have unmet sexual needs, you have a very powerful motivation to do whatever you have to do to get them met. Fortunately, you must meet the needs of your partner to get what *you* need. It also acknowledges the bonding chemicals that are produced during sex - realistically, the dance between the sexes is a mutually beneficial biological feedback loop.
> 
> I don't see it as a crass fee-for-services model any more than I see any other type of relationship bonding as fee-for-service: yes, I have to behave thoughtfully and with kindness towards my friends in order to illicit their goodwill and loyalty towards me, but my behaviour is not a straightforward payment for their loyalty/goodwill. It's a mutually beneficial relationship that self-reinforces, a dance born not out of manipulative scheming, but out of eons of evolutionary pressure. The dance between the sexes just is (just exists) and I don't see this fact as having any moral implications at all.
> 
> My present situation suggests that the roles of the dance can be reversed too - the HD spouse can be either male (most often) or female (rarer) and the dance continues on. The HD partner "leads" in either case.


Bravo! Well said.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

On the one hand, I do believe sex and love can be transactional, for some. 

We live most of our lives by a series of transactions. We work (expend mental, physical energies and devote the most precious commodity - time) for a bag of money. We tell kids they can watch TV when homework is done, etc. We are constantly negotiating our needs and wants. 

On the other hand, I believe there are some that do not see certain things as transactional, but natural and with zero expectation of reciprocation. Givers usually burn out at some point or another, but have no initial expectations of giving to get. 

I think the message will resonate with some and not others.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

A funny thing happened while I was trying to get my sexual needs met.

I fell in love.

Love changes everything. The transactions become less about my own needs and more about fulfilling her needs, simply because I find it fulfilling to make her happy.

Love is the answer


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

OliviaG said:


> Yes, love is the answer, I like that. Now, define love...


"can you live without her?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhUNZ1O_1KM

Watch the whole 4 minutes.

Great movie BTW.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

OliviaG said:


> Yes, love is the answer, I like that. Now, define love...


Generally defined in this way:



> 1 Corinthians 13, verses 4-8, and 13: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ...And now these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. But the greatest of these is Love."


Now if a man is primarily interested in sex and it only through being allowed to have sex does he learn to love his wife, he then has some serious problems! 

What has not been said, is that love/sex can heal a person. 

If a woman gives away sex because she is not confident in herself and feels it is the only way to keep a man interested in her, then that is NOT love. It is possible for a man/woman to see his/her shortcomings, love him/her back, build his/her confidence, and help to heal him/her through love. 

*BUT while one can "heal" through love, one can not inherently "change" someone through love (or sex for that matter).*

Badsanta


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

OliviaG said:


> You find out how much 1 Corinthians style love there is in a marriage when there is a crisis - before that it's hard to distinguish between romantic emotional attachment and biblical love.
> 
> At least the above is my interpretation.


Interesting! The Corinthians verse about love was written to address a crisis in the church and stop people from fighting. If they were to continue fighting, this was what was worth fighting for... 

You also have "agape" love, that is considered the highest and purist form of love. It is often overlooked as it seems to be free from any form of romantic attachment and is able to transcend life itself. For instance, the abundance of love given to you from a departed grandparent that still strengthens you today to help you overcome moments of weakness would be considered a form of agape. 

While agape may not seem to be inherently part of creating a marriage, a marriage should inherently create a form of agape that will care for your family generations to come. 

...OK, I've gone off on a tangent and will stop there. My abstract point is that if a man is primarily interested in a woman's vagina, I can not see how the true forms of love will ever be given a chance to present themselves. Obviously a woman giving her vagina to man will create a new generation, and that will in itself should call a man to action and make him a father, but that is a bit like putting the cart before the horse in the hopes it will go somewhere (likely backwards).

Badsanta


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

OliviaG said:


> So you distinguish agape love from the description in 1 Corinthians? I considered them one and the same, but it's been a while since I studied the question of what it meant to "love" from the Christian perspective. I may have confused some of what I learned.


I am NO bible expert by any means! The recent sermon on Valentines discussed that Corinthians and agape are perceived as two different forms of love. Corinthians is often thought of for marriage and valentines, while quotes related for agape are basically neglected by the commercialism of valentines day. 

Of course all through the sermon, I was sneaking and eating those little valentines heart candy with my son. So with all the crunching going on in my head, I'm sure I heard everything backwards!










Badsanta


----------

